Sitting of 16 January 1989

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

    Train Passengers
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the figures for British Rail of passenger train miles and passenger seat provision in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): I have arranged for the available information to be published in the Official Report. Broadly, this shows that passenger train miles increased by 5 per cent. between 1983 and 1987–88. British Rail is trying to match the capacity that it provides to demand.
    Mr. Dunnachie: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that although new stock has been brought in, it will result in fewer seats for passengers? Will this not lead to excessive overcrowding and a lowering of safety standards?
    Mr. Channon: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he will be pleased to know about the large amount of railway investment that is going ahead. In real terms it is at its highest level for over 25 years, and by the
    2
    end of the decade British Rail will have renewed over 85 per cent. of its diesel passenger trains and will have electrified 60 per cent. of inter-city routes.
    Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the standing passenger is more vulnerable to accident and to causing an accident, even to sitting passengers; and is not getting "fare" value? Will he look at this issue with particular regard to the design of carriages, the separation of standing and sitting passengers and the availability of seats at peak hours on main lines? Will he look into the feasibility of the issuance by the guard of part refund vouchers to passengers who have had to stand during specified stages of the journey? Is he prepared to make recommendations to British Rail about these matters?
    Mr. Channon: Most of what my hon. Friend says, although not all, is a matter for British Rail. I understand his point about "fare" value. New rolling stock is now needed to meet agreed standards. It has been and will continue to be approved and, as my hon. Friend knows, an enormous investment programme is going ahead in British Rail. I know that my hon. Friend, among others, welcomes that.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Department of Transport's publication last week of the study on London transport shows that in 1985–86 there was a 36 per cent. increase in the overloading of trains and that in 1987 there was an 8 per cent. further increase in overloading on the Department of Transport's agreed targets. Is the right hon. Gentleman not also concerned about the safety risks that the existing rolling stock may present to passengers?
    Mr. Channon: The House agrees that overcrowding is unsatisfactory and the hon. Gentleman asks about its implications for safety. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the report on that that I received last year from the chief inspector of railways. We are anxious to have a far better quality of service in terms of overcrowding and punctuality. We are setting British Rail very serious and difficult targets and I am determined that they should be reached. As I have said, there is a massive programme of investment to achieve those aims.
    Mr. Adley: The serious and difficult targets to which my right hon. Friend refers are, of course, the targets set by his Department for the investment criteria. Will he seriously reconsider the need completely to evaluate the investment criteria for road versus rail? For example, is he aware that I have failed to obtain from the Home Office—because it does not know the figures—information about the time that the Metropolitan police and other county police forces spend on work connected with roads, such as on accidents, administration, court cases, and so on? That has to be set alongside the fact that British Rail has to provide its own police force. Is it not nonsense to exclude police time, health costs and other matters from these assessments? If they were included does he agree that a completely different pattern would emerge that would enable the Government to provide investment funds to British Rail based on reality and not fiction?
    Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend and I have corresponded about this. There is not a great deal of difference between the criteria, or between the bases for deciding on investment in road or in rail. If necessary I shall of course write to my hon. Friend again. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the planned investment, at 1988–89

    1983

    1984–85 (15 months)

    1985–86

    1986–87

    1987–88

    passenger train miles

    202·6m

    251m

    200·9m

    202·8m

    212·6m

    passenger miles

    18,350m

    22,610m

    18,780m

    19,328m

    20,593m

    average passengers per passenger train

    95

    95

    98

    100

    102

    The number of seats on a train ranges from 65 on one-car class 121s on the Paddington-Greenford service, 161 on a 2-coach Sprinter, 317 on a class 319 4-car suburban multiple unit, and 486 on HSTs on the east coast main line, up to 1,212 on some slam door trains operating from Charing Cross.
    BR does not compile statistics of aggregate passenger seat mile provision as the result would be misleading. Instead, it undertakes sample counts of the number of passengers on timetabled services, and the information is used in planning the timetable to match the capacity provision to demand so far as practicable.

    Roads East Anglia
    Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding trunk roads in East Anglia.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): We receive a wide variety of representations, both in the context of the statutory procedures for trunk road proposals and otherwise.
    Mr. Yeo: Is my hon. Friend aware that East Anglia is one of the fastest growing regions of the country and consequently has been experiencing great pressure on its road system? Is he aware in particular that the Al2, which passes through my constituency and links the east coast towns of Felixstowe and Ispwich with London, the M25 and the Dartford tunnel, is in urgent need of a third lane in each direction and the completion of the central safety crash barrier? Will my hon. Friend give sympathetic consideration to these possibilities?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, yes and yes.
    prices, in the railways this year is £560 million. That will go up to average about £755 million over the next four years. That is a massive increase, and in real terms it is double what it was in, say, 1970.
    Mr. Snape: Why will the Secretary of State not give a proper answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie)? Is is not a fact that while passenger train miles are increasing, the number of seats available is falling? Does that not have an impact on both comfort and safety? What justification is there for the constant round of swingeing price increases in real terms for travelling on British Rail?
    Mr. Channon: As I tried to explain to the House, British Rail is achieving much better use of its trains—[Interruption.] I am surprised that the Opposition do not wish British Rail to be efficient. I am amazed that they think that it would be better for British Rail to be inefficient than efficient. We are getting a far more efficient service out of British Rail, and the level of investment in British Rail under a Labour Government shows that a great deal of what they say is humbug.
    The information is as follows:
    Mr. Haselhurst: When will a final decision be made on the A120 project, which links the M11 with the A12, and which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo)? Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that the line of route suggested by Essex county council has almost unanimous support from all the parties, such as the parish councils and the environmentalists? Surely it would be folly to depart from it.
    Mr. Bottomley: It is encouraging when local people and local authorities work together with the Department. There is not much point in us agreeing on something that they do not like because it would then take much time to resolve differences. My hon. Friend asks about when we can solve the problems of the A120. That will take time as it is a long road, but we are dedicated, both in this region and others, to ensuring that our roads eliminate congestion, provide environmental relief and cut casualties.

    Roads (Bristol)
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce proposals to improve road links between Bristol and the south coast ports.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The published trunk road programme contains 10 schemes to the value of over £45 million for the improvement of the A36/A46 route between the M4 and M27 motorways. Dorset and Wiltshire county councils have also included several schemes in their transport policies and programmes on the A350 from Poole to connect with this trunk route.
    Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that full reply. Has not the need and desire for a fully upgraded link between Bristol and the south coast ports been around for some time, as this will, not least, enable shipping lines to consider again the port of Bristol? Will my right hon. Friend have early discussions with the county authorities in order to develop this idea further?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. I shall be meeting representatives of Dorset and Wiltshire county councils later this afternoon. It is an example of the Department working with local highway authorities that we are having discussions not only today, but have had them over the past year or so, to see whether we can upgrade this route. I can say to the regional CBI that now that the Warminster bypass is open, the bicycle will not beat the lorry in future.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my hon. Friend accept that the traffic that requires access to the midlands from the south coast ports does not want to travel via Bristol? Will he consider favourably a further improvement of the A417/A419 link between Swindon and the M5 at Gloucester?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, but I think that it is better to try to get some of the routes upgraded as a whole so that strategic considerations can be completed and we can pick the routes that do not involve villages and unsuitable towns. My hon. Friend is right to say that, without sacrificing the countryside, we need links that can spread employment and provide environmental relief and casualty reductions throughout the country.

    Motor Cycle Casualties
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many motor cycle casualties there were in 1986 and 1987.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Too many. In 1987, there were 45,807 casualties among users of two-wheeled motor vehicles, 12 per cent. fewer than the 52,280 casualties in 1986. It is encouraging that the casualty rate is falling. The numbers are also influenced by the reduced level of motor cycling.
    Mr. Riddick: I commend my hon. Friend on those figures which show a continued downward trend in the number of motor cycle casualties. Does he still intend to introduce the statutory fitting of leg protectors? Is he aware that some members of the motor cycling fraternity are worried that such protectors could be counterproductive as they might, for example, restrict the ability of a rider involved in an accident to jump clear?
    Mr. Bottomley: Perhaps it would have been better if I had found ways of making the issues more relevant during the past two years. We intend to work with the motor cycle industry on the development of leg protectors and research, but it is worth emphasising that 90 per cent. of motor cycle injuries occur in crashes at speeds of less than 40 miles per hour and normally involve hitting another vehicle. In those cases, throwing oneself away from a motor cycle does not help; it is too late.
    It is critical that motor cyclists obtain training, that other road users look out for motor cyclists, rather than
    6
    ignoring two-wheelers, whether motor bikes or bicycles, and that we get down the relative risks of motor cycling, which are far too high.
    Mr. Higgins: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is perhaps further scope for legislation in this field, not least in respect of motor cycles weaving in and out of moving vehicles with very short distances between them? Is it not absurd that firms operating courier services should be allowed to employ people who have passed no test whatsoever?
    Mr. Bottomley: The answer to my right hon. Friend's second question is yes; it is absurd. The idea that someone who has not demonstrated basic competence should be paid money for riding around on a motor bike with L plates strikes me as ludicrous and I hope that anyone employing such people will stop doing so.
    The basic issue of motor cyclists weaving in and out is covered by the highway code and probably also by the law. My advice, especially to parents and people approaching motor cycling and moped age, is to make sure that they join the 30 per cent. who take training, rather than the 70 per cent. who do not, and to take advice from their motor cycle dealers, who are keen to give it.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the Channel tunnel.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): Construction progress is a matter for Eurotunnel. I understand that, following some early delays, better progress is being maintained.
    Mr. McFall: The Minister will be aware of the comments on 11 January of the construction director of Transmanche Link who said that, at the English end alone, the project is running two months behind after its first year. Although we are mindful that conditions at the French end are much more severe and have been compounded by the collapse of a sub-contracting firm and late deliveries, what chance is there now for the Government to meet the advertised date of 15 May 1993 for completion of the tunnel?
    Mr. Portillo: It is not for me to comment on that, but the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the tunnelling is only one aspect of the project. There is also the work at either end on the major construction sites. He will know that progress at the Cheriton terminal and at the BR freight inspection facility at Dollands Moor, Castle Hill tunnel portal and Holywell Coombe cut and cover tunnel is satisfactory.
    Seven kilometres of the service tunnel have been completed on the British side and the rates per month are at a satisfactory level. On the French side, the service tunnel is also now in much better ground.
    Mr. Sumberg: If the Channel tunnel is to succeed, the benefits must be nationwide. Does my hon. Friend accept that there is concern in the north of England that its development will increase the south-east drift? What can my hon. Friend say to my constituents who have expressed concern about that?
    Mr. Portillo: I am aware of that concern and I am as concerned as my hon. Friend to ensure that every region of the country benefits from the Channel tunnel. That is why the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 contains a section that requires British Rail to prepare a plan by the end of next year for its freight and passenger services to every region and why consultation on that is proceeding.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware of the strategic significance of the location of the second terminal for the Channel tunnel? There is much regret on both sides of the House that British Rail has decided that it will be at King's Cross and not at Stratford in the East End. Is he further aware that there is considerable support for Stratford and, therefore, opposition to King's Cross by Camden, Islington and the London borough of Newham? Is it not appropriate for the Minister, as I know that he is a reasonable young fellow, to call in British Rail's decision and to hold a proper inquiry, both with regard to the location of the second London terminal and the route through Kent?
    Mr. Portillo: There are divided councils, both Conservative and Labour-controlled, and some Labour Members as well as some of my hon. Friends have been lobbying in favour of King's Cross, having taken the view that it provides better facilities for the north of England. I do not intend to hold an inquiry. British Rail's proposal that King's Cross should be the second terminal is subject to the approval of Ministers and to that of Parliament because of the requirement that a private Bill be put into effect.
    Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend will be aware of the considerable concern expressed by Kent Members over the failure of British Rail to provide for the future of an adequate rail link between the Channel tunnel and the rest of the country. The rail service to north Kent is depressingly slow, dirty and expensive, and the prospect facing commuters from north-east Kent of an additional four trains per hour coming into an already overloaded south-London system is quite frightening. When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he impress upon him the need for investment in the north Kent line, and especially for proper provision of a link to the tunnel?
    Mr. Portillo: I understand fully the point that my hon. Friend makes. It is one that has been considered extremely carefully by Kent county council, which understands the risk of proceeding with a Channel tunnel service without improvements to the existing lines or without the provision of a new line. I say to my hon. Friend that the darkest hour is just before dawn—
    Mr. Tony Banks: I wish that I had thought of that.
    Mr. Portillo: I believe that British Rail has some important plans affecting the north Kent line.
    Mrs. Golding: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that freight traffic from non-south-eastern regions has competitive access to the Channel tunnel.
    Mr. Portillo: I expect British Rail to address this question in the plan which it will be publishing later this year in compliance with section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act.
    Mrs. Golding: Will the Minister assure the people of north Staffordshire that they will not be neglected? There are fears in Stoke-on-Trent about problems affecting the railway. Many of my constituents complain about the inadequacies of the service. These include having to stand while travelling from Stoke to London and from London to Stoke. They fear that the rundown in the passenger service signals a rundown of other services that run through Stoke. There are fears for the future and I ask the Minister to address himself to the issue.
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Lady's original question was directed to what will happen once the Channel tunnel comes into operation. I ask her to address herself to that, and I say again that section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act requires British Rail to consult in every region so that by the end of the year it can produce its exact plans for freight services to the regions and for passenger services. British Rail is involved in working parties in every region, including the one which the hon. Lady represents in part.
    Mr. Fry: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the ways of assisting the regions to benefit from the Channel tunnel is the establishment of freight trans-shipment centres? In the event of any proposals being put to him, will he bear in mind that Northamptonshire is especially well placed, being well set with rail communications and being on the main route across the country to Felixstowe by road?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right to say that the provision of freight terminals and inland clearance depots needs to be examined in the consultation process to which I have referred. I hope that my hon. Friend will involve himself in the consultations and make the good point that he has made to me to British Rail so that it can include it in its report by the end of the year.
    Mr. Foulkes: Has the Minister seen the representations by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and myself to his distinguished predecessor that the ideal site for a freight trans-shipment centre for the Strathclyde region would be Kilmarnock? If he has seen the representation, he will recall that his predecessor promised that he would discuss the matter with British Rail. Have discussions taken place? If so, what is the outcome?
    Mr. Portillo: If my predecessor gave such an assurance, I am sure that it would have been put into effect. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), if the hon. Gentleman has a strong case in favour of a certain site, he must ensure that it is taken into account by British Rail by making representations or by ensuring that local authorities and others make representations.

    British Rail (Chairman)
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail: and what matters will be discussed.
    Mr. Channon: I shall be meeting the chairman of British Rail on 23 January to discuss a variety of rail matters.
    Mr. Taylor: If there is time, could my right hon. Friend tell the chairman how honoured Southend-on-Sea is that one of its Members is now Secretary of State for Transport? Will he explain that we feel that this might

    9
    provide an appropriate opportunity for early action to be taken on the modernisation of the Fenchurch street line, which has been neglected for such a long time?
    Mr. Channon: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and it is a great treat to answer his question, especially as it concerns something about which I feel very strongly and with which I completely agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and I are very pleased that British Rail already has in hand a large programme of resignalling, new rolling stock and new electrical equipment. I am determined that there should be progress on the Fenchurch street line and I am glad to say that the chairman of British Rail agrees with me.
    Mr. Spearing: When the Secretary of State next sees the chairman of British Rail, will he convey to him the strong feelings on both sides of the House about the access of freight from the Channel tunnel to the north of London? Will he ask the chairman of British Rail whether the existing links across London, namely the west London line and recently re-opened Thames link line, which will have to go through the proposed King's Cross terminal, will be adequate for that traffic? Would it not be wise to consider a tunnel under the Thames further east, connecting the proposed freight traffic interchange at Stratford to the Channel tunnel as an additional link across London?
    Mr. Channon: I have no doubt about the widespread feeling in the House about that matter. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's suggestion will be the final solution to the problem, but I will draw the attention of the chairman of British Rail to his remarks.
    Mr. Gregory: As the Government have invested £3,000 million in British Rail since 1979, and I understand have plans for the same sum for the next three years, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Rail will he raise the point that with such sums behind it, British Rail should at least keep accurate timetables? Should we not be informed how many trains arrive on time? My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport has been unable to give that information to the House.
    Mr. Channon: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend about that. Of course, we have standards for quality of service. Punctuality and reliability, particularly on Network SouthEast, have improved during the past year. Quality varies between lines. It is excellent on some lines, but on othe lines there is still a considerable way to go. I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Secretary of State also ensure that some of his discussion is devoted to vital questions surrounding the continuation of services in the northern region? Is he aware of the widespread concern in my area about proposals to close the Aberdeen to Inverness rail line in preference to bus routes? That is a totally unacceptable development in our area. Will he assure us that he will discuss those matters and the need to electrify the lines north of Edinburgh and Glasgow?
    Mr. Channon: I have seen no such proposals. I have an awful feeling that this may be a case of self-inflicted rumour.
    Mr. Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend impress on the chairman of British Rail the urgency, for reasons of
    10
    comfort and safety, of providing longer trains and therefore longer platforms? Will he also stress the fact that if there are good reasons for having rules about the number of standing passengers in excess of the number of seats for people travelling beyond 20 miles, there are equally good reasons for such rules for people travelling less than 20 miles?
    Mr. Channon: We must make progress in that matter. I hope that the large investment programme in British Rail will enable improvements to be made on inter-city lines, provincial lines and Network SouthEast. My hon. Friend has raised some very important points, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). The large investment programme, at record levels since the 1960s in real terms, will lead to major improvements in British Rail as time passes.
    Mr. Prescott: When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of British Rail, will he discuss the conclusion of the report produced by the central transport consultative committee that the Government's policy of reducing the public service obligation by £270 million has reduced the quality of rail service? Will he reconsider further cuts of £200 million in the PSO which will mean a railway system with the highest fares and the lowest quality in Europe? Is it not time that the fare structure met the needs of the travelling public and not the Treasury?
    Mr. Channon: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I have explained to the House that major improvements are being made to British Rail and that massive investment is being undertaken. Right hon. and hon. Members who are reasonable know that great steps are being taken to improve British Rail. The PSO is being reduced because British Rail is more efficient—[Interruption.] It is the level of investment that is important. The hon. Gentleman never questions me about the investment level—and I am not surprised, because he has good reason to be ashamed of his party's record.

    London Taxis
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further proposals he has to facilitate the transport of the disabled in London taxi cabs.
    Mr. Portillo: As I announced on 13 December, following discussions with the Metropolitan police, who are responsible for day-to-day taxi licensing questions, from 1 February 1989, all newly licensed London taxis will need to be able to carry a passenger in a wheelchair, and from 1 January 2000, every taxi operating in London will be required to take wheelchairs.
    Mr. Carrington: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He must know how grateful the disabled people of London will be for that news. Will he confirm that London is the first capital city in the world to have wheelchair-accessible taxis? Will he encourage our EC partners to move towards better access for the disabled to taxis in their cities?
    Mr. Portillo: I believe that ours is the first city in the world, capital or otherwise, to require that taxis must be wheelchair-accessible. I am proud of that. Encouraging other European countries to follow suit would be a suitable topic to raise. Certaintly I intend including it on

    11
    the agenda of the European Council of Transport Ministers, of which the United Kingdom is President this year.

    Motorways (Delays)
    Mr. Lofthouse: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the cost to industry of traffic delays on the motorway system.
    Mr. Channon: The strong economic growth brought about by this Government's policies has resulted in increased demand for transport, and some delays are occurring on motorways. If our industry is to keep pace with foreign competitors, good roads are vital. Therefore, we are planning to spend more than £4 billion over the next three years on measures to improve trunk roads and reduce congestion.
    Mr. Lofthouse: The Minister will be aware that freight operators claim that traffic delays on the M25 alone cost them up to £1,000 per vehicle, and that total congestion costs are almost £3 billion per year. Does he agree that British industry should not be permanently disadvantaged because policy is determined by the Treasury and not by the Department of Transport?
    Mr. Channon: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support. I have just announced that we are spending more than £4 billion over the next three years. There is increased spending on the roads programme, and it is nice to have the Labour party's support for increased roads expenditure. I shall treasure it and remember it with pleasure.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friend will be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) and I have nagged for years, because although there are excellent motorway links to the north-west, we lack a motorway link. We are most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving one the go-ahead. Many thanks.
    Mr. Channon: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: How can an ordinary passenger travel to London on motorways when they are blocked by traffic hold-ups, and how can he travel to London by train when the standard class on the Carlisle to London British Rail route is like a cattle truck? Is the Secretary of State aware that hon. Members throughout the north-west are besieged by the public complaining that there are no seats available on British Rail trains? Does he not have a responsibility to do something about that?
    Mr. Channon: The question relates to roads expenditure. I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support for the steps we are taking to improve the motorway system.
    Mr. Warren: Given that only this morning, about 5,000 vehicles were locked on the M25 for more than a hour and were unable to move, does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a need, when designing motorways, to consider the provision of emergency exists for use in such circumstances and of more ordinary exits? On the M26-M25 route, there is one stretch of more than 25 miles where there is no exit from the motorway.
    Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He raises two important points. I am expecting the consultants' report on the whole of the M25 in the next few weeks. I shall bear his comments in mind when I receive it.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Secretary of State accept that while it is necessary to invest in improvements to our motorway network, it may be more cost-effective and environmentally better for the Government to take a more positive attitude towards British Rail, by getting long-distance freight back on to the rail system and linked to the Channel tunnel? Is not that the approach which the Government should be taking at this stage?
    Mr. Channon: As I explained when answering the previous question, we are making a larger investment in both British Rail and roads. Therefore, I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I am grateful to him for his question.

    Motorways (Tolls)
    Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to introduce payment by tolls in the motorway building programme.
    Mr. Channon: None at present.
    Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in France and elsewhere private and business motorists have a choice between congestion-free toll roads and state-run trunk roads and motorways? Can he confirm his intention to publish a Green Paper on ways of tackling our worsening road conditions? If so, will he include in that Green Paper a detailed analysis of Europe's privately funded toll roads, and also perhaps a list of prime candidates in this country, including the proposed east coast motorway to relieve the A1?
    Mr. Channon: I await proposals on the east coast motorway, which I understand are to come forward shortly.
    My hon. Friend is right that there has been tolling on motorways in many, although not all, European countries for a good many years. I am extremely anxious to introduce private finance into our entire road system, and I shall come forward with proposals soon. I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said, but at present I have no proposals to make about tolls.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Secretary of State resist the current Conservative fashion of delving into ancient history to resurrect past practices? We have had quite enough with the poll tax and the possibility of the indentity card without further measures such as the toll turnpike and toll booth.
    Mr. Channon: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should take that philistine attitude to history. It is most unlike him, with his teaching background. I see no reason why we should not examine all good ideas, whether they are new or old.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if there is a choice between congestion and paying a toll, many people who use the M4 motorway every day between Maidenhead and Hammersmith will be more than willing to consider the latter alternative?
    Mr. Channon: I find that an increasing number of people take that view. I think that the attitude has changed completely in the last couple of years.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Secretary of State accept that Britain has the smallest and most congested motorway system of any developed economy? It is one third the size of that in Germany, and we have an expansion programme one fifth of the size of Germany's.
    Does the Secretary of State share the growing resentment of the Government's support for tolls when, since 1979, they have doubled the level of road transportation tax to about £7 billion, which represents 25 per cent. of the total raised, compared with the 35 per cent. raised under Labour? If the right hon. Gentleman had been able to maintain that level against the Treasury, he would have had £2 billion more to improve the quality of our roadways.
    Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman may have misheard what I said in answer to the original question. I said that I have no plans to introduce tolls at present, so a good deal of his question is aimed at the wrong target.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that it takes a considerable time to complete a motorway. I would take his protestations more seriously but for the fact that the Labour Government had such an appalling record on motorways. We are reaping some of that legacy now.
    Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the people of Winchester will be particularly interested in the answer that he gave to the original question? They look forward to the speedy completion of the M3. Will my right hon. Friend please assure the House that when he has looked at the inspector's report he will spend sufficient money, including privately raised finance, to ensure that the internationally very special environment around our historic city of Winchester will be fully protected?
    Mr. Channon: I note what my hon. Friend has said, but in view of the present position I think that it would be unwise for me to comment.

    Road Safety
    Mr. Morley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new initiatives he intends to take to improve road safety.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on road safety.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Our target is to cut road casualties by one third by the end of the century. Over the year ahead we will be concentrating our efforts on vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, pedestrians, cyclists and motor cyclists, as well as on dangerous groups such as drinking drivers and selfish and aggressive road users. Engineering, education, enforcement, exhortation and example will all play their part.
    Mr. Morley: I welcome the Minister's initiatives, but when he considers such road safety measures will he do so in the context of an integrated package and try to get more people to use public transport, particularly rail and buses? Will he bear that in mind especially as British Rail is
    14
    considering closing a number of rail routes, in particular one near my own constituency, the Grimsby-Gainsborough line?
    Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will realise that in many parts of the country the growth in the use of public transport, especially on London Underground and British Rail, greatly exceeds the movement of commuters in cars, where numbers are falling. Across the country we are likely to see a growth and an improvement in public transport and road links.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: May I refer the Minister to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) about unlicensed motor cyclists who are employed as couriers, particularly in London?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. A question on road safety please.
    Mr. Lloyd: It is on road safety, Mr. Speaker. I usually know what I am asking. Will the Under-Secretary accept that as he is a Minister, it is possible for him to legislate on the matter? What will he do other than exhort employers? Exhortations are no good.
    Mr. Bottomley: It is possible to propose legislation to Parliament. The use of the road by unlicensed motor cyclists is illegal. I hope that, besides the point on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and I agreed, we can direct most parliamentary attention on areas where most lives are to be saved. It is worth remembering that 14 people today will lose their lives on the roads—5,000 a year. We may have the best record in the world, but there are still far too many deaths.

  THE ARTS

    Museums and Galleries
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Minister for the Arts what funds he has made available for the maintenance and refurbishment of museums and galleries.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I am continuing to give high priority to the building and maintenance programmes of the national museums and galleries. I have made a series of increases bringing annual expenditure to £55 million by 1991–92, an increase of-53 per cent. since 1987–88.
    Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the excellent imperial war museum redevelopment, which was in a sense a precursor of his incentive funding scheme. Could not the incentive funding scheme be more generally applied to the refurbishment of museums?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. There has been an element of incentive funding with the redevelopment plan for the imperial war museum. That new mechanism is being used for other areas and other museums. For example, there is joint funding for the Clore gallery at the Tate—the capital funding comes from the Clore Foundation and the running costs from the Government. A role is being played by the Government in the national gallery's Sainsbury wing. At the British museum the refurbishment of galleries for the display of Roman material is being funded through the generosity of the Wolfson Foundation, and Government funding is also being made available.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Minister aware of the Public Accounts Committee report which repeated what the director of the Victoria and Albert museum said in connection with its manuscripts and printed matter? She pointed out that the way in which they were being looked after was a national disaster and that to put right the deterioration at the present rate of progress would take 200 years. As they are a national asset, should we not regard this as a matter of the highest priority?
    Mr. Luce: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are due to reply to the important report of the Public Accounts Committee as soon as possible. Without pre-empting what they wish to say, I do not underestimate the seriousness and importance of conservation and the condition of our national museums and galleries. For that reason, in the new three-year funding policy, we have allocated an extra £13 million for the new third year—at least half of which must be allocated to conservation, storage and other matters. That will have a strong bearing on what the right hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Jessel: Has my right hon. Friend considered the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) that funds for the maintenance and repair of existing collections should be increased, instead of spending funds on purchasing grants, which should be phased out?
    Mr. Luce: I have read with great care and interest the pamphlet written by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart). Considerable additional resources have already been made available through mechanisms other than the purchase grant system to help preserve objects of great importance to our heritage. For example, last year an additional £20 million was given to the national heritage memorial fund. The acceptance of items in lieu of taxation allows important objects to be preserved in this country. I have undertaken to review carefully the working of the purchase grant system to see how the money could be better deployed. In the meantime, an extra 53 per cent. of resources will be made available over the next four years for the building and maintenance of our museums and galleries.
    Mr. Bradley: To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to increase investment in English national museums and galleries in response to the March report of the National Audit Office.
    Mr. Luce: Last November I announced the grant-in-aid allocations to the national museums and galleries that I sponsor, rolling forward the three-year funding settlement introduced in 1987 to the year 1991–92. I have made increases specifically to help the national institutions in tackling their priority concerns.
    The Government are considering the report of the Public Accounts Committee on the management of collections of the English national museums and galleries, and will respond as soon as possible.
    Mr. Bradley: The Minister seems complacent about this matter. Has he not read the two reports of the National Audit Office, which outline the appalling problems facing our national museums, the root cause being the cut of at least 9 per cent. in the budget of the Victoria and Albert museum and the 5 per cent. cut in the budget of the British
    16
    museum between 1979 and 1987? Will he support today the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee calling for a specific fund to deal with the accumulated conservation problems in addition to the existing allocation of national funds going towards conservation? The Minister must act today to ensure that conservation work is maintained in our national museums.
    Mr. Luce: As I have said, the Government have not yet replied to the Public Accounts Committee and when we do reply, the hon. Gentleman will see what importance we attach to the issue. I do not need to wait until then to reinforce the point that the chairmen and directors—almost to a man—have made in representations to me over the past two or three years about the priority that they attach to building, maintenance and conservation. For that reason, over the four-year period 1987–1988 to 1991–92, I am increasing those overall resources by 53 per cent. That does not show complacency; on the contrary, it shows the priority that I attach to the matter.
    Mr. Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will continue to listen closely and talk to the directors of museums and galleries, so that he can go on getting it right? When he talks to them, will he also ensure that one added priority is that museums bring forward a programme for opening their establishments at times when the public want to visit them, such as bank holidays and weekends, when young people, in particular, can attend?
    Mr. Luce: I appreciate the final point that my hon. Friend made. Clearly, it is important to attract as many people as possible to our museums and galleries. This is Museum Year, so there is a sustained campaign, sponsored by The Times and run by the Museums Association, to attract greater participation and attendance at museums. It is estimated that about 80 million people will go to museums this year and, if the campaign is successful, attendances may increase to 100 million. Flexibility in opening hours is one part of the marketing policy to create greater public interest in museums.
    Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister accept that the disgraceful state of our national museums, as detailed by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, is a direct result of his Government's policy of neglect and underfunding of our great museums? Does he not understand that that is now a national scandal and that, although we welcome the sums that he has announced today, if he dared to have a national audit of the needs of the museums in building and maintenance—let alone in conservation and other areas—the sums would be revealed to be wholly inadequate for the crisis into which his policies have plunged the museums?
    Mr. Luce: I suppose that I should expect the hon. Gentleman to use such colourful language, as he regards it as part of his job. However, that is not the real perspective. Our magnificent institutions are doing a fantastic job. They are lending out a great deal and far more is on display than when Labour was in office. New galleries are open and we have seen the development of the Clore gallery at the Tate, the Tate gallery extension in Liverpool, the redevelopment of the imperial war museum, the extension of the national gallery through the Sainsbury wing, the opening of new galleries at the British museum and an extension to the national portrait gallery. How can the hon. Gentleman say that everything is stagnating?

    British Museum
    Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the future of the facsimile department of the British museum.
    Mr. Luce: The day-to-day running of the British museum and decisions on the future of the facsimile department are matters for the director and trustees of the British museum.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the British museum has one of the most valuable collection of original moulds for the making of plaster casts of the most celebrated statues in the world? Does he agree that there is a worldwide potential for a casting service and is he satisfied that it is profitable? If it is not, will he privatise it?
    Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the service that has been offered in the past by the British museum. At the moment the British museum faces certain pressures and problems, as a result of which the trustees are now considering the future of the department and how it should operate. I know that privatisation is one very serious proposition that the trustees are considering.
    Mr. Allen: Does the Minister recognise that the facsimile department may be much overused, because if he does not act quickly on the recommendations in the Public Accounts Committee report many of our great treasures will fall apart? Will he give a guarantee now that the three-year programme that he has introduced will meet all the points that were noted in the Public Accounts report?
    Mr. Luce: Of course I attach importance to what is said in the report and the House will look forward to the Government's reply. In the meantime, I believe that I have already demonstrated the importance that I attach to this problem. I have said that in the new third year, 1991–92, I shall be increasing resources to museums and galleries by £13 million—in addition to the overall increases that I am giving now—to give particular priority to the conservation and maintenance of their buildings.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Demographic Changes
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what instructions he has given to the Civil Service to prepare for the demographic changes likely by the year 2000.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): Information about the demographic changes in the 1990s has been disseminated to all Departments. The overall number of school leavers will drop sharply. Like all employers, we need to retain good staff and attract recruits from all sections of the labour force. The Government are approaching this with flexibility and imagination.
    Mr. Knapman: My right hon. Friend is obviously aware of the reduced number of school leavers in the 1990s and of the need for the Civil Service to recruit more women, including women with young children. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to recruit more women, both full-time and part-time?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right to focus attention on that point. It is estimated that the number of school leavers will drop by 30 per cent. by 1993, which suggests the scale of the problem and the need to take whatever action we can to improve recruitment and retention in the service. As for part-timers, it is important to take into account the changes in working patterns in the country as a whole. The Civil Service is doing that. There has been an increase in the number of part-timers in the service. A number of measures are being taken to recruit more women. Flexible working hours, career breaks, the reinstatement of civil servants and the provision of child care facilities will help to improve the recruitment of women to the Civil Service.
    Mr. Beith: If the Government are to recruit from a shrinking labour force of young people, will not they have to improve pay and conditions at many levels of the Civil Service and reinstate the concept of a non-partisan Civil Service that is not the creature of any one Government?
    Mr. Luce: To respond to the hon. Gentleman's last point first, there is no doubt whatsoever that we have an outstanding, loyal and impartial Civil Service. That was reinforced by the views of an all-party Select Committee in 1988. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that various policies on pay are already being developed. They include more flexible pay schemes to deal with recruitment and retention problems that concern specialist groups and particular areas. Flexible pay schemes, involving special pay additions, performance pay—which is being increased in various areas—as well as a 14 per cent. increase in London weighting from July 1988 are all designed to help to recruit and retain staff.

    Agency Programme
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he intends to take to speed up the agency programme.
    Mr. Luce: Since I last spoke to the House on This subject on 5 December 1988, Her Majesty's Stationery Office has been launched as an agency, bringing the total of agencies that have been set up to three. Around 30 other candidates for agency status have been announced as under active consideration, and I expect more to be announced.
    Mr. Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that one of the best ways to speed up the agency function is to ensure that the chief executive, and not the appropriate permanent under-secretary, is the accounting office? Will he place a list in the Library of those agency functions where the permanent under-secretary is still the accounting officer?
    Mr. Luce: I appreciate the importance of my hon. Friend's question. The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee said forcefully that accountability policies should be clarified and that the chief executive of the agency should carry responsibility for day-to-day operations as accounting officer. The Government have agreed with that, in their reply. The HMSO was recently launched as an agency. It is the first example of a chief executive being accounting officer. I shall respond to the other part of my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. John Garrett: Does the Minister agree that the purpose of agencies is to introduce regional pay and, therefore, to reduce the relative pay of civil servants outside London? That is precisely what is likely to happen in the HMSO, the headquarters of which is in my constituency. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is widely thought that another intention behind the agency programme is to make political appointments to head the agencies? Can he satisfy the House on that anxiety as well?
    Mr. Luce: The suggestion that, as a result of the establishment of agencies, there will be a cut in pay is a total and utter misconception. If regional pay is introduced, it will not lead to a cut in some people's pay. It is concerned with catering for certain circumstances, such as those found in the south-east, or for professional groups such as administrative officers or scientists, by providing a flexible pay system.
    It is also utterly wrong to suggest that there are political appointments as chief executives of agencies. We are looking for the best man for the job. The first agency was the vehicles inspectorate, and we have an outstanding civil servant in charge of it.

    Civil Service (Morale)
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he proposes to take any initiative to improve morale in the Civil Service.
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he proposes to take any initiative to improve morale in the Civil Service.
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will meet the Civil Service unions to discuss measures to improve morale.
    Mr. Luce: Like other employers, the Government attach great importance to ensuring that levels of morale are maintained and improved.
    Against the background of the many changes in recent years, I should like to take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's acknowledgement of the high standards of excellence in the Civil Service.
    Mr. Fisher: Is the Minister aware that morale is extremely low in north Staffordshire, where civil servants are very angry that two of their colleagues at GCHQ Cheadle have been sacked for having the temerity to want to belong to a trade union? If he is serious about improving morale in the Civil Service, will he at least allow civil servants to belong to a trade union?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman knows the position with regard to GCHQ. He knows that the very first consideration is the need for continuity of service and a high standard of service at GCHQ. He also knows that, between 1979 and 1981 a total of 10,000 working days were lost, as a result of which the important services provided by GCHQ in the interests of the security of the nation were undermined. Since the decision about trade union membership was announced in 1984, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has painstakingly dealt with individual problems of people who work at GCHQ.
    Mr. Cohen: Does the Minister agree that today's announcement that more than 1,000 Civil Service jobs are
    20
    to go from London's Department of Social Security offices means a rough, raw deal for civil servants in those offices? Does he further agree that it will mean a worse service for the public? Will it not mean that staff in the offices will be unable to provide a decent service and that their morale is likely to sink to rock bottom as a result?
    Mr. Luce: The House will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has announced that more than 1,000 jobs are to be created in Belfast, Wigan and Glasgow. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who is aware of our recruitment problems in London, does not welcome such a decision.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Minister tell us on what basis he would allow free trade unions back into GCHQ?
    Mr. Luce: The position has been made absolutely clear that in institutions that deal primarily with intelligence and security matters, there should not be representation by national trade unions, although there is a staff federation of which at least 50 per cent. of the people who work at GCHQ are allowed to be members. In answer to an earlier question I said that the reason for that is that we must have a higher standard of service at GCHQ which cannot and will not be undermined by industrial disruption.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of raising or maintaining morale in the Civil Service would be to provide a service at a time that is convenient to the public? I very much hope that he will follow his other pioneering moves by making it easier for Civil Service offices in many Departments to be open when it suits the public rather than the civil servants.
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point which is linked to the development and creation of agencies, which are designed not only to improve the performance of the Civil Service above its present excellent standard but to ensure that the service to local people is as good as possible.
    Mr. Allason: Given the alleged concern about security at GCHQ and elsewhere, is it not unusual that the Government did not introduce the polygraph testing that was recommended by the Security Commission so many years ago?
    Mr. Luce: That is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who studied the matter very carefully and reached the conclusion that it should not be introduced. I said earlier that there must be a continuous service at GCHQ and we cannot allow it to be jeopardised in any way.
    Mr. Favell: Does it not strike my right hon. Friend as extraordinary that Labour Members, who profess to be worried about the regions, are bemoaning the moves to produce more jobs in the north? Many young people in the north are better qualified, more competent and a great deal more enthusiastic to serve the Civil Service. Therefore, the measure is most welcome.
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In previous Question Times I have repeatedly been asked questions by the Opposition about the need for more civil servants to move to the north. Now that exactly that is happening, there is silence from the Opposition. The House must make its own judgment on that.
    Dr. Marek: The Minister has not excelled himself with his proposals to increase the morale of civil servants, at least today. Perhaps it would befit him to consult civil servants before deciding their future. How does he square the abolition of free association in GCHQ—which his Government carried out five years ago—with article 23 of the United Nations declaration of human rights which states that everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests? How does he square it with convention 87 of the International Labour Organisation which states that workers have the right to establish and join organisations of their own choosing?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman may not realise that the European Court has already passed a judgment in favour of the Government's decision on GCHQ. I can only continue repeating the basic reason for that decision. The most important aspect of our security and intelligence institutions is to have a regular and continuous service. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that if that is jeopardised we are not carrying out the duty of the Government of the day to the security of the nation.

Security (Heathrow)
3.33 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on airport security at Heathrow.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): As I told the House in my statement last Tuesday, investigations continue into the Lockerbie disaster so as to establish, if possible, how the explosive device got on board the aircraft and where it originated. I also told the House what immediate security measures I had set in hand.
Within the last few days there have been reports of security in respect of airport workers at Heathrow. When I first heard of those reports on Friday I instituted immediate inquiries. I had a direction issued under the Aviation Security Act 1982 to all United Kingdom airports. The direction was issued on Friday evening and comes into force today. It introduces the following new provisions. Passes are only to be issued to airport employees or to personnel working for firms which the airport manager is satisfied are reliable and reputable. I think that the House will agree that some of the firms operating in this area in the past have been far from reliable.
Before issuing a pass—[Interruption.] I am sure that the House wants to listen to this. Before issuing a pass to the employee of another firm, the airport manager must receive an assurance from the firm that the individual is a suitable person, and he is to retain the right to withdraw passes from the personnel of any firm found to have sponsored an employee for a pass without proper care. Passes permitting unescorted access to restricted areas are not to be issued until the person concerned has worked either for the airport or for the sponsoring firm for at least six months. When passes are issued allowing escorted access only, the airport manager is to retain the right to withdraw passes from the employees of any firm that fails to ensure that those with escorted passes are properly escorted.
I also called in the chairman of BAA, Sir Norman Payne, to discuss Heathrow security in the light of the Daily Express report. I welcomed BAA's swift action in withdrawing airside passes from the employees of Skyliner Services Ltd. and asked Sir Norman not to issue any more passes to that firm for the time being. Since that meeting, there have been further reports of security breaches involving Fernley Aeroclean. BAA has told me that it is withdrawing all passes from Fernley employees at Heathrow as from tomorrow.
I also asked Sir Norman on Friday for an urgent report on ways of improving airport security, including intensifying searches of staff and their baggage passing airside; stepping up the searching of vehicles entering airside; closing some landside—airside crossing points so as to release security staff for use in tightening security elsewhere; increased patrolling of restricted areas. I hope to have Sir Norman's report within the next day or two. I shall then consider what further measures are necessary. I am determined that Heathrow airport and other airports in this country should live up to their reputation as being among the most secure airports in the world.
Mr. Morris: The Secretary of State will be aware of my interest, as a right hon. Member with an international airport in his constituency, in what are now widely seen as not only serious but wholly scandalous breaches of airport security.
In the wake of the appalling disaster at Lockerbie and the detailed exposures since then of the inadequacies in security at Heathrow by the Daily Express and the television programme "Eye Witness", is the Secretary of State satisfied that what he has announced will prevent any repetition of these scandalous breaches of security? What confidence can the travelling public have in the efficiency of the airport's security measures when two individuals were successfully able to pose as cleaners with two separate cleaning firms and to gain access, with no adequate supervision, to aircraft undertaking international flights?
Has the Secretary of State offered congratulations to the journalists involved in the exposures, as the Japanese authorities have done? Can he assure the House, with any degree of confidence, that the package of measures announced last week has closed all the security loopholes which have now been so fully exposed?
What trust can the public have in an airport management that can allow such life-endangering slackness to be tolerated in the first place?
Mr. Channon: I can well understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern, which I certainly share. He will be pleased to learn, with his Manchester interest, that my direction, issued under the Aviation Security Act, applies to all United Kingdom airports—to Manchester as well as to Heathrow and the London airports.
It is impossible to say that all security loopholes have been closed. I have laid down clear responsibilities by which the airport management and the companies concerned should abide. I have issued a direction to them; I am still awaiting the report by Sir Norman Payne on Heathrow security and on what further measures may turn out to be necessary. I hope to take action on the report in the near future when I have received it, and if I discover that some measures need to be taken, not only at London airports but at Manchester, I am sure that I shall have the right hon. Gentleman's support.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: The House will welcome the speed with which my right hon. Friend has reacted to the situation that was revealed last week. Can he say whether these passes will be photographic and whether those using them will have to go airside to be searched?
Mr. Channon: They will be photographic passes. I am shortly expecting a report from Sir Norman Payne about the whole question of searching staff who go airside. It is absolutely essential to have proper standards in this respect as well as in the other measures that I outlined to the House last week about baggage, with which the House was primarily concerned. It is essential to take proper steps on all fronts, and I am deeply shocked that the instructions and the circulars on this issued by the Department of Transport have clearly not been followed till now.
Mr. James Molyneaux: As one who had the doubtful pleasure of travelling on an aircraft carrying a terrorist bomb, may I ask the Secretary of State to try to preserve a sense of proportion in these matters and to concentrate on the limited number of measures that could be really effective? Also, does he know whether certain

25
sectors of the news industry are proposing to compensate those workers at Heathrow who lost their jobs through no fault of their own?
Mr. Channon: I shall be very surprised indeed if the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is correct. I entirely accept the first part of his question. We must have security commensurate with the level of the threat that may exist at any particular time, and all security is a balance of priorities. I am determind to achieve that.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that whether airports are in the public or private sector is quite immaterial because the Aviation Security Act 1982 gives him all the powers that he requires to enforce the security measures that he thinks are necessary? Is he happy that he has sufficient sanctions against airlines and airports that do not do what he says? Is he also happy that his Department has enough inspectors to visit airports and airlines in order to identify shortcomings in existing security arrangements?
Mr. Channon: On my hon. Friend's latter point, I intend to have a review to see whether it is necessary to increase the number of aviation security advisers. I shall do that not only because of the measures that I have announced today, but in case further measures have to be taken in due course.
My hon. Friend was right in what he said about public and private ownership. The direction that I have issued today applies to all United Kingdom airports regardless of ownership.
My hon. Friend also asked about powers. I think that I have sufficient powers to enforce these measures, and if there is a breach of the direction prosecution may follow. Nevertheless, I shall examine my powers in this field and, if necessary, I shall seek the House's permission to take more.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The Minister will recall that I raised during questions on his statement last week the precise question about the security of baggage handlers, cleaners and catering staff. Does he realise that the public will view his response today as inadequate because he is giving the responsibility for policing the scheme to airport managers who are precisely the people who should have been responsible for ensuring responsibility in the first place? Should not the responsibility lie with the Secretary of State for laying down guidelines for airport authorities to follow? Were the firms that were found out by LWT and the Daily Express simply the unlucky ones that happened to be investigated? Is there any evidence of wider security lapses? Has he any evidence that similar security faults exist in airports on the continent—for example, at Frankfurt—and will he seek to liaise with his European counterparts to ensure a general tightening of security?
Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman raises some important matters that I shall certainly be discussing with my colleagues in the European Community and possibly on a wider scale.
The hon. Gentleman asked about guidelines. Laying down guidelines is exactly what I do. I lay down guidelines or, occasionally, directions—as in this case—to the
26
airports, and it is their responsibility to see that they are carried out. Clearly, in the light of what has occurred, I am now considering what further steps should be taken.
The hon. Gentleman, who was quite right to draw attention to this last week, says that the response is inadequate. I hope that he will bear in mind that I am expecting a further report in the next day or two, and I shall then consider what further measures are necessary. I am merely reporting to the House today the action that I have taken since Friday.
Mr. David Wilshire: I thank my right hon. Friend for the firm and swift response that he has made to these disturbing revelations. I urge him to take no heed of the cheap party advantage being sought by those criticising him. Does he find it as incredible as I do that the aircraft entered by the reporters were left unlocked and unguarded? Will he take steps to require all airlines using all United Kingdom airports to lock their property when it is not in use and to guard it when it is unoccupied?
Mr. Channon: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said in the first part of his remarks. I am sure that the House as a whole is united in wanting to take the necessary steps to get our aviation security at the proper level. The House knows well that British airports have an international reputation for good security. I am determined to make sure that that returns. Whether or not aircraft are locked is a matter for the airlines concerned. Again, I shall be discussing this with Sir Norman Payne.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I am sure that the House will welcome the fact that the Minister accepts that there have been clear and unforgivable breaches of security, rather than simply joining some of his colleagues in attacking the journalists who have exposed breaches of security. However, should not there be positive screening of employees, rather than simply putting the companies concerned on a kind of scout's honour, and hoping that they will do the work that should be undertaken under his responsibility?
Mr. Channon: The measures that have been a requirement by my Department for some time require that the companies concerned carry out the necessary checking of people whom they employ. If, in the light of recent events, that looks inadequate, we shall have to see what can be done. I have announced the steps that we have taken, as a start, since Friday and they are a considerable improvement on what existed in the past. I shall keep matters under review.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I press my right hon. Friend further on that important point? Is it not necessary to have professional vetting of personnel who have access to aircraft? Are firms able to scrutinise the backgrounds of would-be employees adequately? How can they satisfy themselves as to the personal, political and family links of would-be employees? Is this not a matter for the security services?
Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend will recall that the Select Committee, which made a report on this issue some years ago, accepted that it would be difficult to vet all employees with airside access. It went on to say—this is the relevant point—
"It cannot be emphasised too strongly that responsibility should belong with the airport operator and that the operator

27
must satisfly himself that any company which he delegates to carry out such tasks can be guaranteed properly to do so before he authorises the issue of passes to its employees."
I strongly agree with that, and I shall be taking steps to ensure that that happens.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: The travelling public, leaving aside the myriad of employers at the airport, look to the Government to protect their safety when they are travelling. Does the Secretary of State's statement mean that his Department has not been monitoring his own instructions to the companies? Is it a fair assumption that, without last Friday's Daily Express, the actions taken since then and the statement today would not have happened?
Mr. Channon: It does not mean anything of the sort. It means that the responsibility for airport security is clearly mine. I lay down the regulations that should be followed. Responsibility for following them is also clearly laid down.
Mr. Rooker: Who checks on them?
Mr. Channon: We check on them. However, it is disgraceful if those who have clear responsibility put on them do not carry it out, and that is what I am seeking to remedy.
Mr. John Wheeler: I support my right hon. Friend's robust action, about which he has told the House. However, when he has the oppportunity to examine a video of the LWT "Eyewitness" programme, he will notice that the box of Terry's Moonlight chocolates that is apparently placed on the aircraft does not appear to have a cellophane wrapping around it, while the box that was subsequently found did have one. Does not this mean that there was some concoction in the pursuit of journalism? Will my right hon. Friend look into that, and if there has been a misuse of police time, will he ensure that appropriate prosecutions follow?
Mr. Channon: Prosecution is not a matter for me, but I shall certainly investigate my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. George Foulkes: Does the Secretary of State agree that part of the problem is the huge volume of traffic going through Heathrow airport and that that could be alleviated if there were more direct flights from regional and Scottish airports to Europe and north America? Will he tell Norman Payne that he should pay more attention to safety and to running the airports properly instead of, as he is doing now, trying to undermine Prestwick, which is a perfectly good airport that should have many more flights out of it?
Mr. Channon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am at present considering the situation at Prestwick. I strongly agree that there should be more traffic from regional airports than there is at present. I am glad to say that traffic forecasts show that the proportion of flights from regional airports is going up rather than down.
On the question of safety, I have called for a special report from Sir Norman Payne which I hope to receive within the next day or two.
Mr. Patrick Ground: Although I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend has said and the steps that he has taken, does he agree that it is important in security matters for the new advisers to
28
advise him about the practice in the airport and that any changes should be applied in an even-handed, level-headed way to ensure that the overall result is effective throughout the operation of the airport? This is a long-term, systematic and necessary exercise which is not helped by regular efforts on the part of the press.
Mr. Channon: I agree with everything that my hon. and learned Friend says and will certainly do as he suggests.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does it not sum up the Secretary of State's lack of concern for safety when we hear him congratulating the BAA on taking action to withdraw passes from one firm, although that will not occur until tomorrow? Will there be any prosecutions in the case—and I am not talking about the journalists?
Mr. Channon: Prosecution is not a matter for me, but the House will understand that a great many measures have been taken since Friday and I propose to consider what further measures might be necessary.
Mr. Terry Dicks: Is my right hon. Friend, like me, disgusted with the old story that Heathrow is one of the most secure airports in this country and the world? Will he take on board the suggestion that I made to him last week, and previously, that the police be given responsibility for security at Heathrow? May we have an assurance from him that some heads will roll at BAA as a result of the security failure?
Mr. Channon: As to the question of putting the police in charge, my hon. Friend will recollect that the Select Committee considered and rejected that proposal some years ago. Nevertheless, we are considering the question of the police and airports at present. I know my hon. Friend's views and am considering them.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Although I understand the wider considerations of Select Committees, my own experience with regard to security when we were in Northern Ireland—I say to the Home Secretary—was that there can be only one force in charge of security, the police force. If responsibility is dissipated among BAA and managers, things will go wrong. They will go wrong in any case, but the more I listen to comments on these matters, the more it appears to me that no one is in charge.
Mr. Channon: The right hon. Gentleman may well be right that we should change the situation and we are at present considering whether the police should have a greater role. At present the airport manager is responsible for co-ordinating all security measures at the airport. That is where the ultimate responsibility lies for co-ordinating security measures. I am determined to make improvements in the system.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend accept that people control and building design are both necessary elements in ensuring adequate security? Will he ask the chairman of BAA to look urgently at the question of building design, when the buildings are refurbished or new building takes place, to ensure that that can also contribute to greater security?
Mr. Channon: Yes, Sir. I believe that that is being done.
Mr. John Prescott: The House and the public will be concerned about the recent

29
exposure of security inadequacies at Heathrow, which appear to render worthless the numerous assurances that have been given by the Secretary of State about enhanced security at Heathrow. I am bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman after his performance this afternoon that the public will not be assured that he is any more on top of the job now than he was before.
Will the Secretary of State tell us whether his statements reject answers that were previously given on behalf of the Department to the Select Committee on Transport that security vetting of all airside staff is not cost effective? I hope that the Department no longer holds that view. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that his Department was wrong in 1982 in abolishing the separate airport police force and the aviation finance security fund? It is the view of the Select Committee on Transport that that decision contributed to the reduction of security at our airports. As the Secretary of State for Transport has direct responsibility for security at our airports, is it not about time that he reversed the decisions to which I have referrred and did much more to improve security and to give greater confidence to the travelling public in Britain?
Mr. Channon: I am determined to improve security at the airports in question and at other airports throughout the United Kingdom. I shall continue to take steps to improve security both in the short and the long term.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the levy and the police force. We are already examining the policing of airports and while the discussions are taking place I must operate the present system. If any changes in the policing arrangements were to occur, they would clearly take time to introduce and implement. I do not think that the abolition of the levy makes any difference. In my view, there are no financial restraints that would lead to inadequate security measures being taken at our airports. If there are, I shall ensure that they are not taken into account.
The Select Committee on Transport accepted that it would be difficult to vet all employees with airside access. As I have told the House on many occasions, I shall continue to review airport security, whether that involves baggage or staff. I am sure that from time to time the House will wish to hear further.

Listeria Poisoning
3.57 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the growing public concern about the new health hazard of listeria poisoning from contaminated food."
The matter is urgent because as many as 150 deaths are now estimated to take place each year from listeria poisoning. The public are hearing conflicting reports and have been given no guidelines from the Government on how they should protect themselves from this risk. The head of microbiology at Leeds university, Professor Richard Lacey, has been investigating the matter for some time. He claims that at least 25 per cent. of a test sample of pre-cooked chilled meats bought from supermarkets in Leeds was contaminated with listeria. The results of a recent survey in Bristol revealed that 60 per cent. of fresh chicken samples contained listeria. One roast chicken meal out of 20 samples of hospital food was also contaminated. Recently, in Swansea, inspectors found that 20 per cent. of cook-chill foods in several stores was also contaminated with listeria.
The bacteria can kill, and has killed, unborn and newborn babies as well as elderly people. At least two women recently have lost their babies as a result of listeria. When transmitted to humans, it can affect the central nervous system, causing meningitis and encephalitis. It can be an extremely serious health risk for the elderly and the sick. With 70,000 notified instances of food poisoning a year—double the number of four years ago—the Government's record in taking these matters seriously is far from good. As more of our food is found to be poisoned, we cannot guarantee that the Government will act swiftly enough. They failed after Chernobyl, they equivocated over salmonella in eggs and chicken, and they have been muted over concern about listeria poisoning.
We know that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has a split personality. It finds it imposssible to represent farmers and consumers at the same time. What are the consumers to do? Are they to continue to buy pre-cooked and chilled products? When will the Department of Health or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food issue guidelines for the public? In France, Holland and Belgium health Ministers are responsible for food safety and there is the powerful Food and Drug Administration in America. However, no one protects food safety adequately in the United Kingdom. Instead, there is confusion and cover up.
I ask for an emergency debate so that we can discuss this important matter in greater detail.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady has asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the serious threat of listeria to public health."
As the House will be aware, under Standing Order No. 20, I must take into account the requirements of the order and announce my decision without giving reasons to the House. I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady. As she knows, my sole duty when considering an application

31
under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given priority over business already set down for this evening or for tomorrow. I regret that the matter she has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order and I cannot therefore submit her application to the House.

Listeria Poisoning
  BILL PRESENTED
    HEDGEROWS
    Mr. Peter Hardy, supported by Mr. Peter L. Pike, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Stan Crowther, Mr. Martin Redmond, Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Sir Charles Morrison, Sir Geoffrey Finsberg and Mr. Robert B. Jones, presented a Bill for the protection and maintenance of farm boundary hedges and hedges bordering footpaths, bridleways and highways: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 January and to be printed. [Bill 41.].

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the four motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Laganside Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft African Development Bank (Further Subscription to Capital Stock) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft African Development Fund (Fifth Replenishment) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Orders of the Day
  Security Service Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  Security Service Bill
    Clause 1

      THE SECURITY SERVICE
      4.1 pm
      Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move amendment No. 73, in page 1, line 6, leave out
      'under the authority of the Secretary of State'
      and insert
      'which shall be subject to the scrutiny of a Select Committee of the House of Commons but remain under the authority of the Secretary of State'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 45, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Solicitor-General'.
      No. 38, in page 1, line 6, at end insert
      'and subject to examination by a Select Committee of the House of Commons'.
      No. 48, in clause 2, page 1, line 16, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Solicitor-General'.
      No. 54, in page 2, line 8, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Solicitor-General'.
      No. 61, in clause 4, page 3, line 7, at end insert
      'and who is responsible to the Solicitor-General'.
      No. 63, in page 3, line 17, at end insert—
      '(4A) As soon as practicable after receiving a copy of a report from the Director-General as referred to in subsection (4) of section 2, the Inspector General shall submit to the Solicitor-General a certificate stating the extent to which he is satisfied with the report and whether any act or thing done by the Service in the course of its operational activities during the period to which the report relates is, in the opinion of the Inspector General,

      (a) not authorised by or under this Act or contravenes any provisions as referred to in subsection (3) of section 2; or

      (b) involves an unreasonable or unnecessary exercise by the Service of any of its powers.

      (4B) As soon as practicable after receiving a report referred to in subsection (4) of section 2 and a certificate of the Inspector General referred to in subsection (4A) above, the Solicitor-General shall cause the report and certificate to be transmitted to the Security Service Review Committee.'.
      No. 58, in page 3, line 20, at end insert—
      '(5A) As soon as practicable after receiving a report referred to in subsection (4) of section 1 and a certificate of the Inspector General referred to in subsection (4A) above, the Solicitor-General shall cause the report and certificate to be transmitted to the Security Service Review Committee.'.
      New clause 2—The Security Service Review Committee—
      '(1) There is to be established a Committee to he known as the Security Service Review Committee.
      (2) Her Majesty may by letters patent appoint five members of Her Majesty's Privy Council to be members of the Review Committee. This power shall be exercisable on an address presented by the House of Commons, and no motion shall be made for such an address except by the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of each party having at least 30 members in the House of Commons.
      (3) Each member of the Review Committee shall be appointed to hold office for a term not exceeding five years.
      (4) A member of the Review Committee is eligible to be re-appointed for a term not exceeding five years.
      (5) The functions of the Review Committee are—

      (a) to review generally the performance by the Service of its duties and functions and, in connection therewith;

      (i) to review the reports of the Director-General and the Inspector General and certificates of the Inspector General transmitted to it pursuant to subsection (5A) of section 4;

      (ii) to review arrangements entered into by the Service pursuant to subsection (3A) of section 2 and to monitor the provision of information and intelligence pursuant to the arrangements;

      (iii) to review the directions referred to in subsection (3) of section 2;

      (iv) to compile and analyse statistics on the operational activities of the Service;

      (v) to review the budget and annual total expenditure of the Service;

      (b) to arrange for reviews to be conducted, or to conduct reviews, pursuant to subsection (4) below;

      (c) to conduct investigations in relation to complaints made to the Review Committee under section 6.

      (6) Subject to this Act, the Review Committee may determine the procedure to be followed in the performance of any of its duties or functions.
      (7) Notwithstanding any Act of Parliament or any privilege under the law of evidence, the Review Committee is entitled—

      (a) to have access to any information under the control of the Service, the Solicitor General or of the Inspector General that relates to the performance of the duties and functions of the Committee and to receive from the Inspector General, the Director-General and employees such information, reports and explanations as the Committee deems necessary for the performance of its duties and functions; and

      (b) during any investigation referred to in paragraph (c) of subsection (5), to have access to any information under the control of the Director-General that is relevant to the investigation.

      (8) For the purpose of ensuring that the activities of the Service are carried out in accordance with this Act and any provisions made under section 2(3) above and that the activities do not involve any unreasonable or unnecessary exercise by the Service of any of its powers, the Review Committee may—

      (a) direct the Service or Inspector General to conduct a review of specific activities of the Service and provide the Committee with a report of the review; or

      (b) where it considers that a review by the Service or the Inspector General would be inappropriate, conduct such a review itself.

      (9) The Review Committee shall, within three months after the end of each fiscal year, submit to the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General a report of the activities of the Committee during that year and the Prime Minister shall cause a copy of each such report to be laid before each House of Parliament together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy in pursuance of subsection (10) below.
      (10) If it appears to the Prime Minister, after consultation with the Solicitor General and the Review Committee, that the publication of any matter in a report would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Service, the Prime Minister may exclude that matter from the copy of the report as laid before each House of Parliament.
      (11) The Review Committee may, on request by the Solicitor General or at any other time, furnish a special report to the Solicitor General concerning any matter that relates to the performance of its duties and functions.
      (12) The Review Committee, after consultation with the Treasury, shall be provided with such staff as it thinks necessary for the discharge of its functions.'.
      Amendment (a) to the new clause, in subsection (2), leave out '30' and insert 'seven'.
      New clause 3—Investigation of complaints—
      '(1) Any person may make a complaint in writing to the Review Committee with respect to any act or thing done in relation to him or any property of his by the Service and the Committee shall investigate the complaint if—

      (a) the complainant has made a complaint to the Director-General with respect to that act or thing and the complainant has not received a response within such period of time as the Committee considers reasonable or is dissatisfied with the response given; and

      (b) the Committee is satisfied that the complaint is not trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith.

      (2) Where, by reason only of the denial of a security clearance by the Service, a decision is made to deny employment to an individual or to dismiss, demote or transfer an individual or to deny a promotion or transfer to an individual, the Director-General shall send, within ten days after the decision is made, a notice informing the individual of the denial of a security clearance.
      (3) A member of the Review Committee may exercise any of the powers or perform any of the duties or functions of the Committee under this section in relation to complaints.
      (4) Before commencing an investigation of a complaint the Review Committee shall notifiy the Director-General of its intention to carry out the investigation and shall inform the Director-General of the substance of the complaint.
      (5) Every investigation of a complaint under this section by the Review Committee shall be conducted in private.
      (6) Where the complaint relates to the denial of a security clearance, the Review Committee shall, as soon as practicable after receiving a complaint, send to the complainant a statement summarising such information available to the Committee as will enable the complainant to be as fully informed as possible of the circumstances giving rise to the denial of the security clearance and shall send a copy of the statement to the Director-General.
      (7) In the course of an investigation of a complaint under this section by the Review Committee, the complainant and the Director-General shall be given an opportunity to make representations to the Review Committee, to present evidence and to be heard personally or by counsel, but no one is entitled as of right to be present during, to have access to or to comment on representations made to the Review Committee by any other person.
      (8) The Review Committee has, in relation to the investigation of any complaint under this section, power—

      (a) to summon and enforce the appearance of persons before the Committee and to compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce such documents and things as the Committee deems requisite to the full investigation and consideration of the complaint in the same manner and to the same extent as a superior court of record;

      (b) to administer oaths; and

      (c) to receive and accept such evidence and other information, whether on oath or by affidavit or otherwise, as the Commission sees fit, whether or not such evidence or information is or would be admissible in a court of law.

      (9) The Review Committee shall—

      (a) on completion of an investigation in relation to a complaint, provide the Solicitor General and the Director-General with a report containing the findings of the investigation and any recommendations that the Committee considers appropriate, including—

      (i) that inquiries by the Service about the complainant to be ended and any records relating to such inquiries be destroyed; and

      (ii) that the complainant be paid such sum by way of compensation; and

      (b) at the same time as or after a report is provided pursuant to paragraph (a), report the findings of the investigation to the complainant and may, if it thinks fit, report to the complainant any recommendations referred to in that paragraph.

      (10) On receiving the report from the Review Committee referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (8) above, the Solicitor General must, unless he can show that it would not be reasonable to do so, adopt the recommendations, if any, made by the Review Committee and any such decisions made by the Solicitor General must be notified to the complainant.'
      New clause 5—Parliamentary Select Committee on Security—
      '(1) There is to be established a Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to keep under review the matters referred to in subsection (3) below.
      (2) The Committee shall consist of 10 Members of Parliament representing each party having at least 12 members in the House of Commons and these Members of the Committee shall be appointed by the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of each party so represented.
      (3) The functions of the Committee are

      (a) to review generally the performance by the Service of its duties and functions and, in connection therewith,

      (i) to review the reports of the Director-General and the Commissioner;

      (ii) to review the provisions referred to in subsection (3) of section 2;

      (iii) to compile and analyse statistics on the operational activities of the Service; and

      (iv) to review the annual budget and expenditure of the Service.

      (b) to arrange for reviews to be conducted, or to conduct reviews, pursuant to subsection ( ) below.

      (4) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Committee may determine the procedure to be followed in the performance of its duties or functions.
      (5) Notwithstanding any Act of Parliament of any privilege under the law of evidence, the Committee is entitled to have access to any information under the control of the Service, the Secretary of State or of the Commissioner that relates to the performance of the duties and functions of the Committee and to receive from Commissioner, Director-General and the Secretary of State and employees such information, reports and explanations as the Committee deems necessary for the performance of its duties and functions.
      (6) For the purpose of ensuring that the activities of the Service are carried out in accordance with this Act and any provisions under section 2(3) above and that the activities do not involve any unreasonable or unnecessary exercise by the Service of its powers, the Committee may—

      (a) direct the Service or Commissioner to conduct a review of specific activities of the Service and provide the Committee with a report of the review; or

      (b) where it considers that a review by the Service or the Commissioner would be inappropriate, conduct such a review itself.

      (7) The Committee shall, within three months after the end of each fiscal year, submit to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State a report of the activities of the Committee during that year and the Prime Minister shall cause a copy of each such report to be laid before each House of Parliament together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy in pursuance of subsection (8) below.
      (8) If it appears to the Committee, after consultation with the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Leaders of the parties represented on the Committee, that the publication of any matter in a report would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Service, the Committee may exclude that matter from the copy of the report as laid before the House of Parliament.
      (9) The Committee may, on request by the Secretary of State or at any other time, furnish a special report to the Secretary of State concerning any matter that relates to the performance of its duties and functions.
      (10) The Secretary of State shall, with the approval of the Treasury as to numbers provide the Committee with such staff as the Secretary of State thinks necessary for the discharge of its functions.'.
      Mr. Hattersley: Amendment No. 73 in this group seeks to place the Security Service, MI5, under the supervision of
      36
      a Select Committee of the House. I believed on Second Reading that that proposal marked a clean and clear division of opinion across the Floor of the House. I now realise that as the debate progresses, and perhaps as we approach a Division on the amendment, the merits of a halfway house will be advocated, as will the merits of oversight not by a Committee of this House or both Houses, but by a committee of Privy Councillors who may or may not be Members of Parliament. The proposal for a supervisory committee, not of this House but of outside nominees, is grouped with amendment No. 73. Other hon. Members will seek to deal with that suggestion in detail. In the interests of clarity, I want to explain briefly why the Opposition regard what I think it is fair to call the halfway house as inadequate for two distinct, but related, reasons.
      First, it seems to us that a group of persons who are essentially the Prime Minister's nominees cannot provide the oversight for the Security Service that a Select Committee would make possible. Supervision by the Prime Minister's nominees—Privy Councillors; I put aside for a moment the wholly unreasonable deference to Privy Councillors that the alternative scheme embodies—is essentially supervision by insiders.
      We believe that it is necessary above all else that the supervision and oversight of the Security Service should be by responsible representatives who are not part of the inside group and who do not reflect the values of it. They should be representatives answerable directly to this House and they must discharge their duties in a way that they can subsequently justify to the House.
      The relationship that a nominated supervisory body would have with the Government is demonstrated by our second objection to new clause 3, which is the nature of the report which the nominated body would make to Parliament. The reports would be written by the Government with the committee of Privy Councillors being allowed to do no more than comment on the content of that report. That would be inevitable under such a scheme, because the committee's existence would depend on the Government. We do not want the committee to be responsible to the Government in that way or dependent on the Government in that way or, as I fear, with the best will on the world, deferential to the Government in that way.
      The proposal embodied in amendment No. 73 and new Clause 5 would have an independence that the alternatives could not provide. The Select Committee would write its own reports.
      Mr. John Wheeler: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have a direct vested interest in his proposal. Is not the problem with the Select Committee or Members of Parliament, regardless of their status in the House, having a direct involvement in supervising the Security Service the fact that they would have to be taken within the fold of confidentiality and secrecy and would never be able to report to the House, as a Select Committee can, but would be able only to report to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary direct? In that case, what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is proposing is adequate.
      Mr. Hattersley: I made the mistake of giving way when I should have told the hon. Gentleman that I hoped that I would do my best to deal later with the point that he was likely to raise. As he raises the point now, the answer to his

      37
      question, like the best answer to most questions, is "It depends". It depends on the nature of the Committee, its powers and the way in which it exercises those powers. I accept that in most cases the Committee would want to report to Parliament in a way which some critics of the Security Service might regard as anodyne. However, the important point about the Committee—and I will develop this aspect as best I can later—is that its work will be what the Home Secretary has described as looking over his shoulder. Its existence will keep the Home Secretary metaphorically on his toes. It will remind him that he must operate in a way that is consistent with Parliament's view on efficiency, prudence and civil liberties. The importance of the Committee will lie in what it does not have to do. Its existence would prevent the Security Service and the Home Secretary from doing things that they might otherwise do.
      Mr. David Winnick: Is not one of the reasons why we need the Committee simply to avoid the kind of response given by the Minister who replied to the Second Reading debate? The Minister referred to what I said about Patricia Hewitt, the allegations made by Cathy Massiter and why my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) was investigated when she was a legal officer for the National Council for Civil Liberties. He said that I wanted the Home Secretary to come and deal with the allegations and that that would be wholly unreasonable. Regardless of any allegations by former MI5 officials, which may be raised on the Floor of the House, all a Minister now needs to do, in the absence of a Select Committee, is to say that those are all security matters which cannot be dealt with.
      Mr. Hattersley: I agree with my hon. Friend in every particular except that he invests Minister's winding-up speeches with a seriousness that they clearly do not possess. He also demonstrated, if I may say so with all humility, a point that I wanted to make to the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler). I intended to make these points later and the sensible thing for me to do is to make my speech as best I can and then discover whether my colleagues agree with it and whether Conservative Members disagree.
      One of the advantages of a Select Committee in comparison with other institutions is that under our scheme it would write its reports after listening to the Government's advice about the need for security. That difference is crucial. It demonstrates the weakness of one system and the strength of the other. It is the difference between keeping the supervision of the security services within the family of the establishment or extending it to a responsible but essentially independent oversight. We want independent oversight.
      The creation of our proposed Select Committee will produce three major advantages. First, it will remove much of the party political controversy that currently surrounds MI5's work. The allegation that the Security Service was, is, or could be used as a Prime Minister's private army would no longer have the plausibility that it currently has. That would be good for the country, and in my view it would be good for the Security Service.
      Our intention is that the Select Committee will reflect the composition of the House, and, therefore, include at least one representative of every political party represented
      38
      by 12 or more right hon. and hon. Members. The Government of the day will maintain a majority on the Select Committee, but other members will be appointed after, and only after, consultation with party leaders. The result will produce an advantage for the Security Service as well as for democracy.
      The House will assume a measure of responsibility for its operation. It will be more than just critical supervision. That general responsibility will mean, in general, MI5 being detached from any accusation of one-party dominance or operation on behalf of the Government of the day.
      The second advantage of our scheme relates to the fear—often justified in the past—that MI5 operates illegally, unlawfully or improperly. That fear will in large part be removed.
      Thirdly, by making MI5 accountable to the House, our scheme will put the Security Service more in touch with the real world, and, as a consequence, it will be more efficient. Nobody doubts that the organisation's failures were largely the result of its insulation from reality and its belief that its operations, unchecked and unsupervised by anyone outside its magic circle, ought not to be subject to independent scrutiny. I repeat, for it is important to our case, that the service's efficiency will certainly be increased by the relationship with the real world that parliamentary scrutiny can provide.
      The Government will argue that the obligations to civil liberties, efficiency and lawful conduct specified in the Bill requiring the Security Service to obtain the Home Secretary's warrant before it interferes with property or intercepts a telephone call are safeguards that will reassure reasonable people that MI5 does not act improperly. Reliance on the good will, good judgment or good intentions of a single Minister is always a bad legislative precedent. Some future Home Secretaries may be politically corrupt. All will be fallible. Many will be insensitive or obtuse in their reactions to the Bill's provisions and to their obligations if it becomes law.
      The present Home Secretary gave an example of the third shortcoming on Second Reading. I acquit him of political corruption, though I am sure he will join me in admitting his own fallibility. However, political insensitivity and the Home Secretary's misunderstanding of his own role were demonstrated dramatically when I asked him about political bias or fears of political bias in the Security Service. He answered that political bias would be prevented by the operation of clause 2(2)(b), and that that clause specifically prohibited the security services from acting
      "to further the interests of any one political party."
      The Home Secretary surely does not believe that prohibition of work on behalf of one political party is the same as avoidance of political bias. Whether the non sequitur with which he answered my question was the result of a genuine mistake or of simple confusion or whether it was intended to obfuscate the position, I do not know. However, it illustrates that, to ensure sensible, acceptable and democratic control, the House needs something more than just the supervision of one Minister, no matter how well-intentioned he may be.
      There can be no absolute safeguard that the Security Service will not act without the Home Secretary's permission. That is the tradition of the service. The Bill is introduced because, in the past, the Security Service often operates outside the law. There need to be adequate

      39
      safeguards against both the Home Secretary's possible failure and the possible failings of the service that he supervises. Without a Select Committee external to the service, no such safeguard will exist.
      4.15 pm
      As the debate continues, the Home Secretary will doubtless insist—and perhaps he believes—that the appointment of a commissioner and tribunal to examine his record in issuing warrants for the interception of communications and for interference with property and from time to time to cast a general eye over the Security Service's work is a safeguard with which we ought to be satisfied. He described to the House, in what I can only term plaintive language, the terrors of having a judge looking over his shoulder. I say with respect to the judiciary—which is required of me by Standing Orders, but which I feel irrespective of that obligation—that the extent of the Home Secretary's terror will depend on the judge who is selected to undertake that supervision. The views held, perfectly legitimately, by some members of the judiciary are exemplified by Mr. Justice McCowan during his summing up of the Ponting trial. He commented:
      "The policies of the state mean the policies laid down for it by its recognised organs of Government and authority."
      One of the objections in principle to much that went on during that trial is the confusion that exists between the interests of the Government and those of the nation, which characterised the Government's conduct and that summing up by the judge. Any judge who thinks that the Government and the state cannot be separated is likely to hold few terrors for the Home Secretary while looking over the right hon. Gentleman's shoulder to see how he discharges his duties in relation to the Security Service. Given that the judge who will look over the Home Secretary's shoulder will be appointed on the Home Secretary's recommendation to the Prime Minister, it will always be open to the Government of the day to find a nominee who believes that the interests of the Government and the state are identical. Such a judge will always be able to convince himself, wholly within the law, that, under the terms of the Bill, whatever the Home Secretary chooses to do is reasonable.
      The protection of our liberties is too important to be left to judges. The House of Commons ought to be looking over the Home Secretary's shoulder, and it will do so if it accepts our proposed amendment and new clause. On 3 December 1986, when the Home Secretary described to the House his criticism of a Select Committee to supervise the security services, he offered three objectives. They were effectively preserving a necessary secrecy, increasing confidence in the service that it might provide, and avoiding the risk of
      "blunting or diminishing the personal and clear responsibilities of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to this House."—[0fficial Report, 3 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 948.]
      I am prepared to measure our own proposals against the Home Secretary's own criteria. New clause 5 will require the Select Committee
      "to have access to any information under the control of the Service, the Secretary of State or of the Commissioner that relates to the performance of the duties and functions of the Committee."
      That is a wide definition of what may be demanded by the Select Committee. However, without that wide definition, the Committee as we envisage it could not carry out the work that we wish to impose on it. I reject the implication
      40
      —and I hope that the Home Secretary will also reject it—that we cannot construct a Select Committee of the House that will behave with proper discretion and have proper concern for the national interest.
      Many of us hoped that the idea that intelligence information cannot be read by anyone outside the intelligence community was dispelled for ever by the procedures adopted by Lord Franks' inquiry into the Falklands war. The Prime Minister told the House that that committee was provided with all the papers relevant to its terms of reference, including a comprehensive—not selected, doctored or amended—collection of reports from the intelligence agencies. Those reports were not leaked, and I see no reason why a Committee of the House should not behave in the same responsible way.
      In addition, the Select Committee system provides a precedent of a sort. When the Select Committee on Defence was set up, there was much foreboding about its ability to retain the secrecy of sensitive documents; in fact, all Select Committees have proved more leak-free than Government Departments. The Home Secretary said that many of our allies who had a proper and vested interest in the retention of secret information might be apprehensive about the results of parliamentary oversight.
      I suggest that if the amendment and new clause are passed the Foreign Secretary should reassure our allies with two arguments about the new procedure. First, on the evidence, Select Committees are considerably more secure than a Department of state. Secondly, parallel systems allowing members of legislatures to investigate security matters and to maintain overall supervision of security services operate successfully in other democracies without any leakage of essential information. I hope that I am not making a populist point when I say that I retain the hope and belief that the honesty, integrity and patriotism of the House are no less than the honesty, integrity and patriotism of the Senate and Congress of the United States. If they can manage such a system without essential information being leaked, I have no doubt that we can do the same.
      The Home Secretary's second criterion concerned whether a proposal for a Select Committee would increase or reduce confidence in the system—not confidence in terms of maintaining the secrecy of sensitive information, but confidence in terms of the efficiency and general obedience to the law within which the Security Service is operated.
      I find it difficult to believe that both Parliament and the nation would not be reassured by the introduction of a Select Committee system. The Home Secretary knows, although it may not be possible for him to admit it, that confidence in the Security Service has diministed enormously in the recent past. That may or may not be justified, and today may not be the occasion on which to argue about the justification, but there is no doubt that it is the case, and that the lack of confidence has been intensified by two steps taken by the Government over the past few months. First, there is the provision in the Official Secrets Bill that gives absolute protection to the work of the security services without any public interest justification. On the Second Reading of that Bill, the Home Secretary conceded to me that under clause 4(3)(a) it was an indictable offence to reveal any information concerning the work of the security services—whether that work was carried on legally or illegally, was justified or unjustified, or was carried on under proper warrant or

      41
      without stipulated authority. Inevitably, that increases uncertainty and doubt about the work of the service. Indeed, the Home Secretary conceded willingly and openly that were I to be told by a member of the security services that my property had been burgled or my telephone bugged I would be committing an indictable offence, punishable by imprisonment, if I revealed that to the public at large.
      Mr. Ray Whitney: The right hon. Gentleman said that he would not seek to set out his case for maintaining that trust and confidence in the security services had recently been eroded. I suggest that he reconsider, because such a case as he puts forward must be the whole basis and justification for changing the status quo.
      I suggest that any case that the right hon. Gentleman might assemble could offer only one security problem in the last 10 years or so, and that the cases to which he has referred obliquely in his speech have been 15, 20 and 30 years old. Many of them have already been exploded by such people as his former right hon. Friend Lord Callaghan. I refer, of course, to the allegations made by Mr. Wright in his book.
      Mr. Hattersley: I am tempted to pursue the case, not least because since our previous debate I have had some interesting correspondence with Mr. Anthony Cavendish—initiated by him—in which he refuted some of the points made about him by Conservative Members. He sent me copies of letters with the names discreetly and honourably blanked out, which he said had been sent to him by the more pompous members of the Conservative party. I would have looked forward to seeing which Conservative Members confessed to being the correspondents in question.
      It seems to me that the best way in which to proceed is by way of the argument about civil liberties and the principle of accountability. Were it not for the disquiet felt outside—justified in my view and unjustified in that of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), but irrefutably present, whether justified or not—many of us would think that, as a matter of principle, an organisation as powerful and potentially dangerous as the Security Service ought to be subject to some supervision. That principle ought to apply whether the record is exemplary or deplorable.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Surely the very fact that the Government have decided to bring forward legislation is a sign that even they realise that everything is not satisfactory in the view of the general public. The real test is whether they bring forward a measure that is sufficient to allay that fear or one that simply enhances it. As the Bill stands, it will enhance rather than allay the fear, and the Government will therefore fail in their purpose.
      Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend tempts me to move away from my most ecumenical mood. I am doing my best to put the case reasonably, not least in the hope that it will embolden some of the frailer spirits on the Conservative Benches, who have expressed arguments not dissimilar to those that I am advancing, to come into the Lobby with us. The Home Secretary—who knows his troops far better
      42
      than I could ever know them—shakes his head to imply that, no matter how mollifying my comments are, in the end nerves will be lost and votes will not be cast. But I shall continue to pursue my argument with what passes with me for reason in the hope that we shall carry with us a few hon. Gentlemen—and perhaps even one or two hon. Ladies—when we vote.
      I was saying—perhaps not in a total spirit of compromise—that clause 4(3)(a) of the Official Secrets Bill had done a great deal to undermine what ought to be proper confidence in the service, because the Home Secretary had said that, even when the operation of the service was unlawful, illegal, improper or carried out without warrant, it would still be an offence to reveal it to the public.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong.
      Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary says that I have got it wrong. I will read the passage from Hansard if he wishes, but let me put the case to him again. According to my reading of the Bill, if I am told by a member of the security services that my telephone is being tapped it is an offence for me to reveal it. Is that so, or is it not so?
      Mr. Hurd: That is correct, but it is not what the right hon. Gentleman said three minutes ago.
      Mr. Hattersley: As someone once said, that is all ye know and all ye need to know. If it is an offence for me to reveal that my telephone is being tapped—admittedly only when I am told so by a member of the security services—that seems to me to give the services an aura of mystery and secrecy that is wholly improper in a free society.
      The position goes further than that. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has asked me to consider the motives behind the Bill, which are open to a number of interpretations. There are those who think that the security services themselves want it as a justification to stop my hon. Friends and me pressing for something more realistic, and those who think that the Prime Minister wants it to introduce the law of lifetime confidentiality, which she claimed was legal before the Bill, but which certainly was not. One aspect of the Bill that undermines any claim that it can protect the citizen is the clause that makes it absolutely clear that investigation by a tribunal and commissioner is not subject to appeal or liable to question in court. The entire operation of the appeal system, the entire operation of complaints against illegal or unlawful activity and the entire operation of propriety are kept within the magic circle of the Security Service and the establishment.
      If the Security Service is to be properly placed under democratic surveillance it is essential that a system should be introduced and accepted that breaks out of that coterie and allows someone outside the realm of prime ministerial nominees to make judgments about wrongdoings, mistakes and inefficiency.
      4.30 pm
      The Home Secretary's third criterion on whether it would be acceptable to appoint a Select Committee makes sense only if the Home Secretary meant it to be ironic. He said that to introduce a Select Committee would blunt what he described as the clear ministerial responsibility of the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. That clear

      43
      ministerial responsibility is at present discharged by their refusing to answer any questions about the Security Service. The Prime Minister was explicit when she said, during the debate on the Loyal Address, that if the Bill became law, the usual rule would still apply. Anyone looking into the past to see what the usual rule is would have no doubt that that would result in no information being provided to the House. The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister invariably answer that Ministers do not comment on such matters. They are not alone in that. Almost all of us who have served in Ministries involved with foreign affairs or in the Home Office or the Ministry of Defence have answered similar questions in similar ways.
      As the system is now organised, there is no question of ministerial responsibility having any real meaning and practical effect. It cannot have a practical effect if hon. Members are able to ask questions about the security services publicly and openly in the House only when they are likely to be reported throughout the world. To make practical sense of ministerial responsibility, we need a system under which the Home Secretary and Prime Minister are requuired to give evidence, if necessary in secret, to a Select Committee to justify the way in which they have discharged their duties in relation to the Security Service.
      I, and supporters of the amendment and new clause, argue that they give force to the concept of ministerial responsibility for a secret service, which cannot be discharged through the normal process of the House.
      The ability of the proposed Committee to take evidence is, like its power to produce a report, essential to its work. That work is the general supervision of the security services. The Committee could not, and would not, become involved in the Security Service's day-to-day operation. We constructed the new clause in such a way that, in every particular, the Committee would operate through the institutions established in the Bill to demonstrate and provide a safeguard that it would not become involved in the day-to-day operation of the Security Service. That method of operating through the commissioner and Secretary of State would provide both a safeguard against interference in the Security Service's day-to-day work and a proper check on the activities of the commission and the Home Secretary.
      By any standards, the amendment and new clause are reasonable propositions which intend not only to improve the work of the Security Service, but to improve it according to the requirements of a free society. The real divide between the Government and the Opposition is whether security can be effectively organised outside the bounds of a comfortable little coterie of like-minded people. Nobody, certainly no Opposition Members, disputes the need for a service or for that service to operate generally in secrecy. The issue is whether the requirements of secrecy oblige that service to reject the normal obligations of democracy and efficiency.
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Hattersley: I am about to finish. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome that, so that he can make his speech.
      44
      Efficiency and democracy would be extended by the introduction of a supervisory committee and that is why we support our new clause and amendments.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I should like to move amendments Nos. 45, 48 and 54, new clause 2, amendment (a), new clause 3 and amendments Nos. 61 and 63.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means: Order. It is not appropriate to move the amendments at this stage. We are discussing them together with amendment No. 73.
      Mr. Shepherd: The group of amendments in my name and that of other hon. Members—
      Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. Does that mean that we will be unable to vote on those amendments and that we can vote only on amendment No. 73? Will there be one vote on all the amendments taken together?
      The Chairman of Ways and Means: It does not necessarily mean that. We usually follow the convention of voting on the lead amendment. The Chair will have to take into account a number of factors when deciding whether voting will be limited to that amendment.
      Mr. Shepherd: The amendments in my name form distinct threads of oversight, reviews and the definition of the purpose of a security service in a modern society. Much of the information, and the wording of the amendments, is derived from the Canadian Security and Intelligence Bill and relies for its intellectual base on the mammoth works carried out by Mr. Justice McDonald in his seminal work on the subject entitled, "Freedom and Security under the Law".
      The first group of amendments in my name relates to one of the threads running through the McDonald commission's report. I take it as given that we accept the need for the Security Service and that it is vital to the preservation of our democratic institutions and that element of our national life. In the management and control of a security service, three themes should inform us. First, there should be responsible government with accountable Ministers who know what the service is doing; secondly, the rule of law should prevail in all circumstances; and, thirdly, we should recognise the freedom of legitimate or political dissent. It is in that context that my amendments are framed.
      Amendments Nos. 45, 48 and 54 suggest that the responsible Minister should be the Solicitor-General. That is not an attack on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I simply wish to raise the question of the need for a responsible and accountable Minister with the time necessary to carry out oversight and to set out the parameters within which the Security Service works. In that context, Mr. Justice McDonald said that responsible government means that
      "responsible Ministers can know about all the practices and policies of security service and about any of their operations which raise policy or legal issues. The security system must be an open book to responsible Ministers and to the Prime Minister. No pages in that book should be sealed because security officials think they contain information too sensitive for Ministers' or Prime Ministers' eyes or ears. Responsible Ministers cannot be expected to know everything that a security agency does, but they can and must be expected to know the policies governing the operations of the security agency and to establish procedures for ensuring that operations raising difficult policy issues are brought to their attention."

      45
      In Australia, New Zealand and Canada the responsible Minister is the Solicitor-General. Delicate areas affecting the defence of our liberal democracy require an absolute knowledge of what the service is doing at any given time.
      I am fascinated by the fact that we receive cards from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his Department when they acknowledge receipt of a constituent's letter that we may have sent. The back of the card lists the responsibilities of the Home Office which include police, criminal law and penal policy, magistrates courts, probation and prisons; fire service, civil defence; immigration, nationality and passports, community relations and equal opportunities, broadcasting, obscenity, data protection, royal matters, electoral law and liaison with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, drugs, gambling, liquor licensing and animal welfare. That is a formidable array of duties and responsibilities. In addition, we have only to look at the legislative programme confronting the House to see how much work will have to be done.
      With this Bill, the Official Secrets Bill, the first four private Members' Bills and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill in Committee, the duties and responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary are onerous and, with day-to-day political exigencies, consume much of his attention. That is why, in our amendments, we have suggested that the Solicitor-General should be the Minister to whom the security services report, and who should be responsible for monitoring them. That suggestion is not intended to be divisive. The problem is one of time, and the Minister responsible for the security services should be able to follow the task through.
      New clause 2 proposes the setting up of an independent oversight review committee. The reasons behind each of our amendments hang together. New clause 2 sets out the form that such an independent oversight committee should take, which is the form that was adopted in Canada. In Canada, the Prime Minister and the leaders of the political parties nominate members to a review committee, which has wide powers. In Canada, leaders of parties with 12 or more Members of Parliament are involved, but one must realise that the Canadian Parliament has only 278 members. We have suggested for this country, on the ground of proportionality, that the leaders concerned should lead parties with more than 30 Members of Parliament, but we are not attached to a specific number.
      When considering the security services, we seek to ensure that they enjoy the confidence of the spectrum of political parties in the efficacy of their policies to carry out their objectives. I shall not go through our proposals in detail because they are set out on the Amendment Paper and are explained fairly fully. However, our amendments propose that there should be two forms of oversight. First, there should be ministerial oversight through the use of a commissioner or, as we suggest, an inspector general, with a constant review of the services. Independent of that, there should be an additional review committee formed of outside members.
      New clause 3 sets out the complaints procedure. It would enable the commissioner or the independent review committee to have the power to consider any complaint
      46
      coming both from within the service—fulfilling some of the duties and responsibilities carried out by Sir Philip Woodfield—or from without. The difficulty of bringing such matters under the rule of law is that most of us do not know whether we are being investigated or whether our premises are being entered. We must, therefore, establish a system under which the facts can be studied and yet reassurance can be given within the circle of secrecy, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary describes it. Our proposals do not seek to breach that.
      New clause 2 suggests that the oversight committee should be independent of the House, but that need not be so and the matter is open to question. The Canadians have appointed commissioners from outside who are made Privy Councillors to bring them inside the circle of secrecy but, as my right hon. Friend said rightly on Second Reading, the Canadian system is due to be reviewed next year. Some commissioners feel that their task could be carried out within Parliament, whereas some do not take that view, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) will recall from our own discussions with the commissioners.
      Amendments Nos. 61 and 63 involve a change of words, but their principle is, again, to identify the functions—which come up for discussion later—of the commissioner, or the inspector general, as we call him. He is the watchdog on behalf of the Minister through which he can assure himself that warrants are properly issued and that the structures and procedures that are followed by the security services conform with their remit and with the political direction given to them by the Prime Minister or the Cabinet.
      The amendments seek to set the scene for a system that will hang together through its ingredient elements. We believe that they would enforce ministerial accountability to the House by the institution of independent review procedures and a proper complaints procedure from which nothing was hidden. The amendments also seek to set out the functions and the role of the inspector general as the watchdog to ensure that as the responsible Minister cannot, as was pointed out by the McDonald commission, know every detail about what is happening, the security services conform to their principal objectives.
      4.45 pm
      The principal objective of the security services is to defend our liberal democracy, but there is a fine and narrow area separating that objective from a threat posed by the intrusiveness of the actions of the Security Service. We must assert, through the House, that the rule of law should prevail. As Sir John Donaldson said, it is difficult for the courts to do that because they are confronted by a service that is outside the law. That is why the House must support the Government and congratulate them on bringing forward a legislative procedure to cover the security services. Our amendments seek to ensure that it is set up in such a way that we are reassured that the rule of law prevails. We give powers to the security services to carry out burglaries, for example, so we are making burglary legal. We must, therefore, be sure when we do that such power is not used in an offensive and intrusive way against loyal subjects, or in such a way as to intimidate people and to affect our freedom of discussion. Through the amendments, we seek to assure ourselves that

      47
      the Security Service is reinforced in its primary goal of defending our liberal democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of dissent.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: On behalf of my party, I rise to support the amendments about which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) spoke. I shall seek first the common ground between those who are dissatisfied with the provisions for oversight and for the operation of the security services within the Bill. There is common ground that oversight is necessary—perhaps even the Home Secretary would agree with that—and that public confidence in the Security Service has, to some extent, been eroded by the lack of such oversight and the exiguous nature of the parliamentary accountability that he and the Prime Minister have for the conduct of the Security Service.
      When moving the Opposition amendment, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) described the other amendments in the group as a halfway house. That comment shows a misunderstanding of the nature of parliamentary accountability and of the extent to which it is possible for a parliamentary Committee to act wholly independently of Government.
      The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to the experience of the United States Senate and Congress and their approach to the supervision and independent scrutiny of the security services, but he failed to recognise that the Congressional committees do not owe their membership to the nomination of the Executive. They are genuinely independent and their basis is quite different from that of Committees of this House, which are inclined, inevitably, to adopt an adversarial approach to the Government of the day. For that reason, they are not entirely suitable for the supervision of the Security Service. The right hon. Gentleman spoke favourably about the work of the Franks committee on the Falklands. That committee demonstrated how independent oversight, even of the most sensitive matters involving the security of the nation, could be conducted by a body that commands the support of the House of Commons and that was regarded as authoritative.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: On what basis does the hon. Gentleman have less confidence in his own colleagues in this House than, for example, American legislators have in their colleagues in Congress? What is the difference between a British Member of Parliament and a United States Congressman that prevents a parliamentary solution?
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of this House, with some interruptions, for as long as I. He knows that members of parliamentary Select Committees are appointed by the Whips and that in some cases they are the home of those whose participation is designed to test their suitability for promotion and that in other cases they are designed to buy off awkward customers.
      Mr. Anderson: They need not be.
      Mr. Maclennan: That is true, but the hon. Gentleman is enough of a political realist to know that Select Committees of the House of Commons properly are involved in controversy and that properly they sometimes adopt partisan positions and oppose the views of the
      48
      Government of the day. Ultimately, however, their membership is dependent on that Government of the day. The profound difference between Select Committees and Congressional committees is that Congressional committees are not appointed by the President, the Executive or the American equivalent of the Home Secretary.
      The attractiveness of the proposition that we should look to the Canadian rather than to the American model is that constitutionally our countries are much more similar. A committee of Privy Councillors would ensure the degree of independent judgment and weight that is necessary to give confidence that the oversight of the security services is in responsible hands and that the committee will be prepared to voice uncertainty, disquiet or criticism, even though it has been appointed by senior members of the political parties, including the Government and the leaders of the Opposition parties. The Canadian system is quite young, but it is soundly based and we would be wise to follow that pattern.
      The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was unrealistic to advocate that a Committee of this House should conduct the scrutiny. I do not believe that such a concession would ever be made by a Labour Government. It is highly unlikely that such a concession would have commended itself to the right hon. Gentleman when he was in office. The route that the right hon. Gentleman has recommended would make it less likely rather than more likely that there would be any form of independent outside scrutiny in which the House of Commons could have confidence.
      The recommended policy of scrutiny and oversight in new clause 2 goes a great deal further than that set out by the Government. I draw the Home Secretary's attention to the advantages of the review committee having the wide functions that are set out in subsection (5)(a) of new clause 2. Apart from dealing with specific matters, such as the issue of warrants or the handling of complaints, which is provided for to some extent in the Bill, the budget and the annual total expenditure of the Security Service would be reviewed. That is not provided for by the Government, despite the fact that we are told that the Security Service now costs about £100 million per annum. Financial control is exercised only by the issue of a certificate by the Comptroller and Auditor General, on the say-so of a Minister that the money has been spent.
      The proposals for review by a committee of Privy Councillors are well worked out and should command confidence. I profoundly hope that the Minister will say that he is prepared to accept them. I hope also that it will be possible to vote separately on the amendments.
      Mr. Jonathan Aitken: We are discussing a varied group of amendments. Their diversity means that it is open to the Home Secretary to divide and rule by seeking to make the point that there are differences of opinion among those who have tabled amendments. He will no doubt employ that tactic, but very much more unites us than divides us when it comes to the question of the type of oversight that we believe ought to be provided. It is natural that there should be some difference of emphasis as to the right form of oversight for the security services.
      My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will probably stick to his traditional guns and say that no oversight is necessary beyond the ministerial oversight that is provided by him and the Prime Minister. That view needs to be

      49
      challenged hard. Britain is now the only democracy in the English-speaking world that has no form of independent oversight of its security services. Today we are advancing arguments that one day are bound to triumph. In the light of experience, it is unacceptable for the Home Secretary of the day to continue to demand that he and he alone, with the assistance of the Prime Minister, should monitor and supervise our security services.
      The fact that we need some form of parliamentry oversight is arguable: whether it is parliamentary or political oversight, or the kind of oversight that is set out in the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), or the kind of oversight that is set out in my new clause 8, which focuses on the much narrower point of improving the management and efficiency of the Security Service by means of a security commission. One could argue that all these views fall within the criteria of the Secretary of State's three points that he says must be accepted before we can deal with any form of oversight of the Security Service.
      What do we mean by parliamentary oversight, as expressed by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)? He has put forward the idea of a Select Committee. He makes a valid point from which none of us as parliamentarians can shrink without a sense of shame—that it is almost inconceivable that Parliament could not produce a committee of discreet, silent, patriotic and responsible Members to exercise such a function. Of course, if we pick the right men and women, we can have a completely suitable committee.
      In the United States Senate and House, they have had parliamentary oversight, as we would call it, for some years now. It is true that there have been some unfortunate leaks from those committees, but often from staffers rather than Senators or Congressmen. It has happened, and we must concede that that has made some dent in the argument in favour of parliamentary oversight. However, the committees have done enormous good and they have been extremely effective at times.
      I should like to give a not unamusing example of the effectiveness of parliamentary oversight as exercised by the US Senate. I shall quote a small passage from Mr. Bob Woodward's riveting work, "Veil". Page 265 of the book deals with the attempt of Director Casey of the Central Intelligence Agency to organise a coup in the small country of Suriname, a former Dutch colony. He was unable to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee himself, so he sent his Deputy Director, Mr. McMahon. Mr. Woodward writes:
      "McMahon briefed the matter to the Senate Intelligence Committee. He was met by a chorus of 'You've got to be kidding.' Why several senators asked, is the Reagan Administration considering a coup in a country that has no significance? The Suriname people were primitive and gentle, much like Tahitians in the South Pacific. The population was about 350,000. That's the size of Tucson, Arizona. Goldwater, particularly, was incensed, declaring, 'That's the dumbest …idea I ever heard of in my life.'…
      It wasn't enough. After the briefing, the committee agreed to send a letter to protest to President Reagan, telling him of its opposition to covert action in Suriname.
      Goldwater sent a personal message to Reagan saying, in effect, 'Do you really need this?'…
      The plan was dropped, but McMahon was shaken up on the play. He rededicated himself to keeping the CIA out of comic-book operations."
      50
      I quote that passage as it is an illustration from the other side of the Atlantic of how a forceful parliamentary committee can keep the intelligence services out of what Mr. Woodward calls "comic-book operations". Comic-book operations have been undertaken by our security services, and not in the very distant past. The entire, extraordinary extravaganza of allegations concerning the former Prime Minister, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, are part of those comic-book operations, although they were not so comic for people at the receiving end, or those in the Government involved.
      The notion that there is good oversight of the security services even now is belied by an interesting letter which gives the game away about the total inadequacy, until extremely recently, of oversight by Ministers.
      5 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) tried to suggest that there has been only one little slip up in the past few years and that oversight is working well. Sir Robert Armstrong sent this letter, which is addressed to Mr. Day, a former Security Service official, and dated 29 January 1986. The point of the correspondence was that Mr. Day wished to send a memorandum on the need for improved oversight to various Members of Parliament and the Home Secretary. Sir Robert Armstrong was trying to persuade him not to send one, not because there was anything confidential in it but because the notion of oversight was somehow not welcome to Sir Robert Armstrong, then the Cabinet Secretary. The vital part of the letter reads:
      "And you would be taking this action at a time when more is being done to improve both the management of the service and the degree of awareness that some of us outside have of it than for many years past."
      In other words, Sir Robert Armstrong was saying that even people as close as the Cabinet Secretary have for many years past had no awareness, or no adequate awareness, of what is going on in the security services.
      The notion of ministerial or Cabinet Secretary oversight is therefore not a doctrine which can be sustained on the language of the letter signed as recently as 1986 by the Cabinet Secretary. We must try to move onwards from this stubborn, "They shall not pass" defence of Ministers who maintain that ministerial oversight works magnificently.
      Mr. Whitney: Is not my hon. Friend trying to have it both ways? I recall some time ago his paying tribute to what appeared, as far as we on the outside could see, to be a good shake-up in the security services conducted by Sir Antony Duff. We now have Sir Robert Armstrong referring to other improvements. Is that not to be welcomed? Are we not wrong to say, "My goodness, that shows how bad things are."?
      Yet again, my hon. Friend has dragged out the dreadful Mr. Wright. We should be clear that, immediately after the allegations about Lord Wilson surfaced, Lord Callaghan scotched them and said that there was nothing in them.
      Mr. Winnick: No, he did not.
      Mr. Whitney: With hindsight, when the Wright allegations were published, he said, I think rather meaningfully, that when it came to choosing between the official version and the Wright version, he had no doubt about which to believe.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Aitken: Of course.
      Mr. Rees: I do not know where to begin. I was involved in the inquiry. Later, when still an hon. Member of this House, Lord Callaghan said that the later revelations were not involved in the inquiry.
      Mr. Whitney: No. That is wrong.
      Mr. Rees: It is no use denying it—the hon. Member does not know because he was never in MI5.
      Mr. Winnick: He was in MI6, though.
      Mr. Rees: I do not know about that. The inquiry did not include those revelations. That is why Lord Callaghan asked for a further inquiry.
      Mr. Aitken rose—
      Mr. Whitney rose—
      Mr. Aitken: I give way to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Whitney: My hon. Friend is most kind. When referring to the Wright disclosures, Lord Callaghan also said that, given a choice between the Wright version and the official one, he was in no doubt about which to accept.
      Mr. Aitken: I seem to have stirred up a not insubstantial hornets nest. My argument was not based entirely on Mr. Peter Wright. Nevertheless, although he is not a completely accurate witness, he has left enough unanswered questions which what my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) calls Lord Callaghan's scotching has not entirely destroyed or diminished.
      We are arguing about various possible kinds of oversight. We could no doubt have lengthy debates on each of the amendments. There is some merit in the notion of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that the security services should report to a less busy Minister than the Home Secretary, but I do not think that that is entirely practical in the long term because the buck has ultimately to stop on someone's desk, and I think that the Home Secretary's is the right desk on which it should stop.
      The Home Secretary's position, however, unassisted by any kind of committee, and behind the barrier of secrecy in the House or anywhere else is not, I think, sustainable in the long run. Perhaps the greatest breakthrough in oversight that we have yet witnessed was in regard to the Bettaney case. An horrific series of blunders were revealed. Why was there any shake-up in the Security Service? Why were there improvements in personnel? I shall return to the subject when we discuss new clause 8, but they came about only because there was a degree of oversight, otherwise they would never have shown up on the radar screen.
      The Bettaney case illustrates only too clearly that a busy Home Secretary simply could not do his job properly, not because the Home Secretary was wrong but because the system that he was asked to operate was wrong. It is not that I do not trust my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister; I do not trust the system that they are trying to operate without any monitoring assistance from people such as a Canadian inspector general or a dedicated body of senior Members of Parliament.
      52
      We cannot for much longer continue defending the position that no change whatsoever is necessary. The present system does not work and some form of oversight is needed. The amendments attempt to introduce such a change and I am willing to support any proposal that makes sense.
      Mr. Rees: I seek to intervene simply because I am a member of a Select Committee. I shall have to leave soon and it is discourteous to speak only for a moment. I shall make one point which I would have developed at length.
      I do not know whether the amendments or the new clauses are the right way forward. However, I am concerned that security and the information available to various Home Secretaries is treated as if it were a party political matter. For example, the documents are provided by the Foreign Office to various Governments, but as soon as a new Government come into office, the documents are filed away and new documents with new references are provided for the incoming Foreign Secretary. They contain very much the same information but are produced on the ground that no information that was provided to the previous Government should be given to the new Government. Lord Carrington told the Select Committee that officials came to him and said, "We have never told you this before, sir, but in the previous Government in 1978"—in which the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was involved—"the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary of the day took a certain action that was reported to the defence and overseas policy committee, but you must not tell the new Government that it happened." That was done on the basis that political information is not provided to a new Administration.
      One of the problems for a Home Secretary or a Foreign Secretary is that information available about problems in MI5 and MI6 is not communicated to new Ministers. Therefore, when it came to appointing a new head of MI5, in which the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister play a part, we were not informed, but we now discover that in 1972 there was great concern in the Home Office about what was going on in MI5. The new Home Secretary was not told.
      Whatever new system we have, it should straddle Governments, and information should be available on a long-term basis. That is extremely important because security is not a party political matter. It is of the greatest importance and should not be treated in that way. Therefore, at the very least, if the Government will not agree to some of the proposals that have been suggested, I hope that in future, when one Home Secretary succeeds another, there will be discussions between the two. There are not a large number of officials involved. One could almost say that only one is involved. What is going on is generally kept away from the Home Office and only the Home Secretary and one official are involved. It is not a party political issue. At the moment the system is fragmented and, therefore, mistakes are made.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way—
      The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman said that his speech was an intervention. Now it seems that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make an intervention on an intervention.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Heffer: I find myself in some difficulty because I do not agree completely with the idea of a Select Committee or with the idea of Privy Councillors. I should like there to be a vote in the House to elect people to a review body. Who appoints the members of a Select Committee?
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: It is both sides.
      Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman says that it is both sides, but the Whips on both sides appoint hon. Members to Select Committees. In 24 years I have been selected once to serve on a Select Committee. That indicates that I have never been particularly popular with certain people. Such a system is not good enough.
      I believe that a genuine representative committee of Members should examine the security services. The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) spoke about comic-book operations. I should like to go back still further. I read an absolutely fascinating book entitled, "One Girl's War", in which the author described how during the early part of the war she and a gentleman went around burgling people's houses. One of the people they burgled was R. Palme Dutt, who was then a member of the Communist party. They thought that the innermost secrets of the Communist party at the time were hidden under his bed.
      Mr. Tony Banks: He kept them in his chamber pot.
      Mr. Heffer: They were not in his chamber pot.
      They went to his house and looked under his bed where they found a box which they thought contained all his innermost secrets. They got it out and inside they discovered his marriage lines. There cannot be anything more comic-book than that. That was a great discovery by MI5 at the time. One could go on about comic-book operations.
      I have often said that I am sure that my telephone is bugged. I have always thought that it was bugged. If it is not bugged, why is it that, every night at about 8.30 pm, my telephone rings once and does not ring again?
      Mr. Rupert Allason: In my experience, one's telephone service actually improves when there is a warrant on the line. The advantage is that a telephone engineer comes to fix the telephone before one has even reported it broken.
      Mr. Heffer: I did not say that my telephone service did not improve. However, I believe that my telephone has been bugged for a long time. Every night at about 8.30 pm my phone rings once, so my wife or I get up to answer it. I believe that it happens when one agent replaces another agent. What else can it be? It happens at exactly the same time every night. If our conversations are monitored, that is most remarkable because my wife's conversations with her mother must be very revealing, as must my conversations with my mother-in-law.
      I am sorry that we do not have a third course before us. That is my fault and that of my hon. Friends for not tabling one. I shall vote either for the Select Committee, which is an advance on the present system, or for the idea of a review committee composed mainly of Privy Councillors. However, I am not keen on Privy Councillors; they have more rights in this place than they are entitled to have—
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: Perhaps I did not explain my admendment very well. The Privy Councillors who will be appointed will be ordinary people from outside the House—following the Canadian experience—who, when they have been found acceptable to the Government, will be brought within the circle of secrecy. Such people might include a distinguished lawyer or the chairman of the National Council for Civil Liberties. If they were considered acceptable within the circle of confidence, they would be made Privy Councillors. So they would not necessarily be Members of Parliament.
      Mr. Heffer: I support the hon. Gentleman's view up to a point, but whether they come from inside or outside the House, I am not particularly enamoured of Privy Councillors. Once they get to that position they have certain rights and privileges beyond those possessed by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and myself. They become tied into something that is not necessarily right.
      Perhaps we should include a few trade unionists, or even members of my constituency party. That would be interesting. If it came down to it, I would vote for the Select Committee option, which is better than the proposal of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills.
      Mr. Norman Buchan: Why not include some ex-members of the Communist party, since they know how the system works?
      Mr. Tony Banks: Such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).
      Mr. Heffer: There are more ex-members of the Communist party than members. There are probably more ex-members of that party than members of any political party in the world.
      I shall go along with the idea proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about a Select Committee. We must have some form of control over the security services. No one can be happy about what they have done in the past. It is astonishing to read about what happened in the time of the Labour Government and Prime Minister Lord Wilson—I forget his exact title in the House of Lords, which does not matter, as I am never likely to get there myself—
      Mr. Winnick: Why not?
      Mr. Heffer: Because I do not intend to go there; I do not believe in it.
      As I said, we need control. New clause 2 specifies the need for
      "review of the budget and annual total expenditure of the Service".
      That is vital. Who knows what the budget is now? What is the money used for?
      I was a Minister in a Labour Government. I have never forgotten the interesting experience I had when someone from the security services gave me and my colleagues a lecture about how careful we had to be not to be influenced by East European countries. I said that I did not disagree, but asked whether that applied equally to the Americans. There was dead silence. Why should not such an injunction apply as much to the Americans as to the Russians?
      Mr. Maclennan: Has the hon. Gentleman read the account by the late Mr. William Clark, vice-president of

      55
      the World Bank and formerly Anthony Eden's private secretary, detailing the similar advice that he was given when being cleared with the security services? It was provided by the late Mr. Donald Maclean.
      Mr. Heffer: That underlines my point. For a long time I have believed that there should be an international meeting of the world's spies at which they should hand over their information to each other. That would save a lot of problems and expense.
      Why should we get involved in this sort of nonsense? Why should not the Americans be involved in industrial espionage? Why should they not be interested in what is going on in the Department of Trade and Industry? Why should we be as close friends of the Americans as we are distant enemies of the Soviet Union? The quicker we examine these issues and institute an annual report to the House so that we can know what the security services are doing—and who they consider our enemies—the better.
      Who are the subversives whom the services will scrutinise? The likes of me? I remember working as a joiner in the Liverpool office of the special branch. One of the special branch officers told me that the special branch had my record. And what was my record? I had been chairman of the Liverpool trades council, and a senior shop steward in Cammell Laird's shipyard and on big industrial sites. I had been blacklisted by the Economic League. What sort of record was that? 1 was an ordinary working fellow who left the forces in 1945 and went to work at my trade as a carpenter and joiner and I was examined by the special branch because I happened to be a Left-wing member of the Labour party.
      Who are the enemies? I agree with the proposals for a review body or Select Committee because we need to know whom the security services are looking at, and why. Are we really concerned about the undermining of our national security or about people inside the country who may be dissidents? I once had an argument about Solidarity in the Polish embassy with the Polish ambassador. He told me that, by going on strike, Solidarity members were undermining the economy of the country. I said that that sounded like Mrs. Thatcher's way of talking. Solidarity members were regarded as the enemy within and no doubt were being watched by the Polish security services.
      My hon. Friends are right to put forward their amendment, because we must get this whole issue into perspective—
      Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the members of Solidarity did not have a commission or tribunal to look into their complaints and determine whether they were justified in complaining about breaches of civil liberties? They had no such body to decide whether an investigation was necessary. None of those safeguards is built into that sort of situation, but they are clearly built into the Bill, irrespective of the amendment that the hon. Gentleman supports.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Heffer: The Poles have what they probably call the Minister of the Interior, but we call such a Minister the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State and the Minister of the Interior in Poland have exactly the same role and decide matters on behalf of their respective Governments.
      56
      That is not good enough, because it is not democratic. Why should we say that because the Poles do not have something we should not have it either?
      If we must have a Secretary of State we should have a Select Committee or a security review body that would have some control or influence over the Minister of the Interior—in this case the Secretary of State. That is what it is all about. If Conservative Members do not understand that, they have never really understood the ABC of democratic rights, because that is what democratic rights are all about. As a Member of Parliament I have more privileges and rights than some other people, but we are talking about the ordinary subject having the right to query what is going on, where he stands, and whether he has an interest in this question. That is what the whole subject is about.
      I do not know enough about Australia to pass a judgment on what has been done there, but I suspect that it is probably a damn sight better than what we are getting. We cannot accept the Government's proposals as they stand. We are to have an apparent betterment of the situation by putting it in the hands of the Secretary of State, but that is not good enough because it puts the security services in the hands of the Government. Who is to say that the Government will not use the security services in their own interests and against the interests of the majority of society?
      We need a Select Committee and if we cannot get it we need at least a review body. I should prefer a wider review body than the one that is proposed and I accept that we should have done something about that by putting down our own amendment. I shall vote for the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) because a Select Committee would be far better than what is proposed. I am worried about a Bill that makes the position worse, or at least no better. Our people want something better and want to see greater control over the security services.
      Mr. William Powell: In a perfect world gentlemen would not read other gentlemen's correspondence, as the former Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson said. However, we do not live in a perfect world and agents from hostile powers have attempted to penetrate this country in war and in peace in the 20th century. It is right that we should have security services to protect the interests of our people by way of counter-intelligence—to imagine anything else is naive.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) made a valuable point when he talked about the means by which hon. Members would be nominated to the Select Committee, which is the main proposal by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). New clause 5 tabled by the Opposition refers to the members of the Committee being appointed by the Prime Minister and not by the Select Committee on Selection. For some people that may be a fine distinction, but in my experience where patronage resides in the hands of the Prime Minister it is by invitation, whereas those who might not be nominated by means of invitation can at least apply to the Select Committee on Selection and will be considered to find out whether they are appropriate people to sit on the Committee. In talking about new clause 5 the hon. Member for Walton made it clear that the Opposition are talking about prime ministerial patronage and nothing else.

      57
      The amendments and new clauses offer us a choice of what is proposed by Treasury Ministers—which I warmly support as I told the House on Second Reading—the Canadian model advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), or the Select Committee. The Committee would be entirely right to consider some of the background to the Select Committee proposal before passing judgment upon it.
      When the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook spoke on Second Reading he confided to the House that which he had confided in the debate on the Gracious Speech and on television—that originally he had hoped to be able to support the legislation to put the Security Service on a statutory basis. Not unnaturally, he said at the same time that he would wish to see the Bill and that his view would be subject to the small print. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke in the debate on the Gracious Speech the Bill had already been published, and I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman had taken advantage of that prior publication to satisfy himself on its contents.
      When the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook spoke on Second Reading, he said that he would be unable to support the Government because there was a fatal flaw in the Bill—that no provision had been made for parliamentary scrutiny. Of course it is abundantly clear that the right hon. Gentleman knew that when he spoke on Second Reading and on television. It was already plain that there was no provision for parliamentary scrutiny and it was therefore extraordinary for him to say that, subject to provisions of the Bill, he hoped to support the Government. We subsequently learnt that he found some fundamental defects in the Bill which were there all the time.
      That is amazing and I am forced to conclude that the right hon. Gentleman discovered, not for the first time in this Session, that his original line was proving less popular with his hon. Friends than he had anticipated. He therefore decided to back track and come forward with the preposterous idea that the Bill was fundamentally flawed because there was no provision for a Select Committee. Of course one can take that a step further. Since 1979, from time to time the Government have commented on suggestions that there might be provision for Select Committee oversight, but not once since 1979 have any of my right hon. Friends in the Treasury made the slightest suggestion that the Government would favour such a scheme.
      The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) made a valuable point, but for some reason it was overlooked by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook when he tried to pull together all the reasons for having a Select Committee. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South said that the proposal would provide an element of continuity, which the right hon. Gentleman advised us was much needed, from one Government to another. He said that a decisive reason in his mind for supporting a Select Committee was that element of continuity.
      In the circumstances, it is amazing that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook did not advance that argument. It is a convincing argument not for a Select Committee, but for improving the management of the security services. I am satisfied that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister
      58
      and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have, as a result of some of the events of the past few years, taken decisive steps to ensure that they are not placed in precisely the same position as the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South said he was in from time to time.
      The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook told us of his support for the judiciary, which is no more and no less than one would have expected from him. However, he then criticised the charge that was made to the jury by Mr. Justice McCowan in the Ponting case, and expressed his fear that the Government would appoint only docile judges to be the person behind the Home Secretary of the day. Mr. Justice McCowan made that charge after full legal argument. It has not been challenged in the courts and there is not the slightest doubt that it remains until it is overruled either by Parliament, in the authority of legislation, or by the appeal courts, in an accurate statement of what the law of the country is in this matter. There is no escaping that.
      However, we have experience of judicial review of the security services because the Security Commission is overseen by a judge. I pay tribute to the work by Lord Diplock, Lord Bridge, the present judicial figure, Lord Justice Lloyd and Lord Justice Griffiths. Governments of all kinds have done well in their choice of senior judicial figures to carry out this onerous and responsible work. It does no credit to the House that we should seek, in a backhanded way, to suggest that the Government appoint only docile judges when there is no evidential basis for that allegation.
      There has been criticism—by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and by the hon. Member for Walton—of the suggestion that Privy Councillors should play a pre-eminent role. I concur with what they said. One of the trends in the development of our parliamentary institution is away from over-reliance upon senior and often rather remote figures from the past who happen to have been made Privy Councillors at some time, which gives them a special ability to judge these matters. I hope that we shall not seek to establish special committees of Privy Councillors to oversee these matters.
      On the basis of experience, only three Members of Parliament are qualified—my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. Members for Morley and Leeds, South and for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), although the latter has served neither as Prime Minister nor Home Secretary. That is a limited pool. Others have become Privy Councillors because of their experience in social security, education and other subjects, but not because of their experience in security. It would be unfortunate if we were to go down that line.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I hope that my hon. Friend's remarks were not addressed to new clause 2, the whole purpose of which is the appointment of individuals who are seen to be independent. The way to bring them within the circle of secrecy is to make them Privy Councillors subsequently. They do not have to be Privy Councillors to start with. That is the route that the Canadians have followed. Therefore, the point about them being burnt out cases or old politicians need not necessarily apply.
      Mr. Powell: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, which is that the oversight need not necessarily be parliamentary oversight. On the Canadian basis, it can be independent

      59
      from Parliament. In an argument as to whether the scrutiny should come from inside or outside Parliament, I have a marginal preference for the former. On the other hand, I do not regard that as a decided argument for setting up a Select Committee. We are back to the argument of those who are within the bounds of secrecy and can be told everything, but can reveal nothing, and those who are outside, who can be told nothing, or very little, and whose usefulness is therefore limited. For that reason, it has been widely canvassed, although I am not persuaded, that the Opposition have taken on board the weighty arguments that were advanced on Second Reading.
      I hope that the House will decisively reject the approach of both sets of amendments.
      5.45 pm
      Dr. David Owen: The aim of the Bill is to put MI5 on a statutory basis and the time has come to do that. Indeed, perhaps it is a little late. Therefore, I support the Bill.
      However, in passing the Bill, Parliament will be accepting that the Home Secretary will have to ratify, from time to time, action by MI5 that would normally be illegal. He will have to agree to acts taken in the national interest that will perhaps involve burglary, entering the premises of a citizen or somebody living in the country, and perhaps other practices that are, in normal circumstances, outside the law. Therefore, it seems both reasonable and rational that a democratic Parliament should consider to how much scrutiny these actions should be subjected by this or any future Home Secretary.
      The central point is that, in a democracy, Parliament is charged with the scrutiny of the Executive. In this case, Parliament is charged with the scrutiny of the Home Secretary. Surely Parliament must satisfy itself about those democratic controls. The Security Service is unique, because the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, who also bears responsibility for MI5, have made it clear, as have their predecessors over many decades, that they will not answer questions on the Floor of the House about matters relating to MI5. That is right. We cannot subject the Security Service to the detailed scrutiny to which we subject all other actions in all other departments of the Executive.
      A broad range of opinion in the House believes that it is reasonable to take scrutiny of the Security Service off the Floor of the House. However, over the years, because a substantial number of parliamentarians have been dissatisfied about the control and scrutiny of the Executive, they have more often sought to discuss these matters on the Floor of the House. As a result, there has been increasing public speculation about MI5 in newspapers, on the radio and on television. Some of that has been detrimental to the conduct of the Security Service.
      A growing body of people believe that if one could satisfy Parliament, we would find it easier to revert to the previous practice of not having this form of discussion and would accept a greater control of discussions in the media about MI5's activities. None of the amendments and new clauses is perfect, although I do not complain about that, as these issues would normally be dealt with by discussions between the Government and the Opposition parties. Of them all, I find myself much more in agreement with new
      60
      clause 5 and its consequent amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). That group focuses on Parliament. It is probably unwise to focus only on the House of Commons. The other place also has a contribution to make.
      It would not worry me unduly if the Government of the day decided that they would satisfy Parliament not within the sphere of a Select Committee or a parliamentary commission, but through the mechanism assembled for the Franks committee. I would put up with that. However, the mechanism must satisfy Parliament.
      There is one absolute criterion. The committee must include a number of hon. Members because the House of Commons is the pre-eminent body and must be satisfied. I could live with it if it included some Lords or some external members—perhaps it would be chaired in the early days by an independent person such as a member of the judiciary—but the crucial test is whether it will satisfy Parliament. Would Parliament then be prepared to allow the matter to be conducted with a considerable measure of necessary secrecy?
      The Government must readdress the problem. I shall support the Bill without there being parliamentary scrutiny, although that is a major omission. This would be an appropriate point at which to introduce such scrutiny, but, as we well know, it is not just a question of the security services; the wider gamut of Government should also be subjected to scrutiny. The matter could be dealt with much better by a resolution from the House, prepared with as much all-party agreement as possible, instead of the absurd situation in which we may be in different Lobbies although agreeing on the basics.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) will not press his amendment to a vote. I would support it, but I do not like having to vote on two amendments with both of which I am in broad agreement. It would be far better just to concentrate on the amendment of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and give an indication to the Government that we want some form of parliamentary scrutiny.
      Let me deal with the question of Privy Councillors. Again, I prefer the amendment of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook which does not refer to Privy Councillors. The need for Privy Councillors is a technical point. It is referred to specifically in Canada for the same reason as in this country. Most democratic Parliaments, certainly this one, have objected to their Members being positively vetted. We can choose. We either have positive vetting of Members of Parliament, in which case we do not need the device of the Privy Council, or we retain the Privy Council. We need co-operation with the FBI and any other friendly Governments. It has been agreed with the Americans over many decades that they accept people who are members of the Privy Council as having been, in effect, positively vetted. That was the compromise achieved when we had the problem of dealing with security information between the United States and ourselves and there was a refusal of positive vetting for Members of Parliament. No doubt the Canadian Government have much the same understanding. That is the only reason; there is no mystery about it.
      I agree that we cannot have only old lags, people such as me, who have been in Government. There must be an injection of new blood if Parliament is to feel confident. The people concerned must have the confidence of the Leader of the Opposition. From time to time, it is likely that the Leader of the Opposition would want to nominate

      61
      someone who had not been in Government and could not, therefore, be a Privy Councillor. Provided that the Prime Minister of the day was satisfied with the person nominated, he or she would be made a Privy Councillor, as was recommended by the Franks committee.
      I believe that I am right in saying that a former civil servant, who is now a distinguished master of Oxford college, Sir Patrick Nairne, was not a Privy Councillor. He was made a Privy Councillor for the purposes of the Franks inquiry. He had to be made a Privy Councillor because he would see information from intelligence sources which might well have come from other countries. There was a particularly delicate point relating to the Franks inquiry. It inquired into actions and papers that had gone to previous Government. That was one of the sensitivities of the inquiry and explains why a unique arrangement was produced.
      The fundamental issue is secrecy. The Home Secretary has always used the formula of whether a person can be taken behind the wall of secrecy. He would, therefore, be unable to divulge to the House all the information that is available to him. That is the purpose of the provision. The House of Commons is effectively saying that, as a body of 650 Members, we cannot go behind the wall of secrecy. We understand that. We shall not even be allowed to question the Home Secretary on the Floor of the House. All we are asking is that some of our trusted Members may, on a non-party basis, go behind the wall of secrecy and, thereby, constitute a form of scrutiny, not of control or of day-to-day involvement.
      Ministers who have held responsibility in this area would find it beneficial to know that they could be scrutinised and questioned by their fellow parliamentarians on these matters and they would not fear that. Decisions about control in such areas have been made personally by Home Secretaries for many years. Such decisions are not even delegated to junior Ministers. There is a parallel with the Civil Service, but Ministers would welcome the opportunity of going to a wider body for discussion about the general principles. Scrutiny of the expenditure vote associated with MI5 could also be included in this.
      Mr. Whitney: On the question of acceptance by the House of the oversight of a scrutiny committee, will the right hon. Gentleman consider what happened to the Public Accounts Committee and its Chairman, who is a distinguished Privy Councillor from the Opposition, when he was taken behind the scenes of the Zircon affair? His judgment was not accepted by the members of his Committee and was, therefore, a fortiori, unlikely to be accepted by the whole House. Was not that a demonstration of the problem that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to sweep aside?
      Dr. Owen: Surely the Chairman of the PAC is vested by the House with responsibility for financial, not security, matters. In that case, he was asked to go into an area which was not his responsibility. If we vested responsibility for security matters in certain people, we should have to accept that they would not be able to tell us about their investigations. There is nothing new about that. It happens in most democratic Parliaments. The House of Representatives and the Senate are thought of as pure
      62
      bodies, but there are Whips there, too. As the seniority rule has been abandoned, there is a great deal of wheeling and dealing among Members there.
      This is a solvable problem if the Government of the day and the Opposition parties want to solve it. We are all arguing on the same side. We want to increase national security. We want the Security Service to function effectively. We want MI5 to be respected and trusted. All those things will come about when the House is able to feel once again sufficiently confident about the running of MI5 to trust the Home Secretary and others so that they do not have to reveal information in public about that service. That will come eventually. It has been held up largely by the Prime Minister's obduracy. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that the day is coming when some form of independent parliamentary scrutiny of the security services will come about. I look forward to that day. It will enrich this House when it comes, and I hope that it will be sooner rather than later.
      6 pm
      Mr. Allason: There appears to be a great gap between the accountability of the Home Secretary and the lack of any role for a supervising committee of the House or one outside it and it seems that three options are available to us. One is a Select Committee under new clause 5. The second is a broader group of Privy Councillors under new clause 2. The third is to take the Government's line and to say that no supervision or accountability is needed because we already have accountability in the form of the Home Secretary.
      The reason why we are discussing the issue, and part of the reason why the Government have produced the Bill, is that Home Secretaries have historically been unable to exercise the necessary control. I do not want to delve back into history, but I believe that the current Home Secretary and his predecessor are to be congratulated. As far as I am aware, they are the first two Home Secretaries who have taken an interest in the Security Service. Until fairly recent times the attitude of the Home Secretary has been, "I do not wish to know about these things." When Security Service officers have had to conduct some clandestine entry they have obtained permission, but have done so through the Permanent Under-Secretary. I know that on at least one occasion the Home Secretary was consulted, but that was on the basis that he could more or less deny that he knew what was going to happen if anything went wrong.
      Here we have the problem. Either we have some form of accountability or we do not. I may be completely wrong in my opinion of why the Government have introduced the Bill and I may be misjudging them. They may have other motives and reasons for bringing it forward. It has been suggested that the Government have been obliged to introduce it because of an impending hearing before the European Court. Another explanation is the rather distressing disclosure or admission last year that officers of the Security Service who conducted clandestine operations were not authorised to do so, having been told from 1909 that they were, and did not have the authority of the royal prerogative to break the law. We know now that officers are equal under the law, and perhaps that is as it should be. Perhaps that is the Government's motive in bringing forward the Bill.

      63
      I have never been an advocate of any sort of parliamentary oversight. That is partly because I have been persuaded by members of the agencies that that oversight does not work. In America, there was great anxiety in the intelligence community in the immediate post-Watergate era that politicians would interfere and that the system would go badly wrong. It was felt that officers would be inhibited from conducting operations. It seems that that has not happened.
      We have had also the examples of Australia and Canada. The experience in those two countries has been broadly beneficial. Last year, I had long discussions with members of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, CSIS, and I have been in touch with the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation, ASIO. Their experiences have been good ones, although they had been extremely worried.
      One wonders why the Home Secretary appears to be so determined not to share the burdens of his office. It has been said several times that he has many responsibilities that cover a range of issues. It has been questioned whether he would sleep easier in his bed at night in the knowledge that there was a group with which he could share the burden of his responsibilities. He has spoken about the wall of secrecy, and that is a valid argument, but the time has come when we must bring a trusted group behind the wall of secrecy.
      As I said, I have never been an advocate of oversight or supervision, but I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) when he said we are the last to be left without any sort of supervision mechanism, and that sooner or later we shall have one. I am persuaded by my hon. Friend. A few years ago I found myself in trouble for advocating the appointment of an individual who I chose to describe as a non-executive director of the Security Service. I envisaged that someone in that position would sit in on the decisions of the Security Service but would be independent and would act as a safety valve. I found myself in considerable trouble when I advocated that in 1981.
      Last year I was in touch with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Although he was sympathetic and always courteous, he gave the view that what I advocated was not on. I find to my astonishment that the appointment of a non-executive director, inspector general or commissioner, call him what you will, has suddenly become Government policy. It seems that a few Conservative Members, including myself, are slightly ahead of their time in advocating some form of oversight. I was not convinced until recently that oversight was necessary, but I was persuaded that it was by the annual report of the CSIS. It is a remarkable document and I hope that it will become the basis of the document that the commissioner or commissioners will have to supply to the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. I hope also that a part of the document—whatever can be published subject to security provisions—will be supplied to the rest of the public.
      We are left with options. We can accept the Home Secretary's word that things are safe in his hands and that, although there may have been one or two awkward problems in the past, there is accountability through him. Alternatively, we can opt for one of the two new clauses, or both of them.
      Mr. Aitken: Given my hon. Friend's great knowledge of the security world, is he able to confirm something which
      64
      I believe to be true? Does my hon. Friend know that three former directors of the Security Service have in various ways supported a form of oversight for our security services? If he feels that that is true or likely to be true, does it not add to the growing chorus of those who say that it is inevitable that oversight will be introduced sooner or later, even if the Government have to be kicked good and hard to get them to accept that?
      Mr. Allason: To my knowledge, two former directors general of the Security Service have said that they would not object to a degree of oversight, but in the immortal words of the late Lord Astor, "Well, they would, wouldn't they?" They are not likely to say to a parliamentarian that they distrust politicians, disapprove of parliamentary Committees or do not like the idea of a Select Committee.
      It is my experience that members of the intelligence community in the United Kingdom are pretty well opposed to any form of oversight. The senior management was brought kicking and screaming to the appointment of Sir Philip Woodfield. That concession was granted after much difficult discussion. It was finally agreed that some form of safety valve was needed internally so that individuals could let off steam without having to go public, as had happened previously.
      My opposition to oversight in the past has been the practicalities of it. Is it likely that a committee would be consulted if MI5 decided that it wanted, for example, to mount a coup in Surinam? I very much doubt whether that would happen and it would be very difficult to enforce. Would such a committee prevent comic-book operations? Again, I very much doubt it.
      We have heard glowing tributes to the Security Commission. However, why was the Security Commission created in the first place? It was because a series of monumental blunders had occurred. Several things went very badly wrong and a series of committees were created. Eventually it was decided that there should be a permanent standing Security Commission. However, that organisation is treated with derision within the Security Service. The Security Commission has been described to me as "a stable door operation."
      On occasions the Security Commission has been completely misled. Should any of my colleagues say that that is disgraceful and that they take the Security Commission quite seriously, can they tell me why the Government have consistently ignored its recommendations? In particular, it ignored the introduction of polygraph testing for certain types of access to top secret atomic information. That recommendation was made in the wake of the Geoffrey Prime affair. The Government have done nothing about that recommendation. Recently the Government sneaked past an announcement, which hardly anyone noticed, that polygraph testing in the Security Service had in some way failed and that there was no chance of the Security Commission's recommendation being introduced.
      There are numerous other historical examples of the Security Commission being deliberately misled. Perhaps the most recent example was over the Michael Bettaney case. I am sorry to labour my point, but the Secretary of State cannot tell us that everything is safe in his hands. Although we trust him, believe him and know that he has taken an interest in these matters and visited MI5

      65
      headquarters—and that was a great step forward and good for morale—in the past accountability simply has not worked.
      It is no good saying that we have marvellous accountability when any hon. Member who gets to his feet and tries to ask a question or even tries to write to the Secretary of State on this issue is told that it is out of order for any such questions to be tabled or discussed. I do not call that accountability.
      There is a tremendous gap and I am a very late convert to the introduction of some kind of oversight or scrutiny. I know that in due course we will hear assurances from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, I hope that he will have taken the trouble to consider how his predecessors have fared. I should be delighted to give my right hon. Friend chapter and verse, should he wish it. about cases in which his predecessors were actively misled. Appointing a docile or other member of the judiciary to consider the matter or to look over my right hon. Friend's shoulder has not worked. The experience of Lord Denning's case springs to mind in that respect.
      I urge the House to consider seriously voting for new clause 2 or new clause 5, or both of them. Although there may be some opposition within the intelligence community to begin with, I recommend hon. Members to examine the Canadian and Australian experiences. I should be delighted to contribute my copy of the annual report of the Canadian security and intelligence review committee to the Library so that hon. Members may be persuaded of my case.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Buchan: We should not consider this Bill in isolation. It is part of a series of measures dealing with secrecy and intelligence. The Bill's provisions run across all the anxiety that has been expressed about governmental secrecy over the past few years. The "Spycatcher" revelations aroused expectations. A great deal of money was wasted over two years waiting for the "Spycatcher" judgment. The revelations did not shatter Western democracy. The rest of the world knew what had happened, but we went through a charade.
      As we witnessed the "Spycatcher" revelations, there was an expectation that the Home Secretary might listen to what the Law Lords said about the judgment. He has ignored their advice in the new Official Secrets Bill. The picture of MI5 bungling, burglaring and bugging in London, whether true or not, hardly brought credit to the Security Service or to this country. We expected some action to be taken.
      The action that has been taken is to make the activities of the Security Service legal, but to leave its control in the hands of the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, both of whom are already pledged to secrecy. While there was an expectation that MI5 would be made more accountable, we hoped that it would be made more democratically accountable. We did not expect its behaviour simply to be sanctified in law and leave the same apparatus of secrecy in existence.
      We must also bear in mind the fact that the purpose of secrecy is presumably to defend the secrecy of the secret service. That has not been very successful, has it? What about Burgess, Philby and Maclean? It has not been such
      66
      a successful apparatus that it should be kept so secret. It has not worked even from a practical, sensible, material point of view.
      The Bill is faulty on several counts. It fails to deal with the security weaknesses in the intelligence services over the past couple of decades. The Bill is also lacking in its response to the question of making the behaviour of MI5 accountable. "Spycatcher" made serious statements. It was not a very important book. Its importance is that it made us aware of such an extent of obsession in the Government that they were prepared to humiliate their most senior civil servant over the years. That obsession probably raised our consciousness and anxiety about these issues.
      "Spycatcher" also made certain suggestions and allegations about the behaviour of MI5 in relation to the Governments of the day and specifically in relation to the Government of Harold Wilson. While the book was not very important, it alerted people to certain things and made an accusation which had to be dealt with. We still have had no inquiry into the astonishing accusation that sections of MI5 believed that part of their job was to subvert Governments.
      We must also consider the apparent belief, particularly of the Prime Minister and perhaps of the Home Secretary, that they accept the judgment in the Ponting case—and I do not mean the jury's judgment, but the judge's judgment—that the interests of the state and of the Government of the day were synonymous. Those factors are not incorporated in the series of discussions in relation to the Official Secrets Bill and this Bill today. The Ministers themselves were subject to pressure, which is why the Bill was introduced—but we cannot see it as anything other than a whitewashing operation.
      I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), partly because we have the same political background and experience. I had been only a short time in the House when I was made a Minister in charge of Scottish home affairs, and therefore in charge of Scotland's police. A few years later, I took a short holiday in Skye, where a friend by the name of Brian Wilson, who is now the Member of Parliament for Cunninghame, North, was editing a paper to which I had given some help in the past. One morning, on our way to a village shop, my hon. Friend told me, "An interesting chap runs the shop. He was a police inspector in Glasgow. I believe that he knows you. His name is Robertson, and he was involved in special branch."
      When we entered the shop, a slow smile spread across the face of the man behind the counter, and he said to my hon. Friend, "You are in bad company." I laughed, and replied, "I suppose you knew me before, when I was in charge of the police for two or three years." He answered, "No, I knew you a long time before that." He knew that I had been a member of the Communist party. I was a very innocent member of that party, in the sense of any secret activities. My main job was to educate people in Socialist philosophies. I spent most my time doing that, and occasionally whitewashing the streets with good slogans.
      In the context of a former Prime Minister, we know that the concept of the security services—of special branch and of MI5—extends a great deal further than issues of state secrecy, in which they have not been very successful. Therefore, we must examine also how the Security Service

      67
      will be controlled under its new legislation. We note that, under clause 1(2), a function of the service will be to protect against
      "actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means."
      That emanates from a Prime Minister who describes the miners as the enemy within. So we have reason for not permitting the legalisation of Secret Service activities to be left in the hands of a Home Secretary or Prime Minister—particularly the present Prime Minister.
      Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend refers to targeting when he was in the Communist party. Whatever may have been the rights or wrongs at that time, when the British Communist party's first loyalty was to the Soviet Union and not to Britain—it has changed somewhat in the last few years—it is more disturbing that at present, as Cathy Massiter revealed, people involved in mainstream organisations also are being targeted. The only reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) was targeted was that she held down the job of legal officer of the National Council for Civil Liberties. No one claimed she was trying to overthrow parliamentary democracy.
      Mr. Buchan: Part of the problem occurs the moment one tries defining the role of the Security Service in protecting the state or even parliamentary democracy, because we may wish to change the nature of parliamenary democracy.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has no great love for the House of Lords, and he made a number of strange allies in preventing the Lords from having greater powers. As a junior Minister, sometimes I had to reply to my right hon. Friend and to prove, in my inept way, why he might be wrong. It was not a pleasant task, because he was absolutely right. What will happen if we want to change the present parliamentary democracy but leave matters to a democratically uncontrolled body that believes such change is
      "to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political…means"?
      Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend goes to the centre of the conflict that could arise. There is the assumption in the amendments that there is a consensus within and across the House about what constitutes the national interest. What exactly is meant by loyalty to a particular system? The politics divide us. The Opposition are concerned that the Government so often view national interests as being the interests of the Government, and therefore of the Tory party.
      Mr. Buchan: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was in the Chamber when I started my speech, but almost the first point I made was that the Government accept the proposition put by the judge to the jury in the Ponting case that the interests of the state are the interests of the Government of the day. The good, common-sense jury said, "We are not having that." The judge clearly directed the jury to return a guilty verdict, but they would have none of it. The Government have not even taken on board the judgment of those 12 good men and true—people speaking on behalf of Britain—that it is ridiculous and dangerous to draw the analogy made by the judge in that case, and of a kind so often made by judges. One should never look for too much wisdom below a wig.
      68
      We are dealing with profound matters requiring a form of democratic accountability. We cannot leave them only to a Home Secretary and to a Prime Minister, to whom he will report. Nor can those matters be dealt with by a commissioner charged with dealing with problems as they arise. The parallel Official Secrets Bill automatically makes illegal action such as that of which Ponting was found to be innocent. Such a person will no longer be saved by normal British justice, with 12 good men and true saying, "Your judgment is nonsense, m'lud." The Government are making it inevitable that someone in a Ponting situation will automatically be found guilty. That is the apparatus of secrecy that is developing.
      We must ask ourselves what is so good about the present system of secrecy, which has not worked and has produced more leaks than ever. Enormous damage has been done to the nation by accepting the policies of successive Governments over the past 25 years. If there is to be a system of control, it must be realised that one man sitting on the Treasury Bench, any more than one judge, is no more capable of reaching the right solutions than any other individual. Instead, the system must be brought under the control of people outside the Executive, who can examine, scrutinise and judge it. That more and more powers are being given to the Executive by Bills of this kind is a matter of serious concern.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) welcomes the Bill on the ground that at least it legalises certain security activities. However, there will be greater dangers if we cannot bring those activities under democratic control, especially given not just the incidence of bugging and burglary but the development of new techniques and technologies for the acquisition of information and knowledge. My hon. Friend the Member for Walton said that he knew he was being bugged because at 8.30 every night his telephone rang once. I believe that even MI5 are efficient enough to vary the time, but I have no doubt that he was bugged, with MI5 sharing the Government's attitude in the past. Such abuses can be overcome only by bringing the service's activities under democratic control. It is a question of making MI5's activities not simply legal, but accountable.
      As to the argument about the two kinds of committee, I hope that when Conservative Members enter the Lobby tonight they will acknowledge the point made by many of their hon. Friends—that the Security Service must be subject to a form of responsible scrutiny. I do not understand why those who are so supportive of the American system in other areas are not openly equally supportive of America's system of openness on security matters.
      It is not just a question of such matters being brought into Senate and Congressional activity, but of the openness with which that is done. Within months of Colonel North's being accused of funding the Contras, he was not only in front of a Congressional committee—not only in front of five good men and true, whether privy councillors or not; he was in front of the television cameras and the American nation, and, although he exploited his position, the people were able to make a judgment. It is a question not merely of the immediate structure but of the apparatus of democracy beyond that, and we do not have a very good democracy here. We are asked to support

      69
      parliamentary democracy, but we have one of the weakest democracies in the West, and it is becoming even weaker and more dangerous.
      6.30 pm
      The present Government and Prime Minister have discovered that the sovereignty of Parliament for which many of us have argued for so long as against formal structures—"Leave it to Parliament"—can swiftly become the sovereignty of the Executive.
      Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend's points confirm my belief that he is one of the wisest Members of the House. Although I am a stern critic of United States foreign policy, particularly in respect of central America, I am also a great admirer of the openness of a political system that allows someone like Oliver North to come before the Senate. If that happened in this country, I doubt whether we would even hear about it, and if we heard about it there would be nothing that we could do about it.
      Mr. Buchan: I doubt very much whether either Irangate or Watergate would have been divulged in this country, but I am equally sure that if they had been we would not have been able to draw our own conclusions and take the necessary measures. The United States may be a reactionary country in many ways, but it is immensely open compared with ours. The fact that people can make wrong judgments is not a reason for preventing the opportunity to make them. That is the only place where safety lies, and it is safety that we are talking about—not just the safety of the nation's intelligence and security, but that of democracy.
      Looking at the past 10 years, we see openness, discussion, scrutiny, understanding and awareness being limited day after day by legal action and other intervention. Let us consider what happened following the "Death on the Rock" incident. Not only did the Government pull in one of our leading Sunday papers, God help us—with Andrew Neil taking time off from trying to damage the schools in my constituency, because he went to one of them, to try to rubbish broadcasts. They also formed a subcommittee to rubbish the evidence brought forward in the programme about the Gibraltar incident.
      The weakness of the popular media is exposed when they are controlled by three people. Terror has been inspired in broadcasters by the intervention of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) over Libya, and the general pressure being brought by Government. Self-censorship is creeping in, and the media are becoming increasingly unable to perform their role. The British democratic system cannot develop means of scrutiny over the Executive. On top of that, we have an Executive willing to exploit the position—to use friendship and its power over the media—not only to prevent things from being known but to support what is wrong, evil and undemocratic.
      Once upon a time we had an independent voice on the Right in Lord Beaverbrook and the Daily Express, and an independent and iconoclastic voice on the Left in the Daily Mirror. Now we have toadies in the Executive. We have a broadcasting system that is frightened into removing controversy, and we are about to sell it out to commercial interests which have already subverted our popular press.
      70
      We cannot hand over legality to the security services—with all the authority that that gives—and leave control, understanding and knowledge solely in the hands of the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. Some method must be found for scrutiny to take place.
      It has been suggested that a committee of Privy Councillors would go some way towards overcoming the worries of this curiously timid Cabinet, but a much more intelligent suggestion is a committee representative of the House. We are being insulted when we are told that such matters cannot be left to hon. Members. What is the difference between us and the people and politicians of America? Why is it that they can do what we cannot? That is insulting to both the British people and the House of Commons.
      Mr. Maclennan: One point has not been made as effectively as it might have been by advocates of the committee of Privy Councillors. Privy Councillors are perhaps less subject than other Members of Parliament to promises of preferment and to the appeal of patronage. They are capable of independence. As the hon. Gentleman knows, some hon. Members are much less independent of the party machine.
      Mr. Buchan: I find that even more insulting. It has been left to the "democratic" party to suggest that Members of Parliament are suborned by bribery and corruption, or the thought of it. What nonsense. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a comparison, there is as much pork barrelling on Capitol Hill in Washington as there is here. I find that suggestion grossly insulting, and I am sorry that it came from the hon. Gentleman. I wish—for his sake, not mine—that I had not given way.
      It is nonsense to suggest that Members of Parliament cannot perform their function of scrutiny. Even if they did so inefficiently, they could not do worse than this Government and successive Governments have done over the years.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: This place might not be very efficient in its scrutiny, but is it not important to have public accountability in respect of a service so drastically inefficient that it thought that Harold Wilson would be a danger in 1974? If the service contains people like that, it must have some degree of accountability, because we do not know what they are doing.
      Mr. Buchan: I am not sure into what category we two fall, but I take the point.
      As most people know, I resigned immediately after the October 1974 election. I had, as I thought, prepared the Government's policy on agriculture in the Common Market. I spent a long time preparing the briefing and the analysis. But—as Minister of State, not Secretary of State—I could not see the relevant papers. I spent some days trying to find out why not. I then received a telephone call from an Under-Secretary in another Department asking whether I knew what was happening about the Common Market policy. I said, "No. I wrote it, and I wish I knew what was happening to it." For some weeks I tried to find out. Then I said, "May I see the Cabinet papers?"
      All hell broke loose. The Minister of State wanted to see the Cabinet minutes. The Permanent Secretary was consulted; he thought not. I pressed the matter, and eventually they agreed to let me see the minutes. The Cabinet minutes are pretty boring. They are not very full:

      71
      they are almost like the kind of open, explicit material we get from this lot publicly. They do not say much. But they were ceremoniously carried down by a junior civil servant, a very attractive young lady. She brought the Cabinet box to my room, opened it with a key and stood there while I read the papers. There was I, a Minister of State aged 50, having to sit and read the minutes while a young lass who had already seen them waited beside me, presumably in case I whipped some of them off to the photocopying machine. That is the background of the nonsensical secrecy that developed. It was not unrelated to my political past, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walton knows.
      Long before I resigned I wrote a minute signifying my resignation. I was a senior Minister and if I had stayed instead of resigning two days after the 1974 general election—I could not resign before because I did not want to make a political stramash and the Labour party had to beat the Conservatives as well as some of its own members—I would have become a Privy Councillor. As such, I would have been fit, apparently, to scrutinise the intelligence people, but I cannot scrutinise them now because I resigned before I became a Privy Councillor. I was three weeks away from being safe, secure, intelligent, rational, unbribable and incorruptible.
      Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend would have been called first in debates.
      Mr. Buchan: Yes. I would also have been called more often in debates. What nonsense that is.
      I hope that when the Home Secretary replies he will give intelligent answers. More importantly, I hope that he will take an intelligent and independent line and not be afraid of his mistress.
      Mr. Hind: The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) seems to epitomise what in the past—certainly during my time in the House—has appeared to be the Labour party's paranoia about everything secret. One point that I wish to make to the hon. Member for Paisley, South—whose failure to understand is obvious—and other Opposition Members is that the Bill should not be taken in isolation. The Security Service Bill must be put side by side with the Official Secrets Bill. The hon. Gentleman spoke about his experiences and ignored the rest of the legislation that the House will consider. He considered the Bill in isolation. The Government's proposals must be taken as a total package, a major reform and step forward, and the past must be excluded.
      Mr. Buchan: The burden of my speech was that the Bill must not be taken in isolation. I said that the Bill should be taken together with the general conduct of the Cabinet, and, specifically, alongside the Official Secrets Bill.
      Mr. Hind: Most of the hon. Gentleman's arguments were pitched in such a way that the Official Secrets Bill and the major reform that it will introduce—taking out of secrecy so many Government papers and activities and introducing more open government generally—were ignored.
      The hon. Member for Paisley, South referred to the cases of Cathy Massiter and Clive Ponting. If those cases occurred under the new legislation that will, I hope, pass through the House, an entirely different approach would be taken. The tests that would be applied to guilt or
      72
      innocence would be enirely different and, accordingly, we would be dealing with entirely different circumstances. Let us forget about the past and the paranoia.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred to the time when he worked in a special branch office in Liverpool. That was probably 20 or 30 years ago. Again, that is in the past. We should forget about the past and look forward to the major reform with which we are dealing.
      Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member should be aware of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), myself and others, when we were in government, argued that we should change the Official Secrets Act and that we should introduce something on the lines of what we are arguing for today. It is not a question of forgetting the past. We are arguing today what we argued then. The Government have only just caught up with what we were arguing then. They have not gone as far as we were suggesting.
      Mr. Hind: When the Labour party was in government, it could not agree to bring forward the major reform for which the hon. Gentleman argues. It took this Government to sort it out, and to bring forward the radical proposition that we are able to debate today. Although the hon. Gentleman may have been advocating it, he was involved in a dialogue with the deaf. Many Opposition Members were obviously not listening to what he had to say.
      It has taken this Government to come forward with a proposition—this Bill and the Official Secrets Bill—that has been given the overwhelming support of my Conservative colleagues. That must be borne in mind.
      We should forget the paranoia that lies behind the novel, "A Very British Coup" written by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). Throughout the debate we have heard the suggestion that there is something going on behind the scenes which will undermine the system.
      Mr. Chris Mullin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Hind: I have already given way several times. Please allow me to make progress. I shall give way shortly.
      I reject the amendment for the simple reason that the total package being presented to the House, including the Bill, is sufficiently radical and open in its approach and there is no need to go further than is proposed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
      For the first time, we will have a statutory basis for the secret service. The Home Secretary, in order to carry out a secret operational matter, has to apply for a warrant. Standing behind him there is a commissioner—a High Court Judge—who has the power to review his actions and, if necessary, to write a report examining his actions which can be put before the House. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) forgets that in Britain judges have a fundamental role. He said that the protection of the liberties of the people is too important to be left to judges. What arrogant nonsense. One has only to look at the court cases brought against the Government by private individuals which the Government have lost to see that the judges are independent of the Executive. They are the protectors of the ordinary man in

      73
      the street, and they enforce the rights of the individual against the Executive. They are there to protect those rights and the commissioner, whose role will be fundamental, will be important in enforcing those rights.
      Mr. Mullin: The hon. Gentleman referred to my novel "A Very British Coup". The Home Secretary and I do not have much in common, but we are both the authors of novels which suppose that an elected Government is destabilised by a Right-wing plot of some sort.
      Mr. Hurd: In my novel the plot fails.
      Mr. Mullin: The Home Secretary's book is a good read, and at one point the king is found in a box under the bed. The right hon. Gentleman's book is called "Send Him Victorious" and I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Hind: The point made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South was destroyed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As he said, in his book the Right-wing plot fails. In "A Very British Coup" the plot succeeds.
      Mr. Tony Banks rose—
      Mr. Hind: We must look at what is contained in the Bill. The tribunal is another major step forward in the preservation of the rights of individuals. The hon. Member for Walton complained earlier about the investigation into his activities, and the hon. Member for Paisley, South complained that special branch knew about him. Under the new system, both hon. Gentlemen would be able to go to the tribunal and make a complaint, which would then be investigated. The hon. Member for Paisley, South would be able to tell the tribunal that he was an innocent member of the Communist party—which presupposes the existence of guilty members of the Communist party and shows the need for the Security Service.
      The point is that there will be a right of investigation. Never before has there been the opportunity to make representations or for those representations to be examined. That is a major step forward. The commissioner will be able to publish a report and, with the exception of certain parts that may have to be removed because it is not in the public interest for them to be published, it will be considered in the House.
      Mr. Allason rose—
      Mr. Hind: In addition, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister are answerable in the House for the actions of the Security Service. Some hon. Members do not consider that to be important, but it is an important safeguard for the House. I argue against extending that safeguard any further.
      What is the most important function of the secret service? It is to protect the national interest. We must not do anything to weaken our defences by allowing the exposure of operational secrets, which would increase the risk from terrorism and other threats. The more people who learn about secrets, the less likely they are to remain secrets.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hind: That is the problem that we face in the House. We talk about a wall of secrecy, but that wall is
      74
      there to protect the interests of the public and the state. What would happen if a committee was introduced, as the amendments propose?
      Mr. Allason: My hon. Friend has made an important point about the role of the report that will be published by the commissioner. I draw his attention to amendment No. 12. We hope that the report will be extremely important, but there is nothing in the Bill that gives the parameters of the topics that the report will cover. As the Bill is drafted, the commissioner can say more or less anything he wants in the report. It would be better to describe the topics that can be examined.
      My hon. Friend is anxious about compromising security, but I point out to him that the Bill allows for parts of the report that might compromise security not to be published, but to be read only by the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister. Does my hon. Friend agree that the drafting of the Bill is rather vague and that it might be a good idea to specify the topics that should be examined?
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I hope that, in responding to that intervention, the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) will not anticipate our later debate on amendment No. 12.
      Mr. Hind: I shall observe your ruling, Sir Paul. I shall merely say to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) that he has made his point and will, no doubt, raise it again when amendment No. 12 is debated.
      The important problem that is created by new clause 5 is that it breaches the wall of secrecy considerably. There are more than sufficient safeguards for the public built into the Bill without new clause 5. Let us consider carefully what is proposed in new clause 5. We must ask ourselves whether we, as hon. Members, can dissociate ourselves from party interest in dealing with matters of secrecy. I do not believe that party interest can be excluded from our deliberations on this matter. It would be nice to follow the views of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and to believe that there could be an objective, non-partisan view about matters of secrecy, but, bearing in mind the Labour party's paranoia about matters of secrecy, I do not believe that we could have objective scrutiny.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hind: No. I shall give way in a minute.
      What concerns me most is that the review committee would be entitled
      "to receive from the Commissioner, the Director-General and the Secretary of State and employees such information, reports and explanations as the Committee deems necessary for the performance of its duties and functions."
      If we consider that alongside new clause 5(6)(b), which says that the committee could
      "where it considers that a review by the Service or the Commissioner would be inappropriate, conduct such a review itself,"
      we see that it would, in effect, look in detail into every operational matter of the secret service. New clause 5 suggests that members of the committee could call for any document, any explanation and any investigation into the day-to-day running of the secret service. It would be able to call for witnesses and papers and, when not satisfied with the investigations of the commissioner or the

      75
      director-general, it could instigate an investigation itself. I cannot agree with that because the committee would be going far deeper than would appear to be necessary.
      Most important of all, the number of people who would learn about the detailed day-to-day activities of the secret services would become greater and that would put at risk many of the operations and, most important of all, the lives of many agents, such as those working under cover in Ireland. That is where problems would arise.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I want to take the hon. Gentleman back to the point that he made several times about the Labour party's paranoia about secrecy. I know that he is a man of some integrity, so I hope that he will answer my question honestly. If he believed that a Conservative Government had been undermined and that attempts had been made to destabilise that Government, would he not have taken exactly the same attitude as Labour Members have and have called for some form of public inquiry? [Interruption.] I am sorry, one of my teeth has just come out.
      Mr. Hind: I would share the concern of the hon. Member were it not for the fact that Lord Callaghan, who was the leader of the Labour party at the time of the allegations, came to the House and said that, as far as he was aware, there was no truth in the allegations. They were investigated and rejected. I understand that Peter Wright is casting doubt on the allegations.
      To a certain extent, we have to rely on the integrity of the people in the secret service. The allegations about undermining the Government of Lord Wilson of Rievaulx were investigated by Lord Wilson when he was Prime Minister and subsequently by Lord Callaghan. It makes a very good story. The public want to read about the Security Service. It makes good novels and it makes good press, but that does not mean that the allegations are true.
      7 pm
      Mr. Allason: Is it not time that the whole fiction of the Wilson plot was knocked on the head once and for all? Peter Wright has admitted on television that the so-called plot consisted of himself and that there was no enormous group of fellow conspirators. A book has been published recently by David Leigh which completely debunks the myth of the Wilson plot. None of the allegations about misconduct has turned out to be true. The investigations that were conducted by the Security Service at the time were extremely relevant and appropriate.
      Mr. Hind: A great deal of doubt has been cast on Mr. Wright's allegations, even by himself. Most hon. Members accept that his allegations have been discredited. It is wrong that hon. Members should frame a new clause that is based on Mr. Peter Wright's allegations.
      Lastly, I want to refer to that part of new clause 5 which deals with reports that are laid before the House. An annual report on the activities of the secret service would be brought before the House, with certain parts of it—after consultation with the Prime Minister—left out. Many hon. Members believe that scrutiny would involve detailed consideration and debate of what had happened in the secret service. The major problem over scrutiny is that the secret service cannot be debated without undermining the country's security and without the exposure of information that would damage the national interest.
      76
      More than adequate supervision is provided by the Bill. It is a major reform. Therefore, I urge the House to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Winnick: First, I welcome you, Mr. Hogg, to the Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) on saying, surprisingly, that he is a convert, albeit a late one, to an oversight system. The fact that it took him some time to be converted is beside the point. Because of his detailed knowledge of the intelligence community, we welcome the fact that he recognises that oversight is necessary. Some may say cynically that he will find it difficult to get information for his books if there is a lifelong confidentiality rule for intelligence agents. Be that as it may, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was perfectly genuine when he made that statement.
      Mr. Allason: It is important that the hon. Gentleman should be aware of their Lordships' judgment on the suggestion that lifelong confidentiality is the same as lifelong silence. It is not. It is quite clear from their Lordships' judgment in the "Spycatcher" case that members of the Security Service and the intelligence service are perfectly at liberty to make disclosures, to write books and to do whatever else they want, provided that they do not disclose new material.
      Mr. Winnick: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, to which I am sure we shall return in later debates.
      I have long advocated parliamentary scrutiny of the Security Service. My amendment No. 38 deals with that question. If such a Select Committee were formed, its membership should consist of hon. Members who have been here since 4 o'clock or 4.30 this afternoon. They are all very much interested in security matters. [Interruption.] I should be quite happy if a dissident such as the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) were to serve on that Committee. If I were able to decide who should be its chairman, who better could I choose than my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) whose dedication to parliamentary democracy and freedom is second to none? He would be an ideal chairman for the Committee.
      Whether the Home Secretary likes it or not, he ought to recognise that in recent years MI5 has become the subject of intense political controversy. No Opposition Member argues that there should not be a Security Service. Even if we were not concerned about sabotage and terrorism—particularly by the Provisional IRA—the need for a Security Service would be clear. I hope that the Home Secretary or the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), will not argue that Opposition Members would like MI5 to be abolished. That is not so. It goes without saying that we need MI5 or a similar organisation. However, that organisation ought to be accountable.
      The purpose of MI5 is to defend the integrity of parliamentary democracy. It is odd that, although MI5 is supposed to defend parliamentary democracy and our democratic way of life, we are told that the House of Commons is neither a fit nor an appropriate body to scrutinise its activities. That does not say much for parliamentary democracy or for our roles as Members.
      The feeling has grown in recent years that the Security Service is not nearly as politically impartial as it needs to be. The Maxwell Fyfe directive laid down in 1952 that MI5 should be politically neutral. Successive Home Secretaries

      77
      have said that it is not the role of MI5 to become politically partial. However, the accusation has been made that MI5 has a bias against the Left in this country. I am referring not to the revolutionary Left but to the broad, mainstream Left. If some hon. Members say, "Left-wing Labour Members would say that," I have to ask the Home Secretary why the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said during the Second Reading debate on the official secrets Bill that was introduced by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) that if some members of MI5 saw somebody reading the Daily Mirror on the tube they would have to investigate that person.
      Mr. Heffer: Hear, hear. I agree with that.
      Mr. Winnick: Leaving aside my hon. Friend's intervention, is it not interesting that a Conservative ex-Prime Minister believes that some MI5 officials are so out of control that they have no understanding of political impartiality? That accusation is not made only by the Opposition.
      It is unlikely that the Bill would have been introduced if complaints had not been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and Miss Patricia Hewitt. They are taking a complaint—it has yet to be heard—to the European Court of Human Rights. One of the reasons for the Bill is that the Government will be able to explain to the European Court the changes that have taken place since those complaints were made.
      I strongly believe that if the security services had been subject to parliamentary scrutiny, they would have gone about matters somewhat differently. MI5 officials know that, in practice, they are accountable to nobody. Are we really to believe that when organisations such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the National Council for Civil Liberties were targeted, the Home Secretary was notified or kept aware of what was going on?
      Mr. Allason: I think that I can clarify that matter. The answer is yes. At one stage, the NCCL was a recognised Communist front organisation. It was banned by the Labour party. Every time there was any application for a telephone intercept warrant, evidence for that warrant had to be supplied to the Home Secretary. The short answer is yes. Successive Home Secretaries have authorised just such warrants.
      Mr. Winnick: The Home Secretary may well have authorised warrants, but that does not alter the fact that he quite likely did not probe all the reasons for them.
      As I said on Second Reading, when a former editor of the CND journal Sanity resigned as a result of some internal argument, that person was asked by special branch, no doubt at the request of MI5 officials, all manner of questions about leading personalities in CND and their private lives. Was the Home Secretary notified of that?
      Because MI5 is not subject to parliamentary control or scrutiny, and because there is very little ministerial control of it, it has behaved in a way that has made it the subject of intense political controversy. If it is true, as has been argued by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), that successive directors general of MI5 have been in favour of some kind of oversight, perhaps they have
      78
      been in favour because they want to lessen the high profile of MI5, which they cannot like. Making MI5 the subject of political controversy is not, the liking of people actively involved in the Security Service.
      Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) said that there was a time when the NCCL was on the Labour party's proscribed list. I have been a member of the Labour party for a long time. I cannot remember a time when the NCCL was on the black list. I remember that there used to be argument, certainly before the war, about some of the activities of the NCCL. The hon. Member has got it wrong. I hope that we will not go on record as saying that the NCCL was on the Labour party's proscribed list.
      Mr. Winnick: I think that I answered the point on Second Reading when the hon. Member for Torbay made the same claim. I asked why my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham had been targeted when she was the legal officer of the NCCL. I understand that there was no other reason. The hon. Member for Torbay intervened and said that the organisation was once on the proscribed list. I replied that it may or may not have been. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) may be right. I conceded that, until about 30 years ago, the NCCL had what I would call an undue Communist influence. I do not wish to deny that. Is that how the Security Service works? Does it not take account of changes over 30 years? The NCCL can in no way be described as Communist influenced now.
      Since Second Reading, I have had printed in the New Statesman a letter taking to task a barrister who had written defending the present Czech Government. I protested about what he said. I am disgusted about what is happening in Czechoslovakia, especially after yesterday. It is interesting to note that two others who replied in the same issue are active members of the NCCL. We must ask why, if the NCCL is targeted, the Freedom Association is not. That is the type of partiality that we are complaining about and think undesirable.
      7.15 pm
      Some of the most important features of parliamentary democracy are the rights of protest, advocacy and dissent. They distinguish parliamentary democracy from dictatorship. We all know that, in a dictatorship, any form of advocacy, dissent or protest is immediately denounced as subversive. We saw an example of that yesterday when the brave people of Czechoslovakia gathered on the 20th anniversary of the death of an heroic student who committed suicide in protest at the occupation of his country by Soviet troops.
      In a democracy, the rights that I have mentioned have been built up over the years. They have been fought for and paid for. The Labour party wants to defend the right to protest and dissent, the right of advocacy, and the ability to disagree with the Government on important issues such as nuclear disarmament and civil liberties. Such activity is not subversive. It is subversive only if the objective is to help people abroad who are engaged in hostile action, if the aim is to bring about a form of dictatorship in Britain, be it ultra-Right or ultra-Left wing, or if its aim is to destroy our parliamentary system of government.
      When the Minister replied to my Second Reading speech, he said that he was unwilling to go into matters

      79
      which were for the Security Service and that he would not explore them on the Floor of the House. That is why we ask for oversight of the Security Service. When we want to know why organisations and individuals are targeted without justification, all we get is the Minister saying that he cannot go into such matters, and that they are purely for the Security Service. That will always be the response of Ministers while there is no parliamentary oversight of the Security Service.
      Mr. Hind: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, even if there were a Select Committee, the same would be the case? The Committee would be new, but it would still not be open to the House to discuss these matters. If it is possible for the Security Service to mislead a Home Secretary, how come the hon. Gentleman has so much confidence that the same Civil Service that he describes as deceitful will not deceive a Select Committee?
      Mr. Winnick: The point about having a Select Committee is that complaints that have recently been raised and that are now being taken to the European Court of Human Rights would be raised in a Select Committee, and it could report to the House. At the moment, if we table parliamentary questions on the subject, they are blocked or we get the sort of response that I got from the Minister on Second Reading. Parliamentary democracy is being undermined. We do not want to know what action is being taken against spies or suspected spies; we are concerned to protect civil liberties.
      As for civil servants, I am not arguing that the majority of MI5 officials are deceitful. However, it has been admitted on both sides of the House that a small number of them, such as Peter Wright, were deceitful. I have not argued otherwise and it would be wrong to say that I have argued that the majority of them would intend or would be willing to deceive the Select Committee.
      In 1985 The Observer gave details of how any employee or potential employee of the BBC was automatically vetted in liaison with the Security Service and that the person carrying out the vetting at the BBC was either employed by the Security Service or accountable to it. That has changed.
      Mr. Allason: That is a very important point. Some years ago, a telephone tap in the Hague revealed two identified Soviet intelligence officers being indiscreet. One boasted to the other that at four days' notice he could get 12,000 people out on to the streets in Holland in an anti-nuclear demonstration. If hostile Soviet intelligence officers—it has been conceded that they are legitimate targets—are in touch with members of CND or other such organisations, surely it must be legitimate for the Home Secretary of the day to authorise warrants for those organisations to come under some form of scrutiny.
      Mr. Winnick: That was a ridiculous intervention. I have already congratulated the hon. Gentleman on his conversion to oversight of the Security Service. He is suggesting that CND should be targeted. However, the Opposition believe that CND is a perfectly legitimate organisation made up of people whose loyalty to Britain and to parliamentary democracy is certainly no less than that of any Conservative Member. The old poison that members of CND are Soviet agents or could be used by Soviet authorities is nonsense. Over the years many active members of CND have been in the forefront of protesting
      80
      against the way in which dissent is punished in the Soviet bloc. That is hardly the action of people who could be manipulated by the Soviet authorities.
      Mr. Buchan: The intervention of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) shows an appalling ignorance of how demonstrations work. Can my hon. Friend imagine any of us, let alone an unknown Russian agent, getting 12,000 people out on the streets at four days' notice?
      Mr. Heffer: When it appeared that Cuba was about to be invaded by America, a friend of mine in Liverpool said to me, "We have to organise a big demonstration on Saturday against American intervention in Cuba." I was not too keen, but I agreed. So we tried to organise a great demonstration against American intervention in Cuba. Two dozen of us turned up with placards saying, "Hands off Cuba." We marched down the streets in Liverpool trying to get a big gap between each person so that the demonstration would look three times greater than it actually was. The idea that we were being manipulated by Soviet agents is absolutely ridiculous and the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) should be ashamed of himself. [Interruption.]
      The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Norman Hogg): Order. Will the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) return to the main point of the debate.
      Mr. Winnick: Although they may not say so in the Chamber, some Conservative Members really believe that any protest that could he described as Left wing is somehow connected with the Soviet bloc. As I have said, that is absolute nonsense, and my hon. Friends have underlined that point.
      If other western democracies have some oversight of their security services, why can we not do so? On 22 May 1986 the Australian Attorney-General argued for changes in Australia. He argued that there should be some parliamentary scrutiny and that a committee should be established. Obviously, given the majority of the Australian Government of the day, that was duly carried out. The Australian Attorney-General said:
      "The Government believes"—
      that is the Australian Government—
      "that the provisions provide a proper balance between greater Parliamentary involvement in the oversight of A510 and the limits of the Executive's ability, having in mind its responsibilities in regard to security matters to make sensitive information more widely accessible."
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Winnick: No. I have allowed quite a number of interventions and I must get on.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) argued so strongly, the United States has an oversight committee and has had such a review of the security services for a long time, and Canada and Australia have established such systems. No one has suggested that since Australia introduced its parliamentary scrutiny committee in 1986 the security services in Australia have been undermined. If Conservative Members could produce evidence of that, it would be an argument against what has been proposed today.
      I have some sympathy with the amendment tabled by the hon. Members for Thanet, South and for Aldridge-Brownhills. Any review committee is better than

      81
      nothing, but I am not persuaded that a review committee made up of non-parliamentarians would improve the position much, if at all. It could be argued that if such a review committee were established—obviously the Government are not willing to accept it—it would provide a further reason why there should not be parliamentary oversight. It would be argued, "We have the Privy Councillors and the review committee; why do you continue to argue for parliamentary scrutiny of the service?"
      Obviously the amendment will be voted down by the Government, but the matter simply will not go away because there is no reason why our Parliament should be treated worse than the Parliaments of other western democracies. If the Home Secretary really wants MI5 to stop being involved in political controversy, and feels that it is about time that political pressure was removed from the Security Service, he should recognise that there is a need for parliamentary scrutiny. If amendment No. 73 is not accepted today, sooner or later the matter will return to the House. Inevitably there will be some scandal and we shall repeat the arguments that we have used tonight. Finally, will the Home Secretary explain to the House why it is all right for the United States, Canada and Australia to have parliamentary oversight, but it is not right for Britain?
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Robert Boscawen: I am increasingly worried by the lack of reality in the debate. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) rightly said that the necessity for the Security Service is clear. He said that that goes without saying, and I agree. However, we do not agree that it is an effective service. Having an effective Security Service may be one of the ugly sides of protecting a democracy, but if we are to have it at all, it must be effective and it must be privy to certain sensitive information. The tenor of the debate on new clause 5 has been to open up that information.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who always speaks with great honesty and clarity, said that we want to know what the Security Service is up to; but if we know that, it can no longer protect our interests. Secrecy is basic to this debate. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that a Select Committee of 12 members could always be depended upon to maintain secrecy, and that it would not know about operational matters.
      Mr. Buchan: Is it not peculiar that Britain, with the most carefully controlled secrecy, has been the country most open to so-called enemies, whereas America, which has openly scrutinised its secrecy, has been relatively free of the problem? It has had no Burgess, Philby or Maclean, so the argument does not work.
      Mr. Boscawen: I could not say that there was less violence or criminal activity in the United States than there has been in this country, or that there has been less military spying there. I could not verify that or back my answer with facts. There has been a great deal of these activities in the United States, and in all the western democracies.
      Mr. Allason: I can clarify this point because I have done some research on the subject. I started counting the
      82
      number of convictions for espionage in the United States since 1945 and stopped counting at 94. By contrast, there has been a mere handful of convictions under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act.
      Mr. Allan Rogers: They are all in Russia.
      Mr. Allason: Some cases have been undetected, and there have been defectors, but there have been similar cases in America, too.
      Mr. Boscawen: To return to my original point, certain sensitive secrets in this country are protected by our security service. If those secrets are made available to a wider selection of people—in this House, or among the so-called great and good suggested by some of my hon. Friends—they will be more at risk. Such people may have excellent records of service to the House, but they are subject to electoral pressures and to the pressures of the talking shop in which they live, so the secrets will be at risk. We should not allow that to happen. It is a grave mistake on the part of those who want to protect democracy to believe that they can do so by widening the circle in which these secrets are known. If more people know the secrets, they become less secret—
      Mr. Winnick: I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman for not having read the Australian debate—he can hardly read every debate in Parliaments abroad—but if he takes the time on some occasion to read the debate of 22 May 1986 in Australia he will find that when the Attorney-General argued in favour of the establishment of a parliamentary committee, which duly happened, he pointed out that
      "it will not be a function of the Committee to review operationally sensitive matters".
      So there is no question of secrets being discussed by the committee.
      Mr. Boscawen: Several times in the debate I have heard the argument that such a committee would discuss only the broad principles on which the security services operate—but that does not happen in practice. The security services spend what is perhaps a large amount of money on protecting certain sensitive secrets—for example, a previous Labour Government sought to protect the secret that they were spending enormous sums on developing the atomic bomb and the H bomb. They did not tell the House, and the Security Service existed to ensure that that information, rightly or wrongly, was kept from the House.
      A Select Committee could not confine its scrutiny to the broad principles that guide the security services. It will know what is going on; it will ask what large sums of money are being spent on. It will ask, for instance, why the security services are protecting knowledge about development of the H bomb. Members in the House, or the great and good outside it, who are not directly responsible to the Government, will have to keep these secrets. The risks of their being divulged inadvertently—not deliberately of course—will be a great deal higher than if these people did not know them.
      Mr. Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that anyone who becomes a Member of this House may one day become a Secretary of State, or even a Prime Minister—or, more particularly, a Home Secretary? When he does, he will become privy to these secrets. Will he be the subject of some special metamorphosis on becoming a Minister which makes him trustable with secrets of state—a

      83
      metamorphosis that does not happen to other Members of Parliament, such as ex-Ministers, who would undoubtedly be members of the Select Committee?
      Mr. Boscawen: I believe a metamorphosis does come over people when they are appointed to carry the burdens of the great offices of state. They know that they will have to keep these secrets to themselves, not share them among the 12 or more suggested members of the Select Committee. Acceptance of the new clause would substantially increase the risk of information being divulged.
      Let us assume that the members of the Select Committee are disquieted by what is reported to them about some activity of the security services. I do not believe that they would ever discover illegal activity, but if they thought the services were hiding a Government policy that should not be hidden, for instance, how could they let the rest of the House and the country know? They would still be behind the barrier of secrecy; they could not emerge from behind it and explain that the Government were developing a nuclear bomb—as they were in the late 1940s—because they would be bound to secrecy.
      I can see no advantage to members of the Labour party if the Select Committee were told that the security services were investigating the National Council for Civil Liberties because they had been informed that the council had been unknowingly penetrated by the IRA, and would have to be investigated. I suggest that the members of the Select Committee would be in an impossible position. When it came down to the practicalities, I do not think that the Select Committee could do other than go directly to the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister and say, "What is this about?" We seem to be living in a fool's world.
      New clause 5 would set at risk some of the most sensitive information that we need to keep secret in order to protect our democracy. The members of the Select Committee could not make much use of information if they were bound to silence in the way that members of the Security Service, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister are bound.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I welcome the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) back to the land of the living and the speaking now that he has left the Whips' Office.
      Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend has been back for some time.
      Mr. Banks: This is the first time that I have had the pleasure of hearing him speak since he left the Whips' Office. I apologise to the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) for my rather unseemly rummaging on the Bench in front of me while he was speaking. It was no impoliteness on my part. Unfortunately, one of my teeth came out and I found it necessary to recover it fairly speedily. I hope that during my short speech nothing of greater anatomical significance falls off and plops down on the Bench in front of me.
      Mr. Hind: As an advocate in the courts, I have had many experiences, but speaking to an audience and forcing teeth to fall out is a new experience.
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will not respond to that.
      Mr. Banks: I would not dream of responding to such a tempting intervention. I hope that I can keep all my parts about me during my speech.
      The hon. Member for Somerset and Frome misunderstands how we view the question of parliamentary scrutiny of the security services. The Opposition fervently believe, as do some Conservative Members—as the hon. Gentleman has heard—that accountability is all, is of the essence. Accountability is what this place should be all about and no force in a democracy should be unaccountable. We are talking not just about notional accountability to a Home Secretary, but about accountability in the broadest, most secure and most efficient sense of the word. It is because we do not believe that there is such accountability within the security services that we have tabled amendments. I support our amendments, and in particular new clause 5.
      The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked how on earth a Committee that is holding the security services to account could operate efficiently without getting involved in the day-to-day operational duties of the security services. That is not what is required. One can draw some broad parallels with police committees outside the Greater London area. A police committee looks at the overall objective of the police force in its area, but does not attempt to interfere in the day-to-day running of that force. That is the responsibility of the chief constable, and constitutionally everyone understands that position and respects it. Comparisons can also be made elsewhere in areas of broadly similar activity.
      There is obsessive secrecy in Britain, and an obsession with secrecy is a cancer which, if allowed to develop, destroys democratic society. When we argue for accountability, it is not because we want to get all the secrets that we can and post them off to Moscow, but because we believe that if the security services are to operate within and outside Britain—and we think that such services are necessary—they should be accountable to Parliament and the people in the way that any other force or sector of our democracy is accountable.
      I spoke about an obsession with secrecy, and I shall give a small example. On the way into the Members' Cloakroom this evening, I saw on the table a Tory Whip marked "Secret". As I am not a gentleman, I read it just in case there was something there that could have been put to good use. Regrettably, there was nothing like that. There was nothing secret in the Tory Whip. Whips are readily available and Members tend to discuss the business on them.
      7.45 pm
      However, the Whip is marked "Secret". You will know, Mr. Hogg, from your previous incarnation as a Deputy Chief Whip, that the Labour Whip is marked "Confidential". I do not see why our business should be considered confidential while Conservative business should be looked upon as secret. Many people, of whom I am one, believe we live in the most closed society in the whole of western Europe.
      Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the word "secret" seems to have some special meaning for Conservative Members? Would he not further agree, having heard the speech by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen)—
      Mr. Banks: It is pronounced "Froom".
      Mr. Bermingham: I apologise, Mr. Hogg. I do not understand that part of the country. It is south of the Wash. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome conceded to me that a metamorphosis seems to occur when someone becomes Secretary of State or Prime Minister. Perhaps there is a reverse metamorphosis when one loses office. Some former Home Secretaries and some former Prime Ministers are still Members of the House. Can my hon. Friend give his attention to that, because it is worrying me greatly? I do not know how this great gift descends; perhaps it is from heaven.
      Mr. Banks: I think perhaps the source is someone close rather than celestial. I have just spoken to my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) who tells me that, as a former Home Secretary and Privy Councillor, he is bound by the Privy Council oath. We have heard that oath explained. What I admire most about my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South is that on more than one occasion he has told the House that he was wrong in some of the things that he did when he was Home Secretary. I cannot remember all of them because the list is perhaps too long. He had the honesty and integrity to say that, which is refreshing, because most politicians seem to believe that it is a sign of great weakness to admit that decisions that they had taken in the past were wrong. Such an admission by my right hon. Friend is a sign of great strength. We can learn from the strength that allows right hon. Members to say, "I made a mistake when I was in Government." I certainly respect that approach.
      The hon. Member for Lancashire, West, who is unfortunately no longer in the Chamber, spoke about the Opposition's obsession with secrecy. He said that it was paranoia and had no basis in fact or reality. We come back to the allegations made by Peter Wright in his incredibly turgid and overpriced book. Peter Wright owes the Prime Minister an enormous debt of gratitude, because she boosted sales of that boring book. It would have gone the way of many other books, and would have remained with W. H. Smith if the Prime Minister had not stepped in and insisted that this man be pursued around the courts of the world at great expense to the taxpayer. That was unnecessary. It did not do us any good and it made the Government look fairly stupid.
      The one thing that emerged time and again was the accusation that during the 1970s systematic attempts were made to undermine—or there were discussions by various people in MI5 about undermining—Harold Wilson's democratically elected Government. Those accusations have been made too often, by too many people, in too high places of authority and with too much knowledge for us to disregard them.
      The hon. Member for Lancashire, West said that we were being paranoid, and that in any case these matters were investigated by Jim Callaghan when he was Prime Minister, and he found nothing untoward. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South that he, as Home Secretary, and Jim Callaghan investigated the issues subsequently raised by Peter Wright and others. I do not know how many more times hon. Members want to hear someone who was there at the time giving an authentic account of what happened before they start to believe that, far from being paranoid,
      86
      we are concerned with the fact that a democratically elected Government could have been undermined by the illegal activities of MI5.
      Mr. Allason: Has the hon. Gentleman read the book by David Leigh called "The Wilson Plot", which is the most detailed analysis of all the allegations that have been made about the undermining of the Wilson Government? When one examines it in detail, it turns out that all the allegations are that a defector identified John Stonehouse as having been a probable source, that Lord Kagan was investigated because he was playing chess regularly with a suspected KGB officer and that an individual who was to be recommended for high Government office by the then Prime Minister had been denounced as having been a member of the Communist party and a possible KGB recruiter. When David Leigh examined all these allegations, they turned out to be true, but that cannot be described as undermining the Wilson Government. Surely the job of the security services is to investigate allegations, and that is what happened.
      Mr. Banks: The point at issue is that it was the undermining of Harold Wilson, and, as he happened to be Prime Minister, the undermining of a democratic Government was linked. I do not believe that Mr. Leigh had access to the sort of information that my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South, a former Labour Home Secretary, has had access to. If he tells me that there are grounds for a parliamentary inquiry into the various allegations that have subsequently been made, I am convinced that we need to have an inquiry. Let us get it out.
      If the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) is correct, and if it turns out that we are overly concerned, then such an inquiry will reveal it, and we shall have more confidence. Conservative Members do not seem to want to allow us to have our confidence in the security services restored. At the moment, it is at an all-time low. Many of us may not have had a high regard for them in the past, but now we have none at all. We are asking only for an inquiry into various allegations, and it seems strange that Conservative Members are not prepared to accede to that request. I am sure that if we were talking about a Conservative Prime Minister and a Conservative Government, Tory Members would be making the demand that we are making now. I only hope that their demands would have received a more ready acceptance than we have received.
      Mr. Rees: I agree with my hon. Friend. The plain fact is that the inquiry did not include what came out later in the Wright book, whether it was right or wrong. There is more than that in what has happened in the past year or so. I have here some photostats of documents. One of them was printed in 1972, before there was a Labour Government, and deals with Northern Ireland. At that time, I was the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The document is
      "Published by Merlyn Rees, Stan Orme, David Owen and Paul Rose."
      This is an interesting document, although whoever wrote it was a political nincompoop. It is all about the Ulster Defence Association, the assassination of civilians, the Long Kesh concentration camp and why Britain cancelled local elections under the Heath Government. I wonder who published this. It was sent to me through the post. I

      87
      had nothing to do with it. I read economics at university after the war, and if I had written this thing and handed it in, I would not have got a CSE in anything.
      Another interesting document is entitled:
      "The Labour Movement. Economics: Master or Servant of Mankind".
      It claims to be by
      "Denis Healey, Tony Benn and Stan Orme".
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) gets into it all. Somebody wrote these documents. It has been suggested to me that it was part of a move in the early 1970s to denigrate the Opposition as well as the Government of the day, for reasons that I will not go into now. There is need to inquire into books such as these.
      Mr. Banks: My right hon. Friend underlines yet again the need for accountability. More and more, as I listen to these debates, I believe that MI5 has a dirty tricks department and those who run it allow their political priorities to determine their actions. That means that they will always be looking at Labour Members and, increasingly, Conservative Members. They are allowed to set the priorities for their activities. They are allowed to intervene with their interpretation of the world as a way to influence and determine what they do.
      That is unacceptable in a democracy. MI5 and MI6 are supposed to protect the national interest. They are supposed to be protecting our security, not indulging in dirty tricks against eminent Labour politicians. How anybody could believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South is a dangerous subversive, I do not know. When I was not a Member of Parliament, I remember coming to see my right hon. Friend, when he was Home Secretary, about section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. I have always wanted to tell my right hon. Friend that I came away disappointed with his response and thinking, "Another typical old Right-wing Labourite Home Secretary." That is what he was, but, in the years since, he has done a great deal to atone for those sins. Now, I am one of his staunchest admirers.
      One of the problems that Conservative Members have is that they do not trust Labour Members because they see us as attempting to undermine their system, and in that they are absolutely correct.
      Mr. Anderson: Is not the point far more fundamental? It is not just that the Conservatives do not trust us as an Opposition. By their response, they have shown that they do not trust Parliament.
      Mr. Banks: They cannot trust Parliament unless they trust us, and because they cannot trust us they cannot trust Parliament. If Parliament consisted of 650 Conservative Members of Parliament—
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): It soon will.
      Mr. Banks: Perish the thought—no doubt they would quickly move to have parliamentary scrutiny of the secret services. They would then declare that Parliament had become non-political. I have always noticed, Mr. Hogg—my God, you look ill. I am sorry, it is not Mr. Hogg.
      Mr. Bermingham: Does not the Minister's comment, made jokingly, give away the secret? When my hon. Friend said that if Parliament were made up of 650 Conservative
      88
      Members they might trust us, the Minister clearly said, "It soon will." Perhaps we are heading towards a dictatorship. and that is all that the Government will accept.
      8 pm
      Mr. Banks: I apologise to you, Mr. Rhodes James. I did not realise that you had slipped into the Chair in place of Mr. Hogg. It came as a bit of a shock to me. My teeth are dropping out and my eyes are going as well. I hope that you will understand.
      There is a lack of understanding and an intolerance in Government. We are not prepared to allow the Home Secretary to be our point of accountability to the House because he will see the national interest as being essentially the Government's interest, and that means the Conservative party's interest. It would be a strange Home Secretary who could disaggregate national interest from the party's interest and, in many ways, no Home Secretary could be required to do so. When we have a larger forum in which to hold the security services accountable, those interests will tend to cancel each other out.
      We have no great complaint about confidentiality with regard to Select Committees. Perhaps some of the matters on which they deliberate are not as crucial as the security of the nation, but they often touch on areas of high political controversy where an element of national security is involved. Apart from the occasional leak, the system works efficiently. All Members of Parliament know their duty, but we will not be told that a group of people who have a view of politics that is not subject to any form of accountability or scrutiny in a meaningful sense—the security services—can decide what they will do and how they will do it and may place themselves above the law.
      The Bill makes previous acts of illegality legal. In many ways, it is a piece of retrospective legislation. It is scandalous that we have tolerated for so long the possibility of people operating outside the law which is supposed to control and govern us all and on which our democracy is supposed to be established. I cannot accept that the Home Secretary is an adequate source of accountability to the House in respect of the security forces.
      We heard a great deal earlier about comparisons with the United States. I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) that, although I have been a stern critic of the policies of the United States Government, particularly in respect of central America, I have a great admiration for the openness of that government system because it is a democracy that is confident in itself. It is prepared to have those nasty skeletons in the cupboard pulled out from time to time for all to see. When people see that, the system moves on to a stronger level of accountability and becomes a better democracy. There are many faults in the United States system. I would make mainly economic complaints from a Socialist standpoint, but we can learn much about Government accountability from the United States model. I should be happy to attain its level of accountability because it would be leagues in advance of anything that we have now or are likely to have as a result of the Government's proposals.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) said, we can support new clause 5. We support the idea of a Committee consisting of
      "10 Members of Parliament representing each party having at least 12 members in the House of Commons and

      89
      these Members of the Committee shall be appointed by the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of each party".
      I accept that because it is the main thing on offer, but I can see some weaknesses and inadequacies. I should like to think that, if the amendment were carried, the Prime Minister would not be able merely to overrule the Leader of the Opposition and to say, "I have consulted, but I have decided to reject the names that you have put forward." We all know the Prime Minister's attitude towards appointments; she applies the dictum, "Is he one of us?" If he is, that person is appointed. We can see all sorts of dangers in the growing accretion of prime ministerial patronage as this Prime Minister, who at one time made great play of devolving power and of taking the apparatus of the state away from its interfering role, particularly in local government, has given more power to the centre and taken more power for herself. In many ways, I consider her to be the greatest threat to democracy in this country.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Walton said that it would be better if we allowed the House to decide who would be the 10 members of the Committee. That would be an improvement on the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), but I must disappoint my hon. Friend and say that I doubt whether he or I would be elected under that system. We have been trying for a long time to have ourselves elected to the committee of the parliamentary Labour party, the shadow Cabinet, and have not yet succeeded, so our chances in a wider forum to become part of the committee responsible for overseeing the security services would be doomed to failure. However, as good democrats, we are prepared to keep on trying.
      I would have far more confidence in a Committee made up of Members of this House and elected by the House because I would feel more certain that they would look after the interests of our parliamentary democracy. That is what it is all about. Our case is based on an argument in which we believe. We believe passionately in parliamentary democracy and that anything that strengthens parliamentary democracy, through greater accountability, must be for the betterment of this place and of society. That is why we support the amendments. The Bill is testament to the fact that no one considers the system to be satisfactory. Although the Government's proposal is a minor improvement, it is not acceptable to us. That is why we have tabled the amendments.
      Some Conservatives Members, including the hon. Member for Somerton amd Frome, said that they did not believe us when we said that we accepted the need for the security services. We accept that need, but, equally, we do not accept that those security services should set their own policies or that they should decide who is an enemy of the state or which foreign country or home politician should be destabilised. That is not their right. That should not be tolerated in a democratic society. I cannot accept that, merely because we cannot guarantee that we will be 100 per cent. successful if we have accountability through a Committee of the House, we should accept no accountability at all. I should prefer something that was almost perfect rather than something that did not even make the effort.
      We cannot accept the idea that the security services should be a law unto themselves, acting illegally. The
      90
      Government now also accept that position and we welcome their late conversion to our cause, but, equally, we do not believe that the Bill goes far enough. We do not want to see the security services becoming nothing more than an extension of the Tory party because they are accountable to a Conservative Home Secretary. We do not believe that effective accountability is exercised through the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary has only to come to the Dispatch Box and say, "In the interests of national security I do not believe that I should disclose that information." We do not have proper accountability at present. We have tabled the amendments because, through them, we believe that the House will have the accountability that it deserves and that will greatly strengthen our democracy.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The first question that the House must ask is why the Government have introduced the Bill. It seems overwhelmingly clear that they have done so because they feel that society lacks confidence in the Security Service. That is the prime reason for the Bill. I know that one or two of my hon. Friends have suggested that the Government want to have a better defence at the European Court and that there is a wish also to have more effective control over the security services generally, but I adhere to the view that the Government realise that the public have lost confidence in the Security Service. They believe that the Bill will restore some of that confidence, but only a much stronger Bill will do that. If they fail to introduce such a measure, they will only fuel demands for further legislation and greater scrutiny by the House. It would be far better if at this early stage the Government were to go for an effective system of scrutiny instead of having a continuing debate for the next two or three years that in many ways will further undermine the public's confidence in the security services.
      It seems that the Government have set out to minimise debate rather than to maximise it. That will fail to restore the public's confidence in the security services. Not one Government amendment has been tabled.
      If I am right in assuming that the Government will resist most if not all of the Opposition's amendments, the Bill will not be considered on Report. It is a constitutional matter and the House has been allowed to debate it on the Floor of the House in Committee, but it seems that the Goverment are trying to eliminate consideration on Report. I hope that the other place will take note of the way in which the Bill proceeds through this place, take the time to scrutinise it effectively and ensure that it returns to this place with amendments so that we shall have the opportunity further to examine it. I regret that the Government have not been prepared to table their own amendments, and I shall be surprised if an eight-page Bill proves to be perfect. Have no drafting errors come to light?
      It has been argued strongly by some Conservative Members that the Home Secretary is not the appropriate Minister to issue warrants for the undertaking of what otherwise would be illegal activities such as bugging, telephone tapping and burglary. I have strong sympathy with that argument. With the Home Secretary's long list of responsibilities, he does not have the time fully to examine all the possible occasions on which a warrant might be needed. He is often presented with a clash of interests. Being responsible for so many Government functions, there is often strong public pressure upon him to achieve results. If an outrage occurs, the pressure on the

      91
      Government to arrive at a solution is considerable. If at the same time the Home Secretary has a warrant placed in front of him that seeks his permission for some illegal activity to go ahead, it is only human nature that he will be inclined to grant it, especially if at the back of his mind there is the possibility that someone in the security forces will leak to a journalist that he, the Home Secretary, is not over-sympathetic to a certain warrant coming forward for approval. There is considerable pressure on any individual who has a political role in governing the country and who has also to decide whether someone's civil rights should be revoked.
      There is another problem for the Home Secretary in separating reasonable political intelligence from intelligence on illegal activities. Some of my hon. Friends have become extremely upset at the suggestion that there has been any bugging of organisations such as CND or other interference with them. Perhaps some of my hon. Friends are somewhat naive. In most protest groups there are those who want to pursue their process by legal democratic means, but there are sometimes smaller groups who feel equally strongly about the same issues but believe that they should be pursued peacefully through passive forms of resistance. There is, for example, the relationship between CND and the Committee of 100. In many instances there is a third and smaller group which believes that its cause is so correct that it is permissible to engage in violent forms of protest to pursue its ends.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Tony Banks: There is another category that might be included in any one of the groups that my hon. Friend has listed. I refer to the agent provocateur who is put into an organisation to try to discredit it.
      Mr. Bennett: I accept that. What I have said goes beyond CND and other such organisations and embraces groups that are concerned with the rights of animals. It seems reasonable and legitimate for a security service and for the police to be concerned with those who are at the far end of the spectrum who involve themselves in violence and breaking the law generally. Equally, the security services are not entitled to be involved with those whose activities remain within the law.
      When a member of the security forces asks for a warrant to enable an illegal activity to be carried out, it must be extremely difficult to know whether the person whose telephone is to be tapped or whose home is to be burgled has been involved in illegal activity. If illegal activity is authorised by the Home Secretary, he must know the results of that authorisation. If he is told that he has unearthed a crime as a result of the illegal activity that he has authorised, the officer's action in seeking the warrant will have been justified. If no crime is discovered as a result of the illegal activity, considerable political intelligence might well be gathered concerning those who are behaving legitimately and democratically. That places someone such as the Home Secretary in an extremely difficult position. He is likely to be able to gather information as a result of actions that the security forces should not have taken that will be of great importance politically. I do not see how a Home Secretary can separate his judicial role in deciding whether telephone taps, burglaries and other such actions should he committed from his political role. It would be far better to place the
      92
      duty in the hands of someone else who is not in a position to use any political intelligence that results from a misuse of the power to carry out investigations.
      Is the Security Service cost effective? It is extremely difficult to judge whether we would be better to put the money into open government, for example, rather than to try to maintain great secrecy when there is no need to do so since the service is cloaked in total secrecy.
      Many of my hon. Friends seem to assume that telephone tapping is widespread. That assumption is one that the Government would like to encourage. It encourages some who are involved in legitimate trade union activities to assume that their telephone is being tapped. Having arrived at that assumption, they go to considerable lengths not to make telephone calls but to pass on information in other ways. They are involved in protest, not illegal activities, but they assume that their protest activities will be reported back to the Government. Many of them would not wish such information to be reported back to the Government at a certain time. It would be amazing if anyone involved in illegal or subversive activities regularly transmitted information over the telephone. It would be far better if we knew clearly how many warrants were being issued. That would eradicate many myths and rumours.
      Is this amendment absolutely necessary? As I understand it, the Select Committee on Home Affairs is entitled to ask questions about these matters. According to "Erskine May," it is clear that the Select Committee on Home Affairs is entitled to investigate any activities of the Home Office which are paid for from public funds. It seems that there is absolutely nothing in the Standing Orders to prevent the Home Affairs Select Committee investigating secrecy matters.
      Since the departmental Select Committees were set up in 1979, the Home Affairs Select Committee has on one or two occasions hedged around the question whether it should investigate security issues. On almost every occasion, by using their Whips and their majority on the Committee, the Government have made it clear that it would be a waste of time for the Committee to investigate these matters because Ministers were not prepared o answer any questions and the inquiry would not make much progress,. Therefore, Members are encouraged to consider other areas for investigation.
      We should not need to pass this amendment now. Instead, the members of the Select Committee should make up their minds whether they want to carry out their scrutinising role. If they were prepared to act, as some people hoped that the Select Committees would when they were established in 1979, the Committee members would be demanding that Ministers answer questions about the security services. No doubt Ministers would come to the Committee and say that they could not answer, just as they come to the Chamber and refuse to answer such questions. I suspect that a Select Committee has the power to take on the Government with a sustained and challenging assault to demand papers and information.
      Mr. Buchan: I hate to destroy such optimism, but I believe that my hon. Friend is being rather sanguine. We have already experienced the way in which Select Committees can question Ministers in the case of the Select Committee on Defence and the Westland affair. Instructions were given to Ministers that no answers were to be given. On five pages of that report, a Committee

      93
      member put questions to the former right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) who would not answer them. Unless we change the nature of Select Committees so that there are occasions on which the Committee, perhaps with the imprimatur of the House, can put Ministers and civil servants under oath, I cannot see a substitute for the kind of Committee suggested in the amendment.
      Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend highlights the fact that our Select Committees are not working particularly well at the moment. That is not because they do not have the powers. If the House was to assert that it wanted the Select Committees to carry out their inquisitive roles, they could. Not only did the Select Committee back down over Westland, the House backed down as well. Part of the problem lies in the Government's majority. To a certain extent, in the amendment we have built in the Prime Minister's veto over appointments and there is still the problem with the Government majority.
      It is most important that the House has the confidence to demand that the Executive is accountable. Although I will support this group of amendments together with the slightly weaker amendments of Conservative Members, at the end of the day the House must have the confidence to assert its right to control the Executive.
      Until it does that, the situation in this and many other areas will continue to be unsatisfactory.
      Mr. Anderson: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that this issue is fundamental to the relationship between Parliament and the Executive.
      The strongest and stoutest defence of the Government's response to public concern about the security services was made by the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). His thesis was that, as a whole, the package, proposed by the Home Secretary is radical. He said that for the first time the Bill puts the security services on a statutory footing and warrants will have to be sought from High Court judges. He explained that there will be a tribunal with a right of appeal for members of our security services and that there will be a report from the commissioner. He said that the apex of the whole system is supervision by the Home Secretary and the Prime
      However, the problem is where, if anywhere, Parliament enters that grand structure. It is clear that when faced with substantial public concern about the role of the security services, the Home Secretary has not responded by trying to find a role for Parliament and the elected representatives of the country. Instead, he has responded with a bureaucratic solution which bypasses the role of Parliament and effectively gives no role to Parliament in our democracy in the oversight of our security services. Effectively, the Home Secretary is not saying, "How can I look at the problem through democratic spectacles and see how I can build in some oversight and accountability of the security services with all the proper safeguards?" His response has been, "I must give something. What is the least I can get away with?" The Bill is his response. It represents the divide between the two sides of the House and between the parliamentarians and
      94
      authoritarians in Parliament. There are clearly good parliamentarians on both sides of the Chamber as we have seen from the speeches today.
      During this interesting debate we have addressed one of the key problems of democracy, which is who guards the guards—Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? I agree that "guards", however defined, are necessary in our democracy. However, those "guards", with statutory powers, in the security services pose a potential danger. There are indeed substantial dangers from forces seeking to subvert our democracy and we are never sure from which quarter those threats will come.
      I recall being lectured as a very young diplomat by a very senior diplomat. He told me in a very avuncular way, "When you go abroad, young man, you will never know who the chief Soviet agent will be in the post to which you are assigned. In my first post the chief Soviet agent was my head of chancery, Donald Maclean." That caused a certain response from a young diplomat.
      Let us accept that there is a need for secrecy. Clearly the right-to-know principle is relevant. However, should certain parliamentarians who have the confidence of this House be brought within the veil, taken to the other side of the curtain to perform a proper role within our democracy? During my time in the public services, I had to deal with a number of members of the security services. I can generalise about them. Certainly they were patriotic, but it was unlikely that people would be attracted to the security services who were of a radical disposition or who would easily find themselves broadly on the Left of politics in this country. Indeed, for the most part they had their deformation professionelle.
      As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said on Second Reading, they would have a certain suspicion about the man reading the Daily Mirror on the Underground. They believed they were playing a role as centurions in our society against all the dark forces seeking to subvert our society. Perhaps a rather extreme example of that individual is Mr. Wright. Unfortunately, as a result of his role in "Spycatcher," he is deemed by some people to be a democrat. He was the most nasty, authoritarian Fascist imaginable. Any organisation that allows such a man, with his known views and weaknesses, to be recruited certainly needs a degree of accountability.
      Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend fascinates me, as always. Does he agree that history has shown that democracy across the world has been attacked as often from the Right as from the Left?
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Anderson: That is precisely my point. In so far as there is deformation by those in the security services who believe that they are being patriotic, they believe that the threat to our democracy comes from the Left. They have a world view that identifies generally with the Right.
      I accept that many problems surround the question of security in our democracy. There are the problems of pursuing policies, which have been set out by authors from de Tocqueville onwards, and how, in a democracy, one exerts any control over foreign relations or whether one leaves everything to the Executive. The United States, with all its problems, has solved the problem reasonably satisfactorily, as have Canada and Australia. They have in different ways sought to address themselves to 'the problems of scrutiny in a democracy and oversight of their

      95
      security services. They have arrived at a form of oversight, however imperfect, so why do our country and Government feel that they must stand outside other democracies, which not only perceive the need for control but have done something about it?
      Why is it that the Home Secretary, with his excellent democratic credentials, is prepared to wear the bureaucratic garb that comes with the present proposed solution? The existing accountability and oversight is inadequate. I shall listen to arguments about the precise form of parliamentary participation, whether it be individual parliamentarians who, along with other outsiders, are taken within the veil, or a Select Committee. There should be a role for Parliament, or at least for some right hon. and hon. Members.
      I am not wholly persuaded by the amendment in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member of Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and my hon. Friends which proposes that the Prime Minister should have a veto over the selection of members of the Select Committee. That would be wrong. However, I shall listen to arguments about how one should choose the Committee's membership. I am not persuaded that all members should be Privy Councillors. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said that anyone appointed to the Committee who is not already a Privy Councillor should be made one, and therefore be subject to all a Privy Councillor's responsibilities. I believe that those appointed to the Committee should submit themselves to positive vetting. It would be absurd to go so far as to suggest that they should undergo a polygraph test; that would be wholy intolerable. However, Committee members should at least be subject to positive vetting, which would help overcome problems that might otherwise arise.
      My view of the size of the Committee is the fewer the better. The "need to know" principle is valid, and if the Committee has a small number of members there will be less likelihood of leaks. When the hon. Member for Lancashire. West defended the Government, he did not mention the precedent set by the Falklands committee, when a distinguished parliamentarian such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who served on it, was taken within the veil of secrecy. That gave a credibility to the inquiry's conclusions that they might otherwise not have enjoyed. That is not a bad precedent for involving Parliament in some way.
      I also listen carefully to arguments about whether there should be a small Committee comprising only right hon. and hon. Members of this House, or whether Members of another place should be included. A number of distinguished former Members of this House now sit in another place, and I see no reason in principle why they should not be invited to join a form of small joint committee. I hope that the Home Secretary will accept the valid points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South concerning continuity. It is one that can be addressed, whether or not the Home Secretary meets the arguments we are deploying about parliamentary accountability or a parliamentary component.
      The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) suggested that no form of parliamentary component is appropriate—as if there were no right hon. or hon. Members suitable to carry out such functions democratically and on behalf of the House as a whole. I do not accept his argument that, because of the partisan
      96
      nature of our politics, such a Committee will necessarily be polarised and that its members will feel bound to reveal—although he did not go as far as to say this—information they learnt and to play the party game. That has not been the case in the US committee, nor was it the case in the Falklands committee. It will depend on the personnel. There are individuals who enjoy the confidence of their colleagues in the House, who clearly understand the need for national security, and who in no wise can be deemed likely to breach security during their service to the Committee.
      The Government's response shows a lack of confidence in Parliament. If we are to have textured democracy that really works, we must have a series of intermediary bodies between the Executive and the citizen. Over a whole range of issues—the trade unions, the media in some cases, and certainly local government—the Government, sad to say, have sought to neuter intermediary bodies. The most important among them is Parliament itself. By giving Parliament a role in security, the Government could show a confidence in Parliament that has been regrettably lacking in other areas. The Government have betrayed a negative view of Parliament and of parliamentary sovereignty.
      Does anyone seriously believe that this Government package is likely to last? My view is that it will have a relatively short life, not because of any lack of confidence in the present Home Secretary but because he is, by definition, overburdened with a vast range of responsibilities. I say with respect that any Home Secretary, because of the nature of his work, is likely to become rather remote and be drawn into the bureaucracy of the great and the good—the kind of people who serve on the Security Commission. It is a serious point, and I hope that the Home Secretary will address himself to it.
      When one chooses for the Security Commission former diplomats and former judges, all of whom are no doubt patriotic, one should also look at what the French call the formation—the personal development and background of those individuals. They may not have their beginnings in a gilded background, but they develop a certain bureaucratic feeling. They become, almost necessarily, out of touch with how ordinary folk feel about issues of this nature. Part of the argument for parliamentary democracy is that we are indeed kept in touch with how ordinary folk think, move and have their being, and are able to make an input which is valuable in itself and which, almost by definition, is impossible from the great and the good—the judges who have been robed and cloistered over their career development or the diplomats who have spent a substantial part of their careers—perhaps two thirds—outside Britain and out of contact with ordinary folk in this country.
      If the Government really wish to address the matter democratically and to gain the confidence of the public, they will not do so by avoiding a parliamentary component in the accountability of the security services. I am not arguing for a bureaucratic solution or for one that is the least that I can get away with at present. I urge the Government to reconsider their response. Parliament and the public will not for long be content with the plea from the Home Secretary, "Trust in me, and trust in my successors."
      Mr. Bermingham: It is interesting to watch what is happening on the Government Benches—although I am

      97
      sad that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) does not entirely agree with new clause 5, for reasons that I shall return to in a moment.
      The Home Secretary said a short time ago that someone with a safe Labour seat would become cocooned from life. Little does he know. The Minister of State—who earlier made the faux pas that he would only be happy when there were 650 Conservative Members of Parliament, showing his usual simultaneous combination of arrogance and ignorance—was heard to comment, "Of course, he is a barrister as well." Apparently, if someone has a Labour seat and is a barrister as well—I must declare an interest as I am both—he is cocooned and rendered utterly unsafe to others. What rubbish. That shows the conceit and arrogance of the Government once again.
      Let us not mince words. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) was kind enough to let me intervene in his speech. I said, "Everyone comes to the House as an ordinary Member. None of us comes here with anything special, magical or mythical about us; we are ordinary men and women elected by the British public." Some rise to great things, becoming Speaker of the House or a Minister of the Crown. A few rise to become Secretaries of State; the odd one or two rise to be Prime Ministers. Of course there are those who rise to become Whips, but I have nothing to say about them—nothing good, that is.
      I asked the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome whether, when an hon. Member became Home Secretary, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or Prime Minister—to be fair, I did not mention the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland then, but I mentioned the other two posts-a metamorphosis took over, and he became something even greater, not just an ordinary human being who was a Member of Parliament. Yes, he said, such a metamorphosis did take over.
      The following question then crossed my mind. When a Home Secretary ceases to be Home Secretary, as surely the current Home Secretary one day will—through disagreement with the Prime Minister, through age or through some other misfortune such as getting it wrong—can the metamorphosis reverse? Does that person cease to be someone who can be trusted with secrets of state?
      If that is the Government's attitude, it is arrogant and conceited. There are many right hon. Members on both sides of the House who have held high office and whose integrity is without question—who certainly kept secrets of state in their years of office, and who certainly in retirement would never dream of breaching the Official Secrets Act.
      8.45 pm
      Many Members of Parliament have, through being in one occupation or another previously, signed the Official Secrets Act. When they were made Members of Parliament, they all took an oath of loyalty to the Crown. Some of us have had to take more than one such oath. Those of us who were not born with an English passport took one when we were naturalised. Those of us who have practised as solicitors, as I did years ago, took an oath when we were admitted, as did those of us who were called to the Bar. The secrets that lawyers carry to the grave—
      98
      because that is the rule—are secrets at least as grave and great as many of the minor secrets that the secret service seeks so jealously to guard.
      What of the doctor and his oath of secrecy and loyalty to his patients? What of the clergyman and his oath on confessions or the lawyer and his oath of loyalty to the Crown? The Home Secretary may say that there is a lawyer preaching on behalf of his own game. My point is that in this land of ours there are many human beings who are utterly loyal to the Crown, and that within the House are a considerable number of people who have had to be keepers of others' secrets which could often have done great damage if they had got out. Is it to be said that those persons are not to be trusted, and that unless the metamorphosis has descended on an hon. Member and he has been Home Secretary pro tem—or Prime Minister pro tem, although in the current instance the time is getting rather long—he cannot be allowed to be privy to the actitivies of our most secret service?
      Is not the reality that most of the secrets of our secret service are known to everyone bar us—certainly to the Americans and to the Russians? Is it not a farce that, in the latter part of the 20th century, our secret service, still clad in the cloak of the 18th century and with the thinking of the 19th, is allowed to burrow and to tunnel?
      I agree with what was said earlier about Mr. Wright's book. It is the greatest load of rubbish that I have read for years. It is boring and dull. I shall not repeat the comments about its being the British Government who became the supersalesmen and made Mr. Wright a fortune. Nevertheless, is it not right that we, the British people, should know the truth? If that sort of activity is going on, does it not need to be disciplined and curtailed? If it is not going on—and I have no way of knowing whether it is or not—surely it is in the interests of the British secret service to have a committee of respectable or respected persons to whom they can report to show that the lies and slanders are not true. One must ask why the Government are frightened that anybody else should be involved.
      Over the past ten years there has been a creeping erosion of freedom in one form or another. So as not to go outside the ambit of the new clause, I merely propose to give a few examples. There has been an attack on the right of silence and a curtailment of broadcasting freedom. It is lunacy. If German commentators want to ask a supporter of an idiotic cause about that cause, they can do so and it can be broadcast all over Europe and shortly it will come down out of the sky on satellite television. However, the BBC and ITV cannot be trusted. The great British public cannot be trusted to make up their own mind. The Government decided that juries could not be trusted, so the right to challenge was removed. The Government decided that juries should not be let loose on certain types of case, so they were removed.
      Those are just examples of a disease. The Government fear that, if the public or the House have any say, that will somehow erode Government power. They do not want to let anyone else near the heart of our society. They do not want anyone to know the secrets. They want to huddle them away. They will have their guardians to protect the secret service and will not let anyone near it.
      The Government's suggestion is circular. A will report to B who will report to C who will then report to A. It will go round and round but will never go outside the circle. I hope that when the Home Secretary speaks to the new clause he will confirm or deny—I put the question to him

      99
      —the report that appeared in the newspapers over Christmas. The report said that the Government intended to agree that the telephones of Members of Parliament should not be tapped. It suggested that the undertaking of old would be given again. I hope that it is. If it is not, that report was as illusory as the report stating on 30 December that police cells were open and that there were no more prisoners in them. On 31 December the prisoners were back, and they are still there. I hope that the protection of the rights of Members of Parliament will be reinstated tonight.
      There are those who seek to subvert, and we must have real accountability. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East talked about the threat from extremes. I like to think that all hon. Members are democrats; we believe in democracy. We fear the threat from those who believe they are always right and extremists from both sides. My hon. Friend mentioned that, generally, the secret service seems to recruit from the Right because it fears that problems will come from the Left. During this century history has taught us that the threat comes from extremists on either the Left or Right. Both are enemies of democracy. If a service recruits from only one philosophical persuasion, there is the risk that anything standing in its way or anyone who does not believe in its philosophy will be seen as a danger to society. That is a load of nonsense. History has shown that extremism, be it Left or Right, arises when people think that power at any price is a worthwhile tactic.
      The history of the 20th century shows that some people did not believe in democracy and thought that they had a divine right to rule and never made a mistake. They reached a point at which they were afraid of ideas that did not agree with theirs. They may genuinely have believed that they were always right. However, the doctrine of infallibility has no merit in history because we are all capable of making mistakes. I do not think that all Labour Governments have been right. Some of them have been horribly wrong on occasions. When the history of the 1980s is written, the Home Secretary and the Minister will look back at some of the decisions they have taken and find them to be wrong because events will have proved them to be so. That is human nature.
      One of the decisions that will prove to be wrong is their decision to oppose new clause 5. It is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. It simply says that we believe that the body to whom the Security Service should be accountable is composed of men and women from this place who can be trusted. The Government do not seem to trust Parliament. That is a tragedy. I hope that the House will support new clause 5.
      Mr. Cryer: I will not detain the Committee because many of the points that I wished to make have been made already. The Opposition have bent over backwards to accommodate the Government. No doubt, the Government will, as usual, kick them in the teeth at the vote. Their plea for allowing the House to be the judge and allowing Parliament to play a part in the process has been arrogantly brushed aside by the Government because they do not believe in democratic accountability or in Parliament. If Parliament had a part to play in democratic accountability, the Government would seek to burn the place down to get rid of it. Therefore, it is easier to ensure that it does very little.
      100
      The Government are attempting to bring about this cynical manoeuvre because of Peter Wright who bugged and burgled his way around London. He was able to influence the choice by a Prime Minister of the head of MI5, as he recounts in his book. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) because I found Peter Wright's book fascinating. It is always fascinating to look behind the locked door of Whitehall and find out what is going on. Peter Wright's book has never been challenged on its authenticity. It has been challenged on its revelations and on the grounds of Peter Wright's lifelong oath of secrecy.
      Now that the information that Right-wing extremist elements were operating in MI5 is out—and I shall come to other examples in a moment—the Government seek to legitimise that, and that is all they want to do. The notion that the amendments are likely to find favour is improbable.
      I have always been in favour of open government and I resigned from the last Labour Government on two counts. The first was the Government's decision to close a worker co-operative with the loss of 500 jobs and they wanted me to do their dirty work for them, which I refused to do. Secondly, they were not carrying out party policy on open government. The then Prime Minister sent round a memorandum saying that we should not discuss or reveal the Cabinet system of government. Under that, 80 Cabinet committees make various decisions and are labelled by civil servants. All the labels are changed when a new Government come to office so that there can he no accountability outside or any lobbying, so the machinery of government remains isolated. I disagreed with that and showed my disagreement by resigning, so I am following a consistent line in saying that more open government is good for democracy.
      Amendment No. 73 proposes scrutiny by a Select Committee. I do not want to go over the arguments about hon. Members being reasonable, decent people. When one steps through the portals of this place, one abandons certain radical attitudes because as soon as one is inside the House, one is part of the establishment.
      9 pm
      Mr. Tony Banks: I am not part of the establishment.
      Mr. Cryer: It is true. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) may protest and cherish the illusion that he will lead the revolution at some stage, but, I am afraid, we are all tarred by the parliamentary brush to some extent.
      There is, therefore, a fair range of potential candidates for the Select Committee. There is, after all, a Select Committee on Defence, and the Home Secretary knows full well that if the Government feel that somebody might be a bit radical for the Defence Committee, they get hold of the Opposition Whips and have a little chat through the usual channels. The usual channels say that they will get some safe people on to the Committee and will not have on the Committee people who might raise a few awkward questions.
      I do not know what the Government are worried about. They can always fix things. They can almost always deal with the problem of an awkward customer who seems likely to become a member of the Select Committee. They cannot always do that, which is why they have some modest reservations about the system, but they usually

      101
      have a good chance of ensuring that the people who become members of Select Committees are pillars of the establishment.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I realise that often, in the past, good red Socialist meat has been turned into bourgeois sausages as it has gone through this place, but surely my hon. Friend would not include in his strictures about selling out to the establishment his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) or, I should have thought, himself. I do not want to shatter the view that I have of him as a principled Socialist.
      Mr. Cryer: I am sure that, as a principled Socialist, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West would not want to put words into my mouth that I never uttered. I never said anything about selling out to the establishment, but I said that the inevitable consequence of following the conventions of being elected to Parliament was, to some degree, to be touched by the establishment, because Parliament is, basically, an establishment institution. I agree that we should use the place to improve society and to produce a Socialist and fairer society. We must take a few leaves out of the Government's book and show as much determination for our people as the Prime Minister and her cronies have shown for their people.
      The House is open to change. However, there are 650 hon. Members who are all within the establishment framework to some extent and who could all be candidates for the Select Committee to scrutinise the mysterious area of Box 500, MI5 and all the rubbish and gubbins that goes with that. The truth is that our security activities need to be within a fairly narrow area. I am referring to activities such as those that would have prevented the terrible tragedy to the Pan Am aircraft over Lockerbie, for example. No one would dispute that, but I dispute the uncontrolled flights of fancy, the soaring into political and trade union areas by MI5, which are revealed in Peter Wright's book. When one realises that but for an argument over a parsimonious pension settlement that book would never have been published, one realises how narrow is the line between maintaining secrecy and allowing the complete picture to be produced.
      New clause 2 suggests a review committee of Privy Councillors and I would vote for it as a second best. However, I do not think that there should be any difference between one hon. Member and another. Privy Councillors are only people who sucked up to some Prime Minister in the past, long enough to get a job. The notion that they are transmogrified into superb beings who are more trustworthy than others is absolutely nonsensical.
      The notion of different ranks in Parliament is demonstrated by the deep resentment that prevails among many ordinary Back Benchers when Privy Councillors are called early in debates and given preferential treatment. If any Privy Councillor said at a general election, "I am a Privy Councillor, I get called early so I deserve your votes", it would be nonsensical. That relatively trivial matter, which rankles with many hon. Members, applies also to membership of Select Committees. Every hon. Member should be equally eligible to serve on a Select Committee. The difficulty over Privy Councillors, with some distinguished exceptions, is that they tend to be more subservient to the establishment than are other hon.
      102
      Members. When Members of a Select Committee are chosen, I should prefer Privy Councillors to be ignored so that the proper scrutiny that is necessary can be achieved.
      I support new clause 5. It makes accountability a little more democratic. Curious circumstances surround what MI5 has done. For example, Mr. Peter Shipley worked as an adviser at No. 10 Downing street. According to The Guardian, he was a member of the National Front. Did MI5 give him clearance? I have asked questions about that, but in the usual tactful way in which answers are blandly distorted to reveal nothing at all, the question was pushed to one side. I should have thought that those who work at No. 10 Downing street ought to be given clearance. Either MI5 was singularly inefficient in not knowing what The Guardian discovered or it acquiesced, which would be very disturbing.
      Mr. Allason: Anybody who has regular access to top secret or atomic information has to be positively vetted. The fact that somebody works in a lowly position in an office at No. 10 Downing street or anywhere else does not mean that he or she is automatically clear or vetted by MI5. The Security Service does not conduct positive vetting. That is conducted by the Procurement Executive of the Ministry of Defence.
      Mr. Cryer: I have been positively vetted. I do not know whether the man who arrived at the Department of Industry wearing his NHS specs—who at first refused to reveal his name because it was all very secret, so we had to insist that he provided us with a name so that he could be allowed into the building—was from the Procurement Executive. I was disappointed to discover that he warned me not against blondes or brunettes but against going on steam train excursions to Eastern Europe in case I revealed Department of Industry secrets. I wished that there had been some Department of Industry secrets to guard, but there did not seem to be many of them at the time.
      I do not believe that those who work at No. 10 have not been subjected to scrutiny. It casts a reflection on MI5's political attitude that a person who was subsequently listed as a member of the National Front was able to work at No. 10.
      My second point about that individual is that he was taken on as an assistant to the chairman of the Conservative party for the 1987 election. He pursued a number of dirty tricks during the campaign. I suspect, therefore, that he may not have been the kind of lowly clerk that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) suggested. [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend want to leave the Chamber?
      The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Robert Rhodes James): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that argument any further.
      Mr. Banks: Why not?
      Mr. Cryer: I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Banks: I should never wish to leave the Chamber while my hon. Friend was speaking. He must know that. Has my hon. Friend shattered another illusion this evening—that he actually passed the positive vetting test?
      Mr. Cryer: I apparently did.
      My second example of the strange relationship is simply an anecdote. Somebody who was not a constituent came to

      103
      see me. He had pursued a protest about a book not being published and had gone out to paint slogans "Justice for Adrian Tibbetts." on a wall in Leeds. An unmarked police car circled him twice and he, his parents and a man who worked with him on the task called Peter Maranchenko were arrested by plain clothes officers. Peter Maranchenko was connected with the British National party. The Tibbetts, who were involved, were arrested and prosecuted, but Peter Maranchenko slipped away from the police headquarters in Leeds with the agreement of the police, and was never prosecuted. To this day, the Tibbetts believe that he was an agent provocateur.
      That information was given to me in good faith by people who were prosecuted for causing criminal damage whereas the person who encouraged them was not. Such problems would be dispensed with if there were more democratic accountability. The Home Secretary will brush that idea to one side because he likes to keep everything within his own little ambit. He is not much of a democrat, truth to tell, or he would accept a Select Committee of fellow Members of Parliament, with the Government having power of selection over its operation.
      We shall just have to keep pressing the case until the next Labour Government institute proper, comprehensive accountability as part of a pattern of open government. We shall have to be as radical in a progressive way as the Tory Government have been radical in their attacks on ordinary people. We shall have to give ordinary people open access behind the closed doors of Whitehall.
      Mr. Hurd: I was about to congratulate you, Mr. Walker, on your first appearance in the Chair, but I do not think that that would now be entirely appropriate.
      The debate has been of high quality, ascending to the heart of the questions concerning responsibility for the Security Service. The Committee has considered two schemes of amendment, both of which were, I thought, ably proposed—by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). It has emerged that both schemes are woven out of a good many shades and patches, with a certain amount of American and Canadian cloth, and an agreeable controversy developed between the two, stoked by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is not here at the moment. His scheme draws on the Canadian experience, as did he in his speech. I have no desire to crab or rubbish the Canadian or New Zealand models. The Canadian model has been in operation for about four years and a review is expected to be undertaken fairly shortly.
      There must be some possibility of overlapping between an inspector general and a security intelligence review committee, each conducting reviews in the same area. The arrangements may or may not be sensible for Canada—that is not a matter for me or for the House. The responsibility of our Security Service and the threats to our citizens from which it seeks to protect us and the duties of Ministers in the House are not the same as those in Canada. Nor do I think it sensible to force the United Kingdom system into a Canadian mould.
      104
      There is a curious suggestion, which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills did not dwell on, but it is in his amendment that all Executive responsibilities should be transferred to the Solicitor-General.
      In Canada, the Solicitor-General has a good deal of executive responsibility. I know that because I meet him at the Trevi meetings—the European security meetings which Canada sometimes attends for preliminary discussions. The Solicitor-General in Canada is responsible for the Royal Canadian mounted police, the prison service and so on. The idea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that by transferring responsibility to the Solicitor-General we would be transferring it to some leisurely fellow does not reflect the experience in Canada. Of course, there would be a major difficulty here, because, as the right hon. Member for Spark brook knows, the Solicitor-General helps the Attorney-General in deciding on prosecutions which could raise questions of national security or relate to members of the Security Service.
      9.15 pm
      It is difficult to explain, but as all right hon. and hon. Members know such decisions are independent of Government. That has been misunderstood enough already and if we were to add to the confusion as to the existing role of the Law Officers by giving executive responsibilities over the security services to the Solicitor-General, the confusion would become absolute.
      The real question before the House tonight is not whether we follow Canada, or New Zealand which has robustly declined to follow that route, but whether it would benefit us, in addition to the reforms proposed in the Bill, to have a system of parliamentary oversight alongside the responsibility of the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, as defined in the Bill. One merit of the way in which we discuss legislation is that critics have to put forward alternative schemes. They have to leave aside generalisations and propose particular schemes.
      The Opposition had an option. They did not do what I expected them to do, or what I would have done had I been in their place. I had rather expected that they would table amendments which would have produced a Select Committee concerned with broad questions of policy arid perhaps finance and not with the actual operations of the Security Service. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) thought that that was what they had proposed. I presume that he will not be voting for the new clause now that he has read it and realises that far from making the decision to which he attached considerable importance, the Opposition go the whole hog and require that the Select Committee should see everything.
      As the debate has developed, it seems that the Labour party would have been in a better position to push its proposals had the debate finished at about 7 pm. With the exception of that of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), most of the speeches in the latter part of the debate have illustrated quite convincingly the difficulties of the Select Committee which the Labour party has proposed. Through the Opposition's general approach to the matters, the cloak of responsibility donned by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook when he. moved the amendment became rather motheaten and disintegrated as his supporters took the Floor.
      The Select Committee which he proposes would be able to examine any aspect relating to the Security Service. The

      105
      amendment suggests that the very existence of the Security Service would depend on that examination. The Select Committee proposed by the Opposition would be able, at any time and in any way, to question all the actions undertaken by the Security Service. All its individual operations and all its most sensitive and secret techniques, all its information, all its expenditure and management decisions would be open to investigation. In practice, by the definition in the amendment, next to nothing could be kept from the Select Committee, which would not only receive information, but be required to compile and analyse it.
      Although I am probably not quoting the right hon. Gentleman correctly, I think that he used a phrase which is not in new clause 5 about sharing or taking part of the responsibility for the service. We shall see exactly what he said in Hansard tomorrow, but his speech went even further towards divided responsibility than the new clause itself. The Select Committee will be able to direct reviews by the Security Service and by the commissioner and conduct their own reviews on any matter.
      These are not matters of a general nature; they involve the collection of information or the capacity of the service to protect our security, and they could be compiled and analysed only by those who were party to all the acts of the Security Service. Then the information, so far as one can follow the argument, would appear in an annual report. Obviously, there is not much point in compiling and analysing statistics on operational data if they are not largely to be published, and publication, under the Opposition's proposals, would not be a matter in which the Government would have a decisive say. They would be consulted, but it would be for the Select Committee to decide what it should publish. Ministers could make representations but the members of the Select Committee would decide.
      So the Opposition propose a Select Committee which would, in effect, be completely inside the barrier of secrecy that the House has often discussed, and there would be no hold on the use that it made of the information that it acquired. To answer the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), I do not say that hon. Members of any party would deliberately use this information to undermine the Security Service or the nation. That could happen, but I do not say that it is likely. I am saying that the risk of the service and the nation being undermined as a result of information passing into the Select Committee's hands would be substantial.
      I also say that responsibility for the disclosure of information about the work of the Security Service should rest with the Executive and nowhere else; otherwise, the situation would be thoroughly confused and risky. A parallel with Lord Frank's committee, which was a single inquiry into a single set of dramatic events in the past, cannot be prayed in aid on this occasion.
      Mr. Bermingham: Will the Minister be kind enough to explain why someone who has held high office of state and been entrusted with the state's secrets should, when he becomes an ordinary Member of Parliament and serves on such a Select Committee, change his attitude to the duties and responsibilities that he has had previously?
      Mr. Hurd: There are many answers to the hon. Gentleman's point. One is that there is no guarantee under the Opposition's proposal—I am not talking about that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills—that such persons would serve. Secondly—I put this politely—the passage of time makes an enormous difference. Opposition Members would not conceivably have adopted many of the attitudes that they now express when they held office themselves or even, perhaps, when the memory of office was still fairly recent. The third answer is that which I have just outlined. I do not suggest that there would automatically be a deliberate desertion of responsibility. I merely suggest that if all this information were in the hands of the Select Committee, with no bar on the way it was used—leaving aside ill will—the position would be risky and confused. For those three reasons, the hon. Gentleman is on to a poor point.
      Mr. Stuart Randall: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that whether there would be breaches of security would depend on the type of people on the Select Committee? Does he recognise that new clause 5 includes a veto that the Prime Minister could exercise to reject anyone thought to be unsuitable?
      Mr. Hurd: I understand that—I read the Opposition's proposal with care—but it does not dispose of my first argument, or touch on the other two at all. Even if the Select Committee defied the sort of advice that it might receive from the Opposition Members who spoke in the latter part of this evening and behaved entirely responsibly—in their view—it would still get itself into a remarkably difficult position. What would be the purpose of a report from the Select Committee if the Secretary of State did not respond to it? Its members would get into difficulties: they would be pressed by people such as Opposition Members to reveal information that they had highly secret operational matters; and if they did not, they would find themselves accused by most Opposition Members who spoke in the latter part of the debate of not doing their job. [Interruption.] That is the critique that we have made of this philosophy for at least two years, and it has not been answered. It has been sharpened in the Opposition proposals.
      Mr. Anderson: It is wrong to ignore the Falklands precedent or to say that it was just a one-off operation. Is the Home Secretary aware of any pressures from any Labour Member on my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) who sat on the Falklands committee?
      Mr. Hurd: I am not, and that is why I say it was a one-off operation for a single dramatic set of events in the past and is not in any way comparable to what the Opposition now propose.
      I shall now turn to the proposition by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. His is a more sophisticated proposition and, as my hon. Friend acknowledges, it is a less parliamentary one. He proposes a body of Privy Councillors or hon. Members who might become Privy Councillors as a result of their appointment to this committee. Since the debate in 1986 on this subject we have looked seriously at the different proposals for a committee of Privy Councillors or for some other body to oversee and review the work of the Security Service.

      107
      The point about the confusion at the heart of the nation's security remains the same whether one is talking about my hon. Friend's proposal or about the Opposition's proposal. As my hon. Friend said, he borrows from the Canadian wording and, like the proposed Select Committee, his review committee would have access to any information in the control of the Security Service. When one looks at the duties that it is expected to perform, one finds that it would be able to carry out those duties only if it had access to all the information. We would then find, although in a diluted form, the same risks and confusions that I mentioned when I spoke about the proposed Select Committee.
      A review committee would cut across the line of responsibility and it would come close to what the Opposition have described as divided responsibility. It would put the director-general and the Security Service in a difficult position. If it were doing its job, it would be constantly pressing for the revelation of operational secrets to show the House and public that it was an effective watchdog.
      One point becomes more relevant when we come to the complaints part of the Bill. Unlike the Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills tries to sweep up under the scope of the review committee the complaints procedure that is embodied in the Bill. His proposal would provide a worse service for the complainant with more hurdles than are proposed in the Bill. Instead of having his complaints investigated at once by the tribunal, the aggrieved citizen would not be able to turn to the Security Service review committee in lieu of the tribunal until he had first made a complaint to the director-general and had received no satisfaction. On reflection, my hon. Friend will find that that would put the director-general of the Security Service and the aggrieved citizen—the complainant—in an impossible position.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: The amendments have not just sprung out of our heads. There has been some practice and some experience of the amendments in the operation of the Canadian system. None of the objections advanced by the Home Secretary has pertained there. There have been no objections or complaints and it is a working system in situ. The hypothesis that it may not be right has to be based on something. What evidence does the Home Secretary have for saying that the Canadian system does not work?
      Mr. Hurd: I am not criticising. My hon. Friend was not in the House when I dealt with this point earlier.
      Mr. Buchan: The Home Secretary did not deal with it.
      Mr. Hurd: I dealt specifically with what I described as the Canadian cloth from which my hon. Friend's proposal was woven. I am presently dealing with the handling of complaints. Under our proposal the aggrieved citizens would go straight to the tribunal. I think that I am right in saying that under my hon. Friend's proposal there would be no tribunal. There would be a Security Service review committee, but the aggrieved citizen would have to go to the director-general before he could go to that committee. That is a less direct and less satisfactory means of dealing with a possible grievance than that proposed in the Bill.
      9.30 pm
      As I listened to the debate, it became increasingly clear that there are deeply different basic approaches to the Security Service. The approach of the Opposition is not
      108
      entirely that of my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills and for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), although the same thought came into their speeches. It is that the Security Service is basically an untamed and possibly dangerous animal that needs to be caged, that a searchlight needs to be trained on the cage, that keepers be employed to enter the cage and announce to the world at every stage what the animal is doing because the main fear is that the animal will escape and pounce on innocent citizens. That is a caricature of the portrait of a Security Service being built out of the speeches of Opposition Members.
      The debate has been of high quality, and the only time that I felt a flicker of anger was when I listened to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) describing the work of the Security Service. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) is on to a good point. I come into contact with the Security Service almost every day for various reasons, but partly as result of the Interception of Communications Act and the duties that that has laid upon it. I see a body of people who, in one way or another, are daily trying to use their ingenuity to protect us from espionage, subversion and terrorism, and the greatest of these threats is terrorism. My contact with the Security Service concerns its efforts to protect the hon. Member for Paisley, South, and me, and our constituents, from terrorism, day by day and week by week. But the hon. Gentleman showed no understanding of that dimension. When I hear him going on with all the old stories, I see that there is a substantial difference between the concepts of the two sides of the House of the work of the Security Service.
      Mr. Winnick: The Home Secretary knows full well that we do not question the bravery of MI5 officials who combat terrorism and protect the security of our citizens. However, three factors give rise to our concern. The first has been put by the person for whom the Home Secretary used to work—the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who said that there were some officials in MI5 who did not seem to understand their responsibilities. Secondly, there are Peter Wright's allegations, and, thirdly, and perhaps most important of all, what Cathy Massiter, the former MI5 official, said, which has not been challenged in any way. Should we not be concerned about such matters?
      Mr. Hurd: I have heard the hon. Gentleman make his speech several times, and he has just ecapsulated it again. As to his only new point, about my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), I learnt a good deal of what I know about these matters from my right hon. Friend, and I had a fairly rigorous upbringing from him when he was in a position of responsibility. The truth about several speeches—
      Mr. Winnick: Answer the question.
      Mr. Hurd: I am answering the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). What has come through in several speeches from the Opposition—from the hon. Members for Swansea, West (Mr. Anderson, for Caithness and Sutherland, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and from parts of the speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, North—is that there is a tension and a difficulty in the fact that the service that has the job of protecting us can do it

      109
      effectively only to the extent that its operations remain secret. That difficulty is not addressed in the Opposition's solution.
      Until fairly recently, we managed to get on fairly well with many of these matters in a certain obscurity, with tension coming to the surface only occasionally.
      In the last year or so, we came to the conclusion that the time had come to make a substantial move forward, to put the security service on a statutory basis, to establish a system of authorisation of any interference with property by the Secretary of State and to put that warrant system under the supervision of a commissioner, who would be a judge, and to establish a system of remedy for any aggrieved citizen.
      We have heard several aggrieved citizens in today's debate. The hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and for Paisley, South gave us long dissertations about how they believed themselves to have been aggrieved by the activities of the security services. It is no good their waiting for a Labour Government to give them any remedy. I recall no sign of movement and no effective pressure from the last Labour Government, but perhaps I am wrong about that. The two hon. Gentlemen were in and out of Government, so it was difficult to tell. There was no sign of movement, reform or democratic responsibility at that time. They have had to wait until we put forward this Bill to have an opportunity to remedy their alleged grievances.
      I hope that those hon. Members will recognise, in the middle of their radicalism, that this is the first time for a long time that it has been possible to discuss these matters in any detail. I hope that they will recognise that we are putting forward three radical changes and are now deciding whether there should be a fourth. Those hon. Members should give us credit for the movement which is taking place and which provides a remedy for the first time for the particular grievances to which they devoted so much of their speeches.
      Mr. Heffer: I agree with the Home Secretary. The Labour Government did nothing of any consequence to deal with this question. We argued the case time and again, but the present Government have acted only after all the revelations and the upsurge of feeling among the masses of people in this country that something had to be done.
      Mr. Hurd: You could fool me, Mr. Walker, about the upsurge. The hon. Gentleman told us how he created demonstrations in Liverpool and how much difficulty he had in doing that. There has been no upsurge of popular feeling. We introduced this Bill and we are defending it on its merits because the time has come to make this substantial move forward. The idea that we have done so as a result of overwhelming popular pressure shows how out of touch the hon. Gentleman is with public opinion.
      The Bill contains three substantial proposals. We are discussing whether there should be an additional scheme and, if so, whether it should be that put forward by the hon. Member for Sparkbrook or the more sophisticated one put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. I advise the House to resist both schemes and both sets of amendments which are attempts to add a fourth major element to the Bill. If the House
      110
      took that course, it would certainly blur responsibility in an area where responsibility should not be blurred and it could create substantial dangers.
      Mr. Randall: I shall direct my remarks to amendment No. 73 and new clause 5 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
      There are three main elements in the Labour party's policy for the Security Service which it has held for some considerable time. First, the service should be on a statutory footing, secondly, its functions should be properly defined and, thirdly, the service should be accountable to Parliament. The Bill proposes putting the Security Service on a statutory footing and we welcome that. On the other two elements of our policy, the Bill fails miserably and that is why we oppose it.
      Amendment No. 73 and new clause 5 deal only with scrutiny and accountability. Our belief that the operation of the Security Service should be more democratic lies at the core of the debate. The basis and fundamental guiding principle that I tend to use is that all power in our democracy must be accounted for. Without proper accountability we make the Security Service susceptible to inefficiency, ineffectiveness, corruption and abuse. More importantly to Labour Members, there is the danger of loss of freedom for some individuals in entirely unacceptable ways. A key characteristic of our democratic approach is that it would lead to more openness for the service.
      It is important to add that we accept that a characteristic of the Security Service is that some of its operations must remain secret. If we intruded on that secrecy, the usefulness of the service would be impaired. I think that all hon. Members accept that. Certainly that was recognised when we formulated amendment No. 73 and new clause 5. We believe emphatically that it is possible to improve accountability while retaining necessary levels of secrecy. That assertion can be substantiated by experience in the operation of the security services in other countries on a more open and democratic basis than ours.
      Our motive in tabling the amendment is twofold. We want greater democracy and we want to see improvements in the operation of the Security Service. We believe that that would be inevitable if the amendment were carried.
      I am sure that improved accountability would be welcomed by the many members of the Security Service who feel that its reputation has been besmirched by various scandals over many years. The amendment would help to prevent such damaging scandals for the service in future.
      The operation of the Security Service must adhere to three important criteria. First, the service must be effective and efficient in carrying out its functions. Secondly, it must both recognise and protect the civil liberties of the British people. Currently, the service is, in practice, a powerful and insular organisation which operates outside the law and, to all intents and purposes, is unaccountable to Parliament. That leaves it open to various abuses that can and have damaged the civil liberties of many of our citizens. Thirdly, and most importantly, we believe that the service must command the trust and confidence of the British people.
      Our contention is that the three criteria can best be met by the Security Service if it becomes accountable to the

      111
      House by means of the Select Committee that has been advocated in the amendment and the new clause. The proposal to introduce parliamentary accountability was advocated by the Labour party during the passage of the Interception of Communications Bill, which received Royal Assent in 1985. The right hon. and learned Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), the Government Chief Whip who was then a Home Office Minister, felt that it would undermine ministerial responsibility as well as the responsibility of the senior management of the Security Service. Consequently, he rejected it. He said that there was no need to add
      "another parliamentary dimension to the existing arrangements for control and accountability."—[Official Report, 17 April 1985; Vol. 77, c. 298].
      The amendment would do exactly the opposite to that which was argued by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Rather than undermine the positions of the Home Secretary and the senior management of the Security Service, it would strengthen them. The performance of the service would be enhanced through improved accountability. In response to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that another parliamentary dimension to the existing arrangement is not needed, I must state that that is the same as saying that the existing system of parliamentary accountability is working satisfactorily. I firmly reject that.
      9.45 pm
      In reply to a question on the need for an oversight body from my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) following the statement on the Security Commission's report on the Bettaney affair, the Prime Minister said that the existing arrangements were the best way to run the Security Service because, she said, the service must he run under "unified management."
      We all understand the principles under which the Select Committee system works. It is absurd to suggest that accountability to Parliament through a Select Committee along the lines proposed in amendment No. 73 would impair the unity of management of the Security Service. I have spent 35 years in business and industry and as a Member of this House. From my experience I reject the arguments put forward by the Prime Minister and the right hon. and learned Member for Ribble Valley as hollow and wrong.
      Anyone who has a good grounding in management and who, through experience, understands basic human nature will appreciate the benefits that can arise through good and effective accountability. I believe that the existing arrangements are disgracefully inadequate and quite antiquated. I wonder whether when the Prime Minister and the right hon. and learned Member for Ribble Valley made their statements they had given even the most superficial consideration to the notion of improved accountability, or did they simply accept another brief from the Security Service chiefs and Permanent Secretaries without question?
      It is ironic that the Government hold such rigid and out-of-date views while some of our allies, with whom we co-operate most closely, have oversight systems to improve the performance of their security and intelligence services. What is supposed to make Britain so different from the other countries? Perhaps the Minister will tell us. In particular, perhaps he will comment on remarks made by Stansfield Turner, the former CIA director, who said:
      112
      "It is not good enough for intelligence agencies to be accountable to the Executive. There is a need for a responsible body outside the Executive branch to make sure that Executive is not overenthusiastic in seeking to obtain information important to the national interest. Over-enthusiasm, we have seen, may lead to excess."
      Mr. Turner added that he believed that oversight improved the quality of CIA operations and provided against future mistakes due to the lack of accountability.
      On a similar note, Harvey Barnett the former head of the Australian security and intelligence organisation said:
      "it would be a sign of political health and commonsense to
      have at least occasional external scrutiny of a body which may be required for national purposes to intrude into the private lives of individuals."
      Those quotes come from people with considerable experience of running organisations similar to our Security Service. The message is clear. Scrutiny and accountability along the lines proposed in amendment No. 73 and new clause 5 are vital to the effective operation of security and intelligence services and would protect the civil liberties of our people.
      Perhaps the conclusion that we should draw from the Government's position is that they do not care about civil liberties and the freedom of the individual. They have wasted opportunities to introduce changes during the passage of the Bill. However, it is a minimalist Bill, designed merely to get the Government off the hook with the European Court of Human Rights now that that court has declared admissible alleged abuses or civil liberties by the Security Service. The Government have no intention of trying to achieve anything more.
      What is wrong with the existing system of accountability? Why do we suggest through amendment No. 73 and new clause 5 improvements to those arrangements? The existing system relies on the Home Secretary monitoring the service on behalf of Parliament. Right hon. and hon. Members are unable to obtain from him any information about the service, except in general terms. The arrangement is shrouded in secrecy, and right hon. and hon. Members must rely on the Home Secretary doing his job efficiently.
      The impression I have gained from the debate is that under the existing system of accountability the Home Secretary does not really know what is going on in the Security Service for much of the time. Perhaps the Minister will confirm whether my impression is correct by answering four basic questions. First, does he accept that power over the Security Service is concentrated away from the lines of ministerial responsibility? Secondly, will he confirm that, with security and intelligence, there are no parallel committees of Ministers and civil servants, as often happens, but only committees of officials? Thirdly, will he confirm that those committees of officials are served by Cabinet Office staff whose accountability, such as it is, is through the Cabinet Secretary and the Prime Minister? Finally, does the Minister accept that the effect of those organisational arrangements is to remove Ministers and Parliament from an opportunity to direct the Security Service?
      I shall be grateful if the Minister will answer a number of additional, short questions. [Interruption.] We are in Committee, so he can do so. The information I seek is in the public domain, and I want only brief answers for the record. We must find out what the Minister thinks.
      Will the Minister confirm that the various aspects of security are co-ordinated at Civil Service level, and there is

      113
      no equivalent function at ministerial level? Is it true that the Minister does not direct long-term planning or become involved in short-term operations, or even in the service's budgeting? Will he confirm that he is merely fed with information according to need-to-know criteria decided by the Security Service itself? Does he agree that when Ministers are given information, they are not necessarily involved in any decision-making process?
      In the context of that last question, I shall be grateful if the Minister will comment on the words of George Young, ex-deputy head of MI6, in Command 8787, "Falkland Islands Review":
      "The higher reaches of the Civil Service undoubtedly make most of the decisions for Ministers. They put them in front of them and say, 'Minister, do you agree?' The ethos of the higher reaches of the Civil Service is not one of stirring up hornets' nests, particularly if some of your best friends are hornets, but in my experience of dealing with Ministers—and I have met a fair amount off and on over some 12 years—they don't hear what you say; you tell them something, it goes in one ear and it is out of the other, and they are busy thinking up the next Parliamentary answer to the next Parliamentary question."
      Clearly Mr. George Young, who was very experienced in security and intelligence affairs, did not think much of ministerial accountability. It is a matter of great concern that the so-called system of ministerial accountability, which we are told works satisfactorily, seems to add up to Ministers receiving reports from the Security Service that say, "Everything is fine, Minister." That is quite unacceptable. Only the House has the power to introduce a system of effective accountability. That is why we tabled an amendment and a new clause to establish a Select Committee for the Security Service, I hope that it will be supported by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      Mr. Aitken: I think it essential that we make a more determined attempt to probe my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and to challenge some of the sweeping assertions that he made in his winding-up speech. From the point of view of dealing with the Opposition, he could be said to have made a skilful speech: it was not, after all, very difficult to pick off, one by one, some of the sitting Left-wing ducks by attacking their sillier remarks. I believe, however, that he misjudged the mood of the House and the country in ignoring some of the serious arguments put forward by, for example, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and the minority parties, and indeed by the libertarian wing of his own party. Although there is tremendous support for the security services, there is also considerable unease about some of the things that have gone wrong, and to make no answer to some of the major criticisms made in the debate was a glaring omission.
      First, my right hon. Friend did not answer the point that a busy Secretary of State whose responsibilities span broadcasting, immigration, the police and the Channel islands might not have quite enough time to give the security services the detailed attention and monitoring demanded by the modern world. Secondly, there was not a single good argument to explain what he sees as the flaws of the Canadian system of supervision—referred to in the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for
      114
      Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—which is in situ and working well. Although we heard some lofty disdain, we heard no serious criticism of the system.
      My right hon. Friend also did not explain why he is so complacent about the fact that Britain is the only democracy in the English-speaking world with no independent system of oversight of the security services. I find it offensive to the House for the notion of a parliamentary Select Committee to be dismissed with the attitude that "We cannot trust parliamentarians." It is wrong that my right hon. Friend should brush aside the precedent set by the Falklands committee, and suggest that that precedent in no way suggests that a similar Committee could also keep secrets well.
      My right hon. Friend has emerged tonight as the King Canute of the oversight argument. Parliamentary or Privy Council oversight of the security services is an idea whose time is here now and will stay here, despite tonight's disappointing ministerial response.
      Mr. Maclennan: The Home Secretary has given the debate a most disappointing conclusion. He has completely failed to address the central issues of the amendment tabled by his hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), which draws to his attention the experience of a country in our Commonwealth with a constitution very similar to ours.
      The right hon. Gentleman may argue that there is something peculiar about the conduct of the Security Service that makes accountability unimportant. If there is something more important to the country than security, it is war and peace. Ministers of the Crown have always been held to be responsible to Parliament for their decisions and the exercise of their prerogative powers over war and peace. Not only was the Falklands inquiry subjected to consideration by a Committee of the House, but even when we were engaged in total war against the might of imperial Germany it was thought appropriate to establish a committee of inquiry into the Gallipoli disaster. The Committee—
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report Progress.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Security Service Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour—[Mr. Fallon.]

    Security Service Bill
    Considered again in Committee.
    Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
    Mr. Maclennan: The Home Secretary has argued that accountability means shared responsibility, but that is not an argument for excluding oversight by those to whom Parliament has given the task of scrutiny. We can accept the argument that Parliament cannot deal with questions of security in the same way that it deals with other matters. We accept that there has to be a narrower consideration by fewer hon. Members. However, as the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said, Parliament must be satisfied by the arrangements that are made. We cannot be satisfied by an arrangement that allows the Home Secretary the sole responsibility for these matters, backed up in this narrow question of the issue of warrants

    115
    by a judicial officer appointed by him. That excludes from proper judicial review the common law rights of citizens not to have their liberties infringed by otherwise illegal activities.
    The Home Secretary did not give the House an answer to the fact that the system we have recommended works. It works in Canada where there has been no problem of leakage. It has not called into question the effectiveness or secrecy of the Canadian security service. The right hon. Gentleman has not given the House any evidence to support the thesis that we alone of democracies should have no scrutiny by our Parliament. Nowhere did he explain why this country has to be out of step with other democracies in the rest of the world.
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will not be surprised to hear that I am disappointed by his response to our considered amendments. Hon. Members have concentrated on the concept that, sometimes, the Security Service may get it wrong. Can we not evisage circumstances in which a Minister gives an incorrect instruction to the Security Service? Our amendments are designed to ensure that by a dual approach—having independent oversight—the Security Service would know if an improper instruction were given to it, and by a complaints system the matter could be remedied. When we legislate on the matter, internal control and accountability and external controls are fundamental for guaranteeing our democracy.
    The Home Secretary did not mention the subtle balance necessary between the defence of democracy and our security. The theme running through our amendments is that the rule of law must be paramount. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend cannot conceive of circumstances in which that would be of assistance to the Government, the service and the House. That is why we tabled the amendments.
    Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. A series of questions has been put to the Home Secretary, which he acknowledged clearly, and on which he has been making notes.
    The Chairman of Ways and Means: Order. It is entirely a matter for the Home Secretary whether he wants to speak again.
    Mr. Buchan rose—
    The Chairman: Order. I am dealing with the point of order that the hon. Gentleman raised.
    Mr. Buchan: I did not know whether you were addressing me, Mr. Walker.
    The Chairman: I am addressing the hon. Gentleman. There is no obligation on the Home Secretary to speak a second time, nor do I have the power to require him or any other hon. Member to do so.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 163, Noes 232.

    Division No. 33]

    [10.05 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Allason, Rupert

    Ashton, Joe

    Allen, Graham

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Anderson, Donald

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    116

    Barron, Kevin

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Battle, John

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Beckett, Margaret

    Leighton, Ron

    Beith, A. J.

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Litherland, Robert

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

    Livingstone, Ken

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Blair, Tony

    McAllion, John

    Boateng, Paul

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Boyes, Roland

    McCartney, Ian

    Bradley, Keith

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    McFall, John

    Buchan, Norman

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Buckley, George J.

    McKelvey, William

    Caborn, Richard

    McLeish, Henry

    Callaghan, Jim

    Maclennan, Robert

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    McWilliam, John

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Madden, Max

    Carlile Alex (Mont'g)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Marek, Dr John

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Martlew, Eric

    Clelland, David

    Maxton, John

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Meale, Alan

    Cohen, Harry

    Michael, Alun

    Corbett, Robin

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Crowther, Stan

    Morley, Elliott

    Cryer, Bob

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Cummings, John

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Darling, Alistair

    Mullin, Chris

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    O'Brien, William

    Dewar, Donald

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Dixon, Don

    Patchett, Terry

    Eadie, Alexander

    Pendry, Tom

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Prescott, John

    Fearn, Ronald

    Randall, Stuart

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Redmond, Martin

    Fisher, Mark

    Reid, Dr John

    Flannery, Martin

    Robertson, George

    Flynn, Paul

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Rogers, Allan

    Foster, Derek

    Rooker, Jeff

    Foulkes, George

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Ruddock, Joan

    Galloway, George

    Salmond, Alex

    George, Bruce

    Sheerman, Barry

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Gordon, Mildred

    Short, Clare

    Gould, Bryan

    Skinner, Dennis

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

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

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Snape, Peter

    Grocott, Bruce

    Soley, Clive

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Spearing, Nigel

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Strang, Gavin

    Haynes, Frank

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Henderson, Doug

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Turner, Dennis

    Hood, Jimmy

    Wall, Pat

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Walley, Joan

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Howells, Geraint

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Wilson, Brian

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Winnick, David

    Illsley, Eric

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Ingram, Adam

    Janner, Greville

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Mr. Ken Eastham and

    Kennedy, Charles

    Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    117

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Alexander, Richard

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Evennett, David

    Amos, Alan

    Fallon, Michael

    Arbuthnot, James

    Favell, Tony

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Ashby, David

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Forman, Nigel

    Atkins, Robert

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Atkinson, David

    Forth, Eric

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Franks, Cecil

    Batiste, Spencer

    Freeman, Roger

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    French, Douglas

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Fry, Peter

    Benyon, W.

    Gale, Roger

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Gill, Christopher

    Boswell, Tim

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Bottomley, Peter

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bowis, John

    Gow, Ian

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

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

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Gregory, Conal

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Burns, Simon

    Ground, Patrick

    Burt, Alistair

    Grylls, Michael

    Butcher, John

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Butler, Chris

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Butterfill, John

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Harris, David

    Carttiss, Michael

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hayward, Robert

    Chapman, Sydney

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Chope, Christopher

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

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

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Colvin, Michael

    Hunter, Andrew

    Conway, Derek

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Irvine, Michael

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Couchman, James

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Cran, James

    Kilfedder, James

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

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

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Knapman, Roger

    Dicks, Terry

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Knowles, Michael

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lang, Ian

    Dover, Den

    Latham, Michael

    Dunn, Bob

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Durant, Tony

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Eggar, Tim

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    118

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Lightbown, David

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Lilley, Peter

    Scott, Nicholas

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Maclean, David

    Shersby, Michael

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Sims, Roger

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Speed, Keith

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Speller, Tony

    Malins, Humfrey

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Mans, Keith

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Maples, John

    Squire, Robin

    Marlow, Tony

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Stern, Michael

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Mellor, David

    Sumberg, David

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Summerson, Hugo

    Mills, Iain

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Moate, Roger

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Thorne, Neil

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Thurnham, Peter

    Mudd, David

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Neale, Gerrard

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Tracey, Richard

    Neubert, Michael

    Trippier, David

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Norris, Steve

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Warren, Kenneth

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Watts, John

    Paice, James

    Wells, Bowen

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Wheeler, John

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Whitney, Ray

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Wilkinson, John

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Wilshire, David

    Portillo, Michael

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Price, Sir David

    Wood, Timothy

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Yeo, Tim

    Redwood, John

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Renton, Tim

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Riddick, Graham

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Rowe, Andrew

    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

    Ryder, Richard

    Mr. Alan Howarth.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.— [Mr. Chapman.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  Education
  10.19 pm
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the School Curriculum Development Committee and Secondary Examinations Council (Designation of Staff) Order 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 2171), dated 12th December 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th December, be annulled.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It will be for the convenience of the House to discuss with this the second motion:
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the School Curriculum Development Committee and Secondary Examinations Council (Transfer of Property) Order 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 2172), dated 12th December 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th December, be annulled.
  Mr. Fatchett: The two orders are somewhat narrow. They are consequent upon the Education Reform Act 1988 and involve the transfer of staff and property from the Secondary Examinations Council to the School Curriculum Development Committee.
  Hon. Members who have read the orders will have been fascinated by the detail and no doubt will have seen a long list of names of people and another list of property about to be transferred from one body to another. They may well ask why we are praying against the orders. Perhaps it is worth my while offering an explanation. I know that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) will be interested in the answer. The fact that he is still here at this time of night suggests a rare interest.
  We wish to raise a number of points about the transfer of staff. Hon. Members can now discount further intellectual and academic interest in their property as we are concentrating on the order relating to staff. We do not seek to divide the House on the order. As that news may be of some importance to Conservative Members, I have announced it early in the debate. I hope that that is a sign of populism on my part or realism on the Conservative Benches. We seek a brief debate on the issues, and wish to raise one or two important points. When we initially prayed against the order we were concerned about the way in which one or two members of staff were being treated. Since then substantial progress has been made, but we wish to allow the Minister to deal with those matters and to raise one or two other issues.
  I shall broaden the subject briefly and offer our congratulations to the Secondary Examinations Council on its work over the years. It has developed a substantial educational representation, and it is appropriate that we show our support for its work in the past and our respect for what it has been able to achieve in education.
  The debate also gives us the opportunity to look forward to the work of the School Curriculum Development Committee and its various bodies which will make an important contribution to the development of education in Britain. We have had differences with Conservative Members about the detail of the national curriculum, but they will recall that at no stage did we vote against the principle of the national curriculum. The Secretary of State even criticised us for not putting up sufficient opposition. He has now recognised that we put forward constructive opposition and make constructive
  120
  suggestions in the hope of turning his national curriculum into a vehicle that improves education quality and standards.
  To achieve that shared objective of improving education, and of the various bodies of the School Curriculum Development Committee contributing towards that process, it is important that staff are transferred amicably to the new bodies. That will contribute to their well-being and their efficiency. With that in mind, I should like to ask the Minister three specific questions that she may well be able to answer when she replies to the debate.
  First, according to information that I received this afternoon, four members of staff have not been offered what they would deem to be suitable alternative accommodation and employment. We are all aware of the difficulties in finding suitable alternative employment. What further additional steps will be taken so that those four members of staff can be taken on board and can make a contribution? I understand that that is what they would like to do.
  Secondly, if the four members of the SEC are taken on board the new organisation, will there be a need for a supplementary order to the existing statutory instrument, or will they be covered by it in some way? I gather from the Minister's glance across to other sources that the answer may well be that a supplementary order will be needed.
  Thirdly, I ask the Minister about the present legal status of the Secondary Examinations Council. According to paragraph 48 of its articles of association, there seems to be a procedure that allows a voluntary wind-up of the organisation, but for it to be activated there must be a members' meeting. I understand that there has been no such meeting, so there can be no voluntary wind-up under article 48. If the SEC has not been wound up on that voluntary basis, it could, alternatively, be subject to a compulsory wind-up under section 652 of the Companies Act 1985. As I understand those procedures, three months' notice must be given—and they have not been given.
  Clarification of the SEC's legal status has a bearing on the status of individual employees who have not yet been satisfactorily transferred to the new bodies.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: Just before we finish the questioning session, perhaps I can ask the hon. Gentleman whether he realises that there will be a widespread welcome in the north of England for the projected move of the new curriculum council to York. Many people will look forward to the new opportunities afforded by the Education Reform Act 1988, and the way in which the new council will work from York, which is in the middle of the north of England.
  There will be a certain amount of surprise at the Labour party's praying against an order such as this; it has always been thought that Opposition Members were very interested in the regionalisation of Government offices.
  Mr. Fatchett: I recognise that I gave the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to make a useful intervention that could get him some local publicity. I am a little surprised that he took the opportunity to try to score a cheap party-political debating point. I expected better of him. As a matter of information, I tell him that the educational assets board is also to be located in the centre of the north of England—in Leeds.
  Conservative Members who served on the Standing Committee that dealt with the Education Reform Bill will

  121
  recall the extensive and efficient way in which I lobbied on behalf of Leeds for that new institution to be located in my constituency. So great was the power of my persuasion, so eloquent were my arguments, that the Secretary of State, despite counter-lobbying for London and Blackburn by one or two of my hon. Friends, almost immediately afterwards announced that the board was to be in Leeds. He was right to do so, because a report was published only a couple of weeks ago showing that Leeds is now regarded by many as the second city in the country, following its growth under an effective Labour-controlled council. It will not be long before it takes over as the first city. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity he gave me to make those points.
  We look forward to the work of the new body, which is an important one. We shall monitor its work; it will have a real opportunity to shape educational content, delivery and process in this country for many years to come. We wish it well and hope that all the staff are on board and that there will be good relations in the future.
  10.29 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: When my leader told me that I was to be transferred to shadow the Secretary of State for Education and Science and to join the old triumvirate that he and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and I enjoyed in shadowing the Department of the Environment Ministers, I decided to prepare long and hard for my maiden speech on education as my party's official spokesman. This is it. I scratched my head a little wondering why we have to debate the two orders.
  I am sure that it is very important for Christine Ann Coles that she is transferred with her friends and others from the School Curriculum Development Committee to the new body. I am sure that it is vital that the Sony 3000 camera, registration No. 215270, and the Ferguson cassette No. 19132 be vested in the National Curriculum Council. That Parliament, this centre of democracy, should allocate an hour and a half of debate to such details is somewhat surprising. It may be a sad commentary on the intervention of central Government in minutiae. If we had regional government, this matter could be debated somewhere else.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Surely we are debating the central core of Liberalism—pavement politics, the community.
  Mr. Hughes: I have sparred with the hon. Gentleman in Committee and would hate to disappoint him, so I thought of something substantive to say about the detailed issue. I shall make three points of substance to the Minister. I hope that she will reply to them.
  Mr. John Bowis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: Yes, but I do not want to extend matters of small detail into a long nocturnal debate.
  Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman has raised some detailed points. Has he seen the mention of a hot letterpress machine? Does he think that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) has consulted
  122
  satisfactorily with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) to make sure that she approves of such things being handed out for education?
  Mr. Hughes: A hot letterpress machine is just the sort of thing that is necessary for pavement politics because it can be used to print leaflets.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Section 28 stops all that.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman says that section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 stops all that, but that is a subject for another day.
  I come to my three substantive points. I and people in education are troubled about the composition of the National Curriculum Council. Perhaps the Minister will give us her views on that. It has produced advice on mathematics, science and English. The Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues say that they have consulted the National Curriculum Council, but most of the staff, and certainly the principal staff, have not yet taken up their appointments. I understand that the post of principal officer for primary education, first advertised in December, has not yet been filled.
  There is some concern that at the speed at which national curriculum development is proceeding it anticipates the appointment to posts and the full functioning of the NCC. I am happy that the NCC is in York. That seems to have been a good move. None the less, it is another sign of the haste with which the Government are proceeding. It is unwise haste, and I should be grateful for the Minister's assurance that things will slow down so that the people who are meant to give advice are in post before advice is given. If the orders for attainment targets and programmes of study in mathematics and science are presented to Parliament before the NCC is fully staffed and we are told that NCC advice has been sought and taken, that would be a misrepresentation.
  My second point may overlap with the debate that will take place on Wednesday about schoolchildren aged under five. There is often a mix of under-fives and over-fives in the same classes. I have asked parliamentary questions about that. If the national curriculum is meant to apply to children of five and upwards, there is a risk that it will reach down below that.
  I understand that in circular 1, issued by the National Curriculum Council last month, the advice given is that the law should be ignored, and that in the first year—1989–90—the national curriculum should not be applied to children other than by the year after they attain statutory school age—that is, not by term, but by year. That is inconsistent with the Act. Will the Minister confirm that the Act has been superseded, and that the curriculum will apply only from the year after children become five so that there is no risk that children under five will become subject to the national curriculum?
  There is ground for concern about the independence of the NCC. The calculations of the Department for the inquiry into teacher shortages by the Select Committee—which is going on at the moment, and at which evidence will be given tomorrow—have finally revealed the official view that properly qualified maths and science teachers will not be available until 1995, even on an optimistic view

  123
  of present trends, to teach up to the age of 16 all subjects in the national curriculum. The Department has not previously admitted that.
  The NCC appears now to be accepting the Government's response to that projected—and actual—shortage, and its response has been to say that, instead of the original approximately 20 per cent. of curriculum time for science, it should be 12·5 per cent. I am worried that the NCC will always agree with the Government's view, and I should be grateful for a resounding commitment from the Minister to the complete independence of the NCC. If that is true, she must give an explanation of why, in this case, the NCC appears so easily to have accepted that one should reduce expectations rather than do what I am sure the public would demand—aim to get the teachers in place to teach the amount of science, and other course subjects, that we need rather than teaching less of those subjects.
  There is some substance behind the orders, but I do not think that there will be a Division on them.
  10.36 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for clarifying his reasons for debating the orders. It has been of immense help to me. I am also glad to hear the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House about the possibilities and virtues of regional government.
  It may help the House if I outline the background to the orders, which have been made under section 15 of the Education Reform Act 1988. The Act provided for the establishment of three independent councils to advise my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Wales on the curriculum in schools and on examinations and assessment. The new councils are the National Curriculum Council, the Curriculum Council for Wales and the School Examinations and Assessment Council. The functions of the councils are set out in some detail in section 14 of the Education Reform Act and, apart from giving advice, include keeping the curriculum and examinations under review, assisting the Secretaries of State to carry out research and development relevant to the curriculum and examinations, and the publication and dissemination of information.
  The SEAC is also responsible for advising the Secretary of State on the approval of qualifications under section 5 of the Act and has been designated as having statutory responsibility for approving the associated syllabuses and syllabus criteria.
  Naturally, the councils also have specific responsibilities related to the national curriculum and its associated assessment and testing arrangements. The NCC, for example, is required under section 20 of the Act to conduct consultations on the Secretary of State's proposals for attainment targets and programmes of study in core and other foundation subjects and report the results, with its own advice, to the Secretary of State. SEAC's functions include making arrangements with appropriate bodies for the moderation of assessments. The three councils are, indeed, among the Government's principal sources of advice and support in the introduction, development and maintenance of the national curriculum.
  Mr. Wigley: Although I accept what the Minister says about the importance of those bodies, why is it necessary to go into the minutiae of these orders? Will such orders be
  124
  necessary whenever an item of hardware or an individual is transferred from one department to another? Is that the implication of the Education Reform Act?
  Mrs. Rumbold: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's observation. The orders were laid, but we did not pray against them. If Opposition Members wish to make inquiries about the nature of such orders, they are exercising their rights as democratically elected Members of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the safeguarding of those rights. I am happy to answer the points that have been raised
  It might be appropriate to elaborate a little about the advice and information that we have received from the National Curriculum Council about the amount of science that will be taught in our schools. The NCC has advised my right hon. Friend that, for the majority of students taking science, it would be appropriate for 20 per cent. of their time to be spent in the study of science as a double subject so that science becomes more generally studied by as many students as possible up to the age of 16.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey will know that, over the years, we have been anxious to prevent youngsters who have been persuaded, for one reason or another, not to continue the study of science—that applies particularly to girls and we are anxious that it should not continue—from dropping science early in their secondary school years. With the advantages of the national curriculum coming on stream, we saw this as a good opportunity to ensure that double science would be taken as a general principle for all students.
  However, there may be cases—it is important to enable such cases to be recognized—where students, because they were at one end of the spectrum or the other, found it less valuable to study the full percentage of science. We thought, therefore, that it was right to accept the advice given to us that 12·5 per cent. might be acceptable to students who perhaps had taken subjects early in GCSE and wanted to study other sciences individually, or to students who perhaps found the double science so exacting that they were unable to concentrate on other parts of the curriculum that are just as important.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister's explanation is helpful. She touched on the concern that young girls in some schools might be discriminated against because the school felt it was obliged to fulfil only the 12·5 per cent. rather than the 20 per cent. requirement. We should guard against such unintentional discrimination, particularly in respect of those who are traditionally discriminated against in such subjects.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We are anxious to guard against that and I hope that he will accept my reassurance on that point.
  The National Curriculum Council and the Curriculum Council for Wales have inherited an active programme of curriculum development projects from the SCDC and its Welsh committee. The projects include work on mathematics, writing, art and economic awareness, all of which should contribute usefully to the implementation of a broad and balanced national curriculum.
  Both our new bodies have made an excellent start and have done a great deal of work in a short time. It is important that the Government's consultative document, "The National Curriculum 5–16", which was published in July 1987, made it clear that the work of the SEC and the

  125
  SCDC would be taken over by the proposed new statutory councils. In the case of the SCDC, which was part-funded by the local authorities, the consultative document announced that the Government would take complete responsibility for funding from April 1987. The hope was expressed that the great majority of staff would transfer to the new council and, accordingly, the Education Reform Act contained a provision in section 15 for the transfer, first, of all the property, rights and liabilities of the SEC and SCDC which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, were required by the new councils in order to perform their function; and, secondly, of the contracts of employment of any SEC or SCDC employees designated by the Secretary of State. The transfers are accomplished by means of statutory instruments under the negative resolution procedure.
  I join the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) in his expression of gratitude to the SEC and the SCDC for their work. Both bodies, which were non-statutory, have contributed greatly to the underpinning of the new statutory bodies. The work of the SEC on the GCSE should be especially commended. It undertook an enormous amount of the hard work that produced such a good grounding for the successful introduction of the examination. It is important that that should be on the record.
  I shall not dwell on the order that transfers property, rights and liabilities. I think that it is generally agreed that hot letterpresses, for example, involve matters on which we need not concentrate too much.
  I shall comment on the NCC's move to York. It made good sense for one of the councils to leave London as both were to need more staff and more office space than their predecessors. The move to York has made it easier for the NCC to recruit new staff of good quality. I am told that nearly all the NCC's key staff took up their posts at the beginning of January. We need not be overconcerned about the staffing of the council, but we must not be complacent until it has been completed. It seems that the council's move to York will assist in the recruitment of staff of good quality. It will provide local employment opportunities outside the south-east of England, which in turn will make the council's independence from Government more manifest. We expect also that location in York rather than in London will bring some recurrent savings to the taxpayer, which will amount to about £1·5 million a year. That is a not inconsiderable sum and it is a saving to be welcomed.
  The order transferring rights and liabilities under contracts of employment was also drawn up in the light of advice from the chief executives who, in turn, have sought to accommodate the wishes and aspirations of the employees of the SEC and the SCDC. Following the establishment of the councils and the approval by the Department of new and expanded staffing structures to cope with the expected additional workloads, the chief executives consulted staff informally about the vacancies that needed to be filled. Wherever possible, individual preferences were taken into account so that, for instance, SCDC officers who did not wish to relocate to York with the NCC were offered jobs in London.
  126
  For officers in grades below principal professional officer, a joint staffing committee comprising representatives of the SEC, the SCDC and the DES was established to advise the chief executives on the alternative possibilities for any staff who were unhappy with initial offers of jobs. As a result of those efforts by the new managements of the NCC and the SEAC, all but one member of the SCDC's staff were found suitable jobs in London or York. All but one of the SEC's staff have been offered jobs on the same terms and conditions as their SEC jobs. In the opinion of the SEAC's chief executive, these jobs are suitable for their skills and experience. Formal offers of jobs were made in October.
  Redundancy terms have been agreed for the two members of staff who could not be found jobs and they have now left. I believe that one of them is about to set up his own business. The order laid before the House on 13 December designates all 120 remaining employees of the SCDC and the SEC, with the exception of four employees of the SEC, to transfer to the NCC, the SEAC or the CCW with full credit for their service with the former councils and without the loss of any accumulated employment rights.
  The order does not contain the names of four SEC employees who, despite having been offered jobs with SEAC which the chief executive of SEAC regards as suitable, have so far declined to accept those jobs. I understand that the four individuals concerned have had a series of discussions with the chief executive of SEAC and representatives of SEC. The latest discussions took place as recently as the end of last week. The Department has kept in close touch with the discussions. Consideration of the future of these staff continues and I do not know what the outcome will be. It would be wrong for me to prejudge what will happen.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, Central asked specific questions and I hope that I have answered his first question. He also asked whether a new order would be necessary for the four members of staff. A separate order will be necessary for the transfer of those staff if they accept posts.
  The hon. Member also asked about the status of the SEC. It will be wound up under section 652 of the Companies Act 1985. If it is no longer trading, there will be no need for a members' meeting because the three-month time limit will be set in motion once staff liabilities are settled. In other words, it does not ncessarily follow that an official winding up is necessary.
  Reference was also made to under-fives. The Education Reform Act 1988 allows a phasing-in for particular subjects and children reaching the age of five during the school year 1989–90 will be subject to the national curriculum only if the school so desires. There is no conflict with the Education Reform Act. For those under five, the national curriculum can never be compulsory. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. It would not make sense to deny rising fives an opportunity to start—
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister appreciates that there is widespread concern about this matter. There are many mixed classes with rising fives and over-fives. Many people believe that we should not put children into the mill of the curriculum until they are well past the age of five. Many heads and teachers feel that children need to find expression in different ways and not be tied to the

  127
  curriculum. The more children under the age of five whom we can protect from the national curriulum for their own self-development, the better. I hope that the Minister will encourage schools not to lump under-fives and over-fives together, but will encourage them to start the curriculum later rather than earlier.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. However, I hope that he is not suggesting that we should deliberately go out of our way to disadvantage young children. Many rising fives and slightly younger children are competent to start progress on the national curriculum. It would be a backward step for us not to allow schools that are adequately staffed with teachers who have completed the early-years training, which covers children aged three to seven—I am glad to say that an increasing number of staff fall into that category—to benefit some children before the age of five by beginning the first stages of the national curriculum.
  All that depends on parental choice. There is no compulsory education before the age of five. There is
  128
  compulsory education after the age of five and, therefore, the parents must decide whether they want their children to attend school early. If they choose a school which begins rudimentary work on the national curriculum before the age of five, we must assume that parents are aware of what they are doing.
  Question put and negatived.

  Education

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at tomorrow's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Orders No. 14 (Exempted business) and No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure)), Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Rifkind or of Mr. Neil Kinnock relating to Housing (Scotland) may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after the first of them has been entered upon; and if proceedings thereon have not been previously disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall, at the expiration of that period, put successively the Question already proposed from the Chair and the Question on the remaining Motion which may then be made.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

  Horticulture (Glasshouse Sector)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
  10.55 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: I am most grateful for the opportunity in this Adjournment debate to discuss the state of British horticulture and, in pa:ticular, the part played by the glasshouse industry within it.
  It is no exaggeration to say that horticulture is one of Britain's greatest unsung success stories. In 1987, the latest year for which figures are available, horticulture output rose by 5 per cent. to a value of almost £1·3 billion. To put that in perspective, that is equivalent to more than two-thirds of Rolls-Royce's turnover, or to about £25 for every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom.
  We produce more fruit and vegetables than ever. Remarkably, Britain is more self-sufficient in crops that can be produced in the United Kingdom than at any time in our history. Overall, exports of foodstuffs have more than doubled since 1979. In contrast to the 19th century and to much of this century, Britain no longer has to trade goods and services in international markets to pay for massive imports of foodstuffs.
  In the Lea valley in my own constituency, the strength of the glasshouse industry is indicative of that success. Over the past couple of years, a massive rebuilding programme has been under way, resulting in the construction of about 125 acres of modern, efficient aluminium glasshouses—replacing hopelessly ancient and obsolete timber-framed glasshouses. At the same time, growers have been switching to the latest hydroponic methods of growing, using sophisticated computerised controls and plant feeding systems.
  Some indication of the strength of confidence about the future being shown by growers in the Lea valley is that they have invested about £15 million over the last year or so. There are probably three main reasons for that investment boom and for the industry's general optimism in my constituency. First, as with all industries, the fortunes of the glasshouse business are in part a function of the strength and vitality of the whole economy. With the economy in better shape than at any time since the war, with unemployment falling fast, and living standards up to record levels, the environment in which the industry operates is better than it has been for years. Coupled with the growth in real incomes, a more discerning, health-conscious consumer is emerging—able and willing to pay for fresh produce.
  Secondly, the fall in the cost of fuel—especially oil—over the last two or three years has given an immense fillip to an industry whose profitability and viability depend to a substantial extent on fuel prices. Thirdly, the Government deserve great credit for the introduction of the enhanced rate of grant aid for replacement heated greenhouses. Until November last year, growers were able to claim grant aid of 50 per cent. of the cost of replacement heated glass up to an expenditure limit of £136,000, placing a maximum of £68,000 at the disposal of the investment-minded grower. For glasshouse heating systems, the level of grant was 20 per cent. up to the £136,000 limit. The implemention of that special scheme has proved enormously beneficial to British glasshouse
  130
  growers as they prepare for the 1990s, the completion of the single European market, and the full accession of Spain and Portugal to the Community.
  The new scheme for glasshouse growers provides for grant at a slightly lower level, with an investment ceiling of £74,000. Although that may seem a dramatic cut, it is important to bear in mind that the new arrangements give the highest level of grant and ceilings now permitted by EC rules, and compare very favourably with those in other sectors. Moreover, the old scheme was never intended to be anything but temporary. Its aim of giving a substantial boost to investment in the glasshouse sector now having been achieved, it is only right that the grant should revert to lower, although by no means ungenerous, levels.
  Most growers were delighted that the Government kept the scheme alive, a recognition of both the importance of the sector and the need for the industry to continue raising levels of investment. When we consider that very few manufacturing companies are able to obtain comparable levels of grant for their capital investment, it is apparent that the glasshouse sector received a fair hearing from the Government. It would, however, be wrong to portray the industry as one entirely without problems, and perhaps the most sobering long-term threat comes from the full integration of Spain and Portugal in the European Community.
  So far the industry has proved itself more than capable of meeting the challenge of foreign competition. That success is all the more remarkable when we consider that British growers are increasingly competing against overseas producers who have the advantage of lower labour costs and a more favourable climate. Moreover, the telescoping of distances by air travel and the reduction in the real cost of that travel have brought produce from the most distant corners of the earth into the average supermarket, and has strengthened the competition that British producers have to face.
  Against that background, our growers have made increasing use of new and existing technology and research to lift output and to boost productivity. As the removal of the final barriers to trade within the Community in four years' time approaches, it becomes all the more crucial that British growers are at the very forefront of the development and exploitation of new production techniques, technology and research. The preparation for the next decade has already begun with the huge increase in investment in the glasshouse sector, thanks in no small part to the old agricultural improvement scheme. But, as manufacturing industry knows only too well, investment on its own is not enough. British producers need speedy access to first-class research and development and advisory services. Without such resources home producers will find it increasingly difficult to compete against the low-cost producers from Spain and Portugal in the 1990s. For, just as industry has found that it can hope to compete successfully only through the application of new processes and techniques, so our growers will come to rely ever more on scientific methods of production.
  I believe that it is only right that the industry should make a substantial contribution to the cost of the research and development and advisory services on which its competitiveness so crucially depends. After all, who better to decide on and to fund such services than those who know what they want and how much they are prepared to pay for it?

  131
  That does not mean, however, that there is no role for Government. Although it is only right that research and development should be industry-led, I do not believe that Government should leave it entirely to growers. At a time when our competitors, notably the Dutch, are able to make use of the substantial resources provided by their Governments, we cannot afford to abandon growers entirely to the market. Without such assistance, I think that the long-term competitiveness of the industry could be threatened.
  It is sobering to remember how effectively the Dutch have come to dominate the United Kingdom vegetable and seed industry over the past 20 years, thanks in large part to a substantial commitment of resources to seed research by both private companies and the Dutch Government. Today the cabbages, sprouts, carrots, lettuces and tomatoes in the greengrocers' shops are more likely to be of Dutch origin—possibly grown in the United Kingdom but grown from Dutch seeds developed by Dutch scientists. British glasshouse growers are of course determined to ensure that foreign competition does not have a similar impact on their industry. In doing so, they attach great importance to the roles of Government-supported research and development and the agricultural development advisory service in ensuring the continued success of the industry.
  Growers have shown their commitment to the industry by investing in new glasshouses on a massive scale and by supporting important initiatives such as the Horticultural Development Council. However, within the industry there is great concern that the Government may go too far, too fast in trimming Government-sponsored research and development and reducing spending on advisory services at a time when the need for those services has probably never been greater.
  The Government are right to expect growers to make a substantial contribution to so-called near-market research, the benefits of which are for the most part immediate and tangible. There are inevitably problems in defining what constitutes near-market research. I know that the industry is concerned that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's proposals on near-market research will lead to a drastic cut in overall Government support for research and development. If the case for greater spending by the industry on near-market research is strong, the equally important although less commercially attractive—at least in the short term—basic research requires a more substantial financial commitment from the Government.
  A current example of where research and development funding needs to be directed is the control and containment of pests and diseases in glasshouse crops. Western flower thrip—WFT—has now become a major worry to glasshouse growers, despite the fact that it has been notified in the United Kingdom for only a couple of years. It has spread to some important crops, both edible and ornamental, and new outbreaks continue to be confirmed. Fortunately, as yet there have been no notified outbreaks of WFT on cucumbers in the Lea valley, although there have been 11 outbreaks in that crop elsewhere in the country.
  At present there are no proven biological controls for WFT and chemical controls are incompatible with existing biological control of other pests. Thus, glasshouse growers are faced with the possibility of relying ever more on chemical control methods for WFT despite the fact that it
  132
  goes against the trend of reducing dependence on chemicals due to concerns about pesticide residues and environmental pollution.
  Since chemical controls for WFT negate the impact of existing biological controls used against other pests, the use of chemicals against WFT could result in the waste of considerable amounts of work in recent years on developing the extensive biological controls now used. Fortunately, the Horticultural Development Council has recently made available extra funds to research the use of chemical and integrated controls for WFT. I believe that five chemicals are being tested by ADAS for control on crops at Reading and Wolverhampton. I hope that the Minister can assure growers that research into that pest will proceed rapidly and that, as far as possible, the speed of the development of effective controls for WFT will not be hindered by a lack of resources.
  There is also some concern within the industry that MAFF approval of the chemical Dynamec, which is widely used in the United States and on the continent for the control of WFT, is being held up because the committees concerned have not yet been able to consider it. I know that the National Farmers Union has suggested that an extra advisory committee on pesticides should be set up, thereby helping to solve the bottleneck problems. I hope that the Ministry will give that idea close consideration. However, for reasons of cost alone it may prove difficult to implement.
  The second major area of worry to growers is the level of funding for advisory services. The Lea valley has experienced the loss of the pathology unit at the ADAS Cheshunt advisory unit and the Lea valley experimental horticulture station is about to close down. The number of full-time senior advisers at the Lea valley local advisory unit is now down to one. Only a year or so ago there was a complement of three. The irony is that, thanks to the buoyancy of the glasshouse sector and the switch to hydroponic growing techniques, the need for professional advice has never been greater. So great has been the demand for advice contracts with the local ADAS that the unit has had to turn away applicants simply because it does not have the manpower necessary to cope with the demand. That is a great pity, especially at a time when growers are more than happy to bear the charges associated with ADAS services.
  In contrast to this apparent weakening of ADAS, it is interesting to note that the Department of Trade and Industry is putting an ever greater emphasis on the provision of advice and consultancy services to industrial and commercial companies through its enterprise initiative, which was introduced in January 1988. That is a clear recognition of the importance of professional advice in important areas such as design, marketing and production and such advice is already proving of special value to small and medium-sized firms, especially independent businesses. I hope that the recent decline in the ADAS service in the Lea valley does not represent a break in the policy of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of aiding the industry through the provision of advice to growers. Relatively low levels of Government assistance can bring substantial benefits to the industry and to the local economy. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can reassure the growers that the Government are committed to continuing the fine work of ADAS in advising growers.

  133
  The glasshouse industry is an increasingly high tech business, which is now in a strong position to meet the challenges of greater competition as we enter the 1990s. The Government have made a major contribution to the revitalisation of the industry through the generous levels of investment grant available to growers over the past five years. At a time when the industry is in such a strong position, I hope that it can look forward to the continuing support of Government, especially in research and development and advisory services. The Government are right to look to the industry to fund an increasing proportion of those services from its own pocket. The glasshouse sector has done that, notably through the Horticultural Development Council. However, it would be a false economy at this stage to reduce support for research and development and ADAS too drastically. To do so could risk the industry's not inconsiderable achievements over recent years.
  11.13 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) for bringing this important subject to the attention of the House. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) is listening to the debate. The challenge facing the glasshouse sector of horticulture is important and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the well-informed and interesting way in which she has presented the matter to us. I hope that she will excuse me if my voice does not sound as interested as it should; I am suffering from a touch of flu. I endorse what she has said about the success achieved by our growers and welcome the opportunity to explain the Government's attitude to the range of issues.
  I begin by offering my congratulations to the industry which, despite its fair share of problems in recent years, has made determined efforts to organise to meet the demands of today's market. I do not underestimate the problems encountered along the way, from the high fuel prices of the early 1980s—and I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend mention low fuel prices in the late 1980s—to the storm damage in October 1987, which none of us will easily forget. I have nothing but praise for the way in which those growers affected by the storm so quickly got their businesses back in production. Despite this setback, and often in the face of strong competition from overseas, glasshouse growers have adapted their production to become one of the most buoyant sectors of the horticulture industry.
  I am particularly impressed by the efforts that so many growers of protected crops have made to improve the quality and presentation of their produce in recent years. They can now meet the multiples' stringent requirements and claim the high rewards that today's consumers are willing to pay for top quality goods. Thanks to the achievements of the British Quality Salad Association and the various crop associations, customers nowadays have a better choice of high quality fresh produce than ever before. Salad crop growers have taken advantage of the FEOGA marketing grants to invest in facilities to
  134
  maintain produce at maximum freshness and in equipment to transform vegetables into increasingly popular new products, such as prepared salads.
  For their part, the Government recognise the valuable contribution to the economy that is being made by the glasshouse sector and the need for it to adapt and modernise in order to maintain and improve its share of the market. My hon. Friend referred to the enhanced rates of grant for replacing heated glass and for heating systems that were introduced in 1983, initially for five years. I believe that it was part of our election manifesto. Following the storm, these favourable grants were extended for yet a further year. Now, under the new capital grants scheme that was announced by my right hon. Friend on 28 November, grant at a preferential rate is being continued until the end of 1993.
  I was glad to hear of the extensive rebuilding programme that is being undertaken by growers in the Lea valley. I know that many other growers are anxious to replace and modernise their existing glasshouses, and I hope that they, too, will take full advantage of these generous grants. I am heartened by the increasing optimism among glasshouse growers, but I am also aware that there are a number of issues that are causing concern to the industry. My hon. Friend does well to bring those issues before the House. She referred to the challenge of foreign competition.
  I know how concerned the glasshouse industry has been about the effect of Spanish and Portuguese accession to the European Community. It is at the beginning and end of our growers' marketing season for protected crops that problems are most likely, for it is at these times that there is an overlap with production in the Iberian peninsula. However, various measures have been taken to ensure a smooth transition to a Community of Twelve.
  The transitional period for fruit and vegetables extends over 10 years, three years longer than for most other sectors. Tariff barriers are phased out over this period, and there is very little other change in the first four years. In the fifth year, some abatement of the reference price system is introduced, but for salad crops it does not fall below 80 per cent. of the minimum prices for third country imports until transition ends.
  There is also provision in the treaty to prevent any market disruption from Spanish and Portuguese imports over the transitional period. Obviously, after that Spain and Portugal will be on an equal footing with the Ten and the ordinary provisions for trade between member states will apply. However, I am confident—as, I am sure, is my hon. Friend—that, given the enterprise shown by our leading producers in the areas of production storage and marketing, the challenges of competition from the Iberians will be met.
  Growers, like other business men, are now looking ahead to 1992. With the coming challenge of the single European market, it is particularly important for the industry to realise its potential for further development. The object of the 1992 exercise is to weld the markets of the 12 member states into one and to ensure that this large single market is an expanding one. It is for our growers to take advantage of the 350 million customers who will then be available to us.
  To compete in this new market will call for imagination and energy, but the opportunity is there for those who wish to seize it. It will be for individual businesses to rise to that challenge. The Government will make every effort

  135
  to ensure that the new terms of trade are fair and do not discriminate in any way against British growers or British interests. In addition, we shall seek to ensure that British producers have all the information that they need, as changes occur. In fact, the present well-developed Community regime for fruit and vegetables gives considerable advantage to this sector.
  For growers, 1992 is, in a sense, already here—at least, within the former Community of Ten. We have free trade and generally accepted quality standards and labelling provisions. That is a positive advantage. However, I must add that any advantage that 1992 brings will apply equally to other Community producers. Thus, the industry must continue with its excellent track record of development and adaptation so that it may not just retain but enhance its future share of the market. To compete successfully in the Community and world markets, our growers recognise that they will have to keep abreast of technological change. The public funding of research and development is, I know, uppermost in growers' minds. The Government have announced progressive reductions in contributions, totalling about £30 million over three years, in research and development for near-market research—that close to commercial application. The readjustment should, however, be seen in perspective. The Government remain firmly committed to supporting work which is of public good and that which involves basic and strategic research.
  Current funding of agricultural research by the Agriculture Departments is about £120 million. The Department of Education and Science contributes £40 million for more basic research, and a further £40 million is spent on food and fisheries research. That makes a total of more than £200 million, which puts the £30 million into perspective.
  This support of the science base provides a platform for future exploitation by industry—and it is best exploited by industry. Like my hon. Friend, I believe that industry is the best judge of what, and how much, work should be done on near-market projects. It knows where the gaps are, and it can see what really needs to be done to meet the needs of the future. It will therefore see the need to invest more in near-market research and development for its own benefit.
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is holding consultations with every sector of the industry, including horticulture. Further meetings at official level and bilateral discussions are taking place between research establishments and industry representatives to consider what research industry would be willing and able to fund. I can
  136
  assure the House that no final decisions on the future level of Government funding will be made until those discussions are complete.
  The lead given by horticulture, and especially the support of the glasshouse sector, in voting for the establishment of a Horticultural Development Council was very encouraging. The HDC is to be congratulated on the progress that it has made in commissioning research and development work to benefit the horticulture industry, including work for the glasshouse sector.
  My hon. Friend mentioned Western flower thrip, which is a serious pest that has been present in the United Kingdom since 1987. WFT is now widespread on a range of commercial flower and vegetable crops grown under glass. Nevertheless, I assure my hon. Friend that the Ministry's interest remains. We will find effective chemical and biological means of control of this pest. I know that the industry would like the pesticide product Dynamec to be more widely available for use on WFT, but it has approval under the control of pesticides regulations at only an experimental level. It cannot therefore be given off-label approval, allowing far wider use, now. Such approvals have already been given to a range of other products to control WFT.
  We have grave doubts about using our limited manpower resources at the plant health and seeds inspectorate in continuing to try to hold the line against a pest which is now so widespread. We have therefore made it clear that the statutory campaign should continue for only a few months more. That will not affect the Ministry's interest in, or research devoted to, finding effective chemical or biological means of controlling the pest.
  My hon. Friend expressed concern about the availability of ADAS advice in the Lea valley area. I understand the value that growers place on this advice, particularly in the light of the closure of Lea valley EHS, which they have proved by their readiness to take up ADAS contracts. We fully appreciate the need for a full-time experienced glasshouse adviser at the advisory unit and have every intention of filling the post. In the meantime, the regional protected crops adviser has taken on this role personally, which I think shows our recognition of the need for technical support for Lea valley growers.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, 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 twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Pre-school Education
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to amalgamate the activities for the education of the under-fives of the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Social Security; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government will give careful consideration to the recommendations made by the Education, Science and Arts Committee in its report on educational provision for the under-fives, including those which have a bearing on this, and will make our conclusions known in our response to that report.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on inter-departmental co-operation and co-ordination on the greenhouse effect.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible for Government policy on the greenhouse effect, in consultation with the other Ministers concerned. I am entirely satisfied with the arrangements for inter-departmental co-operation and co-ordination.

  Ministerial Advisers
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the ministerial advisers appointed in her office for each year since 1979, the salary each person received, whether paid directly or to another employer, and the duties undertaken, whether solely in her office or in conjunction with other Departments; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The ministerial advisers appointed in my Office since 1979 are as follows:

  Year and Name

  1979

  J. Hoskyns

  Mrs. C. Ryder

  N. Strauss

  1981

  Professor A. Walters

  1982

  C. W. Monckton

  W. R. F. Mount

  P. Shipley

  1983

  D. C. Hobson

  R. T. Jackling

  O. Letwin

  N. C. Owen

  Sir Anthony Parsons

  2

  D. L. Pascall

  J. Redwood

  R. Young

  1984

  V. E. Hartley-Booth

  Sir Percy Craddock

  P. T. Warry

  D. L. Willetts

  J. B. Wybrew1

  1985

  Professor B. Griffiths

  1986

  N. R. Blackwell

  G. R. J. Guise

  P. J. Stredder

  1987

  Mrs. T. Gaisman

  A. J. O'Sullivan

  1988

  G. D. Bourne1

  A. Dunlop

  Miss C. Sinclair

  I. K. Whitehead

  1 Salary paid to another employer. (Information prior to 1984 is not available).

  It is not our practice to reveal the salaries of advisers as they are individually negotiated in relation to previous outside earnings and are therefore confidential.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy to close accounts relating to repayment of costs incurred by media organisations on her visits abroad within three months of the completion of the relevant visit.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 10 January 1989 at column 495.

  Government Departments (Services)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the general practice within Government Departments as to the time permitted for repayment by outside bodies of sums owing for services provided by Government Departments.

  The Prime Minister
  Government Departments are advised in "Government Accounting" that the full sums due must be calculated and collected promptly.

  BBC Today Programme
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister which Departments of State were invited to send speakers to the BBC Radio 4 Today programme on Wednesday 11 January to discuss families rendered homeless by mortgage default; what response was made; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Both the Department of the Environment and the Treasury were invited to send a speaker. The Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside being unavailable on the date requested, discussed the issue on the following day. Mortgage repossessions are very distressing for those involved, but it is important to keep things in perspective: less than one
  3
  third of 1 per cent. of building society borrowers had their homes repossessed according to the most recent figures available.

  Disasters (Messages of Sympathy)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Prime Minister what is her policy on redirecting to Buckingham Palace messages of sympathy received by her from Heads of State at times of disasters.

  The Prime Minister
  Appropriate action is taken on all the messages which I receive.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Mental Health
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation takes place with a local health authority when mentally ill patients are to be released from prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Prison standing orders require that the discharge of a prisoner in need of skilled advice and attention on grounds of mental disorder should, if the prisoner consents, be notified to the district medical officer for the area in which the prisoner intends to reside.

  The desirability of further developing such arrangements was included in the recommendations of a joint Home Office/Department of Health working group and accepted by the Government. The Departments are in discussion about guidance to regional and district health authorities and also with the professions on how this ought to be given effect. Revised prison department instructions and a model letter for use by prison medical officers, both presently in draft, will provide an administrative framework for NHS medical staff to be invited to visit an inmate and to discuss his case with the responsible medical officer.

  AIDS
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many male and female prisoners in England and Wales currently have the human immuno-deficiency virus; and in which prisons they are held.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 12 January 1989 the prison population of England and Wales included 50 male and seven female prisoners reported as having been identified as HIV antibody positive. For reasons of medical confidentiality it is not the Department's policy to disclose the number of such prisoners located at individual establishments.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to designate any prisons or parts of prisons in England and Wales as national HIV and AIDS centres.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In the context of its contingency planning the directorate of prison medical services is identifying prison service establishments, with medical facilities which would be capable, when needed, of giving short or longer-term care and suppport to prisoners, with AIDS, AIDS-related illness or other infectious illness, whose condition does not require admission to the specialised facilities of the National Health Service.
  4
  A purpose-designed unit is planned for Brixton prison. Accommodation at Risley remand centre near Warrington is to be the main resource in the north. Hospital accommodation with suitable facilities at other establishments in each of the four regions will also be used to fulfil a care and support function as and when necessary.

  Scenes of Crime Officers
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report for each police force in England and Wales the number of scenes of crime officers in post; and what is the corresponding percentage of these which are civilian.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The latest available information is as follows:

  Police officers/civilians in scenes of crime department

  Provincial forces2

  Number

  Percentage civilian1

  Avon and Somerset

  40

  7·5

  Bedfordshire

  13

  38·5

  Cambridgeshire

  10

  20·0

  Cheshire

  22

  27·3

  Cleveland

  20

  —

  Cumbria

  26

  61·5

  Derbyshire

  25

  96·0

  Devon and Cornwall

  28

  35·7

  Dorset

  13

  —

  Durham

  22

  36·4

  Dyfed Powys

  10

  10·0

  Essex

  45

  4·4

  Gloucestershire

  12

  —

  Greater Manchester

  56

  1·8

  Gwent

  12

  —

  Hampshire

  44

  9·1

  Hertfordshire

  19

  —

  Humberside

  41

  39·0

  Kent

  35

  51·4

  Lancashire

  38

  —

  Leicestershire

  23

  34·8

  Lincolnshire

  15

  33·3

  Merseyside

  24

  —

  Norfolk

  20

  15·0

  Northamptonshire

  14

  78·6

  Northumbria

  44

  27·3

  North Wales

  11

  100·0

  North Yorkshire

  18

  16·7

  Nottinghamshire

  31

  70·1

  South Wales

  39

  7·7

  South Yorkshire

  35

  51·4

  Staffordshire

  19

  —

  Suffolk

  12

  —

  Surrey

  21

  52·4

  Sussex

  44

  50·0

  Thames Valley

  33

  12·1

  Warwickshire

  12

  41·7

  West Mercia

  34

  38·2

  West Midlands

  57

  31·6

  West Yorkshire

  54

  7·4

  Wiltshire

  20

  —

  City of London

  14

  35·7

  TOTAL

  1,125

  26·0

  Metropolitan Police3

  196

  100·0

  1 It should be noted that some of the civilian staff identified for provincial forces may be engaged in general administrative support duties.

  2 As at 31 December 1987.

  3 As at 31 December 1988.

  Police Grading
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the rationale and formulae used by his Department to establish the ratios of the different ranks of police officers in each force in England and Wales.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend is advised by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary which, among other things, takes account of the rank ratios across the police service as a whole. At the end of 1987 these stood as follows:

  Per cent

  ACPO

  0·2

  Chief Superintendent

  0·4

  Superintendent

  1·3

  Chief Inspector

  1·8

  Inspector

  5·4

  Sergeant

  15·5

  Constable

  75·4

  Cumbria Police Force
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the review of police staffing levels carried out by his Department with regard to the Cumbria force.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The chief constable, not the Home Office, has carried out a review of police staffing levels in the Cumbria constabulary. Following that review the police authority has applied for an increase in the force establishments of 62 police posts. This will be considered along with applications which have been received from other authorities for increases in 1989–90. My right hon. Friend hopes to announce his decisions shortly.

  Prison (Banstead)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the category C prison which is being built on the former Banstead hospital site is part of the previously announced programme of 26 new prisons to be opened between 1983 and 1995.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The previously announced programme made provision for 800 prison places on the Banstead site. In view of the urgent need for prison accommodation, these are being increased and provided in two phases. The first phase of converting existing accommodation to category C places is nearly complete. The second phase of building a local prison for 620 inmates will begin later this year.

  Ministerial Advisers
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the ministerial advisers in his Department for each year since 1979, the salary each person received, whether paid directly or to another employer, and the duties undertaken, whether solely in his Department or in conjunction with other Departments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  The special advisers employed in the Home Office since 1979 are as follows:6

  Name

  Period of appointment

  Mr. Robin Harris

  June 1983 to March 1985

  Mr. David Coleman

  April to September 1985

  Mr. Edward Bickham

  September 1985 to April 1988

  Mr. David Lidington

  December 1987 onwards

  Mr. John Godfrey (on secondment)

  July 1988 onwards

  They have provided advice on a wide range of Home Office subjects. It is not our practice to disclose the salaries of individual advisers as they are negotiated individually in relation to previous outside earnings and are therefore confidential.

  Community Radio Franchises
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what means he intends to sell community radio franchises.

  Mr. Renton
  The method of allocating community radio contracts is currently for the IBA to decide.

  Entry Refusals
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received from hon. Members in connection with individuals refused entry to the United Kingdom since 3 January; in how many cases he agreed to defer removal as a result of those representations; and in how many cases he refused to defer removal.

  Mr. Renton
  The revised guidelines on the handling of representations by hon. Members in immigration cases, introduced with effect from 3 January 1989, require that, before approaching the Minister to request deferment of removal of a passenger refused leave to enter the United Kingdom, an hon. Member should first contact the immigration service and invite them to consider deferment. There are no central records of the total number of such requests by hon. Members nor of the number of cases in which deferment has been or has not been granted.

  Shotgun Licences
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is(a) the number of current shotgun licences, (b) the number of shotgun licences issued since the enactment of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, and (c) the number of (i) civilian and (ii) police staff dealing with the processing of shotgun licence applications and (d) the change in the number of such staff since the enactment of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Statistics on shotgun certificates are collected on an annual basis. A total of 861,300 shotgun certificates were on issue in England and Wales at 31 December 1987, the last year for which figures are available. Information is not collected centrally on the number of police and civilian staff dealing with shotgun certificate applications and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Immigrants Advisory Services
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he has any plans to locate a United Kingdom immigrants advisory service office on the east coast of Scotland;

  (2) if he has any plans to improve the provision of advice centres for ethnic minorities with regard to immigration, short-term visas and related problems.

  Mr. Renton
  Under the Immigration Act 1971 the Home Office makes a grant-in-aid to the United Kingdom immigrants advisory service, which offers a nationwide service to persons who have rights of appeal under the Act. We have no plans to make funds available for any other advice centres or organisations involved in these areas of work. The location of UKIAS offices is a matter for that organisation.

  Police (Tape Recordings)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to whether as a matter of policy and practice Metropolitan police officers are allowed to tape record a telephone conversation between a person held at a police station and a solicitor, relative or friend.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Metropolitan police, like other forces, are bound by the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the codes of practice made under the Act.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has given to chief constables about the tape recording by police officers of any telephone conversation between a person under arrest and a solicitor, relative or friend.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No specific guidance about the tape recording of communications has been given, but general guidance to the police about the treatment of people under arrest is contained in code C of the codes of practice made under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This provides, in accordance with section 58 of the Act, that communications between a suspect and his solicitor must be private except in certain circumstances when an arrest has been made under prevention of terrorism legislation. Telephone conversations between a suspect and anyone other than a solicitor may be listened to and used in evidence, for which purpose a record will need to be kept. The suspect must be informed beforehand that his conversation will be overheard.

  Greater Manchester Police
  My Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has receive about the establishment of Greater Manchester police and what assessment he has made of them.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Representations have been received from the Greater Manchester police authority and from hon. Friends and Members whose constituencies lie within the force area about the need for an increase in the establishment of the Greater Manchester police. My right hon. Friend will announce shortly his decision on this and other applications for increases in police establishments.

  Vietnamese Embassy (Incident)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects that a reply will be sent to the letter from the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, referred to the Minister of State, the right hon. the Earl Ferrers, regarding the incident at the Vietnamese embassy on 4 September 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am sorry that it has not yet been possible to provide a substantive reply. The correspondence raised a number of matters on which police inquiries were necessary and a report was requested from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I understand from the Commissioner that this should be completed shortly. My right hon. and Noble Friend will reply as soon as possible after the report has been received and considered.

  Guildford Four
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has reached a decision on whether to refer the case of the Guildford Four to the Court of Appeal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  On 22 October 1975, Patrick Armstrong, Gerald Conlon, Paul Hill, and Carole Richardson were convicted of murder and other offences connected with the bombing of two public houses in Guildford on 5 October 1974, in which five people died. They were sentenced to life imprisonment. In addition, Patrick Armstrong and Paul Hill were convicted of two murders arising from the bombing of a public house in Woolwich on 7 November 1974. On 28 October 1977, after a hearing lasting 11 days, the Court of Appeal refused applications by all four for leave to appeal.

  Since then, considerable efforts have been made by many people to establish that these convictions were unsafe. A large number of arguments have been adduced and, in the last two years, much allegedly new evidence has been brought to light.

  In circumstances such as these a Home Secretary has, broadly speaking, three choices:

  (a) to take no action and allow the verdicts to stand;

  (b) to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal;

  (c) to recommend the use of the royal prerogative to pardon.

  The Home Secretary is an elected politician representing the Executive. The judiciary is and must be seen to be independent of the Executive. It follows that the power of the Executive over decisions of the judiciary needs to be exercised with very great care. Those who are seriously concerned about civil liberties in this country should be particularly chary of urging the Home Secretary to use these powers. I believe that the Home Secretary should only exercise the power of referral within stiff constraints. He should resist the temptation to substitute his view of the case for that of a court of law. The opinions of those who make representations to him, however distinguished, on whether the jury or the Court of Appeal dealt correctly with the evidence before them should not be decisive. Nor should his own personal opinions. This rules out at a stroke many of the matters raised in this case, because they were before the jury or the Court of Appeal. Those who were not in court are not well placed to challenge the decision of those who heard the evidence, except on the ground that there is new evidence or other consideration of substance which was not available at the original trial or

  9
  appeal hearing. In January 1987 I told the House that in the light of that constraint my view was that there had not been raised any new substantive points which justified action on my part.

  A large amount of further matter has been produced since then. The question, which I have examined with great care, is whether it is new and substantial, and now justifies my intervention.

  At this point I should refer to the argument, on law not fact, advanced by Lords Devlin and Scarman when they came to see me on 23 July 1987 and further developed in an article in The Times on 30 November last year. In brief, I understood them to argue that the Court of Appeal was wrong to dismiss as worthless without reference to a jury the confessions to the Guildford and Woolwich bombings by members of the Balcombe Street Gang. These confessions were made between the original verdict and the appeal hearing. Lords Delvin and Scarman believe that the jury should have been given the chance to reach a conclusion on the convictions of the Guildford Four by a previous jury in the light of these confessions, of which that jury knew nothing. I understand that a similar point of law was raised in the context of the Birmingham bombings. The Appeal Committee of the House of Lords, composed of three Law Lords, on 14 April 1988 refused leave to appeal on these grounds. Although I personally would be reluctant to contest an opinion held by Lords Devlin and Scarman, I do not think it would be sensible to base a reference to the Court of Appeal on a point of law which the Appeal Committee had recently declined to consider.

  I should, however, point out that when a case is referred to the Court of Appeal by the Home Secretary he may cite grounds for such reference but the subsequent hearing is not confined to those grounds. Once a case is referred, it is treated for all purposes as an appeal by the persons convicted, and the defence may thus seek to raise any matters of fact or law which they regard as pertinent.

  Against this background and after prolonged study and thought, I have decided to refer this case to the Court of Appeal. It is right that I make clear now that I do not feel justified in recommending the use of the royal prerogative to pardon or release them. But I am satisfied that amongst the many matters raised with me since January 1987 there are new and substantial points which clearly, and within the constraint set out above, are best considered by the court.

  There are three particular matters, to which my attention was drawn:

  (a) first, there is the matter of the use of drugs by Carole Richardson, and medical treatment given to her while in custody. There are two points here. Dr. Makos, the police surgeon who saw her in 1974, volunteered in August 1987, and repeated to the Avon and Somerset police in November 1987, that he had administered an injection of pethidine to Carole Richardson. Later, in December last year, in a letter and subsequent statement to officers of Avon and Somerset, he withdrew this admission. Dr. Makos' recollections may be uncertain or unclear, but it does appear that pethidine might not have been a suitable treatment for someone in Miss Richardson's apparent condition, that is suffering from withdrawal from barbiturates. Even if she was not given pethidine, at least some of her confessions would appear to have been made at a time when she was suffering from withdrawal to a greater degree than has hitherto been thought. The admitted administration of the drug tuinal to Miss
  10
  Richardson would appear, in medical opinion now, to have had the effect of prolonging and increasing withdrawal symptoms. The possible effects of these drugs on the reliability of her statements were not adequately exposed to the jury or the Court of Appeal;

  (b) second, the alibi given by Maura Kelly in March 1987 for Carole Richardson, alleges that during the afternoon of the Guildford bomb, 5 October 1974, she was visited at the baker's shop where she worked by Richardson and her friend Lisa Astin, at about 2.30 pm. The two left and returned to the shop some time later, when Richardson gave Maura Kelly a doll. When Maura Kelly closed the shop at around 5 pm, the two girls were still with her. She walked with them to the bus stop when they separated. Maura Kelly had left the country before the trial and the defence were unable to call her to give evidence. Neither a jury nor the Court of Appeal have therefore had the opportunity to assess the value of her evidence alongside the alibi presented by Carole Richardson, that during the course of the afternoon she had no opportunity to make any journey to Guildford;

  (c) third, the alibi by Mrs. Fox for Paul Hill, produced on 15 July 1987 states that on the evening of the Woolwich bombing, 7 November 1974, she was at the flat of Mr. and Mrs. Keenan, where Paul Hill was living. Mrs. Fox says she was with Mr. and Mrs. Keenan between 7 pm and 10.15 pm. During that period Paul Hill was present except for a period of about 2C minutes when he left to make a telephone call to his girlfriend. Mrs. Fox attended the trial but did not give evidence, and Mr. and Mrs. Keenan and Paul Hill, who did give evidence, made no mention of her. In statements of 15 July 1987, both Mr. and Mrs. Keenan now confirm that Mrs. Fox had been at their flat that evening.

  Paul Hill said he left Mr. and Mrs. Keenan's flat only to make a telephone call. This was supported by the Keenans in their evidence. The account Mrs. Fox offers appears to add weight to the alibi evidence, but neither the jury nor the Court of Appeal have had the opportunity to consider it.

  Little purpose would be served by setting out in detail here the other points put to me. The three main points I mention seem to me to bear directly on the safety of the convictions. These points were not available to the jury of the Court of Appeal. They need to be tested in court.

  I am grateful to all those whose genuine concern for justice had led them to take an interest in this case. Among many I would single out Cardinal Hume, with whom I have several times discussed the case and who led the delegation which came to see me in July 1987. I am also most grateful to the Avon and Somerset police, who conducted painstaking and invaluable inquiries into certain of the new matters submitted to me.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Income and Allowances
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what was the cost to the public funds of the office and secretarial allowance for the last year for which figures were available; and what this is as a percentage of the total cost were each hon. Member to have claimed the full allowance.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The total expenditure from the House of Commons vote (class XX vote 8) during 1986–87 in respect of Members' office, secretarial and research
  11
  expenses was £11,673,156.50. This figure represents just over 89 per cent. of the total cost had all hon. Members claimed the full allowance during the year.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any conveniently available figures for the volume of aid to(a) Brazil, (b) Malaysia, (c) Indonesia and (d) African states to help them preserve rain forest ecosystems over any convenient period.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Available information on aid commitments to projects currently under way is as follows(a) £20,000, (b) £156,000 (a regional Asian project with special relevance to Malaysia), (c) £120,000 and (d) £21·9 million. In addition, over £575,000 has been committed to people from African countries undergoing rain forest-related training in the United Kingdom in 1987–89.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Ministerial Advisers
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Attorney-General, if he will list the ministerial advisers appointed in the Lord Chancellor's and Law Officers Departments for each year since 1979, the salary each person received, whether paid directly or to another employer, and the duties undertaken, whether solely in that Department or in conjunction with other Departments; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Neither my Department nor the Lord Chancellor's Department has appointed any ministerial adviser during the period to which the question relates.

  "The Guardian" (Prosecution)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration he has given to the possible prosecution of Mr. Richard Norton-Taylor of The Guardian, and of its editor Mr. Peter Preston, arising from the publication on 4 January 1989 of the name and background of the new head of the Secret Intelligence Service.

  The Attorney-General
  Sufficient.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Falkland Islands (Geese)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he can make of the number of upland geese currently on the Falkland Islands; and what were the estimated numbers over the last decade.

  Mr. Eggar
  According to a 1987 report on geese grazing in the Falkland Islands, there are between 300,000 and 400,000 Upland geese on the Falkland Islands. In the late seventies, numbers were estimated at between 350,000 and 400,000.

  St. Helena (University Qualifications)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to the numbers of St. Helenians living in St. Helena with university qualifications; and what were the comparable figures five years ago.

  Mr. Eggar
  The number of St. Helenians living in St. Helena with university qualifications is nine (1 MEd, 3 BEd, 5 diplomas—postgraduate); the number five years ago was eight.

  St. Georgia (Fish Conservation)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider the introduction of a fish conservation zone for St. Georgia and its associated islands.

  Mr. Eggar
  Conservation in the waters around South Georgia is covered by the convention for the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources (CCAMLR). Under pressure from the United Kingdom and others CCAMLR recently banned all fishing around South Georgia for mackerel ice fish (the primary endangered species) until November 1989. The renewable resources assessment group of Imperial college is currently studying the fishery resources of the area on behalf of the South Georgia Government.

  Emperor Hirohito
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why Her Majesty's Government decided to send an official representative to the funeral of Emperor Hirohito; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have close and friendly relations with Japan. The late Emperor of Japan made a state visit to this country in 1971 and The Queen made a state visit to Japan in 1975. Members of successive Governments have been received by the late Emperor. In the light of all these factors we have decided it is right to be represented at the Emperor's funeral.

WALES

  Bus Companies (Privatisation)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those municipal bus companies that will be privatised in the next six months.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Inter-Valley Link is expected to be sold shortly by Rhymney Valley district council. Proposals to sell any of the remaining five companies in Wales are a matter for the local authority concerned.

  Ministerial Advisers
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the ministerial advisers appointed in his Department for each year since 1979, the salary each person received, whether paid directly or to another employer, and the duties undertaken, whether solely in his Department or in conjunction with other Departments; and if he will make a statement.
  13
  Mr. Peter Walker
  Mr. C. J. Butler was a ministerial adviser in the Welsh Office from 1983 to 1985. His salary was paid directly to him and since it was negotiated taking into account his previous income it would not be appropriate to reveal it. He did not work for any other Government Department in the period and his duties were set by my predecessor as Secretary of State for Wales.

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the amount spent on home improvement grants by(a) Carmarthen district council, (b) Dinefwr district council and (c) the total for all Welsh local authorities in each of the financial years from 1978–79 to the present at 1988 prices.

  Mr. Grist
  The amount spent on completed renovation grants in each financial year at 1987–88 prices is given in the table:

  (£000's)

  Wales

  Carmarthen

  Dinefwr

  1978–79

  17,427

  550

  369

  1979–80

  20,657

  739

  490

  1980–81

  20,442

  1,060

  442

  1981–82

  21,786

  735

  256

  1982–83

  41,927

  1,004

  121

  1983–84

  115,501

  6,576

  1,006

  1984–85

  99,149

  4,006

  1,511

  1985–86

  59,707

  1,840

  520

  1986–87

  62,063

  2,032

  410

  1987–88

  60,992

  1,889

  416

  Nursing Homes
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total cost, and from which Government Departments, of funding private and voluntary nursing homes in each year from 1982 to 1987.

  Mr. Grist
  We have no general powers to fund nursing homes, although project applications relating to their establishment may be considered under urban programme, urban development grant and joint finance schemes. However, the information requested of the Department is not readily available and I have no ready access to information about the costs to other Government Departments.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many places there were in local authority nursing homes in each year from 1982 to 1987 by district health authority; and what was the total cost of those places in each year.

  Mr. Grist
  There are no local authority nursing homes. The definition of nursing homes refers to those establishments in the independent sector which provide recognised nursing care.

  Pay Beds
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many pay beds were available in Welsh health authorities in each year since 1979; what was the percentage occupancy rate in each year; and how much money is still owed by pay bed users.

  Mr. Grist
  Available information is given in the table. Information on the money still owed by pay bed occupants is not centrally available.
  14

  Year1

  Number of pay beds authorised

  Percentage occupancy

  1979

  39

  35·8

  1980

  36

  58·9

  1981

  246

  33·6

  1982

  247

  29·8

  1983

  247

  29·5

  1984

  349

  26·8

  1985

  249

  30·0

  1986

  254

  34·5

  1987

  254

  31·4

  1 At 31 December for each calendar year.

  2 Excludes two beds for emergency use only.

  3 Excludes three beds for emergency use only.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many beds were available in private hospitals in Wales in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  Information which relates to each calendar year since statistics became available is given below:

  Number of beds

  1982

  255

  1983

  246

  1984

  246

  1985

  246

  1986

  212

  1987

  215

  Consultants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many National Health Service consultants held full-time and part-time contracts in the Welsh health service in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is given in the following table:

  Number of consultants—as at 30 September1

  Full-time

  Part-time2

  1979

  391

  307

  1980

  404

  300

  1981

  431

  299

  1982

  443

  300

  1983

  481

  290

  1984

  500

  289

  1985

  494

  319

  1986

  504

  334

  1 Excludes locums and community staff.

  2 Includes consultants with part-time, maximum part-time and honorary contracts.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many consultants were working part-time and full-time in the private health sector in Wales in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Hospitals (Contractors)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many contracts have been awarded in the Welsh hospital service to outside contractors in each of(a) catering, (b) cleaning, (c) laundry, (d) engineering, (e)ill be privatised in the next six months.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Inter-Valley Link is expected to be sold shortly by Rhymney Valley district council. Proposals to sell any of the remaining five companies in Wales are a matter for the local authority concerned.

  Ministerial Advisers
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the ministerial advisers appointed in his Department for each year since 1979, the salary each person received, whether paid directly or to another employer, and the duties undertaken, whether solely in his Department or in conjunction with other Departments; and if he will make a statement.
  15
  building and (f) gardening since 1985; and what percentage of those services are performed by outside contracts.

  Mr. Grist
  Of the 78 contracts let by competitive tendering since 1985 for catering, cleaning and laundry services, one domestic contract (4 per cent. of total service costs) and one laundry contract (2·5 per cent. of total service costs) were let to private contractors. All other contracts let so far for these services have been awarded to in-house teams. There is no doubt that cost-effectiveness has been greatly improved as a result of the tendering process. Information on engineering, building and gardening services is not held centrally.

  NHS Review
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement on the impact of the National Health Service review's proposed reforms on the Welsh health service;

  (2) whether an internal market in the Welsh Health Service will be backed by a subsidised transport service to allow all patients to benefit from empty beds in other areas.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to issue a White Paper on the future of the National Health Service in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I shall be announcing shortly the results of my review of the NHS in Wales.

  Parc Beck Allotments Society
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet representatives of the Parc Beck allotments society accompanied by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No, since there is nothing that I can usefully add to the many exchanges which I have had with the right hon. Gentleman and with representatives of the Parc Beck allotment society. The matter is one for the West Glamorgan health authority to pursue in accordance with the relevant departmental guidance.

  Local Authorities (Capital Receipts)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the amount of accumulated capital receipts held by local authorities at the end of 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The total amount of accumulated capital receipts held by local authorities at the end of 1987–88 was £472 million.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Post Office (Industrial Relations)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many representations he has received regarding industrial relations in the Post Office from(a) Conservative and (b) other hon. Members.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend and I have received 25 such representations since the beginning of 1988, 24 of which were from hon. Friends.

  Post Office (Letters Monopoly)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to seek to end the Post Office monopoly of letter delivery.

  Mr. Forth
  We have made it clear that the Post Office's monopoly over the conveyance of letters priced at below £1 is a privilege not a right. We keep the monopoly under review and have said that in the event of cessation or serious decline in the quality of the letter service, we would consider seriously suspending the monopoly. I have, however, no present plans to do so.

  Marketing and Research Consultancies
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many marketing or market research consultancies based out of London have been invited to tender for Government contracts.

  Mr. Forth
  During the years 1987 and 1988 17 marketing or market research consultancies based out of London were invited to tender by my Department. I am unable to provide details for other Government Departments.

  Market Research
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what the total amount spent by Government Departments and agencies on market research was in 1987–88; and what proportion was contracted out to private companies.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department's records for that year do not separately identify expenditure on market research. The cost of extracting the information manually would be disproportionate. I am unable to comment on such expenditure in other Government Departments.

  Post Office (Letter Deliveries)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on Royal Mail deliveries during December 1988.

  Mr. Forth
  The quality of the letter delivery service is an operational matter for the Post Office. I understand that despite the 24-hour closure of the Coventry sorting office as a result of a letter bomb and exceptionally high levels of staff sickness, almost all mail posted on or before the latest posting dates recommended by the Post Office was delivered before Christmas day. However, a less than full service was provided in the south-west London district as a result of unofficial industrial action in nine of the 20 sub-districts.

  Ministerial Advisers
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the ministerial advisers appointed in his Department for each year since 1979, the salary each person received, whether paid directly or to another employer, and the duties undertaken, whether solely in his Department or in conjunction with other Departments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The files containing the information requested are not immediately available. Information from earlier years is being gathered and I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Post Office Counters
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will arrange to meet the managing director of Post Office Counters to discuss the effects of the current downgrading of main post offices.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the members of the Post Office board regularly to discuss matters of current interest relating to the Post Office businesses.

  Textiles (China)
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if the details of the bilateral agreements on trade in textiles within the People's Republic of China initialled by the EC Commission last month have yet been made public.

  Mr. Alan Clarke
  The quantitative limits for 1989 imports under the agreement were published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJL 367) dated 31 December, recently received. However no figures for member state shares of EC-wide limits are given. These are not expected for some weeks.

  A copy of the relevant extract from OJL 367 is being placed in the Library.

  I understand that a further part of the Official Journal for 31 December has just been published, reproducing the terms of the agreement. This will be placed in the Library as soon as it is received.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  St. Anne's Hospital, Nottingham
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assistance his Department will give the local education authority in meeting the needs of psychiatrically disturbed children and adolescents in the Nottingham area arising from the closure of St. Anne's hospital and its hospital school.

  Mr. Butcher
  Before any maintained special school, including a hospital school, can close, the local education authority must seek the Secretary of State's approval under section 14 of the 1981 Education Act. A copy of the Department's Circular 3/82 "Section 14 of the Education Act 1981: Discontinuance of Maintained Special Schools", which explains these procedures, is available in the Library. It is for local education authorities to specify the alternative provision they will be making for pupils affected by the closure of a special school.

  No proposal to close St. Anne's hospital school has been received by the Secretary of State.

  Natural Environment Research Council (Funds)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the level of his Department's funding of the Natural Environment Research Council for each of the past 10 years in real terms at 1988–89 prices; if he will increase the planned level of funding for the 1989–90 financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information for the past 10 years is as follows:18

  £ million 1988–89 prices

  1979–80

  68·3

  1980–81

  73·6

  1981–82

  77·8

  1982–83

  77·7

  1983–84

  78·9

  1984–85

  79·6

  1985–86

  78·5

  1986–87

  78·7

  1987–88

  77·9

  1988–89

  91·9

  My right hon. Friend announced on 1 November 1988, at columns 605–10, that the Science Budget for 1989–90 would be £825 million and that he would be seeking the advice of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils on the allocation of this amount. In answer to questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on 7 November 1988 at columns 2–3 and Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) on 8 November 1988 at columns 134–35, my right hon. Friend has already announced that he has allocated in 1989–90 an additional £3 million for the British Geological Survey and an additional £10 million for the British Antarctic Survey. The ABRC advice is now being considered. We hope to announce the allocations to the individual councils (including NERC) shortly.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what is his timetable for making regulations under section 17 and section 19 of the Educational Reform Act 1988 regarding provision within the national curriculum for children with special educational needs; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make it his policy not to lay before this House draft orders for mathematics and science within the national curriculum until after he has published proposals for regulations under section 17 and section 19 of the Education Reform Act 1988 regarding provision for children with special educational needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  There is no need for regulations under section 17 regarding provision for children with special educational needs to be drafted before orders for attainment targets and programmes of study for mathematics and science are made. The National Curriculum Council has advised my right hon. Friend that these orders should apply to all pupils without modification, with every effort being made to facilitate access for all pupils including those with a statement of special educational needs made under the Education Act 1981. My right hon. Friend proposes that the mathematics and science requirements should not, however, apply to pupils with statements of special educational needs until autumn 1990. This will give time for statements to be revised to modify or disapply the requirements if necesary.

  If section 17 regulations are needed in respect of national curriculum requirements to be introduced in 1990 and subsequently, my right hon. Friend will ensure that the necessary consultations take place in good time.

  Regulations under section 19 about temporary exemptions to national curriculum requirements will not be specific to particular subjects. It is my right hon.

  19
  Friend's intention to consult on draft regulations shortly, so that the regulations can take effect from 1 August 1989 at the same time as the first statutory requirements relating to the national curriculum.

  Teachers (Statistics)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many people aged 40 years or over have trained since 1980 to become teachers as an alternative to their former profession and are now employed in state schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In March 1986 (the latest date for which figures are available) there were about 1,800 teachers full-time in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England who had qualified since 1980 and were aged 40 or over at the time they did so.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what records are kept by his Department, or which are available to his Department, in respect of the names, current addresses, experience and occupations of persons who have qualified as teachers but who are not at present employed as a teacher by any local education authority in England.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The database of teacher records (DTR) maintained by the Department to administer the teachers' superannuation scheme contains a record of every teacher who has either had reckonable service or completed a course of initial teacher training in England and Wales. However, for teachers not at present in service the DTR would not hold any of the details listed except for their name at the time of last leaving service or completing training.

  Secondary Education (Trafford)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he has given to groups seeking to opt-out secondary schools in Trafford.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department issued general advice in its circular 10/88, "Grant-Maintained Schools", and in a booklet "School Governors: How to Become A Grant-Maintained School". These were sent to the chairmen of governors of all maintained schools in England, including secondary schools in Trafford, in autumn last year.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information has been given by his Department to interested groups about plans of the local authority to reorganise secondary education in Trafford.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Department has informed interested parties that, in view of my right hon. Friend's role in relation to statutory proposals, it is not possible for the Department to comment on the matter. Information on the procedure for rationalising school provision was given in the Department's circular 3/87.

  AFRC Bristol
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are his reasons for reducing the operation of AFRC Bristol in view of the need to conduct heart and related research.
  20
  Mr. Jackson
  The total resources available for science are distributed taking into account the needs of individual institutions, but that distribution is not determined by my Department.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council and New Town Properties
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the total spending by local authorities and new towns in England and Wales on repairs to council and new town properties in(a) cash and (b) real terms for such financial year for the most recent 20-year period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Trippier
  Available figures for English local authorities and new towns are given in the table. For Welsh figures, I refer the hon. Member to the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Capital and revenue expenditure on renovation1

  £ million

  Cash

  1987–88 prices

  1981–82

  1,550

  2,085

  1982–83

  2,025

  2,545

  1983–84

  2,360

  2,835

  1984–85

  2,550

  2,930

  1985–86

  2,640

  2,860

  1986–87

  2,860

  3,000

  1987–88

  23,060

  23,060

  1 Excluding estimates of revenue expenditure by Northampton, Redditch and Washington new towns.

  2 Provisional.

  Figures for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Sector Tenants
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state, for the most recent 20 year period for which figures are available, the annual rate of transfer of public sector tenants from council and new town homes to (i) owner-occupation in the private sector, not including sales of council houses, (ii) private sector flats and (iii) housing association properties.

  Mr. Trippier
  Estimated numbers of local authority and new town tenants who had moved to other tenures in the previous 12 months, other than by purchase as sitting tenants, are available from two national movers surveys carried out in the 1970s and from the 1984 labour force survey housing trailer. Estimates for England and Wales in 1971 and for England in 1977–78 and 1984 are as follows:

  Present tenure and type of accommodation

  1971

  1977–78

  1984

  Owner occupier

  House

  66,000

  46,000

  32,000

  Flat

  5,000

  Private renter

  House

  12,000

  Flat

  25,000

  25,000

  5,000

  Housing association renter

  3,000

  Type of accommodation is not available for 1971 and 1977–78.

  Urban Development Corporations (Report)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to respond to the House of Commons Employment Committee's report on urban development corporations.

  Mr. Trippier
  I sent the Government's response to the Committee's chairman on 29 November 1988.

  Paid Appointments
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many paid appointments to official bodies were within his gift(a) in 1979 and (b) now.

  Mr. Ridley
  Paid appointments to public bodies for which my Department is currently responsible are shown in the HMSO publication " Public Bodies 1988". Since it went to print, urban development corporations have been established at central Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield and each has 10 paid members.

  Publications in the series did not start until 1982 and there was no comparable publication in 1979. However, appointments in the gift of the Secretary of State for the Environment in 1978 are listed in the HMSO publication "A Directory of Paid Public Appointments made by Ministers 1978".

  Housebuilding (Wakefield)
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by year for the last 15 years for which figures are available the annual number of completions within Wakefield metropolitan district council area of (i) private sector houses and flats, (ii) council arid new town houses and flats, and (iii) housing associations' housing and flats.

  Mr. Trippier
  Housebuilding completions as reported by Wakefield district council for 1986 and 1987 are as follows:

  Local authority

  Housing association

  Private sector

  1986

  59

  58

  251

  1987

  54

  —

  427

  Figures for 1980 to 1985 appear in table 1 of "Housebuilding in England by local authority areas: 1980 to 1987". For earlier years figures appear in the following issues of "Local Housing Statistics":

  Year

  Issue No.

  Table

  1974

  33

  5

  1975

  37

  5

  1976

  41

  5

  1977

  45

  5

  1978

  49

  5

  1979

  59

  4

  Copies of these publications are available in the Library. Comparable figures for 1973 are not available because of the reorganisation of local government in 1974.

  Channel Tunnel (Terminal)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to call in any application to locate the second London terminal for the Channel tunnel at King's Cross.
  22
  Mr. Chope
  The usual means of proceeding with the development of new railway schemes is by private Bill procedure. It is British Rail's intention to use this procedure for the development of the second London terminus for the Channel tunnel at King's Cross. There would, therefore, be no planning application for my right hon. Friend to call in.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution has been made by his Department to the selection process for the site of the second London terminal for the Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  None. It is for the promoters to put forward proposals.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what environmental impact studies have been made by his Department on the siting of the second London terminal for the Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  None. However, I would expect any Select Committee to take the environmental aspects of a second London terminus at King's Cross into account when considering a private Bill.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been made to his Department against the possible location of the second London terminal for the Channel tunnel at King's Cross.

  Mr. Chope
  None.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will name the organisations which have expressed an opinion in favour of(a) Stratford, (b) King's Cross, and (c) another site, as the preferred location for the second London terminal for the Channel tunnel.

  Bristol Channel (Pollution)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Devon, North of 21 December 1988,Official Report, column 269, if he will now take steps to collect and publish the information relating to discharges of sewage into the Bristol channel.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The information sought is already available on the public registers which the water authorities concerned are required to maintain. Registers are open to inspection free of charge at all reasonable hours.

  Water (Privatisation)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if any discussions have been held or arranged with the suppliers or manufacturers of those chemicals added to the public water supply at the request of health authorities in respect of any changes in liability for the effects of these chemicals following privatisation.
  23
  Mr. Moynihan
  No.

  Housing
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average length of time taken to construct a unit of accommodation, the average cost and the average interest costs arising during construction, assuming all construction costs throughout the construction period are based on borrowed money(a) for direct labour organisations pertaining to inner London authorities and (b) for the private sector in inner London.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information is not available.

  Football Clubs (Membership Scheme)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether it is his intention to extend the proposed national identity scheme to non-league football clubs who have a record of football violence should the scheme operate successfully with Football League clubs.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I hope that it will not be necessary for the national membership scheme to be extended to non-league football but the possibility is one that the Government and the Football Membership Authority would need to consider if there was evidence of a serious problem of hooliganism at non-league football clubs.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the organisations which have made representations in favour of his proposed national membership scheme for football supporters.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 12 January 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 22 December at column 433. I shall be writing to him very shortly.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations the Minister for Sport has received from the Bedfordshire police regarding identity cards for football supporters; whether they support his proposals for identity cards for football supporters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 13 January 1989]: The acting chief constable of Bedfordshire police wrote to me on 16 December asking whether the national membership scheme for football supporters would preclude Luton Town football club from continuing to operate its home members only scheme. My present view is that the scheme should be a national one, allowing all members to attend any match, subject to the right of the owner or occupier of any ground to exclude people whom they do not wish to admit. The Football Membership Authority will wish to look at this issue in drawing up the scheme.

  Local Authorities (Economic Development)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 21 December to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on local authority economic development, what is his policy with regard to the future funding by local authorities of support and advisory staff for new businesses.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 10 January 1989]: Local authorities have an important role in providing advice and
  24
  suitable back-up support for new businesses in their area. The new general economic development power will enable them to do this. We are discussing with the local authority associations the precise scope of the power which will be embodied in regulations in due course.

  Luton Town FC
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the source of his information on the number of arrests during the 1987–88 football season at Luton Town football club which took place(a) outside and (b) inside the ground; and if he will seek to provide a similar breakdown of arrest figures for the other Football League clubs.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 10 January 1989]: I am aware from information provided by the club that the one arrest for a drugs-related offence, made at Luton Town's home Football League matches last season was outside the ground. Arrest figures for Football League clubs are collated by the Association of Chief Police Officers. They do not differentiate between arrests inside and outside grounds.

  Football (Statistics)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment pursuant to his answer on football statistics in the Official Report on 19 December 1988, columns 55–60, whether there is any overlap in numbers between those arrested and those ejected from grounds.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 10 January 1989]: No. The figures for ejections are in respect of ejections other than those following arrest.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment pursuant to his answer on football statistics in the Official Report for 19 December 1988, columns 55–60, if he will list similar tables for matches played to date in the 1988–89 season showing clubs according to the proportion of arrests at their grounds, with the clubs with the smallest proportion of arrests first.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 10 January 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) on 10 January at column 492.

  Oil Pollution
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the recent pollution of the south coast by oil.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 12 January 1989]: I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), in reply to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 10 January 1989 at column 510.

  Water Authorities (Land)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total area of land disposed of by each of the water authorities in England since 1983.
  25
  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 12 January 1989]: I have nothing to add to the information which I gave to the hon. Member in my reply of 12 December at column 415.

  Mr. Pachett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will be in a position to provide information on water authority land which is designated as(a) of special scientific interest, (b) national parks and (c) areas of outstanding beauty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 13 January 1989]: I have no plans to make such information available. I refer the hon. Member to the recent publication by the Countryside Commission, "Sites of Conservation and Recreation value currently in the ownership of Water Authorities", which provides most of the information he seeks.

  Local Authorities (Capital Receipts)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the information he has collected on the accumulated capital receipts held by local authorities at the end of 1987–88.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 12 January 1989]: The information requested is not yet available. I shall write to the hon. Member when it is available and place a copy of the information requested in the Library at that time.

  Rates
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, using 1988–89 prices, for each charging authority area(a) the revenue support grant which would be payable to that area in the first year of safety netting if there was no upper limit to contributions from authorities to the safety net, (b) the revenue support grant which would be payable without safety nets, (c) the difference between (a) and (b) and (d) the average rate payment per adult in 1988–89, showing aggregates, or, where appropriate, averages, for each class of charging authority, for each county or metropolitan area and for each region, respectively.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 22 December 1988]: The information requested has been placed in the Library of the House.

  National Rivers Authority (Correspondence)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his correspondence with the chairman of the National Rivers Authority advisory committees.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 13 January 1989]: No.

  Radioactive Waste (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is yet in a position to name the sites identified by United Kingdom Nirex Ltd. for deep disposal facility for radioactive waste in south Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 13 January 1989]: We have asked Nirex to put forward proposals for a radioactive waste disposal facility. My right hon. Friend expects a report shortly.

  Water (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution last monitored south Yorkshire's drinking water; and what were the resulting findings.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 13 January 1989]: Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution does not monitor drinking water as it has no responsibility for this subject. Yorkshire water authority is responsible for monitoring the quality of its supplies.

  Water Act 1973
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) on how many occasions since the coming into force of the Water Act 1973 disputes have been submitted to him for determination under the provisions of section 11(4) of that Act; and if he will specify the local authority area in which such disputes have arisen;

  (2) on how many occasions since the coming into force of the Water Act 1973 he has issued directions under the provision of section 4(10) of that Act to the National Water Council; and what was the purpose of each such direction;

  (3) on how many occasions since the coming into force of the Water Act 1973 he has issued directions under the provisions of section 17(5) of that Act, to water authorities; and for which estuary each such direction was made;

  (4) on how many occasions since the coming into force of the Water Act 1973 he has issued directions under the provisions of section 5(2) of that Act to water authorities; and for what purpose each such direction was made.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 13 January 1989]: So far as I am aware, none of these powers has been used.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the form of the current undertakings as to liability regarding the effects of any additional chemicals added to the public water supply at the request of health or other authorities.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have today placed in the Library a copy of the model agreement dated November 1987 which provides the basis for discussions between health authorities and water undertakers on the terms under which fluoridation of domestic water supplies may be carried out. This includes a copy of the terms of the indemnity which is provided for water undertakers operating fluoridation schemes.

DEFENCE

  Royal Air Force Exercises
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Royal Air Force will continue to exercise its legal right under a supplement to the 1963 North Atlantic Treaty Organisation status of forces agreement to conduct exercises outside its normal bases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Royal Air Force will continue to exercise in the Federal Republic of Germany in accordance
  27
  with the provisions of the supplementary agreement to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation status of forces agreement.

  British Army of the Rhine (Drunkenness)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British Army of the Rhine personnel were convicted by courts martial of drunkenness offences in each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Neubert
  The numbers of British Army of the Rhine personnel convicted by courts martial of drunkenness offences in the period specified were as follows:

  Total

  Officers

  Servicemen/women

  1979

  24

  1

  23

  1980

  19

  1

  18

  1981

  14

  —

  14

  1982

  22

  —

  22

  1983

  18

  —

  18

  1984

  9

  —

  9

  1985

  5

  —

  5

  1986

  5

  —

  5

  1987

  6

  —

  6

  HMS Bronington
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of HMS Bronington.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Following a competitive tender, a consortia of business men have purchased HMS Bronington. They will be placing the vessel in the hands of a charitable trust, which will ensure its permanent preservation. HMS Bronington will be leased to the Trafford Park development corporation and it proposes to preserve, maintain and use the vessel as a floating museum, representing to the general public life on board one of the Royal Navy's mine hunters. The vessel will be sited for the foreseeable future within or adjacent to the corporation's most prestigious development area, Wharfside, Manchester Docks.

  Lockerbie Air Disaster
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel, from which services and of what ranks, have been engaged in operations at Lockerbie, following the Pan Am aircraft crash.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A total of 7,442 man-days of assistance were provided by the three Services during the operation at Lockerbie up to 12 January. The majority of this effort was directed towards the search for bodies and wreckage. A breakdown by Service is given below:

  Service

  Man-days

  Royal Navy

  357

  Army

  2,836

  Royal Air Force

  4,249

  This assistance included a considerable number of formed units; the precise number deployed for each rank
  28
  is not held. In the immediate aftermath of the incident, up to a dozen RAF and RN helicopters carried out daily salvage and transport tasks. This commitment was subsequently reduced to two helicopters, which continued operations until 12 January. A number of photo-reconnaissance flights have been flown by the RAF to assist in the difficult task of locating the remaining salvage and the Royal Engineers assisted with the removal of the cockpit wreckage. The RAF repair and salvage squadron will continue to support the air accident investigation branch and 100 service men are still assisting with the search for wreckage.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what additional payments are to be made to service personnel engaged in operations at Lockerbie following the Pan Am aircraft crash, specifying the amounts of such additional payments and the ranks to which they are to be paid.

  Mr. Neubert
  Service personnel are liable for duty at all times and do not receive extra pay for working overtime or on public holidays. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body takes account of this in recommending levels of service pay, which incorparate a 10 per cent. enhancement (9 per cent. in the case of service women) known as the X-factor, in recognition of the disadvantages of service life, including liability for duty at all times without extra pay.

  There is, however, provision for a small additional payment to be made where the work undertaken is of an objectionable nature. Those service men who were involved in the recovery of bodies at Lockerbie will be eligible for this payment which is set by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body at 90p a day. In addition, modest welfare payments have been authorised: service men may make free telephone calls up to £2 in value a week and units can claim the equivalent of 50p per man per week to provide recreational facilities.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Long-term Unemployed
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many long-term unemployed there are presently in each of the 26 district council areas in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  The latest unemployment figures available relate to 10 November 1988. The numbers of claimants in each district council area of Northern Ireland, who had been continuously unemployed for more than one year at that date, are as follows:—

  District Council Area

  Total

  Antrim

  1,395

  Ards

  1,275

  Armagh

  1,845

  Ballymena

  1,450

  Ballymoney

  960

  Banbridge

  714

  Belfast

  15,967

  Carrickfergus

  760

  Castlereagh

  1,276

  Coleraine

  2,019

  Cookstown

  1,348

  Craigavon

  2,527

  Derry

  5,525

  Down

  1,162

  29

  District Council Area

  Total

  Dungannon

  2,087

  Fermanagh

  2,265

  Larne

  825

  Limavady

  1,458

  Lisburn

  2,626

  Magherafelt

  1,450

  Moyle

  779

  Newry and Mourne

  3,801

  Newtownabbey

  2,067

  North Down

  1,157

  Omagh

  1,720

  Strabane

  2,067

  Northern Ireland

  60,525

  Teachers (Premature Retirement)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for the years ending 31 March 1978, 1983, 1987 and 1988 the total number of teachers in Northern Ireland who were granted premature retirement on grounds of ill health.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:—

  Number

  Year ending 31 March 1978

  23

  Year ending 31 March 1983

  47

  Year ending 31 March 1987

  58

  Year ending 31 March 1988

  82

  Further Education
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for the future development of further education in Newtownards and Bangor; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The South-Eastern Education and Library Board has plans at an advanced stage for a major extension to North Down college of further education. It has been agreed with the board of governors that this should be at the Bangor campus.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many temporary classrooms there are at the further education colleges in Bangor and Newtownards.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A total of 26 at Bangor and 10 at Newtownards.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the numbers on the youth training programme by appropriate district unit in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 21 December 1988]: At 25 November 1988 some 14,306 young people were receiving training under the youth training programme. Statistics are not available by district but are collated on a job market area basis in respect of full-time training only. Details are as follows:

  Numbers in full-lime training

  Job market area

  Numbers

  Bangor

  367

  Lisburn

  443

  Newtownards

  97

  30

  Job market area

  Numbers

  Belfast South and East

  1,770

  Belfast North and West

  1,531

  Antrim

  181

  Carrickfergus

  117

  Larne

  153

  Magherafelt

  139

  Ballymena

  560

  Ballymoney

  126

  Coleraine

  206

  Limavady

  125

  Londonderry

  1,117

  Strabane

  158

  Armagh

  93

  Cookstown

  90

  Dungannon

  169

  Enniskillen

  228

  Omagh

  366

  Portadown

  319

  Ballynahinch

  50

  Banbridge

  105

  Downpatrick

  158

  Kilkeel

  1

  Lurgan

  283

  Newcastle

  85

  Newry

  632

  Total

  9,669

  In addition an estimated 4,637 young people were in receipt of employment with training under YTP work scheme throughout Northern Ireland.

ENERGY

  Electricity Sales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what percentage of total sales of each of the 12 area boards in the electricity supply industry in England and Wales is accounted for by customers in each of the following categories of supply(a) 10 MW-50 MW, (b) 50 MW-100 MW, (c) 100 MW-200 MW and (d) over 200 MW;

  (2) how many customers each of the 12 area boards in the electricity supply industry of England and Wales currently have in each of the following categories of supply (a) 10 MW-50 MW, (b) 50 MW-100 MW, (c) 100 MW-200 MW and (d) over 200 MW.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the area electricity boards and I am asking the individual chairmen to write to the hon. Member.

  Fulmar Oilfield (Incident)
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement describing the sequence and timings of the events of 1 January involving the failure of the anchoring system of the floating storage unit on the Fulmar field, the consequent rupture of the pipeline connecting the Fulmar platform to the floating storage unit and subsequent shutdown of oil pumping through this pipeline.

  Mr. Parkinson
  My inspectors are currently investigating an incident on the Fulmar field of the kind described, which took place on 24 December. Full information on this incident will only be available once the investigation is complete.
  31
  Preliminary indications from the operator are that the Fulmar floating storage unit (FSU) and the single anchor point leg mooring (SALM) broke loose from the anchor base at approximately 04.45 hours on 24 December 1988.

  Failure of the sea bed latch released the SALM and caused rupture of oil feed pipes at its coupling. The main pipeline was undamaged. Consequent constriction of the feed pipes prevented low oil pressure cut-outs from closing down the main oil pumps on the Fulmar A platform. It was confirmed at 5.30 am that the FSU had moved off its mooring and pumping ceased at approximately 05.35 hours.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the relative locations, in terms of compass bearing and distance, of oil production platforms on the Fulmar, Auk and Clyde fields to the normal position of the mooring of the Fulmar floating storage unit.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The information is as follows:

  Fulmar 4·2 nautical miles bearing 44°(true)

  Auk 5·2 nautical miles bearing 204° (true)

  Clyde 5·5 nautical miles bearing 106° (true)

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the submarine pipelines within a 50-mile radius of the normal position of the Fulmar floating storage unit with a description of their contents and operating pressures.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The information is as follows:

  Pipeline

  Contents

  Maximum allowable operating pressure1

  Fulmar A to SALM

  Crude oil

  183

  Auk to Fulmar

  Crude oil

  148

  Clyde to Fulmar

  Crude oil

  348

  Clyde to Fulmar

  Gas

  2,175

  Fulmar to St. Fergus

  Gas

  2,750

  Ekofisk to Teesside

  Crude oil

  1,680

  Argyll base manifold to pipeline end manifold

  Crude oil

  3,000

  1 Pounds per square inch gauge

  In addition, there are a series of pipelines to the Argyll base manifold for the recovery of crude oil from subsea completions in the Innes, Duncan and New Argyll fields. The maximum allowable operating pressures in these pipelines is 3,000 psig.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if there was any danger of rupture of pipelines in the vicinity of the Fulmar field on 1 January caused by the drifting floating storage unit dragging the remains of its mooring system across them.

  Mr. Parkinson
  No. I understand the only pipeline in the vicinity was the Ekofisk-Teeside oil line which was crossed at 11.15 hours after the Fulmar floating storage unit was under partial control. I am advised that at no time did the unit drag on the sea bottom; clearance above the Ekofisk-Teeside line was approximately 15 metres.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what route was followed by the Fulmar floating storage unit after it broke loose on 1 January and before it was fully in control again; what was its closest approach to any installation; and what was its approximate speed of drift.
  32
  Mr. Parkinson
  Information provided to my Department indicates that the Fulmar floating storage unit drifted at 3·3 knots for three hours on a bearing of 110° (true). After four hours the drift speed slowed and the bearing changed to 125° (true) when the unit came under control of tugs. The Clyde platform was passed at 06.34 hours at a distance of 0·7 nautical miles.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what contingency plans existed for the situation in which the Fulmar floating storage unit broke its moorings on 1 January; and whether there was a secondary, emergency anchoring system on the tanker or propulsion and steering systems for this eventuality.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Emergency procedures prepared by the operator envisage that mooring failure would be dealt with by the use of heavy duty tow lines launched by rocket to the standby vessel and other available tugs. The sector club system involving neighbouring operators provides for additional heavy duty towing, a diving support vessel and aircraft, all of which were used on this occasion.

  There was no emergency anchoring system as this is considered to be impracticable for controlling or stopping a vessel of this size under emergency conditions.

  The Fulmar floating storage unit has no propulsion or steering systems.

  Oil and Gas Installations
  Mr. Frank Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what standards are set by his Department regarding the resistance of North sea oil and gas installations to impact by vessels; and what information he has on the standards set by the Norwegian petroleum directorate.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The Department's current guidance on design and construction of offshore installation recommends that they be designed to withstand the impact of a ship of 2,500 tonnes displacement travelling at 0·5 metres per second, assuming that all of the kinetic energy is absorbed by the installation.

  However, following a study by J. P. Kenny, consultant engineers, which was commissioned by my Department, a consultation document is to be issued shortly recommending an increase in the energy absorbtion value for offshore installations. J. P. Kenny's technical report was published on 10 January and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. I will send a copy of the consultation document to the hon. Member once it is available.

  I understand the requirements of the Norwegian petroleum directorate are not expressed in the same way as the United Kingdom requirement. However, I am advised that the values of kinetic energy required to be absorbed in Norway are, in effect, comparable with those to be recommended in our proposed new guidelines.

HEALTH

  Births and Deaths Registration Act
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place a copy of the report of the Registrar General of the application of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 to the case of the Carlisle baby in the Library; and if he will make a statement.
  33
  Mr. Freeman
  The Registrar General is a Crown appointee under section 1 of the Registration Service Act 1953. The Secretary of State has no responsibilities or powers as regards the day to day exercise by the Registrar General of her functions under the Act or under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953. The Registrar General's conduct may be the subject of review by the courts. The Registrar General does not make information public about individuals which has come to her knowledge through her duties under the Births and Deaths Registration Act which is not already in the public domain.

  The background note provided by the Registrar General on the Carlisle baby case was to enable the Secretary of State to respond to parliamentary inquiries and it is not appropriate for this document to be placed in the Library. It may however be helpful if I set out the legal position with regard to registration procedures.

  Section 2 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 places a duty, primarily on the parents of a child, to give information for birth registration. This information is required to be given within 42 days of the date of birth and failure to give it may result in the local registrar issuing a notice in writing requiring any person to attend to register who is qualified to carry out the registration under the legislation. If a parent, or the mother in the case of a child born outside marriage, continues to refuse to register then that person commits an offence under section 36(c) of the 1953 Act.

  Before issuing a formal requisition and pursuing the registration the local registrar has to establish that a birth which is registrable under the 1953 Act has actually taken place. In normal circumstances this information will come via the health authority under the provision set out in section 124(7) of the National Health Service Act 1977. This enables the registrar to have access to notices of births received by a medical officer. However, these notices are required by statute only in respect of births of more than 28 weeks gestation. In the absence of such a notice, the registrar must satisfy himself from other information that a birth has occurred which is registrable under the 1953 Act before issuing a formal requisition.

  After 12 months have elapsed the local registrar's immediate responsibilities come to an end and the Registrar General's authority for registration of a birth and also of a death is required under sections 7 and 21 of the 1953 Act. The Registrar General has no powers to require any informant to register a birth or death, and if application is made to her for late registration by a qualified informant she needs to be satisfied that a registrable live birth or death have occurred.

  Infant Deaths
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information his Department has on research in different countries on the links between infant deaths and a sudden fall or rise in body temperature;

  (2) what information his Department holds on research in foreign countries examining the results on human infant health of the use of early warning temperature monitors.

  Mr. Freeman
  Departmental officials are kept informed of research developments including those in other countries through articles in learned journals and through 34
  informal contacts with colleagues in those countries. No comprehensive list of such research is however held centrally.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will publish in the Official Report details of any grants that his Department administers or gives for the development of technical aids or equipment by private companies which prevents the death of human infants;

  (2) if his Department is giving financial or other assistance to any private company in the research or development of an early warning temperature monitor for human infants.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department has made no grants or given any other form of financial assistance to private companies involved in research into such subjects.

  Royal National Orthopaedic (Country) Hospital
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will agree to receive a deputation representing relevant interests groups, including the hon. Member for Harrow, East, to assess the importance of the long-term development of the Royal National Orthopaedic (Country) hospital at its present site in Stanmore, Middlesex.

  Mr. Mellor
  I would be happy to meet such a deputation once consultation about transfer of management responsibility from Bloomsbury to Harrow is under way.

  Health Index
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what conclusions he has reached about the feasibility of creating a health index; and what decision he has taken about its implementation.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I do not believe that the construction of a single index measure of the nation's health is feasible. The state of the nation's health is best gauged by looking at a large range of different measures. In July my predecessor announced the setting up of a new small multi-disciplinary unit in the Department in line with the recommendation in the Chief Medical Officer's report on public health in England. The major function of this new unit will be to monitor and analyse information about the health of the population.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras of 6 December 1988,Official Report, columns 130–31, if he will place a copy of the guidance notes for health authorities on equipment requirements for breast cancer screening in the Library; whether these recommendations also apply to screening units operated in the private sector; what steps are taken to inspect private mobile screening units; how many staff are employed to perform those inspections; how many such inspections were made in 1988; and how frequently each unit is inspected, on average.

  Mr. Freeman
  Health authorities are asked to make relevant advice and guidance available to locally registered hospitals and nursing homes but they have no power to
  35
  monitor private sector screening units. Copies of the guidance notes referred to by the hon. Member have been placed in the Library.

  Blood Transfusion Service
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give, for each year since 1978, the number of staff employed to collect blood from donors by each blood transfusion service; and if he will also give for each year and each blood transfusion service the number of staff vacancies for posts intended to collect blood from donors.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Ministerial Advisers
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the ministerial advisers appointed in his Department for each year since 1979, the salary each person received, whether paid directly or to another employer, and the duties undertaken, whether solely in his Department or in conjunction with other Departments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Since 1979 up to the formation of two separate Departments in July 1988, the Departments of Health and Social Security appointed the following ministerial advisers.

  Name

  Date of Appointment

  Department

  Prof R. Dyson

  August 1979

  DHSS

  Mr. N. True

  May 1982

  DHSS

  Mr. A. J. Turner

  February 1987

  DHSS

  Mr. C. Hendry

  May 1988

  DHSS

  DSS from

  Miss M. Libby1

  May 1988

  July 1988

  Mr. J. Hill

  July 1988

  DH

  1 Since July 1988, Miss Libby has worked only to the Secretary of State for Social Services. Mr. Hill was appointed to advise the Secretary of State for Health.

  It is not our practice to reveal the salaries of individual advisers as they are individually negotiated in relation to previous outside earnings and conditions and are therefore confidential.

  Except for Professor Dyson who was seconded into DHSS for one day per week, all salaries were paid direct to the individual adviser. Professor Dyson's employer was reimbursed on a pro-rata basis for his services.

  With the exception of Professor Dyson, who was employed as a consultant adviser on industrial relations in the NHS, all advisers were employed solely on duties outside the Department laid down by the Minister they served.

  Hip Replacements
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting time for a hip replacement operation in National Health Service hospitals in each regional health area in England and Wales; and which district has the shortest waiting time.

  Mr. Freeman
  The available information for 1985, the latest year for which data are held centrally, is given in the 36
  table. Sample numbers in the Department's central data base are too small for reliable estimates to be made below regional level. Information for Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Estimated median interval in weeks between the time a patient was placed on a wailing list and admission to an NHS hospital in England for total hip replacement or other arthroplasty of hip operations, by region, 1985

  Region of treatment

  Median waiting time (weeks)

  Northern

  19

  Yorkshire

  20

  Trent

  25

  East Anglian

  21

  North West Thames

  13

  North East Thames

  18

  South East Thames

  23

  South West Thames

  26

  Wessex

  28

  Oxford

  18

  South Western

  22

  West Midlands

  24

  Mersey

  16

  North Western

  19

  Liver Transplants
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money is given directly to liver transplant units by his Department; how many liver transplant units are funded in this way; how much money is given to each unit; and whether he intends to increase the total amount given to liver transplant units or the number of liver transplant units receiving grants from his Department.

  Mr. Mellor
  We provide supra-regional funding to the designated units through earmarked allocations given to regional health authorities. In the financial year 1988–89 the revenue allocation provided for the four liver transplant centres was £5,038,000.

  In 1988–89 the total sum provided for this service will be £7,031,000, a 40 per cent. increase in funding. Individual allocations will be as follows:

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge

  1,569,000

  2,398,000

  King's College Hospital, London

  1,133,000

  1,368,000

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham

  1,762,000

  2,452,000

  St. James' University Hospital, Leeds

  574,000

  813,000

  We will also be providing capital allocations to two units in 1989–90. King's college hospital will receive £21,000 and Addenbrooke's £331,000.

  We have no immediate plans to increase the number of designated centres, but the supra-regional services advisory group keeps the service under review and advises Ministers accordingly.

  Factor 8
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any batches of the blood product Factor 8 have had to be discarded due to viral hepatitis B infection of the plasma pool of the blood products laboratory.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes, occasionally finished batches of Factor 8 have to be discarded for this reason following quality control checks.

  Junior Hospital Doctors
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any estimates of the average hours worked by junior hospital doctors in the four Thames regional health authorities as against other health authorities in the rest of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information in the form requested.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the study on health authorities' plans to reduce junior hospital doctors' working hours; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I expect to receive reports from health authorities later this month and have agreed to consider them with representatives of the British Medical Association in February.

  Consultants
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide separate and additional funding for health authorities to employ more consultants in areas where need can be demonstrated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Generally, health authorities are responsible for determining the number of consultant posts required to fulfil their service objectives and for funding these posts. However, to give an initial impetus to the "Achieving a Balance" initiative we provided central funding for 100 additional posts in general medicine, general surgery and traumatic and orthopaedic surgery. Some authorities have also used the waiting list fund to provide additional consultant sessions to help tackle the problem of long waiting lists and times.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Heath what is his target for the number of consultants in the National Health Service; when he expects this target to be met; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Regional health authorities are responsible for planning the number of consultants they require to meet service needs. Their forward plans show an average rate of expansion similar to the historical rate of growth of some 2 per cent. per annum and I would expect this to be maintained. Regional health authorities are held to account annually, through the regional review procedure, for meeting the targets that they set in their plans.

  Wakefield Health Authority
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the composition of the appointment boards for each district general manager appointed for the Wakefield health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold such details centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the health authority which is responsible for the appointment of its district general manager, for the information he is seeking.

  Bradford Health Authority (Chair)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to conduct an election among the citizens of Bradford for the new Chair of Bradford health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long the post of Chair of the Bradford health authority has been empty; and if he will now announce his new appointment.

  Mr. Mellor
  Since 8 November 1988. We hope to appoint a new chairman soon.

  Waiting Lists (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made in reducing hospital waiting lists in the Yorkshire region.

  Mr. Freeman
  The most recent figures show that, at March 1988, there were 49,000 patients on the in-patient waiting list in Yorkshire region. This is over 8 per cent. lower than at March 1979.

  Waiting Lists (Pontefract)
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the in-patient waiting list figures for the Pontefract district health authority in March 1988. 1987, and 1979.

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

  In-patient waiting list Pontefract District Health Authority1 31 March 1979, 1987 and 1988.

  Year

  Total

  1979

  3,007

  1987

  2,079

  1988

  21,701

  1 Eastern Wakefield District, prior to 1982

  2 on a comparable basis with previous statistics

  Pontefract Health Authority
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the projected budget deficit of the Pontefract district health authority in(a) the current financial year and (b) the next financial year.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect such information centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Pontefract health authority for the information that he is seeking. The Yorkshire regional health authority received a recent 7·7 per cent. cash increase for 1989–90, and it must decide what allocation to give to the DHA to meet its approved plan next year.

  Aplastic Anaemia
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he has any evidence that pesticides, drugs, and toxic chemicals could be the cause of aplastic anaemia;

  (2) what evidence he has available on the cause of aplastic anaemia.
  39
  Mr. Freeman
  Different disorders are sometimes classified under the term appastic anaemia. In some cases the anaemia can be attributed to a chemical including some pesticides and some drugs. High doses of radiation can also give rise to this condition. In other cases, the cause cannot be determined, that is, it may occur as a disease of unknown aetiology.

  We are aware of published evidence that prolonged exposure to very high levels of the industrial solvents benzene, toluene and carbon tetrachloride has been associated with the development of aplastic anaemia in some people. There is more limited evidence also that exposure to certain pesticides, namely chlordane, DDT, heptachlor, lindane, pentachloraphenol and those based on arsenic or mercury might cause aplastic anaemia.

  The use of all these industrial solvents is controlled, and occupational exposures are well below those at which harm has been shown to occur. Of the pesticides, heptachlor and DDT are no longer approved for use in the United Kingdom, and the others are approved for restricted use under conditions which, as with all pesticides, should avoid harmful effects occurring.

  Aplastic anaemia is recognised as a possible adverse reaction to a number of drugs. The Committee on Safety of Medicines has received from doctors over 1,000 reports associated with almost 200 medicinal products.

  There is good evidence to suggest that the antibiotic drugs chloramphenicol and phenylbutazone, which are used in veterinary practice, cause aplastic anaemia in those humans sensitive to their effects. Chloramphenicol is only administered in life-threatening conditions where no suitable alternative exists.

  Health Authorities (Meetings)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the district health authorities in(a) the north western region and (b) the Mersey region which meet on a bi-monthly basis.

  Mr. Mellor
  The following district health authorities meet formally on a bi-monthly basis:

  (a) north western region

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde Health Authority

  Bury Health Authority

  Tameside and Glossop Health Authority

  (b)Mersey region

  Southport and Formby Health Authority1

  South Sefton Health Authority

  Wirral Health Authority

  Chester Health Authority

  1This year the health authority will meet in both April and May.

  Regrading
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of(a) midwives and (b) nurses on different grades following the regrading exercise.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply by my right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State, to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) on 28 November 1988 at column 147–8.

  Health Authorities (Representatives)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide details of the numbers of local authority representatives on each district health authority
  in England and Wales.

  Mr. Mellor
  This information is available in the National Health Service (Constitution of District Health Authorities) Order 1981 (as amended)—SI 1981:1838.

HEALTH

  Health Authority Funding
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether he has any information concerning the amount of funding transferred by each regional health authority in the latest year for which figures are available from the mental health services budget to the acute services budget;

  (2) whether his Department has issued any guidelines to regional health authorities concerning the transfer of funds from the mental health budget to the acute services budget following the closure of mental hospitals as part of the community care programme.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is for health authorities to determine what proportion of their resources to devote to the various services that they provide. Within a national framework of health care priorities, they have to determine, in the light of local needs and circumstances, how their resources can best be used.

  No guidelines have been issued to regional health authorities concerning the transfer of funds between budgets and it is not possible to assess, from information available centrally, the extent to which such transfers may have taken place.

  Number of residential care homes in North Western Region, by local authority, as at 31 March 1987 (Provisional)

  Local authority

  Elderly and younger physically handicapped

  Mentally ill1

  Mentally handicapped1

  Other client groups2 3

  Cheshire

  138

  27

  32

  1

  Lancashire

  581

  17

  55

  0

  Bolton

  44

  2

  6

  0

  Bury

  25

  1

  4

  0

  Manchester

  102

  23

  45

  1

  Oldham

  49

  5

  7

  0

  Rochdale

  33

  2

  5

  0

  Salford

  36

  6

  8

  0

  Stockport

  59

  12

  17

  0

  Tameside

  34

  2

  5

  0

  Trafford

  60

  6

  6

  0

  Wigan

  32

  8

  9

  0

  Knowsley

  9

  3

  4

  0

  Liverpool

  75

  14

  10

  2

  Sefton

  151

  5

  15

  0

  St. Helens

  13

  1

  4

  0

  Wirral

  91

  13

  25

  1

  Total

  1,532

  147

  257

  5

  1 Includes unstaffed homes and hostels.

  2 Collected from 1987 onwards.

  3 Includes alcohol drug misusers.

  Test Census
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the criteria used for selecting the parliamentary constituencies referred to in his answer of 10 January,Official Report, column 603, in respect of the test census in 1989.

  Mr. Freeman
  The main criteria in selecting areas for the 1989 census test were to ensure that they would cover varying circumstances that would be encountered in a full census in 1991 and provide a thorough test of the response of the public to a question on ethnic group.

  In order to make sure that the procedures for delivering and collecting census forms will be effective a test covering
  42
  Health authorities are required to ensure that receipts from the sale of land at mental illness and mental handicap hospitals are specifically used to develop services for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped.

  Residential Homes (North-West)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of residential homes established in the north western region for each of the last four years, by local authority district.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information is not readily available in the form requested. The total number of residential homes for elderly and younger physically handicapped people in the north western region by local authority for the years ending 31 March 1984 to 1986 is published in "Residential Accommodation for Elderly and Younger Physically Handicapped People: All Residents in Local Authority, Voluntary and Private Homes year ending 31 March 1981 to year ending 31 March 1986 England". The total number of homes and hostels for mentally ill and mentally handicapped people is published annually in "Homes and Hostels for Mentally Ill and Mentally Handicapped People at 31 March England". Copies of these publications are available in the Library. Provisional information for 1987 is given in the table.

  a few relatively large areas is preferable to one including many small areas. Areas where recent census tests have been held were avoided.

  The precise areas selected were local authority wards as they existed at the time of the 1981 census. The parliamentary constituencies are those including the selected wards.

  Listeria
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action he is taking following the publication of the survey by Bristol environmental department, a copy of which has been sent to him, which indicates that listeria monocystogenes affected one in every 15 samples of pre cooked-chilled chicken;
  43
  (2) what information he has as to the proportion of cook-chill food bought from supermarkets which is potentially fatal as a result of the presence of listeria, and what steps he is taking to reduce this proportion.

  Mr. Freeman
  At the request of the Department, the public health laboratory service has been undertaking a national survey of cooked and chilled foods. The results of this survey are expected shortly. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has commissioned studies into the temperature sensitivity of listeria monocytogenes and both the Department and the Ministry are working together with retail and manufacturing sectors of industry to consider optimal production methods for these foods.

  Where a product has actually been identified as contaminated the local environmental health officers will take appropriate action in the usual way.

  A statement was issued by the Department on 12 January and this has been copied to chief environmental health officers of local authorities. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, in the light of new evidence of the presence of listeria in a substantial proportion of cook-chill food, he will now order the immediate suspension of the implementation of cook-chill catering in hospitals.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. The recent survey by Bristol environmental health department did not find listeria in any hospital produced cook-chill food. The one positive result came from a purchased previously prepared product that would have been subjected to further testing and processing before being released for consumption.

  Children (Safety)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will introduce regulations for privately-run holiday schemes and privately run out-of-school schemes to provide for the safety of children.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have no power to make such regulations under present legislation but I refer the hon. Member to my reply to her question on amendments to the Children Bill today.

  National Health Service registered nurses1 30 September each year

  Whole-time equivalents2

  Region

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1. Northern RHA

  10,270

  10,500

  10,950

  11,260

  11,560

  2. Yorkshire RHA

  11,090

  11,460

  11,890

  12,110

  12,640

  3. Trent RHA

  13,050

  13,470

  14,200

  14,640

  15,340

  4. East Anglian RHA

  5,710

  5,960

  6,250

  6,350

  6,610

  5. North West Thames RHA

  11,760

  12,160

  12,150

  12,150

  11,700

  6. North East Thames RHA

  13,440

  13,460

  13,830

  14,000

  14,340

  7. South East Thames RHA

  12,600

  12,590

  12,820

  13,200

  13,370

  8. South West Thames RHA

  10,110

  10,090

  10,190

  10,130

  10,080

  9. Wessex RHA

  8,860

  9,090

  9,420

  9,610

  9,820

  10. Oxford RHA

  6,900

  7,330

  7,530

  7,650

  7,940

  11. South Western RHA

  10,190

  10,290

  10,700

  10,870

  11,200

  12. West Midlands RHA

  15,120

  15,400

  15,980

  16,570

  17,220

  13. Mersey RHA

  7,980

  7,940

  8,220

  8,350

  8,420

  14. North Western RHA

  14,090

  14,590

  15,170

  15,550

  15,640

  20. London PG(T)

  2,430

  2,200

  2,430

  2,400

  2,420

  London Ambulance Service

  —

  —

  —

  3—

  3—

  Other statutory authorities

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Childcare
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on his proposal to seek to amend the Children Bill so as to deregulate child care facilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Government proposed in the White Paper "The Law on Child Care and Family Services" that registration requirements should not extend to private arrangements where people look after children aged over five. The Government have announced that they will table amendments to the Children Bill to amend the Nurseries and Childminders Regulation Act 1948. These will rationalise the provisions regulating private and voluntary facilities for day care, short stay and holiday arrangements for children up to age 16.

  Present provisions relating to children aged five to 16 are not well understood or enforced. Following consultation in 1988 the intention is for registration and regulation to be retained only for certain residential facilities and for it to be clarified so that it can be more readily enforced. When the amendments have been published we will of course consider representations made on them.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the Chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission on his proposal to seek to amend the Children Bill so as to deregulate child care facilities.

  Mr. Mellor
  I received a letter on 10 January on this subject.

  Nurses
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by health authority the number of state enrolled nurses, state registered nurses and auxiliaries(a) in post and (b) vacancies for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: The numbers of registered and enrolled nurses and nursing auxiliaries in each regional health authority at 30 September 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 are given in the tables.
  45

  Region

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  ENGLAND TOTAL

  153,610

  156,530

  161,730

  164,840

  168,310

  1 Includes district nurses and health visitors; excludes agency staff. Includes staff in "Other statutory authorities" (for example, Public Health Laboratory Service and the Health Education Authority) not previously collected in annual manpower censuses. Figures are therefore not directly comparable with those for earlier years.

  2 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents.

  3 Figures less than 10.

  Source: Department of Health annual census of National Health Service non-medical manpower.

  National Health Service enrolled nurses 30 September each year

  Whole-time equivalents1

  Region

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1. Northern RHA

  5,460

  5,530

  5,640

  5,650

  5,670

  2. Yorkshire RHA

  5,740

  5,830

  5,980

  5,950

  5,880

  3. Trent RHA

  6,760

  6,920

  7,180

  7,190

  7,190

  4. East Anglia RHA

  2,330

  2,470

  2,570

  2,620

  2,670

  5. North West Thames RHA

  4,520

  4,690

  4,720

  4,580

  4,340

  6. North East Thames RHA

  5,770

  5,750

  5,760

  5,560

  5,510

  7. South East Thames RHA

  5,200

  5,180

  5,210

  5,220

  5,140

  8. South West Thames RHA

  4,080

  4,080

  4,080

  3,930

  3,790

  9. Wessex RHA

  3,290

  3,350

  3,390

  3,380

  3,370

  10. Oxford RHA

  2,430

  2,540

  2,580

  2,600

  2,600

  11. South Western RHA

  4,380

  4,390

  4,520

  4,590

  4,570

  12. West Midlands RHA

  7,470

  7,620

  7,840

  7,810

  7,870

  13. Mersey RHA

  4,570

  4,630

  4,710

  4,680

  4,490

  14. North Western RHA

  6,950

  7,230

  7,300

  7,260

  7,140

  20. London PG(T)

  1,060

  1,000

  930

  920

  820

  ENGLAND TOTAL

  70,020

  71,210

  72,400

  71,930

  71,050

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents.

  Source: Department of Health annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  National Health Service ancillary staff1 30 September each year

  Whole-time equivalents2

  Region

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1. Northern RHA

  5,880

  5,720

  5,810

  5,930

  6,090

  2. Yorkshire RHA

  6,790

  6,690

  6,790

  6,860

  6,800

  3. Trent RHA

  8,670

  8,630

  9,020

  9,170

  9,340

  4. East Anglian RHA

  3,900

  3,820

  3,940

  3,940

  4,020

  5. North West Thames RHA

  5,360

  4,980

  5,010

  5,250

  5,270

  6. North East Thames RHA

  6,430

  6,240

  6,280

  6,190

  6,420

  7. South East Thames RHA

  6,570

  6,220

  6,110

  6,050

  6,290

  8. South West Thames RHA

  5,710

  5,560

  5,590

  5,550

  5,580

  9. Wessex RHA

  6,150

  6,210

  6,400

  6,520

  6,620

  10. Oxford RHA

  4,140

  4,170

  4,070

  4,070

  4,110

  11. South Western RHA

  7,080

  7,090

  7,300

  7,420

  7,650

  12. West Midlands RHA

  10,360

  10,160

  10,480

  10,410

  10,610

  13. Mersey RHA

  5,740

  5,480

  5,610

  5,590

  5,570

  14. North Western RHA

  8,800

  8,620

  8,730

  8,810

  8,890

  20. London PG (T)

  620

  550

  520

  510

  720

  ENGLAND TOTAL

  92,200

  90,160

  91,640

  92,250

  93,990

  1 Includes all unqualified nursing staff but excludes agency staff.

  2 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents.

  Source: Department of Health annual census of National Health Service non-medical manpower.

  Information about vacancies is not collected by the Department. However, a sample survey for the pay review body showed the proportion of nursing and midwifery staff posts at 31 March each year which had been vacant for three months or more as:

  Percentage

  1984

  2·5

  1985

  2·5

  1986

  3·2

  1987

  3·5

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Regional Organisation
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he is yet in a position to make a full announcement of his plans for implementing the recommendations of the report of the regional organisation scrutiny team.

  Mr. Moore
  In my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on 12 December 1988, at column 458, I said that plans for moving some work from 21 local offices in London were under consideration. We

  47
  have now decided to go ahead with moving from those offices all work that does not need face-to-face contact with the public. All of these 21 offices will remain open and continue to provide a service to callers. Indeed, we intend to improve the network of offices by opening new offices in areas not previously served.

  New Social Security centres to handle the relocated work will be set up in Glasgow, Belfast and Wigan. This means that we shall be creating over 1,000 jobs in parts of the United Kingdom where they will make a major contribution to our stated policy of encouraging economic development outside London and the south-east.

  This project is a major initiative which allows us to address the serious problems that we face in London in delivering the standard of service that we would all like to see. Our staff in London do hard and dedicated work; but we have great difficulties over recruiting and retaining staff. Moving some work to areas of the country where we shall have a more stable workforce will allow us to offer a speedier and more accurate service. By relieving pressure on our London staff will also allow them to offer a better face-to-face service to our customers. I am therefore convinced that this initiative represents a major contribution to improving the service that we give our customers.

  The report made a total of 54 recommendations for improving the way the regional organisation delivers its service. An action plan covering all the recommendations has now been produced. Copies of the action plan, and of a detailed information pack on the relocation project, have been placed in the Library.

  Pensioners (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in Nottingham are in receipt of housing benefit transitional payments.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is not available in the form requested. The transitional payments unit can provide details of the number of recipients in certain groups only within the area of individual local authorities. As Nottingham is covered by more than one local authority, in various surrounding areas, we cannot provide these figures. Once the majority of payments have been made, we will publish national figures showing a breakdown of the numbers of payments made to people in each local authority.

  Ministerial Advisers
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the ministerial advisers appointed in his Department for each year since 1979, the salary each person received, whether paid directly or to another employer, and the duties undertaken, whether solely in his Department or in conjunction with other Departments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moore
  Since 1979 special advisers were appointed to the Department of Health and Social Security as follows:

  Name

  Date of appointment

  Professor R. Dyson

  August 1979

  Mr. N. True

  May 1982

  Mr. A. J. Turner

  February 1987

  48

  Name

  Date of appointment

  Mr. C. Hendry

  May 1988

  Miss M. Libby

  May 1988

  Following the creation of two separate Departments of State in July 1988 Miss Libby was appointed to the Department of Social Security.

  It is not our practice to reveal the salaries of individual advisers as they are individually negotiated in relation to previous outside earnings and conditions and are therefore confidential. Except for Professor Dyson who was seconded into the Department of Health and Social Security for one day per week, all salaries were paid direct to the individual adviser. Professor Dyson's employer was reimbursed on a pro-rata basis for his services.

  With the exception of Professor Dyson who was employed as a consultant adviser on industrial relations in the National Health Service, all advisers were employed on duties laid down by the Minister they served, solely in the Department.

  Income Support
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will amend regulation 8(4) of the Income Support (Transitional) Regulations 1987 to make the higher pensioner premium or disability premium available to claimants who have ceased to be entitled to mobility allowance or invalidity pension solely on account of their age.

  Mr. Scott
  No-one has reached the upper age limit for mobility allowance. People in receipt of the higher pensioner premium when they reach the upper age limit for invalidity pension retain entitlement to that premium. We have no plans at the present time to extend this premium to people who were not in receipt of the higher pensioner premium when they reached the limit.

  Benefits and Allowances
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average length of time from receipt of claim to issuing of a decision for the following benefits during the last year for which statistics are available and in what percentage of those claims the period in question exceeded four weeks; attendance allowance, child benefit, family credit, guardians allowance, industrial disablement benefits, invalid care allowance, mobility allowance, retirement pension, severe disablement allowance, war pensions and widows benefits.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Based on the latest available data Lie average time between the date of claim and when a decision on the claim is made is as follows:

  Time

  Attendance Allowance

  7.6 weeks

  Child Benefit

  New Claims

  straightforward1

  5.96 days

  non-straightforward2

  13.15 days

  Supplementary claims

  straightforward1

  4.91 days

  non-straightforward2

  10.84 days

  Family Credit

  22.9 days

  Invalid Care Allowance

  17.0 weeks

  49

  Time

  Mobility Allowance

  7.5 weeks

  War Pensions

  27.5 weeks

  1 Claims processed by computer.

  2 Claims processed clerically.

  I regret that information is not available for the other benefits mentioned nor about the percentage of claims cleared within four weeks.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what date he expects family credit claims to be dealt with within the statutory time limit of 14 consecutive days.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I assume that the time limit to which the hon. Member refers is that contained in section 99(1) of the Social Security Act 1975. This provides that"99—(1) An adjudication officer to whom a claim or question is submitted under section 98 shall take it into consideration and, so far as practicable, dispose of it in accordance with this section, and with procedure regulations under section 115, within 14 days of its submission to him."

  A claim for family credit is not normally submitted to an adjudication officer until all the evidence about the claim has been gathered. Claims are then determined by the adjudication officer, on average, within five days.

  Pensioners (Second-hand Clothes)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the price of second-hand clothes bought at jumble sales by pensioners is taken into account in the setting of local social security payments.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The income support personal allowances and premiums are set nationally, at a level intended to provide for all normal day-to-day living expenses including the purchase and replacement of clothing. It is for individuals to spend their benefit as they see fit in the light of their personal needs and preferences.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what total annual budget he envisages for the 100 training and enterprise councils outlined in the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s".

  Mr. Cope
  "Employment for the 1990s" indicated that the annual budget to each TEC would range between £15 million and £50 million, depending on the size of the TEC. Most of the budget would be programme money but it also included costs of administration.

  Tourism Review Committee
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will consider the final report of the Tourism Review Committee.

  Mr. Cope
  My right hon. Friend has received the report of the tourism review at the end of last year and is currently considering it.

  Opencast Coal Mines
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking, in the light of the report of Her Majesty's principal district inspector of mines and quarries on the flooding of St. Aidan's opencast coal site to(a) identify other sites of potential risk and (b) implement the inspector's principal recommendation to establish a standard form of stability analysis.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive's mines and quarrries inspectorate has carried out a survey of all sites nationally and identified those where working was planned in the vicinity of water courses. Where necessary preventive and advisory action has taken place. Work has already started to implement HSE's recommendations by drafting a code of practice incorporating best current technical procedures and also clearly identifying areas of responsibility.

  Ministerial Advisers
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the ministerial advisers appointed in his Department for each year since 1979, the salary each person received, whether paid directly or to another employer, and the duties undertaken, whether solely in his Department or in conjunction with other Departments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fowler
  The following list shows the ministerial advisers appointed or on secondment to the Employment Department since 1979. It is not our practice to reveal the salaries of individual advisers as they are individually negotiated in relation to previous outside earnings and are therefore confidential. The duties of each adviser were as laid down by the employing Minister and were for Employment Ministers only.

  List of Ministerial advisers in the Employment Department since 1979

  1979 Mr. T. A. G. Davis

  Mr. R. J. Shepherd

  1982 Mr. M. J. Dobbs (on secondment)

  1984 Mr. R. A. Ehrman

  1985 Mr. H. James (on secondment)

  1986 Mr. J. H. Hill

  1987 Mr. W. M. Lightfoot

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people under the age of 21 years are currently unemployed in the Pontefract and Castleford constituency.

  Mr. Lee
  Following is the available information, which is also in the Library. Unemployment figures are not available for the requested age group. However, in October 1988, the latest available date, the number of unemployed claimants aged under 20 in the Pontefract and Castleford parliamentary constituency was 416.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in the Pontefract and Castleford constituency.

  Mr. Lee
  The information is in the Library. In November 1988 there were 4,244 unemployed claimants in Pontefract and Castleford parliamentary constituency.
  51
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the rate of change in the unemployment figures relative to the number of notified vacancies over the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The table shows seasonally adjusted unemployment and seasonally adjusted unfilled vacancies at jobcentres in the United Kingdom for November 1987 and 1988 with the percentage change over the period.

  November

  Seasonally adjusted

  1987 (thousands)

  1988 (thousands)

  Percentage change

  Unemployed claimants1

  2,604·4

  2,108·6

  -19·0

  Unfilled vacancies2

  265·1

  244·9

  -7·6

  1 Consistent with current coverage.

  2 Recent research shows that, nationally, only about a third of vacancies are notified to jobcentres.

  Health and Safety Executive Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many Health and Safety Executive factory inspectors have been employed(a) as a whole and (b) on factory visits for each year since 1979 (i) in the Nottingham area and (ii) in the east midlands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive's factory inspectors operate through an area office network. The numbers of factory inspectors based at the north midlands and east midlands area offices since 1979 are as follows:

  Area location

  North Midlands (Nottingham)

  East Midlands (Northampton)

  1979

  29

  29

  1980

  31

  29

  1981

  30

  26

  1982

  29

  24

  1983

  26

  23

  1984

  25

  23

  1985

  27

  23

  1986

  23

  25

  1987

  23

  26

  1988

  21

  24·5

  19891

  21

  25

  All factory inspectors employed at the Health and Safety Executive's area offices undertake factory visits.

  For 1988–89 the Government increased provision to the commission by £6·7 million gross above the level previously planned. In 1989–90 planned provision will be enhanced by a further £8·8 million gross, allowing for gross expenditure of £118·3 million. The planned provision for 1989 to 1992 allows for real growth in the Health and Safety Executive's activities over the next three years. This will enable the executive to increase the number of inspectors including factory inspectors.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people(a) within South Shields and (b) nationally had their unemployment benefit stopped because they were considered to be not available for work in the period from January to September.
  52
  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 22 December 1988]: Information is not available in the precise form requested. However, for the period 1 January 1988 to 30 June 1988, 2,424 cases were considered in the adjudication office area which includes the town of South Shields, because of doubts about availability. From 3 March 1988 not all cases of doubt led to benefit being withheld pending a decision. Between 1 July 1988 and 30 September 1988, 2,164 cases were considered.

  It is not possible to provide national figures up to September. However, for the period 1 January 1988 to 30 June 1988, the total number of cases considered due to doubts about availability was 123,606.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Agencies
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if there has been further progress in setting up Civil Service agencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field).

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on current progress towards the setting up of agencies within the Civil Service.

  Mr. Luce
  Since I last spoke to the House on this subject on 5 December 1988, Her Majesty's Stationery Office has been launched as an agency bringing the total of agencies which have been set up to three. Around 30 other candidates for agency status have been announced as under active consideration, and I expect more to be announced.

  Civil Service Unions
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service unions; and what was the content of the discussions.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met the Civil Service unions; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met leaders of the Civil Service unions; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Luce
  I have meetings from time to time with representatives of Civil Service trade unions both centrally and during visits to Civil Service establishments. A wide variety of matters are raised.

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he is taking to improve child care facilities for civil servants.

  Mr. Luce
  The Civil Service is developing child care facilities to help staff deal with work and domestic responsibilities, thereby putting it in a position to compete with other employers in recruiting and retaining skilled and experienced staff who will be in short supply as a result
  53
  of the demographic changes in the 1990s. Some nursery facilities for under-fives are among the schemes under consideration. A number of holiday playschemes for school age children are already in operation and more are planned. An interdepartmental scheme will start in central London in the spring. There are also some local departmental schemes to help parents find good childminders. My officials are providing practical advice to Departments where required.

  Environmental Policies
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what action is being taken to ensure that the Civil Service uses recycled paper and does not use rare tropical timber; and if he will make a statement on his Department's environmental policies.

  Mr. Luce
  A working party representing the paper industry and public sector users is encouraging use of recycled paper where this is cost effective, and HMSO publicises its availability. However, supplies of good quality waste are limited and recycled paper can be up to 50 per cent. more expensive than general purpose paper produced from virgin pulp. Imported wood pulp includes only small amounts from tropical countries, mainly from specially planted eucalyptus.

  It is my Department's practice to participate in those environmental initiatives applicable to Government Departments in general.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Eggs
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what is his estimate of the loss to cereal farmers arising from reduced sales to chicken and egg producers as a result of the recent fall in demand for eggs; and what plans he has to compensate feed wheat growers for this loss.

  Mr. Ryder
  There is no evidence that the recent fall in demand for eggs has had a significant effect on the ex-farm price of wheat. The level of ex-farm prices is determined by the level of demand in the market as a whole, including demand for exports, and not by demand in any particular sector.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to introduce clearer markings on eggs or egg containers to indicate to consumers whether the egg was produced by battery or free range methods.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Eggs produced under alternative systems are already marketed in packs bearing the terms "free-range eggs", "semi-intensive eggs", "perchery eggs (barn eggs)" or "deep litter eggs". Consumers may reasonably assume that packs not carrying one of these terms contain eggs which have been produced in a battery.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the European Community has given approval for the introduction of the aid scheme to the egg industry announced on 19 December 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Before introducing these measures, I explained to Mr. Andriessen (then Commissioner for 54
  Agriculture) the exceptional occurrences which necessitated them. I have since sent the Commission details of the schemes, which the Government consider to fall within the terms of article 92(2)(b) of the treaty of Rome.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many egg packers have received compensation under the scheme he announced on 19th December 1988; what have been the maximum and minimum levels of compensation; what has been the average compensation payment; and what is the total amount of compensation paid to date.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 13 January 1989]: So far 221 payments totalling £482,450 have been made to egg packers in the United Kingdom. Payments ranged from £90 to £45,810 with an average of £2,183. A considerable number of applications have yet to be processed to the payment stage.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many inspections of poultry farms in each of the last five years revealed salmonella enteritidis in the laying stock; and how many revealed salmonella strains other than salmonella enteritidis.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 13 January 1989]: The Zoonoses Order 1975 requires isolations of salmonella including in laying flocks to be reported. During 1988 there were 20 reports of the isolation of salmonella enteritidis in commercial table egg producing flocks. It is not possible to identify separately how many isolations of salmonella in laying flocks other than salmonella enteritidis were reported in 1988.

  As regards comparable information for previous years it is not available without disproportionate cost.

  Civil Defence College
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the posts, ranks and responsibilities of those attending the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation central supplies agency study held at the civil defence college in June 1984.

  Mr. Ryder
  The arrangements for hosting the NATO study in June 1984 were undertaken by my Department. Details of the proceedings, including those attending are subject to NATO security classification and I am therefore unable to provide this information.

  Water
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions his Department has after 31 March 1978 made an order under section 19(7) of the Water Act 1973, in relation to applications made to him for an option charges order. giving the date of any such order and the location to which it applied.

  Mr. Ryder
  The power was replaced by section 62 of the Land Drainage Act 1976 but nevertheless has not been used.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what directions he has issued to a water authority under the provisions of section 24(11) of the Water Act 1973, since the implementation of that Act, giving details of the date and circumstances of any such order.
  55
  Mr. Ryder
  No directions have been given.

  Deer (TB)
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the organisations which have been invited to nominate representatives to form an advisory group to consider controlling tuberculosis in deer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My officials have written to the following organisations inviting them to nominate representatives to form an advisory group to consider setting up a deer health scheme:

  British Deer Society

  British Deer Producers Society Ltd.

  British Deer Farmers Association

  National Farmers Union

  British Veterinary Association

  Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

  The purpose of the deer health scheme will be to establish a pool of tuberculosis-free herds in Great Britain. It is not the aim of the scheme to control tuberculosis in deer. Control will be by means of the new legislative measures I announced in my statement of 15 December 1988 at columns 674–675.

  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the details of his proposals for an industry funded programme for the compulsory slaughter of tuberculosis infected deer.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In response to calls from industry for compulsory slaughter I have suggested that it might consider the possibility of an industry funded programme. Whether to proceed with such a programme, and the details of it, would depend partly on the industry's response.

  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from how many organisations he is awaiting a response about the possibility of his Ministry introducing an industry-funded compulsory slaughter programme for deer infected with tuberculosis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My officials have written to 13 organisations in England and Wales about the measures which the Government propose to introduce and also referring to the request to the deer farming industry to consider the possibility of an industry-funded slaughter programme. A similar letter has been sent to two organisations in Scotland. The letters invited comments from the organisations consulted. Four have replied so far; responses from the others are awaited.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many meetings he or his ministerial colleagues have had in 1988 with(a) the National Farmers Union, (b) the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, (c) the Council for the Protection of Rural England, (d) the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, (e) the World Wide Fund for Nature, (f) the Friends of the Earth, (g) the National Consumer Council, (h) Consumers in the European Community Group, (i) the London Food Commission, and (j) the United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association.
  56
  Mr. MacGregor
  Ministers in my Department have contact with a vast number of organisations and individuals. These contacts include many with similar interests to those listed in the question, but also inevitably go much wider than this.

  The number of identifiable formal ministerial meetings which Ministers had during 1988, which included the national representatives of the organisations listed was: (a) 37, (b) 4, (c) 2, (d) 0, (e) 0, (f) 0, (g) 2, (h) 0, (i) 1, (j) 7. However, these meetings form just a small part of the very wide ranging contacts which my Ministers and officials have all over the country with these and other organisations.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the field trials on bovine somatotropin, being conducted by two pharmaceutical companies, to cease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  This is primarily a matter for the pharmaceutical companies involved who are responsible for generating the data needed to support applications for product licences.

  Meat Inspectors
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many meat inspectors he has employed in each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  None. Meat inspection is the statutory responsibility of local authorities (district councils) which are required to appoint sufficient meat inspectors to carry out the duties required of them by the regulations.

  Slaughterhouses (Hygiene)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to improve hygiene standards in slaughterhouses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The maintenance of hygiene standards in slaughterhouses is the statutory responsibility of local authorities (district councils). Officials of the Ministry's state veterinary service visit all slaughterhouses to give advice on the standards to be achieved. In preparation for the single market after 1992 we are discussing with other EC member states the implementation of a single set of rules for all slaughterhouses throughout the European Community.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that standards of hygiene, and the possibility of inspection, in British slaughterhouses are not adversely affected by increases in the rate of slaughter.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Enforcement of slaughterhouse hygiene and meat inspection legislation is the responsibility of local authorities. They have the duty to ensure that all meat sold for human consumption is produced under hygienic conditions and has been inspected and passed as fit for human consumption.

  Sheep (Radiation)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if any restrictions are place on the movement of sheep in farms in north Yorkshire as a result of the Chernobyl accident under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Extensive monitoring of sheep in north Yorkshire in 1987 revealed two breeding ewes above the level of 1,000 Bequerrels of radiocaesium per kilogramme. The animals were not destined for the food chain, but as a precaution, I served a direction on the owner of the flock preventing the movement of sheep out of the flock without my express permission. The direction remains in force.

  Ministerial Advisers
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the ministerial advisers appointed in his Department for each year since 1979, the salary each person received, whether paid directly or to another employer, and the duties undertaken, whether solely in his Department or in conjunction with other Departments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The special advisers appointed in this Department since May 1979 are:

  Mr. T. Boswell (part-time)

  May 1984-November 1986

  Mr. R. Gueterbock

  February 1988-Date

  It is not our practice to reveal the salaries of individual advisers, as they are individually negotiated in relation to previous outside earnings and are therefore confidential. Special advisers in this Department assist the Minister and junior Ministers in the presentation of the Government's policies for which the Department is responsible.

  Aflatoxins
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to introduce a legal limit on the level of aflatoxins permitted in food; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Following a recommendation by the Food Advisory Committee regulations are currently being drafted placing a limit of 10 microgrammes/kilogram on the level of aflatoxins in nuts and nut products.

  Butter (Storage and Sale)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the cost to European Economic Community and to national Government funds, respectively, of the sale of 887,105 tons of butter from public storage and of the storage aid of 264,000 tons in private storage in the period from 1 November 1987 and 31 October 1988.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The loss on the sale of 887,105 tonnes of butter from Community intervention between 1 November 1987 and 31 October 1988 is estimated at approximately 2,145 mecu. The cost of granting private storage aid to 264,000 tonnes of butter in 1988 is estimated at approximately 70 mecu, on the assumption that all butter remained in store for the maximum 180 days. Expenditure in both these areas is met from Community funds, partly on the basis of deferred reimbursement.

  Milk Quota Scheme
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cost to the European Community and to national Governments of the sums paid to farmers for not producing milk, under the milk quota scheme, in each year since the commencement of the scheme.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Until the 1987–88 milk quota year there was no provision for the Community to finance withdrawal from milk production. Community provision for the cost of the outgoers scheme and permanent quota cuts agreed in 1986 and the United Kingdom share of tills provision to date are as follows:

  Total cost to EC budget

  Expenditure in the United Kingdom

  Mecu

  £ million

  Mecu

  £ million

  1987–88

  129

  82

  18·9

  12·0

  1988–89

  194

  123

  28·3

  18·0

  The provision made to compensate for the temporary suspensions of quota agreed at the same time is as follows:

  Total cost to EC budget

  Expenditure in the United Kingdom

  Mecu

  £ million

  Mecu

  £ million

  1987–88

  416

  264

  61·3

  39·0

  1988–89

  572

  381

  84·3

  56·1

  All the expenditure provided for is fully financed from the Community budget.

  Member states may make separate provision to compensate producers for total or partial withdrawal from milk production. Expenditure in the United Kingdom under these arrangements has been as follows:

  £ million

  1984–85

  5·0

  1985–86

  9·6

  1986–87

  9·5

  1987–88

  11·1

  11988–89

  11·7

  1 Estimated.

  Information on spending on national schemes by other member states is not available.

  Community measures to compensate for the reduction or cessation of milk production are an essential part of a programme to reduce the total amount of milk produced in the Community. The full cost of these Community measures over seven years will be some 1·4 billion ecu. At current disposal costs, the extra spending arising from the continued production of a corresponding amount of milk would be 3·6 billion ecu.

  Butter Sales
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table showing the total amount of butter sold from EEC public intervention storage of butter in each of the five years previous to the period 1 November 1987 to 31 October 1988.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested is most readily available on a calendar year basis. The amounts of butter sold out of EC intervention stores in calendar years 1982–1987 were as follows:
  59

  Year

  Tonnes (to nearest 100 tonnes)

  1982

  49,600

  1983

  57,100

  1984

  357,200

  1985

  336,200

  1986

  367,300

  1987

  811,400

  Source: EC Commission

  Date and Commodity

  Quantity (t)

  Destination

  Price (p/lb)

  December 1988

  Beef

  46,000

  Eastern Europe

  15·31

  Wheat

  2,232,000

  USSR/Other destinations3

  3·32

  Barley

  1,665,000

  USSR/Other destinations3

  3·0–3·12

  Wheat

  1,350,000

  China

  3·22

  1 The price is the sale price that would have been obtained if the beef had been exported from the United Kingdom, which it was not.

  2 Price is calculated from the dollar equivalent of the price actually paid by the puchaser (including mcas) converted into sterling at spot rates at time of sale.

  3 It is not possible to identify quantities destined for the USSR, which benefited from an additional subsidy of 0·13p per lb.

  Food Surpluses
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total amount spent on the disposal of food surpluses by Government funds in the most recent annual period for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures in each of the previous five years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Public expenditure in the United Kingdom on exports and subsidised disposals of commodities in surplus in this country (cereals, beef and milk products) is as follows:

  £ million

  1982–83

  547·3

  1983–84

  533·2

  1984–85

  491·5

  1985–86

  449·1

  1986–87

  340·5

  1987–88

  545·5

  Set-Aside Scheme
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the

  1973

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  11988

  France

  1·1

  7·1

  7·8

  5·0

  4·5

  2·0

  0·8

  0·9

  0·6

  0·6

  0·5

  0·8

  0·9

  0·8

  0·9

  1·0

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  1·3

  2·9

  2·4

  1·2

  1·3

  1·4

  1·0

  1·3

  1·0

  1·6

  1·8

  0·6

  0·6

  2·3

  2·2

  2·5

  Netherlands

  18·2

  22·3

  22·9

  21·6

  17·8

  13·2

  10·9

  6·6

  10·4

  6·2

  13·8

  7·9

  9·7

  6·3

  3·6

  4·9

  Germany

  0·0

  10·3

  13·2

  11·0

  9·0

  4·8

  3·9

  5·8

  4·5

  3·5

  0·5

  0·4

  0·8

  0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  Ireland

  11·5

  8·0

  11·1

  12·4

  9·7

  16·9

  17·5

  15·3

  14·7

  15·9

  11·5

  14·1

  10·0

  14·5

  10·4

  12·3

  Denmark

  22·0

  20·6

  17·0

  17·9

  19·4

  20·2

  18·0

  19·9

  20·5

  21·5

  21·7

  21·7

  22·7

  21·1

  22·7

  27·5

  New Zealand

  39·0

  28·8

  25·3

  30·8

  38·2

  41·4

  47·9

  50·2

  48·3

  50·7

  50·2

  54·5

  55·3

  54·8

  60·0

  51·5

  Other

  16·9

  0·0

  0·3

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·1

  Total

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  1 Mainly Australia, South Africa and Poland.

  2 January to October.

  Food and Wine Sales
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table showing the sale prices, in pence per pound, of the sales of food and wine agreed by the management committee since he last reported on these to the House.

  Mr. MacGregor
  At any one time CAP arrangements provide for a number of sales schemes from intervention and from the open market. These tend to follow established patterns, but the following sales to non-EC countries, agreed since I last replied to my hon. Friend on this subject on 8 November at column 155, have distinguishing features;

  acreage of land which will be affected by the set-aside scheme in 1989; what reductions in the production of wheat will stem from the scheme; and what is his estimate of the sums to be expended by the United Kingdom Government and by the European Economic Council; respectively.

  Mr. Ryder
  We have received applications to set aside about 60,000 hectares of arable land in the United Kingdom in the current crop year, at an estimated cost of over £11 million in 1989–90. About 42 per cent. of this expenditure would be eligible for reimbursement from Community funds. It is too early to judge what the impact of set-aside will be on wheat or other arable crop production in this country.

  Butter Imports
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by country of origin the percentage of imports of packet butter consumed by United Kingdom households in each year since 1973.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The percentage share of total butter imports into the United Kingdom by country of origin since 1973 is given in the following table.

  Veterinary Medicine (Research)
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total amount of money that his Department is providing in the current financial year on the funding of research into veterinary medicine; to what organisations this money is given; and what sum of money is planned for the financial year 1989–90.

  Mr. Ryder
  My Department is planning to spend £10·7 million on veterinary research in 1988–89 and £10·9 million in 1989–90. These figures do not include certain costs for Ministry staff, such as superannuation which is not borne on my Department's Vote.

SCOTLAND

  Ayrshire and Arran (Hospital Sales)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what agreement he has reached with Ayrshire and Arran health board regarding the responsibility for spending and concerning the application of funds received from the sale of Heathfield, Ayr County and Seafield hospitals, or any part of the three, following the opening of the South Ayrshire hospital.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None. The allocation of receipts will be made in accordance with the rules in force when the properties are sold.

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the waiting list and waiting times for orphopaedic operations within the Ayrshire and Arran health board area has been each month from January 1985 to the most recent available date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on waiting lists is collected centrally twice in each year. Data on waiting lists for orthopaedic operations are not held; but the number of people waiting for admission as in-patients to orthopaedic units in Ayrshire and Arran health board hospitals at 31 March and 30 September for the years requested is set out in table 1

  The mean waiting times for those admitted from the waiting lists for operations in orthopaedic units in Ayrshire for the years requesed, is set out in table 2.

  Table 1

  Orthopaedic in-patient waiting list

  Date

  Number

  1985

  31 March

  1,220

  30 September

  1,255

  1986

  31 March

  1,369

  30 September

  1,563

  1987

  31 March

  1,593

  30 September

  1,454

  19881

  31 March

  984

  1 This figures relates to the "in-patient true waiting list" and is based on a new system of data collection. It is therefore not fully comparable with those previously collected.

  62

  Table 2

  Mean length of wait in days for cases admitted from the orthopaedic waiting lists for operations

  Month

  Mean wait

  1985

  January

  128·5

  February

  96·5

  March

  104·2

  April

  106·7

  May

  97·7

  June

  94·1

  July

  163·9

  August

  115·5

  September

  134·3

  October

  109·0

  November

  102·8

  December

  105·4

  1986

  January

  108·4

  February

  115·1

  March

  120·3

  April

  118·9

  May

  105·8

  June

  103·0

  July

  100·8

  August

  150·7

  September

  143·2

  October

  135·4

  November

  132·3

  December

  139·3

  1987

  January

  150·6

  February

  152·2

  March

  152·2

  April

  135·0

  May

  113·2

  June

  159·2

  July

  138·2

  August

  261·5

  September

  248·3

  October

  204·4

  November

  182·9

  December

  170·8

  19881

  January

  109·1

  February

  121·4

  March

  119·9

  1These figures are provisional and are based on incomplete interim data.

  Electricity Boards
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what percentage of total sales of the two Scottish electricity boards is accounted for by customers in each of the following categories of supply:(a) 10 MW-50MW, (b) 50 MW-100MW, (c) 100 MW-200 MW and (d) over 200 MW;

  (2) how many customers each of the two electricity boards currently have in each of the following categories of supply: (a) 10 MW-50 MW, (b) 50 MW-100 MW. (c) 100 MW-200 MW and (d) over 200 MW.

  Mr. Lang
  This is a matter for the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and I am asking the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Ministerial Advisers
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the ministerial advisers appointed in his
  63
  Department for each year since 1979, the salary each person received, whether paid directly or to another employer, and the duties undertaken, whether solely in his Department or in conjunction with other Departments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The first and only special adviser in the Scottish Office, whose appointment was made in August 1987 is Mr. Graeme Carter. It is not our practice to reveal the salaries of individual advisers as they are individually negotiated in relation to previous outside earnings and are therefore confidential.

  Mr. Carter is paid directly by my Department. His duties are undertaken solely in my Department. Primarily he assists me as Secretary of State; he contributes to the preparation of speeches and supports my ministerial and colleagues in the Scottish Office as far as time permits.

  Three and four year olds in education authority nursery schools

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1987

  1987

  three years old

  four years old

  Number

  Borders

  299

  313

  301

  363

  387

  394

  359

  390

  68

  322

  Central

  1,399

  1,512

  1,681

  1,858

  1,960

  2,166

  2,210

  2,492

  593

  1,899

  Dumfries and Galloway

  253

  257

  266

  247

  271

  287

  316

  428

  80

  348

  Fife

  3,192

  3,235

  3,280

  3,142

  3,439

  3,805

  3,993

  4,193

  805

  3,388

  Grampian

  2,233

  2,196

  2,222

  2,244

  2,235

  2,425

  2,433

  2,678

  610

  2,068

  Highland

  331

  455

  484

  519

  567

  580

  618

  617

  109

  508

  Lothian

  6,718

  6,529

  6,795

  6,799

  7,045

  7,477

  7,966

  7,965

  2,991

  4,974

  Strathclyde

  14,501

  14,768

  14,841

  15,406

  16,071

  16,793

  17,376

  17,551

  5,185

  12,366

  Tayside

  1,841

  1,933

  2,007

  2,014

  2,097

  2,112

  2,136

  2,344

  757

  1,587

  Orkney

  78

  96

  93

  74

  85

  89

  92

  83

  25

  58

  Shetland

  32

  86

  99

  91

  85

  82

  102

  110

  52

  58

  Western Isles

  160

  11

  162

  156

  169

  146

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Scotland Total

  31,037

  31,531

  32,231

  32,913

  34,411

  36,356

  37,601

  38,851

  11,275

  27,576

  Percentage of children in population

  Borders

  12·2

  12·8

  13·7

  17·1

  17·5

  16·6

  15·2

  16·6

  5·9

  27·0

  Central

  19·3

  21·4

  25·2

  28·8

  29·3

  31·2

  31·2

  37·8

  18·4

  56·4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  7·0

  7·4

  8·4

  8·0

  8·1

  7·9

  8·7

  12·7

  4·8

  20·6

  Fife

  35·4

  36·3

  38·3

  39·3

  40·8

  42·2

  42·8

  48·5

  18·7

  78·0

  Grampian

  18·2

  18·0

  18·7

  19·4

  18·3

  18·6

  18·6

  21·2

  9·7

  32·6

  Highland

  6·3

  8·5

  9·1

  10·2

  10·7

  10·3

  10·5

  11·6

  4·1

  19·0

  Lothian

  36·0

  36·6

  40·4

  43·0

  43·3

  43·8

  45·3

  47·8

  36·4

  59·0

  Strathclyde

  22·2

  23·2

  24·7

  27·7

  27·8

  27·7

  27·6

  29·6

  17·7

  41·2

  Tayside

  18·5

  20·4

  22·1

  23·2

  23·5

  23·0

  22·6

  25·1

  16·1

  34·3

  Orkney

  16·8

  19·4

  19·3

  14·9

  16·5

  17·9

  18·3

  18·3

  11·3

  24·9

  Shetland

  4·5

  11·7

  13·2

  12·1

  22·1

  11·1

  13·6

  17·7

  17·0

  18·4

  Western Isles

  19·2

  16·8

  18·4

  19·3

  19·7

  16·2

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Scotland Total

  22·9

  23·8

  25·6

  27·8

  27·9

  28·0

  28·2

  30·8

  18·1

  43·3

  Local Authorities (Capital Expenditure)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount of capital expenditure requested by local education authorities in each of the years from 1979–80 to the latest date for which information is available, in cash and real terms.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The following table gives the total value of capital expenditure provision requested by local authorities in Scotland for educational building of all kinds in each of the years from 1982–83 to 1989–90. Requests by authorities for capital expenditure provision in earlier years were not aggregated nationally.

  Provision requested by local authorities for capital expenditure on educational building

  Health Boards (Chairmen)
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which of the chairmen of the Scottish health boards are participants in the performance related pay scheme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of children aged three and four years were in receipt of nursery education in each local education authority area for Scotland in each of the years 1978–79 to the latest date for which information is available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The figures for nursery schools and departments at each September for which information is available are set out in the tables:

  Year

  At outturn prices

  At 1987–88 prices (£m)

  1982–83

  56·863

  71·618

  1983–84

  57·758

  69·576

  1984–85

  52·748

  69·576

  1985–86

  60·900

  66·252

  1986–87

  71·721

  75·505

  1987–88

  66·010

  66·010

  1988–89

  89·512

  84·247

  1989–90

  90·089

  80·752

  Note—The outturn figures have been converted to 1987–88 prices using the GDP deflator.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of children placed for
  65
  the assisted places scheme in non-maintained and independent schools as a percentage of the total number of children in each year since the scheme's introduction.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  School Year

  Number1 of Assisted Pupils as a Percentage of Total Pupils in Independent and Grant Aided Schools2 (per cent.)

  1981–82

  2·43

  1982–83

  4·6

  1983–84

  5·86

  1984–85

  6·92

  1985–86

  8·21

  1986–87

  8·15

  1987–881

  8·21

  1 Provisional figure

  2 Grant-aided Schools included in years 1981–82 to 1984–85 only

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an estimate of expenditure on assisted places scheme and of the number of children likely to benefit from the scheme in each of the years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The estimate for expenditure on the scheme in the school year 1988–89 is £5·9 million covering about 2,670 pupils. It is planned that spending on the scheme will rise to £6·8 million and to £7·7 million in the respective school years 1989–90 and 1990–91 and that the number of children benefiting should rise to over 3,000 by the school year 1991–92.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the total amount of expenditure given under the assisted places scheme in each year since its introduction;

  (2) what was the total number of children in non-maintained independent schools financed by the assisted places scheme in each year since its introduction.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  School year

  Total expenditure £'000s

  Number of assisted pupils

  1981–82

  799

  790

  1982–83

  1,718

  1,450

  1983–84

  2,454

  1,900

  1984–85

  3,299

  2,270

  1985–86

  4,217

  2,620

  1986–87

  4,861

  2,626

  1987–881

  5,360

  2,672

  1 Provisional figures.

  Non-maintained Independent Schools
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a complete list of the non-maintained schools in Scotland for each of the years 1978–79 to 1987–88.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS 1978–79

  Borders

  Garvald School

  St. Mary's School

  Central

  Beaconhurst Grange School

  Camphill (Blairdrummond) School

  Kindergarten School

  66

  Queen Victoria School

  Struan House School

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Crowfordton House School

  Kilquanity House School

  Merton Hall

  Orchardton House School

  Rickerby House School

  St. Kiaran's School

  St. Ninian' School

  The Monken Hadley School

  Warriston School

  Fife

  Craigflower School

  Inchkeith Private School

  New Park School

  St. Leonards and St. Katherines School

  Seaview Private School

  Highland

  East Sutherland

  Christian School

  Fort Augustus Abbey School

  Raddery School

  Lothian

  Algrade School

  Belhaven Hill School

  Cargilfield School

  Cliftonhall School

  Columcille School

  Compass School

  St. Denis and Cranley School

  Edinburgh Academy

  Fettes College

  Gillsland Park School

  Hillside School

  Holt School

  Lereto School

  Merchiston Castle School

  Murrayfield School for Spastics

  Murrayfield Kindergarten

  Oxenfoord Castle School

  St. Georges School for Girls

  St. Hilary's School

  St. Margaret's Convent School

  St. Margaret's School for Girls

  St. Serfs School

  The American School of Edinburgh

  The Rudolf Steiner School

  Grampian

  Aberdeen Waldorf School

  Aberlour House

  Blairmore School

  Blairs College

  Camphill Rudolph Steiner School

  Garden House

  Gordonstoun School

  Lathallan School

  Linn Moor

  Rosebrae School

  St. Marie's Convent School

  Templehill Community School

  The American School of Aberdeen

  Total Oil Marine's French School

  Strathclyde

  Atholl Preparatory School

  Barrowfield Community School

  Belmont House School

  Calderwood Lodge Jewish Primary

  Dairsie House School

  Dardenne School

  Deanhouse School

  Drumley House School

  Fernhill School

  Franciscan Convent School

  67

  Glasgow Academy

  Keil School

  Lomond School

  Our Lady and St. Ita's School

  Park Lodge School

  Regina Mundi Preparatory School

  St. Columba's College

  St. Francis Xavier College

  St. Francis Primary School

  St. Kevin's School

  St. Ronan's Preparatory School

  Springbank School

  Southannan School

  The High School of Glasgow

  Wellington School

  Tayside

  Ardvreck School

  Butterstone House School

  Centre 535

  Convent of the Sacred Heart (now known as Kilgraston School)

  Craigclowan School

  Croftinloan School

  Ochil Tower

  Rannoch School

  Strathallan School

  Trinity College (now known as Glenalmond)

  Changes since 1978–79

  Schools Opened

  Schools Closed

  1979–80

  Strathclyde

  Highland

  Muslim Mission School

  East Sutherland

  St. Francis Primary

  Christian School

  Strathclyde

  Barrowfield Community School

  Franciscan Convent School

  Tayside

  Centre 535

  1980–81

  Lothian

  Central

  Hillside School Co-operative

  Camphill (Blairdrummond)

  Kindergarten School

  Fife

  Craigflower

  Lothian

  Gillsland Park School

  Holt School

  1981–82

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Abercree House School

  Orchardton House School

  Lothian

  St. Kiaran's School

  Dunedin School Co-operative

  St. Ninian's School

  Lothian

  Hillside School Co-operative

  1982–83

  Fife

  Grampian

  Starley Hall School

  Templehill Community School

  Strathclyde

  Strathclyde

  Gask House School

  Calderwood Lodge

  Glasgow Christian

  Regina Mundi Preparatory School

  1983–84

  Lothian

  Lothian

  Hillside School

  St. Hilary's School

  Westerlea School for Spastics (Formerly Murrayfield)

  68

  Schools Opened

  Schools Closed

  Strathclyde

  Dardene School

  Dean House School

  Glasgow Christian Academy

  St. Columba's College

  1984–85

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Woodlands School

  Monken Haldey School

  Warriston School

  Fife

  Strathclyde

  Hillside School

  Our Lady and St. Ita's School

  Lothian

  St. Mary's Music School1

  Stathclyde

  Hamilton College

  Red Brae Residential School

  1985–86

  Central

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Dollar Adademy

  Abercree School

  Rickerby House School

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Lamachan School (formerly Abercree)

  Grampian

  Garden House School

  Eskdalemuir Childrens Workshop

  Lothian

  Algrade School

  Grampian

  Columcille School

  Albyn School1

  Glenmillan School

  Strathclyde

  Robert Gordon's College1

  St. Francis Xavier School

  St. Margaret's Aberdeen1

  Lothian

  Mary Erskine School1

  Daniel Stewart's and

  Melville College1

  George Watson's College1

  George Heriot's School1

  Strathclyde

  Craigholme School for Girls1

  Hutchesons' Grammar School1

  Kelvinside Academy1

  Laurel Bank School1

  Living Waters Christian School

  Park School1

  St. Aloysius College1

  St. Columba's School1

  Wesbourne School for Girls1

  Tayside

  High School of Dundee1

  Morrison's Academy1

  Parkview School

  Trinity School

  1986–87

  Central

  Grampian

  Snowdon House

  Glen Millan School

  St. Marie's Convent School

  Grampian

  Glen Morven Preparatory School

  Dutch School

  Causewayhead

  Lothian

  Moray Steiner School

  St. Margaret's Convent School

  Oakbank School

  69

  Schools Opened

  Schools Closed

  Lothian

  Strathclyde

  St. Joseph's School

  St. Kevin's School

  Wellington School

  Penicuik

  Strathclyde

  Loaningdale School

  Torass Emess Jewish Day School

  Balnacraig School

  1987–88

  Central

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Lendrick Muir

  Lamachan School

  Eskdalemuir Children's1 Workshop

  Fife

  Kingdom Christian School

  Grampian

  Blair's College

  Grampian

  The Hamilton

  Strathclyde

  Muslim Mission School

  Highland

  Scoraig School

  Lothian

  Regius School

  Mannafield Christian School

  Newtown Preparatory School

  Strathclyde

  Ballikinrain School

  Giesland School

  Glasgow Steiner School

  Goodshepherd Centre

  Kibble School

  at. Philip s school

  Springboig St. John's Wee Friends Primary School

  Tayside

  Redgorton School

  1 Former grant-aided secondary schools.

  Table 1: Expenditure per pupil on text and library books and on educational tools, equipment and materials at outturn prices

  (£)

  Books

  Educational tools, equipment and materials

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  1978–79

  4·54

  8·31

  n/a

  n/a

  1979–80

  5·49

  9·61

  n/a

  n/a

  1980–81

  5·84

  9·29

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  6·54

  9·77

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  7·03

  10·03

  8·18

  27·33

  1983–84

  8·99

  13·35

  7·28

  25·36

  1984–85

  9·55

  13·83

  8·91

  30·09

  1985–86

  891

  13·47

  8·33

  30·26

  1986–87

  10·93

  16·67

  8·92

  33·85

  1987–88

  11·68

  18·26

  11·40

  42·39

  Table 2: Expenditure per pupil on text and library books and on educational tools, equipment and materials adjusted to 1987–88 prices using the GDP deflator

  (£)

  Books

  Educational tools, equipment and materials

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  1978–79

  9·32

  17·05

  n/a

  n/a

  1979–80

  9·64

  16·87

  n/a

  n/a

  1980–81

  8·66

  13·77

  n/a

  n/a

  70
  Mr. Henry McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give(a) the number of children attending non-maintained independent schools and (b) that number as a percentage of the total number of children attending all schools for each of the local education authority areas.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information related to the areas of schools attended at September 1987 is given in the table:

  pupils us in independent schools

  pupils in independent schools as a percentage of all pupils

  Borders

  140

  0·9

  Central

  1,500

  3·2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  190

  0·8

  Fife

  750

  1·3

  Grampian

  3,690

  4·5

  Highland

  120

  0·3

  Lothian

  11,350

  9·7

  Strathclyde

  10,870

  2·8

  Tayside

  3,910

  6·3

  Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles

  —

  —

  Scotland

  32,510

  3·9

  Books and Equipment (Expenditure)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the expenditure per pupil on books and on equipment in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools at the end of each year since 1978–79 in cash terms and real terms using 1987–88 prices and using an index of 100 for 1978–79.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information available is given in the following tables which have been compiled from local authority financial returns. Expenditure on equipment was not separately identified in these returns until 1982–83. There have been some variations from year to year in the recording of expenditure under these two headings. In particular some of the figures for expenditure on library books may include some expenditure on items of equipment.
  71

  Books

  Educational tools, equipment and materials

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  1981–82

  8·83

  13·20

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  8·85

  12·63

  10·30

  34·42

  1983–84

  10·83

  16·08

  8·77

  30·55

  1984–85

  10·95

  15·86

  10·22

  34·50

  1985–86

  9·69

  14·65

  9·06

  32·92

  1986–87

  11·51

  17·55

  9·39

  35·64

  1987–88

  11·68

  18·26

  11·40

  42·39

  Table 3: Expenditure per pupil on text and library books at outturn prices expressed as an index with 1978–79 = 100

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  1978–79

  100

  100

  1979–80

  120·9

  115·6

  1980–81

  128·6

  111·8

  1981–82

  144·1

  117·6

  1982–83

  154·8

  120·7

  1983–84

  198·0

  160·6

  1984–85

  210·4

  166·4

  1985–86

  196·3

  162·1

  1986–87

  240·7

  200·6

  1987–88

  257·3

  219·7

  Table 4: Expenditure per pupil on text and library books adjusted to 1987–88 prices using the GDP deflator, expressed as an index with 1978–79=100

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  1978–79

  100

  100

  1979–80

  103·4

  98·9

  1980–81

  92·9

  80·8

  1981–82

  94·7

  77·4

  1982–83

  95·0

  79·9

  1983–84

  116·2

  94·3

  1984–85

  117·5

  93·0

  1985–86

  104·0

  85·9

  1986–87

  123·5

  102·9

  1987–88

  125·3

  107·1

  Education (Capital Expenditure)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total capital expenditure for(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) further education in each of the years from 1979 to the latest date for which information is available, in cash and real terms.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information available is given in the following table, which has been compiled from local authority capital payment returns. Expenditure on primary and secondary schools is not separately identified in these returns. The reduction in expenditure in real terms during the period reflects a substantial and progressive decline in pupil numbers.

  Capital expenditure by local authorities

  £ million

  Primary and secondary schools

  Further education

  Year

  At outturn prices

  At 1987–88 prices

  At outturn prices

  At 1987–88 prices

  1979–80

  44·958

  78·936

  5·328

  9·355

  1980–81

  49·637

  73·580

  3·408

  5·052

  1981–82

  55·165

  74·443

  3·865

  5·216

  1982–83

  49·728

  62·631

  5·497

  6·923

  1983–84

  43·359

  52·230

  6·687

  8·055

  1984–85

  43·431

  49·798

  5·683

  6·516

  1985–86

  48·368

  52·618

  4·384

  4·769

  72

  Primary and secondary schools

  Further education

  Year

  At outturn prices

  At 1987–88 prices

  At outturn prices

  At 1987–88 prices

  1986–87

  43·011

  45·280

  4·339

  4·568

  1987–88

  44·340

  44·340

  9·388

  9·388

  Note

  The outturn figures have been converted to 1987–88 prices using th GDP deflator.

  Museums and Galleries (Attendances)
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will publish in the Official Report the attendance figures for 1988 reported by the national museums and galleries in Scotland, broken down into the individual institutions but including their outstations, with figures in each case of the percentage increase or decrease on the attendance figures for 1987.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  1988

  Percentage change since 1987

  National Galleries of Scotland

  510,547

  - 2·6

  National Museums of Scotland

  688,187

  + 25·7

  The national galleries of Scotland comprise the national gallery of Scotland, the Scottish national gallery of modern art and the Scottish national portrait gallery. The national museums of Scotland comprise the Royal museum of Scotland buildings at Chambers street and Queen street, Edinburgh, the Scottish agricultural museum, the Scottish united services museum, the Museum of flight and the Shambellie museum of costume.

  Ex-Members (Appointments)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the appointments to public bodies which he has made in respect of(a) the Earl of Ancram, (b) Mr. Michael Hirst, (c) Sir Alex Fletcher, (d) Mrs. Anna McCurley, (e) Mr. John McKay, (f) Mr. Alex Pollock, (g) Mr. Barry Henderson, (h) Mr. John Corrie, (i) Mr. Albert McQuarrie and (j) Mr. Gerry Malone since June 1987.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 19 December 1988]: I have made the following appointments:

  Michael Ancram:

  Member, Board of Scottish Homes

  Member, Board of Governors, Napier Polytechnic of Edinburgh

  Michael Hirst:

  Member of the Board of Governors, the Queens College, Glasgow

  73
  Sir Alex Fletcher:

  Member, Scottish Development Agency

  I have not appointed any of the other persons named to any public body.

THE ARTS

  Public Building Contracts
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if consideration has been given to a scheme whereby a proportion of the value of public building contracts would be awarded to the arts.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his policy towards Per Cent for the Arts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I see the great potential of the Per Cent. for Art scheme on a voluntary basis. I welcome the Arts Council's appointment of a steering group to actively promote the scheme and await progress with interest.

  Travelling Exhibitions
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what are the objectives of the travelling exhibition unit of the Museums and Galleries Commission.

  Mr. Luce
  I attach great importance to the lending of works of art and I am promoting this through my funding of the travelling exhibitions unit and through the Government indemnity scheme. I had the pleasure last week of visiting the unit to see its work of encouraging exhibition touring at first hand.

  I am glad to announce that I have agreed additional funding of £42,000 for the travelling exhibitions unit in 1988–89, to facilitate a touring exhibition drawing on material from the national collections, and to enable the MGC to appoint an adviser on environmental standards and controls.

  Victoria and Albert Museum
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has met the board of trustees of the Victoria and Albert museum since March, to discuss the report of the National Audit Office.

  Mr. Luce
  I met Lord Armstrong, chairman of the Victoria and Albert museum trustees, and Mrs. Elizabeth Esteve-Coll, director of the museum in October last year. A number of important issues were discussed including points raised in the National Audit Office report.

  The Government are considering the report of the Public Accounts Committee on the management of collections of the English national museums and galleries, and will respond as soon as possible.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what additional funds have been made available to English national museums and galleries, since March, in response to the report of the National Audit Office on the management of the collections of the English national museums and galleries.

  Mr. Luce
  Last November I announced the grant-in-aid allocations to the national museums and galleries, which I74
  sponsor, to the year 1991–92, rolling forward the three-year funding settlement introduced in 1987. The allocations were intended to help the national institutions in tackling their priority concerns in the management of their collections, including conservation, storage, documentation and building maintenance. An additional £13 million is allocated in 1991–92 for these purposes.

  The Government are considering the report of the Public Accounts Committee on the management of collections of the English national museums and galleries, and will respond as soon as possible.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to increase the level of staffing in English national museums and galleries.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to increase the staffing levels in English national museums and galleries.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to increase the level of staffing in national museums.

  Mr. Luce
  On 3 November I announced increased funding for the National Museums and Galleries as part of the rolling forward of the arts settlement into a new third year, 1991–92. An additional £13 million has been allocated in 1991–92 to help institutions deal with their priority areas of concern. The allocation of these extra resources by institutions is, however, a matter for individual boards of trustees.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many posts are currently vacant in English national museums and galleries.

  Mr. Luce
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. It is for the director and trustees of individual institutions to consider how the planned number of staff in post should compare with an institution's theoretical staffing complement.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what action he has taken since March 1988 in response to the National Audit Office report "on the management of the collections of the English national museums and galleries".

  Mr. Luce
  On 3 November I announced increased funding for the national museums and galleries for the new three-year settlement period. An additional £13 million has been allocated in 1991–92 to help institutions deal with their priority areas of concern, including conservation, storage and building maintenance.

  The Government are considering the report of the Public Accounts Committee on the management of the collections of the English national museums and galleries and will make their response as soon as possible.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he expects to respond to the first report of the Public Accounts Committee on the management of the collections of the English national museums and galleries HC 28; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The Government are considering the report's recommendations and will respond as soon as possible.

  Museums (Conservation)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to increase the funds available for conservation in national museums.

  Mr. Luce
  In the new three-year allocations announced in November I responded to the priorities indicated in the institutions' own corporate plans and increased their provisions by £13 million in 1991–92 for the important work of conservation, storage, documentation, and building and maintenance.

  Museum of the Moving Image
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what figures he has for attendances at the museum of the moving image.

  Mr. Luce
  Over 150,000 people have visited the museum of moving image since it opened in mid-September 1988. This is an excellent start and well above the orginal target figure.

  Dance Companies
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his estimate of the number of professional dance companies in Great Britain at the end of 1988, 1983 and 1978.

  Mr. Luce
  A total of 34 professional dance companies are funded by the Arts Council and regional arts associations. There are a number of companies existing solely on private funds. Figures requested for earlier years are not available.

  London Museums (Attendance)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will give the latest figures for museum attendance in London.

  Mr. Luce
  I understand that the estimated number of visitors to museums and galleries in London during 1987 was over 23 million. This is based on the English Tourist Board's sight-seeing survey. The figures for 1988 are not yet available.

  Regional Arts Associations
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has any plans to alter the present autonomy of regional arts associations.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon. Member to my recent announcement of a review of the structure and organisation for support of the arts in England at column 255 of 8 December.

  Arts (Devon)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what specific proposals he has for assistance to the arts in Devon for 1989.

  Mr. Luce
  Provision for the arts in Devon is a matter for the local authority and the south-west regional arts association. The latter invested £453,000 in the county in 1987–88. South-West Arts, together with Devon county 76
  council and eight district councils, have also commissioned a strategy review for the arts in Devon which should be concluded by March 1989.

  British Museum
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has met the chairman of the trustees of the British museum since 22 March to discuss the state of his museum's collection.

  Mr. Luce
  I have met the chairman and director of the museum on a number of occasions in recent months, and my Department is in frequent touch on a wide range of matters with the British museum and with the other institutions which I sponsor. The management of the collections of the British museum is a matter for the trustees and the director.

  Arts Bodies (Secondments)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he is aware of any secondments to arts bodies by companies in the United Kingdom of employees possessing managerial or marketing skills.

  Mr. Luce
  There have been many valuable secondments and attachments to arts bodies over the years. Business in the Arts—an organisation set up by the business community expressly to provide this kind of support for the arts—aims to expand these. In addition, many business men and women sit on the boards of arts bodies and give freely of their time and skills in this way.

  National Film and Television School
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will make a statement as to the future of the national film and television school.

  Mr. Luce
  The school continues to play an important role in providing training for directors, camera staff and other specialists for the audio-visual industry. It is currently developing longer term plans which I shall be looking at with interest. Funding for the school will rise from £1·6 million in 1988–89 to £1·8 million in 1991–92.

  Arts (Funding)
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what increases in private and corporate funds for the arts he expects to be generated following his recent arts settlement.

  Mr. Luce
  I am confident that the substantial and continuing provision of Government support for the arts, and the introduction of schemes of incentive funding, will generate growth in private and corporate funding for the arts activities which I sponsor. I welcome the Arts Council's initiative in its recently published five-year plan, to set targets for the private sector support which it seeks to encourage.

  Mr. Jessel
  to ask the Minister of the Arts if he will make a statement on Government support for the arts.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) on 3 November at column 705.

  Art Treasures (Preservation)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what action he is taking to protect Britain's art treasures from deterioration because of poor storage conditions and the backlog of conservation work; what assistance he will be giving to museums so that an up-to-date stock record of treasures is made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  Last November I announced the grant-in-aid allocations to the national museums and galleries which I sponsor, to the year 1991–92, rolling forward the three-year funding settlement introduced in 1987. I have made increases specifically to help the national institutions in tackling their priority concerns in the management of their collections, including their conservation, storage, and documentation, and building maintenance.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Civil Service (Recruitment)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the re-employment in the Civil Service of persons retired on grounds of invalidity by the European Economic Community Commission.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Community terms of service common to all its institutions do not recognise any form of secondment from national Civil Services for permanent staff; officers must therefore resign from the United Kingdom Civil Service on taking up a permanent appointment with the Communities. Departments have discretion to offer their staffs undertakings about re-instatement. An officer who has been absent for more than five years and is aged 55 or over has no right of return. The normal pre-appointment inquiries carried out by a Department before a reinstated candidate takes up appointment include a check on health.

  Civil Service (Dispersal)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on progress towards the dispersal of more Civil Service posts from the London area to other regions.

  Mr. Brooke
  The centrally directed dispersal programme affecting 5,900 posts announced in 1979 is virtually complete, and over 6,000 further posts have been relocated from the south-east at departmental initiative.

  Departments are now observing Treasury guidelines to review their work locations, with a view to relocating at sites offering easier labour markets and increased cost-effectiveness. With regard to this phase of the Government's relocation policy, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 2 December 1988, at column 414, to my hon. Friend, the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham).

  National Insurance and Income Tax
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all of the points on the income scale for a single man with the standard allowance at which the combined national insurance and income tax marginal rates alter; and if he will list those rates.
  78
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information for 1989–90 is given in the table. The calculations use the national insurance contribution rates for 1989–90 announced in chapter 3 of the Autumn Statement 1988 and assume indexed allowances and thresholds for income tax for 1989–90, shown in table 4.1 of the Autumn Statement.

  Levels of income at which the marginal rate of income tax and national insurance contributions1 of a single person2 changes, 1989–90

  Weekly income £

  Per cent.

  43·00

  5

  53·37

  30

  75·00

  32

  115·00

  34

  325·00

  25

  449·52

  40

  1 Class 1 national insurance contributions for an employee contracted-in to the state earnings-related pension scheme (SERPS).

  2 Assumed to be non-aged with no reliefs or allowances other than the single person's allowance.

  Single and Married Person's Allowance
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the single and married person's allowance against income tax can he raised for the loss of £2,000 million of revenue in a full year.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is estimated that all personal allowances could be increased by just over 9 per cent. for a full year income tax cost of £2,000 million at 1989–90 levels of income. The estimate is based on a projection of the 1986–87 survey of personal incomes and is provisional. It has been assumed that the indexed allowances and thresholds in table 4.1 of the Autumn Statement 1988 apply in 1989–90.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what size of band at 10 per cent. tax could be introduced before reaching the 25 per cent. income tax rate for the loss of £2,000 million of revenue in a full year;

  (2) what levels of income could be taxed at 15 per cent. instead of 25 per cent. for the loss of £2,000 million in a full year, if the 15 per cent. rate only applied to those with total incomes below the maximum qualifying level for the tax band at 15 per cent.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is estimated that a reduced rate band of 10 per cent. on the first £550 of taxable income would have an income tax cost of just under £2,000 million in a full year at 1989–90 levels of income.

  For the same cost all single people and married couples with taxable incomes of less than £4,750 per annum could be taxed at 15 per cent. instead of 25 per cent.

  Estimates are based on a projection on the 1986–87 survey of personal incomes and are provisional. It has been assumed that the indexed allowances and thresholds in table 4.1 of the Autumn Statement 1988 apply in 1989–90.

  Building Land
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to abolish the exempt ion from
  79
  capital gains tax on a person who owns a house with one acre and part of that acre is sold for building land, and replace it with a tax to be levied on the gain resulting from planning permission being obtained; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion but cannot, of course, anticipate the Budget judgment.

  Ministers (Salary Arrangements)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial arrangements for further salary payments ensue when a Minister resigns or is sacked.

  Mr. Brooke
  Subject to the provisions of section 13 of the Parliamentary Pensions etc. Act 1984, Ministers and paid office holders in the House of Lords are currently eligible to receive a severance payment of three months' final salary on ceasing to be a Minister. There is currently no similar scheme in place for Commons Ministers; they revert to receiving the full parliamentary salary providing they remain Members of Parliament. I would, however, refer the hon. Member to the 26th TSRB Report (Cm. 362), and the statement of my right hon. Friend the Lord President on 24 May 1988 at column 103 in response to the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris).

  Employee Share Schemes
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the tax regime applicable in the case of share subscriptions is generally applied in the case of all employee share schemes, whereby income tax is payable on the difference between the discounted and market prices.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Subject to certain qualifying conditions, employees acquiring shares through employee share schemes approved by the Inland Revenue (under legislation originally contained in the Finance Acts of 1978, 1980 and 1984) are exempt from the income tax liability which normally arises where shares are acquired below market value by reason of employment.

  Health Boards (VAT)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what statutory authority value added tax payments and refunds are made in relation to contracts between health boards and contractors for contracted-out services.

  Mr. Lilley
  Section 27(2A) of the VAT Act 1983.

  VAT
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to publish the Finance Bill 1989 draft clauses on value added tax changes resulting from the decision of the European Court of Justice of 21 June 1988 regarding the European Community sixth value added tax directive.
  80
  Mr. Lilley
  Soon.

  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will investigate the reasons why Her Majesty's Stationery Office has no stocks of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977; and, in view of the current review on the matter of homelessness, if he will ensure that adequate stocks are maintained.

  Mr. Lilley
  HMSO no longer maintains stocks of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 because it was repealed for England and Wales by the Housing (Consequential Provisions) Act 1985 (c. 71) s. 3, Sch. 1 Part I, and for Scotland by the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (c. 26), s. 339, Sch. 24. Its main provisions are covered, on consolidation, for England and Wales in the Housing Act 1980 (c. 51) and for Scotland in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (c. 26), and HMSO holds adequate stocks of these Acts in both the Queen's Printer's and the Statutes in Force versions.

  Taxation (Families)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families with children are estimated to have taxable incomes below the income tax threshold; and what proportion this represents of all families with children.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In 1988–89 it is estimated that some 1·6 million families, about 24 per cent. of the total number of families with children in the United Kingdom, have taxable incomes below the income tax threshold.

  Independent Schools (Scotland)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the value of tax concessions granted to non-maintained independent schools in Scotland in each of the years 1978–79 to 1987–88.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that information on the cost of tax relief available to schools with charitable status is not available.

  Revenue
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will tabulate in the Official Report the revenues, actual or estimated, that have been received by Her Majesty's Government, or are expected to be received, for each year from 1979–80 to 1988–89 in millions of pounds at 1987–88 prices derived from (a) revenue from North sea oil, (b) revenue from asset sales of privatisations and (c) other sales of land or property of central or local government or their agencies, showing the respective annual totals and the aggregate total for the period.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 13 January 1989]: The figures requested are given in the table.
  81

  £ million at 1987–88 prices

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Total

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  estimated outturn

  Revenue from North sea oil2

  4,061

  5,548

  8,761

  9,852

  10,598

  13,791

  12,340

  5,052

  5,305

  13,100

  78,408

  Privatisation proceeds3

  662

  600

  665

  615

  1,372

  2,489

  2,945

  4,695

  5,161

  15,600

  24,804

  Receipts from sales of land and building4

  1,543

  1,951

  2,823

  3,547

  2,934

  2,774

  2,733

  3,215

  3,989

  n/a

  n/a

  Total

  6,266

  8,100

  12,249

  14,013

  14,905

  19,054

  18,017

  12,963

  14,455

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Calculated from rounded figures published in the 1988 Autumn Statement.

  2 Oil royalties, petroleum revenue tax, supplementary petroleum duty and corporation tax before ACT set off attributable production.to United Kingdom oil and gas production.

  3 Consistent with 1988 Autumn Statement.

  4 Figures include sales by local authorities and new towns as well as central Government, and are consistent with the 1988 public expenditure White Paper.

  Tobacco Sales
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in the Official Report figures showing sales to the consumer of (a) cigarettes, (b) hand-rolling tobacco,

  Current prices, seasonally adjusted

  Cigarettes

  Cigars

  Other tobacco1

  Total

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  October 1987 to September 1988

  6,924

  398

  545

  7,867

  October 1986 to September 1987

  6,704

  379

  545

  7,628

  1 Estimates of expenditure on hand rolling tobacco and on pipe tobacco are not separately available.

  Cigarettes
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of cigarettes sold to consumers in the United Kingdom during the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available; what estimate is available to him of what that figure would have been had tobacco duty been increased in each of the 1987 and 1988 Budgets by 10p more than the amount needed to adjust for the effects of inflation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 13 January 1989]: No direct estimate is available of the number of cigarettes sold to consumers. Information is, however, available on the quantity of cigarettes cleared from bond duty paid. During the 12 month period to October 1988 a total of 96,635·3 million cigarettes were cleared. It is estimated that had tobacco duty been increased in each of the 1987 and 1988 Budgets by 10p more than the amount needed to adjust for the effects of inflation the total above might have been around 6 per cent. lower.

  Stamps
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the implications for philatelists of the reorganisation of value added tax system in the European Community after 1992; whether he has considered a lower rate of value added tax for second-hand stamps and stamps purchased by collectors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 13 January 1989]: Discussions on the shape of the VAT system post-1992 are at an early stage but the Government have already made it clear that they consider the European Commission's proposals for the approximation of VAT rates to be
  82
  (c) cigars and (d) pipe tobacco for the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available, and for the preceding 12-month period.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 13 January 1989]: The latest estimates of consumers' expenditure on tobacco products for the 12 month period to September 1988 and for the preceding 12 months are as follows:

  unnecessary for the completion of the single market. If the hon. Member sees particular difficulties ahead for philatelists perhaps he would write to me.

TRANSPORT

  M1
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve traffic flow on the M1 motorway.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are planning improvements to junction 1, a climbing lane at junction 9 and widening between junctions 23a and 24.

  Opening the M40 extension from Oxford to Birmingham will relieve the M1.

  Tees and Hartlepool Ports
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to visit the ports of Tees and Hartlepool.

  Mr. Portillo
  I visited Teesport on 26 October 1988. My noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping hopes to be able to take up later this year an invitation from the chairman of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority.

  Buses (Vandalism)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the implications for the level of vandalism and violence on buses of the increase in the proportion of one-person operated buses.
  83
  Mr. Portillo
  While there is probably no simple correlation between vandalism and violence and the type of vehicle operated, recent research on assaults on bus crews indicates that there is less risk of violence on one-person operated buses.

  London Assessment Studies
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on whether boroughs should include references to options contained in the London assessment studies when responding to solicitors' inquiries on land searches.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Land search inquiries are a matter for the local authorities concerned. We understand that it is not their general practice to refer to possibilities being considered in their preliminary transport studies or ours.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement concerning the road assessment studies for London.

  Mr. Channon: I expect to receive the consultants' reports on the options in the summer and will make an announcement as soon as possible after that.

  Signposting
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give more discretion to his regional directors of transport regarding the erection of signs in rural areas.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Traffic signs must be based on clear principles applied consistently throughout the country.

  We are currently consulting on changes to the regulations which will widen the choice of standard signs.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the likely impact on the port of Liverpool of the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo: I understand that the Merseyside chamber of commerce and industry and some other agencies in the north-west have agreed to co-operate in a study of the transport implications for that region of the single European market and the Channel tunnel. Government Departments are ready to assist with information and advice.

  I hope that other bodies in the region, especially in the private sector, will join in this initiative.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss rail links to the Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  This topic is discussed from time to time in Ministers' regular meetings with the chairman.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will commission a study of the impact of the Channel tunnel on the port of Liverpool.

  Mr. Portillo
  I see no need to commission a study as I understand that the Merseyside chamber of commerce and 84
  industry and some other agencies in the north-west have agreed to co-operate in a study of the transport implications for that region of the single European market and the Channel tunnel.

  I hope that other bodies in the region, especially in the private sector, will join in this initiative, and Government Departments are also ready to assist with information and advice.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the need to provide a direct rail link between the Channel tunnel and the north-west of England.

  Mr. Portillo
  Direct rail links already exist between the site of the United Kingdom entrance to the Channel tunnel and the north-west, but we do receive representations from time to time arguing that additional infrastructure should be provided.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will commission a study of the regional impact of the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will commission a study on the regional impact of the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. The Government concluded at an early stage that such a study would not be a useful exercise. Of more practical benefit to the regions is the plan, which British Rail is required to publish by the end of 1989, for the dispersal of international passenger and freight trains throughout Britain. They are currently consulting widely and assessing demand.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from residents of the London borough of Bexley concerning the proposed routes for the Channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have received a number of representations from Bexley residents on this subject. It is British Rail's responsibility to decide on a preferred route and to justify its choice.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress on the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  Construction progress is a matter for Eurotunnel. I understand that, following some early delays, better progress is being maintained.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what initiatives he has taken to ensure that Yorkshire and other northern areas of England will have adequate connection with the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  I expect British Rail to address these questions in the plan which they will be publishing later this year in compliance with section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the Channel tunnel.
  85
  Mr. Portillo
  Construction progress is a matter for Eurotunnel. I understand that, following some early delays, better progress is being maintained.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase the carrying capacity of the motorway system in the light of the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Government announced in the White Paper "The Channel Fixed Link" (Cmnd. 9735) that the 23km gap between Maidstone and Ashford on the M20 would be filled with dual three lane motorway, and that the 10·8km Maidstone bypass section would be widened from two lanes to three to give good access to the tunnel terminal.

  In general, the impact of the Channel tunnel is one of many factors taken into account in planning the forward road programme and in the design of motorway and trunk road schemes.

  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to encourage the development of freight handling facilities in the north of England and Scotland to take advantage of the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  I expect British Rail to address these questions in the plan which it will be publishing later this year in compliance with section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act.

  Track Signalling Equipment
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has held recent discussions with British Rail and London Regional Transport representatives on procedures and problems affecting safety and other checks on track signalling equipment.

  Mr. Channon
  The railways inspectorate meets British Railways Board officials twice a year to discuss various operational and safety issues, including signalling. It also meets officials from London Underground Ltd. whenever necessary to discuss signalling.

  Air Congestion
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will next meet the chairman of the Air Transport Users' Committee to discuss air congestion in the south-east.

  Mr. Channon
  I have no plans to meet the chairman of the Air Transport Users' Committee again in the near future. We attended the conference held recently at Lancaster house to consider air traffic control congestion problems.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss further improvements in Network SouthEast; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  I regularly meet the chairman of British Rail and the director of Network SouthEast to discuss a wide range of issues.
  86
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the senior management of British Rail's Network SouthEast to discuss the efficiency of their services.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the senior management of Network SouthEast very frequently and often discuss efficiency, amongst other topics.

  British Rail (Chairman)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what matters he proposes to discuss.

  Mr. Portillo
  I shall be meeting the chairman of British Rail on 23 January to discuss a variety of rail matters.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with British Rail; and what subjects were discussed

  Mr. Portillo
  I have regular discussions with the chairman of British Rail about a wide variety of railway matters.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will next meet the chairman of British Rail; and what matters he expects to discuss.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what matters he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Portillo
  I shall be meeting the chairman of British Rail on 23 January to discuss a variety of rail matters.

  Aviation Liberalisation
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when European Community Ministers will be reviewing the aviation liberalisation package agreed in December 1987.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The package of measures agreed in December 1987 contains a commitment that the Council will take a second, more radical, step in June 1990, on the basis of commission proposals to be submitted by 1 November this year.

  United Kingdom airlines and their passengers have benefited significantly from the December 1987 measures and we shall be seeking substantial further liberalisation in the next round.

  British Rail (Inter-city Services)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated change in the number of passengers using British Rail inter-city services between London and the north-east at peak times over the past five years; and what has been the passenger-seats ratio on those trains over the same period.

  Mr. Portillo
  My Department does not maintain this information: my hon. Friend should approach British Rail.

  Heathrow-Paddington Rail Link
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the proposed Heathrow-Paddington rail link to be in operation.
  87
  Mr. Portillo
  In 1993, subject to parliamentary approval for the construction works needed.

  Motorways (North-West)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to extend the motorway network in he north-west.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Construction of the five mile M63–M66 extension from Portwood to Denton is approaching completion. There are three new motorway stretches in the current forward programme:

  Miles

  M66 Denton to Middleton (completing the Manchester outer ring road)

  11

  A6(M) Stockport North/South bypass

  5½

  M65 extension to M6 (Blackburn southern bypass)

  12

  We are considering the case for further schemes as part of the current review of the programme nationally.

  Motorways
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to build new motorways to a higher standard.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Standards for the construction of all truck roads are kept under continual review. Improvements are introduced wherever justified on grounds of safety or value for money.

  The new requirements for the structural design of road pavements published in December 1987 and several of the measures announced on 7 April 1988, following the motorway safety review, will improve the standard of new motorways.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his plans to improve traffic movements on the motorway system.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are continuing to improve and develop the motorway and trunk road network. Our road programme includes 36 improvement schemes designed to improve the flow of traffic on motorways. The majority of these are junction improvements and widening schemes on existing motorways.

  Motorway schemes in programme: at 1 December 1988 Under construction:

  NWRO

  M62 Eastbound, climbing lane, junctions 21–22

  M63 Stretford-Eccles, stages 1 and 2 (Barton Bridge opened 20 December 1988)

  M63 Stretford-Eccles, stage 4

  M63/66 Poortwood-Denton

  SERO

  M25 Widening junctions 11–13

  WMRO

  M5 Lobshill-Lydiate Arch and M42 north turn

  M40 Bonsbury BP

  M40 Warwick section

  YHRO

  M62 Westbound climbing lane, west of junction 25

  In preparation:

  ERO

  M1 Climbing lane, junction 5

  88

  M11 North facing slip road, junction 5

  M40 Widening junctions 4–5

  LRO

  M4 Junction 4 improvement and M1 junction 1

  NWRO

  M6 Widening junctions 20–21a

  M6 Widening junctions 30–31

  M6 Improvement junctions 31–32

  M62 Widening junctions 12–18

  M66 Denton-Middleton

  M65–M6 Blackburn Southern BP

  A74 Carlisle-Scottish Border

  A6(M) Stockport N/S By-pass

  SERO

  M2 Widening junctions 1–3

  M3 Bar End-Compton

  M3 Compton-Bassett widening

  M3 Widening junctions 2–3

  M4 Widening junctions 8/9—M25

  M4 Free flow links at junctions 8/9

  M20 Maidstone-Ashford

  M20 Maidstone BP widening

  M40 Waterstock-Wendlebury

  WMRO

  M5 Widening junctions 6–8

  M40 Gaydon section

  A446(M) Birmingham northern relief road

  YHRO

  M1 Junction 34 Roundabout improvement

  M18 Junction with B6094 Cockhill Lane

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects the new air traffic control systems to be operating in the south-east sector in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Civil Aviation Authority has advised that the major reorganisation of the airspace over south-east England—known as the central control function—will be implemented in stages by the national air traffic services between 1990 and 1995, with some gains in capacity beginning to accrue from 1992.

  Trains (Overcrowding)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning overcrowding on British Rail and London Underground.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about overcrowding on British Rail; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  In the last three months I have received 30 representations from Members of Parliament about British Rail and four representations about London Underground, together with 173 letters from members of the public which make some reference to overcrowding.

  Autoguide Systems
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what involvement he expects local highway authorities will have in selecting road networks for use by autoguide systems.
  89
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are discussing with police representatives and the local authority associations how the police and highway authorities might be involved in the proposed pilot autoguide system in London.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new technology is being introduced to alleviate traffic congestion.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A wide variety of new technology is improving road safety and alleviating congestion.

  Motorway signalling, junction control techniques, variable message signs and traffic signal co-ordination systems for urban areas are available and incorporate the latest developments in micro-electronics and information technology.

  The Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information) Bill will facilitate the introduction of new driver information systems.

  Train Accidents
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many significant train accidents per million train miles there were in 1986 and 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  A significant train accident is one that is actually or potentially most dangerous to passengers.

  In 1986 the significant accident rate was 0·69 per million train miles and in 1987 it was 0·71 per million train miles.

  Roads (London)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the capacity of the London road system to carry increased numbers of road vehicles.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Many main roads in London are already at or near capacity. Many minor roads are used as rat runs. Forecasts suggest that to the year 2001 road traffic could increase by the order of 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. per annum in outer and inner London, and by less than 1 per cent. per annum in the central area.

  The approach to accommodating this growth is based on improving trunk roads to take traffic around London, supporting borough road schemes, promoting new technology to improve traffic management, encouraging better parking controls and promoting efficient and attractive public transport.

  These steps are being supplemented by a series of major studies including the London assessment studies, which are looking at four areas with particularly severe transport problems.

  The alterations associated with low cost, high return casualty reduction measures affect capacity on roads and at junctions. Over 170 such sites have been identified trunk roads in London, including ex. GLC roads.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the need for investment on the west coast main line by British Rail.
  90
  Mr. Portillo
  It is for British Rail, which manages the railway, to assess what investment is needed and put forward proposals. Deliveries are already under way of new class 90 locomotives and driving van trailers which will help to improve the reliability of services on the west coast main line.

  Rail Safety
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will next meet the chief inspecting officer of railways to discuss safety on British Rail.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Secretary of State meets the chief inspecting officer of railways regularly to discuss railway safety.

  Ports (Congestion)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement regarding congestion at the ports.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to his question on 28 November 1988,Official Report, columns 154–55.

  Road Deaths
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road deaths there were in 1987.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There were 5,125 people killed in road accidents in Great Britain during 1987. While welcoming the fact that this is a fall of 5 per cent. on the 1986 figures, it still represents too many road deaths during the year.

  Accidents
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people have been(a) killed and (b) injured in major transport disasters in (i) 1986, (ii) 1987, and (iii) 1988.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There is no clear definition of what constitutes a major transport disaster. To attempt to classify a transport accident as a disaster by the number of deaths involved is an invidious exercise: each fatality is a disaster in its own right. The following accidents are those which have either occurred within Great Britain, or have happened to United Kingdom registered aircraft or United Kingdom registerea ships. They are accidents which have attracted particular attention by their severity.1986

  9 killed, 35 injured in a rail crash on a level crossing at Lockington.

  45 killed when Chinook helicopter went down in the north sea.

  1 killed, 15 injured in crash of twin Otter aircraft in Scotland.

  1987

  189 killed, 340 injured when the roll-on roll-off ferry `Herald of Free Enterprise' overturned off Zeebrugge.

  4 killed when a train ran off the rails after a bridge was washed away at Glanrhyd in Wales.

  31 killed, 29 injured in a fire at Kings Cross underground station.

  1988

  34 killed in a railway accident at Clapham junction.

  270 killed in Pan-Am air crash at Lockerbie. Of these,

  244 were passengers, 15 were crew, and 11 were on the ground.

  91
  Road accidents occur much more frequently, though they do not usually lead to such major loss of life in a single accident.

  In 1986, there were 248,000 accidents on public roads in Great Britain, leading to 5,382 deaths and 316,069 injuries. There were 18 accidents in each of which four or more people were killed.

  In 1987, 239,000 accidents led to 5,125 deaths and 306,350 injuries. In 17 of these accidents four or more people were killed. Complete figures for 1988 will not be available before the middle of 1989.

  Railway Closures
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many proposals to close railway lines have been submitted to him since 1979 by British Rail; how many have been accepted; and how many stations and lines have been opened or reopened in the same period.

  Mr. Portillo
  Since 1979 British Rail has submitted 42 proposals to close railways lines. A total of 31 of these proposals have been accepted; one proposal has been withdrawn by British Rail; one proposal was unopposed and so did not require ministerial consent; nine proposals are still under consideration (apart from the Settle to Carlisle proposal, none of these concerns a major route or service).

  A total of 132 stations and 14 lines have been opened or reopened in the same period.

  Drink-Driving Campaigns
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Christmas drink-driving campaign.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The coverage of this year's campaign in the media was impressive and helpful.

  We greatly welcome the contribution of the private sector to the campaign, especially the publicans, brewers, soft drink producers, clubs, supermarkets and off-licences.

  It is clear that more people are becoming aware of the dangers and that there is a long-term downward trend in the amount of drinking and driving. The test is whether fewer people are being killed and injured. It is too early for a full assessment. We shall publish figures when they are available.

  Preliminary police figures suggest that a substantial increase in their enforcement effort during the full holiday period resulted in 4 per cent. more drivers failing the road-side screening test.

  It has been reported that 53,000 drivers were tested during this period compared with 37,000 for the same period in 1987—an increase of 43 per cent.

  Within the higher numbers of drivers tested, the proportion of those found over the limit was only one in 10 compared with one in four over the year as a whole.

  A1 (Northumberland)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the design standards applied to the A1 in Northumberland include provision for safety.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Safety aspects are included in all the design standards adopted by the Department for all roads in the region.

  British Rail (Investment)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of the planned investment in British Rail will be used to replace out-of-date rolling stock and equipment; and how much will be used to raise capacity.

  Mr. Portillo
  The figures for planned British Rail investment cannot be split between investment to replace existing capacity and investment to raise capacity since most projects will include elements of both, However, about half of British Rail's planned investment in Network SouthEast over the next five years will be spent on buying new rolling stock and refurbishing some of the existing fleet. These investments are being planned to provide sufficient additional capacity to meet the load factor standards on all routes and to cope with forecast increases in peak hour demand.

  Clapham Junction
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trains, and how many passengers, travel through Clapham Junction(a) per day, and (b) per peak hour.

  Mr. Portillo
  The latest available data indicate that during a 24-hour period approximately 1,900 loaded passenger trains carrying 340,000 passengers pass through Clapham junction. During the peak hour (between 8 and 9 in the morning) approximately 94 London-bound loaded passenger trains carrying 62,000 passengers pass through Clapham junction. Data on trains and passengers from London passing through Clapham junction during the morning peak hour are not available.

  Buses (Deregulation)
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by how much bus mileage has changed since deregulation.

  Mr. Portillo
  Local bus mileage in Great Britain (outside London) rose by 14 per cent. between 1985–86 and 1987–88.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what change there has been in the number of bus operators since deregulation.

  Mr. Portillo
  By 1 May 1988 there had been a net increase of 465 operators running local bus services since deregulation.

  Traffic (London)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the final report on the inquiry into traffic in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have not commissioned a report or inquiry on traffic for London as a whole.

  Assessment studies are being carried out in four areas of the capital where conditions for movement are particularly severe. We expect to receive reports on options to improve conditions in the summer.

  Road Traffic (Delays)
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the cost to industry of road traffic delays.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department estimates savings in delay when individual road improvements are considered. The Department has not made an assessment of the total cost of delays on all roads.

  Cycling
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department is taking to encourage cycling.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Our concern is with encouraging safer cycling, primarily by reducing the scope for conflict with other road users.

  Accidents involving vehicles towing caravans, trailers, etc. 1979–87

  Number of accidents

  Vehicle type

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Cars/Minibuses

  1,065

  1,153

  1,138

  1,319

  1,231

  1,237

  1,152

  1,198

  1,130

  LGV

  246

  218

  233

  329

  216

  252

  292

  317

  281

  HGV

  319

  243

  254

  313

  281

  292

  365

  359

  319

  Other motor vehicles1

  567

  580

  560

  562

  564

  533

  527

  531

  475

  Total

  2,197

  2,194

  2,185

  2,523

  2,292

  2,314

  2,336

  2,405

  2,205

  Note:

  Data prior to 1979 is not readily available.

  1 Includes agricultural, service, and industrial vehicles but not 2/3 wheeled vehicles or PSVs.

  Dartford-Thurrock Crossing
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the financing arrangements for the Dartford-Thurrock crossing will be agreed.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The agreements between Dartford River Crossing Ltd. and the relevant banks and financial institutions were made on 8 April 1987. The concession agreement between Dartford River Crossing Ltd. and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport was signed on 9 April 1987.

  Parking
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the report of the working party on parking enforcement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Shortly.

  Motorways (Accidents)
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of road accidents occur on motorways.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In Great Britain during 1987, 2 per cent. of all road accidents and 5 per cent. of fatal accidents, occurred on motorways. For comparison, motorways carried 15 per cent. of all traffic in 1987.

  Roads (Congestion)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate his Department has made of the
  94
  We are continuing our programme of research and application studies. Publications giving technical advice and engineering standards are available and more are planned. I shall arrange for a set to be sent to my hon. Friend.

  We are currently consulting local authorities and other organisations on a further local transport note on planning, design and legal aspects of providing for cyclists. This will give up-to-date guidance based on the results of our recent studies.

  Towing Vehicles (Accidents)
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents involving vehicles towing caravans, horse boxes, and so on, have been recorded in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The following is the information:

  level of congestion on roads in London and south-east England over the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on road conditions in London. Forecasts suggest that road traffic in the south-east outside London could increase by the order of 3 per cent. per annum to the year 2001.

  Priority is being given in the national trunk road programme to schemes aimed primarily at relieving congestion, providing environmental relief and reducing casualties. Since April 1986 10 major schemes costing approximately £235 million have been completed in London and the south-east. Another 94 schemes costing approximately £2 billion are in the forward national programme at various stages of preparation. A number of smaller schemes are included in my Department's regional programme and we are supporting the Local highway authorities' road building programmes through the transport supplementary grant. A review of the national road programme will be published in the spring.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress his Department has made in assisting the disabled in their transport needs this year; and what progress he expects to make next year.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Measures in 1988 included the following:
  Announcement that from early 1989 all new London taxis must be wheelchair accessible;

  95
  Widespread introduction of design features to help elderly and disabled passengers use buses more easily, following guidelines drawn up by the Department and the disabled persons transport advisory committee;
  Tours of adapted demonstration bus lent by the Department to 36 operators around the country;
  Advice and information to nearly 6,000 disabled people by the Department's mobility advice and vehicle information service (MAVIS);
  Practical assessment and advice at the centre for some 400 disabled people on driving and car choice.

  The Department will continue to seek further improvements to help people with disabilities in the coming year. Particular priority will be given to encouraging further improvements in bus and coach design. The Department will be organising another mobility roadshow in June 1989.

  Motorways (Congestion)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to relieve traffic congestion in the motorway system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  By carrying out the road improvements detailed in the roads White Paper "Policy for Roads in England: 1987" as quickly as possible and by aiming to minimise the delays at maintenance sites by careful programming, improved traffic management and by the use of lane rental contracts which give an incentive for early completion.

  Barnstaple-Exeter Railway
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make funds available to British Rail to enable the Barnstaple to Exeter line to remain open.

  Mr. Portillo
  The public service obligation grant payable to British Rail is a block grant, not related to any individual line or service, and I have no powers to earmark funds.

  London Rail Study
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish the findings of the central London rail study.

  Mr. Portillo
  We expect to publish the findings of the central London rail study shortly.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will carry out his next review of national trunk roads.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A review of the trunk road programme is currently in progress. We expect to make an announcement in the spring.

  Roads (North-East)
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to improve the road system in the north-east region.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The northern region has 18 schemes in the national roads programme at a current 96
  projected cost of £170 million. Spending on all schemes, national regional and maintenance, in the current year is estimated at over £50 million. The Department is also contributing in this financial year over £12 million in transport supplementary grant to assist local authorities in the region of constructing roads of more than local importance.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of his plans to improve the road system in north-east England.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department's plans for developing the road infrastructure in the northern region are concentrated on the provision of a new north-south bypass to the west of Newcastle; the systematic improvement of the A1 north of Morpeth and the two main east-west routes—the A66 and A69; and the improvement of the main national routes into the area from the south. Other important schemes planned to start during the next few years include a western bypass of Durham City on the A167 and a bypass of Kenton Bank Foot and Woolsington on the A696.

  Urban Traffic
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the likely increase of traffic in urban areas.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department prepares forecasts for national traffic growth. Where a trunk road scheme is being assessed, local forecasts are made, reflecting local growth in population and economic activity.

  Factors such as availability of public transport, congestion and parking are also taken into consideration for urban schemes. The Department does not produce traffic forecasts for urban areas in general.

  London Transport (Safety)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of London Regional Transport to discuss standards of safety on London Buses and Underground services.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has asked London Regional Transport to make regular reports to him on their progress in implementing the Fennell report. He and I will meet the chairman as necessary to discuss these matters.

  Bypasses
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bypasses have been built since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A total of 95 bypasses and relief roads have been built since 1979, representing 40 per cent. of new national road mileage.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many inquiries into accidents which came within his responsibility have been carried out by the Health and Safety Executive in the past 10 years for which records are available.
  97
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  None, although I understand that the Health and Safety Executive has provided assistance to my Department on at least 10 occasions when railway accidents were involved.

  Roadbuilding
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to cut the time it takes to build roads.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have set targets for reducing the average time taken to progress a scheme from entering the road programme to opening for traffic by the order of a quarter. In introducing the changes we have taken care to ensure that the rights of interested parties will not be affected.

  Wildlife
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account he takes of the protection of wildlife when building new roads.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Protecting wildlife is carefully considered in our planning. We consult both national wildlife bodies such as the Nature Conservancy Council and local wildlife groups throughout the process.

  The effects of new roads are minimised by careful design. Special measures are taken to protect wildlife including deer runs and badger tunnels to provide for safe crossing, fencing and reflectors to discourage animals from straying onto roads.

  Tree and shrub planting, which is a major landscape activity of the Department, creates invaluable wildlife habitat. The Department's publication "Transport and the Environment", which is in the Library, gives further details of some of these measures.

  Pavements (Damage)
  Mr. Fearn
  to ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the figures for the last five years of the cost of pavement damage, caused by heavy goods vehicles.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  National data on the cost of pavement damage are not available. The total road track costs in the United Kingdom and the amounts allocated to heavy goods vehicles are as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Total road costs

  Road costs allocated to heavy goods vehicles

  1984–85

  3,496

  950

  1985–86

  3,656

  1,035

  1986–87

  3,863

  1,060

  1987–88

  4,058

  1,095

  1988–89

  4,218

  1,165

  M42 (Extension)
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he anticipates announcing the preferred option for the western orbital route extension to the M42 to the west of the west midlands conurbation.
  98
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The work of evaluating the large response to the public consultation is progressing well. We hope to achieve the spring 1989 target for an announcement.

  Clapham Train Accident
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the provision of compensation for the families of those who died, and for those who were seriously injured, in the Clapham train disaster.

  Mr. Portillo
  Compensation is a matter for the British Railways Board, whose policy is that all claims will be considered sympathetically and as quickly as possible. The Board has made immediate payments of £2,000 to next of kin who indicated that they required help, and has announced that it will pay £10,000 for a bereavement under section 1a of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 rather than the sum of £3,500 which the Act requires.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to enhance road safety for children and young people in urban areas.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Cutting child casualties is one of our top priorities. Local authorities, schools and parents all have key parts to play. Initiatives include co-operation with local authorities to foster low-cost engineering measures that have been shown particularly to benefit child cyclists and pedestrians; experiments in two local authority areas to develop effective methods of safety education in schools and the "Lessons for Life" campaign launched in September aimed at helping parents play a full role in enhancing their children's road safety. For older children we have worked with the road safety officers to produce a special highway code and teenagers will particularly benefit from our motorcycle training and testing proposals.

  We shall continue to pay particular attention to developing measures to reduce child casualties on the roads.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve road safety.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) earlier today.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of local authority actions to improve urban road safety.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We welcome the considerable enthusiasm and activity of many local authorities in carrying out their responsibilities for improving safety on their roads. Our aim is to encourage and assist all local authorities to follow the example of the best.

  Local authority initiatives are crucial to urban safety. We agreed last summer with local authority leaders a high priority and joint approach for tackling road casualties.

  We work closely with road safety officers and others on publicity campaigns and child safety measures. In co-operation with the institution of Highways and Transportation we plan to publish guidelines for local highway authorities on the application of area-wide urban safety techniques.

  Railway Inspectorate
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will initiate a review of the role of the railway inspectorate.

  Mr. Portillo
  A review of the railway inspectorate's role was commissioned by the Secretary of State in 1986. Its terms of reference included examination of the inspectorate's present role, and the formulation of recommendations as to how improvements could be made to ensure the most efficient and effective way of administering Government railway safety responsibilities in the longer term. A report was presented in 1987 which included numerous recommendations, many of which have already been implemented. A copy of the report is in the Library of the House.

  Air Services (Manchester)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations for increased air services between Manchester and New York.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  At the most recent negotiations on greater access for United States carriers to serve Manchester airport, held in London between 4 and 6 January 1989, the two sides could not reach a mutually acceptable conclusion.

  The Government recognise the importance of these additional services into Manchester airport and are therefore seeking further discussions.

  Manchester Air Disaster
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the inquiry report into the Manchester air disaster in 1985.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A copy of the report was submitted to the Secretary of State on 15 December. Copies have also been sent to the persons whose reputation might be adversely affected by the report, in accordance with the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations 1983.

  A period of 28 days is being allowed for affected persons to request a review board. Provided no review is requested, the report should be published in March.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any proposals to issue guidelines on the introduction of bus lanes in urban areas.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We published a traffic advisory leaflet in March 1988 giving technical guidelines on the use of with-flow bus lanes. I shall send a copy to my hon. Friend. Further guidance is in course of preparation covering other kinds of bus priority measures.

  Braking Lights
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if his Department is aware of any evidence linking the dazzle of rear braking lights fitted on the rear windows of motor vehicles and serious injuries and deaths on British roads;
  100
  (2)if his Department has any information on the fitting as standard by manufacturers of rear braking lights in the rear windows of motor vehicles;

  (3)if he has any plans to introduce legislation to prohibit the installation of rear braking lights in the rear windows of motor vehicles.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are not aware of any serious injuries or deaths on British roads due to dazzle from brake lights fitted in the rear windows of cars.

  Volvo fit a centre brake light in the rear window of their cars as standard.

  We have issued for consultation revised vehicle lighting regulations which will prohibit the fitting of brake lights in the rear windows of new cars in future unless they are half as bright as normal brake lights. Such a lamp should provide the benefit which the centre brake light can bring without the dangers of unwanted dazzle to which the hon. Member refers.

  Crash Helmets
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to encourage the wearing of hard hats by cyclists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department strongly encourages the voluntary use of pedal cycle helmets and will continue to do so.

  Over half of all pedal cycle casualties involve head injuries. It is sensible for cyclists to wear a good quality helmet made to the British Standard BS6863. Such helmets are now available nationwide.

  Concorde (West Cornwall)
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints he has received concerning Concorde's sonic boom from persons living in west Cornwall for each of the years 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The booms are normally heard during the winter. The figures for the whole of Cornwall for each winter season (November-April) are as follows:

  Number

  1984–85

  29

  1985–86

  12

  1986–87

  14

  1987–88

  14

  Ministerial Advisers
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the ministerial advisers appointed in his Department for each year since 1979, the salary each person received, whether paid directly or to another employer, and the duties undertaken, whether solely in his Department or in conjunction with other Departments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The following special advisers have been employed in the Department since 1979:I. Heggie—Special Adviser to the Minister of Transport on transport issues from 1 November 1979 to 31 January 1981. Paid directly.
  Sir John Hoskyns—Special Adviser to the Secretary of State for Transport on transport issues from 12 July 1982 to 21 June 1986. Paid directly.

  101
  Mrs. K. C. Ramsay—Special (political) Adviser to the Secretary of State for Transport from 1 September 1983 to 21 May 1986. Paid directly.
  Miss E. Buchanan—Special (political) Adviser to the Secretary of State for Transport from 1 September 1987 to date. Paid directly.

  It is not the practice to reveal the salaries of individual advisers as they are individually negotiated in relation to previous outside earnings and are therefore confidential. The salary spine covers rates from points 1 to 28, £13,975 to £40,520.

  Channel Tunnel (London Terminal)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what degree of private sector involvement he anticipates will be involved in the construction of(a) the second London terminal for the Channel tunnel and (b) the fast rail link between the tunnel and terminal through Kent.

  Mr. Portillo
  This remains to be seen. But I would like to see a significant degree of such involvement in both projects.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy with regard to British Rail having sole determination of the location of the second London terminal for the Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Government subsidy to British Rail in connection with its Channel tunnel services is prohibited by section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. British Rail cannot be expected to choose a location for its second London terminal which it does not consider to be in its best commercial interests based on passenger needs. British Rail's proposal will of course need my approval and that of Parliament.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations have been made to his Department against the possible location of the second London terminal for the Channel tunnel at King's Cross;

  (2) what representations he has received in favour of (a) Stratford and (b) King's Cross for the location of the second London terminal for the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  In addition to representations from the hon. Member, I have received a number of representations from local authorities and other interested bodies in favour of Stratford, and again King's Cross, as the site for a second London terminal. Equally, I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others in the north of England who favour King's Cross as against Stratford on the ground that it will make possible better links to the north. I have explained to all those who have made representations that the choice is British Rail's responsibility.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the consultants were appointed to consider the feasibility of Stratford as a location for the second London terminal for the Channel tunnel; and when they are due to present their report.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am aware that British Rail has carried out such an assessment, but I do not yet have details.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has regarding the 102
  estimated cost of construction of a second London terminal for the Channel tunnel at (a) Stratford and (b) King's Cross.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that it is British Rail's view that a terminal at King's Cross would cost more than one at Stratford, but would be more commercially viable because of its more central location.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the second London terminal for the Channel tunnel to be operational; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is too early to say.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contribution has been made by his Department to the selection process for the site of the second London terminal for the Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  None, but the investment will need Government approval and Parliament will consider the necessary Bill.

  Channel Tunnel (Kent Link)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive British Rail's decision in respect of the Channel tunnel preferred link through Kent.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that British Rail hopes to announce its preferred route corridor in the next few weeks.

  Carlisle-Settle Railway Line
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on the future of the Carlisle to Settle railway line.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am not yet in a position to do so.

  Underground Stations (Radio)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of London Underground stations use radio underground.

  Mr. Portillo
  Train radio is in operation throughout the underground network. London Underground Limited is implementing a programme for the introduction of police and staff radio at 42 deep-level stations representing a third of sub-surface stations. Police radio is now in use at 26 of these stations and staff radio at eight. London Underground Limited intends that police radio will be in use at all 42 stations by the end of February and staff radio by the end of April, and is preparing proposals to extend both facilities to all sub-surface stations.

  London Underground (Staff Training)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many days safety training per year staff on London Underground receive.

  Mr. Portillo
  This is a matter for which London Underground Limited is responsible but I understand that all station and train staff will now receive one and a half days training in fire and emergency procedures a year.

  Rail Link (Manchester International Airport)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on current progress on the rail link to Manchester International airport.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am awaiting a joint submission from the Greater Manchester PTE and British Rail on the financing of this link.

  Rail Services (Gloucester-London)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss the need to improve the frequency of direct trains between Gloucester and London when he next meets the chairman of British Rail.

  Mr. Portillo
  This is a matter for the British Railways Board.

  Air Services (Manchester-Singapore)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in negotiations to increase the number of air services between Manchester and Singapore; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Discussions were held in London this week between United Kingdom and Singapore civil aviation officials on arrangements for the provision of air services between the United Kingdom and Singapore. The discussions made useful progress and they are expected to continue in Singapore within the next two months.

  Fennell Report (Implementation)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much extra funding has been provided so far to implement the findings of the Fennell report.
  104
  Mr. Portillo
  The external financing limit for London Regional Transport for the current financial year has been increased to allow for £28 million of additional safety-related expenditure following the fire at King's Cross. The Government's public expenditure plans for 1989–90 to 1991–92 make provision in full for the proposals put forward by LRT for spending on Underground safety totalling £266 million.

  London Underground (Fires)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many call-outs the London fire brigade received in each of the last five years for fires on the London Underground.

  Mr. Portillo
  London Underground Ltd. do not have information available in the form requested for the period specified. I understand that the numbers of fire and smoke incidents recorded by London Underground for the past five years are as follows:

  Number

  1984

  520

  1985

  335

  1986

  505

  1987

  844

  1988

  1,248

  Changes in reporting arrangements within London Underground during the period mean that one year is not strictly comparable with another. These changes include the ones made after the King's Cross fire, as I indicated in the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 10 January.

Preamble
Reassembling after the Christmas Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
PrayersߞRead by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

RAF Museum, Hendon
Lord Shackleton Lord Shackleton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken by the Ministry of Defence in conjunction with the appropriate local planning authorities to ensure that the conditions of sale and of the subsequent development of East Camp, the last remaining part of the former RAF Hendon, enchance the long-term well-being of the RAF Museum and its surroundings.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the future of this site, which is now surplus to MoD requirements, will be a matter for the eventual purchaser, with the agreement of the local planning authority. The latter have made it clear that any development must take into account the presence of the listed buildings on the site and the interests of the RAF Museum nearby.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the Ministry of Defence is virtually the owner of this great national museum? Can the noble Lord say why the museum has not been consulted? The trustees who are in his own department have not been consulted on what is going to be done. A building such as the Graham White hangar, which is a very ancient and historic pre-first world war factory, could sensibly be brought into the museum field. Does the Minister agree that it would be very much cheaper to consult the director of the museum?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the first duty upon the Ministry of Defence is to get a proper return for the taxpayer from this very valuable site. I can assure the
2
noble Lord that we shall take fully into account the interests of the RAF Museum. The planning brief issued by the local authority, which I dare say the noble Lord has seen, enjoins would-be future developers of the site to take into account the views of the RAF Museum and to consult with it.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this may be the last opportunity for the RAF Museum to expand? Does the Minister not agree that it would be a tragedy if this opportunity was missed?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the RAF Museum was associated with one of those who expressed interest in acquiring the site concerned. The site itself extends to some 38 acres, but I am not sure that the RAF Museum would wish to have access to the whole of it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that the continued well-being of this museum is a matter of concern to a very large number of people in this country who realise what we owe to the RAF?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend about the importance of the RAF Museum. That is why the listed buildings on the site which are of RAF interest must be preserved in an appropriate way. It is also why the local planning authority has made it clear that it will attach considerable importance to the interests of the RAF Museum.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that the trustees have been properly consulted throughout these negotiations? Is it not the case that the trustees feel a good deal of disquiet because of the way in which this matter has been handled by his department? Can the Minister confirm that further discussion with the trustees and other interested parties should take place before any final decision is reached? For example, can there not be a tripartite discussion between the trustees, officials of his department and the local planning authority, which I believe to be Barnet Council?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have expressed considerable sympathy as regards the position of the RAF Museum in this matter. The museum was associated with one of the bidders for this site. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that the other bidders were concerned that there were commercial interests at stake as regards the amount of information that could be revealed to the RAF Museum, which was clearly one of the parties commercially interested in the whole matter. Having said that, I quite agree that the RAF Museum is a most important part of our national heritage and in particular of the history of the Royal Air Force, as my noble friend suggested. The interests of the museum must be taken into account in reaching a conclusion on this matter. I can assure your Lordships that we shall do just that.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, can the Minister explain what he means by his statement that the RAF Museum was associated with one of the companies that sought to develop the site? Is there anything improper? Does the Minister believe that the RAF authorities concerned with the museum or the RAF Board wish to become involved on the commercial side? Can the Minister tell the House whether the planning brief is available? I do not know that it has been seen. If not, can the Minister make it available? The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, had hoped to be here. He was a former member and he wishes to be associated with everything that we are saying.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have seen the planning brief, which is quite an extensive document. It is issued by the local planning authority and it gives preliminary indications of the kind of development that the authority considers appropriate for this site. That document is publicly available. It has already been made available to all the firms which have expressed an interest in acquiring the site. That includes the RAF Museum.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the maintenance and enhancement of the RAF Museum is the first consideration that should govern ministerial action in this matter?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that that is entirely so. Of course we attach great importance to the RAF Museum. It has been on the site for some considerable time. But we also have a duty to the taxpayer to ensure that the site is disposed of in a way that meets the taxpayers' interests. I was very forcefully reminded of that particular point in a recent celebrated case.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, on the first occasion on which he has answered questions at the Dispatch Box since he was honoured with a Privy Counsellorship, we have all been impressed with his customary form—fortiter in re' suaviter in modo?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to my noble friend for his kind personal remarks. I shall do my best in the future to live up to his high commendation.

Egg Industry: Assistance
2.43 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why it is their policy to provide a subsidy to egg producers when other industries are subject to similar market forces but are not subsidised.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, it was not a subsidy. In December, the egg market suffered exceptionally severe disruption as orders were cut drastically or cancelled. As it is not possible to reduce egg production over a short timescale, exceptional measures were necessary in order to prevent the destruction of many small businesses and to bring some stability to the egg market. In short, exceptional measures were needed to deal with an exceptional situation.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on that incredible defence of a colleague. Does she not agree that the entire episode was caused by a hasty and, as it proved to be, a severely expensive ministerial statement at the time? If something similar should befall other industries, will she say whether or not similar action will be taken to assist them?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I venture to say that that is a hypothetical question.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, now that the scheme is in its fourth and final week, is the Minister in a position to tell the House whether the whole of the £19 million earmarked for it is likely to be taken up? Can she say whether any credence should be attached to statements that the scheme as such has been of greater assistance to large producers than to small ones?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the scheme is still being run, and we do not yet have firm figures on the number of eggs destroyed under it. It seems clear however that the number of eggs attracted by the scheme is likely to be well below the maximum provision of 1·1 million cases. Final figures of uptake will be announced as soon as possible after the closure of the scheme on 17th January. I have no evidence that it favoured large producers more than small ones.
Baroness Masham of IIton: My Lords, if surplus money has been earmarked for that reason, can it be used for finding out more about the spread of infections in eggs?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I venture to suggest that that is another question.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, the Minister spoke of exceptional measures. Is she aware that during the 40 or so years in both Houses that I have been fighting the consumers' battle, I have never heard of people who caused the trouble being

5
compensated while the people who suffered from it received nothing? Can she give me any other example?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I did not hear the last words of the noble Baroness. The output of the egg industry was worth about £500 million a year at the farm gate, and possibly twice as much at the retail level. About 35,000 farmers depend in whole or in part on their earnings from eggs. More than 3,000 egg packing stations provide employment for at least 15,000 people. Over and above that, a great many other people are engaged in distributing, marketing and selling eggs after they have been packed. In the circumstances where the sale of eggs was 50 per cent. of the production in the week leading up to Christmas, the Government decided that there was no alternative but to provide some short-term help.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, while I am sure that the noble Baroness had to say all that, may I ask whether she is aware that it had nothing whatever to do with what I asked her? I am sorry to put her on the spot, but I asked her—she did not hear the end of my question—whether she could tell me of any other example where people who caused the trouble or the pain had been compensated, while those who suffered from it had not.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Baroness's memory is no doubt a little longer than mine. I am unable to give her an example, but I am sure that there is a precedent for everything.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that on Wednesday of last week the chief medical officer, Sir Donald Acheson, gave evidence before the Select Committee examining this question? He said that the public health laboratory service had been correct in using the term "epidemic" to describe the increase in reported cases of salmonella due to contamination either of carcases or of eggs. Is she satisfied that by now her department and the Department of Health are speaking with one voice? It does not seem like it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord has gone far wide of the Question, which I have answered. If he cares to put down a Question, I shall reply to it—not gladly, but I shall be here.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, to British industry this is an extremely important question. It wants to know whether help will be given if this happens to another industry. It will not be fobbed off with the answer that its problems are merely hypothetical. Does the Minister not agree that there is now no good reason why the Ministry of Agriculture should not be abolished?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that too, I am happy to say, is another question, considering that I totally disagree with both premises made by the noble Lord.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can tell us now how the subsidy to egg producers was
6
calculated, since there are various ways of doing this. Is it not true that a number of British industries believe that they should at least be considered for similar treatment? Or is the answer that in no way will the Government consider this for the remainder of British industry?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that is not for me to answer.

Football Spectators Bill [H.L.]
2.50 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Caithness I beg to introduce a Bill to control the admission of spectators at designated football matches in England and Wales by means of a national membership scheme and licences to admit spectators and to provide for the making by courts, and the enforcement by designated agencies of orders imposing restrictions on persons convicted of certain offences for the purpose of preventing violence or disorder at, or in connection with, designated football matches played outside England and Wales. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Hesketh)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
2.51 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Companies Bill was introduced in your Lordships' House on 21st December. It is the first major and substantive companies Bill since 1981. The 1985 Companies Act was purely a consolidation measure, consolidating earlier Acts dating from 1948 to 1981 and also including elements of other legislation. Company law has also been affected by the Insolvency Act 1985 and the Financial Services Act 1986. I should like first to say a few words about the role of company law and the Government's policies for it. Then I shall turn to the various provisions of the Bill before your Lordships' House.
The limited liability company is strikingly popular. The year after the 1967 Companies Act, over 20,000 new companies were registered. The year after the 1976 Act, there were more than 63,000. And in 1987–88 there were over 124,000 companies added to the registers. The number of companies on the registers is now over 900,000 of which over 99 per cent. are private companies.
The limited liability company has proved a highly successful means of bringing together capital and enterprise. I am sure that these two words will figure prominently in our debates on this Bill. The capital comes from the shareholders and creditors of a company, the enterprise from its directors and employees. In the case of many small companies, and

7
a few larger ones, proprietors and workers are the same people, but the concept of limited liability serves to unlock both the capital and the enterprise needed to make a successful business.
At the same time we must guard against abuse of the privileges which are given to companies under the law. The law must provide safeguards to balance the interests of shareholders and creditors with those of the people within the company. Without the right safeguards, investors might become less willing to invest in British companies, and customers might be less happy to deal with them.
The objectives I have set out for DTI are reflected in our approach to company law. We aim to promote open, efficient, and properly informed markets. I wish to limit regulation to areas where it is in the public interest. In many areas, the parties concerned can be left free to erect safeguards or not as they see fit.
There is more than one reason why a companies Bill is needed now. Company law is not a work of art. It is a working mechanism which is put to mundane and practical uses. It has to be kept in proper working order and needs to be adapted to changes in the business environment.
One important change is the development of European Community company law. The first two parts of this Bill owe their origin to European company law directives which we have to give effect to in our own law. The harmonisation of company law can help the development of the single market, although I would give higher priority to other aspects. Company law harmonisation must not be based on too much regulation. It must allow for perfectly legitimate diversity of approach. The purpose of harmonisation must be to create a framework which will assist enterprise to develop across national boundaries. I believe that the first two parts of this Bill will implement the seventh and eighth directives in ways which bring benefits to United Kingdom enterprise.
Many provisions in the Bill implement measures foreshadowed in deregulation White Papers—the most recent of which is last November's Releasing Enterprise. All these provisions have been the subject of public consultation and we have been guided by the comments received from business and from financial and professional quarters.
The Bill also provides an opportunity to implement policy decisions in a number of areas related to company law. This category includes the provisions on mergers, on financial services and on financial markets. All these provisions are aimed at promoting open markets and keeping state intervention to a minimum.
There is no fundamental change of policy on mergers. We will continue to put the emphasis on competition. In the vast majority of cases, decisions on mergers should be left to shareholders. They are best able to judge what is best for companies. The important thing is for them to have adequate information on which to base decisions, and some provisions of the Bill are relevant to this. It is normally only when a merger threatens the interests
8
of customers by reducing competition that the law should intervene. The Bill improves the procedures of merger control rather than implements any change in policy. I shall describe the details shortly.
I shall now outline the main provisions in the Bill. I know that many noble Lords wish to speak in this debate, so I shall concentrate only on the main features. Much of the detailed text is complex and technical, and will doubtless receive close attention from your Lordships in Committee.
The first part of the Bill is concerned with company accounts. The principal purpose of amending this part of company law is to give effect to the Seventh European Community Company Law Directive on consolidated accounts. An earlier directive on individual company accounts is already reflected in UK law.
The seventh directive was approved in 1983. It aims to achieve greater uniformity of accounting treatment and disclosure within the Community. I believe that these directives are an appropriate basis for the accountability of companies to their shareholders. And, in practice, the main elements of the seventh directive already form part of the requirements imposed by accounting standards and practice within the United Kingdom. These new statutory requirements should not involve a major change for most companies.
Clauses 5 and 6 contain the basic requirement to prepare consolidated accounts, and introduce the detailed rules for the form and content of consolidated accounts and the information to be disclosed. The details in Schedule 2 include a requirement to give better information on the effect of acquisitions on the position of a group. This point is not specifically requested by the directive but has been the subject of much concern.
Clauses 12, 14 and 15 are deregulatory. Clause 12 contains a new exemption from the obligation to prepare consolidated accounts for the parents of most groups below a certain size.
Clause 14 will allow listed companies to provide shareholders—unless they wish to receive full accounts—with a summary of financial information instead. This will make the key information more accessible.
Clause 15 will reduce burdens on private companies. By unanimous agreement, the members can dispense with the requirement to lay accounts and reports before general meetings, though accounts will still have to be circulated to all shareholders. This derives from proposals made by the Institute of Directors to reduce the burden of Companies Act requirements on owner-managed companies. We shall be introducing amendments at a later stage to give effect to some of the other proposals of the Institute of Directors. We are also considering exempting small companies from some of the accounting disclosure requirements. Clause 18 gives powers which will enable such an exemption to be introduced by secondary legislation.
Clause 19 widens the definition of a subsidiary undertaking to include tests based on control and dominant influence instead of the existing test based on holding a majority of equity share capital. This

9
will bring many of the so-called "off balance sheet vehicles" back within consolidation. Such vehicles are often used to keep borrowings off the consolidated balance sheet in order to improve a company's apparent debt/equity ratio. That tends to undermine the value of consolidated accounts and we intend to curb the practice.
The second part of the Bill is designed to implement the Eighth Company Law Directive on the approval of company auditors. This directive lays down minimum requirements for the approval of auditors, in particular on their education and training. It obliges member states to ensure that company audits are carried out with integrity and that there are appropriate safeguards to protect auditors' independence. There is of course nothing new for us in any of that. The majority of those allowed to audit are the members of four chartered bodies of accountants. Those bodies have developed testing examination and training programmes. They have established professional rules and guidance on matters such as the integrity and independence of their members. In many instances, these professional requirements meet or exceed the minimum conditions in the directive.
The directive allows professional bodies to be designated as the authorities for approving auditors, which is what we intend to do. In the highly technical area of auditing, it is crucial that there is close involvement of practitioners in setting standards and supervising the profession. The Bill does not specify who the designated professional bodies should be. Instead it lays down criteria under which I can recognise professional bodies.
Schedule 8 sets out the criteria for bodies supervising the conduct of the audit. They must ensure that auditors hold an appropriate qualification, are fit and proper persons, and are subject to adequate rules on professional integrity, independence and technical standards. They must be able to monitor and enforce compliance with the rules; and they must be able to investigate effectively complaints against their members.
Schedule 9 deals with bodies issuing qualifications. The criteria are more precise than those which relate to supervisory bodies. They concern matters such as eligibility to embark on the qualifying course, the standard and content of examinations, and the length and nature of practical training. Both kinds of body will have to satisfy the competition test contained in Schedule 11 to the Bill. Their rules and practices must not be significantly anti-competitive or at least no more than is reasonably justifiable in the light of the purposes of the supervisory system.
The system that I have described so far gives me, as Secretary of State, the responsibility for ensuring that professional bodies meet the necessary requirements. However, Clause 44 and Schedule 10 would allow me to set up a statutory body and delegate to it many of my functions under Part II of the Bill. That is not my present intention. But if this approach were followed at some point in the future, it would still allow the close involvement of practitioners in the running of the profession.
10
I ought to mention one other matter affecting auditors which we propose to add to the Bill by amendment. The large accountancy firms have increasingly offered their audit clients a range of other services. I see no reason to deprive the clients of the benefits they gain from those services; but I think that we need to recognise the concern some people feel about possible conflicts of interest on the part of the auditors. I believe that the appropriate antidote is disclosure, and I therefore propose to take a power to require the fees paid to auditors, or their associates, for other services to be disclosed in company accounts, as audit fees are now. That will give shareholders a fuller basis on which to judge the relationship between the company and its auditors. I would not however intend to apply that provision to small companies.
Part III of the Bill implements the measures I announced in May last year following a review of investigation powers and procedures. The measures amend and extend provisions relating to investigations under the Insurance Companies Act 1982, the Companies Act 1985, the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Financial Services Act 1986. The purpose of those powers is to preserve fair and efficient markets, and following last year's review I concluded that the present range of powers generally worked well; but I also concluded that there was a need to enhance the scope and flexibility of those powers and to clarify some of the provisions. That will speed up investigations and make them more effective while safeguarding, so far as possible, the proper interests of those involved in an investigation.
The provisions will work in three main ways: by adjusting or extending the circumstances in which inspectors may be appointed and in which such appointments may be directed or terminated; by simplifying or enhancing powers to obtain and disclose information; and by enabling us to investigate on behalf of overseas regulators. If your Lordships wish, my noble friend who will be replying to this debate will be able to describe the changes in more detail.
I come now to Clauses 72 to 77 of the Bill, which contain a new investigation power. It enables the Secretary of State to assist overseas regulators in the company law, financial services, and insurance spheres by investigating on their behalf. I wish to dwell on this power for a few moments because it is entirely new. It also illustrates very clearly the way in which the world is moving in the sphere of regulatory co-operation.
Financial markets are becoming more sophisticated and more international. Increasingly, transactions straddle one or more national borders. To unravel a suspected breach of the law regulators frequently need to trace the ramifications of transactions in several countries. The system for enabling that to happen needs to evolve in the light of market developments and experience.
The first step in that evolutionary process has been to enable information to be passed, in confidence, between regulators. That already happens under formal agreements and through informal contacts which the UK has been keen to promote. Although

11
that system works well, it suffers from the fact that one cannot hand over information one does not have. The information can be requested and is often forthcoming on a voluntary basis, perhaps from innocent parties who are willing to help; but if my department receives a request for information which it does not have, then it cannot demand it unless there is some domestic reason to do so. But UK regulators will increasingly rely upon the co-operation of overseas regulators to help investigate breaches of UK laws and requirements, and they need to be in a position to reciprocate.
Clause 72 sets out the circumstances in which the power to investigate on behalf of overseas regulators may be used. Clause 73 and 74 contain the details, which are similar in scope to domestic investigation powers. The power is strong enough to ensure effective regulation while affording adequate safeguards to the innocent.
That proposal is an important step forward. Several overseas regulators are contemplating powers along those lines, and the SEC in Washington already has a power to investigate on behalf of its counterparts overseas. In return for the assistance we offer, we shall look for ever-improving levels of help from our counterparts.
Part IV of the Bill concerns the registration of company charges. The main aim is to reduce the burden on companies who register charges at Companies House. The present system is cumbersome and inflexible. We propose to reduce the amount of documentation that companies must supply to Companies House and to make it easier for companies to update information already on the register.
A second objective is to reduce the task of dealing with charges at Companies House, with a consequent reduction in costs. Staff currently employed on this work will be redeployed elsewhere to cope with the growing workload of the registrar.
Thirdly, we are taking the opportunity to make some essential changes to the system of registration of charges by overseas companies. Court decisions have revealed serious defects which must be put right.
Part V of the Bill contains a variety of further amendments to company law. I will mention only Clause 91, which implements the changes to the rules on the disclosure of interests in shares which I announced in December.
The clause will reduce the threshold at which an interest in shares will have to be disclosed from 5 per cent. to 3 per cent. and will shorten the deadline for disclosure from five days to two days. These steps will greatly improve market transparency. Shareholders will have more information upon which to base their decisions, especially when there is talk of a possible takeover. Some people have argued for stricter disclosure requirements and others for leaving things as they are. I think that the clause strikes the right balance between transparency and avoiding unnecessary burdens on shareholders. These changes will give us tougher national laws on disclosure than any other financial centre.
12
I should mention one other deregulatory measure that we intend to introduce by amendment at a later stage. This is the reform of the ultra vires doctrine which is obsolete in many ways but which can still set traps for the unwary. Our proposals are designed to remove these traps.
I spoke earlier about the Government's attitude to merger control. The two main provisions contained in Part VI of the Bill are designed to reinforce our aim of dealing effectively with threats to competition while otherwise impeding the operation of the market as little as possible.
The new procedure for voluntary prenotification of proposed mergers will offer a formal system with a prescribed timetable. A bidder who chooses to prenotify will have to provide certain prescribed information to the Office of Fair Trading and make the proposal public so that interested third parties can learn of it. But, having done so, he will know that unless he hears to the contrary within four weeks he can go ahead without any possibility of my referring the merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We hope that we will be able to deal with the vast majority of simple cases which raise no competition or other worries in this way.
For those cases which raise problems or which are more complex, there will be powers to seek further information and, if necessary, extend the period for deciding whether to make a reference to the MMC.
Even where mergers raise competition problems, these can sometimes be resolved quite easily by selling off part of the merged business. This is sometimes, perhaps misleadingly, known as plea bargaining, and it occasionally happens now when disposals are included in the proposed merger arrangements. But the present legislation is not well adapted to this. The powers to order disposals arise only after an adverse MMC report and the only sure remedy for a broken promise would be the rather cumbersome one of a reference to the MMC.
The new procedure in the Bill will allow me to accept binding undertakings to divest parts of the merged business as a way of dealing with the possible adverse effects of the merger specified by the Director General of Fair Trading. If these undertakings are then not carried out, I shall be able to enforce them without making a reference, either directly through the courts or by making a suitable order by statutory instrument.
Part VII of the Bill concerns the way in which insolvency law applies to financial markets. If one member of a market defaults, it is vital to prevent a domino effect which could bring down other members. Markets therefore have procedures designed to protect those other members.
These procedures are operated under complex rules, and insolvency law is also complex. If the defaulter is insolvent it will not always be clear how the rules and current insolvency laws interact. Part VII removes that uncertainty by providing that market contracts, and the settlement and default rules relating to them, are not to be invalidated under insolvency law. Insolvency office-holders are not to interfere with settlement or actions taken under default rules. Various specific provisions of

13
insolvency law are to be modified in their application to such matters.
The main markets concerned are investment exchanges and clearing houses recognised under the Financial Services Act 1986. They will be required to meet additional criteria relating to their default rules.
Prudential supervision of market members is designed to prevent defaults occurring. Such defaults are rare. Nevertheless, it is important that default procedures should be soundly based in law. Uncertainty is not in anyone's interest. Our objective is primarily to clarify the effect that most people believe the current law already to have.
Finally, I come to Clause 132, which amends the Financial Services Act 1986 by removing the right of a professional investor to sue under Section 62 if he suffers loss as a result of a breach of the rules made under that Act. Section 62 provides valuable safeguards for private investors but it has been suggested that this provision risked contributing to an excessively litigious atmosphere between professional investment businesses. Such an atmosphere would hinder healthy competition and growth. The definition of "professional investor" is to be included in secondary legislation so that it can be adjusted if necessary in the light of experience and of any changes in the relevant rules.
I have spoken at some length about the individual provisions of the Bill. They will have a major impact on the framework within which enterprise operates. I make no apology for returning to the point that company law is not an end in itself. Its justification lies in the way that it works. That is why it is necessary from time to time to adapt it to reflect the new thinking and to respond to changes in the environment.
The present Bill is not a radical overhaul of the legislation which applies to companies. That would be a formidable task. Our more limited objective is carrying through a set of proposals which we judge to have the highest priority. Many of the provisions are detailed, many are technically complex but many are also designed to lead to a simpler and less burdensome framework for companies themselves.
Most of the proposals have been worked out in consultation with businesses and with practitioners in the accounting and company law fields. We are grateful for the advice we have received. 1 am sure we shall receive further advice and help as the Bill moves into Committee. We want the drafting to embody the policy intentions exactly and without any undesirable side effects. We are already aware of a number of places where government amendments will be needed to achieve the best possible text. We do not claim a monopoly of wisdom in this area and I shall be happy to consider suggestions from noble Lords and outside experts concerning the best way of implementing our proposals.
I have no doubt, however, that the proposals themselves will command your Lordships' general support, and I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Young of Graffham.)
3.19 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for introducing the Bill and taking us through its very detailed provisions. It is, as he said, a very complex Bill, as those of your Lordships who have had the opportunity to read through it during the recess will be aware.
The Bill proposes important amendments to the Companies Act 1985, the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Financial Services Act 1986, the Insolvency Act 1986, and the Policy Holders Protection Act 1975. Not satisfied with that, the Bill proposes some equally substantial amendments to a number of other pieces of legislation, such as the Insurance Companies Act 1982 and the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. All that will make for a good deal of complication and consequential difficulty when we debate the Bill in Committee.
Perhaps worse than all that, there is no coherent theme running through the Bill. It appears as just a jumble of measures thrown randomly together, and bearing very little relation one to another. It is a kind of glorified legislative Lancashire hotpot. There is a reason for all that. And that reason is somewhat disturbing. I shall comment further in a minute. Before doing so I should make clear our general view.
The Bill is to us rather disappointing. It is not objectionable, but it is disappointing. Whatever our views about its various provisions—I shall come to those later—we do not believe that the measure constitutes the major review of company law that we should have liked to see in the run-up to the single market in Europe. In other words, to be blunt, the Bill ducks a number of issues that we regard as being crucial to any serious review of company legislation for the 1990s.
I said that I thought I could understand why the Bill is in Lancashire hotpot form. It is almost certainly due to the way that such legislation is put together. The Government start with a problem. As the Secretary of State announced, two directives exist which must be acted upon, and in due time. In the case of the present Bill, we are already out of time on the seventh Company Law Directive. We understand that a Bill to meet our obligations within the timescale specified in the directive had to be introduced this Session. We shall be discussing the question of the commencement implications of the Bill when we debate Clause 139 in Committee.
Given the imperative of the necessity to legislate, is it really necessary to tag a lot of unrelated bits and pieces on to what should be a quite simple and clean piece of legislation? That is what the Government have done. This process has for me, I am afraid, a kind of:, dreary familiarity. I recognise the pattern from other Bills that have emanated from the DTI, and with which I have had to deal from these Benches. The procedure is this: the Government start off with a directive, a convention or other international agreement. They then have a cast-iron case in the Cabinet Legislative Committee for a slot—I am using air traffic control language—to accommodate a DTI Bill in the Session.

15
Having achieved that important objective, they then look around for other things that they can put into their Bill. Obviously all kinds of bits and pieces present themselves. The result, more or less inevitably, is the kind of Bill that your Lordships are being invited to consider this afternoon.
There are three clear disadvantages to this process. All three are in evidence today. First, the appropriate timing of changes in domestic company law, or law that can reasonably be considered to run alongside company law, and therefore suitable for a companies Bill, may not fit with the timing inherent in the directive. For example, the part of the Bill which the Secretary of State described on the registration of charges has appeared, so far as I am aware, before the result of the study being conducted by Professor Diamond into exactly this problem. That is manifestly absurd.
Secondly, the department may not have fully formulated its proposals on a number of issues which are of current concern. But, of course, it cannot afford to let the opportunity slip for including those issues in a Bill when it may be quite a long time before another Bill can be introduced. That leads generally to large shoals of government amendments—a process with which your Lordships are now, I am afraid, very familiar. Even today, on Second Reading, the Secretary of State has announced some amendments.
Even worse, a number of clauses have been inserted into the Bill which allow the Government to change the resulting Act by statutory instrument, if they find that they do not like it. Examples of this phenomenon occur in Clauses 18, 24, 108, 122 and 125. Any Government which give themselves powers to change primary legislation by statutory instrument must be treated with the maximum of suspicion.
Another problem arises where the department may know that it wants something but is not entirely clear exactly what it is or how it can be formulated into legislation. Nothing is put in the Bill when it is originally published but an announcement is made that certain parts of the legislation are not yet available and will at some unspecified time be made available in the form of government amendments. As the Secretary of State said, that is the case in respect of the ultra vires provisions which will come later. The Bill to which your Lordships are today being invited to give a Second Reading is therefore incomplete. It will be completed when the Government have got their act together.
I hope 1 reflect the general view of the House when I say that this situation is, to put it at its mildest, far from satisfactory. The Government should make up their mind what it is they want and then put forward the legislation designed to achieve their objective. It is fair enough that the original Bill should be amended as the result of parliamentary debate. But the Government should not waste our time by asking us to debate what are only tentative suggestions. Nor should they be allowed to make it all up as they go along. My own view, for what it is worth, is that we should today be debating on Second Reading Parts I
16
and II of the Bill. There is a directive, and we have an obligation to write it into our law.
The remaining matters which fall within the Bill should be subsumed in a second piece of legislation, or more if necessary. If that upsets the Cabinet's legislative programme, all I can say is that it should produce less legislation. If that were to be the case and we were only dealing with Parts I and II, we would be assured of a relatively easy passage. But we have to put the directives into UK company law. There are only three matters of principle on which the Opposition need to be convinced—that was before the Secretary of State made his announcement today that consultancy fees would be introduced as a separate amendment to the Bill—and I shall give them seriatim.
The first relates to exemptions for small and medium-sized companies. It has always seemed to me that the privilege—and it is a privilege—of limited liability should be accompanied by the obligation to present to shareholders and creditors, but, above all, creditors, as much information as is reasonable, and that there should be no exception to that rule. I am not of course referring to the so-called river companies set up by the Conservative Party to gather in donations to the party. No doubt when the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, comes to speak he will refer to that point. I am talking about the general principle of companies with limited liability. I believe that we need to be convinced that the Government are right.
Secondly, it is surely time to get rid of the notion that banks need special treatment in the disclosure of transfers to inner reserve. I have never quite seen the point of allowing banks—this goes back to the 1948 Act—to avoid the obligation to show a true and fair view in their accounts and I cannot see it now.
Our third and last point of principle as regards the supervision of the auditing profession is that we would opt for what is known as the "General Medical Council formula" whereby the Secretary of State should delegate his powers to a statutory body. At the moment that is an option. We would like that option to be exercised. Had the Bill stopped there, your Lordships' task would have been reasonably straightforward. But of course it goes on, and the rest of the Bill is a bit of a curate's egg, with perhaps evidence of a mild salmonella infection.
Part III deals with investigations. On the whole we welcome the powers which Part III provides and we understand fully the Government's reason for bringing them forward. However, I should sound a note of caution. The mere fact of an investigation being announced, or leaked, can severely damage the reputation of individuals involved, particularly where, as in one recent case, a prominent individual is named. If reports are not to be published it seems only right that the Government should make sure that there is no residual damage of that kind if the investigation does not reveal any malpractice. I think that that is a point of natural justice.
Part IV is very technical. It does not raise for us great points of principle. I should say only that it is odd that Professor Diamond's review of securities over property other than land is not available to us before Part IV is to be discussed.

17
It is Part V, which as the noble Lord the Secretary of State said deals with other amendments to the 1985 Companies Act, which is to my mind disappointingly short. That is a part of the Bill which we shall try to expand. We believe that the time has come to address in statute the matter of non-executive directors; of audit committees and of compensation committees composed of non-executive directors; and to set the remuneration of executive directors and senior executives. We shall be raising those matters at Committee stage.
My noble friend Lord Peston will say more about competition policy when he winds up from these Benches so I shall confine myself to two fairly brief points. First, we welcome the intent of the prenotification arrangements, which we have argued for in the past. However, we believe that they should be mandatory rather than voluntary. There is a clear difference of opinion between us and the Government on that issue.
Secondly, we should like to see the criteria of Section 84 of the Fair Trading Act, which govern the Monopolies and Mergers Commission decisions on any reference, both expanded to take account of the new European dimension and made applicable to the Director General of Fair Trading's recommendations to the Secretary of State and to the Secretary of State's decision to make a merger reference. At the moment both in law and in practice we have two different standards. That cannot make sense.
In relation to insolvency, again we recognise the Secretary of State's argument that there is a problem in financial markets. But we have doubts, which we shall be airing in Committee, about the wisdom of overriding a general law of insolvency for one particular category of business. That is something about which we shall wish to be convinced when we come to the Committee stage.
More importantly for the financial markets—and this point relates to Part VIII of the Bill—we shall wish to explore whether your Lordships would welcome a more far-reaching revision of the Financial Services Act. For instance, I am by no means persuaded that the draft new SIB conduct of business rules avoid the bureaucratic pitfalls of their predecessors. Perhaps what is required is to give to the SIB the ability to lay down general principles which do not necessarily have the force of law. That facility is not available to it under the Act, not least because of the difficulties associated with Section 62 of the Act, which is to be amended in the Bill.
It may be that those problems are too difficult to resolve by opposition amendments, so I put to the Government the possibility that they might look further at the matter and see what they can do. In exploring that point we shall also be exploring whether it is not now time for the Takeover Panel to be brought within the ambit of the Act.The shadow of the thirteenth company law directive, designed to harmonise takeover procedures throughout the Community, is anyway beginning to fall across our domestic arrangements in that area.
All that I have said makes for a very meaty Committee stage. Meaty it will be. If in addition we
18
are to have the usual or more than the usual quota of government amendments, we are in for a long stint. I can say for the Opposition that we shall get through the business as expeditiously as possible because we do not wish to hold up the Bill. But if the Government produce a Bill with a Long Title as ambitious as this one they must expect some substantial amendments in Committee. They will get them; because above all—and this is the main point which I wish to make—it is what the Bill leaves out rather than what it puts in that is the real bone of contention between us and the Government.
We believe that this should have been the time for a major reconstruction of the Financial Services Act to make the regulatory system for the protection of investors stronger at the top but more flexible underneath so that markets can operate properly but investors are properly protected. That is a point which I argued to your Lordships at boring length when the Bill was before the House in the summer of 1986.
This should also have been the moment to set the course for competition policy that would remove the confusion of aims that still exists in spite of the glossy brochures which have come from the DTI and in spite of the recent intervention of the Secretary of State for the Environment and, in addition, that would result in a clear definition of the spheres of action of the domestic and European competition authorities.
Thirdly, but perhaps most importantly because here we look into the future, this should have been the opportunity to set the legislative framework for what in our view will be the next phase in the development of the governance of companies. That is the proper involvement of employees as partners in the management of and in the destiny of the companies in which they gain their livelihoods and whose livelihoods they gain. I make that last point with great emphasis, not only because of its importance but because I believe we are beginning to see the glimmering of a change of view in the matter.
It may be that informed opinion is starting to move and is being stimulated to move by our closer association with our European partners and our understanding that our partners in the Community mean business when they talk about "Social Europe". We understand that the Prime Minister disapproves of it and that the Government have set their faces against it, but if that is to be the next major political change in the organisation of company structure it has to be with Europe and it should be a social Europe. Capitalism in one country will disappear in the course of time. The next move will be towards a greater involvement of employees in the decisions which affect their working lives. That shift will be wholly to our liking.
There is no doubt that that development will involve some major changes in company legislation. Those changes could run along the lines of the European Company Statute against which the Government have set their faces. The changes could combine some of the ideas which have been generated domestically in co-operative ventures or in the United States in employee stock option plans. All such changes, however they manifest themselves

19
when we come to adopt them as practical realities, will require substantive modifications to company law. I can only say that it is a matter for great opposition disappointment that the Government have not grasped this opportunity to take the lead in what will most certainly be a major development, and perhaps the major development, in the microeconomic structure of the 1990s.
The Bill could have put Britain in the forefront of progress. It has not done so. That is where its failure is most glaring and most regrettable.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I could not but feel a certain amount of sympathy with the Secretary of State as he presented to your Lordships this very inadequate Bill, which has been received with the poignant and pungent Lancastrian allusions of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I felt some sympathy when I recalled the shower of problems on proposed mergers and takeovers between companies in different countries with which he has recently been deluged. However, those twinges of sympathy for the Secretary of State were diluted when I recalled my deep disappointment at the failure of this Government to take the opportunity of rescuing industry and their advisers on company law from the many unnecessary complications of much company legislation that has been produced in the past 150 years without adequate regard to the international developments in technology that have occurred in industry.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has pointed out, the delegation to the Secretary of State of so many powers in the Bill seems to indicate a desire on the part of the Government to remove large portions of company legislation from the scrutiny of Parliament. This desire, as it appears, to legislate more and more by statutory instrument certainly raises suspicion. Parliamentary control is greatly diminished under this Bill. It may be that the Secretary of State will be able to indicate briefly the reason for that remarkable development, having regard in particular to his statement to your Lordships this afternoon that state intervention should be at a minimum.
I do not propose to speak at any length on Parts I, II and III of this Bill. Many of the points will be raised by my noble friend Lord Ezra later in the debate and many noble Lords who are more skilled in the arts of accountancy and City financial matters than I am will be dealing with these matters. However, in passing I should like to emphasise, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has done, that Section 12 and Schedule 5 concerning exemptions from accounting provisions for small and medium-sized companies seem extremely disappointing. Prima facie, they seem to add to the problems of small companies rather than reduce them. However, I understand that the Government have already decided to take another look at the regulations for these companies, so I shall reserve further comments until the Committee stage.
20
I note also that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will be speaking later this afternoon. I am sure that he will make further use of the excellent parliamentary brief that I have received from Judith Vincent of the CBI legal department. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for shortening my speech still more by his reference to the further consideration that he proposes to give to the recommendations of the Institute of Directors, of which I am a member and a member of the management committee of its Welsh branch. If I may say so, I am also indebted to my friend Mr. Philip Goldenberg for the assistance given to me on many of the following matters at very short notice during the Recess.
Part IV is a substantial and useful rewrite of technical provisions relating to the registration of charges. I should like to mention just two sections. I should be grateful if at some time the Secretary of State could clarify the significance and intended scope of the substituted Section 397(5) to the Companies Act 1985 in Section 80 of this Bill at the top of page 75. I have had considerable difficulty in understanding what it means.
Clause 81 continues to place the obligation to register the charge on the company giving the charge rather than the beneficiary of the security under the charge. In practice this seems to be a rather strange procedure, as it is unusual for a lender to rely on the borrower registering the charges.
Part V deals with a miscellany of amendments to the law. I shall briefly mention four points. So far as concerns Clause 92 relating to the annual and consolidation accounts, the explanatory and financial memorandum to this Bill states that the main purpose of the Bill is:
"to implement the European Community Seventh Company Law Directive on consolidated accounts of … 1983".
As the Government will be aware, there was an earlier directive—No. 660 of 1978—which, inter alia, was directed toward reducing the administrative burdens on small and medium-sized companies. I regret that I have not been able to check whether this Bill has had regard to that earlier directive, but perhaps the Secretary of State could arrange at some time to give an indication of what has happened to it.
As for Clause 91, which deals with the disclosure of interests in shares, it is my view that to allow these provisions to be altered by secondary legislation is quite unacceptable.
Having regard to the Single European Act, it seems desirable to reconsider how far the definition of a company in Section 735 of the 1985 Act needs to be amplified so as to give it a Community dimension. Serious problems have arisen about the position of United Kingdom companies, in particular those offering bank facilities, which desire to do business with banking organisations in countries outside the Community. This matter was discussed at length at the Heads of Government meeting in Rhodes last December and I believe that some decision was taken. I say that with some trepidation because in a distant corner of this House I see the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who has returned to our deliberations. I personally would very much like to welcome him back again. At Rhodes the view was expressed that

21
the Commission wished to consider the Community as a partner in world trade rather than a fortress against it and that a definition of, as it were, an EC company operating outside the Community would be desirable.
A similar problem has arisen, for example, in the motor industry where United Kingdom companies have voluntary trade restraint agreements with Japanese companies; as it has in recent proposals on procurement in the water sector. It seems to me to be worth giving further consideration to removing anomalies arising in the international general trading activities of United Kingdom companies with companies outside the European Community.
Part VI, which deals with mergers, is of course the most sensitive part of the Bill from the standpoint of United Kingdom industry. Some proposals are an improvement, in particular the prior clearance procedure and the formal enactment of the provision (which has hitherto operated informally with the Office of Fair Trading) that a partial divestiture can be imposed as a condition of the approval of a merger.
There is also a useful provision prohibiting the acquisition of shares following the announcement of a reference. That follows a well publicised recent case. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has emphasised, there is a total lack of clarity as to the Government's policy in this area. Nobody involved in this field is certain of what is the Government's policy.
I should like to draw attention at this stage to four general matters relating to mergers and competition law which should be the subject of further consideration. The Government must decide, particularly in the run-up to the single European market, whether they are looking primarily at the European or the domestic market when making their decisions and recommendations. Also the regional dimension must not be overlooked. Indeed, Brussels seems to have a greater appreciation of the problems of the regions and of the need for a clear regional policy than do the Government.
At a mechanical level, we need an integrated set of rules so that a takeover bid, and in particular one involving companies in more than one member state, does not become merely a haphazard obstacle race between the regulation of competition on the one hand and the regulation of takeovers on the other.
Lastly in this context, the recent Irish Distillers case pointed up that the United Kingdom Takeover Panel did not have an adequate Irish dimension, even though there is a unified Stock Exchange, including London and Dublin, and that, more fundamentally, it would be better if this kind of matter were put on a statutory basis.
It would have helped UK industry and its advisers to include in this part of the Bill a reference to some of the policy matters and recent decisions of the Commission and also some of the accepted general findings of the European Court.
I should perhaps at this stage declare a personal interest. Since about 1960 I have been professionally involved with problems arising with companies and
22
organisations with research and development activities under the Rome Treaty in the fields of competition law and merger policy, in particular those involving Articles 85 and 86. The charm of being involved professionally in that area is that of course one can never be proved wrong for a period of about 25 years!
The Minister has from time to time publicly explained the Government's merger and competition law policies. The European Community Law Bulletin recently issued by the solicitors, McKenna and Company, has reminded me of the Minister's address to the Stock Exchange Conference for Industry on 27th October 1988. Perhaps I may refer to what he said then. The noble Lord, Lord Young, explained the Government's merger. He suggested that the starting point was—surprise, surprise— that the market should be allowed to get on with it. He said that interference should occur only when a bid would not be in the best interests of the economy. He stressed that his responsibilities are for the UK, not Europe nor the wider world, but it is clear that as the internal market becomes a reality the DTI will increasingly take into account competition and potential competition at the European level. That is one of the main themes of my address in relation to this part: that even on defence matters—certainly on financial matters and merger and competition law matters—the European dimension should be far more the concern of the Government.
The bulletin continues:
"Lord Young's new exposition of the Government's policy, which continues to be that references are primarily made on competition grounds, has not made it any easier to predict when references will be made".
But perhaps the noble Lord will be bringing his public announcements of government policies in this field more up to date when he addresses that vast concourse of expectant United Kingdom directors of companies at the Institute of Directors' conference at the Albert Hall on 28th February.
Whatever will happen then, I am strongly of the opinion that the Government will be acting helpfully to directors of UK companies to try to unravel the increasing jungle of company law by introducing some broader principles relating to company activities in the context of European Community practice. At least some of the well-known matters that have been decided by the Commission, and decided by the courts, should be adumbrated in this Bill, perhaps in a schedule.
I had hoped that the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, would be speaking this afternoon. If I may say so, she has achieved international repute while chairing the European Community Legal Affairs Committee as a Member of the European Parliament. I had the privilege of hearing her speak when I was the guest and she was one of the principal speakers of the colloquium last year in Brussels on merger control in the EC. That was a most useful colloquium convened by seven law firms from seven different countries with offices in Brussels. The United Kingdom law firm concerned was Allen and Overy, whose partner, Michael Reynolds, was a principal speaker. The colloquium was chaired by an old friend, the Honourable Sir Gordon Slynn, Queen's Counsel,

23
then an Advocate General of the European Court of Justice but now the recently appointed judge in that court. Its proceedings have of course been published under the title Merger Control in the EEC and no doubt the Secretary of State and his advisers have seen the contents of it.
Briefly, some of the points I propose to raise at Committee stage will be the following. An amendment of Section 2 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 to cover competition in a Community context is highly desirable. It would have been helpful to include in the Bill the block exemptions from competition rules of the Community granted on 30th November last year to certain classes of franchising and knowhow agreements. Broad references to joint ventures relating to research and development, in particular those leading to technical and economic progress of benefit to the customers, should be indicated.
Perhaps I may say that on joint venture agreements I am somewhat surprised that the Government have not yet taken the opportunity to assist companies' legal advisers by reference to the scope and capacity of joint ventures referred to in The Times of 14th January last week at page 19. It stated:
"The Prime Minister's conversion to cross-border industrial ventures within the European Economic Community"
has now arrived.
Another matter which is worth consideration at the Committee stage is whether a section should be included in the Bill to remind companies of some of the broad undertakings to which the United Kingdom Monopolies and Mergers Commission expects companies to adhere.
I do not propose in dealing with Part VII to say any more than this. I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he could arrange to let me know in due course whether the following directives of the Community have been accepted by the Government and, if so, whether their provisions have been included in this Bill. I do not expect to have an answer this afternoon. However, there is a directive on employee rights as secured creditors on insolvency which was adopted in 1980 and implemented in 1983. The second directive on employee rights on transfer of undertakings was adopted in 1977 and apparently implemented in 1979. I apologise that in the short time available for consultation I have been unable to check these matters. I understand that the Government may advise that this Bill is not a vehicle for introducing directives of that order.
Perhaps I may conclude by echoing the suggestion as to government policy to be found in this week's Economist. In concluding its first leading article, the Economist states that in this time when there are so many proposed reshufflings of industries,
"The Government needs to do just two things: make sure that competition is preserved at a European level, and resist the temptation to see national ownership of arms-makers as vital to security and to industrial strength".
I hope to raise similar matters in relation to competition law merger on the fair trading Acts later at the Committee stage. I agree with the noble Lord,
24
Lord Williams of Elvel, that there are many matters to be considered in further detail at Committee stage.
4 p.m.
Lord Benson: My Lords, in speaking to the Second Reading, I hope that I reflect fairly the views of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales as I am a member. In so far as the Bill affects the profession, we generally support the broad sweep of it. But there is a mass of complexity in it and many of the clauses will require some amendment to make them work satisfactorily. Those will be better dealt with in Committee rather than mentioning them this afternoon.
I have but three points to raise. The first is that in the past 20 years we have had no fewer than six company Bills of one kind or another. There is an ever-present threat of more legislation. The danger is that boards of directors and professional firms of accountants are becoming drowned in detail which is self-defeating. Once the Bill is out of the way, I hope that the Government will be able to introduce some measure of restraint so that we have a little peace for some years thereafter.
The second point is really a corollary of the first. We are troubled by the weight and complexity of the regulatory regime which in future will affect auditors. This will be extremely costly, and that cost will eventually have to be passed on to industry and it will affect particularly the smaller firms. As a result of the Bill a great many rules and regulations will have to be drafted. I hope that the Government will bear in mind the painful experiences of the Financial Services Act and avoid the enormous weight and complexity of the bureaucracy which that involved and which this Bill may also involve unless great care is exercised.
There is one omission from the Bill which I feel justified in raising at this point: that is that self-regulatory organisations and the Securities and Investments Board are now essential parts of our administration. Under the Financial Services Act they were granted immunity from actions for damages or claims by litigious people in the exercise of their supervisory role imposed by the Government. The reasons they were given that indemnity were clearly expressed in another place on 11th June 1986 by Mr. Michael Howard.
Under Clause 27 of this Bill, the professional bodies will have to apply to become self-regulatory organisations. They will have to supervise company audit work, which is the mainstream of the professional accountant's business. To that extent the professional bodies will be on all fours with the present regulatory authorities and the SIB. It is only right that they should receive the same measure of indemnity. At present there is no such indemnity under the Bill and I hope that the Government will introduce an appropriate clause at Committee stage.
For the removal of doubt, this is not at all an indemnity against bad auditing, inefficient or incompetent professional work. It is only a request that professional bodies should be put on the same basis as the existing self-regulatory organisations so that they are protected in carrying out the

25
supervisory role imposed on them by the Government. That is not a small matter of procedure. The claims that can and no doubt will be made in a litigious society against the regulatory authorities are likely to be substantial and could run into hundreds of millions of pounds. It will not be possible to find the right quality of people to take on the supervisory role if they are exposed to such risks without some protection. I hope that the Government will smile upon the point that I have made.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Benson, who has just resumed his seat, and say that I have been asked by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland to say that it fully endorses his comments in relation to the protection of the recognised supervisory bodies of auditors. I hope it will he taken on board, at least on this occasion, that both institutes are speaking with the same mind.
I should also like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, in quoting the interesting speech made by the Secretary of State at the Stock Exchange in October last year. He said:
"Any mergers policy must provide industry and commerce with a clear and predictable framework within which to conduct the merger and takeover activity that is an important part of the operation of the market. Our policy, far from being the thing of shreds and patches its detractors would claim, does show a remarkable degree of consistency."
I am not sure that the City would endorse that comment. The City very much welcomed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, on that occasion. I realise the complexity of some of the decisions that he has to make with references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Nevertheless, the Bill does nothing further to clarify and achieve a degree of consistency in these matters.
However, there are several items which are very welcome in the Bill. One is the obvious desire of the noble Lord's department to expedite the proceedings of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. On several recent references the Minister has laid down that there should be a reporting period within three months or six months where there are difficult and complex issues to be considered. That relieves some of the continued uncertainty which was a feature of references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the past which held up very important decisions in which shareholders' interests were very much involved. I should like to compliment the Minister on injecting within the Bill some degree of urgency in getting some of these decisions made. The only complication I see is that in all these major merger decisions now, the EC has entered the field with a formidable organisation making its assessment of the effect on competition of proposed mergers and takeovers. I suspect that that might frustrate the desire of the Minister to achieve rapid decisions. I hope that that is not so and that he will be able to lean on his former colleague at the EC to ensure some consistency in decisions at least concerning the time scale.
In Part VI there are provisions for mergers and acquisitions. I do not propose to speak on any other
26
aspect of the Bill because I am not competent so to do. I find Clause 97 in Part VI completely acceptable, which is the provision for proposed mergers within six months. Clause 98 enables the Secretary of State to accept undertakings to divest part of the merged business. I thought that that was already a feature of existing practice. I can recall that the Guinness acquisition was only cleared by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission when the company agreed to dispose of certain brands of whisky.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for reminding your Lordships' House that these provisions were the subject of a Blue Paper, as we called it, on competition policy which we issued some time ago. The present law is that it is possible for the Monoplies and Mergers Commission to make these undertakings, but it is not possible for the Office of Fair Trading. Our proposed provisions in the present Bill are to give effect to those provisions which we brought out about a year ago, and none other: to give powers to the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading and to myself as Secretary of State at the time to make undertakings to prevent matters going to the MMC.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am pleased to have that clarification. Clause 99 is sensible and agreeable. Clause 100:
"prohibits parties to a merger situation from acquiring, during the period following a merger reference".
I presume that that closes the door on acquisition of Scottish and Newcastle shares by Elders following the decision that there should be a mergers reference.
Clause 102 makes interesting reading. The clause
"makes it an offence to provide false or misleading information to the Secretary of State, the Director or the Commission in connection with their statutory functions".
I wonder how that will operate. Noble Lords may recall that in the famous Guinness takeover both contending parties gave certain undertakings in the prospectus and in the submissions to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that the headquarters of the company would be in Scotland. I wonder whether the Secretary of State has in mind that kind of false or misleading information submitted when acquisitions are made and undertakings are given in order to make the bids more attractive. Will such a case be covered under the clause?
Clause 103 sensibly makes reference to the charging of fees in connection with references. I believe that that will not cause undue hardship to any of the contending parties in a contested takeover, especially when one considers the fees paid to merchant banks, public relations officers, lawyers and others in order to support the bid. I am worried about the amount of money which is spent on lobbying, public relations and advertising by contending parties in the field of mergers and acquisitions. Their representations are made with their powerful public relations machine on Ministers. We do not lobby judges when they must make important decisions in law. I should like to place the Minister above the battle and free him from the political pressures which exist during a large

27
contested merger. It is a bad system. Recently a large company involved in this situation confessed to me that last year it gave £100,000 to the Conservative Party. This is an unhealthy situation. I do not in any way suggest that this influences the Minister. He should always be above the battle of contending bidders. I am sure that he would welcome freedom from the political pressures involved in major acquisitions. I speak with knowledge of the power of the Tartan Army which regularly descends from Edinburgh whenever a Scottish company is involved.
There is only one area in which I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel: it is in giving statutory power to the takeover panel. The issue was debated at length during the passage of the Financial Services Bill. I believe that the experience gained following that Bill has enhanced the status of the takeover panel without giving it the necessary statutory backing. It is on that issue that I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.
While digesting the Bill during the Recess, I received representations from the Scottish legal fraternity which is almost as formidable as the Scottish chartered accountants. It seeks clarification on several matters. The first concerns insolvency in relation to the settlement and clearing systems on financial markets, including the Stock Exchange. While we accept the general objective of preserving the integrity of the financial markets, it is difficult on this highly technical matter to know whether the protection provided for these markets—involving as it does a quite substantial distortion of the pari passu system of distribution which is a central feature of insolvency law—has not gone too far at the expense of the ordinary creditors in the event of a default or consequent failure of a market participant. I should like the Minister to consider the question of balance and the protection of the ordinary creditor in relation to a default.
I turn to the strengthening of the range of powers available to inspectors in investigations under the Companies Act and the breach of confidence which may arise with the banks. I know that during investigations one does not wish to be frustrated by the secrecy provisions of the banks when one feels that there is just cause for such an investigation. However, I wonder whether the recommendations of the Jack Committee, which is at present considering the matter, are being anticipated. It may be advisable to take their advice into account.
I should like the Minister and his advisers to consider the implications of the Bill in relation to the floating charges in Scotland. Perhaps we can return to those technical matters at a later stage of the Bill.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I recognised the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, of how a Bill of this size comes to be before us. I sat through many Cabinet meetings on Queen's Speeches, and he described the situation correctly. One finds a slot for a Bill and hangs everything else on to it. However, I disagree with the noble Lord because I do not believe that the Bill is any the worse
28
for that. Much needs to be done and my noble friend has succeeded in putting a great deal into the Bill. I have a suspicion that many noble Lords will have a happy time during Committee.
I wish to make only three brief points. First, I welcome the merger changes contained in the legislation, and I welcome the philosophy behind them. A short time ago there was a feeling that more radical change was necessary. They were changes such as altering the burden of proof and putting it on those who wish to merge companies and making people prove the advantages which they were asserting would arise. I am delighted that my noble friend has resisted those changes and that we have before us a number of sensible modifications to the law. I welcome them.
Some years ago one may have felt apprehensive that the general tide of merger and acquisition was having the undesirable effect of reducing the level of competition in a number of areas. In his opening speech my noble friend made reference to the fact that one has seen a ferment of new business activity arising in a number of ways. There has been an enormous growth in the venture capital movement. He gave the House the figures for the growth in new companies. There has been a growing tide in management buy-outs which have led to many desirable hivings off and demerging of companies. The result has been that, while there certainly has been the creation of larger groups which will compete effectively on a multinational scale, as there must be of necessity particularly as we approach the unified Market, one has also seen what used to be called "the invaders". They are the new companies which come in from the bottom and challenge methods, products and processes, so keeping alive the pressures of competition.
In these circumstances it would be undesirable to lose the flexibility that the present law gives on the control of mergers. Flexibility is essential if one is to serve the needs of a dynamic and rapidly changing economy. I find it difficult to agree with those who complain that the present system lacks certainty. The only way to achieve certainty would be to deprive my noble friend of the flexibility which he must have. With the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, I welcomed very much what my noble friend said to the conference in the City in October. I welcomed the message in the Blue Paper published last March. I welcome these provisions in the Bill.
Clause 97 speeds up the process of clearing mergers with the pre-notification procedure. That is sensible. Clause 98 will allow the Secretary of State to accept divestment undertakings. Had it been in force earlier that could well have avoided some of the major Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiries, such as those into the mergers of British Telecom with Mitel and British Airways with British Caledonian. Both mergers could probably have been dealt with by sensible undertakings being given in advance.
There is another desirable effect. These clauses will shift the balance away from the commission and on to the Office of Fair Trading and so accelerate the process of desirable mergers and avoid the cost of full-blown inquiries.

29
I welcome also the power to charge fees. I was somewhat surprised to receive among my papers today a blast from the CBI, which takes the view that this ought to be part of the costs of regular policing and met by the state. I disagree. It is absolutely right that those who initiate these questionable mergers which will involve investigation—I say "questionable" merely in the sense that they raise the question as to whether they should be allowed—should be charged such fees. I have a great deal of sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, when he said that, when one considers the amount paid now to the merchant banks and public relations consultants, modest fees paid for the costs of policing seem reasonable.
I also welcome the provision in Clause 99 to allow private individuals and private concerns to initiate proceedings for enforcing undertakings, rather than leaving that to the public authorities. Therefore, this all adds up to a series of sensible, pragmatic adjustments to help the competitive process in the United Kingdom and to shift some of the costs of policing mergers on to those who initiate them.
As regards company law, there is a mass of detail and no doubt we shall be able to debate that in Committee. I ought to declare my interest as chairman of a number of companies, including a major mutual life assurance company. I have only one question for my noble friend to answer. It refers to one further possible change which is not in the Bill but about which there appears to have been some inspired press comment in the past few days. The press reports that the Government are looking at so-called rights of pre-emption which are embodied in Sections 89 to 96 of the Companies Act 1985. I am sure that the House is well aware that the right of pre-emption enables existing shareholders of a company to decide whether the issue of shares for cash at a particular price may reasonably be offered to third parties. Shares issued to existing holders on a pro rata basis reserve their share of the equity and do not dilute their shareholding. However, an issue for less than full value to third parties must result in a transfer of some part of the rights of existing shareholders to those third parties.
There has been a suggestion that there are some within Government who see this right of pre-emption as restricting the growth of new shareholding and therefore going against the aim of wider share ownership. However, I question that. I have seen no evidence to suggest that where shares are to be offered at a full market price the company has been unable, if it wishes, to widen its share register by inviting subscription from third parties. The pre-emption rights currently conferred by the Act were introduced to satisfy the requirements of the European Second Company Law Directive. I was therefore mildly disturbed to read the suggestion that it might be amended. Accordingly, I ask the Government, perhaps through my noble friend's reply, to state their policy on this point.
Finally, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Benson, said about the Financial Services Act. I want to make a few general remarks about the dangers of overregulation. I speak primarily from the point of view of the life assurance companies. It is now clear to
30
many in the life assurance business that the Financial Services Act is having many consequences which were far removed from those in anyone's minds, least of all the Government's, when the Bill went through Parliament. The intention of the Act was, of course, admirable. It was to give consumers a better deal, partly by imposing firmer regulation on brokers and agents, partly by requiring better disclosure of commissions, and partly by obliging a broker or agent to decide whether to be a tied representative or an independent intermediary and to make clear to his client which he is. This is the so-called polarity principle.
However, I have to tell the House that there has been no discernible effect so far other than to have led to a major reduction in the number of independent intermediaries, large numbers of whom have felt that the burdens imposed by the Act and by the regulatory bodies have made it impossible for them to continue as independent intermediaries. I see that my noble friend Lord Elton is speaking later in the debate and he may have something to say about that as he is the distinguished chairman of FIMBRA, which is the financial intermediaries' regulatory body.
There has been a considerable growth in the number of tied agents, who, of course, offer the products of only one company. There has been a substantial increase in the costs of all companies in complying with the legislation and there has been a significant diversion of effort away from market and product development and increased efficiency into such matters as rewriting product promotion material in order to comply with the new laws and rejigging elaborate computer programmes. In my own company, we estimate that at least six months' work by the entire data processing team was necessary simply to comply with the Financial Services Act and the regulations that stem from it.
The end result has been increased costs which can only be passed on to the consumer. It is emerging already in higher commissions being paid to independent intermediaries and tied agents and, in consequence, lower returns to policy holders. It has also been suggested that in the longer term it may lead to a substantial reduction in competition between life assurance companies as the smaller companies find themselves unable to survive in the new regime.
None of that was intended, but it is happening. In the life assurance industry the words "deregulation" and "lesser control" and some of the words used by my noble friend in his opening speech—"keeping Government intervention to a minimum", "a simpler and less burdensome framework for companies", "avoiding undesirable side-effects"—ring pretty hollow for those who are seeking to run our country's biggest savings institutions—the life assurance companies.
I conclude, therefore, by offering my noble friend a word of advice. There was once a king of Sparta who, fearful of forgetting a perceived danger, instructed one of his attendants to stand at his shoulder and periodically murmur into his ears, "Sire, remember the Athenians". Actually, it was not enough because, as we know, Sparta was defeated in

31
the war, but it at least was an effort. As my noble friend faces in the subsequent stages of this Bill demands for still tighter controls or more regulation, I hope he will have at his shoulder an assistant private secretary in his department who will at regular intervals say to him, "Sire, remember the Financial Services Act." It may not have quite the Thucydidean ring of the earlier warning, but I hope it will be a good deal more effective.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I first—I hope provisionally—express my regrets to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, if I am not in my place when he comes to reply. Regrettably I have a long-standing engagement to speak in Essex this evening and, although I hope to be here, I apologise in advance if I am not able to be present.
I regret perhaps even more fundamentally the fact that neither in the introduction by the Secretary of State nor in the Bill itself can I find, as my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel said earlier on, any reference to the rights of employees in companies. This to me glaring gap in the Bill, and indeed in accompanying legislation generally, derives from the curious assumption that a company is composed wholly and exclusively of shareholders—those who have invested their money or who, more usually, have acquired certain financial assets in the company. They are typically people who either do not know where the company is or what products or services it offers to the community: people to whom, as my noble friend Lord Williams reminded us this afternoon, have been given the quite astonishing advantage of limited liability. That is an advantage by comparison with which any immunities hitherto valued by trade unions pale into total insignificance.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has very aptly reminded us of the advice that we were given earlier this afternoon. I echo what he said in praying that the Secretary of State will at all times in thinking of companies remember the employees. British company law, in contrast with the company law of many other countries, accords no right whatever to the general run of employees in decision-making, and equally it imposes no obligations on them. The noble Lord, Lord Young, reminded us of that this afternoon when he said:
"decisions on mergers should he left to shareholders".
As I said, they are the people who invest their money and we are told that they are the only ones who are competent to make decisions about the future of these enterprises. It was partly to seek to repair this defect that work people themselves originally combined into trade unions which would give them the ability to express a view about the activities and the actions of their companies.
More recently, as my noble friend Lord Williams has reminded us, unions have been taking a close interest in newer methods of conducting the affairs of companies—indeed, in industrial democracy—stimulated by developments in companies and in company law in other countries, notably in Germany, where mitbestimmung is a central pillar of
32
company law. Similar rights are widely recognised elsewhere in Europe and are recognised too, as we have been reminded this afternoon, in initiatives taken by the European Commission. But I note with regret that while the Bill seeks to give effect to Directives 7 and 8, there is no reflection whatever as yet of those European initiatives.
The view that work people are just assets to be bought and sold is seen most clearly in their treatment when companies are subject to hostile takeovers. In the last couple of years one-tenth of the assets in UK quoted companies have changed hands as a result of mergers or, more usually, contested and hostile takeovers covering something like ½ million employees.
I am by no means opposed to mergers, and perhaps we should do more to encourage them or to encourage valuable ones which have some industrial logic as opposed to short-term financial gains to shareholders and directors. There may well be a strong case for restructuring the European electronics and electrical engineering industries. But bids and counter bids, plots and counter plots, predatory and piratical raids and forays are manifestly not the way to go about it. It would take me much too far from the Bill and would take far too long to pursue that course, but I hope we can find an occasion to examine the future of these great industries, notably those which are now the subject of such contested bids, in the near future.
My concern is to comment on the failure of this Bill to deal with the rights of employees in takeover situations. The failure stems from the Government's view that the only interests which count in takeovers, with one qualification relating to the public interest in competition, are the financial interests of the shareholders themselves, even though the results are to be seen in closures, in sackings and in changes in the conditions of employees. It seems to employees affected by current moves in GEC, Plessey etc. that the banks will contribute the credit in order to enable a takeover to take place and the Government will contribute a permissive takeover policy, but that many workers—perhaps tens of thousands—will contribute their jobs. So employees are treated as part of the assets or as part of the liabilities to be bought or sold as part of the package. That this cannot be right has been acknowledged even by the Government themselves.
I am glad to say that there is a glimmer of light at least in the form of the Transfer of Undertakings Relations 1981 which apply the principle of automatic transfer of contracts of employment, collective agreements and trade union recognition during transfers of commercial undertakings and which place a duty on employers during transfers to consult and inform representatives of recognised trade unions. The regulations further provide that employers must give information on legal, economic and social implications for employees early enough before transfer to enable this consultation to take place.
The regulations are capable of improvement, but they apply only to transfers or mergers where the legal employer changes. They do not apply to

33
takeovers where control passes from one company to another by the acquisition of shares but where the legal employer remains the same. In the United Kingdom the overwhelming number of transfers fall under the second heading and are not covered by the regulations.
If those arrangements are right in the case of agreed mergers—and the Government have told us that they are right by putting the regulations on the statute book—why should they be wrong in the case of a hostile takeover? Why should the employees there have no rights to information, no rights to consultation and no protection for their existing contracts of employment?
Within the Bill and embodied in company law generally we should have the three principles which were set out in the takeovers and mergers employment protection legislation which my noble friend Lady Turner sought to introduce in 1987: the right to information, the right to consultation and the safeguarding of acquired rights and expectations, including rights and expectations from pension funds which have so often been the aim of attempts at acquisition. This is an issue which is now being considered by the Occupational Pensions Board, from which I hope we shall hear in the near future.
As a minimum we need the principles established in the 1981 regulations extended with improvements to contest the takeovers. I repeat that to argue for that is not to oppose mergers or even to oppose takeovers. As we have been told quite rightly, many changes will be needed in Britain and in Europe generally if we are to compete effectively in Europe and if Europe is to compete effectively in the world.
As my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel has reminded us, we should recognise, as do our colleagues in Europe, that the ability of industry to compete is not weakened but strengthened by the involvement of work people and their unions in decisions which affect the activities of their companies. We should ensure that effect is given to that recognition within the law relating to companies.
In conclusion, I hope that we shall not be told that some good employers already inform and consult. A small minority do, particularly when they want help in resisting a takeover. I hope that we shall not be told that all we need is a voluntary code of conduct. As with the transfer of undertakings regulations themselves, employers should be left in no doubt where their obligations and indeed their enlightened self-interest lie in the form of a statutory requirement.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Milne: My Lords, I too welcome the Bill as a great contribution to the long task of harmonisation of company law in Europe. It also serves to improve and streamline many existing procedures.
The burning question and the one at issue today is in the area of takeovers and mergers. Here I appreciate the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Murray. It appears that employees are not considered in the matter of takeovers, but in fact in the Companies Act they have their protection. This is something which directors have to consider when they are taking decisions.
34
The entrance of the European Commissioner into this area is also a new factor in a highly confused situation. That especially affects the whole definition of competition. My practical experience is about two years out of date so I shall not comment in detail. It is sufficient to say that any measures assisting clarification, as in Part VI of the Bill, are helpful. Further, the reduction in the period of notification of a holding from five to two days, and in the amount from 5 per cent. to 3 per cent., will be welcomed. However, there is no reduction in the striking point of 30 per cent. for a takover, which I think was expected.
It has been said that it is exceedingly difficult to do justice to the Bill in a Second Reading Speech. Many of the amendments and alterations, although important to the beneficiaries, are not of interest generally. Many will need attention in Committee. However, I am bound to say as a professional accountant that 1 support the noble Lord, Lord Benson, in his plea for immunity for those bodies required to supervise auditors. This was raised in the Financial Services Act in 1986 and I know it will be raised again in Committee. In that the statute always lags behind practice, confirmation thereof is of little interest, however important, such is the termination of the principle of ultra vires. However, the Bill has been commendably prompt over the subject of off balance sheet finance.
In addition, I must mention three other matters which are not in the Bill. The first is that of non-executive directors; the second, of two-tier boards; and the third, audit committees. All these are problems of larger groups.
It seems to me that non-executive directors and two-tier boards are aspects of the same question. A supervisory board is by definition non-executive, so it somewhat solves the question. It is a Continential concept, and as such no doubt Brussels will wish to impose it upon us against British reluctance. Our solution here is the management committee of the board and non-executive directors. However, all this is conjecture. Whatever the facts may be, it is important that agreement one way or the other should soon be reached as in the meantime there is no reference to non-executive directors, which is a weakness in the Bill.
Finally, on the question of audit committees, none of us who spoke against the Bill of the late Sir Brandon Rhys Williams was against that principle. The point was that they should not be compulsory and should not have been given the powers in that Bill. I feel that if quoted companies were obliged to make some statement of policy at the annual general meeting, that would be an acceptable improvement.
I hope that the House will excuse me if for private reasons I do not stay until the end of the debate. I shall of course read the debate in the Official Report. I support the Bill.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, there are many aspects of this Bill about which I am tempted to speak, not least perhaps the question of employees'

35
rights. This was a subject about which I spoke in my maiden speech in another place as long ago as April 1950. I happened to make the speech in this Chamber which was the home of another place temporarily at the time. The subject having been mentioned, I am greatly tempted also to speak on it. I shall however find another occasion.
I wish to speak about mergers and takeovers, mainly from one particular angle. I should first make sure that your Lordships are aware of my connection with the largest institutional investor in this country, the Prudential, of which I had the honour to be chairman for five years from 1980 to 1985 and of which I am still a non-executive director for another two or three months. But all that I say reflects only my personal view.
I welcome in principle the proposals in Part VI and those in Clause 91, the first clause of Part V, to give greater transparency regarding the ownership of shares. I believe strongly that these are moves in the right direction—in sympathy with the kinds of things I am going to speak about. But I do not believe that they will prove sufficient on their own.
Therefore, my purpose in intervening is to express my hope that the proposals do not represent the sum total of the Government's thinking on this subject. As will be seen, I am particularly concerned about the political—using the word in its broadest sense—repercussions of some aspects of the way in which merger and takeover practice works at the moment. I believe that the Government would be wrong to ignore the widespread feelings that the present practice in mergers and takeovers has undesirable side-effects which, if possible, should he minimised. It may be not possible to abolish them but they should he minimised. There is no doubt that some of the goings-on associated with takeover operations are highly distasteful to large numbers of people in this country. To many people, even to many of those who make capital gains out of these operations, they represent what to them is an ugly feature of the market economy.
This feeling is at its most acute when we are plunged into the sordid depths of an operation such as the Guinness-Distillers affair. But in my experience the public distaste is not confined to the few extreme cases. It is also felt, though obviously less acutely, about many, but not all, of the less dramatically intense takeover battles which nonetheless cause painful anxiety and threat of potential damage to many people whether they be employees of the company concerned, its customers or the members of a community in which the company under attack is a major source of local prosperity. Yet such battles seem to have no obvious or properly explained industrial purpose or general economic advantage put forward to justify them. However, out of them great financial gains are made, usually by a relatively small number of people.
We now see, at least across the Atlantic, if not yet in Britain—and, I hope, never in Britain—highly leveraged operations financed by vast borrowings which are nothing but highly sophisticated financial engineering without any avowed or credible
36
industrial strategy to justify them. Some of these operations, but not all of them, seem to many people in this country to be nothing better than industrial jerry-building. That should stop. It will not be easy without killing the goose that lays the golden egg. I believe however that the Government must show an awareness of the feelings I have described. I believe that this political and public distaste can be of real significance if it is ignored and allowed to fester.
I emphasise this because one of the Government's major aims has been to make our economy a more enterprising one. Much progress has been made in this area over the past few years for which I believe that the Government deserve great credit. Much courage has been required and noticeable results have been produced in many sectors, not least, although not only, in the small companies' sector. This progress needs to be continued and sustained and made permanent. In a universal suffrage democracy this will require public support and understanding.
We need to create in this country an enterprise culture that permeates society and with which people as a whole feel they can identify. Great damage can be done by a few, but nonetheless prominent, ugly features of a market economy if these appear to be ignored or dismissed as of no great importance. An enterprise society can come to be seen, or at least can successfully be so caricatured as simply a get-richquick society for the few and having little concern for the interests and the feelings of the many. For that to happen would be a great tragedy.
In the past century the practice of doctrinaire economic laissez-faire led in the end to a fatal political reaction towards centralised control by the state; to private control through organisations like cartels; and, most sadly of all, to a general but deep and widespread denigration of enterprising commercial activity as an activity acceptable and praiseworthy in society. As a consequence of that political reaction, the country has paid a heavy penalty throughout this century. We are only just emerging from the damage which was caused. We must take great care not to let this vicious cycle of reaction repeat itself.
For this reason I believe most strongly that the Government, as well as being bold and strong in pursuing an enterprise policy, must also be intensely politically sensitive and skilful in dealing with some of its undesirable and I believe, at least partially avoidable side-effects. To ignore them or to say that they are relatively unimportant can be increasingly damaging to the public support which an enterprise culture needs if it is to become the permanent culture of this country.
We have to realise that these distasteful side-effects do not occur only in the social and political sphere of which I have been speaking. They appear also within the economic and industrial sector. It is now very clear that many of the great mergers of the past 20 years, whether voluntary or unwilling, have not produced the industrial benefits which were predicted for them. Moreover, it cannot be denied that living in the climate of a high takeover market forces many companies and also their shareholders to take an

37
undesirably short-term approach to their affairs. For directors and managers to be constantly looking over their shoulders at the share price from day to day is not conducive to efficient and enterprising direction and management.
It is a dangerous fallacy to equate enterprise too closely with short term results. Surely enterprise is about taking risks. Many of the most important risks can only have a long-term pay-off. They will not be taken, or they tend not to be taken, by people who feel that their security depends above all on short-term performance. So there is a debit side in the economic sector to this high degree of takeover activity. Also one cannot disregard the fact that when a company is "put in play", as the jargon goes, it is an immense distraction for directors and senior managers from the job of actually running the company in an enterprising and efficient manner.
I wish to make clear that nothing I have been saying is intended to advocate that we should make mergers and takeovers extremely difficult or well-nigh impossible. If we were to do that we could well produce evils of rigidity, slothfulness and complacency of a different kind but perhaps even greater than those I have been speaking about. What I am advocating is a careful consideration of whether we can change not the basic principles upon which the Government's policy is based but the detailed practice.
Despite what has been said by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, I do have some desire to see the burden of proof and justification moved somewhat more towards those who are making the bids and away from those wishing to defend themselves against them. I do not ask for this to be done dramatically—only to some extent. In passing, I fully agree with my noble friend about the difficulties of running large and small insurance companies under the new security protection regulations. On this one other issue, however, I differ from him, although I hope not too greatly.
I also want to make these changes in order to provide shareholders with a better opportunity to come to considered decisions. In spite of the question of the rights of employees, I agree with my noble friend the Secretary of State that it is shareholders above all who have to make these decisions. I want to put forward for consideration three questions which I cannot develop in detail and which are certainly not in any way comprehensive.
First, we ought to consider lowering the trigger point at which an acquirer of a company's shares has to make a bid for the whole company. It used to be a 40 per cent. holding. It is now 30 per cent. I suggest that it should be reduced to 25 per cent. To go down further, as I might have hoped, would, I realise, raise other complications. This would force an acquirer of a company's shares to declare his intentions at an earlier stage in the operation. It might be helpful to shareholders and all the others involved in considering what decision finally to take.
Secondly, a bidder should be required at the point when he makes a full bid for a company to publish, if he has not already done so, a statement of the commercial strategy which motivates his action and
38
broadly—one cannot ask for more than broadly—a description of how he sees that strategy being implemented. Here one brings in the effect on employees, customers, localities and so on. This is something of which all shareholders should be made aware from the earliest stage. It often comes out as the battle proceeds but it should always be available at the starting point.
Thirdly—and in the end probably most important of all—I should like to see every possible effort being made to bring about a more positive and constructive relationship between a company and its shareholders on a regular basis and not just at a time of crisis. This would perhaps do more than anything else to encourage shareholders—particularly and most importantly the institutional shareholders—to take a longer term view of their investment, which is what we need above all.
A takeover is usually not the only or the best remedy for putting new life into an ailing company. Responsibility for a company's success or failure lies fairly and squarely on its board whose prime duty is to ensure that the company has efficient management and to monitor its performance. Behind the board lie the shareholders whose most important right and duty is to appoint the directors. It would often be better for the shareholders and everybody else if the shareholders, far from looking for an early profitable opportunity to sell their shares, were to be active in using their ownership function, were to be more insistent upon requiring a satisfactory performance from the board they have appointed and were to be prepared to bring about changes in board membership when it appeared in order to achieve that performance.
In order to make this company/shareholder relationship as effective as it could be—this point has been touched on by at least one other noble Lord—two conditions are especially important. First, every board should include a strong cadre of well qualified and fully independent non-executive directors, making not less than a third of the total board membership and perhaps even more. Secondly, the roles of chairman and chief executive should be firmly separated and not he held by the same person. If necessary, although with regret, I would be prepared to see legislation used to bring about these changes. Progress has been made in these ways, including the use of non-executive director committees to which reference has been made. However, more could be done.
In these ways we can begin to detect means of making our market economy work freely but more responsibly and more accountably. I urge the Government to give the most careful consideration, particularly to the ownership function. It has always been a bee in my bonnet that an active ownership function is vital to the proper working of the capitalist system. If that is allowed to die the capitalist system too will die or at least will decay into a state of affairs which is unacceptable.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I should like to apologise for not being in my place for the opening speeches. I have been engaged in meetings with a

39
group of people who are interested in a Bill which received its First Reading today. Along with other noble Lords, I have received a number of briefs from professional associations, including the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants and the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators. Those organisations list the aspects of company law that will affect them. However, I should like to deal with points that are not in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, referred to some of them in his opening remarks.
The relationship between business and society is like a pyramid. It has a narrow top and widens towards the base. The view in the press of business and company takeovers is that only those at the top of the pyramid are affected and only they have anything to lose by takeovers. However, the ordinary man and woman in the street do not look too kindly on a succession of takovers which very often have a goldfish bowl mentality. The smallest goldfish will be eaten by the next biggest one and that in turn will be devoured by the next biggest one. It is not well received when company A takes over company B and then company C is formed which takes over company A.
Such takeovers are not universally welcomed and accepted. Most people believe that they are nothing more than high-stake gambling with the ultimate goal of seeing who can make the fastest buck and when. No consideration is given to the damage that can be done to the social fabric and to the people at the bottom of the pyramid. I have seen some of the devastation that is caused by these takeovers. No one asks the views of people who have invested their lives in a company which is eventually swallowed up.
In 1960 I left the company for which I had worked since 1937. It went out of existence because its product was killed by cheap oil flooding in. I got a job at the biggest factory in the Greater Manchester area. Some 20,000 or so people worked at that factory. There was a succession of takeovers. It was impressed on the workforce, which had a very good industrial record, that the takeovers were necessary if the company was to survive. However, the company that survived very quickly became another company. No views were sought from organised labour at the factory or from their national trade union officials. I refer to the two because sometimes there is a difference. Very often someone at shop floor level takes a different view from that of his national trade union leaders. It does not follow that one will agree with the other. No input is allowed from responsible trade unionists at factory level or national level when these things happen.
I am not too sure that I would quickly swallow the banner and want to protect a chairman of a giant company who now finds himself under threat. Some of those people who are now starting to worry about what might happen to them would do well to look backwards to see what they have done to thousands of people who had a view but who were not allowed to express it.
40
I recall that during my days as a senior member of Manchester City Council a very distinguished and highly-paid official in Manchester town hall said to me, "I don't know what's going on where you work, but the misery which is being handed out through this reorganisation by the takeover by a national agent is causing absolute chaos in the area of Cheshire where I live". I am not talking about Manchester now, though the factory was in Manchester; I am talking about high-tier management at the time when a factory was divided into, say, four or five divisions. I am talking about a superintendent on a substantial salary, perhaps in his forties, with a mortgage still to pay and children at probably the most vital part of their educational process, who was suddenly sent for and told that his services were no longer required or to go on the sick list for three months and who was then never requested to go back.
It may not be germane to this Bill, but I think that there was a lot of truth in the remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Carr, started to make about some of the things at which we ought to be looking. It goes without saying—this may seem an oddity—that the more you went down the pyramid in that factory to the shop floor worker in overalls the more it added a greater degree of protection and then the men would talk. That was because there was actually more trade union clout at the bottom end because of the organisation in the factory. Therefore when the redundancies and the shedding of labour took place, unfortunate though it was, it was done on an agreed basis.
I can still recall that only a few years ago the place from which I take my name—namely, Dean of Beswick—was a tremendous hive of industry. It was not a highly-paid area, but it was an industrious area producing a variety of commodities including engineering goods, chemicals and rubber goods. In fact, you name it and it was produced in the area.
There was a factory in that area in the ward which I represented on the city council that manufactured wire. Three to four thousand people worked at that factory. In the early '30s—just to digress for a moment—it was the victim of a very bitter and prolonged strike because of the introduction of an American time system called the Bedauex system. However, after the war all that was washed away and it became a very good company to work for. The workforce were happy and they produced the goods. But what happened? The company was eventually taken over by an asset stripper who quite ruthlessly closed the factory. I think that the individuals concerned eventually became the subject of police proceedings in one of our former colonies in respect of some business deals.
It is no good saying that such things cannot happen again. There is far too much day-by-day reporting in the press of undesirable happenings which are taking place in the commercial and industrial business sector of the community today. There may be some provisions in this Bill which, as I say, try to deal with such situations. I referred a few moments ago to the devastation of certain people losing their jobs. It is also a fact that most of these reorganisations—taking the most common ones which are featured in the

41
headlines day by day—are in areas of high unemployment.
When I came down last week for my first visit to London since the recess to collect my mail, one of the first letters I opened was from the chairman of a works committee from the Isle of Wight. He is chairman in a Plessey factory there. I do not know whether there is just one factory there or a group of them, but he is the chairman of the Plessey works committee. He was objecting to being taken over by someone who is already under threat of takeover by another company which will now be rescued by some knight in shining armour from America.
If your Lordships tell me that such a situation creates a marvellous image of stability—which we ought to be talking about—I must say that I believe that to be complete nonsense. Most people in the country, whatever their political persuasions. do not like this because there are too many futures at stake. For example, how do you manage when you work at a place that suddenly, almost overnight, is wiped out of existence and you have a heavy mortgage around your neck in an area where unemployment, without factories, is so high that you will not be able to sell your house? It means that you will never be able to get out of the area in your life. You are trapped there because you have no possibility, unless a miracle occurs, of being able to deal with the situation.
I hope that during the passage of the Bill the Government will give some thought to some of the remarks which I have made today. I am not talking about extreme trade union practice which in the past exacerbated situations which would have been well left alone. In the main I am talking about stable areas that have a very good record and certainly never had the benefit of the so-called high pay that some people so readily seem to fall back upon as an excuse for our losing so many jobs.
Last Wednesday morning I found a new phenomenon when I took the bus to go into Stockport to catch the train to London. I met an old colleague with whom I used to work in Trafford Park. I said to him, "What are you doing? I thought you had been retired". He said, "I have come back. They are now taking on people of over 65". This is an engineering company in Stockport. I said, "Why do you say that, Eric?" He said, "Because we have lost a generation of skilled men. Though the training schemes are admirable and necessary, they are not producing lads who can go into the factory and start producing the goods immediately". He then rather laughingly said to me, "If you were not fixed up where you are, Joe, I could see you back on a boring mill'. I said to him, "I do not think that that is too much of a possibility". However, that is the situation in which we find ourselves at present.
In my last two or three minutes I must put forward a rather parochial plea. Recently there was a study by Cambridge Econometrics and Northern Ireland Economic Research on regional economic prospects for the United Kingdom. I have been in two parts of the country as a public representative. Indeed, for quite a while I was a Member of Parliament for a constituency in Leeds, as many noble Lords will know.
42
However, quite recently I moved back to the area which was more my own breeding ground; namely, Greater Manchester. What saddened and disappointed me was what the report said regarding that part of the country—the North-West—which used to be almost the workhouse of the world and the future it predicted to the turn of the century. All this is at a time when the Government keep telling us that things are improving.
With the leave of your Lordships, perhaps I may quote from the report. It said:
"The outlook for the North West is almost wholly depressing. It is forecast to fare the worse of any UK region suffering the biggest fall in employment, output growth barely half that of the national average and a growing exodus of the population.
By the end of the century the region is projected to have lost 222,000 jobs—representing a fall in its share of national employment from 10.1 to 8.8 per cent.
The textile, clothing and footwear industries will be virtually decimated; 50,000 jobs, representing a fifth of the workforce, will disappear in engineering alone. The region will not even have the solace of increased employment in the service sector where 51,000 jobs in the public and private sector will go".
That is the scenario painted by people who have no political axe to grind. The report gives more glowing and optimistic reports about most other parts of the United Kingdom. Some of the companies to which I have referred, without naming them, involved in takeover bids are heavily involved in that area. All that I am asking is that the Government turn their attention to the carnage that may be caused once again in those areas if the matters are not handled delicately and humanely.
The report even says that money has been pumped into areas such as Liverpool. It refers to Sheffield as being on the upswing, but in retail trade only. Since when have we survived as a nation of shopkeepers? Our history is built on manufacturing industry. Sadly, wherever there has been a company merger at any level in the manufacturing sector it has not resulted in increased jobs. There have always been cuts. The people who have had to take the can are not the big boys in the boardroom. We know the handshakes that they receive. They can live on them even if they never work again. It is the people at the bottom who have to pay the price.
I am not alone in believing that the Government should study that situation. Engineering, in which I worked as a skilled man, has lost more jobs in the past decade than almost the rest of manufacturing industry put together. That is one of the reasons that we are now suffering a balance of payments deficit. We do not even have the capacity to manufacture the goods we need to keep our industries going.
I am grateful to have had the chance to digress from the Bill a little and to bring these matters to the attention of your Lordships' House in the hope that someone may listen to what I have said.
5.23 p.m.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, introduced with great clarity what his honourable friend in another place has called a necessarily miscellaneous Bill. In seeking to implement the seventh and eighth European Community company law directives and tidy—even

43
tighten—up a variety of other areas in corporate and commercial life, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, the Bill contains a hotch-potch of measures such that it is unusually difficult to find a basis for a Second Reading speech.
Your Lordships' House has been accustomed to dealing with the passage of Bills from the Government which originate from great deeds and principles—right or wrong—such as rolling back the frontiers of government, returning unions to their members and so on. I join the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in asking: where is the great theme to this Bill? The Prime Minister would not wish the implementation of Community directives to suggest that the future dominance and supremacy of Brussels over company law is the theme.
Is the Bill then no more than a reminder, like a photograph album of holiday snaps, of happy days spent by veterans of your Lordships' House on the Companies Act 1985, the Financial Services Act 1986 and the Banking Act 1987, and the necessary amendment of those otherwise flawless pieces of legislation? Yes, the Secretary of State has already said that it is precisely that—the compilation of various measures and amendments in the field of company law and related areas which are part of a natural evolutionary process which should not be politically contentious or controversial. As I shall show your Lordships, I have no objection to, and indeed welcome, many of the proposed changes, but that cannot obscure the sense of dissatisfaction which like other noble Lords, feel when surveying the 200 pages of the Bill presented before your Lordships for Second Reading today.
It is not what is in the Bill, as other noble Lords have said, that should predominantly give your Lordships concern; rather it is what is not in the Bill. It is the Bill, as Sherlock Holmes might have said, which does not bark, let alone bite, which, if enacted in this form, might well be renamed the missed opportunities Act 1989. I shall come to those omissions in a minute, but first I propose to comment on some of the principal measures that are included.
Before doing so, I should perhaps remind your Lordships that outside the House I am the director of a bank and certain of its subsidiaries to which of course the Companies Act applies, as do particularly the Financial Services Act and the Banking Act. Just as importantly, its central business is the provision of advice to other companies, especially in the areas of merger and acquisitions to which the Fair Trading Act 1973 is the most relevant legislation.
If my professional colleagues turn out not to agree wholeheartedly with everything I say, which I must confess has sometimes been the case in the past, I may take comfort in the fact that, whether right or wrong, it means that I may not be guilty of pursuing my professional interests.
The first part of the Bill covering the provision for company accounts is generally to be welcomed not only for the specific measures being proposed but for the principle of establishing common standards and approaches throughout the European Community.
44
Even if chauvinistically we may take some pride in general levels of disclosure and reporting by companies in this country compared to those in some of our partner countries in the Community, we should not ignore the room for improvement in our own case or the advantages of European harmonisation, so long as the principle of the highest common denominator is pursued.
The most important specific proposals in that area are perhaps in the definition of subsidiaries and the accounting for acquisitions, in both cases intended to eliminate the obfuscation and other abuses that have been developed by companies making acquisitions, often of disproportionate size relative to their resources. I shall come later to the wider area of takeovers, and leveraged takeovers in particular.
I am sure that none of your Lordships believes that the true level of borrowing undertaken by a company to acquire another should be in any way obscured, let alone concealed, in the acquiring company's accounts. The cult of the golden-fingered master of the takeover has been surprisingly unaffected by the monotonous regularity with which such figures have fallen from grace, so it is all the more desirable that the disclosure required should be enhanced. It is of course not possible to legislate for financial journalists, share tipsters and research analysts to make use of the clearer information provided for them; but it may nonetheless assist some of them, as well as the general public, to form a rather more realistic and less euphoric view of companies whose growth is achieved predominantly by the acquisition of other companies, with the assistance of over-hyped paper and overambitious and under-disclosed borrowings.
In view of that move to fuller disclosure in relation to what is often a major event in a company's business, there may seem to be some inconsistency in the provision contained in Clause 14 whereby arrangements can be made to allow shareholders to receive summary financial information rather than the full report and accounts of a listed company. Your Lordships may appreciate the cost to companies, especially those which have established unusually large lists of individual shareholders, whether through the process of privatisation or otherwise, in providing annual reports for millions of shareholders. Although the cost difference between supplying full accounts and summary financial statements may be relatively small, when spread over hundreds of thousands or even millions of recipients it is understandable why companies might seek to explore that alternative.
Many shareholders too may believe that they would rather receive less information than more. But we should be careful that this does not reflect a view of stock market investment—encouraged, as it has been, by some of the intemperate privatisation campaigns by the Government—that there are few risks, if any, and no responsibilities in share ownership.
We shall no doubt discuss this point in greater detail during the Committee stage of the Bill. I add only that my unease is increased by the proposal that the details by which the arrangements are made to

45
allow for summary financial statements to be provided as an alternative to full accounts be left, as in so many instances in the Bill, to ministerial regulation by statutory instrument. I believe that there is a strong case for this important matter to be defined in detail in Parliament, whether as part of this Bill or another, rather than left to ministerial regulation.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in also viewing with caution the proposed exemptions for certain private companies from publishing accounts, given that creditors, unlike shareholders, would have no rights or powers in this regard. I also support the noble Lord's call for the end of the special treatment afforded to banks, even if not universally exploited. having had the opportunity of arguing just that in my maiden speech seven years ago.
The accounting profession has for some time promised to address the problems of off balance sheet finance and acquisition accounting, to which I referred earlier, but it has made no progress in actually implementing its promises. As a result of this failure, the Government have included the measures in the Bill. I believe that that is something which should be borne in mind when considering the second major section of the Bill, which covers the eligibility to conduct statutory audits and the training and supervision of auditors as part of the implementation of the Community's eighth directive.
The auditing community has expressed concern that the Bill proposes a degree of over-regulation which, in the words of one commentator,
"threatens to do to auditors what the Financial Services Act has done for investment businesses".
Once more, your Lordships' House will, I suspect, resound to the arguments of self-regulation as against statutory regulation. Although the Bill only gives the power to the Secretary of State to set up a statutory body to oversee the auditing profession, and the noble Lord has today confirmed that he has no present intention of exercising that power, that has still been enough to set accounting nerves jangling.
It may be more pertinent to ask the Secretary of State not whether it is appropriate for him and his successors to be given the power to supervise statutorily the accounting profession, but whether this should not be implemented immediately as part of the Bill. The original proposal for a statutory supervisory body was raised and then dropped two years ago and it is difficult to see—particularly with an eye on some of the continuing errors and omissions by the accounting profession since that time—what justification there is for further prevarication.
Comparisons with the Financial Services Act may or may not be valid. But even if they are, I see no cause for the accounting profession to be concerned so long as the Government have learnt the lesson of the Financial Services Act. The complexity and cumbersome nature of that Act do not derive from its statutory basis. It is exactly the opposite. Its unwieldiness and the burden felt by the banking and investment communities (themselves exaggerated) are because of the awkward combination of the self-regulation and statutory supervision enshrined in the
46
Act, with a statutory umbrella needing to be designed to cover a variety of pre-existing, as well as newly formulated, self-regulatory practices. A more overtly statutory system of regulation would have been cleaner, simpler and no more burdensome or threatening—possibly less so—than the system which was instituted by the Financial Services Act. If that lesson has been learnt, the auditing profession should not fear a statutory body to oversee it, and the public is entitled to get one.
As I have referred to the Financial Services Act, this may be an appropriate moment to mention Clause 132 of the Bill, which seeks to amend Section 62 of the Financial Services Act and restrict the right to sue an investment firm for losses suffered as a result of a breach in the rules of a self-regulatory organisation to private investors only as defined by regulations made by the Secretary of State. Though widely and strenuously campaigned for by banks and investment firms, this proposed change is, in my view, dubious logic and owes more to an irrational prejudice against a supposedly litigious-prone business environment, echoed by the noble Lord the Secretary of State himself, than any real burden on investment firms. The Committee stage of the Bill will give the opportunity for your Lordships to explore and establish whether there is a valid distinction between the position of private investors and of professionals and as to whether their rights should therefore be differentiated.
Another major section of the Bill covers investigations under not only the Companies Act but the Insurance Companies Act, the Insolvency Act and the Financial Services Act as well. In general, the increased powers, greater clarity and enhanced flexibility for the Secretary of State are positive steps, though there remains some doubt as to how much the measures can substantially speed up investigations or add teeth to the DTI and its inspectors, once wrongdoing (particularly when short of clear criminal activity) is exposed. There are still too many individuals whose previous activities have justified the strong censure of DTI inspectors, continuing through clever manipulation of areas such as accounting practice to lower the business environment of the country. While Bills such as these can close one by one the most obvious and flagrant areas of abuse, it is the powers of investigation that are critical to controlling the most sophisticated breaches of corporate stewardship.
It is obviously important that our regulators co-operate with those of other countries in conducting investigations into companies or investment businesses whose activities, as the noble Lord the Secretary of State said, are more than ever worldwide. The parallel legislation in the United States has now been passed. It is therefore of great importance and urgency that we should follow suit in the UK. It is inevitable that reciprocity should be one of the tests to be considered by the Secretary of State in determining whether he is satisfied that a request for assistance from a foreign regulatory body is valid. Such a reciprocity test however should clearly be used not in a petty way, allowing fraud and other abuses to go uninvestigated and unpunished because of a geographical accident, but rather as the greatest

47
power available to bring common standards of investigation and supervision to all the countries with which we and our companies do business.
Although only a small part of the Bill relates to "Mergers and Related Matters"—just eight out of the 140 clauses—I am sure that few of your Lordships will disagree that this is by far the most important issue in the corporate world today. The brevity of the Bill's attention to the area is an accurate reflection of the Government's studied inaction and apparent unconcern over the exaggerated and often unproductive takeover boom. It has been inaction laced with inconsistency and muddle, as the principles of competition as the paramount consideration in merger policy have been occasionally and unpredictably overridden, whether overtly or covertly.
While welcoming the relatively minor amendments to the Fair Trading Act, therefore, along with most of your Lordships today, I can only deplore that the Government have not taken the opportunity to establish a merger policy that would really set the correct environment for British business in the 1990s. That, even more than the omissions listed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is the greatest cause for regret. For merger policy need not be synonymous with competition policy, even if the Government have chosen to try to make it such, except of course when it suits them not to do so. I would not argue that competition should not be the cornerstone of merger policy, albeit competition now needs to be judged not only on a UK and a regional basis but, as other noble Lords have said, on a European basis too. European competition considerations should not, however, override national ones, but should he part of a tripartite group of tests which have roughly equal weight.
Once the competitive aspects of a merger have been assessed, however, there is no reason not to consider also a wider range of factors under the broader heading of national and regional interests such as security, environmental effect, the effect on employees and employment generally, safety, foreign reciprocity, financial stability, specific developments in a company's industry, and so on.
If the markets were really an infallible method for determining a company's ideal ownership, why have the Government consistently included the provision to themselves of a golden share in many privatised companies? The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, may say in winding up that that measure has been taken to protect companies in their transition from public to private ownership. Are there not times in the life cycle of other companies when, for quite different reasons, some protective stability is equally vital and justifiable?
I do not believe that it is necessary to place the burden of proof on acquiring companies to demonstrate there are positive benefits from a merger. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has already dismissed that as unworkable and counterproductive to initiative and enterprise. However, I believe that the merger policy that would best serve this country would clearly and unambiguously state the non-
48
competition criteria which could and would be considered in examining proposed mergers.
The resulting policy need not be chauvinistic or nationalistic; indeed, it could well prove to be less so than the rather variable implementation of existing policy. But it would establish a more stable and less short-term environment for the development of British business and commerce. Companies themselves still need to do much more to achieve that stable environment themselves, in the strategies they pursue and the relationships with shareholders, and indeed the shareholdings themselves, which they develop.
The institutions, financial analysts and commentators, as the noble Lord, Lord Carr, has said, also need generally to take a longer-term view, whatever the shallow or complacent conclusions of the CBI group which examined the problem of short-termism recently. But the public at large, with its uncanny nose for where nonsenses are being perpetrated, as well as some of the Government's closest and most loyal supporters, have made it quite clear that radical reform of merger policy is urgently needed. Sadly, with this Bill the Government appear to be failing them and the country.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Stevens of Ludgate: My Lords, I should like to extend a general welcome to the Companies Bill. I was pleased to receive it just before the Christmas holidays, so that I could devote more time than usual to it. While admirable in many respects and necessary in order to co-ordinate our standards to those of the EC, particularly with regard to accounting matters, there are three main areas to which I feel your Lordships may wish to give further thought. Most of those areas have already been mentioned in this debate. Here I must declare an interest as a director and deputy chairman of Britannia Arrow, which is a major fund management company. My noble friend Lord Rippon is chairman of that company.
The first area is the Financial Services Act. I know that your Lordships' House undertook a considerable amount of work on the Bill and made some 500 amendments. However, the Act arose out of the collapse of Norton Warburg and Professor Gower's report on the protection of the small investor. What we have, perhaps unwittingly, is an Act which discourages fund managers from looking after the small investor. It has financially penalised those who do so, in particular unit trust managers. It will decimate the ranks of independent financial advisers, and while the original concept was correct it is growing like an octopus out of control and sucking within its tentacles the creativeness and vitality of the financial services community.
The Securities and Investments Board's budget for 1989 to 1990 is some £13 million and its wages bill alone is nearly £7 million. The total costs since it started to March 1990 are estimated at £35 million. In addition to this, the bodies underneath the SIB have huge budgets of their own and impose their own regulations on the financial community.
The SIB rule book alone consists of some 900 pages and the rule books of the other authorities

49
consist of a total pagination of 1500. The SIB sets the standards for the operations and for the rule books of its associated bodies, but the detailed rules require full-time compliance officers and lawyers to supervise and implement them. I believe that a worthwhile debate could be held on whether the separate bodies under the SIB should be abolished and whether the SIB should supervise the industry, perhaps on a divisional basis. At the present time the SIB rule book is being partially duplicated by the associated bodies, who in turn have their rules approved by the SIB. Why cannot there be one regulatory body?
This should also result in substantial cost savings. I appreciate that the profitability of companies and the high salaries of some of those who work in the City do not attract much sympathy, but it surely cannot be our intention to stifle such a major contributor to the nation's financial well-being and to our invisible exports. If the severe decline in profitability of fund management and related organisations continues, there will be less and less desire to look after the investments of private individuals. In addition to this, the huge changes made by the Act on the operations of the unit trust industry will further concentrate this business in the hands of a few.
People are the basic assets in the businesses that we are talking about, and these assets walk out of the door every night. If our regulations continue at the present level, I have no doubt that there will be an increasing tendency to set up operations abroad which will effectively circumvent large parts of the Financial Services Act.
In the case of unit trusts, the barriers within Europe cease on 1st October this year. It is quite clear that this country has a much higher degree of regulation than the rest of Europe. Luxembourg, for example, offers a very favourable tax environment, and it will be possible to market Luxembourg funds in the UK by March this year. Its valuation and pricing rules for unit trusts are considerably simpler and less hostile to company profitability than those imposed by the SIB. Should unit trust companies decide to move their operations to Continental Europe, they will still be able to operate within the UK, subject of course to the rules of the SIB and its affiliated bodies, but only those rules which affect the way in which they market their units.
My second point concerns the disclosure of shareholdings under the Companies Act 1985; namely, the proposed reduction of the percentage from 5 to 3 per cent. While it is an admirable concept for a company to know who its shareholders are, any diligent company secretary, subject to the speed at which shareholdings are built up, will have made inquiries as to who the potential owners are when the names first appear on the register.
A practical problem in this respect, however, is that for very good commercial reasons shareholders may wish to use a nominee name. Do we assume that the 3 per cent. disclosure is designed to enable investors to be better informed about movements in their companies' shareholders, or has it arisen because of CBI pressure for earlier disclosure of potential bidders? I assume it is the latter. In my
50
opinion it makes little difference whether a company has a 3 per cent., a 5 per cent. or a 7 per cent. shareholding. What effective action can a company or its shareholders take when somebody is determined to build up a large shareholding? Furthermore, it seems to me to miss the point of 1992.
Many European companies have bearer shares where the beneficial owners are unknown, or as in Holland, the voting rights to shares may be held effectively to the order of companies' management and the other shareholders have shares to which no voting rights attach; or, as in Germany, companies may have registered shares but will only agree to the voting rights on those shares being transferred if they approve of the new shareholder. Unless we standardise the nature of our equity capital and its voting rights with that of Europe, or vice versa, no amount of moving percentages will achieve very much. We have a situation in which it is very much easier for predators to buy shares in UK companies and to vote them than it is in most of the rest of the EC. Changing 5 per cent. to 3 per cent. misses the basic point, though it will give companies and their shareholders earlier notification of either stake-building or genuine investment demand.
Lastly—and here I speak somewhat cautiously because I think that I saw my noble friend Lord Alexander walking in behind me (I did not; I beg your pardon)—the Bill contains no reference to the Takeover Panel. While the original concept of the Takeover Panel as a voluntary regulatory body was admirable and it has performed a very useful task, I cannot help feeling that its days of non-statutory existence should be numbered. The Continent has no similar body; nor indeed does the United States. Its rules are extremely complex and change at regular intervals. Practice has shown that executive or full-time staff's rulings on code matters are seldom overruled by a full Takeover Panel hearing. There is virtually no statutory right of appeal.
The thirteenth company law directive of the EC, which is about to be published, is, I understand, a great deal simpler and sets minimum standards which are below those of our own takeover code. The days of the old boy club in the City, if it ever really existed, should have ended with the termination of fixed commissions. Overseas companies, particularly American, have felt less inhibited by the code than UK companies and would, I believe, welcome a statutory system with an effective right of appeal.
We need to examine the Bill in relation not only to existing UK practice but also the practice of our competitors. We need to standardise our arrangements and ensure level playing fields with the rest of the EC in the immediate future. Otherwise UK companies will be kicking up the slope and be severely disadvantaged in acquiring European businesses. They will be far more vulnerable to being bid for by other companies in the EC outside the UK than the latter are to being bid for by UK companies.
I fear that in the three areas that I have mentioned we are nibbling at the edges rather than getting to the core of the problem.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by apologising to the House for not having been present at the beginning of the debate. However, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will share my pleasure when I say that I intend to be present at the very end to hear his pearls of wisdom.
I should like to refer to some of the remarks that I have heard, not least those of my noble friends Lord Murray of Epping and Lord Dean of Beswick, and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos. They all introduced a point which I believe needs to he taken into account when considering what may be seen as a prosaic Bill dealing with legal frameworks, namely the human dimension.
I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in his place because as I came into the House this afternoon I met a group of people who work for Plessey on the Isle of Wight. I do not know whether he is privy to their presence in the building. I know however that he takes a great interest in all matters relating to the Isle of Wight and that he is very diligent in such matters. Those Plessey employees impressed me by their concern to arouse the interest not only of your Lordships' House but also of others over what happens when the dust settles, not only in a place like the Isle of Wight but in many similar situations. They brought home to me their virtual helplessness when a major takeover or merger takes place.
Part VI of the Bill relates to mergers and related matters. The Bill states:
"This Part amends the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973 dealing with mergers and certain provisions in the related fields of monopolies and uncompetitive practices".
Reference has already been made to that Act. Section 84(1) of the Act states that:
"the Commission…shall have regard to the desirability…of maintaining and promoting the balanced distribution of industry and employment in the United Kingdom".
I appreciate that that is not the main thrust of the Bill, but I wonder to what extent the Government, in their contacts with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Office of Fair Trading on takeovers involving billions and billions of pounds, have taken the human dimension into account. It is right and proper that there should be a legal framework. Noble Lords have spoken quite fairly about protecting the interests of a great many groups of people, not least shareholders large and small. They are entitled to protection. However, I believe that in a debate of this kind relating to mergers and takeovers of that size we need to recognise that ordinary men and women are affected, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, so graphically illustrated from his own experience.
Those contacts which I made in the central Lobby about three hours ago left me with a piece of paper. It refers to a workforce on the Isle of Wight of approximately 1,350. The paper mentions skill categories, and the skills of those people are very impressive indeed. Any worker in any job is entitled to be fearful about the consequences of a takeover. In this particular instance I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will be able to put some flesh on the
52
bones of the problems. I am glad to see that he smiles and nods his head. He probably came well equipped to do so.
I simply use that case as an illustration to demonstrate that in the south of England there are pockets of unemployment and pockets of difficulties, contrary to the general belief that in this part of the world the situation is better. Those colleagues I met outside told me that weekly earnings on the island are the lowest in the UK apart from Cornwall and Shropshire. The closure of Plessey, if that were to come about would push the average even lower.
I am glad to have the opportunity to ask the Minister to take on board the fact that such issues need to be borne in mind when considering the grand design of a handful of people in a boardroom in the City, in Chicago, in Zurich, or wherever it might be. They are big decisions and very important, but little people in a small place like the Isle of Wight and in many other communities througout this country are deeply affected, crucially affected, perhaps fatally affected, by those decisions.
The Minister shakes his head. I was alluding to the death of a community as a result of the closure of a large concern. We know exactly what that means.
I should like to take the opportunity of drawing the Minister's attention to some other aspects of the Bill. I do not expect answers to my points tonight necessarily, but I should be grateful for some correspondence at another time.
Schedule 12 has the effect of making auditors to a diverse body of non-companies, some public and some private, subject to the same rules as proposed in Part II of the Bill for company auditors. These proposals, with which the Secretary of State dealt in some detail, effectively confer powers on the four professional bodies for chartered accountants to regulate the company auditing profession. Is it necessary or desirable that this power should extend to so many other bodies?
Of course those bodies must continue to employ chartered accountants as auditors, as they do now. But are there any reasons for linkage with companies and ultimate control by the Secretary of State for the DTI? Some of these bodies are currently obliged to employ auditors who are approved by the Treasury, for example auditors who are currently authorised under the Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1968. At present this system works satisfactorily. Most of the auditors appointed by members of friendly and industrial and provident societies are also either currently employed as company auditors or qualified to be so employed.
Why then is there the query? In the case of industrial and provident societies the audit service for many years was provided by qualified auditors who were on the Treasury list but employed as part of an internal audit service by the Co-operative Wholesale Society for retail co-operatives. At this point I declare an interest with regard to co-operatives and friendly societies.
The system was ended by agreement following a merger of professional bodies. If retail I&P societies ever wanted to revert to the former system—in effect, an audit union—would the provisions now in the Bill

53
preclude such a development? Perhaps, on mature consideration of this matter, the Secretary of State will write to me and let me have his views.
I have mentioned the I&P societies and the friendly societies. I wonder whether the Minister is able to comment on the future legal framework for friendly and industrial and provident societies. In the past 10 years major aspects of our financial institutions have been made ready for the 1990s and perhaps for the year 2000 onwards. I refer to the banks, insurance companies, building societies and other financial institutions. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House whether in the Treasury or elsewere any thought has been given to the future legal framework for the friendly and industrial and provident societies' movement. I am not pressing him but it seems to me logical that if the Government are looking at all the matters in point—and the organisations that I have mentioned are smaller both in size and impact than many others -then the I&P and friendly societies might be considered with a view to bringing them up to date.
The final point that I wish to make concerns Part II of the Bill. Clause 28 defines the circumstances in which a person may be regarded as holding an appropriate qualification; Clause 29 defines qualifying bodies, their members, rules and guidance; and Schedule 9 lays down how a qualifying body may apply for recognition of a qualification that it offers.
The Association of International Accountants, which was incorporated in 1932, is an accountancy body which examines internationally. Its examinations were recognised by the Department of Trade and Industry in 1982 as being in all respects of no less a standard than the examinations of the chartered auditing bodies. A letter issued to that body on 1st March 1982 confirmed that. The association is well known to the Department of Trade and Industry as from 1975 to 1982 it accepted ministerial criteria in response to its application for listing under what was then Section 161 of the Companies Act 1948. That was repealed by Section 389 of the Companies Act 1985 which was of similar content. The purpose was to obtain for a member eligibility to be appointed a company auditor. According to the then Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, the body met the criteria but for a statistical reason approval for listing was withheld by him.
The association has 1,600 qualified members and 5,000 students. While not numerically large when compared with the membership of the chartered auditing bodies, its ethics, standards and conduct are similar to those bodies. All those factors were covered by the ministerial criteria. I make particular mention of it because government policy, well pronounced by the noble Lord, Lord Young, is to encourage growth and competition by smaller enterprises.
The Companies Bill that we are now discussing proposes changes in the regulation of' auditors to comply with the European Community eighth company directive. That is welcomed by the Association of International Accountants as being in both the public interest and that of the profession. The Bill will enable those bodies whose examinations cover the theoretical training for a company auditor
54
to apply to the Secretary of State either to be recognised as a supervisory body—the proposal is that such a body or bodies will regulate all statutory auditors—or to have its professional qualification recognised and for the body to be described as a "recognised qualifying body". It is for the latter category that the association will be making an application to the Secretary of State.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Young, whether he will make a point of looking at this matter of the association's application and take the opportunity, when the Bill is enacted, to accord recognition to the association's qualification which, had the proposals now before the House been part of the previous Companies Bill, would no doubt have been granted.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for giving me a run-in to the problems that we have in the Isle of Wight over possible mergers. I shall not say very much about it because it is not the matter of the Bill. However, it is a fact, as he said, that it would be a disaster for the Isle of Wight if anything adverse should happen to the Plessey factory in Cowes, not only from the point of view of unemployment and the workforce in the island as a whole but also as regards the balance of the community, because Plessey's in the Isle of Wight plays an important part in giving us a balance of intellectual stamina and expert qualifications which are not reflected in other companies. It is very important, although it is something that I do not want to press just now.
However, my noble friend Lord Carr said in passing that mergers do not produce the improvements that are expected. From my experience many years ago as director of personnel and training for a large public company which had been involved in mergers, that was absolutely obvious. It was obvious to me then and is so now that when people work out whether a merger will be good or not they do not take any account of the effect on the workforce or the management—I stress the management—of the companies concerned. I have always felt that that ought to be done.
I have always been told, and certainly it has been my experience when experimenting with how one might do it, that it is an intractable problem to assess the qualities of a workforce in a new environment. It is a problem because each company has a different ethos and different ways of approaching matters. It is a very difficult problem and one which I do not think is suitable for legislation. However, I believe that it is one for successful company management and successful mergers. It is a problem that ought to he tackled. However, I do not think that I can go further than that now.
I say finally in relation to the Isle of Wight and the representation that we have around us from Plessey that the management of Plessey is also very concerned about this and keen to tackle it; it is not only the workforce. But I much applaud the workforce for taking the steps that it has to make sure that no one is in doubt about the problems that may arise.

55
I turn now to the Bill. I too must apologise for not having been present at the beginning of the debate and for coming in in the middle of the opening speech of my noble friend the Secretary of State. In contributing to the debates on this Bill I shall be advised by the CBI. As an adviser to that confederation and as a director of small companies I have to declare an interest to your Lordships.
The Bill is in general welcomed, although there are many specific points on which I am hoping that the Government will agree to amendments. It would be tedious to spell out at this stage all the clauses which I am advised require amendment. I propose therefore to pick out some of the more important examples. For instance, many of the provisions in Schedule 2 on merger and acquisition accounting would be more appropriately dealt with in accounting standards. On another accounting matter, the CBI has advised me that the provisions in Clause 19 are more widely framed than is necessary and will have an undesirable side effect.
Turning now to Part III, the Bill does little more than tinker with the matters requiring amendment under the Financial Services Act. What my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding had to say rather endorsed that. We believe therefore that there is a need for substantial further amendments to that part.
With regard to Part IV, the CBI welcomes the amendment to the process of registration of company charges. There are, however, matters of detail in that part which require further amendment or clarification.
In Part V, the CBI welcomes the attempt in Clause 91, to which the Secretary of State referred, to increase transparency in the market place. However, it questions whether the Government are right to allow the provisions on disclosure of interest in shares to be altered by secondary legislation. Disclosure can impose an administrative burden and in the interests of legal certainty it is better that the provisions should be included on the face of the Bill. There are also other amendments under consideration for other clauses in Part V.
On Part VI, the CBI welcomes the implementation of some of the procedural improvements proposed in the Blue Book on mergers policy. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, it has some criticisms of this part of the Bill and in particular—if I follow its advice—I shall be seeking to have Clause 103 removed from the Bill. The concept of charging fees for merger control is suggested as being totally unacceptable in principle. The Government make the rules for monopoly and merger control so they should bear the cost. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin do not agree with that. We therefore may have some interesting debates on any amendments in that area.
Finally, the CBI considers that there is a need for the Trusteee Investment Act 1961 to be brought up to date and that Section 310 of the 1985 Companies Act should be reviewed. It suggests that relevant amendments to give effect to those proposals could with benefit be included in this Bill and will be
56
proposing suitable amendments for me to agree to and perhaps put down.
Broadly speaking, this is a non-controversial and useful Bill, but by its nature it will require particularly close scrutiny by your Lordships. It will probably lead to a great many amendments because it covers such a wide area and so many interests may be involved. However, I hope that the Government will view with the greatest possible sympathy any amendments which are inspired by people with practical experience in running companies.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking the Secretary of State for a remarkably compressed and efficient exposition of an extremely long and complex Bill. I do not envy the task of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde of picking up all the pieces that were left. No doubt we shall be asked to give him some indulgence on the length of his speech. I shall therefore try to be very brief.
I shall concentrate on only one aspect of this Bill. That is the use that can be made of it as a vehicle for amendments to the Financial Services Act—an aspect touched upon by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. Noble Lords will recall that he expanded on the demerits of that Act. As chairman of a self-regulatory organisation recognised under it, I sympathise with a great deal that he said. I regret that I was unable to be present for the speech by my noble friend Lord Stevens of Ludgate—who I see has returned the compliment by being absent for mine. That must be the termination of a very brief exchange.
However, the Act has its successes and has produced new and much needed levels of protection for investors. Such need was made clear by investors' very unfortunate experience in the months immediately preceding implementation. Some 2,000 applications to trade as independent financial advisers made to my own association either failed or were withdrawn. That must also represent the removal of some form of risk to investors who might have been their clients since they were presumably practitioners not up to the job as independents.
There have been other improvements but these have all been bought, as my noble friend said, at a price. He described this price in terms of the burden that it has placed on a large institution. Seventy-five per cent. of my members are very small institutions indeed. Many of them are one-man institutions. They are all independent intermediaries, responsible themselves for compliance with the provisions of the Act as transmitted to them through SIB's rule book and subsequently our own. They are finding the rules complex and burdensome, in proportion, as does my noble friend. The results are both increased direct costs and increased opportunity costs which must diminish the good effects of the Act. If it can be remedied, the Act and consumer protection will be strengthened.
Much is already being done to simplify the requirements, and I welcome that. But there is a strict limit on what can be done because of the way in which the Act requires the application of its

57
provisions through SIB and the SROs' rule books. The SROs exist only by virtue of recognition under the Act by SIB. That recognition is, by reason of the Act, dependent on the rule books of the SROs reflecting pretty closely the relevant provisions in SIB's rule books providing—I think this is the term—equivalence. Each SRO has to provide for its own sector what is called equivalence to SIB's provisions for that sector in its own rule book; and SIB's own rule book has to reflect the statute very closely and carefully.
The language and arrangements of statutes are very workmanlike tools for courts and lawyers but they are not always very apt for the market-place and small, overworked businessmen. It would be a great help if the Government could uncouple this direct drive so that, as opportunity serves, we can produce rules for our members which enforce the principles of the Act without following its detail. SIB has itself embarked on expressing those principles, and on a consultation on them. This we welcome. Once they are agreed, we would be happier with a new requirement to replace the old one: a requirement to conform to those principles rather than the existing requirement to equate to the detail.
While an immediate wholesale redrafting of rule books would cause much further work and confusion to our members, I believe that we could use the opportunity not just to benefit practitioners but to improve the service to their clients.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but am I right in thinking—I am sure that the noble Lord can answer from his experience—that the SIB has no powers under that Act to make general statements of principles that everything in its rule book has statutory authority?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should not wish to use language which was tested by the courts on this matter, but broadly the noble Lord is right. As I understand it, there is a question as to the extent which SIB can pronounce a principle and then say whether an SRO has adhered to that principle. I believe that that difficulty is implicit in the drafting of the Financial Services Act. I hope that the Government will see fit to find words to replace that passage which would relieve them of that difficulty.
As we are discussing a Bill. I shall not pursue that much further except to say that one should not regard that as an absolute panacea not only because the redrafting, relearning and reimplementing of a complex rule book is itself very burdensome both to those who draft it and to those who have to abide by it, but also because the more general a statement placed in the superior regulation is, the more room there is for width of interpretation by the inferior body and therefore for litigation as to whether the principle has been observed. We are not here for that purpose. I am here simply to plead for that opportunity which I know will be welcomed by my members and I feel empowered to do so because I believe it would also benefit their clients who are the object of all the provisions of the Financial Services Act.
58
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding said something else before saying that he was looking forward to hearing me speak, which leads me to suppose that I ought to reply to it. He said that very large numbers of independent financial advisers were leaving the independent sector. It is true that enormous efforts are being made by insurance offices, life offices and insurance companies to, if I may use the word, seduce practitioners from the independent sector to the extent that they are sending out glossy brochures on compliance, one of which I received this morning, saying on compliance things like:
"Undoubtedly, it placed onerous burdens on you…Does this distract you from your main purpose—looking after your customers?".
On record keeping, it states:
"You've always kept records. No business interested in customer service and growth would not. Now, however, your records must conform to a strictly prescribed format and be kept for up to seven years. What consequences does this have for your business? And what of the other administrative issues—code of conduct, selling practices. advertising, accounting, stationery? The list is endless. How can you concentrate on what you do best?".
I am not here to answer that. I regret that the circumstances should be exploited in this way, but the consequences are not exactly what my noble friend may have suggested. if my experience is anything to go by. When we were preparing for the implementation of the Financial Service Act, we expected a membership of, at the most, 7,500 member firms. We now have a membership of 9,030 member firms. It is true that we lose a dozen or so a month, but we have 50 applications a month from new members. That does not sound to me exactly like a stampede.
It is true that the independent financial advisers have been going and are going through a very difficult period indeed. The market has been desperately bad for them because of events of which your Lordships are all too well aware, and they have had the burdens to deal with which my noble friend has not exaggerated and the costs that arise therefrom. However, I believe that when the commission arrangements that at present exist are removed and that will be sooner, not later—taken together with other developments in the regulatory regime, the environment that he is waiting for will exist and he will be able to exploit it efficiently in both cost and business terms, provided that my noble friend sees fit to make the changes which I ask him to make, which will reduce the burden of regulation where it bites and make it more effective, not less, for the protection of the investor.
6.25 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I want to make only a very short intervention in the debate and say a few words about consumer related matters in the Billl. It is clear that the Bill does not in the main hear directly on the consumer but there are certain areas which affect his interests. I should like to make the following comments. I am sure that some comments have been made before, but I should like to marshal them and show how the consumer and the small investor are affected by the Bill.
First, there are measures which may be of great benefit to members of the public, and they must be

59
welcomed. For example, there are measures designed to curb abuses in financial reporting contained in Part I. If these succeed in making the information contained in company accounts more readily comprehensible to the small investor, that would be worthwhile.
Secondly, under Clause 91 there is a move towards greater transparency in share ownership through lowering the threshold by which the purchaser of shares in a company has to disclose his stake. That would be good for the small investor and is a step in the right direction. As the Minister said in opening the debate, some people may feel that the Bill has not gone far enough, and I believe that this is the case among consumer groups. Those are some of the changes which would undoubtedly help in strengthening the position of small investors and which are welcomed by consumer groups.
In a Bill of this size and complexity there inevitably are areas in which the rights of individual consumers are not quite clear. I should like to seek explanations and some assurance from the Minister on the precise meaning and effect of some of these proposals.
First, Clauses 98 and 99 cover legal enforcement on merger undertaking. The proposal under Clause 98 enables the Secretary of State to accept undertakings to divest part of a merged business as an alternative to making a merger reference, provided that the undertakings given are such as to prevent or remedy effects adverse to public interest from a proposed merger. In Clause 99 such undertakings arc declared to be enforceable at law by any person under the terms of the Fair Trading Act. A question that arises from this clause is, who do the Government envisage taking this action in practice? Will it be the Secretary of State, companies or individuals? For example, if a merger between two large airlines is approved on condition that they divest themselves of certain routes and those undertakings seem not to be fulfilled, who would bring the company into court? Would it be a smaller airline, which may be in a precarious financial position, or an individual traveller without the resources to sustain a protracted legal action?
Will the Minister not agree that as these undertakings under Clause 98 are to be made in the public interest, some form of aid should be made available to members of the public wishing to enforce them? That could be done perhaps through a group or class action. Alternatively, is there not a case for an independent body to monitor the carrying out of such undertakings? I should be most grateful if the Minister will comment on that.
On another related point, given that the Government are taking steps in the Bill to ensure that the taxpayer does not have to pay for investigations into mergers, they might perhaps now consider further amendment to the Fair Trading Act to ensure that the public do not foot the bill for action taken under the misleading advertising directive. It is of some concern that the Office of Fair Trading will have to expend an enormous amount of resources investigating the current advertising dispute between the two giant consortia of Sky Television and British
60
Satellite Broadcasting. Would it not be much cheaper for the taxpayer and quicker for all concerned if the Government allowed such cases to be taken directly to court by the complainant rather than insisting that they are referred to the OFT, which would then be able to concentrate on complaints made by the individual consumer for whom help would be more necessary?
My second point about this part of the Bill concerns the need for the reversal of ownership proof in merger cases. The current obligations on the vetting authority to prove disadvantage to the public appears to be totally unrealistic, particularly because there is no mechanism for the continued examination of the after-effects of a merger. In cases where a full Monopolies amd Mergers Commission investigation is carried out, the requirement to prove that the proposals would be against the public interest must mean that lack of information will frequently weigh the decision in favour of non-interference from a body which to a large extent is dependent on receiving information from the organisation being vetted.
Support for the reversal of the onus of proof comes from no less a person than Sir Gordon Borrie, Director General of the Office of Fair Trading. He suggested that the Government should consider changing the burden of proof as a means of ensuring that public interest does not suffer from an excessively short-term view in relation to merger policy. There is little doubt that there will be a great deal of support from consumer groups and trade unions for that view.
Clause 132 has been mentioned by several noble Lords. It deals with the right to sue an SRO. A further point of concern arises because the clause amends Section 62 of the Financial Services Act in order to restrict the right to sue an investment firm for losses suffered as a result of a breach in the rules of a self-regulating organisation to the private investor. While at first glance it appears that the amendment preserves the right of the private investor to sue, on further examination it becomes clear that the amendment states that the meaning of the expression "private investor" shall be defined by regulations made by the Secretary of State. It therefore appears that a private investor will not be able to sue under this section until regulations have been proposed by the Secretary of State. Can the Minister say when such regulations are likely to be produced and whether the House will discuss them beforehand?
That point is symptomatic of a wider problem concerning companies legislation. Such legislation should ensure fair redress for loss by the consumer when he or she has had the market artificially rigged against them, when information has been denied them or when negligent or dishonest practices have taken place. There has been a distressing number of such cases in recent times and compensation for loss has not been swift in being brought about, if indeed it has been awarded at all. In building up an edifice of regulation we should not neglect its indispensable corollary, which is that there should be an effective means of enforcement and redress for the individual.

61
I have touched on a few points which appear to affect the consumer directly. I hope that the Minister will take note of them and be able to respond.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, by listing the number of Acts which the Bill seeks to amend, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, reminds us that it is a broad Bill. However, I am not sure that it visits as many corners of economic life as we have in this debate.
From what has been said by previous speakers, it is quite clear that all sides of your Lordships' House welcome certain parts of the Bill. The harmonisation provisions, the updating of consolidation requirements and accountancy standards are necessary measures. Any sensible attempt to reduce red tape, and therefore cost, in industry is to be welcomed. Such benefits to industry are diminished by other new forms of regulation, much of it sadly necessary, particularly so in the financial services sector. I suspect that the overall burden of red tape that we, the legislature, impose upon business has never been reduced in net terms. Therefore I hope that the provisions in the Bill to reduce the burden will not be watered down during its passage through your Lordships' House and another place. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, and it is extremely important.
I am always pleased when important, and in this case technical and complicated, Bills start their parliamentary progress in this House. Our debate today has served to highlight the parts of the Bill which will be controversial. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, based his opposition to the Bill on what is left out. He stated that there is no theme, that the Bill is not the general view that he had expected and hoped for and that ultra vires provisions are omitted at this stage. He summed up by saying that the Bill represents no progress. I believe that on balance the Bill has been well received today. The noble Lord commented on the so-called "river companies" and, to use his phrase, perhaps it is he who is swimming against the current and not the Government.
Perhaps it is fortuitous that the Government's merger policy is to play a part in our discussions at a time of increased merger and acquisition activity, not only in this country but also on the world stage. Indeed, I welcome the Government's proposals of pre-notification and divestment. I suspect that the former will be relevant only for agreed mergers because, as it is improbable that sufficient evidence will be made available by the management of a target company in a hostile bid, rule No. 1 for escaping a predator is to play for time. It must be remembered that the proposal in the Bill to reduce the threshold of disclosure from 5 per cent. to 3 per cent. and to reduce the time element will also assist the target company management in its defence strategy by giving earlier warning of a stake being accumulated in the company.
I join the welcome given to the Government's proposals on divestiture. However, I believe that in a contested bid where a predator makes a legally
62
binding undertaking to divest, it gives on balance an advantage to the target management. The value of a part of a merged business in a forced sale is surely less, and no doubt the case for the defence against a contested bid would make full use of that fact. Thus I do not believe that in the Bill we are setting a charter for more successful mergers. We are moving in the direction advocated by my noble friend Lord Carr.
To those noble Lords who believe that big and bigger business is generally bad for competition and therefore bad for the consumer, I say that the Government's proposals to streamline merger procedures in no way open the door to a further concentration of economic influence. Every merger case is different; they have their particular features. I believe that the Secretary of State has carried out the Government's clearly stated policy consistently and fairly.
On occasions noble Lords opposite have attempted to broaden the issues in a particular takeover beyond the matter of competition. They would like to see many other considerations introduced to act as constraints on the operation of a free market. But the success of our economy today demonstrates that a free and open market will ultimately decide what is best far more efficiently than will committees of bureaucrats.
Competition must remain the dominant cornerstone of government intervention. In particular, this country's position as the largest foreign investor in the United States should not be jeopardised by old-fashioned, insular attitudes to inward investment here. A fully open mergers policy appears to stimulate target companies into increased economic activity. Even the predator, as we have seen recently, is galvanised in order to repel "pacman"-type tactics by defending companies.
A bid or merger in the first instance is often triggered by the perception of a jewel in the crown of the target company. This jewel, in the form of' a particularly prosperous diversion or even a pile of uninvested cash, can put even highly successful, active and progressive companies at risk of takeover. After the jewel is extracted, the rest of the business is broken up and sold off. That is not necessarily bad but in a free market managements should be free to plan ahead to avoid such occurrences.
I believe that is about time that artificial restrictions on the available options were removed: restrictions such as tax disadvantages and restrictions on hiving off divisions by way of bonus shares to the existing shareholders, so making two separate freestanding companies out of one, albeit with identical shareholders. It may also be desirable further to reduce the restrictions on companies buying in their own shares and to remove tax penalties on passing out unused and surplus capital to shareholders. Such moves can enhance shareholder value, so enabling good management successfully to head off opportunistic takeover approaches. Those are suggestions that my noble friend the Secretary of State might wish to bring to the attention of his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer before the next Budget.
Turning hack to the Bill itself, it was always known that certain provisions of the Financial Services Act

63
would need amendment in the light of experience. Subject to some clarification at Committee stage, I believe that removing the professional investor from the protection of Section 62 of the Financial Services Act and the clarification in the Bill on the set-off in bankruptcy provisions contained in Clause 134 are sensible changes.
I also welcome the strengthening and widening of the investigative powers of the Department of Trade and Industry. As financial markets and trade generally become more international, it is important that the DTI is sufficiently equipped to liaise with its opposite numbers in other countries in order to provide and enforce regulations.
The Bill is indeed a compendium of legislation, but it is necessary legislation, and I believe that it is none the worse for that.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am pleased to be speaking after the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, in his new place. I hope that we shall hear him intervene in debates on many occasions in the future in that new capacity.
At this stage in the debate it is clear to me that there is much in the Bill that is desirable and can be supported; but there are some aspects of it that could be improved by amendment. Indeed, there are a number of omissions which could also be dealt with at a later stage. I am among those who regret, as did the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, that the opportunity has not been taken in the Bill to pursue a more concerted theme. If ever a theme was to hand in relation to new company legislation, it is to hand today.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, has distinguished himself by the vigour with which he has sought to promote the preparation among enterprises in Britain for the single market. It seems logical, therefore that a coherent legal framework for companies within that market should have been attempted in the legislation now before us. Unfortunately, that opportunity has not been taken, so my first question to the Minister is this. Are we to expect something later that will deal with this? We ought to know. This seems to be a gap in the preparations for the single market.
The way in which this Bill is built up, as surmised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and confirmed from his great experience in government by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, appears to be that because there was a need to implement the Seventh and Eighth Directives the opportunity was taken to introduce a number of other matters which had to be legislated for and for which somehow a place had to be found. As I said, the result is a number of desirable propositions but a coherence and an opportunity missed.
A large number of important points were raised in the debate. No doubt we shall return to most of them in Committee. I should like to single out three points for special comment. I suggest that more should be done in Part I than has already been done—it is a
64
considerable amount—to relieve the burden imposed on small companies. There is a vast number of small companies in this country: some 90 per cent. of registered companies have a turnover of less than £2 million, which falls within the definition of a small company in Clause 12. The reduction in the burden for which I am asking is that they should no longer be required to have their accounts audited in a formal manner. As the noble Lord, Lord Benson, said, the cost of auditing, which arises from this legislation will increase. It will become a heavy financial burden as well as take up much time for small companies. Of course they will need to keep their management accounts and to keep accounts that will satisfy the tax inspectors and their creditors, but I believe that they could be relieved of that obligation with benefit.
The intention of Part II, which deals with the regime for the regulation of auditors, is wholly desirable, but there are problems to which several noble Lords referred. In particular, there is the risk that we could get into a situation similar to that created by the Financial Services Act. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, suggested that the noble Lord, Lord Young, should in future be followed by someone to remind him of what had happened with that Act so that he should not forget it in respect of future legislation. Therefore, we must make sure that the supervisory system does not contain the blemishes of that Act.
There is concern in the accountancy profession (I do not form part of it as I am not an accountant but I respect the profession). I am satisfied that it has made a good point as put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Benson and Lord Milne, that if accountancy professional bodies are to be given a supervisory role of the sort proposed in Part II, they should be relieved of the legal responsibilities in the same way as the SIB and the SROs in regard to the exercise of their proper functions. This is an important issue and it is a matter to which I hope we shall come back in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Ludgate, referred, as did other noble Lords, to the excessive supervisory and bureaucratic system that is contained within the Financial Services Act. I think it is a serious thing to consider that, as the impediments to the free movement of capital are removed within the Community, we could end up looking like the most regulated financial centre in the Community. We must not extend that overregulation to our other services. There is a real prospect, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, quite rightly said, that a number of financial institutions, could quite happily set themselves up in, let us say, Luxembourg where the regulations for free movement of unit trusts will come into operation on 1st March, and operate from there and therefore escape from much of the regulation within this country. That does not seem to me to be a very sensible arrangement. Whether we can use this Bill as a vehicle for further amendment of the Financial Services Act, as was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I do not know, but certainly that needs to be done at some stage.
There is finally the question of the mergers. 1 think we possibly all found ourselves in some

65
disappointment at the mergers section of the Bill, because the whole question of mergers is now playing such a large part in the economic activity of the developed world, particularly within the European Community and between the Community and the United States. This is one area where one would have thought there ought to be a fundamental review. As the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, said, this would have presented the opportunity of stating quite clearly what are the bases on which these propositions will be considered.
I can see no harm, if one accepted that competition will be the main factor, in nevertheless indicating as an example some of the other factors which have to he taken into account. I see no reason why this should be left entirely open, and an indication to that effect in this or some other piece of legislation would be highly desirable. As these mergers get larger and larger, so more and more people are involved the—noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, referred to the people in the Isle of Wight who will be affected by whatever happens to Plessey—and so this human element needs to be more considered. This is a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred.
The other aspect of the mergers part which caused me some concern is that, although I went through it fairly carefully, the words, "Europe", "European" or "Commission" were not mentioned at all. If we had abstracted ourselves from the world as it is and thought that we were just an island state acting within our own frontiers, this would have been an admirable bit of legislation. But in fact we are preparing ourselves for the biggest change in our economic affairs in human memory. The question arises: how are we to link our merger legislation with that of the Community?
The noble Lord, Lord Young, in the address that he delivered on 27th October, to which reference has already been made, referred to this. He said that he thought that as far as the Community was concerned the existing regime of Articles 85 and 86 was quite adequate. He went on to say:
"It is well known that the UK has reserved its position on the principle of the regulation"—
that is, the merger regulation—
"while continuing to participate constructively in council working group discussions".
I should like to ask your Lordships whether you believe that Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome, which were devised for some quite other purpose—namely, the question of competition—are suitable for dealing with the developing merger situation. For one thing the articles are meant to be applied after the event so that, strictly speaking, mergers could go ahead as agreed by the national governments and then the Commission could come along and say, "No, sorry, you can't do that. You will have to undo it".
What is happening in practice is that the prudent enterprises, which realise that there is a European context in the merger proposals that they have in mind, are going to the Commission first and asking their views, exactly as is proposed in this Bill so far as UK merger legislation is concerned. If that is what
66
people are doing, why are the Government reluctant to have a corresponding merger regulation within the Community? Why should we be objecting to having a similar procedure to the procedure which we are enacting in our own country? Surely it would be far better for firms contemplating intra-European mergers to know precisely what the procedure is, riot only in their own country but in a Community context, and to have this clearly laid down and agreed by the various member governments. In fact, as I understand it, in Spain at the moment they are passing through their Parliament merger legislation which is entirely modelled on what the Commission would like to do within the Community.
So far as I can see from what has been reported in the press, the merger proposals in a European context would not differ all that much from what we have been debating this afternoon in a UK context, so it is important for us to ask the noble Lord the Minister when he replies what we are doing about that. Are we going to leave that as a lacuna? Are we going to leave the Commission to have to work post facto with Articles 85 and 86, with all the problems that that could create, or are we going to try to get this sorted out as quickly as possible so that we can effectively prepare for the advent of the single market and, in this very important question of mergers, know where we stand?
6.57 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel referred to the Bill as a hotpot. It is certainly a very diversified piece of legislation—what we might call a conglomerate merger of DTI interests. It is also, speaking for myself, a very complex Bill, large parts of which I have to tell noble Lords I do not understand at all. I have read the DTI's companion introduction and I am bound to say that there are large parts that I still do not understand. Therefore I hope noble Lords will bear with me if I take slightly longer in making this speech than I normally would, but also will bear with me subsequently in Committee where one puts down amendments with the sole purpose of discovering what the Bill means, because we will certainly have to do that.
I also echo some other remarks of my noble friend Lord Williams in saying that I too, am not one of those who likes to see primary legislation introduced in a way which then can be substantially and significantly amended by statutory instrument. We have been doing that a great deal; I noticed it in the Education Reform Act. It is a matter which taken too far—I go no further than that—verges on the deplorable. So one must at least indicate one's concern on that matter.
On the Bill itself, noble Lords have rightly said that it contains much that is to be welcomed. We support that. It is entirely right that we legislate for the relevant directives. Indeed, the only concern is how late we sometimes leave these matters. But we must do that.
In particular, on matters to do with accounting we must follow what in most cases is the perfectly good sense of the directives. Other than on matters of clarification one will find much to support here. But

67
the main criterion on accounting must surely be the full and meaningful disclosure of information. I must strongly underline what my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs said about how that disclosure of information is of importance to the small investor in particular. The small investor is not the only person who is concerned about full disclosure, but certainly we must bear in mind that particular interest.
On the question of auditors, again one broadly supports the lines that the Government are taking in considering the supervisory bodies and qualifying bodies. With respect to specific amendments, one will be interested to know what or who the Government have in mind in regard to the supervisory bodies. Because of my interests in the publice sector field I shall certainly press the Secretary of State for his view on whether the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) would be regarded as a relevant supervisory body, particularly given the enterprising nature of much of what is happening in the public sector with which the CIPFA is very much involved.
The Bill refers—The Secretary of State commented on it—to the fact that those supervisory bodies are of their nature bodies which introduce restrictive practices. That is what a supervisory body is meant to do. I hope very much that the Secretary of State or someone else will look askance at those restrictive practices so that they are at the absolute minimum necessary to pursue the supervisory and qualifying function.
The remarks made by the noble Lords, Lord Benson and Lord Milne, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on the question of immunity for the supervisory bodies are well taken. I am sure all of us will return to that in Committee.
More generally, on the question of the powers of the Secretary of State, I support my noble friend Lord Williams—obviously I support my noble friend—on the advantages of setting up a statutory body to take over the Secretary of State's powers of adopting the GMC solution. We did not really get into the detail of why the Secretary of State thought that he ought to take reserve powers here which he might want to use, but we shall have an opportunity in Committee to explore that further, by putting down the appropriate amendment, so that we can say why we think it would be advantageous for the Secretary of State to devolve those powers from the beginning, and he might tell us why he would like to learn and perhaps do it a little later. That is certainly a subject worth pursuing.
On the question of investigations, that brings out very clearly our European and world commitments that we really must do what we can to work with and help foreign regulators. There is little that is likely to emerge there that will provide difficulties for us.
The other aspect of investigations which my noble friend Lord Williams raised and which I should like to take further is the question of investigations which are set up where it is not proposed to publish reports. There are two aspects of this, and in due course I should welcome some clarification. There are investigations where it is announced beforehand that
68
the report will not be published and there are investigations where subsequently it is announced that the report will not be published. My noble friend Lord Williams raised the point that merely suggesting an investigation can be damaging to particular interests and individuals. I totally agree with him. On the other hand, given that there is an investigation my own view, because I tend to favour publishing almost everything that can be published, is that there should be a presumption in favour of such things being made public except in extreme cases.
A similar point on publication and transparency refers to the disclosure of interest in shares. I think that is something one will support. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, raised the point that you may say you wish to do that but there are many ways round it. I can only say that although I do not wish to go along the lines of what was referred to as over-regulation by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I certainly believe that we ought to go to almost any lengths to disclose the true owners of shares. It ought to be made as difficult as possible to disguise the true ownership of shares and of companies from that point of view.
Since I wish to talk about mergers at slightly greater length. perhaps before that I may go to the question of financial markets. It is surely the case that the dominant criterion in considering anything that happens in financial markets, anything to do with regulation, must be the protection of the investor, or the saver as I prefer to call the relevant man or woman. This must be the criterion that matters. I regard the institutions themselves as secondary to the interests of the investors, the savers. They exist for the sake of the investors and savers and it is not the case, as they sometimes seem to suggest, that the investors and savers exist for the sake of the institutions. It is those whose funds are involved who are the people who need protection, and the best way to achieve protection is by full disclosure.
When we come to Committee I shall be very critical of those parts of the Bill that seem to regard the protection of market-makers as on a par with, if not more important than, the protection of investors and savers. I read in the press recently that at least one of the regulatory bodies will try to reduce disclosure requirements in order to protect market-makers. I regard that as wholly deplorable. If market-makers cannot operate with full disclosure of price and quantities, they ought not to be in the business of market-making. I would go further with respect to financial institutions generally.
On the reform of the Financial Services Act, various noble Lords have referred to the unintended consequences of the Act. I was not in your Lordships' House at the time, but I am well aware of your Lordships' debates on these matters. The consequences may have been unintended but they were certainly predicted. The bureaucracy was certainly predicted, not least by my noble friend Lord Williams.
We do not want to overlegislate, but I and my noble friends would be sympathetic to the view that we might look at aspects of the Financial Services Act to see if we cannot at least modify it to some extent along the lines that my noble friend Lord Williams

69
suggested and on similar lines to those which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggested. It seems to me that good regulation involves setting down explicit rational principles which one then puts into practice. I do not regard rule books running to 900 or 1,000 or more pages as rational regulation. Since the rule books become completely uninterpretable, let alone unenforceable, I do not regard them as a way of protecting investors and savers in financial institutions. I hope we can make some progress in that area.
I also take the view that when we are looking at financial services there is really no longer a case for the special protection of the banks. Whether there was a case I do not know, but I think that if the banks wish to buy the rhetoric of the enterprise economy they have to behave in an enterprising way and survive in the market-place as others do without special protection.
That takes me to the question of monopolies and mergers. We know that people are inconsistent in their attitudes to mergers. They are inconsistent in their attitudes to monopoly and to competition. Essentially the view they take is: "The merger where I am the predator is good; the merger where I am the prey is bad". That is the fundamental way in which people approach this matter: "Of course competition is uniformly good, but we all believe in resale price maintenance in books". I could go on along those lines.
I have to tell your Lordships that I actually believe competition is a good thing and that on the whole I am not happy with almost any of the cases that are put forward to justify merger activity. As an academic who has worked in this field I can construct the intellectual case for mergers but I never believe in it. I believe that competition is the way to move forward, raise efficiency and protect the consumer. I criticise the Bill in that I believe the Government's competition policy is in disarray because it is being conducted in an ad hoc fashion. It is a pity that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has not been strengthened in this Bill. It could have been strengthened in a way that would have assisted the Government with a short-term body responsive to specific problems as they emerge and a body to consider problems of a long-term nature. That is what is required. It is a pity that it has not happened.
Having emphasised my concern with competition as a central matter, I do not deny that other criteria are put forward to do with the national interest, industrial and regional policy. I take those as examples. The Government claim that they do not have such policies. They stick to their usual cliché of leaving everything to the market. In practice the Government have discovered that they have to have an industrial and regional policy. They have to react to crises as they occur. The GEC problem as we have it now is such an example. In order to cope with that the Government have to say that they believe it falls within the remit of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and so give the problem to the MMC as the body to deal with it. It would be better if we had either a different kind of MMC in the first place or a different body altogether which would get the
70
Government off the hook and give them some independent advice.
Having said that, I believe that we can either reform or to some extent extend the MMC. Noble Lords will not be surprised to know, given the remarks that I have made as regards competition, that I am one of those who would change the burden of proof very substantially. I listened with enormous interest to the speech made by the noble Lord. Lord Carr. I hesitate to say that because I hope that the Government were also listening with enormous interest to what he said and that they will respond accordingly. I do not wish to undermine the constructive side of his speech by saying how much I agreed with so much of it. Therefore, I add that I disagreed with the noble Lord's view that he would not go a long way along the path of reversing the burden of proof. I do not have his precise words but he said that he would not advocate that we should make mergers and takeovers extremely difficult if' not impossible. I believe that this country would be richer and more efficient today if, during quite a number of past years, mergers had been made difficult to the point of impossibility.
All the empirical evidence is as well known to the economists working at the DTI as it is known to me. That evidence shows that on the whole mergers do not raise efficiency or productivity. They are not beneficial. On the whole they benefit people in the City and that is about it. The noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, said many things with which I agree. He said all mergers are different. They are. But the one thing they have in common is that they should not take place or rather that we should look at them askance. I should like to see the burden of proof, not taken to the extreme position I personally would advocate—like most economists I take seriously the empirical work of the failure of mergers, and I therefore become an extremist—but without going to extremes, I believe that the Government should consider at least changing some aspects or the burden of proof.
I agree very much with my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs. We should devote more effort to studying the after-effects of mergers. This is not simply a characteristic of policy as regards mergers. It happens to be a characteristic also of policy generally in our country. We are very good at analysing problems beforehand; but we spend nowhere near as much time looking at the matter expost facto to see if everything happened along the lines that it was supposed to happen and whether anything can be learned from the experience. I believe that mergers should be monitored. Following the suggestion that has been put forward, I believe that those who wish to merge might state the benefits that are supposed to flow from the merger. One might look occasionally at some sample matters to see if any of the benefits really did occur.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that that is an extremely difficult thing to do because one has to assume what would have happened if the merger had not taken place.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am well aware of that, but I say to the noble Lord that that is true of any

71
study of any event that ever occurs in the world. Unless one says that one can never look at anything of an empirical nature one obviously has to have some kind of' a working hypothesis as regards what might have happened. Then one has to compare that with what did take place.
To be slightly more balanced, I am not suggesting that where one discovers that a merger has failed one should always jump to the conclusion that it failed because it was a merger. One would look at the problem in a balanced way. We are discussing a matter that noble Lords have pointed out is contemporary and a major event. These problems have continued for a great many years. The least we can do is examine what the alleged benefits are and see if we have them. Economists have done this in a limited way. The economists of the DTI have done it. These are well known matters. On the whole the evidence is negative but I should like to see such examination followed to an even greater extent.
I wish to make a few remarks as regards interested parties. Many noble Lords have referred to the employed labour force as being an interested party. I was glad to hear such remarks not merely from noble Lords on this side of your Lordships' House but also from other noble Lords. I believe that we should take more seriously the interests of the workers involved. I do not go to the extreme of saying that that is the only interest. I am not naive on these matters. It is some little while since the party on this side of your Lordships' House was in power. However, when we were I did not discover that trade unionists were totally against mergers and as forthright for competition as I am.
My noble friend, Lord Murray, was not anti-merger. The real point is not that the employed labour force is pro or anti-merger but that the employed labour force in firms has an interest that should be taken into account and made explicit. My noble friend Lady Ewart Biggs brings out a point that I totally support; namely, that consumers are also interested parties. It is a great pity that we have not yet found a way of legislating so that consumers and consumer bodies have a statutory right at least of comment.
In conclusion I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Williams that this Bill is important. We shall scrutinise it carefully and completely in Committee. Our duty is to improve it. We shall try to iron out the errors it contains as we see them. And we shall try to add to the Bill. We can do none of this without the help and sympathetic response of Her Majesty's Government. I was heartened by the Secretary of State saying that he had an open mind on matters connected with the Bill. I do not expect him to have an open mind as regards my views on merger policy, but there are other matters as well. The Secretary of State says that he has an open mind. Certainly, we on our side also have open minds. Therefore it is to be hoped that your Lordships together can convert the Lancashire hotpot into something—I do not wish to offend too many people—of a more haute cuisine nature, sending to the other place a well thought-out form of this Bill for its consideration.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this has been a most interesting and useful debate as well as being very far ranging. We have covered a good deal of ground on a whole spectrum of subjects. As my noble friend outlined at the beginning of the debate, the Bill represents a set of carefully prepared and detailed proposals and it is not a radical overhaul of the Companies Act or of other legislation. It is nonetheless a sizeable Bill and introduces some significant reforms.
At this moment perhaps I may crave the House's indulgence. I shall not he able to answer all noble Lords' questions but will try to cover as many as possible. I shall of course read Hansard diligently tomorrow. I am sure that the questions which I cannot answer today will be raised in Committee. I join my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook in welcoming the introduction of the Bill. Noble Lords' expertise in this area is highly regarded. As your Lordships are aware, I am my noble friend's mere replacement. 1 enjoyed listening to him and I look forward to his contributions in Committee.
I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, say that the Bill was not objectionable. He prefaced his remarks by saying that he was disappointed. From him I feel that this was praise indeed. We shall try to convince him in Committee that he will no longer be disappointed and we hope that by the time of Third Reading he will wax lyrical on the virtues of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I doubt it.
Lord Strathclyde: It is easy to criticise but he must make up his mind whether he wants more subjects or fewer subjects in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, repeated the comment about the Lancashire hotpot. In this case I feel that he wants to make more of an Irish stew where no one quite knows what goes in.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked why we were introducing changes on the registration of company charges before we see Professor Diamond's report. Professor Diamond was asked to make specific recommendations on improvements to the system of registration of company charges. These recommendations form a separate part of his report which he delivered early. He believes that there is a case for making improvements now to the registration of company charges in advance of any action on his proposals on the general law of security over property other than land.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Lord has been kind enough to send to me copies of the two directives in question which I could not get from the Printed Paper Office and copies of other documents which I could not get from the Printed Paper Office. Indeed I am trying to get the Thirteenth Company Law Directive in draft. I have failed to get a copy of Professor Diamond's recommendations. Therefore I may be speaking out of order when I say that I have not seen them. Certainly the House is not aware of them. Will he kindly ensure that I get them?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. He will not have had an opportunity to see them. We intend to publish Professor Diamond's full report in time for it to be available before discussion of Part IV of the Bill in Committee. I hope that that will put his mind at rest at least for the time being.
The noble Lord also asked about exceptions for small and medium-sized groups from requirements to prepare consolidated accounts. This arises under Clause 12. The Government wish wherever it is sensible to do so to remove burdens on small and medium-sized companies. In the cases covered by the clause we believe that the costs of preparing such accounts outweigh any benefits derived from them. Therefore we shall go ahead on that basis. As for non-executive directors, the Government have indicated that they welcome the involvement of non-executive directors on audit committees and remuneration committees but regard this as a matter for companies themselves to decide. It is not a suitable subject for compulsion in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, my noble friend Lord Stevens of Ludgate, as well as other noble Lords, asked about the Takeover Panel. The question of whether the takeover rules should be legally binding was considered in the review of the operations of the Takeover Panel carried out in early 1987. The review was carried out by the DTI, the Treasury, the Bank of England, the SIB, the Stock Exchange and the Takeover Panel itself. It concluded that there were significant advantages in the existing system of consensual rules which would be lost if replaced by a statutory system. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, recognised the strength of this view.
At present the panel has considerable flexibility in applying its rules to ensure that conduct is in line with the principles of the Takeover Code. To a large extent it is the final arbiter in cases it considers. This is vital in an area of fast-changing market practice. Such flexibility would not be available under legally binding rules where rulings of the regulatory body would be subject to appeals to the courts. Moreover a statutory system, by increasing access to the courts, would result in an increase in litigation used for purely tactical and delaying purposes during takeovers. This would be to the detriment of the takeover market in the United Kingdom. For these reasons the Government believe that it is in the interests of takeover regulation and of the whole economy that the system under the panel should continue and that the European directive should be framed so as to allow it to. The panel continues to show that it is an effective regulatory body.
The noble Lord, Lord Benson, and the noble Lord, Lord Milne, who mentioned that he would not be here for the end of the debate, and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, expressed fears that the supervisory system for auditors will represent a heavy burden on the profession and its clients. I say at once that we are determined to avoid the dangers of overregulation. I do not think there will be any dispute that auditors should be subject to a satisfactory supervisory system. The Eighth Directive obliges us to place certain requirements upon auditors. The
74
profession has a long history of regulating itself, so regulation in this area is nothing new. It is the profession's own bodies which will have the responsibility under the Bill for drawing up many of the detailed rules. We expect them to seek to minimise the burden they place on their members. Certainly we intend to work closely with the professional bodies to ensure that that aim is achieved.
The noble Lords, Lord Benson, Lord Taylor of Gryfe and Lord Ezra, asked whether the Bill will provide a recognised body with immunity from action for damages. Such a provision is not in the Bill at present. The professional bodies have asked that an immunity provision be added. We are considering their request. Noble Lords will appreciate that this matter requires the most careful consideration.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone asked a variety of questions and made some detailed points on the provisions on accounting for mergers. I welcome his support for many aspects of the Bill. We note that he has been advised of detailed points and we shall no doubt return to these more closely in Committee. On his particular point that provisions on merger and acquisition accounting would be best left to accounting standards, the proposals in the Bill are for the most part needed to give proper effect to the Seventh Directive. We keep in close touch with the Accounting Standards Committee. It is not the Government's intention to step into territory best covered by the ASC. We feel however that the additional disclosure required by the Bill is an essential basis for accounting to shareholders and is a proper concern of company law.
I also note that the Association of International Accountants will be making an application to be recognised as a qualifying body. This point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I confirm that all applications will be carefully considered on their merits. It would be quite improper to prejudge the outcome until we have seen the application. The fact that the association made an application to be recognised under Section 389 of the 1985 Act and that it has had communications with departments in relation to the application do not affect the issue under the new system one way or the other.
The noble Lord also asked whether the right to audit certain bodies referred to in Schedule 12 should be tied to the right to audit companies. This is required by the Eighth Directive. This point can be looked at more closely in Committee and scope will exist to make alterations if a strong case is made for them.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, in an interesting speech, asked whether this Bill would abolish pre-emption rights in the light of a certain amount of press speculation. The Community's Second Company Law Directive establishes the principle of pre-emption rights. The option of completely abolishing pre-emption rights does not therefore exist. There is only one difference of substance between the directive and the 1985 Companies Act on that point. The directive permits member states to allow companies, through their articles or by special resolution, to authorise the waiver of pre-emption rights indefinitely.

75
Under Section 80 of the Companies Act such authority expires after five years. Therefore there is room for maneouvre only on the duration of the waiver to be allowed. The Bill contains no amendments to the current Companies Act provisions. I cannot therefore undertake that the Government would never change or abolish the five-year limit, but I note the views expressed by the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked about new powers under Section 432 in Clause 50. The new power which provides for investigations by inspectors not leading to a published report is intended to speed up the investigation process in those cases where the underlying purpose of the investigation is to decide whether there are grounds for specific prosecution or regulatory action. It is not intended for those cases in which the public interest requires a published report. I think that that provision also covers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me if I intervene for a moment because I find myself a little lost here. The point which was being made was, I suppose, the point of guilt by association; namely, that the mere fact that one's name is mentioned would cause people to remark, "There's no smoke without fire".
One was hoping, not necessarily at this stage but perhaps in due course, for some reassurance on the matter. Even I believe that the overwhelming majority of businessmen are honest, but the situation might occasionally need to be looked at so as to reassure them that they are not in that danger. As I say, I do not expect an answer from the noble Lord now, but I wanted to make clear the point which we on this side of the House were raising.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord says and I hope to be able to deal with the matter later on.
My noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley and the noble Lord, Lord Milne, asked about the changes to the Takeover Code, especially the reduction of the 30 per cent. mandatory offer threshold. That threshold is part of the non-statutory city code; it is not company law. Therefore changing it is a matter for the panel on takovers and mergers, which has recently set up a working group chaired by my noble friend Lord Rockley. The group will be looking at a number of posisble changes to the city code which have recently been suggested.
My noble friend Lord Carr went on to suggest that the Takeover Panel should have stringent requirements for information to be disclosed in takeover documents. I am not convinced that it is necessary to add a new requirement for a statement of commercial strategy, although this is perhaps a point which will be considered in detail by the panel's working group.
Further, I take note of my noble friend's points on the better relationship between company and shareholder so as to achieve a longer term view.
76
However, he has not shown why in a properly informed market the balance between long and short-term prospects are not fully reflected in the price of shares and shareholders then properly left to make their own decisions. I did not expect noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite to agree with that, but there we are.
I am glad to see that the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, welcomes and supports the proposals in Part I of the Bill on mergers and acquisition accounting and on the definition of a subsidiary. I am sorry that he criticises the proposals that content on summarised accounts should be stipulated in secondary legislation. I point out that the content of all company accounts can be varied by secondary legislation under the existing Companies Act. The noble Viscount also wanted the general auditing council option to be adopted immediately. That was not the option preferred by respondents to public consultation exercises and is not desired by the profession.
Perhaps I may now turn to the debate which has focused our minds this afternoon on the subject of mergers. It may have been slightly out of proportion to its place in the Bill but nevertheless it is an extremely important subject. Many noble Lords have suggested that the criteria against which mergers are considered for reference to the MMC need to be clarified. Noble Lords have also asked for complete reviews. They have asked for consistency and for predictability. Those are words which were mentioned time and time again during the course of today's debate.
The present provisions are very widely drawn, allowing any matter which bears upon the public interest to be taken into account. The concern relates to the way those powers are used rather than the powers themselves. We have made it clear—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. He mentioned that the public interest would be taken into account. I and other Members of the House spoke earlier today specifically about the workforces involved. Perhaps I may ask him whether those people are included in that "public interest" or are they once again to be completely denied any input into their own future?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, many matters are taken into account in the definition of "public interest". However, perhaps I may continue with my speech. Obviously takeovers and mergers are important subjects and I may be able to answer the noble Lord later on.
We have made it clear that we see competition as the main factor to be considered in reference decisions. It is loss of competition that poses the most obvious threat to the public interest. But we fully recognise that there are, exceptionally, other public interest concerns which justify a reference. The fact is that very few mergers are referred and we therefore aim for consistency. The need to deal with each case on its merits precludes absolute predictability. That can only be done, as has already been pointed out, by a loss of economic activity.

77
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that the United Kingdom would be a better place without takeovers or mergers. However, perhaps I may ask him what would have happened to ICI. Would it now he a whole lot of—say 500—small backstreet companies working together or perhaps independently?
The noble Lord also asked about European Community evidence that mergers do not raise efficiency. That was looked at closely in the review of merger policy, the results of which were published in the DTI's March policy paper and which also led to the procedural changes contained in the Bill. It concluded that it is for investors to take account of the evidence available to them in deciding on the merits of the mergers. We support that conclusion.
The noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran and Lord Ezra, mentioned in particular the European dimension. I think that there is some confusion resulting from the fact that our mergers policy looks at the effect on competition in the United Kingdom. Obviously it can only look at the effects of mergers in the UK. But in assessing those effects full account is taken of the impact on imports and the geographical nature of the market for the goods or services concerned, which can be local, national, European or international.
Inevitably any merger involving a company which is based in more than one country will be of concern to regulators in those countries. Indeed, that has always been true. The approach of 1992 does not in itself change the way in which such mergers are considered except to the extent that it increases their number.
It is true that we have also seen an increasing interest on the part of the European Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and other noble Lords will be interested to know that the interrelationship between the European Community regime and domestic merger regulation, including on timetables, is one of the matters about which we are concerned in the discussions on the Commission's draft merger control regulation.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, has the United Kingdom withdrawn its objection to the formulation of a Community directive in this matter?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord preempts me. I was about to come to that point. The United Kingdom Government's position on the draft Community merger control regulation is well known. We have reserved our position while continuing to participate constructively in discussions. It is draft Community legislation and so is separate from the Bill which deals solely with national controls. Your Lordships will have the opportunity to consider its implications on the United Kingdom in the usual way.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, there was originally a deadline of the end of 1988 for agreement to the Community directive. Is there a new deadline? What is its relationship to the Bill's passage through the House?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand that there is now no deadline on the directives as a number
78
of countries do not like what has been put forward. We shall have to see how progress improves in the next few months.
In looking at current cases under existing powers under Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome, the European Commission will no doubt bear in mind the need for as rapid a decision as possible to remove uncertainty on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, also raised other points relating to the operation of Articles 85 and 86 of the treaty and block exemptions under Article 85. We shall no doubt return to those points, but I must say that they seem to be going rather wide of the matters now covered under Part VI of the Bill, and to be more relevant to future legislation on restrictive trade practices, on which we published a Green Paper last year.
A number of noble Lords have criticised our comments that decisions on mergers are best left to shareholders, and that that means we have no concern for employees. This may answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, but it is untrue that we are not concerned about employees. We believe that the interests of employees overall are best safeguarded by leaving the decisions to those who own assets and to the market. It is when assets are used most efficiently—this has been shown time and time again—that employees are best off. Mergers have a vital part to play in the process of resource allocation. That may sometimes involve restructuring and a loss of jobs in the short term. The Government are aware of that fact. They do not like to see it happen but they feel that it is important.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am once again grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. He is standing the facts on their head. He talks about matters balancing out and being put right in the long term. I spoke about a factory where 20,000 people worked. They are now down to about 6,000. That has been going on for 20 years. Is that short term? Does he think that the 15,000 people who have been made redundant think that it is short term and that they have been well looked after by the shareholders?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we are talking about mergers and takeovers and not a long-term decline in certain industries due to technological changes. The Government never like to see people made redundant or lose their jobs. But when in the past 10 years unemployment has risen from 1 million to about 3 million and is now coming back down to under 2 million, I feel that the point I made about the loss of jobs in the short term is relevant. It is a sad but necessary fact of commercial life.
Many commercial decisions, not just mergers, have such effects. Impeding economically justifiable takeovers because of their short-term effects could reduce the overall level of economic activity and leave everyone worse off ultimately. The record of nationalisation and government inspired restructuring shows that politicians and bureaucrats are far less likely to get that sort of decision right than those with a financial stake in the success of their company.

79
The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, also said that he would not be here at the end of the debate. He referred to the absence of employee rights. There is of course a whole branch of United Kingdom law which regulates employment but which is not company law. It is no part of government policy that companies should ignore the interest of their employees; but to compel, for instance, worker participation is to subscribe to the philosophy of the corporatist state which has in the past been tried and got us nowhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, also asked about worker participation. The Government actively support the principle of employee involvement in company affairs, but we strongly believe that arrangements for involvement should in all cases be negotiated on a voluntary basis. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, also welcomed our proposals for the prenotification of mergers. However, he suggested that they should be mandatory. As was made clear in our policy paper published in March, we believe that that would impose unnecessary burdens on companies. To be sure of catching those who might qualify for reference to the MMC, the criteria would have to be framed in a way which would catch many mergers of no interest to the authorities. That would also place on the authorities a burden which would considerably outweigh any advantage from having an early warning of such cases.
The voluntary system that we propose will enable those companies which wish to obtain advance clearance to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, asked whether the promises given by Guinness to move its headquarters to Scotland would be covered by the proposed new offence of giving false or misleading information. The offence will cover any information given to the competition authorities. It would, however, be invidious to comment on its possible application to earlier cases. Merely breaking a promise or undertaking is no indication that the information given was false at the time.
Noble Lords have raised a number of other points on merger provisions. I know that we shall have a long debate on this point in Committee, and it would take up far too much of your Lordships' time to go into further detail now. We have taken careful note of what noble Lords have said and will no doubt have an opportunity to come back to it. It would also be wrong for me to comment on matters taken into account in particular cases now being considered by the MMC. However, I have explained why the Bill does not contain far-reaching changes to merger policy. The reasons why we are generally happy with the existing powers were set out in the March Blue Paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked whether it was wise to override the general law of insolvency for one category of business. I am glad that he recognised the need for Part VII of the Bill. I hope that it will be possible to reassure him when we come to look at that part in detail that we have sought to limit interference with the operation of insolvency to the minimum consistent with ensuring that the market's default procedures can operate with certainty. The default
80
procedures themselves build on the general principle of set-off.
The noble Lord was wrong to say, in dealing with the SIB power to lay down principles which do not have the force of law, that the SIB could not do that. Both the SIB and the SROs must have rules governing the behaviour of the business they authorise. The SIB must be satisfied that the SRO's rules afford protection to investors at least equivalent to that afforded by SIB's own rules. But that does not require the rules to be identical or to have identical effect. It is open to SIB to set out the principle it intends its rules to achieve and to judge an SRO's rules against those principles. The noble Lord's reference—
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the noble Lord elaborate that slightly? Do I understand from what he says that he has made a statement of principle which means that it is not necessary to achieve an amendment of the Financial Services Act 1986 in order to arrive at a more flexible regulatory system such as I described, which the whole industry would welcome?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords, I am making a point of principle to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Perhaps I may just finish what I—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would like to consider very carefully what he is saying. This is a very important point. As I understand it, the SIB's legal advice is that it is not in a position to accomplish what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and I would like. That is the situation. I understand that it requires amendment to the primary legislation. If the noble Lord is saying that the SIB lawyers are wrong and that we are wrong, perhaps we could hear it in a very considered manner.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, yes. Perhaps I may get to that point in the next few minutes, when I shall make my position clear. The noble Lord's reference to Section 62 of the Act is something of a red herring in this matter, since principles so expressed would be guidance not rules under the Act and Section 62 does not relate to guidance.
My noble friend Lord Elton, raised a different but related point and I think this is perhaps where the confusion lies. I appreciate the concern which my noble friend has expressed about the relationship between the various sets of rules made under the Financial Services Act. It is no part of the Government's wish that the relationship should be any more complex than necessary or that there should be unnecessary overlap. The Act already provides considerable flexibility for SIB and the SROs to align their rules where this will help to avoid confusion or to waive them where it will help to avoid overlap. Nevertheless, I do not wish to rule out amendments to the Act to ease such simplification if this should prove necessary. I hope that that clears up the momentary confusion in the last few minutes.
My noble friend Lord Stevens of Ludgate is of course correct to state that European companies will be able to sell their unit trusts here from October this year, and in the case of Luxembourg from March,

81
subject only to the rules which govern marketing here. At the same time UK unit trust companies will be able to sell their products throughout the community, again subject only to local marketing rules. This will give the industry a substantial opportunity, which I am sure it will seize. Of course, for the reasons given, we do not wish standards in the Community to diverge substantially and will be working to achieve this. My noble friend mentioned tax advantages. However, I put to him that there are a large number of factors which might affect the commercial decision to move and by no means all of them point in the direction which he suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred to the need to take account of the interests of general creditors in the financial market provisions. We have sought to strike a balance between market creditors, including investors, and other creditors. Only those assets within the market system will be subject to special treatments. The assets will be set off against liabilities in a similar way to the general law of set-off and market creditors will not be given priority for their net claims over other creditors.
My noble friends Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Stevens of Ludgate asked about administrative and cost burdens imposed by the Financial Services Act. Nobody has ever pretended that improved investment protection could be achieved without an extra cost. Equally it is of interest to investors and the industry alike that those extra costs should be kept to a minimum. The Financial Services Act contains two important provisions designed to achieve this. The first is the competition regime which works against anti-competitive effects which cannot be justified for investment protection. But more important is the fact that the system is practitioner based. This reflects the Government's view that practitioner based bodies are best placed to frame their requirements in such a way as to reduce burdens to the minimum possible. I am sure that all the bodies concerned have this issue very clearly in their minds.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, asked whether there were directives on employee rights on secured creditors and whether the transfer of undertakings was taken into account in preparing Part VII. The noble Lord mentioned these two directives. I have to tell him that I shall be pleased to look into this point and to write to the noble Lord later on this week. I think he wishes to intervene.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. Perhaps I may follow them up and echo what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said earlier on. Is it possible for us in the next few days to receive copies of the directives which are not available in the Printed Paper Office? Is it possible for the Minister's department to let us have copies of the directives?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we try to get all directives to all noble Lords who are interested as soon as possible. I think that Article 13 in particular is being sought but I understand that this has not been published and is therefore not available. As soon as it and other directives are available they will be passed on to noble Lords.
82
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked who would enforce the undertakings under Clause 98. We envisage that they will be enforced in most cases by the Secretary of State or the Director General of Fair Trading. It will also be possible for third parties to bring private actions. This will be in addition to the powers which exist at present to make orders where undertakings are broken. However we do not see it as replacing the role of the authorities in enforcement.
The noble Baroness went on to ask about the definition of private investors. The clause will not commence until the regulations have been made and the regulations will only be made after proper consultation has taken place.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked why the statutory audits for small companies were not being abolished. The original decision to retain the statutory audit was announced for small companies in May 1986. Even so, the Government reviewed that decision last year, in particular to look at possible alternative types of reports by accountants to replace the audit. We continue to believe that the involvement of the independent professional accountant such as the audit requirement entails will improve the reliability of the accounts and provide a protection against fraud. None of the possible alternatives offers sufficient advantages over the audit to justify the removal of the present statutory requirement.
The noble Lord also asked about the framework of company law and whether we expected something later. Was there not a gap in preparations for the single market? We do not accept that further changes to company law arc needed for the single market. As my noble friend the Secretary of State said in introducing this Bill, to conduct a root and branch review of company law would be a colossal task. We would need to be fully convinced that the benefits would justify the costs. All I can say at present is that we see no need for a further Bill in the immediate future.
Among other matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, who is at the Bar, were the North West and the poor forecast for the area. Since 1980 the North West, and especially Merseyside, have received an enormous amount of taxpayers' money. I believe it is now up to the people of the North West to use that money to create their own prosperity and to prove the forecasters wrong. I hope that they will do so.
I have reached the end of my speech. There are many detailed and technical points which it has not been appropriate to consider today. We shall shortly be discussing them in Committee, and I look forward to your Lordships' expert suggestions for improving the Bill. I trust that the good relationship between the DTI and noble Lords will be maintained as it has in respect of so many other Bills.
We hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will not feel the need to put down too many amendments purely for clarification of the Bill. I recommend that the Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eight o'clock.

  UNRULINESS CERTIFICATES
  UNRULINESS CERTIFICATES
  FEMALE REMAND PRISONERS: NATIONALITY
  FEMALE REMAND PRISONERS: NATIONALITY
  ASSAULTS ON PRISON OFFICERS
  ASSAULTS ON PRISON OFFICERS
  BOARDS OF VISITORS: PRESENCE OF JUSTICES' CLERKS
  BOARDS OF VISITORS: PRESENCE OF JUSTICES' CLERKS
  PRISON RULE 43: STATISTICS
  PRISON RULE 43: STATISTICS
  YOUNG OFFENDER INSTITUTIONS: 14 YEAR-OLD INMATES
  YOUNG OFFENDER INSTITUTIONS: 14 YEAR-OLD INMATES
  YOUNG OFFENDER INSTITUTIONS: SLEEPING OUT STATISTICS
  YOUNG OFFENDER INSTITUTIONS: SLEEPING OUT STATISTICS
  YOUNG OFFENDER STATISTICS
  YOUNG OFFENDER STATISTICS
  THE "GUILDFORD FOUR" APPEAL
  THE "GUILDFORD FOUR" APPEAL
  CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE: EFFECT ON BIRD LIFE
  CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE: EFFECT ON BIRD LIFE
  CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
  CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
  CARDIFF BAY: MINI-BARRAGE PROPOSAL
  CARDIFF BAY: MINI-BARRAGE PROPOSAL
  CHIEFTAIN TANK REPLACEMENT
  CHIEFTAIN TANK REPLACEMENT
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS: UPRATING PROPOSAL
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS: UPRATING PROPOSAL
  NUCLEAR ARMED SEA-LAUNCH CRUISE MISSILES
  NUCLEAR ARMED SEA-LAUNCH CRUISE MISSILES
  TRIDENT II PROGRAMME: UK CONTRACTS
  TRIDENT II PROGRAMME: UK CONTRACTS
  ORGANIC FARMING: ADVICE TO GOVERNMENT
  ORGANIC FARMING: ADVICE TO GOVERNMENT
  SALMONELLA ENTERITIDIS: RESEARCH FUNDING
  SALMONELLA ENTERITIDIS: RESEARCH FUNDING
  YATE SCHOOL, BRISTOL: RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
  YATE SCHOOL, BRISTOL: RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
  UNIVERSITIES FUNDING COUNCIL
  UNIVERSITIES FUNDING COUNCIL
  OZONE DEPLETION: ARCTIC STUDIES
  OZONE DEPLETION: ARCTIC STUDIES
  SDI: NATO BRIEFING
  SDI: NATO BRIEFING
  SDI: THATCHER/REAGAN FOUR POINT AGREEMENT
  SDI: THATCHER/REAGAN FOUR POINT AGREEMENT
  DEFENCE AND ARMS CONTROL POLICIES IN EUROPE
  DEFENCE AND ARMS CONTROL POLICIES IN EUROPE
  MARITIME CONFIDENCE: BUILDING MEASURES
  MARITIME CONFIDENCE: BUILDING MEASURES
  MAN-MADE DEBRIS IN SPACE
  MAN-MADE DEBRIS IN SPACE
  PRI VATISATIONS: LAND SALES BY PURCHASERS
  PRI VATISATIONS: LAND SALES BY PURCHASERS
  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE COMPARISONS
  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE COMPARISONS
  RENTED PROPERTY: SET-OFF OF TAX LOSSES
  RENTED PROPERTY: SET-OFF OF TAX LOSSES
  SALMONELLA OUTBREAKS
  SALMONELLA OUTBREAKS
  COMMUNITY CARE: HOSTEL AND HOME FUNDING
  COMMUNITY CARE: HOSTEL AND HOME FUNDING
  AYCLIFFE SCHOOL: SENTENCES ON REMANDED JUVENILES
  AYCLIFFE SCHOOL: SENTENCES ON REMANDED JUVENILES
  WATER COMPANIES: LAND SALES AFTER PRIVATISATION
  WATER COMPANIES: LAND SALES AFTER PRIVATISATION
  WATER COMPANIES: LAND VALUES
  WATER COMPANIES: LAND VALUES
  WATER PURIFICATION COSTS: RESPONSIBILITY
  WATER PURIFICATION COSTS: RESPONSIBILITY
  NORTH WEST WATER AUTHORITY: SUPPLY DISCONTINUATION NOTICES
  NORTH WEST WATER AUTHORITY: SUPPLY DISCONTINUATION NOTICES
  WEIL'S DISEASE: COUNTER-MEASURES
  WEIL'S DISEASE: COUNTER-MEASURES
  BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE: TRAINING
  BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE: TRAINING
  LONDON UNDERGROUND POLICING: FUNDING
  LONDON UNDERGROUND POLICING: FUNDING
  LONDON UNDERGROUND: ROBBERIES
  LONDON UNDERGROUND: ROBBERIES
  CHANNEL TUNNEL: LIVERPOOL LINK
  CHANNEL TUNNEL: LIVERPOOL LINK
  CHANNEL TUNNEL: LIVERPOOL PROPOSAL
  CHANNEL TUNNEL: LIVERPOOL PROPOSAL