Sitting of 17 January 1989

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

  PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Vocational Training
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to establish an inquiry into the effectiveness of vocational training for young people; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): The Government made clear in the recent White Paper, "Employment for the 1990s" that YTS has succeeded in training substantial numbers of young people for jobs. To ensure its continued effectiveness, the scope and role of the scheme will be kept under review as too will the developing inner-city compacts and the extension of the technical and vocational educational initiative to all secondary schools and colleges in Great Britain.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply but I could not help noticing an element of complacency in it. Does the Secretary of State accept that Britain continues to lag behind our main competitors in the provision of adequate vocational training for young people and that that is likely further to undermine Britain's competitiveness, especially after 1992? What further effective steps does the Secretary of State intend to take to ensure a better and adequate vocational training for young people?
    Mr. Fowler: We are taking a whole series of steps to seek to improve training for young people, unemployed people and people at work. I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about the importance of that. The fact that YTS has been successful can be established from the figures in the hon. Gentleman's own city of Leicester. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that in the past two years in Leicester an average of 86 per cent. of people on YTS have gone into jobs, further education or training.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Secretary of State accept that what we really need in the provision of training for young people is a far more co-ordinated approach between schools, technical colleges, the careers service in
    138
    particular and the employment and training agencies? How does the Secretary of State see that approach developing further?
    Mr. Fowler: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need the greatest degree of co-operation and co-ordination that we can get. We have just begun the compact initiatives in inner cities, which are exactly in line with what the hon. Gentleman wants—co-operation between industry on the one side and schools on the other. I am glad to say that all the signs are that although they were begun only a few months ago they are already developing into what I believe will be an outstanding success.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Is it not the case that more than three quarters of YTS leavers go into jobs or further training? How does my right hon. Friend see those prospects improving or shaping in subsequent months?
    Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right—about 76 per cent. of YTS leavers go into jobs, further training or education, and 80 per cent. of the leavers who were asked afterwards whether they were happy with their training said that it was worth while. In the next few years opportunities for young people will undoubtedly increase. Indeed, the opportunities and outlook for young people in this country have scarcely ever been better.
    Mr. Meacher: But have not the Government created skill shortages by running down skills training in the past 10 years? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last year craft and technician qualifications in chemical and electrical engineering were down to only 30,000, which is less than a third of the number in France and less than a quarter of the number in Germany? Is he further aware that in the service sector the number of people gaining qualifications in retailing in this country is now less than one ninth of the number in France? Against that background, is it not perfectly clear that there is not a skills gap but a skills chasm, and that since this Government have been in office it has been widening?
    Mr. Fowler: Typically, the hon. Gentleman is wrong in virtually everything that he says. In fact, there are now 428,000 people in training under YTS—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will listen to the figures, he will find out. There are now 428,000 people in training under YTS. That is a greater number of young people in training than ever before.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the German experience, which I believe has a great deal to teach this country. That is why, for the purposes of improving training we have put forward the proposal to have training and enterprise councils locally based, industry-run and employer-led. Training has already improved, but it will improve substantially more.

    Tourism
    Mr. Tracey: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what contribution the tourism industry made to United Kingdom invisible earnings in 1988; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): Estimates published last week show that overseas residents spent more than £5·4 billion in the first 10 months of 1988.
    Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend has provided excellent figures, but how do they compare with other factors in the invisible earnings sector of our economy? Will he consult our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on how much better they could be if London's traffic and transport were sorted out?
    Mr. Lee: I take the point that my hon. Friend has made about London traffic and transport. That is an issue that we discuss with transport colleagues in the tourism ministerial co-ordinating group.
    In the invisible earnings sector, overseas earnings from tourism amount to about 40 per cent. of the size of the separate financial services sector. In the first nine months of 1988, other overseas earnings were slightly larger than exports of road vehicles and aircraft combined.
    Mr. Key: Does my hon. Friend agree that our cathedrals and cathedral cities have a central role to play in the development of the tourist industry? Will he speak to his ministerial colleagues to see whether there are ways in which the Government could take a positive role in helping the deans and chapters?
    Mr. Lee: I know of the continuing interest that my hon. Friend takes in cathedrals. Of course, our cathedrals and churches are major national tourism assets. Indeed, I recently visited Winchester cathedral and saw what has been achieved there and its potential. Once again I make the point that that is just the sort of issue that I can consider with ministerial colleagues in our tourism ministerial co-ordinating group.
    Mr. Kilfedder: The Minister will agree that, despite terrorism, tourism in Northern Ireland is doing reasonably well, but will he use his influence and ask tourist agencies to persuade people perhaps, to extend their visit to England and visit Northern Ireland, too?
    Mr. Lee: That is an interesting point. I shall put that proposition forward to my ministerial colleague in charge of tourism in Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), to see if something can be worked out.

    National Training Task Force
    Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received on his proposal to create a national training task force contained in the White Paper, "Employment for the 1990s", and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fowler: I have received a number of representations on the proposal to create a national training task force. This has now been appointed and I am delighted that leading figures in industry and commerce, education, training, voluntary bodies and trade unions have agreed to serve on it.
    Mr. Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a most important body which will have responsibility for steering training in the future? Will he tell the House whom he has appointed to serve on the national training task force, or at least give us one or two names of those appointed, and how he envisages them carrying out their role?
    Mr. Fowler: I will not set out all the people who are on the national training task force, but suffice it to say that they include the chief executive of IBM UK, the chairmen of the Scottish Development Agency, Tarmac plc, HTV Limited, and National Freight Consortium plc, and the president of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, whom I am sure the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will recognise. The fact that such leading figures are taking part shows the importance that industry generally and the leaders of industry are placing on training.
    Mrs. Mahon: Does the Minister have any plans to do anything about training for the growing army of homeworkers, which is an emerging subculture in our sweatshop economy? What training plans does he have for people currently earning 24p per hour as a result of the Government's policies? What instructions has he given to the task force to help those people?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not believe that those people come under the remit of the task force. I shall, however, consider any evidence that the hon. Lady wishes to send to me. The whole purpose of the task force is to get the training and enterprise councils established to encourage training by employers throughout the country.

    YTS
    Mr. Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many trainees have been on the YTS since its inception; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): Since its introduction in April 1983, 2,320,000 young people have taken part in YTS, which shows that its value is recognised by young people and by employers.
    Mr. Wood: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Stevenage the success of the YTS is widely recognised? Will he tell me more about how many people have achieved jobs, further training or, alternatively, started full-time education compared with the position in Stevenage?
    Mr. Cope: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said just now that 76 per cent. of the country's YTS leavers go into jobs or further education. That percentage is exactly the same in Stevenage, although, in Stevenage a slightly higher proportion of YTS leavers go into jobs and a slightly lower proportion into further education.
    Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister aware that in the past eight years there have been 50 fatalities in YTS? I welcome the offer that the Minister made on Wednesday night concerning Derek Cain. Following his tragic death in 1982 on a youth opportunities programme in Sheffield, his father was offered £52 compensation, but three days before Christmas the High Court overturned that decision and awarded £20,000 compensation and costs of up to £100,000 against Plumb's, the Sheffield firm.
    Will the Minister now give me, the House and the other 49 families who have suffered bereavements, a categorical assurance that when his Department considers the written judgment of 22 December in that case it will, where necessary, advise the other 49 families of the possibilities of similar legal redress for the deaths of their sons and daughters?
    Mr. Cope: Since 1983, when YTS started, there have been 34 fatalities. Incidentally, 13 were road traffic accidents—such accidents do not count in the normal health and safety statistics, but we recognise them when they occur on YTS. Any accident, whether it occurs at the workplace or on the road, is to be deeply deplored. We must do what we can to avoid them.
    When we were discussing the Cain case the other night I told the hon. Gentleman and the House that when we get the written judgment we shall certainly review the case carefully with two things in mind. The first is to see whether there are any lessons to be learnt from the health and safety point of view. We applied quite a lot of lessons immediately after the Cain case and in the early stages of YTS. In fact, the entire health and safety regime of YTS is quite different from what it was under the youth opportunities programme in 1982 when Derek Cain was tragically killed. We shall also consider the individual cases to see if we can learn anything with regard to compensation, as mentioned by the hon.Gentleman, or in other ways. In the judgment the judge said that in his view the case was not a precedent, but we shall study each case carefully.
    Mr. Dicken: Dow my right hon. Friend accept that youth unemployment among the under-25s has fallen by 37 per cent. in the year to October? That is well below the European average. Does he also accept that about three quarters of those on YTS secured jobs at the end of their training and that there are 130,000 vacancies on YTS? Does that not sing the praises of the Conservative Government and their training schemes?
    Mr. Cope: It does indeed. As a matter of fact there are 129,000 places available on YTS.
    Mr. Fatchett: Does the Minister recognise that the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Conventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) will do little to lessen many people's fears about the safety record of YTS? Will the Minister give a much clearer indication of the criteria that will be used when he comes to judge cases for possible compensation?
    Mr. Cope: They will have to be the legal criteria; there are no others that I can responsibly use.

    Tourism
    Mr. Bevan: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many overseas tourists visited Britain in 1988; how much they spent; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lee: Figures are not yet available for the whole of 1988. Provisional estimates show that in the first 10 months of 1988 there were 13·8 million visits to Great Britain by overseas residents. During that period overseas residents spent some £5·4 billion on goods and services in Great Britain.
    Mr. Bevan: American tourism is a major contributor to invisible earnings and the balance of payments. What effect does my hon. Friend think the unfortunate bombing of the Boeing 747 flight 103 at Lockerbie will have on it, and how does he assess the effect it will have on dollar earnings?
    Mr. Lee: American visitors to this country are extremely important, but in normal years for every one American who comes here to visit about four visitors come from other countries. The air disaster at Lockerbie is bound to create a degree of apprehension, so the industry will have to work harder at selling itself in the United States. I must make the point, however, that the current fatality rate for United Kingdom fixed-wing transport aircraft, including the sad M1 tragedy, is one fatality per 3·4 billion passenger kilometres flown.
    Mr. Cryer: Did the Minister see the delegation from the Settle-Carlisle area representing small businesses, whose members pointed out that if the Settle-Carlisle railway closes people will not be able to travel to cities such as Bradford and Carlisle, which will suffer a loss of turnover? They also said that in the Settle-Carlisle hinterland served by the railway hundreds of jobs in small businesses will be lost. In view of those representations from the small business sector, will the Minister tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that the railway line should be kept open on the basis of keeping jobs?
    Mr. Lee: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I know the Settle-Carlisle area well. With my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Department of Transport I attended a presentation last week by the English tourist board and the consultants on the work that they have done. My hon. Friend the Minister of State is considering the future of the Settle-Carlisle line at this moment.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: As the hon. Member representing the premier tourist area of Wales, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that what overseas visitors most want is all-weather, all-year, high quality accommodation and facilities? Will he direct his Department's policy to that end?
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a tremendous amount of investment in the industry at present—about £2 billion worth of new construction is under way, and a goodly proportion of that is increasingly geared to all-weather leisure facilities.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Minister realise that about 20,000 men, women and children from the Indian subcontinent, Nigeria and Ghana are being denied the opportunity to visit the United Kingdom because they have been refused visitor visas? Will he conduct an urgent inquiry into the often bizarre reasons why those people are denied visas, in the hope that many more overseas visitors from those countries will be able to make the visits that they urgently want to undertake in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman is a sufficiently experienced parliamentarian to know that that question should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Gregory: Does my hon. Friend agree that more overseas tourists would come here if our tourist information centres were better located? In particular, will he examine the situation in the biggest gateway into Britain, Dover, where the only way to find a tourist information centre is to travel on the road out of Britain?
    Mr. Lee: No Question Time would be complete without my hon. Friend raising the subject of tourist information centres. I know how dear this subject is to him and how

    143
    important he believes it to be. We have about 560 tourist information centres. They are of increasing quality and are extremely important to our tourist industry. I take the point about Dover; I have had a number of representations about it and I am looking into the matter.

    Restart
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretry of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the restart programme.
    The Parliamentary under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): Since July 1986, more than 5 million interviews have been carried out under the restart programme, of which just under 90 per cent. have resulted in an offer of positive help being made. The restart programme now offers interviews at six-monthly intervals to everyone who has been out of work for six months or more. In addition, certain clients are now offered follow-up interviews in order to provide further guidance and support. Since September 1988, the programme has delivered the Government's guarantee to people aged between 18 and 24 who have been unemployed for between six and 12 months of the offer of a place on employment training, in a job club or on the enterprise allowance scheme.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent reply and report. I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome the fact that so many people are being helped back into employment. Can my hon. Friend tell us the proportion of people going into employment training from a restart interview and the number going into direct employment from the interview? Does he have any figures on those matters?
    Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is entirely right. The purpose of restart interviews is to try to help long-term unemployed people to find a job or some other suitable opportunity instead of simply leaving them to languish out there. My hon. Friend asks about referrals to employment training. About 130,000 people have been referred since ET started in September 1988.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that the Government's pit closure programme has encouraged people who worked in the industry for I know not how many years to accept redundancy? Now they are being told that they will have to go on to the restart programme. After all this time and after promises were made when redundancy was accepted, they are now told that if they do not sign on for restart they will have their benefit cut. The Minister should be ashamed of himself.
    Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his point so clearly. The terms and conditions of deals worked out with the miners are more properly matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. In general terms, it has always been the position that anybody signing on and claiming benefit has to be available for work. That is a general rule.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: In testifying to the fantastic reduction in the number of unemployed in the west midlands—one of the best figures in the country and due in large measure to the restart programme—may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that the main problem now
    144
    is no so much one of finding jobs for the unemployed, because vacancies exist, but unfortunately in recognising that many of the unemployed are unemployable? Employers with vacancies are finding that prospective employees do not come up to the calibre that is required, and when they are taken on for employment training many of them lack basic numeracy and literacy skills.
    Mr. Nicholls: All that I have seen during my relatively short time in this job leads me to the conclusion that very few people are unemployable. I accept, however, that many people need much care and help to get themselves back into the labour market, and the overwhelming majority of unemployed people want to take advantage of that. We are specifically spending about £1·5 billion on employment training so that we do not leave people to languish without the skills that they might need but help them to get back into the labour market.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Why was the Minister so coy in responding to his hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) about the number of people helped back into full-time permanent employment? Perhaps I can help him. Will he confirm that surveys show that perhaps only 1 per cent. of people in the restart scheme are going into full-time permanent employment? Given that the bulk of restarts lead people into the now discredited ET schemes, will the Minister tell the House when the Government will seriously begin the process of offering the long-term unemployed adequate skills training so that they can get back into real work?
    Mr. Nicholls: I have been accused of many things at the Dispatch Box, but coyness has never been one of them. The whole point of a restart interview is to look at people who are either long-term unemployed or heading that way and to try to make some positive offer. In some cases, that could lead to a job right away but all sorts of other disposals can also help. It may be a question of referring people to job clubs, about 440,000 have been submitted to such clubs. It might be a question of referring people to the enterprise allowance scheme; and there have been about 200,000 referrals there. People may also be submitted for jobs; about 460,000 have been so submitted.
    There is a whole range of options that long-term unemployed people need to help them. In saying that we cannot guarantee people a full-time job right away, the hon. Gentleman is like other members of his party—he is still living in the 1950s.

    Centre for European Business Information
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what use has been made by firms of the centre for European business information set up within the small firms service.
    Mr. Cope: Over 2,400 inquiries have been made to the European information centre since it was set up in the London office of the small firms service in December 1987.
    Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Is the part payment with the European Commission helping to set up other regional centres? Can he give us some more information about those centres so that more small firms can use them? That will enable them to defend their home

    145
    market and to expand in the European Community through a better understanding of the rules and regulations in the Community.
    Mr. Cope: The Community is making proposals for a further 20 centres throughout this country and others overseas. Three other centres are already functioning in Birmingham, Newcastle and Glasgow. The four that operate at present are pilot centres. They can be contacted through our own small firms offices all over the country and it is extremely important that small firms in particular make use of them.
    Mr. Soames: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the high degree of language skills that will be required by business men seeking to operate in the wider Community after 1992? What steps is his Department taking, through the small business service and its European assistants, to provide further teaching and guidance for small business men to help them expand their language skills?
    Mr. Cope: The small firms service and the European information centre are not in the business of training; they are in the business of advice and counselling, but the Training Agency is paying attention to the problem of language training which, as my hon. Friend says, is extremely important as 1992 approaches.
    Mr. Skinner: In view of the fact that more than 150,000 small firms have gone bankrupt or suffered company liquidation in the 10 years of this Government, including the small firm that succeeded in Alf Roberts' corner shop in Grantham, which went bankrupt last year, and in view of the 18 per cent. borrowing rate for small businesses, as declared by the Financial Times last week, what advice will the Minister be giving to small firms now to help them keep their heads above water?
    Mr. Cope: The number of small firms which started up and succeeded exceeds the number of those to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention which did not succeed. It is most important to obtain proper advice and counselling. The advice that I would give to people thinking of setting up in business, or who are already in business, is to make sure that they obtain proper advice. It is widely availale both from our small firms service and from local enterprise agencies and others where expert counselling is available. The figures show that those small firms that take advice are much more likely to succeed.

    Small Firms Service
    Mr. Hayward: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many centres are now operated by the small firms service in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Cope: The small firms service in England operates through 11 centres and six inner-city sub-offices. There are two centres in Scotland and one in Wales operated by the respective development agencies.
    Mr. Hayward: My right hon. Friend referred to the six inner-city sub-offices. How successful are those offices and what efforts are being concentrated on trying to achieve a growth in the development of small firms in inner-city areas?
    Mr. Cope: A number of our main offices are also in inner cities. About eight of the 11 are in inner cities in England, in addition to the six special offices to which I referred. Everyone in the inner cities is now within easy reach of a small firms centre as well as a local enterprise agency. We are also trying to build up the number of ethnic minority counsellors and special inner-city advisers and many of our counselling offices are also in inner cities.
    Mr. Rowe: In view of the excellent record of the small firms service, it would not be at all surprising if my right hon. Friend was at times tempted to be complacent. Is he aware that the only criticism that I have heard is that the reliance on retired business consultants or business consultants who come from large firms occasionally leads to inappropriate advice? Is he keeping a close watch on those who have felt less satisfied with the service than the vast majority?
    Mr. Cope: Inevitably, those who are retired or semi-retired are more likely to have the time and inclination to help small firms. That is understandable, but we want to get as much of a spread as we can.

    Tourism (Casinos)
    Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has included consideration of the casino industry in the current review on tourism.
    Mr. Lee: The review team has consulted with a large number of people involved in all aspects of the tourism industry, including casinos.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend confirm the valuable contribution that the casino industry makes to British tourism, not least in my constituency of Bournemouth? But does he agree that that contribution is nothing compared with the contribution that the industry makes in Europe to tourism there? Will he now seek to remove all those petty restrictions, such as the 24-hour rule, which are proving so damaging to our casino industry?
    Mr. Lee: I acknowledge the contribution that casinos make, although their importance can be exaggerated. I am conscious of my hon. Friend's constituency interest in the matter. When the review team received consultations and representations, no particular issues were raised by companies with casino interests, though obviously Home Office Ministers will receive and hear the comments of my hon. Friend regarding casinos.
    Mr. David Shaw: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the current review will include a sufficient number of cases to enable it to examine small businesses and the contribution. they make to tourism? Will he ensure that the review results in suggestions being made to encourage more growth in small businesses involved in the tourism industry?
    Mr. Speaker: In the casino industry.
    Mr. Lee: I hear the comments that my hon. Friend makes about the review. I am satisfied that the review team had adequate opportunity to hear a whole range of representations from large and small firms—including casinos.

    Construction Industry (Deaths)
    Mr. Doran: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he intends to take to reduce deaths in the construction industry.
    Mr. Nicholls: Prime responsibility for health and safety rests with employers and others in the industry. However, new regulations are being prepared which provide for the management and co-ordination of health and safety on multi-contractor sites; which increase the number of safety supervisors in smaller companies; and which amend the site notification procedure to identify sites where there are high risk activities. The introduction of regulations which would make the wearing of safety helmets compulsory on construction sites is also planned.
    In addition to concentrating on the inspection of the more hazardous activities in the industry, Health and Safety Executive inspectors will also be paying more attention to the quality of site management and its ability to manage health and safety. They will be looking at the level of training and supervision that has been provided and the precautions that have been taken to prevent accidents. They will pursue their inquiries and any enforcement action to the highest levels in companies which do not measure up to the standards expected of them.
    Mr. Doran: Is it not a fact that the number of deaths and fatalities in the building and construction industry is increasing dramatically and that two major contributory factors are the failure by the Government to deal with self-employed and lump labour and the great reduction in the number of health and safety inspectors? Considering the number of deaths, it is as though we have a Piper Alpha disaster in the building industry every year. Will it take a disaster of those proportions to encourage the Government to take real action to stop deaths occurring in the construction industry?
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is right to remind us that the number of deaths in the construction industry has risen and is rising and is at a wholly unacceptable level. But I do not accept his analysis entirely of the reasons for that. In terms of the number of inspectors employed, it must be remembered that merely employing inspectors does not automatically produce a reduction in fatalities, and there is no evidence to suggest that it does.[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants the figures—and at least he, unlike some of his hon. Friends, is paying attention to my reply —in 1979, for instance, there were 86 inspectors employed in terms of construction, at present there are 90 and HSE has plans to recruit another 10.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Health and Safety Executive is experiencing difficulty in recruiting new inspectors in some parts of the country? That is not because of the overall lack of resources but because the wage levels offered are uncompetitive with the private sector in those areas.
    Mr. Nicholls: There is always a problem about employing people of the right calibre. If my hon. Friend is concerned about resources, I can tell him that the Government gave an extra £6·7 million in 1988–89 and for 1989–90 provision will be enhanced by a further £8·8
    148
    million. That will result in an increase of about 10 per cent. in the number of inspectors employed as construction inspectors.
    Mr. Heller: Why does the Minister have to be so defensive? There is a growing number of deaths and serious injuries in the industry. There were about 157 deaths last year. Is it not clear that the growth of lump labour and self-employment is making a serious contribution to the level of deaths and injuries? Is it not also clear that we are not training the correct people in the industry because of a lack of apprenticeships and so on? Is it not clear that some people put profits before the interests of the workers in the industry? Whatever the Government are doing, it is not enough.—[Interruption.] I am talking about people dying.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is having a long run.
    Mr. Heifer: It might be long, but I am talking about the deaths of ordinary, honest working people who are dying in the industry because of the Government's lack of responsibility towards them.
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman started better than he finished. I am not being defensive. When I replied to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) I said that the prime responsibility for health and safety must remain with those engaged in the industry. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the deaths are being caused by a growth in lump labour. There is more to it than that. It is true—the figures bear it out—that if there is a boom, one sees such figures. If the hon. Gentleman wants a standard of comparison—perhaps he does not—I shall provide it. He rightly referred to the 157 deaths occurring now but in the last boom in 1975—a date that the hon. Gentleman will remember—there were 182 deaths a year. Whether the figure is 182 or 157, I accept that it is too high.
    Mr. Strang: Does not the report published last week by the Health and Safety Executive on its construction site safety blitz amply demonstrate that the proposed increase in the number of safety inspectors for the industry from 90 to 100 is inadequate to tackle the widespread dangerous working conditions in the industry? What is the Minister's response to the offer by the Union of Construction and Allied Trades Technicians to put its 160 full-time officials on loan to the Health and Safety Executive for one day a week to act as part-time safety inspectors, with their wages paid by the union?
    Mr. Nicholls: The Health and Safety Executive has to consider any offers that it receives and decide how such offers fit in with the task it has to perform. The report, "Blackspot Construction" showed that 90 per cent. of deaths between 1981 and 1985 were preventable and 70 per cent. could have been prevented by positive management action. Information such as that points the way forward.

    Employment Training
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have taken places on the employment training programme in 1988; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fowler: Employment training has made a very successful start. Currently there are about 110,000 people

    149
    in training with training managers. Unemployed people clearly recognise the benefits the programme has to offer and the opportunity it provides to help them get a job.
    Mr. Coombs: I welcome the figures given by my right hon. Friend and the fact that 12,000 people in the west midlands are on the employment training programme. Does he agree that one of the most important aspects of the programme is that it appeals particularly to older workers with large families who were previously on high state benefits? Given the coming demographic trends wth the fall in the number of school leavers, it is that group that British industry most needs to retrain and re-skill.
    Mr. Fowler: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Unemployment is falling faster in the west midlands than anywhere else in the country. Employment training is a major programme for long-term unemployed people and it has been introduced at a time when there are 700,000 unfilled job vacancies in the economy. That is the opportunity for unemployed people.
    Mr. Leighton: Is it not the case that the client group for employment training is 1,147,000 and that the target for the programme is 600,000 in one year, which means that it is 300,000 at any given time? Therefore is it not the case that the programme is reaching one in 10 of the client group and achieving only one third of the Government's target? Does the Secretary of State regard that as a success or failure.
    Mr. Fowler: The programme is developing and reaching more long-term unemployed people than before. In addition, there are 700,000 unfilled vacancies, many of which can be filled without any training whatsoever. Therefore, there is a mixture of unfilled jobs and opportunities through employment training. However, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for employment training. I only wish that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) would do the same.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Yeo: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Yeo: Has my right hon. Friend seen today's press reports that the consultants Arthur Young who were commissioned by the Football League recommended that the Government's proposal for football should be welcomed and implemented in the interests of the game? Will she take steps to encourage Arthur Young to publish the full report and make it available to Members of Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: Like my hon. Friend I have seen reports of the report. Of course it is for those who commissioned the report to decide whether it should be made available to hon. Members. I hope that they will do so. I recall that on 9 November the Government published
    150
    the report of the working party under my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport. I hope that others will follow that advice.
    Mr. Kinnock: The police, football supporters, players and administrators are all strongly opposed to the Prime Minister's compulsory identity card scheme. Just for once, why does she not listen to their voices of experience and knowledge, and scrap the idea now?
    The Prime Minister: No. I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. When one examines the record of hooliganism and the numbers of arrests which took place last year and during this season, it is time that we accepted the original recommendations of the Popplewell committee and introduced a national membership scheme for designated grounds.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Police Federation, whose members, for obvious reasons, are acknowledged experts on this subject, say that
    "This scheme is not going to work. When it breaks down, it will do so on match days and give rise to the threat of even worse disorder than it seeks to suppress."
    Does the Prime Minister not understand that the problem of hooliganism is now not inside the grounds but away from the grounds? In the very course of completely missing that point, her scheme will add to the problems of the police and people living near football grounds and of the genuine fans without touching the thugs.
    The Prime Minister: No. The fact that people can easily get into matches without membership cards of any kind attracts a particular type of hooligan to that place, both inside and outside the grounds. We have taken many steps to deal with that. We are now taking up the recommendation in the original Popplewell report that there should be a national membership scheme. Last year there were 6,147 arrests at football league matches and 6,542 ejections from the grounds. The taxpayer has to foot the substantial bill for the extra police presence outside the grounds every Saturday to limit the violence and, aggression for which football provides a focus. Clubs that have introduced 100 per cent. local membership cards have had very much better records since they have done so and families can once again watch football in those grounds.
    Mr. Kinnock: Anyone who knows anything about football realises that the Prime Minister is talking through the back of her neck. The number of arrests inside football grounds is a fraction of the number she gives. The mere supervision of the scheme that she is trying to introduce will incur, because of police presence and expense, a cost vastly greater than that incurred at present.
    The Prime Minister: When it comes to speaking through the back of the neck, I cannot hold a candle to the right hon. Gentleman.[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get back to the question.
    The Prime Minister: Clubs that have introduced membership cards have a much better record inside their grounds, and find that hooligans are not attracted to the areas outside them. We should observe the enormous improvement that has come about among those clubs and take up the proposals considered by the working party, which were made by Mr. Justice Popplewell when he first addressed the problem.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend come to Luton Town football club on a Saturday afternoon, accompanied by the Leader of the Opposition? [Interruption.] Would she like to go through the middle of the town which, because of that club's membership scheme, enjoys peace and quiet, and where there is no intimidation of ordinary citizens, and where football hooligans do not exist? The people of Luton and of every town in the United Kingdom look forward to the introduction of the membership scheme.
    The Prime Minister: We believe that Luton's example should be followed, to benefit football and its spectators.
    Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Prime Minister accept that her Minister's description of Prime Minister Shamir of Israel as a "reformed terrorist" was not meant as an insult but as a compliment? Will she use her influence to persuade him to talk to the other reformed terrorist, Yasser Arafat, in the interest of both their peoples and of peace in the middle east generally?
    The Prime Minister: There has been no change in our middle east policy. Some years ago, we laid down three conditions to be met before we would talk to any PLO members. Those three conditions were met, so we thought it right that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office should talk to the PLO. I have asked Mr. Shamir to come here so that we can discuss the matter. It will take considerable time for any negotiations to get under way. Nothing can be started before the new United States Administration is well in position and have decided precisely what is their policy. Meanwhile, we believe that the answer to the deep-seated problems of the middle east is negotiations that honour the rights of all parties. It is our purpose to get those negotiations going under the United States' leadership.
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the steadily worsening situation in the Sudan and of the resulting suffering and deaths there? Given Britain's historic ties with that country and the excellent administration that existed there in colonial times, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what assistance—whether material supplies or diplomacy—Her Majesty's Government are able to provide in the current emergency?
    The Prime Minister: For the reasons that my hon. Friend gave, we are very much aware of the conditions in the Sudan. It has been very difficult to conduct relief operations there, particularly in the southern part of the country, although we have contributed to the world food programme's airlift into Juba in the southern part, and the recent International Red Cross operation. We provided £15·4 million in emergency assistance to Sudan last year, and are ready to give further help in 1989. [Interruption.]
    152
    I would have thought that Opposition Members would be quite pleased that we had provided £15·4 million in emergency assistance. Not in the least: they could not care less.
    Mr. Robertson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Robertson: The Prime Minister referred to three conditions laid down for talks with the PLO. As the Government have now agreed in principle to a human rights conference in Moscow to be held in 1992, can we assume that when President Gorbachev comes to Britain —at the end of this month or next month—Mr. Bernard Ingham will be giving a different impression to the press about a possible royal visit to the Soviet Union?
    The Prime Minister: I am not quite sure which point the hon. Gentleman expects me to take up from that somewhat muddled question, which started in the middle east and went on to the human rights conference. We have agreed in principle to a human rights conference in Moscow, but only provided that our demands for certain improvements are fully met, not only in particular cases but in Soviet law and in relation to basic guarantees of freedom. I believe that it was right to take that stance.
    When Mr. Gorbachev comes here the arrangements that we had before will persist, under which, of course, Her Majesty the Queen has graciously agreed to receive him. We do not answer hypothetical questions about invitations before they have been received—not on this side of the House.
    Mrs. Currie: Has my right hon. Friend read the remarks made by Mr. John Hickey of the Civil and Public Services Association, who has said that claimants will receive a worse service when social security jobs are moved out of London? Apart from the fact that the service could not be much worse in London anyway, does my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents are insulted at the notion that a job has to be done in London to be done well? Will she reassure us that the Government will make every effort to move public sector jobs out of the capital into the rest of the country, particularly the midlands, where they will be very welcome?
    The Prime Minister: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I am frequently asked at this Dispatch Box whether we will make arrangements to move jobs from London and the south-east to areas where they are more needed. It is not always easy to do so, and it is very disappointing that when we make such arrangements to have those jobs the better carried out, the unions oppose us. I hope that they will reconsider the attitude that they have taken.
    Mr. Bradley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 Janury.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bradley: Has the Prime Minister read the report in today's Daily Express that her Agriculture Minister has met farmers 37 times and consumer representatives only twice? Will she now sack him and replace him with someone who represents consumer interests seriously?
    The Prime Minister: I have not the slightest shadow of doubt that my right hon. Friend the Minister will receive representatives of consumer interests who wish to make representations to him. We must also remember that it is in the interests of farmers, and those of the entire food industry, for them to strive to produce food of the highest possible quality. Of course, farmers too are consumers.
    Mr. Boswell: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the suppression of democratic opinion in Prague that took place at the weekend? Does she agree that it has made no contribution to either the image or the reality of the common European house?
    The Prime Minister: I expect that many of us saw scenes on television in which peaceful demonstrations in Prague in memory of a student who had taken his own life were forcibly broken up, and were somewhat dismayed. I think that that fully justifies the approach that we took—that we would not attend a human rights conference in Moscow unless certain strict criteria were met. Although much is said and many improvements have been made, such things are still going on, and we could not possibly attend a human rights conference in Moscow unless we observed improvements in what actually happens, as distinct from good speeches.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the Prime Minister think it is fair that cleaners in hospitals in Edinburgh should be robbed of their pension rights and of all sick pay because of her policies?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept that that is the case. Those who work in the National Health Service have had a far better deal under this Government, because of increased resources, than they have ever had before.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: As a representative of an inner-city area, could I have the reassurance of my right hon. Friend that in view of the worsening problem of the availability of cocaine, and in particular crack, the Government have taken every possible step to eradicate the problem in its infancy before it is allowed to increase to the state it has in America, where it is proving impossible to curtail?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, of course that is our aim. It is indeed a very dangerous drug and we shall do everything possible to see it does not get the kind of hold here that it did in America. Of course, that is more easily said than done. We shall strive to do everything possible to achieve that objective.

Tunis (Ministerial Visit)
3.31 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the visit of his Minister of State to Tunis.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): I visited Tunis from 12 to 16 January for meetings with Tunisian leaders and to chair a meeting of the heads of British missions in the region. While there I met the PLO Chairman, Mr. Yasser Arafat. This meeting followed the statement made in London on 9 December by Mr. Bassam Abu Sharif, a senior PLO adviser, and the commitments made by Mr. Arafat in Geneva on 14 December. Both these met our long-standing conditions for further ministerial contact with the PLO.
Mr. Kaufman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the continued death toll in the Israeli occupied territories, including daily shootings of Palestinian children and teenagers as well as the deaths of Israeli Jews, is unacceptable and must be stopped? Will he agree not only with me but with the senior Israeli army officer and with the Israeli Minister of Defence, Yitzak Rabin, whom I met during my visit to Israel from which I returned earlier this month, that the Palestinian intifada, now in its fourteenth month, can be brought to an end only by a political solution? That remains true even with the harsher measures announced today by the Israelis. They may kill more Palestinians; they will not kill the intifada.
Will the hon. Gentleman agree further that Yasser Arafat's statements in Geneva last month have made a political solution available? Did Chairman Arafat say to him last week in Tunis, as he certainly did to me, that at an international conference the Palestine Liberation Organisation would be ready to compromise in order to reach a negotiated settlement and that the PLO would be ready to consider participating in a joint Arab delegation to such a conference? Will he therefore reaffirm that an international conference under the auspices of the five permanent members of the Security Council is by far the best mechanism for solving this tragic problem of providing both security for Israel and justice for the Palestinians?
It is inevitable that sooner or later Israel will speak to the Palestine Liberation Organisation. The Israeli Government should see sense. They should be willing to test the good faith of the PLO. They should choose peace by negotiation. They should agree to talk now. It is time to end the spilling of blood in the Holy Land.
Mr. Waldegrave: It is seldom, I think, that I have faced a series of propositions put by the right hon. Member to which I can answer yes with such confidence. The truth is that we believe British Government policy remains the same. It remains as the right hon. Gentleman has just stated it, that we believe that there should be a political solution, and we also believe that conditions now are propitious for steps towards such a solution. It is easy to understand why the Israeli people have deep anxieties. Our belief is that the steps taken by the PLO should, in the words of the noble Lord Rothschild, now be tested by searching negotiations.
Mr. Michael Latham: I wholly endorse my hon. Friend's last remark.
For the avoidance of doubt, following my hon. Friend's worthwhile meeting with Mr. Arafat, will he confirm that it is not British policy to support without any question the setting up of an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank or Gaza?
Mr. Waldegrave: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. It remains our belief that some kind of confederative state with Jordan is the right outcome and, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, one of the positive steps that has been taken by Mr. Arafat, affirmed in the clearest terms to me, is to say that that is not an option for the PLO; it is the objective of the PLO.
Sir Russell Johnston: First, is the Minister aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House would congratulate him on the way in which he conducted the meeting? Secondly, was it his clear impression that Mr. Arafat was willing to have negotiations on the firm basis that the reality and the security of the state of Israel would be recognised? Thirdly, did he have any talks about the difficult question of Jerusalem?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has just said and for the terms of his question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister earlier. The PLO is stating—this is what should now be tested—that it has made an historic shift from a one-state solution to a two-state solution, which assumes that there will be a home for Israel behind secure boundaries and that, in confederation with Jordan, there should be territory in which the Palestinians live. That, surely, is a great step forward.
It would not be right at this stage to start to explore the issues that we can all see should be negotiated between the principal parties at the conference for which we are all working.
Sir Peter Blaker: Is my hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members will join with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) in congratulating my hon. Friend on the efforts that he is making to ensure peace between Israel and the Arab countries? Has not the time now come for the friends of Israel to make it clear that the world will also expect Israel to explore the possibilities of peace, otherwise a great opportunity may be missed?
Mr. Waldegrave: The seriousness with which the House and many people in Britain take these issues is due to the fact that there are so many genuine friends of Israel in the House who fear for the long-term security of that nation and its people if the right steps are not taken. In that I would strongly associate myself with what my right hon. Friend said. Surely in the long term Israel can exist, as all Israeli leaders past and present know, only if she has secure borders that are agreed with her neighbours.
Mr. Greville Janner: On the day after a savage letter bomb intended for Israel's ambassador in London was intercepted, does the Minister not see that this issue is highly sensitive? Does he appreciate that he is more likely to succeed in what we all want, which is bringing people to a negotiating table, through private

157
persuasion rather than by publicly lecturing and tactlessly attacking Israel's democratically elected leaders while sitting beside the man who, until recently, was responsible for a series of savage terrorist attacks on Israel's people?
Mr. Waldegrave: I lectured no one and the Government are second to none in their opposition to all forms of terrorism. Let me try once again to leave with the House and the hon. and learned Gentleman the message that I was trying to get across. Let me use words which come from a book which the majority of hon. Members share with the majority of people in Israel—the book of Ecclesiastes—which says that there is
"A time to kill, and a time to heal … a time of war, and a time of peace."
We believe that there is just now a concatenation of events which might lead to peace.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my hon. Friend accept that what he has been saying is utter common sense and that it is time that the Government of Israel sat down, under these new conditions, to see whether there is as much in it as most of us hope? Does he agree that the recent initiative of the Council of Europe to try to bring together the disparate nations in the middle east may be worth pursuing?
Mr. Waldegrave: I agree. Although I reaffirm that the central part in these matters must lie with the United States, Europe—and Britain within Europe—has an important role. We welcome also the steps that will be taken by the troika of the past presidency, the present presidency and the next presidency of the European Comunity at the end of January, which will be helpful.
Mr. Ernie Ross: I congratulate the Minister on his successful discussions with the Palestine Liberation Organisation, which followed the discussions I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) had with that organisation. The Minister should feel confident that he speaks for not only both sides of the House when he is speaking to the PLO and in subsequent statements, but for the overwhelming majority of people in this country, who believe that if one is to be a proper friend one must tell the truth. The Palestinians want peace, and they want to sit down with the only people with whom peace is possible—the Israelis. It is the responsibility of any sensible politician to make that clear on each and every occasion possible.
Mr. Waldegrave: Both in the terms of what the hon. Gentleman has said and in the terms and content of what the right hon. Member for Gorton said, we are surely sending a message from the House that there is a basis of all-party support for our approach. The hon. Gentleman is right in a further matter. We would not bother to speak in such terms—I hope that everybody will realise that they come from the heart—unless we cared about the future of Israel.
Sir Dennis Walters: Does my hon. Friend accept that his meeting with Mr. Arafat has been greatly welcomed and that his perfectly sensible and accurate comments about the Israeli Prime Minister should not be allowed to obscure the reality, which is that the PLO has now accepted resolutions 242 and 338 and agreed to renounce any form of violence? What is Israel's response? Does Israel accept the resolutions, and is it prepared to talk about peace and a two-state solution?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. It is because the PLO has met the long-standing tests that the British Government have laid down for ministerial contact that. I met Mr. Arafat. The British Government have been among those who have been most careful, and often difficult in the eyes of some Arabs, about contact with the PLO. We hope, therefore, that our friends in Israel will note that and note that we are unlikely to have taken that step unless we had considered it carefully. We hope that Israel will take that as some reassurance that it too should take further steps.
Mr. David Winnick: Is it not clear that if Israel refuses to negotiate in any circumstances, two results will flow from that? One is that Israel will become increasingly isolated even from its friends in western Europe. The second is that it will be a victory for those in the Arab world who decisively reject what the PLO has decided to do. It will be the Gaddafis of this world who will be victorious. Is it also not the case that what the Minister said was right? There is no need for us to be critical of the Minister. I speak as one who has not wavered for a moment since 1948 in my support for the right of Israel to exist, although I have certainly never supported many of its policies. I supported Israel in the war of independence in 1948, and I supported, in the House, Israel's actions in 1967.
Mr. Waldegrave: There have been occasions in the past when I have agreed with the hon. Gentleman's first sentence or two, but I have never before had a question from him with which I could agree throughout.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Have the Government qualified their support for Palestinian self-determination by saying that they accept it only if it is in confederation with Jordan? This surely is a decision that the Palestinians must be allowed to make. Many people will be very interested in my hon. Friend's answer.
Mr. Waldegrave: It is not a matter of our accepting or not accepting a solution. Mr. Arafat himself made it clear to me—and, I think, to the right hon. Member for Gorton —that that is the objective of the PLO. It seems to us a very sensible objective, and we support it.
Mr. Harry Cohen: I congratulate the Minister on his fruitful visit, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who also had a succesful visit. I accept that Mr. Arafat's statements at Algiers and Geneva represent a step forward. While urging Israel to come to the negotiating table, however, will the Minister also urge it not to push ahead with proposed new settlements in the occupied lands as that proposal is immensely provocative and would be a backward step in terms of achieving peace?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the first part of his question. On his latter point, there is indeed a problem. I understand that the new Government in Israel have proposed greatly to slow down the creation of new settlements. That is welcome in itself, but I suppose that every new settlement produces an additional problem ultimately for the negotiations that we hope will come about in the end.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that everyone applauds his good intentions and the good sense of what he has had to say today? Is he also aware that

159
it is a very odd kind of diplomacy in which the honest broker begins by humiliating and offending one of the parties to the dispute? Will he please be more careful in future?
Mr. Waldegrave: I certainly did not intend to humiliate anybody. The state of Israel and its leaders are powerful and confident. As I said earlier to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), the great gift of statesmanship is surely to know when to lay down arms and move to peace.
Mr. Stuart Bell: As one who has recently been in Israel, will the Minister confirm that the question of secure borders is a question of life and death for Israel and that there must therefore be some reluctance on the Israelis' part to deal with the PLO? Does not the Minister agree that 1·2 million Israelis nevertheless voted at the last election for discussions about the future of the west bank? Does he further agree that, now that we have been discussing Palestine in the House for about 60 years, only an even-handed approach to both parties can have any constructive effect in the middle east?
Mr. Waldegrave: I strongly agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Even-handedness is the objective of our policy. I hope that I shall be visiting Israel shortly and no doubt I shall say things to the Israelis that may be unpalatable to some on the Arab side. There are sensitivities on both sides, but we should not be so careful to avoid offending everyone's sensibilities that we say nothing.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us who have been associated with, and indeed are officers of, the Conservative Friends of Israel strongly endorse his meeting with Mr. Arafat in Tripoli last week and look forward to the Israeli Government shortly finding themselves able to explore negotiations directly with the PLO?
Mr. Waldegrave: The support of my hon. Friend is particularly valuable as his work on this issue is well known. I believe that he is right about what is needed and that the job of those who wish Israel well is to help to map out strategies that can lead ultimately to the conference which we all support.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the wake of the Lockerbie air disaster, Yasser Arafat allegedly offered to supply information and assistance to help the American authorities to track down the terrorists responsible? Can he assure the House that that was one of the topics that he took up with the Chairman of the PLO when he met him?
Mr. Waldegrave: Yes. I thanked Mr. Arafat for what he had said, which was welcome in this country, and said that if any help could be given it would help to still those who doubted his sincerity. That must be true, although I am in no position to know whether he can give any help.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is widely to be welcomed that there is a spirit in the House that Israel and the Arab nations need to talk about the future of the middle east? Does he recall the wise words 20 years ago of
160
Mr. George Brown, the then Foreign Secretary, who said, "The Arabs can afford to lose more than one war; Israel cannot afford to lose one"? Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to have peaceful talks, the nation of Israel, which shines as a beacon of people who have been oppressed throughout the ages, should say, "Whatever talks take place, we must have more than paper promises that we shall be allowed to exist"?
Mr. Waldegrave: I wholly agree with the sentiments quoted by my hon. Friend, which emphasise two points. The first is the importance of achieving a peaceful settlement from Israel's point of view, and the second is the fact that we should test and work with those in the Palestinian movement and in the Arab states who are talking the language of diplomacy, not the language of terrorism. My hon. Friend is quite right: more than words will ultimately be needed, and Israel must ultimately have secure frontiers that are agreed and guaranteed.
Mr. Peter Shore: If Mr. Arafat has agreed to a confederal solution with Jordan, which is a welcome and important step, does that mean that the PLO is abandoning its previous insistence that the capital of a new PLO-based or PLO-agreed state would have to be Jerusalem?
Mr. Waldegrave: In answer to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), I said that I did not think that it was right in that meeting to ask the PLO—any more than I would ask the Israelis—to put its position on the central issues that will need to be negotiated at the peace conference on the table in too much detail. The issue to which the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has referred will clearly be one of the most thorny issues facing that peace conference. It would not be fair to the negotiating teams that we hope to see emerging on both sides to press them now to lay all their cards on the table.
Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to take the lead in this matter, given the difficulties that the United States has traditionally had in coming out clearly. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has the support of the 11 other members of the European Community for his initiative? When he goes to Israel, will he continue to remind the Israelis that the foundation of the state of Israel was not without violence and that we must therefore try to look at Mr. Arafat in the terms that he is now putting forward?
Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend. Members of the European Community are taking parallel positions on this issue, and the troika will meet Mr. Arafat later this month. In response to the latter part of my hon. Friend's comments, yes, we are saying that the PLO seems to be saying that it wants to lay aside the gun, so surely we must test whether that is sincere. If it is, nothing could be more important.
Mr. Richard Alexander: May I commend my hon. Friend for pointing out that those with a history of terrorism should not stress too much the terrorist aspects of their opponents? Would it not help the peace process considerably if both sides could sit around the table without attempting to hang perjorative labels around each other's necks?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber saw most clearly what I was trying to say in my comments on the past—that in the history of the world it is unusual for people to have the courage to lay aside their weapons, and that when they do we should pay tribute to them. The PLO says that that is what it is now doing, so surely we should test its sincerity to see whether what it is saying is true. We believe that it is, but I quite understand that the Israelis will not take my word for it, and that is why we need real negotiations.
Mr. Simon Burns: I welcome my hon. Friend's trip to Tunis this weekend. Does he accept that opportunities must be given to the PLO so that it can prove that it has transformed itself from a belief in the use of violence to a belief in the use of peace? Will he convince the Israeli Government that any intransigence on their part that might forestall the beginning of the peace process, which would have been unheard of five years ago, will gravely damage the prospects of peace in the middle east and severely damage Israel's reputation with its numerous friends who wish it well?
Mr. Waldegrave: Of course, it was part of my objective—as I believe it was part of the objective of the right hon. Member for Gorton—in meeting Mr. Arafat to urge on him the importance of the maintenance of this moderate and clear position and to explain to him the need for some patience, because these matters will not be settled in a few weeks. Equally, it is important that the message should go from all Israel's friends that what it does can have a crucial impact on Arab and Palestinian opinion—for example, in relation to the Lebanon.

BREL (1988) Ltd.
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement concerning BREL (1988) Ltd., formerly known as British Rail Engineering Ltd.
As the House knows, the Railways Board has selected a consortium of the management and employees of BREL, Trafalgar House plc and Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. as preferred bidder for the purchase of its engineering subsidiary BREL (1988) Ltd. The board's choice follows a competitive tender for the business. Bids were received from two groups.
The board and its advisers, Lazard Brothers. have undertaken extensive negotiations with both bidders over the past three months. The board's evaluation of their final offers showed that the bid from the consortium was the more attractive in financial terms, and that it also offered clear financial advantages over the option of the board retaining ownership of BREL. The board has also secured fair arrangements for the BREL staff, who will be transferring to the new owners, including provisions for pension rights and concessionary travel facilities.
The Government have taken independent advice from Lloyds merchant bank. We are satisfied that the board has followed normal commercial procedures in reaching its decision and has fully tested the market for potential purchasers.
At this stage, there are no grounds on which the Government wish to interfere with the board's commercial judgment. Subject to the final terms of the sale and purchase contract being satisfactory to the Government, we would expect to give consent to the sale in due course. Final clearance is also subject to approval by the European Commission and to the decision which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will take once he receives advice from the Director-General of Fair Trading. Subject to those points, I would hope that the sale could be completed as soon as possible.
BREL has been through a period of major change, reflecting the new investment being made in modern rolling stock and the reduction in repair work which follows from this. BREL has made good progress towards a modern, competitive railway engineering business. The people who work at BREL have played a major part.
The time is now right for BREL to move on into the private sector. BREL will now have more opportunities to diversify and compete for new business. The company should derive technological and commercial benefits, and access to the advanced engineering techniques of a world leading manufacturer.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in November 1987, when he announced the decision to offer BREL for sale, privatisation will be good for the railway, good for the railway supply industry and good for BR EL itself. I hope that the House will join me in wishing the company and its work force every success for the future.
Mr. Peter Snape: Does the Minister accept that almost 20,000 jobs have been lost in British Rail Engineering Ltd. in the past five years and that the work force has been reduced by approximately 75 per cent., that the company has been systematically run down and starved of orders, that the state has picked up the financial bill necessary to achieve such a massive reduction and now the private sector is to gain all the assets?

163
Does the Minister accept that four railway Bills are due to come before the House in the current Parliament; that great interest has been expressed in many of our cities in developing light railways as the people-movers of the future; and that at a time when people are increasingly looking to the railways to help solve the problems of traffic congestion and overcrowding, the Government continue to contract our capacity for railway building and to sell off what is left? What guarantee do we have that the new company will be able to cope with the orders that are likely to emerge in the next few years?
The Minister referred to the deal being "attractive in financial terms" and he talked about the "final terms of the sale". What do those two phrases mean? Has a price been agreed or has it not? If so, what is it? Is that a final statement about the future of BREL or just an interim one? What happens if someone else, whether GEC or a third party, makes a better offer? When does the Minister expect the sale to be finally completed?
Does the Minister accept that his statement today could lead, within two or three years, to the end of all railway engineering in this country? How can that be good for anyone other than our industrial competitors? How will that help us to meet the transport needs of the 1990s? What effect will it have on our balance of payments problem? Does it mean that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will castigate us all for overspending and hike up mortgage rates once again in an attempt to remedy our balance of payments problem?
We reject the idea that privatisation will be good for the railway industry or for BREL. On the contrary—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may think that this is funny, but the Labour party does not. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) would not know a railway if he fell on the tracks. We believe that, once again, the Government have made a major costly error that in time the railway industry and the nation will reject.
Mr. Portillo: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman could not be a bit more fulsome in his welcome for the announcement.
The hon. Gentleman began by saying that many jobs have been lost. I recognise that, and it is a serious matter. We are now trying to address the question of how the company can have a future. I hope that he will join me in trying to find the best solution.
The hon. Gentleman said that the company has been starved of orders, but its order book is at present worth £400 million and it was awarded a new order only last Wednesday, which I announced then. Recently, it has been gaining about 70 per cent. of the orders which it has been offered by British Rail.
The hon. Gentleman wanted to know what was the sense of the sale. The best thing that I can do is to refer to the managing director of BREL, who said that there would be considerable
"management continuity during a very important phase of the company's development.
I think the other factor is the technical strength of the technology package which ABB is going to bring with it. We also have sound financial backing and good marketing opportunities."
164
This sale represents an injection of major technology into BREL. Now there is the opportunity for BREL to join a European consortium and bid for orders not only in this country but elsewhere.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether this was an interim statement. I am not prepared to reveal to him the price—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because it is a commercially confidential matter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the price was superior to the other bid, but negotiations will continue.
I do not believe that there should be any bid from any other person now because I regard the bidding as closed. If for any reason the negotiations could not be completed satisfactorily, it would be a different matter.
The problem in which the hon. Gentleman finds himself, which I appreciate, is that it is difficult for him to welcome a privatisation. I believe that, in his heart of hearts, he recognises that the news that I have given today is good news for BREL. I believe that he should welcome, as the trade unions have welcomed, the fact that the bidder has been successful.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: My hon. Friend should ignore the twitterings of Labour Members, who, in the words of one of their hon. Friends, could not run a whelk stall.
My hon. Friend's statement will be extremely welcome in Derby, where we already have a magnificent example of a privatised engineering company that has gone on to beat the world. Does my hon. Friend agree that the consortium could do a Rolls-Royce job on BREL and that its future will be far sweeter in the private sector than it ever would have been with British Rail?
Mr. Portillo: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right to say that the statement will be broadly welcomed in Derby. My hon. Friend recognises, as I do, that it is a combination of BREL with the expertise of Asea Brown Boveri—which sees scope for extensive co-operation with BREL in product development marketing and production technology—that gives the group tremendous strength for the future.
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Is the Minister aware that the work force in Derby and throughout BREL remains opposed to its privatisation? It shows how little the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) has to do with the work force that she is unaware of that opposition. Is the Minister further aware that the work force certainly hopes that his announcement signals a period not only of stability but prosperity, since, in the past few years, BREL has substantially suffered as a result of the Government's policies?
Does the Minister intend to take cognisance of the fact that the work force strongly believes—as it made clear to him only last week—that its past loyalty to British Rail is not being recognised in the terms of sale and agreement between the buy-out team and British Rail? It remains of the view that the new company could start at a disadvantage because of that.
Mr. Portillo: I was grateful to the hon. Lady, to her hon. Friends and to my hon. Friends who accompanied the delegation who came to see me last week. That was a useful opportunity for me to hear the concerns of the work force.

165
As I said on that occasion, the fact that the workers are taking with them their present contracts is a substantial guarantee to them of the terms and conditions under which they have worked and of the fact that those terms and conditions will continue. That relates to such things as terms of redundancy, travel conditions and pensions—subject to any negotiations that may take place with the new management.
The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said that the sale is opposed in Derby. I am surprised she said that, because, on television in reply to the question
"would BREL … operating as a private company … actually stand a better chance?"
the hon. Lady replied:
"Unfortunately, in the climate of this Government that may even be so".
Mr. Greg Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that his excellent decision will be greeted with pleasure and enthusiasm by the majority of my constituents, who believe that his choice is in the best interests of the Derby works? His decision will be welcomed by those up and down the country who want to see BREL succeed in private hands and be capable of grasping all future opportunities.
Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that there is some confusion among the work force about the two matters he mentioned in his statement? Therefore, will he reiterate the fact that, at the point of sale and under the terms of sale, existing pension rights will be maintained on no less favourable terms and that travel concessions, which currently exist on British Rail, will continue?
Mr. Portillo: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I thought that I would hear another opinion from the city of Derby having heard the comments of the hon. Member for Derby, South.
The new owner has given the undertaking that the overall package for the compulsory pension scheme will be no less favourable than at present and that travel concessions are to be continued as now, subject only to renegotiation that may occur.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that, since he is handing over a large package of assets to a private company, the work force wants much better guarantees than his bland assurances that the moment that BREL is sold, the work force will be able to maintain its existing terms? That is not the case.
The Minister will be aware that, in Crewe, about £7 million of taxpayers' money has gone into new machinery. If, in two years' time, we have paid for that machinery in terms of jobs, asset-stripping and the deliberate running down of BREL, I hope that there will be an urgent investigation of the Government's responsibility, given they have no commitment to the railway industry or to the future of manufacturing.
Mr. Portillo: I am surprised at the hon. Lady's remarks because we are dealing with a reputable consortium that has come in to buy the company. It is 60 per cent. in British ownership, 20 per cent. held by the management and 40 per cent. by Trafalgar House. The other 40 per cent. of the consortium is represented by one of the world's leading electrical manufacturers. There is little doubt of that grouping's commitment to BREL's future. ABB can offer BREL the most tremendous opportunities. Trafalgar House is also heavily involved in the transport business
166
now and is preparing to put in bids for the Manchester light railway, the Channel tunnel link, and has also made a proposal to Olympia and York for the railway from Waterloo to Docklands. I believe that there is every sign of the consortium's strongest commitment to the company.
Mr. Conal Gregory: My hon. Friend will be assured that the vast majority of the work force in York will be delighted by today's news and I am sure that its delight is shared by the majority of the work force in Crewe and at the two sites in Derby. It is a further step towards denationalisation. There will be some regret, however, that it has taken so long to get to this stage.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), I have already received representations about concessionary travel and pension rights. I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will devote particular attention to those matters in the coming weeks.
May I ask for my hon. Friend's assurance—if he in turn has had it from the consortium—about employment in York and how far it will depend on the Swiss-based subsidiary? Has he received assurances that, within weeks of finalising this, Trafalgar House will not sell part of its equity to the Swiss, thereby ensuring that more than 50 per cent. of the company falls to a non-EEC engineering company?
Mr. Portillo: On pension rights, perhaps I can reassure my hon. Friend and others by saying that a part of the surplus in the British Rail pension fund is intended to be transferred to the new owners, subject to the approval of the trustees of the BR pension fund.
As I said in answer to the last question, there are now such strong signs of Trafalgar House's commitment to transport that I hope that that provides reassurance. Again, I refer to remarks made by Mr. Holdstock, the managing director of BREL, as quoted in the Financial Times of last Saturday:
"The link with Trafalgar House will strengthen Brel's project management, which might be important in the growing market for turnkey contracts to develop light rail systems."
Mr. Michael J. Martin: I represent a community in which 10,000 people were once employed in railway engineering. Three years ago the Government reduced the work force of 3,000 to 300. The work force got to work and created the BREL maintenance depot, the only one left in Scotland.
The Minister must know that we in Scotland have had a painful experience, with so-called reputable companies coming in, taking over and sacking the work force—and it is just as painful to be sacked by a reputable employer as by a disreputable one. Surely the Minister owes it to the work force in my and other constituencies to keep a hand in this company to ensure that the asset-strippers do not move in, as they moved in three years ago in my constituency.
Mr. Portillo: If, when he talks about asset-stripping, the hon. Gentleman is concerned about property sales, I reiterate all the points I have made before about what appears to me to be the strong commitment of all the people involved in this bid. The hon. Gentleman himself makes the point that nationalisation is no guarantee of jobs. Not just in BREL, but in a whole series of different companies, nationalisation has offered no guarantee of employment. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends

167
know that the changing market for repair and maintenance of railway wagons and locomotives lies behind the loss of jobs. We are trying to find—and I believe we have found—a way of providing a secure future for BREL.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement, which is good news for the people of Derby. When he met the unions last week, they expressed two main concerns—pensions and concessionary travel, as my hon. Friends have said. I believe that his statement goes a long way towards sorting out some of the problems and fears described in that initial meeting last week. Bearing in mind that the negotiations are still taking place, when does my hon. Friend expect the sale to be completed?
Mr. Portillo: In answer to my hon. Friend's last point, I hope that it will be a matter of weeks. It is for the European Commission to satisfy itself on the financial arrangements; for my right hon. and noble Friend the Secreary of State for Trade and Industry to take advice from the Office of Fair Trading; and for all the parties to bring the negotiations to a speedy resolution.
I recall my hon. Friend's contributions in previous statements. I am sure that he will be pleased that it is the intention of the new grouping to establish an employee share ownership plan, which I know is an especial concern of his.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I welcome the statement, and the fact that it involves the management and employees of the company, as we recommended in November 1987, when the House first examined this issue. Nevertheless, can the Minister reassure the employees and those concerned in the affected areas that the company's investment plans will be maintained and that there are no present plans for job losses? I also hope that he can tell the House that the funds realised from the sale will be reinvested in British Rail, which could very much do with such a cash injection.
Mr. Portillo: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome. I have observed that it has been the consistent position of his party, or parties.
At the moment, the company has about £400 million worth of orders. There are substantial new opportunities ahead, so there is everything to play for.
The proceeds of the sale are for British Rail, which can use them to reduce its indebtedness or to invest, as it thinks appropriate.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Does my hon. Friend accept that his statement will be warmly welcomed by both the workers and the management of BREL, who will now have far more control over their own business? Does he accept that any job losses of the past few years have been the result not of privatisation but of inefficiencies inherent in a state-run industry that existed solely on the basis of cosy, guaranteed, cost-plus contracts from an organisation that owned BREL?
Does my hon. Friend also accept that the only way to ensure no job losses in future is to keep the customers happy?
Mr. Portillo: I thank my hon. Friend for his words of welcome. The remarkable thing about the future of the company now is that it can compete for orders in a European market. I do not see much long-term future for a company in nationalised hands existing only on orders handed down by a single railway company in this country without access to technology from abroad.
Mr. Ken Eastham: I note the Minister's great enthusiasm when he uses the words "financial advantages". Why is he not prepared to reveal the price to the House, given that public money is invested in these companies? The taxpayers are entitled to know how their money is being used.
Can the Minister give some guarantee that if this transaction goes through there will not be asset-stripping such as took place with the royal ordnance factories—when factories were closed to sell the land off for other uses?
Mr. Portillo: I cannot talk about the price because the negotiations have not been concluded—I hope they will be shortly. I have outlined how I hope matters will proceed. I have also said how I believe that the commitment of the companies involved in this purchase is strong and clear. As it happens, in the event of any property disposals, there are clawback arrangements in the terms of the contract.
Mr. Ian Gow: Is it not up to Ministers and the House, not the European Commission, to decide whether the financial terms of the sale are acceptable or unacceptable? Can the Minister confirm that today's most welcome announcement will be the prelude to the privatisation, in whole or in part, of British Rail in the next Parliament?
Mr. Portillo: On the first point, I agree with my hon. Friend because I believe there has been a misunderstanding between us. The European Commission concerns itself with whether there has been state finance which could constitute unfair competition in the setting up of a new company.
My hon. Friend knows that the Government are certainly looking with great interest into the privatisation of British Rail as a whole, but I am afraid that I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend has already said about that.
Dr. John Marek: Pursuing what the Minister said earlier about travel concessions and their possible negotiation, will he do what he can to ensure that any changes as a result of these negotiations are made only if they have not only the support of the new BREL management and British Rail, but of the employees? When he answers that question, will he bear in mind the fact that it is because of the Minister and the Government that BREL is being privatised?
Mr. Portillo: The workers who transfer to the new ownership take their contracts with them. The contracts clearly maintain the present terms and conditions of employment. A contract can only be subject to a renegotiation: it cannot be subject to unilateral abrogation on the part of the management. If there is to be renegotiation, it will be a mutual process between the two parties—exactly the same as might occur if the ownership were unchanged.
Mr. Tim Smith: Was a stock market flotation or, perhaps more probably, a management buy-out considered for this company? Can my hon. Friend say what effect the decision will have on some independent United Kingdom suppliers that are able to meet British Rail's requirements?
Mr. Portillo: On my hon. Friend's latter point, it was the clear view of British Rail that apart from the financial advantage of this offer there was the advantage that it would increase competition in the railway supply industry. British Rail believes that that is also an important factor. On my hon. Friend's first point, the consortium that is taking over BREL is to the extent of 20 per cent. a management buy-out and it says that it plans to have an employee share ownership plan. That will be broadly welcomed in the House.
Mr. George Foulkes: Has the Minister noted that, for a statement vital to the industrial future of Scotland, no SNP Member is present to ask questions, let alone to protect the future of industry in Scotland, which that party keeps shouting about north of the border? Will the Minister say precisely what guarantees he has received that Sprinter maintenance will continue in Glasgow, and that all other operations in Glasgow will not be subjected to the process of rationalisation that we are now used to that moves operations to the south or, indeed, abroad, thus jeopardising the 300 jobs that remain for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and those of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), who does not seem to have the time to turn up occasionally?
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly right to say that a matter that affects the railway supply industry should be of interest to hon. Members from every part of the country. As I understand it, my statement about BREL affects only Crewe, Derby and York, because the plant that the hon. Gentleman refers to was taken out of BREL prior to the sale and now operates within British Rail. Nothing in the statement affects that.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister understand that many of my colleagues feel concerned that by not revealing the bid price offered by the consortium and Trafalgar House he has prevented Parliament from measuring whether the taxpayer is getting a fair return? Is it not true that at some stage all that information will be revealed to the Public Accounts Committee? It could be asked for by shareholders at annual general meetings of the acquiring companies and could also be published in the annual reports of the companies. Why can we not be given some indication now? Does the Minister want once again to hide these matters from Parliament because someone has picked up a £400 million order book company on the cheap?
Mr. Portillo: No. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, in due course this information will become available, not least to the Public Accounts Committee representing Parliament. I do not want to give the price now because I do not want to give the half-time score.
Mr. John Redwood: In welcoming this statement and especially my hon. Friend's two answers about employee share schemes, may I ask him whether he
170
can give any more information about the scope that there will be for individual employees and managers to participate in shareholdings and in profits? Does he agree that a generous scheme would be one of the best guarantees of a prosperous future for the new company?
Mr. Portillo: I am as delighted as my hon. Friend at the plan of the management to offer an employee share ownership plan. It is too early to say what the conditions of that might be, but I share my hon. Friend's wish that it should be as good and as attractive as possible, because that will be a good way to motivate the work force under the new circumstances.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Where does the Minister get his confidence in Trafalgar House? Is he not aware that Trafalgar House has an appalling record in the buy-outs in which it was involved? There is evidence of that at Scott Lithgow on the upper Clyde.
May I be nosey and ask the Minister a nice, friendly and gentle question? Has he noticed that one of the features of Government privatisation is that the Secretary of State responsible for the privatisation usually finishes up as a non-executive director of the company that buys the privatised company? In view of the Secretary of State's recent troubles, may we have a guarantee that this is not likely to happen in this case?
Mr. Portillo: I had not noticed that trend. I have already said in answer to other questions that it seems to me that Trafalgar House has a substantial interest in transport matters covering the Manchester light railway, for which it is a bidder, the Channel tunnel link and the proposal for a railway line from Waterloo to Docklands. I have also alluded to the fact that the management of BREL sees the contribution of Trafalgar House as being especially important in trying to win turnkey contracts, which can be important in the export field.
Sir David Price: For greater clarity, will my hon. Friend place in the Official Report the precise details of the works covered by these deals so that there is no doubt that maintenance works that were previously owned by BREL and that have reverted to railway ownership, such as our railway works at Eastleigh, are not covered? It is important to get clear what is and what is not covered by this deal.
Mr. Portillo: This concerns BREL (1988) Ltd., but I shall certainly do as my hon. Friend suggests.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: Is the Minister aware of acute anxiety among all the work forces involved, and not only those work forces that have been mentioned so far? They include the GEC workers in Preston, for example, who fear that this will lead to foreign control of this vital sector. Their fears are based on the fact that 40 per cent. goes to a Swiss-Swedish firm and that the rest depends largely on the good will of Trafalgar House. The Minister has said that it seems to him that Trafalgar House has a commitment. Can he tell us whether he has received from it a firm commitment that it will not simply sell and take its profit and go quickly? Can he tell us what he has done to safeguard British jobs and what steps he will take to prevent the involvement of ABB, leading to excessive imports at the expense of British products in rail traction?
Mr. Portillo: The strength of this arrangement is the combination of these works, which have substantial orders

171
and considerable expertise, and the much broader expertise and technology that is available through ABB. I would be repeating myself if I stated again the reason why I think that Trafalgar House is strongly committed. The hon. Lady says that she is worried about foreign ownership. She should recognise that the consortium bid is 60 per cent. British and that the alternative was a 50:50 bid.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Now that the Minister has revealed that the Government do not know the selling price of these organisations and has said that there is no point in giving the half-time score, may we assume that the Government have agreed to privatise on the basis of selling off while not being prepared to tell the country at large? Has it been sold on the cheap? Is it one of those old-fashioned Rover type deals in which the taxpayer hands over large sums of money and a small amount comes back? Can he tell us how many acres of land are involved and how many of those acres are within city centres? What guarantees have the Government received about property and asset-stripping in connection with this sale? If he is not prepared to give the answers to all these questions, including the price, we can come to only one conclusion—that it is a massive cover-up.
Mr. Portillo: It was my judgment that the House would want to know the Government's attitude to this proposed sale at the earliest opportunity. Of course it would have been possible to wait until all the negotiations were concluded before making a statement, but during that period the House would have been impatient to know the Government's attitude. It is right to tell the House the Government's view, even though at this stage there is the disadvantage of not being able to reveal the selling price or to say whether the sale will proceed because there are certain conditions that need to be fulfilled. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the offer from the consortium was clearly superior to the other offer.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Minister accept that the Government's record on railway matters is disgraceful? They have underfunded and under-invested in the railway system and because of that its performance is inferior to that of any other railway system. Now the Government propose to sell BREL by
172
private treaty to some group, and they have no guarantee that it will not be just an asset-stripping exercise or will lead at the end of the day to a weaker railway system, a lack of expertise in railway technology and an inability to invest in what, I hope, will be a good future for the industry when the Government have finally left office.
Mr. Portillo: The sale was not by private treaty but by competitive bid, as I explained. There were two bids and the superior bid won.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about investment is that, since 1983, £2 billion has been invested in the railways. In the coming five years, we intend to invest £3·5 billion. This is the biggest renewal since the transfer from steam to diesel and by the end of the decade BR will have renewed over 85 per cent. of its diesel passenger trains and electrified 60 per cent. of its inter-city network and 30 per cent. of its total network.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) spoke about the concerns of the employees of GEC lest the consortium bid, if successful, led to GEC and the jobs there being frozen out, as we see with the transfer of supply to ABB. May we be informed what guarantees the Government have obtained from the BREL consortium about continuing to accept supplies from existing United Kingdom suppliers?
Mr. Portillo: Whichever bid had been accepted we would have ended up with an international solution, and that is entirely appropriate because many orders are to be won in Europe and, equally, it is important that groups have access to technology from all European sources. So that would have occurred in either case and, I believe, would have been welcomed in either case. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that, because of the investment programme, the details of which I gave when answering his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), it seems likely that there will be many orders in the offing, and fortunately we shall now have a healthy and competitive situation with a number of bidders in the United Kingdom able to apply for those contracts.
Following are the premises involved in the sale:

Derby carriage works;

Derby loco works;

Crewe works;

York works;

BREL headquarters

Guildford and Woolwich Bombings
Mr. Chris Mullin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that yesterday the Home Secretary chose to announce his decision to refer the Guildford and Woolwich case to the Court of Appeal in an eight-page written answer rather than make a statement to the House on which he could have been questioned, as happened on the previous occasion when he considered the Guildford and Woolwich and Birmingham cases.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and I went to the Library at 3.30 yesterday afternoon to obtain a copy of that eight-page written answer. It was not available there. We then went to the Lower Press Gallery where we were immediately able to obtain a copy. In other words, it was available to the Press Gallery—whose members seemed aware of the decision four or five hours before it was announced in the House—but not in the Library.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It certainly should have been available in the Library. I say again that I deprecate the press getting information before we do here.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is surely a serious issue here in that the Home Secretary announced in advance that he was giving a written answer—to a question which was planted in the first place by one of his hon. Friends—on an important issue, thus avoiding him having to face the House on that issue. He then apparently leaked—or it was leaked by his Department—the entire contents of that reply at 10 o'clock in the morning to The London Standard newspaper and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) pointed out, it became available to Members at 4 o'clock that afternoon.
Many of us welcome the fact that the case is to be referred to the Court of Appeal. We should have liked, and still would like, an opportunity to speak directly in the House to the Home Secretary on this issue and question him about further details of it. Do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that such an opportunity should be made available to us?
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. As the Home Secretary is in his place and will have heard you deprecating his conduct and that of his Department, do you agree that the least he should do is to come to the Dispatch Box and give an explanation?
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the most important point is that the Home Secretary has decided that the Court of Appeal may decide this issue. Nothing that might be said in the House can make any impact on what the Court of Appeal will decide. Surely my right hon. Friend's decision should be welcomed by Members.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a heavy day ahead of us—an open-ended debate on a Committee stage and a three-hour debate thereafter.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I came into the Chamber after the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) made his comments, I have the general gist of the point.
174
I do not need to make an apology to the House for dealing with this matter in a written answer, partly for the reason which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) gave. I have no knowledge of the source of the report in The London Standard, which I saw and which I regret. My intention was that it should be dealt with in an orderly way by informing the House first.
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Home Secretary said that in some mysterious way these documents reached the Press Gallery without his knowledge, a situation which you deprecate, Mr. Speaker. Yet the right hon. Gentleman has nothing to say to the House about how it could have happened.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been in the Chamber on several occasions recently when you have deprecated the process by which it appears that written answers, and on some occasions even the contents of oral statements, have reached the press before being given to the House. I realise that when you say that you deprecate something, that is a strong rebuke to the Government that it should have happened. But that does not seem to be having any effect. Would it be possible for you, Mr. Speaker, through the usual channels, to take the matter a little further and get the practice stopped so that we do not find material being handed to the press before it is put through the correct channels for Members to obtain as a written or oral statement?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to deal with the matter, please. I heard the Home Secretary say that he had no idea how it occurred. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made a sensible and helpful suggestion, and I shall certainly do as he suggested.
Mr. Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Home Secretary's comments about what appeared in the The London Standard gave me and other Opposition Members the impression that he did not know what had happened. There can be no question but that the Home Secretary answered by way of a written reply. He seemed to convey the impression that he was not sure how it got to the Press Gallery several hours before the written question was answered. If that is the case, it is important for the right hon. Gentleman to discover how that leaked information reached the press. Perhaps Bernard Ingham did it for him. If so, we should be told who is running the Home Office—Bernard Ingham or the Home Secretary. Who is running the show?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We should get on with today's show.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: We have to follow an open-ended debate on a Committee stage and a three-hour debate after that. Points of order take up a great deal of time and do a grave disservice to the hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). He may get an advantage out of raising points of order in this way, but his hon. Friends suffer.
Mr. Mullin: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that on reflection you will accept the seriousness of this issue, which is of some public importance, as a glance at this morning's newspapers will reveal. The point I made, which the Home Secretary did not address, was that the copy, which I am holding, of the written answer was obtained by me from the Press Gallery because it was not obtainable in the Library.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said that I shall be discussing the matter through the usual channels. I cannot help any more than that.
Mr. Corbyn rose—
Mr. Speaker: Very well, Mr. Corbyn, if the hon. Gentleman must waste the time of the House.
Mr. Corbyn: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not wasting time—remembering that this is an important issue. One of the four people concerned is a constituent of mine who has wrongly spent 14 years in prison. That is a matter of great importance, and I am glad that the case has been referred to the Court of Appeal.
If parliamentary answers are given in a written form, they are clearly the property of the House at the time they are given, which is supposed to be at the start of public business each afternoon at about 3.30. I am rather suspicious of the way in which the usual channels' operation goes on in this building. I would prefer you, Mr. Speaker, to give a clear ruling from the Chair that at 3.30 each day—or at the same time, whatever time that may be—all written answers are placed in the Library so that they are available to Members and are not deliberately leaked to the press in advance. While I accept the Home Secretary's assurance that he himself did not know that
176
this one had got into the hands of The London Standard, clearly his office knew that it was in the hands of the Press Gallery well in advance of being in the hands of Members.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already told the hon. Member and the House that answers to written questions should be in the Library at 3.30, and I hope that will happen in future.

BILL PRESENTED
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin, supported by Mr. Andrew Faulds, presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the passing and stamping of certain weighing and measuring equipment, as being fit for use for trade, by persons other than inspectors of weights and measures: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 27 January, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the three motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Matrimonial and Family Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Matrimonial and Family Proceedings (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendment) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Fuel and Energy Provision
4.39 pm
Mr. John Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the provision of essential fuel and energy to each home; to guarantee appliances; to prevent the entry to premises without prior recorded legally authorised notice; to prevent the unauthorised removal of fuel measuring devices; to abolish standing charges; and for connected purposes.
I welcome the opportunity to bring this Bill before the House once again and I make no apology for doing so. Fuel poverty is a vital issue. Any society that likes to think itself civilised should be prepared to provide all its citizens, irrespective of their circumstances or status, with certain basics—food. shelter and warmth—which are the essentials for living.
I appreciate that the House is used to dealing with the most complex subjects and that hon. Members will leave no stone unturned in their endeavour to become well versed in those subjects. Their strong commitment motivates them, at great public expense and without hesitation, to travel to the furthest corners of the globe and to the most exotic places to slake their thirst for knowledge and understanding.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the subject of my Bill, important as it is, is a simple matter and that hon. Members can obtain the most comprehensive understanding of the realities of fuel poverty by the simplest expedient at no cost to the public; in fact, it would result in financial savings.
So that hon. Members can understand the extreme cold that their poorest constituents experience, I am sure that they would agree to the heating in the Chamber being turned off and left off for 24 hours or, better still, a week or a month. That would equip the House to understand the meaning of cold—cold which cannot be magicked away by the empty platitudes and publicity campaigns that have characterised the Government's response to the issue. It cannot be magicked away by advice from Ministers with a deranged lack of reality.
The cold to which I refer does not belong on a Christmas card. It cannot be discovered in a momentary immersion in icy water after a massage or a hot sauna. It cannot be experienced when the hand is plunged into an ice bucket to grip the neck of a champagne bottle. The cold to which I refer is a public fact and the responsibility for ensuring that people do not suffer as a result of it rests with the House. That responsibility cannot be privatised. That is why I am prepared to bring this Bill before the House at any and every opportunity, year in and year out, if necessary.
It is necessary to be relentless in pursuing this matter because the cold is a cruel, relentless, remorseless enemy, bringing in its wake misery, illness and death. But those evils are not shared equally in our society. The people who suffer most are the poor, the single-parent families, the unemployed and their families, the disadvantaged, those on low incomes, those who are discriminated against, those who are disabled or ill and, most important, the elderly—the people least able to endure extremes of temperature which would be unacceptable in this House.
Ninety-five per cent. of elderly people live in their own homes. For our elderly citizens, those homes, which were once full of joy, were shared with husbands or wives and
178
resounded to the laughter of children, can, over the course of the years, or even months or days, become prisons where the warder is the cold. The cold regulates the time of going to bed and the time of rising, denies people the energy needed to prepare food, restricts the choice of what they can buy and restricts their ability to answer the door. It shuts them in a cell where their voice cannot be heard and where the world does not choose to look—a cell which can become a coffin.
On bright, clear winter days, when the sun is shining on the windows, illuminating Jack Frost's sparkling handiwork, it is hard to imagine that behind the panes of glass in any town or any village a human being may he freezing to death. Hypothermia is difficult to diagnose and there is evidence that doctors sometimes seem reluctant to put it on the death certificate, so the number of deaths directly attributable to the cold is often understated. For 1981 and 1983 the chief medical statistician found that fewer than three out of every four hypothermia deaths in hospital appeared on death certificates.
However, even if we cannot always rely on the information provided by death certificates to give a clear indicator that cold weather was responsible for any particular death, we can easily get a clear idea of the scale of the overall problem in this country. It is not merely a crisis or an epidemic; it is a disaster. The additional number of winter deaths over the past five years has averaged out at 37,740. It is not enough to sit back and say, "Well, of course, it is inevitable that more old people will die in winter—it is a fact of nature and cannot be avoided." If that is so, why is the problem so much greater in Britain than in other countries? A comparison has shown that, in February, whereas the monthly increase in winter mortalities was 24 per cent. in England and Wales and 19 per cent. in Scotland, the equivalent figure for Sweden—a country of civilised standards, not noted for the warmth of its climate—was 6 per cent.
However, death from hypothermia itself represents only a small proportion of deaths in which the cold is a major contributory factor in the progress of other illnesses. For old people suffering from arthritis, rheumatism, with weak hearts and poor circulation, brittle bones and fragile constitutions, the cold gives those conditions a helping hand. Then there is the will to live and the will to get better. Can anything be more bleak and desolate than huddling in front of a single bar of an electric fire or a single gas radiant in the depth of winter out of mortal dread of the bill that will land on the mat one day?
What about the unemployed? Statistic after statistic has confirmed the link between ill health and unemployment. We know that people who, through no fault of their own, become unemployed are subject to severe depression. For those people, the winter cold is an ever-present qualification of their status. Sadly, Government policies are exacerbating the problems. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing, as the interests of the already wealthy are advanced at the expense of the already poor. The Government have funded tax cuts by selling off industries that belonged to this country. Consequently, the people at the bottom of the economic spectrum—the elderly, the unemployed and the disabled—who have all suffered as a result of recent social security changes must subsidise cut-price bargains for the City and an economic policy that has flooded the country with imports.
When fuel prices are compared with the remaining non-fuel items in the retail prices index, we see that the cost

179
of domestic fuel has risen by 32 per cent. in real terms since 1970 despite the exploitation of oil and gas resources in the North sea. With the privatisation of the electricity industry, the Government will make things even worse for people on low incomes. Electricity prices increased by 9 per cent. last year and are set to go up a further 6 per cent. this April. Taken together, that will mean that the industry will have gained a further £15 billion from household bills. As a consequence, the cost to the consumer is growing faster in Britain than anywhere else and many people, once again in the low-income groups, including single-parent families and elderly people, are doubly disadvantaged. Their homes, poorly insulated and with ill-fitting windows and doors, cannot hold the heat. They cannot afford to install efficient, modern appliances to take advantage of off-peak rates. In other words, they are shut out from the developments in technology. As a result, those people pay higher bills for less warmth. The end result is an increase in the number of disconnections.
With privatisation both because of price increases and because of the policy that private companies will adopt, the number of disconnections will be greater than under nationalisation. There is no doubt about that. In the two years since gas privatisation, gas disconnections have risen by 25 per cent. and National Gas Consumers Council figures show that 62,000 households were cut off in 1987–88. That is double the rate for 1983. During the same period—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he has been speaking for 10 minutes and should begin to bring his remarks to a close.
Mr. Hughes: Fuel poverty and the material means to have fuel for warmth is the responsibility of every person in this country. William Beveridge said:
"We should regard want, squalor, disease and ignorance as common enemies of all of us—not as enemies with which each individual can seek a separate peace, escaping himself to personal prosperity while leaving his fellows in their clutches. That is the meaning of social conscience—that one should refuse to make a peace with social evil."
We can afford to ensure that people do not go cold—it is simply a question of priorities. The Bill is a definition of the highest priority.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Hughes, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Dave Nellist, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Martin Redmond, Mr. Alan Meale, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Tam Dalyell and Mr. Harry Barnes.

Fuel and Energy Provision
  FUEL AND ENERGY PROVISION
  Mr. John Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to require the provision of essential fuel and energy to each home; to guarantee appliances; to prevent the entry to premises without prior recorded legally authorised notice; to prevent the unauthorised removal of fuel measuring devices; to abolish standing charges; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 February and to be printed. [Bill 42.]
Orders of the Day
  Security Service Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress 16 January]
  Security Service Bill
    Clause 1

      THE SECURITY SERVICE
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 1, line 7, leave out from 'be' to end of line 11 and insert
      'to protect against threats to national security'.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

      No. 74, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'in particular'.

      No. 75, in page 1, line 10, after 'actions', insert

      'which threaten the safety or well-being of the state and which are'.
      No. 76, in page 1, line 10, leave out from 'actions' to end of line 11 and insert
      'which would overthrow or contemplate overthrow of government by unlawful means'.
      No. 77, in page 1, line 10, leave out from 'actions' to end of line 11 and insert
      'which are calculated to overthrow parliamentary democracy'.

      No. 81, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'or undermine'.

      No. 39, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'industrial'.

      No. 90, in page 1, line 11, after 'industrial', insert 'chemical'.

      No 47, in page 1, line 11, at end insert—

      '(2A) "Threats to national security" means—

      (a) espionage or sabotage that is against the United Kingdom or is detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage;

      (b) the activities of agents of foreign powers that are detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person;

      (c) activities within or relating to the United Kingdom directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within the United Kingdom or a foreign state; and

      (d) activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of parliamentary democracy,

      but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d) above;'.

      No. 78, in page 1, line 12, leave out subsection (3).

      No. 40, in page 1, line 14, at end insert—

      '(4) All members of the Service shall take an oath to the maintenance of parliamentary democracy'.
      No. 82, in Clause 2, page 1, line 25, at end insert
      'any individual, any company or any organisation'.
      New clause4—Right of protest, advocacy or dissent—
      'Nothing shall be done under this Act which undermines the right of protest, advocacy or dissent.'.
      Mr. Shepherd: Amendments Nos. 46 and 47, read together, deal with the definition of national security. Clause 1(2) of the Bill defines the function of the service. Amendment No. 46 should be read in conjunction with amendment No. 47 which defines the threats to national security. In defining national security, the Government

      181
      have given the essential elements of the matters that worry us all. New clause 4 attempts to make those matters more specific. The mandate to the service should be as clear as possible. We recognise the difficulty involved in that because there are sometimes fine lines of judgment as to whether certain elements fall within the remit of the Security Service. There are also concerns about the intrusiveness that could be a feature of the service if it is not properly defined. These amendments link up with those of other hon. Members and I shall try to explain their purpose.
      The first category of threats to national security involves espionage and sabotage and is defined in paragraph (a) of amendment No. 47. It is in line with what the Government propose. It refers to
      "espionage or sabotage that is against the United Kingdom or is detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage".
      That is a fairly conventional understanding of what is meant by treason.
      The second category is defined in paragraph (b) as
      "the activities of agents of foreign powers that are detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person".
      That means any foreign interference in our democratic processes which is calculated to affect those processes. It also means that any foreign interference may prejudice the conclusions we may reach during our discussion on such matters.
      The third category is defined in paragraph (c) as
      "activities within or relating to the United Kingdom directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within the United Kingdom or a foreign state".
      We link this with paragraph (d). We hope that our amendments are helpful to the Government in their definition of threats to national security.
      Terrorism is a blight. It is a way in which politically motivated individuals try to subvert our normal democratic processes in an attempt to bring about a result that cannot be brought about through argument or through our normal electoral process. Espionage and sabotage are not the only forms of foreign activities that should be monitored and investigated. Foreign Governments and political organisations may, in a clandestine way, try to interfere in British political life. The Russians call that "active measures" and the Americans call it "covert action". The common link is that deception is an essential feature.
      The Australians have defined foreign interference in the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. The definition is:
      "clandestine or deceptive action taken by or on behalf of a foreign power to promote the interests of that power."
      Hon. Members supporting the amendments believe that it is appropriate for the intelligence services to give us advance warning so as to place the Government of the day in a position to counter such activities.
      Our democratic process requires political objectives to be pursued through public discussion, parliamentary debate and lawful representation. That process is jeopardised when groups attempt to gain their political objectives by threatening or carrying out acts of violence or terrorism. That would be a perversion of our democratic process and control of such activities is a vital part of the remit of the Security Service.
      182
      Clause 1(2) defines activities directed or intended ultimately to lead to the overthrow or destruction of parliamentary democracy. I accept that there are difficulties, but I am concerned about the Government's definition in the Bill. Perhaps the Secretary of State will mention it. Clause 1(2) states that we should protect national security from
      "the activities of agents of foreign powers and from actions intended to overthrow or undermine democracy by political…means."
      What do the Government mean by their drafting of that clause?
      Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman has again put his finger on the problems involved because the Bill is highly subjective. If a Socialist Government elected by parliamentary means wanted to introduce widespread Socialism, root and branch, throughout the society, thereby overturning capitalism, would that come within the parameters of clause 1(2)?
      Mr. Shepherd: There is always a grave problem in distinguishing between what is legitimate and what is illegitimate. Subsection (2A)(d) of amendment No. 47 mentions
      "the destruction or overthrow … of parliamentary democracy"
      and adds the important caveat which we consider should be included in the legislative framework that the definition
      "does not include lawful advocacy".
      If, for example, a political party were advocating through the House of Commons a Socialist system, I would oppose it, but it would be within the framework of our parliamentary democracy. Our caveat is that the definition
      "does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d) above".
      5 pm
      The definition is important because it provides a marker. When people are commissioned to do a job, greater clarity of their remit is obviously to their advantage, and to their advantage, and to the advantage of the Ministers responsible for directing the services, in that the benchmark is as clear as possible. The legislatures of Australia, New Zealand and Canada have considered that concept. Our definition covers the word "subversion" which is not used in the Bill. We are trying to make the difficult decision as to what constitutes subversion. That problem exercises the mind because there is such a narrow line. If a party such as the Communist party advocates the dictatorship of the proletariat and a non-parliamentary system, because the dictatorship of the proletariat is directed by the vanguard, one has the dilemma that the Communist party is dedicated to the overthrow of parliamentary democracy.
      Mr. Eric S. Heller: I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman. The Communist party in Britain and in most countries has not advocated the dictatorship of the proletariat for a long time. Indeed, it no longer accepts that concept.
      Mr. Tony Benn: It is in favour of an electoral pact.
      Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend is quite right. The Communist party is in favour of an electoral pact. If one reads the documents which argue for the dictatorship of the proletariat, first by Marx and later by Lenin—never

      183
      mind Stalin, who created a dictatorship over the proletariat—it is clear that they were arguing for a greater extension of democracy by the mass of workers, which they regarded as a dictatorship of the majority over the minority. I am arguing about what we mean by philosophical argument. Lord Hailsham talks about the parliamentary dictatorship of the majority, but no one would suggest that Lord Hailsham wants to overthrow parliamentary democracy. He simply has a rather funny view of it. Those who argue for the dictatorship of the proletariat have an equally funny view of it, but those arguments do not mean that parliamentary democracy is being undermined. Such people may be wrong, but it does not follow that they are subversive simply because they put forward such arguments.
      Mr. Shepherd: I am not sure what to make of that intervention. My memories are seared by Lenin's captivating little book entitled, "What is to be done?" If one views that as a treatise of democratic persuasion in the context of a liberal democracy, one has to reject the hon. Gentleman's argument.
      Mr. Tony Banks: It was not written in the context of a liberal democracy. That is the whole point.
      Mr. Shepherd: Nor does it argue for a liberal democracy.
      I mentioned the Communist party to show that there is a difficult area in defining what is supportive of a liberal democracy. Under our constitutional arrangements, we can change the political process through the House of Commons accountable to the electorate through a definable democratic process. I consider that the fundamental purpose of the Security Service is to defend our liberal democracy. It exists so that we shall not be gainsaid by terrorists exploding bombs and we shall not change public policy in this country determined by the electorate because agents of a foreign power are trying to subvert our democratic processes. We are trying to make those definitions which we accept are difficult and would create difficulties for any Government.
      The purpose of the amendment and the caveat is to reflect on the approach of other countries. A comparative approach can serve us well in examining why such matters cause anxiety in Britain and in other countries. Because Security Service agents have gone on the record or gone public on television, all hon. Members are aware that the Security Service has tapped telephones, I assume with a warrant. We have learnt that they have tapped the telephones of trade union leaders and members of CND. In all our constituencies, perfectly loyal fellow citizens are members of trade unions and members of CND. Whether one agrees with their particular objectives or not, we do not doubt—and I am sure that the security services do not doubt—that they are genuine, legitimate political activities.
      Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman is speaking for himself.
      Mr. Shepherd: As the hon. Gentleman says, I am speaking for myself, but that is how I would analyse the position. If there was telephone tapping, what mandate
      184
      enabled Security Service officials to interpret their duties or responsibilities to a liberal democracy as being to interfere with the privacy of perfectly loyal citizens?
      Mr. Banks: The fact that they do not have the same liberal instincts and values as the hon. Gentleman. If the hon. Gentleman were in charge of the Security Service, the Opposition would be a damned sight more satisfied than we are at present. That is the problem. Clause 1 is all about subjective judgments and party political prejudices. That is why it is so dangerous.
      Mr. Shepherd: That is why we have moved an amendment which tries to define the appropriate mandate which best expresses the will of the House as appropriate to or consonant with democratic behaviour.
      Despite what I read, in my experience the Security Service is essentially benign. But in all large organisations there will be rogue elephants. I accept the observation from within and without the Security Service that some officials suffer from sensory deprivation and over a period of time they lose sight of the objectives of their job. That is why the amendments seek to make the objectives as clear as possible. That is just one link in the chain. Oversight, which we discussed yesterday, is another link in the chain, but the mandate is clear. It allows for legitimate dissent so that any security officer or director-general preparing a warrant, for example, is aware that the warrant has to comply with the mandate, and every time there is reference to his lines of responsibility he comes upon the concept in statute. That is the requirement in New Zealand, Australia and Canada, but it does not cover lawful advocacy, protest and dissent unless carried on in conjuction with the criminal activities of terrorists and so on.
      I put in the caveat because of that anxious definition. I raised the objectives of the Communist party as I understood them—but I stand corrected—because the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat does not encompass what I understand to be the role of this Chamber and our ability every four years to change the Government and elect a government of our own choice. That was the purpose of the amendment.
      My concern is that we have a court looking over our shoulders. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has already trawled through some of this landscape in the important case of Leander v. Sweden in 1987 in which the court's decision stated that to justify any interference with a person's right of privacy on the grounds of national security it was necessary to give
      "an adequate indication of the scope and manner of the exercise of the discretion conferred on the responsible authorities to collect, record and release information".
      It continued:
      "The law has to be sufficiently clear in its terms to give ordinary citizens an adequate indication as to the circumstances in which and the conditions on which the public authorities are empowered to resort to secret and potentially dangerous interference with private life."
      The anxiety felt by several supporters of the amendments is that the clause as drafted is subject to broader interpretation than is appropriate and that it will bring us before the European Court of Human Rights. I am always nervous of that risk because it may be thought that that legislation embodies our perception of what is appropriate and honourable.
      I do not wish to be entirely negative, but the Government's proposals do not accord even with the old Maxwell Fyfe definitions and limiting clauses, and are not

      185
      as broad. The Maxwell Fyfe provisions are better directed, and it would have been better if the Government had chosen to incorporate them. In New Zealand, provision is conditional. The Maxwell Fyfe directive imposes limitations in paragraph 3. Paragraph 4 states:
      "It is essential that the Security Service should be kept absolutely free from any political bias or influence, and nothing should be done that might lend colour to any suggestion that it is concerned with the interests of any particular section of the community, or with any other matter than the Defence of the Realm as a whole."
      The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, "And a lot of good that did us—the Government can write whatever mandates, directions or instructions they like, but they have been circumvented." One is cautious on that point, but if one is chasing a fox, sometimes one gets carried away. I make no more of the point than that.
      We are trying to construct a framework which, in association with other amendments concerning oversight, reviews, and the issuing of warrants, will provide proper direction to, and control over, the Security Service, and will give confidence to the public that the Security Service is working in the interests of us all, and to Ministers that the beast that they are riding is a kind and gentle one in its attitude to democracy and is not subversive.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: I and my hon. Friends support the amendments described by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), and I shall address several others dealing with cognate points, but which are different in their emphasis and drafting, and in some cases deal with other matters entirely.
      I recognise that a number of the amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) concern problems that are dealt with also in the amendments of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, but in a different way—perhaps being closer to the language of the Bill. Our amendments are offered as an alternative. The exercise in which we are engaged this afternoon is essentially constructive, and we are trying to ensure that the Security Service's mandate is clearly defined in a way that meets the concern that it shall not be engaged in supervising political activities that do not constitute a threat to the state.
      As to amendment No. 46, which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills particularly addressed, I agree with the reasoning behind it. which is based on good foreign experience—particularly that of Australia. Amendment No. 74 is designed to probe why the Government have used in clause 1(2) the words "in particular" and gives examples of the circumstances in which the Security Service can operate. By its use of the words "in particular", the subsection suggests that the service's function shall be protection of national security in ways other than those that it subsequently specifies. One questions whether inclusion of the words "in particular" broadens the scope of the service's functions so wide as to damage the confinement of the subsequent definitions. I am not clear why the subsequent definitions are given if the scope of the service is intended to be as wide as it will be if they are excluded. I trust that I make myself obscure.
      5.15 pm
      Amendment No. 75 is offered as an alternative to amendment No. 46, and inserts in clause 1(2), after the word "actions",
      186
      "which threaten the safety or well-being of the state and which are."
      Its purpose is to deal specifically with concerns already expressed in speeches and in interventions that the Security Service could, as the clause is drafted, involve itself with actions that are
      "intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political … means."
      That aspect was squarely addressed by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which drew attention to the definition of subversion of Lord Harris of Greenwich in February 1975, and accepted its appropriateness, arguing that it is essential
      "that both limbs of the definition shall apply before an activity can properly be regarded as subversive. Both limbs refer to activities that are defined in the guidelines as threatening the safety or well-being of the state and which are intended to undermine or overthrow parliamentary democracy."
      Clause 1(2) as drafted leaves us without both limbs being encompassed in the clause. The Home Secretary may hold another view, but it is a matter of drafting and I hope his intention is to ensure that both limbs are incorporated. As I construe the clause, there is an invitation to the Security Service to supervise or investigate by means authorised by warrant
      "actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political … means",
      which is unacceptable.
      Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman supports a point that I made in an earlier intervention. The argument becomes clearer if we substitute the word "capitalism" for the term "parliamentary democracy". I do not believe that the majority of Conservative Members believe in parliamentary democracy. They go along with it for just as long as it supports capitalism. If we substitute "capitalism", we shall really know what the clause means to achieve. I am one of those who wants to undermine capitalism by political means. That is why I am a Labour Member of Parliament.
      Mr. Maclennan: I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman down that route, which I have no doubt that he will wish to develop in a subsequent intervention.
      The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills also dealt with all the "legs" of amendment No. 47, which sets out the definitions of circumstances in which it is right for the Security Service to exercise its functions. I agree particularly with what he called the caveat clause at the end, which I consider essential.
      I regard amendment No. 78 as, to some extent, a probe, but it is an important amendment none the less. I am glad of the support that it has received from some Labour Members. The amendment seeks to delete subsection (3), which, rather oddly, provides that
      "It shall also be the function of the Service to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands."
      That is a very wide provision, and it is not at all clear what is meant by
      "the economic well-being of the United Kingdom".
      The subsection seems to allow the Security Service to be involved in the oversight of many matters that have certainly not been in its purview before, and to open the door very wide for its intervention in matters that do not threaten the security of the state. I should like to hear from the Home Secretary why the subsection has been included, what kind of activities he has it in mind for the service to

      187
      consider and why it should be involved. No doubt the House will wish to consider what he says before reaching a further view, and no doubt consideration will also have to be given in the other place.
      Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I am pleased to support the amendments so ably spoken to in the first instance by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I also support—with one or two queries and qualifications—those tabled by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
      We are talking here about the definitions of the functions of the Security Service. I think that it is common ground that we need as clear as possible a definition in the interests of a strong and effective Security Service, and also in the interests of building public trust in that service. On the face of it, the definitions in clause 1 look reasonably convincing. I think that they can be improved, but the notion that we need a Security Service to protect national security from espionage, terrorism, sabotage and the overthrow of parliamentary democracy is, at the very least, not a bad shot at defining the functions that our citizens expect a Security Service to carry out.
      Is my right hon. Friend entirely confident, however, that those definitions are true and accurate? I can point to at least three instances in which the Security Service has, in the recent past, seemed to operate in areas of activity beyond those defined in the clause. For example, it is common knowledge that the service is from time to time engaged in what are known as "leak investigation procedures", when awkward pieces of information are leaked to journalists and others in the form of documents.
      I remember being involved nearly 20 years ago in a court case which had nothing whatever to do with national security, let alone espionage, sabotage or terrorism. Nevertheless, not only were MI5 officers involved; when the editor of the Sunday Telegraph came to be tried at the Old Bailey it was reported in the press that the director-general of the Security Service sat in court for two or three days listening to the evidence and the barristers' arguments. There was no question of any of the functions covered by the Bill being involved in that case. It is, I think, possible to point to a good many subsequent journalistic cases in which MI5 has been involved in leak procedure investigations which have been way beyond the scope of the Bill. Is my right hon. Friend confident that the Bill will stop the previous activity of MI5?
      Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but surely most leak inquiries have been initiated by Ministers.
      Mr. Aitken: I do not think that we can blame the Security Service if in the past it has been instructed to carry out certain functions.
      Mr. Banks: That is precisely my point. In this instance the service should not be blamed because it is acting on the instructions of politicians. The politicians should not, perhaps, have given the service those instructions, but it was only carrying out orders.
      Mr. Aitken: I am at one with the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps, indeed, the definitions in the Bill are a salutary reminder not only to the Security Service but to its political masters.
      Mr. Ray Whitney: May I make a point about the activities of the Security Service in days gone by, and in particular my hon. Friend's brush with the authorities, to which he referred? The clause refers to
      "the protection of national security".
      Was not the release of a document labelled "confidential", in which my hon. Friend was involved—it may or may not have been classified correctly; that is a different argument—carried out without authorisation, as far as the authorities were concerned? That was an action in protection of national security. Is not that case covered?
      Mr. Aitken: I do not really have to argue the case with my hon. Friend, because the prosecuting counsel—whose words I recall vividly to this day—said in his opening speech at the Old Bailey, "Members of the jury, national security is not involved in this case." He was absolutely right to say that, because there was no question of anything other than the embarrassment of the Foreign Office and, perhaps, difficulties for our diplomatic relations. I think that a good many such journalistic inquiries could be stretched into the area of national security only by the most vivid leaps and arabesques of febrile imaginations. Here, surely, we can point to one past function of the Security Service which ought to be knocked out by the Bill.
      There is another area of MI5's activity which, in the past at least, has been without the definitions in clause 1. The Security Service has been involved in investigating organisations that could be said to be critical of, and perhaps hostile to, the policies of the Government of the day. I am thinking of, for example, the investigations into the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. It is, I believe, common knowledge that there was considerable soul-searching in the Security Service before it embarked on those investigations, but it was nevertheless instructed to do so.
      There should also have been soul-searching before the Security Service investigated the National Council for Civil Liberties. The notion that such people as the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and Miss Patricia Hewitt were in some way involved in espionage, terrorism, sabotage or national security is too ridiculous to be taken seriously. Yet we know that those organisations were investigated by MI5.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. David Winnick: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree with me that of course it was ridiculous, but we have had absolutely no reason or justification given, except by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) who said the National Council for Civil Liberties had been influenced by Communists, as perhaps it had been over 30 years ago. Is it not a fact that in the absence of any kind of parliamentary scrutiny all we get is the Minister of State responding to the Second Reading debate and saying he cannot possibly go into operational details?
      Mr. Aitken: I do not want to go over yesterday's debate again today, but I do think that amendment No. 47, which is the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the

      189
      Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, is extremely well drafted, because if it was in the Bill it would allow MI5 to investigate such organisations, provided they really were a threat to national security, but with the very important rider that any such activities being investigated must not of course include
      "lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d) above",
      and they basically cover espionage, sabotage, and so on.
      Mr. Rupert Allason: Is it not the case that very often the Security Service may receive information from reliable, or perhaps unreliable sources? I mentioned yesterday a boastful conversation between two suspected KGB officers, the implication being that there was some kind of contact with a particular organisation. Is it not therefore the responsibility of the Security Service to make investigations and not to continue surveillance for ever and a day. but legitimately to look at a particular organisation or a particular individual where allegations have been made, and then perhaps to clear that person? Surely we cannot limit the role of the Security Service to at least conducting that preliminary investigation.
      Mr. Aitken: I understand the point my hon. Friend is making and I think the answer is really this. Of course we cannot blame the Security Service for chasing after what it believes to be a genuine scent for one reason or another, but at least amendment No. 47 will stop it running after a lot of false scents because it will have to remember not just what a rumour about a contact may be but its duty to make sure that the organisation concerned is not just involved in lawful advocacy, lawful dissent. So it is a good clause and a good amendment to have on the statute book.
      May I now turn to a third area in which I believe MI5 tread from time to time, which again seems to be outside the terms of this Bill. I understand that the director general of the Security Service from time to time advises Ministers, and advises in particular the Prime Minister, on matters which could loosely be called security matters but are not absolutely security matters involving terrorism, sabotage, and the undermining of parliamentary democracy. For instance, I am told that the director general of the Security Service of the day regularly advises an incoming Prime Minister after an election if, in the view of the Security Service, there are any candidates around who might be considered for ministerial office who could constitute a security risk. This has certainly been true in the past, as we know, from memoirs about advice given to former Prime Minister Lord Wilson. Indeed, there was the rather hilarious case when he was advised not to continue the ministerial career of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). This turned out to be a confusion between a David Owen and a Will Owen.
      Mr. Tony Banks: There was another case, of course. Harold Wilson was given advice by the security services not to appoint Judith Hart, now Baroness Hart, because the security service had confused two Harts, one of whom was a member of the Communist party named Tudor Hart. The fact is that mistakes can be made, but of course for those who are trying to climb up the greasy pole in this place they could be fatal in political terms.
      Mr. Aitken: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and behind it, of course, lies the important argument in this debate that any such advice, however well-meaning it may
      190
      be, is advice which falls outside the terms of the Bill's definition of the functions of the Security Service. Just in case Labour Members think that these kinds of mistakes are totally confined to their side of the House and to Labour Prime Ministers, they may be interested to know that I was told—I believe reliably—that just after the 1979 general election no fewer than six parliamentary colleagues from these Benches were fingered by MI5 as being in some way not quite suitable for office. I cannot believe they were all saboteurs or terrorists, or indeed that they were trying to undermine parliamentary democracy—the very process that sent them to Westminster.
      Mr. Allason: I have no role to defend the Security Service, but it seems to me that in the cases of Hart and Owen it was not necessarily the Security Service that made a mistake. Is it not the case that Will Owen was in fact prosecuted? He was acquitted, but he subsequently admitted to having conducted espionage. Similarly, with the case of Mrs. Hart, there were two Mrs. Harts; one, Mrs. Jenifer Hart, who had been in touch with Soviet intelligence officers, and a second, Mrs. Tudor Hart, who was mentioned.
      The point I am making is this: it has been assumed by the House that the blunder or error in mistaking these names or confusing these identities was a mistake made on the part of the Security Service, and that is not my information.
      Mr. Tony Banks: One was a politician trying to be a Minister.
      Mr. Aitken: I do not think there is necessarily anything wrong with the Security Service, if that is its defined role in law, advising Ministers or the Prime Minister that it has good grounds for believing that X or Y inside or outside this House is a security risk. The point is that these functions are not in this Bill at all. The only people they should be fingering in this way are terrorists, saboteurs, or those who are involved in espionage or threats to national security. That is a very different category from the kinds of activities I am getting at.
      My serious question to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is this: is the remit of the Security Service really as narrow today as clause 1 in its present form says it is? In the past I think I have given enough indications to suggest there are areas where MI5 is operating which are outside the narrow areas of definition of this Bill, and I really do commend amendment No. 47 to my right hon. Friend. I think it would certainly provide a far better definition.
      I now turn to amendment 78, which is the one tabled by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, which is to knock out completely subsection (3), which refers to the economic well-being of the United Kingdom outside the British Isles. I want to know why MI5 should be involved in this activity at all. Surely activity outside the British islands is for the Secret Intelligence Service. Why is our domestic Security Service suddenly beng sent out to monitor the gnomes of Zurich who are speculating against sterling? I cannot understand this clause and what it is getting at.
      There may be times when it is necessary to protect against threats to the well-being of the United Kingdom. For example, I hope the Security Service was on the ball when Mr. Arthur Scargill went to see Mr. Gaddafi to try to get financial assistance for what definitely was an

      191
      attempt to overthrow parliamentary democracy. Nevertheless, I have difficulty in understanding why the domestic Security Service is being dragged into activity outside these islands.
      Finally, I would like to say a few words about amendment No. 90, which stands in my name, which attempts to strengthen the security services by giving them statutory authority over a very new and frightening area of terrorism, the threat posed to our national security by chemical agents such as poisons and nerve gases.
      Until the recent Iran-Iraq war there was a comfortable assumption held by many experts to the effect that the moral obloquy of chemical and poison gas warfare could somehow preserve an uneasy international truce in this area of weaponry. But that assumption was shattered by the use of mustard gas in the Iran-Iraq war and, in particular, by the lethal gassing of civilian Kurds in March and August 1988. Soon after that terrible event President-elect Bush made an eloquent comment on the outrage that many would echo when he said:
      "I thought we had relegated the horrors of chemical warfare to the history books. I thought we had banished for ever what we all saw only a few months ago—a mother trying to protect her child, waving her arms against the invisible winds of death."
      That vivid phrase,
      "the invisible winds of death"
      may be the coming horror in tomorrow's evil world of terrorist outrages. Evidence is mounting that several nations are now starting to manufacture, or are planning to manufacture, chemical agents and nerve gases for use by terrorist agents.
      The world has now been alerted to the Gaddafi plant at Rabta, 40 miles south of Tripoli, which, in the view of western intelligence agencies, well-supported by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary's testimony, is certainly not a pharmaceutical plant for peaceful commercial purposes. It is highly unlikely that any such plant would be surrounded by anti-aircraft guns and missiles.
      We are not just dealing with the possibility of Colonel Gaddafi supplying chemical agents to the IRA—not unlikely in view of his track record in supplying explosives to those terrorists. Other nations with terrorist forces operating in the twilight zone of international outlawry are now in, or getting into, the chemical weapons manufacturing business. Those nations include Syria, Cuba and North Korea.
      If chemical weaponry is on the march, how well prepared is our Security Service to deal with it? I accept that some uses of those chemical agents and weapons may come well outside the Security Service's remit. For example, it would be for the defence forces to counter obvious attacks such as the firing of missiles at Britain armed with biological warheads.
      But what about more subtle moves to overthrow or subvert Britain by chemical agents? There is no need for terrorists to bomb the Grand hotel at Brighton if the entire sleeping Cabinet could be wiped out by dropping nerve agent pellets into the air conditioning system. One blast of an aerosol can containing lethal germs such as Dengue fever into a crowded auditorium could debilitate and ultimately kill half a Government. Our parliamentary democracy could be overthrown in that way or by
      192
      dropping drugs such as LSD into a city water supply causing debilitating havoc. Horrific though those Strangelovian ideas may seem, it is worth spending a moment talking about them because there is now little doubt among specialists that some are in the planning and preparation stage by tomorrow's terrorists.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Is it not also a fact that much, if not all, of the expertise for manufacturing such evil weapons is coming from the west? The technology is being exported by countries such as Western Germany, the United States and Britain. It was appalling to hear that someone could buy such weapons in some sort of market. I accept that it was not a legitimate market, but somehow they were available for sale. Perhaps the Security Service should speed up its activities in some commercial areas where so much expertise is clearly being made available to countries that want to manufacture their own gas weapons.
      Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is right. I agree completely. I am arguing that the Security Service needs authority and power to look at this horrific new area of the expansion of terrorism. I take his point that getting to the supply line, which may well be in a western country such as ours, is vital.
      How well prepared is the Security Service to deal with that potential problem? It is not sufficiently authorised by the Bill. Chemical terrorism may not necessarily be violent or industrial, certainly not in the preparatory stages. However, the preparedness of the Security Service is almost more important than the authority being given by the Bill. For example, I wonder how many MI5 officers have degrees in chemistry or pharmacology. How many have any training in counter-terrorism on chemical weapons? The precedents are not encouraging. The only reference to MI5's chemical knowledge that I have been able to trace was, as so often in the past, a somewhat comic opera one, when MI5 decided that Hugh Gaitskell had been murdered by Soviet agents using a chemical formula. MI5's response was to send a former Army signals officer to talk to the British Medical Association. That is not the kind of specialist knowledge and expertise that is necessary in today's world. We need specialisation.
      The matter of supplies is vital. A quotation from George Shultz bears out the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). In The Wall Street Journal on 3 January he was quoted as saying:
      "The Europeans can still turn this thing off by denying the Libyans equipment and chemical agents and precursors."
      The Security Service needs the legal authority and professional capacity to turn off chemical terrorism at the supply line stage, the subversion stage and the attack stage. If anybody in Britain is selling such equipment—medium to low-technology stuff—the clause does not cover it. The word "chemical" needs to be in the Bill. I hope that the House does not think that I am guilty of futuristic scaremongering. If we can include this amendment in the Bill, it will give the Security Service a new professionalism and give a message to some of our allies, particularly the United States, that we are seriously worried about this issue.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Benn: The amendments touch on the nub of the Bill—what is subversion and what is national security and who should decide what is national security and who

      193
      should decide what is subversion? Having the Bill means that we have probably had more meaningful discussion on the Security Service than we have had in recent years.
      For a long time the general public have been persuaded that it is in their interests that foreign spies and domestic terrorists should be under careful scrutiny. Communists were automatically identified with foreign spies. I imagine that if the Soviet Union had wanted spies in Britain it would not have picked members of the Communist party. However, that was one of the foolish ideas that was current. The whole thing had to be covered by the tightest security and secrecy and judges capitulated whenever they heard the magic word "security".
      The amendment is important because the definition of subversion is a political decision. Who is the enemy is a political question. We do not say that the chief of staff will announce which enemy country he intends to attack. That too is a political question. After all, security is a part of defence. We have an annual defence White Paper in which we are told what resources we have at out disposal and where they are deployed. We have an annual Army order. When I was first in Parliament an Act went through every year. Now it is an annual order. If the House does not endorse that order, the discipline of the armed forces disappears on the day that the old order expires. Why does that procedure not apply to the Security Service?
      What is it about the Security Service's political objectives that makes them different from the defence forces' political objectives? The answer is that the decision about what is subversive has been taken by MI5, sometimes upon the intervention of Ministers. I say without any disrespect to the Home Secretary that I would be surprised if, like his predecessors, he really knew what was going on. Certainly some of my colleagues who were his predecessors did not know what was going on, because what was going on was an attempt to get the Labour Government out of office. I cannot believe that Lord Jenkins of Hillhead or my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was in charge of such an operation.
      If one pursues the matter more fully, one finds that if pressed the Security Service would say that it is responsible not to the Home Secretary but to the Crown, a concept that I tried to explore on Second Reading. The Crown is a mysterious idea which implies a continuity of activity. The security services have really been protecting the status quo, which is not the same as parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy is supposed to allow one to change the status quo by political action. If one cannot change the status quo by voting, why vote? Immediately we come to the relationship between what is called national security, which is defined as the political and economic status quo, and subversion, which, in the case of parliamentary democracy, is a legal form of trying to change the status quo. The Home Secretary knows that, or his draftsmen have worked on that basis. If one then says that parliamentary democracy is trying to change the status quo by political means, one is caught by the Bill. If one is trying to undermine parliamentary democracy by political actions, one is a subversive. The Home Secretary has put his finger on that. If one interprets parliamentary democracy as meaning that one wants to change anything, one is covered by the Bill because one is trying to undermine parliamentary democracy by political action.
      194
      The Home Secretary may smile and may give as many assurances as he likes, but I am defining how the Bill will work and that is how the system has worked until now.
      Another aspect of the matter, which I have raised before, is that the condition under which the Americans allow us to borrow nuclear weapons is that American intelligence supervises British intelligence. The Americans have to check procedures and, for many purposes, they have to check people who are engaged in activities in which they take an interest. In a strange way, the definition in amendment No. 47 covers the Americans. It refers to
      "the activities of agents of foreign powers that are detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person".
      That would deal with James Angleton immediately, but no British Government who wished to retain nuclear weapons could implement such an amendment.
      It is not only the theory of the matter that is interesting but the practice. In Field Marshal Lord Carver's television broadcast after his resignation as chief of the general staff, he said that for most of history Britain's armed forces were concerned with domestic security. He pointed out—and this point was interesting to me—that there have not been many foreign wars in which the British Army has been engaged. We fought the French and, a couple of times, the Germans, but for most of our history the armed forces have performed the function of security forces. That is why Parliament, in 1688, resolved that it did not want a standing army. That domestic function has been far greater, in the mind of the security services, over a long period. We have been told that the Russians were planning to invade. I do not know how many people now believe that Mr. Gorbachev is planning an attack on London. According to opinion polls, only 2 per cent. think that a Russian attack is very likely.
      The concept of the "enemy within" is central to the issue. The present Prime Minister has made it explicit that the "enemy within" became the dominant consideration of the security services at the time when there was a Socialist challenge to the status quo. Trade unions are, by definition, considered to be potentially subversive by the security services. I know that because my private secretary in one of my Departments tried to take advantage of the scheme for interchange with industry. He said that he did not want an interchange with industry, but that he wanted to go to a trade union for a time. He was warned off because, in the eyes of the establishment that still runs the security services, trade unionism was subversive in itself. I am saying not that the security services believe that every trade unionist is subversive, but that the purpose of trade unionism is subversive.
      I want to deal next with the peace movement. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), when he was Secretary of State for Defence, was able to instruct MI5 to bug the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—the Cathy Massiter case. That shows that anyone whose view of the world differs from the view that peace has been retained by nuclear weapons against the Red Army is a subversive—and that view is still held. No one should imagine that Peter Wright's story ended with his retirement or with the acquisition of power by the present Government.
      Mr. Allason: I do not want the case of Cathy Massiter to be misrepresented or misinterpreted. Was it not the case that my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who was then Secretary of State for Defence, requested information from the Security Service relating to

      195
      CND and that the Security Service—quite rightly—declined to give any classified information? There was a disagreement and thereafter the Security Service agreed to supply information about CND to the section in the Ministry of Defence that had been set up to combat it, but only if the information came from open sources. The Security Service acted properly in declining to supply any classified information, and that was the judgment of the person who subsequently investigated Cathy Massiter's allegations, which were then dismissed.
      Mr. Benn: The hon. Member may have more knowledge of these matters than I have, as he speaks with such confidence about what happened, and that illustrates my point. We should have known the information to which, apparently, the hon. Gentleman is privy and we should have had a chance to test the matter. I do not believe for a moment what he has said, but I cannot prove that, and he cannot prove the validity of his remarks, because the whole matter is covered by secrecy.
      The next category of people who are considered to be subversive are the various types of Socialists. It is funny that the Communist party is held to be subversive now. As far as I can make out, it is advocating electoral pacts, so the security services do not seem to be up to date. But the people in the security services are not politically clever. I was once invited, as a Minister, to attend a conference of the Socialist International, a respectable body which was then presided over by Willy Brandt. My private secretary said to me that MI5 would not let me go. He said that the reason was that the International Socialists were on our list. He did not know the difference between the International Socialists and the Socialist International. That does not show a high level of political intelligence. There may be a need for more chemists in MI5. Perhaps it would not be a bad idea if MI5 were also to employ people who understand Socialism and realise that there are many varieties of Socialism.
      I remember the case of a woman who was refused employment by the Civil Service because her father read The Daily Worker. We should not deceive ourselves that the amendment will be passed, but we can use Parliament to make available through Hansard—the only publicly owned newspaper that has not yet been acquired by Rupert Murdoch—to those who bother to read our speeches the truth about what is happening.
      Mr. Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Benn: I shall just finish this point.
      The security services go to universities and ask teachers about the political activities of particular students who may have applied for a job in the defence industry or the Civil Service. Lecturers have told me that MI5 was sniffing around to find out whether Mr. Jones or Mr. Smith was reliable. If one has a friend who is keen to join the Civil Service, the first advice to give such a young man is, "Don't go to political meetings, my friend, because if you do, you may not get into the Civil Service." One reason why the security services and the Civil Service are so ignorant about political argument is that, to join the security services, one must have an unblemished record. One must not even read Campaign Group News or Tribune because that might suggest that one wanted to change the status quo.
      Mr. Norman Buchan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Benn: Let me finish going through the categories of subversives.
      Another category is those who are known to be politically active on an issue that may appear to be harmless. People may be against vivisection, for example, but it is always possible, in the minds of those who sniff around, that such people might take part in other activities that could be threatening. What is misleading is to pretend that the activities of the security services in the past, or the way in which they will operate in future, has anything to do with protecting the people's democratic rights. They are designed to protect the status quo.
      Mr. Winnick: My right hon. Friend will probably not remember an incident that took place in the 1960s when he succeeded Frank Cousins as Minister of Technology. I brought it to his notice that somebody who wanted to work in a rather junior capacity in the Civil Service had apparently been refused a job, not because she was a member of the Labour party but because her father had been born abroad. Like many others, he had come here from Tsarist Russia before 1917, for pretty obvious reasons. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend intervened or not, but I am glad to say that that person eventually received an offer of employment.
      6 pm
      Mr. Benn: That is absolutely right. We have not yet discussed the question of vetting. The employees of the BBC are vetted. One cannot get a senior job at the BBC until one has been cleared by the security services. Do they imagine that a lot of terrorists are about to be made head of news and current affairs? The Clerks in this House are vetted. I know that from the evidence given to the Committee of Privileges. Members' research assistants are vetted. What has that to do with terrorism or espionage?
      Mr. Tony Banks: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Benn: I do not want to detain the House. I am merely trying to put a few fruits on the harvest festival altar so that people may observe them later.
      The next question is, "What is parliamentary democracy?" It has been defined in many different ways. Last summer, we celebrated the tercentenary of 1688—apparently the year of the birth of parliamentary democracy. I should have thought that William of Orange would have been regarded as one of these foreigners trying to disturb parliamentary democracy, but it turns out that he was in at its birth. I am reminded of the saying
      "Why does treason never prosper?
      Here's the reason:
      For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
      The other day I went through the Second Reading of the Reform Bill. The Conservatives of the time were opposed to the Reform Bill because they thought that it would undermine parliamentary democracy. Mr. Asquith, the great Liberal leader, opposed votes for women on the ground that that proposal would upset parliamentary democracy.
      Parliamentary democracy has been defined to mean the status quo at the time. What is it in practice? The Crown in Parliament is sovereign and the powers of the Crown—except for the power to dissolve Parliament or to ask someone to form a Government—are not personal to the

      197
      sovereign. Every Prime Minister—I do not differentiate between the present Prime Minister and her predecessors in this respect—uses the powers of the Crown to do all sorts of things that have nothing to do with Parliament and nothing to do with democracy. The Prime Minister appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury. What has that to do with Parliament or democracy? The Prime Minister appoints the judges and the chairman of the BBC. She appoints Lord Chalfont to the IBA. The Prime Minister can go to war without consulting Parliament or sign treaties without consulting Parliament. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) signed the treaty of accession to the Common Market before it was even published. All such activities are undertaken under the Crown prerogative.
      Suppose that we say that we do not like the use of that prerogative. Is that an attempt to undermine parliamentary democracy by political action? I have long been a republican and I believe that the Queen should be the head of the Commonwealth. Is that subversive? Is it subversive to want to abolish the House of Lords, which has no democratic base in society? Many Liberals have argued for a single Chamber or two elected Chambers. Is that subversive? Is it subversive if I say that the Church should not be established? The other day, I looked up the coronation oath and found that the only pledge that the Queen gives is that she will uphold the rights of the bishops. That is most interesting. It was clearly not applied in the Viraj Mendis case, but that is another matter. There is no democracy in the sense that in a democracy the electorate has the final say. The truth is that the status quo covers a semi-feudal system which is not subject to normal public means of accountability under the Bill.
      In a democracy, the ultimate responsibility for deciding the interests of the state lies with the electorate. That is what democracy means. If the electorate is to decide what is in the interests of national security and what is subversive, the electorate must know enough to know what goes on. This Bill tries to entrench in statute a rotten little directive of Maxwell Fyfe, who told them to get on with it and not bother him and a rotten definition by Lord Harris of Greenwich, who used virtually the same phrase as appears in clause 1. On that basis, the Home Secretary hopes to entrench in statute powers that have been exercised under the Crown prerogative for years, and dress it up as the entrenchment of the protection of parliamentary democracy against subversion.
      The Home Secretary will not be affected by my arguments, but I hope that people outside will realise when they read them that the Bill is not what it is made out to be. It is not an advance. It is the entrenchment in statute of powers that no democratic Government have the right to exercise.
      Mr. Allason: The second group of amendments is important, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) for raising these matters. I am concerned at some of the myths and legends mentioned by the Opposition. Perhaps I may clarify. It is certainly not their fault—it is not even the fault of the Security Service—that there is so much secrecy and mythology surrounding MI5. Many years ago, when I started my research I visited a retired director-general of the Security Service who was apparently terribly reluctant even to tell me the three functions of the Security Service at the time—counter-espionage, counter-sabotage and
      198
      counter-subversion. The role of the Security Service and its functions have been defined only twice—first, in the Maxwell Fyfe directive, which was secret and was not disclosed until the Denning report, and, secondly, in the evidence put before Lord Franks.
      It is curious to note that people have not noticed the metamorphosis that has taken place in the intervening years. Counter-terrorism is to be included in the Bill. Counter-terrorism is a very important, very specific and very professional activity and it has never been an activity in which the Security Service has been involved. Counter-terrorism has traditionally been left to special branch and the anti-terrorist squad. I do not argue that the acquisition of information relating to terrorism should not be gathered by the Security Service but the House should be mindful of the change that is taking place. Surely the role of the Security Service is simply to gather information and supply that information to the relevant quarters. Its objective is often to obtain a conviction in the courts, but traditionally the Security Service has not been able to fulfil the role of supplying witnesses and that is why it has not indulged in counter-terrorism in the past.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South made several other points about the new uses of the Security Service. One of them leaves me feeling very anxious. My humble view is that the business of leak inquiries is in direct contravention of the Maxwell Fyfe directive. A short time ago a document was leaked from the Department of Health and Social Security. It seems that if the Government leak a document it is all right, whereas if someone else leaks it it is not. Surely such leaks cannot be described as affecting national security or involve the defence of the realm. It never occurred to me that the Security Service would be involved in the investigation. I was appalled to read in the newspaper the name of the "Cabinet official" who was to be conducting it, because I happened to know that he was a long-standing member of the Security Service. Such activities are not a proper function of the Security Service.
      Two very important activities of the Security Service are not covered in the Bill. First, much has been said about positive vetting. Some hon. Members will be surprised to learn about it. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) mentioned visits to universities in pursuit of positive vetting inquiries. Those inquiries are riot conducted by the Security Service. The Security Service has always taken the view that it is too secret to conduct positive vetting inquiries. The reality is that a small group of field inquirers, based at the Procurement Executive of the Ministry of Defence, conducts the positive vetting inquiries. The Security Service's argument has always been that security is too important to be left to the experts. It has said that there should be security departments in all Ministries and in all areas of Government, and that it will give those Departments advice.
      It seems to me that the most sensible arrangement would be for the Security Service to conduct the positive vetting and to make the field inquiries. There have been countless examples. Indeed, virtually every major spy case since 1953 has involved somebody who has not just cleared his or her positive vetting, but sailed through it. The examples are legion so I shall not bother to give them. Another clear example—
      Mr. Buchan rose—
      Mr. Maclennan rose—
      Mr. Allason: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan).
      Mr. Buchan: Several of us have been increasingly intrigued—and now disturbed—by the hon. Gentleman's apparent inside knowledge of the security services. We know of his past service in relation to this and about the books that he has written. However, into almost every speech—and at almost each moment—the hon. Gentleman drops in another piece of ex cathedra information about what the security services do or do not look after. Is the hon. Gentleman a member of MI5?
      Mr. Allason rose —
      Mr. Buchan: Let me finish the question. The hon. Gentleman has allowed me to intervene—
      Mr. Allason: The answer to the question is, "No, I am not."
      Mr. Buchan: The first question is, is the hon. Gentleman a member of MI5? The second is, if not, and if he is in possession of all that information, which has been leaked—presumably illegally—from MI5, has he reported those leaks, and, if not, why not?
      Mr. Allason: The short answer is, "No, I am not.", but I have conducted research over a period of 10 years. I hope that many hon. Members recognise that security is an important issue and one worth researching. It is not a matter of clandestine sources. I have written 10 books on this subject. I would honestly recommend that the hon. Gentleman buys them because they are good value.
      I turn now to another area that is important in relation to security and vetting—
      Mr. Maclennan rose—
      Mr. Allason: Three years ago, after a bomb was placed on board an Air India jet flying across the Atlantic from Canada, the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service decided that it would vet all airside personnel, that seems a proper occupation for it. About 14,000 people per year in Canada are routinely vetted because they have airside access to aircraft. Surely that is an area of professional expertise in which the Security Service should be taking an interest because it seems to me to be be at the heart of the defence of the realm. However, once again that aspect has been left to amateurs because the Security Service has taken the view that it is too secret to involve itself.
      6.15 pm
      I turn now to a couple of cases that have been raised about which I shall try to dispel some of the myths. Some facetious remarks have been made about the connection between the Communist party of Great Britain and foreign espionage. The fact is that over the years no fewer than two national organisers of the Communist party of Great Britain have been convicted of espionage and have served long terms of imprisonment. Because of that historical precedent, the Security Service has traditionally taken an interest in the Communist party—which seems not entirely unreasonable.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South mentioned the vetting of potential Ministers. Once again, the examples given suggested that they were not espionage cases, but the two cases that my hon. Friend cited were
      200
      exactly that. The case of Will Owen is fairly well known. He was acquitted of several charges under the Official Secrets Act. Thereafter, the Security Service invited him to attend a meeting at which he was invited to supply more detailed information. He was reluctant to go and took with him a colleague from the Labour Benches. He visited the Security Service and gave a detailed confession.
      Two Harts are involved in the next case, one of whom, Mrs. Jenifer Hart, supplied information to the Security Service. She admitted once having been employed in the Home Office and of having had illicit meetings with a man who was a suspected Soviet intelligence officer. Those are two clear cases within the responsibility of the Security Service in which information was supplied. It seems to me to be perfectly proper for the service to be involved.
      We heard yesterday—we have heard again today—the tremendous myths of the Peter Wright attempts to undermine the Labour Administration. I watched the tape again last night to make absolutely certain that there was no mistake about what Peter Wright admitted when he was being cross-examined by John Ware on the "Panorama" programme. It was interesting that Peter Wright admitted that there was no truth in the so-called plot and that it was wrong to have claimed in his book that 30 officers were attempting to undermine the Labour Government. He said that it was himself and perhaps one other officer, who got cold feet, who were prepared to consider leaking detrimental information about Harold Wilson. David Leigh's book on this subject mentions several case histories, all relating to Labour Ministers and Labour Members of Parliament who had been investigated by the Security Service in some way or other. In each case, there was justification for that pursuit under Maxwell Fyfe.
      Ms. Diane Abbott: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem about Peter Wright is working out when he is telling the truth? Sometimes I wonder whether Peter Wright himself knows when he is telling the truth. Clearly, Peter Wright did give an interview in which he said that the Wilson plot was a fantasy, but he has also said on other occasions that, on balance, he is anxious not to give information which, overall, would damage the Security Service. Could the fact that he is now moving away from his original claims about the Wilson plot be in response to all kinds of external pressures, and the fact that he said—
      Mr. Tony Banks: He has made his money.
      Ms. Abbott: Yes. My hon. Friend has intervened to say that Peter Wright has now made his money and so he can afford to withdraw his claims.
      One cannot judge the truth by what Peter Wright says from one day to another. However, it is a fact that a whole host of stories were leaked to the press during the 10 years in which Wilson was Prime Minister that served to undermine him. That is a fact that nobody can deny.
      Mr. Allason: It is not denied that there were many rumours relating to Harold Wilson, but his own conduct inspired many of those rumours— [Interruption.] Well, I shall give hon. Members a small example. Harold Wilson made 14 visits behind the Iron Curtain— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course, there is nothing suspicious about that, but at that time many business men were approached by

      201
      the Soviets and it was believed that perhaps he had been approached, yet he made no report on that subject. When an analysis was made of his movements behind the Iron Curtain, it was difficult to trace exactly where he had been or what he had been doing.
      That is the kind of basis that was used by Peter Wright. When one turns that into the allegations in his book, one sees that they do not hold water at all. Under cross-examination by John Ware, Peter Wright collapsed like a pack of cards and, when he was asked why he had mentioned the 30 officers, he said that he did not believe that it would have caused a fuss.
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) comes to this House as a self-professed expert, although he has not at any time given the House any serious indication of what is the basis of his knowledge. He does his case no good at all by the sort of smears in which he has been indulging in the case of the former Prime Minister. It is as ludicrous to accuse Lord Wilson of being a suitable subject for an inquiry as it would be to authorise the security services to survey the Prime Minister because she has said publicly of the president of Russia, Mr. Gorbachev, that he is a man with whom one can do business.
      Mr. Allason: I entirely concede that. I believe that it is fair to say that there must be occasions when Security Service officers do not follow the correct scent and are misled. Is that not the nub of the second group of amendments, because what we are trying to do is to define the role of the Security Service? I urge the House to pay attention to the different changes that I have described in the role of the Security Service in recent years and to try to concentrate especially on the two areas that have changed recently, its new involvement in counterterrorism and its involvement in leak inquiries.
      Mr. Michael Foot: My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made a most important contribution to the debate and I do not want to be distracted by the disgraceful slurs and smears of which the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) has just spoken in his references to the former Prime Minister and leader of the Labour party. If the hon. Gentleman was revealing the minds of some of his associates in the security forces, it should make us all the more alarmed. The hon. Gentleman is out of the service now, but I believe that no hon. Member would wish to concur with the doctrine that such pursuit of politicians would be justified because of visits that they had paid to countries behind the Iron Curtain. I can only hope that I misheard the hon. Gentleman, but that does not seem very likely. I suggest that the hon. Member for Torbay should read what he has said and take the earliest opportunity to apologise to the House.
      Mr. Tony Banks: If he were a man, he would.
      Mr. Foot: My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said that this was the nub of the Bill, and I believe that he is right. Yesterday there were extremely important debates in which the House sought to establish some parliamentary control over the way in which the Bill was operated and the way in which the security services might operate. The replies from the Home Secretary to that important debate were certainly not satisfactory in terms of meeting the arguments in the debate, but they
      202
      were one way of dealing with the situation. I am sorry that the Government made no effort to listen to the arguments in the debate or to acknowledge the necessity for some genuine attempt at parliamentary control.
      What my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has said today about that clause makes such control all the more necessary. I do not always agree with my right hon. Friend's views on constitutional questions. Indeed, I have a difference of opinion with him about what happened in the year 1688. I believe that it was a much better affair than he is prepared to admit. It did not have anything to do with democracy—the word had not been invented—but it had a great deal to do with parliamentary accountability. The reason why I take a more generous and liberal view of the matter than my right hon. Friend does is that one of the achievements of 1688, in my view, was to establish in a special way the subordination of the Crown to Parliament. My right hon. Friend's views about that are apposite, too.
      Apart from cutting off the king's head a few decades before, that was the most significant constitutional legal assertion of the supremacy of Parliament and especially the supremacy of the House of Commons. Anyone who went along to the exhibition about 1688 and heard the words put into the mouth of William III by the Bill of Rights could appreciate that the Executive was being told that it was subordinate to this House. If the words of William III were repeated all over the world, they would stick in the throat of the present Prime Minister because they mean, "I acknowledge the supremacy of Parliament and I acknowledge that in all these matters I must come to Parliament and get Parliament's approval". What was said in 1688 was thus extremely relevant to this Bill.
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has illustrated, under this Bill the Government are seeking to make formal and legal—that makes it all the more dangerous—what has happened in the past with the Security Service. The Minister protests that it is a liberal advance and not a retreat, but we shall be incorporating into the law of the land definitions of subversion and parliamentary democracy and what is an offence against them, which is something that we have not previously had in our constitutional procedures and rules. If we allow that to go through and do not examine in detail what the consequences may be, I believe that the Bill will be even worse than the Bill that we shall be discussing later on the freedom of information. The Official Secrets Bill is a shocking one, but if we pass this clause in these terms, after we have had a chance to examine them, the other Bill will be worse still. The next step will be a court case based upon clause 2(1), which I believe could be highly dangerous.
      I hope that the Minister will be prepared on this occasion, as he was not yesterday, to listen to the case put by some of his hon. Friends, with the support of the Opposition, and seriously to consider whether he does not have an obligation to the House to change the definition.
      I shall consider first clause 1(3), although I do not know what the hell it means. Clause 1(3) states:
      "It shall also be the function of the Service to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against the threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands."
      I hope that we shall be told exactly what that novelty is, because that is what it is. If we need new provisions more relevant to modern times, we should consider, for example, the suggestions made earlier about chemical warfare and

      203
      other dangers. Those are modern developments which certainly require investigation by the Government. A secret service might have to operate in that kind of area and, if so. we should consider the matter in advance. If the Government's case is that they have put in clause 1(3) in order to cover general new eventualities, they should look at the new eventuality of that kind of warfare rather than the proposition in the clause. I have not heard a coherent explanation of what clause 1(3) means or against whom it is to be used. It seems an extraordinary provision and I should have thought that it ought to be deleted.
      Even more serious are the implications that may be involved in the definition of subversion and so forth in clause 1(2), to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has already referred. If the Bill goes through on the basis of the discussions that we have had, no one will know for certain whether the different kinds of subversion that have been mentioned, and which MI5 felt entitled to investigate, are covered by the clause. Whatever Mr. Peter Wright may have been up to, no one will know for certain which of the activities that he described are excluded or covered by the Bill.
      6.30 pm
      There are other aspects of the Peter Wright affair that should be investigated and carefully examined by the Government. If we pass the Bill in the light of what happened in the past, we shall be sanctioning past events. One particularly disturbing revelation from the Peter Wright affair relates to the preparation of terrorist acts for the assassination of heads of foreign states. Peter Wright reveals that there was a plan to assassinate Nasser. If it is true that we had a secret service that was entitled, under its rules of operation, to prepare for the assassination of heads of foreign states, nothing could be more damning. If Nasser had been assassinated as a result of terrorist activities conducted by our Security Service, the consequences for our reputation throughout the middle east would be almost incalculable. Anybody who has been to Egypt knows the reputation that President Nasser had in that country, whether we liked it or not. If a British Government at that time were engaged in preparing for his assassination—an act of terrorism against a head of state —it was a monstrous affair.
      Despite all the obstacles put in the way by the Home Secretary and his colleagues, the Peter Wright case eventually got to the judges, most of whom agreed with me about the implications of a possible plot to assassinate Nasser. They said that it was absolutely horrific that such an act might have been carried out by our secret service. Some of the judges questioned what would have been worse—a scheme to assassinate Nasser succeeding, or failing—and said that, either way, it would be outrageous if such activities had been authorised. They could think of nothing worse than terrorist acts against heads of other states being authorised and conducted by our secret service.
      I had hoped that there would be an investigation into this matter. I wrote to the Prime Minister on a number of occasions and urged that, whatever happened at the end of the affair, she should instigate such an investigation. The Prime Minister has said that there has been an inquiry into all of Peter Wright's allegations, but when I asked whether it had incorporated an investigation into the supposed
      204
      preparations for the assassination of foreign heads of state she could not give any answer and, so far as I know, there has never been any proper investigation into that allegation. It is monstrous that such an inquiry has never occurred. If such things did occur, it is monstrous that, even 30 years later, this country does not have sufficient determination to protect its good name. We want that kind of thing rooted out.
      The passage of the Bill has given us the chance to root out such problems by reconsidering the definition of subversion. It is important that such matters are reconsidered. If we do not deal with such questions properly now, people will come to us later and say that we had the chance to change the law when we examined it in detail. We shall be told how many hours we spent on it and told that, at the end of it all, we came up with a definition of subversion which was satisfactory to Parliament.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has accurately cited one or two reasons why the particular words in clause 1(2) were used. My right hon. Friend said that the definition was cooked up by Lord Harris of Greenwich in another place. The idea that clause 1(2) is a considered judgment on the meaning of subversion is laughable. I cannot imagine that the Home Secretary would want to rest his case on such feeble grounds. The definition is nothing like good enough.
      Let us get the definition right. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) deserves great credit for the definition contained in amendment No. 47, which deals with the real anxieties of the nation. There are deep, justified and legitimate anxieties about. terrorism and all its modern apparatus and horror, particularly because of the way in which innocent people are drawn into terrorist acts. Of course the country wants measures taken which deal directly with such terrorism, and of course it is true that the secret services must deal with some forms of terrorist acts and operations. Those anxieties are dealt with in the first part of clause 1(2). It is all the more necessary, however, for the Government to ensure that they give an absolute defence for other people who are not engaged in terrorist activities but are engaged in perfectly legitimate criticisms of Government policy in whatever area. Such a defence must have occurred to the Home Secretary.
      In attempting to achieve a new definition of subversion, we should apply our minds to whether the English language is sufficiently elaborate to enable that to be done. The current definition makes no distinction between terrorist acts and legitimate criticism in the current definition and all the objections that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has made against the use of that definition are perfectly justified on that count. We must accept that a court could easily uphold the current definition of subversion against legitimate criticisms. It has happened before—for example, the actions taken against supporters of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in previous years. I understand that some of those actions would still be justified under the definition outlined in clause 1(2). I do not know whether the Home Secretary will give us a direct answer on this matter. We remember that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) set up his own private apparatus and private army to conduct a war against CND. No doubt the more money he spent on it, the more he thought that he was getting on in the Conservative party. Some of us thought that that whole operation was absolutely outrageous, especially when it spilt over into secret activities against CND supporters.

      205
      When the Home Secretary comes to defend the definition contained in clause 1(2) when we reach the end of this debate, I hope that operations such as those conducted against CND will be absolutely excluded. Not that judges necessarily always take account of what the Home Secretary says at the Dispatch Box—I do not share the confidence of others about the way in which judges go about this matter. Even if the right hon. Gentleman gives us that assurance, it does not go far enough.
      The other virtue of the clause advanced by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is that it offers a defence for legitimate criticism. The amendment lists what "threats to national security" means. They are genuine threats against which the nation has every right to protect itself. However, the amendment seeks to make a sharp distinction between genuine threats and every form of political advocacy that is properly understood by everyone in the House. A sharp distinction is drawn. The end of the amendment reads:
      "but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d) above".
      If a case such as MI5's shocking activities against CND ever came before a court of law in the future, that defence would protect a member of CND and anyone included in the categories referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield—the people who could be caught under the Government's ill-defined and absurd definition of subversion.
      Once again I plead with the Home Secretary. This is a new measure, which he claims is a liberalising one. We sincerely believe that if the existing operation of the law or anything like it is incorporated in the Bill in legal form, the position could be even worse. That is why we must be so careful. This is the nub of the Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield emphasised. It describes what the whole security system is supposed to be about. If the Home Secretary is genuine about the case that he has made to the House and the country, he should be able to accept the amendments tabled by his hon. Friends with a good grace.
      The Home Secretary may be in some difficulty because the Prime Minister also has some interest in these matters. She has clearly brought pressure to bear on the Home Secretary on a range of issues touching civil liberties, the way in which the law operates and the way in which terrorism is dealt with. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has conceded willingly on some, if not all, of these matters. I doubt, however, whether he was so eager as the Prime Minister to concede on the right to silence, or whether he was so eager to concede on interference with the proper presentation and reporting of affairs in Northern Ireland. Today, a new change is being made. I dare say there were discussions in Government about the definition, and I do not say it will be easy for the Home Secretary to change it, but if he really meant what he said—that he wanted a proper review of the whole subject—I see no reason why the new clause cannot be incorporated. It would not solve all the questions associated with official secrecy, but it would be a big stride forward towards obtaining common assent on these matters.
      I do not know whether the Government want common assent. If the right hon. Gentleman looks back at the history of official secrecy, he will see what folly it was, way back in 1910 or 1911, to rush through a Bill without proper examination, and how foolish it has been to allow this kind
      206
      of law to stay on the statute book ever since. Now we have a chance to do the job differently. If the Home Secretary has any respect for what is known as his liberal reputation, I plead with him to accept the new clause and thereby change the way in which we set about this business.
      Mr. Winnick: I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said. It is rare for the House to have an opportunity on two successive days to discuss in detail, in Government time, the activities of MI5. Usually this is a subject for Adjournment or Consolidated Fund debates. Subversion and related issues are important matters, and it is right to try to define subversion.
      If time permits, I shall go up to the foreign affairs committee of the parliamentary Labour party this evening, at which two senior officials from the Soviet embassy—I hope that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) is taking note—will tell us about the internal changes taking place in their country. If I have the chance to participate, I shall say that I hope the time will come when the internal changes in the Soviet Union will be so extensive that members in the new Parliament that is coming into being there will be able to discuss these sorts of matters—the activities of the KGB and so on. I should have liked to be able to tell those officials that we had parliamentary control over MI5; I shall not be able to. I will, however, be able to say that our democracy allows us at least to debate these issues. That is one of the reasons why we have a Parliament.
      Amendment No. 40 is my suggestion that
      "All members of the Service shall take an oath to the maintenance of parliamentary democracy."
      I entirely accept that that would not prevent scoundrels such as Wright from taking such an oath and then carrying out the sort of subversive activities in which he undoubtedly engaged. But it would do no harm to make loyalty to parliamentary democracy perfectly clear. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) once said that we do not take here an oath to parliamentary democracy, and perhaps we should. I see no reason why MI5 officers should not. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said earlier that he was not sure whether Conservative Members were fully committed to parliamentary democracy. I think that the majority of them are, but I would find it difficult to believe that all of them are as committed to it as we are.
      6.45 pm
      One of the tests of commitment to parliamentary democracy is a commitment to its existence in all countries. It is interesting that Conservative Members often find reasons and excuses for not attacking regimes such as that in Chile. We believe that people everywhere have a right to a democratic system of government. That is why we on the Labour Benches criticise the vile regime in South Africa on one day, and what is happening in Czechoslovakia on another.
      Perhaps the hon. Member for Torbay knows that Field Marshal Lord Carver, when no longer chief of the general staff, said in the late 1970s that in the early months of 1974 some junior officers spoke about the possibility of taking non-parliamentary action to resolve what they saw as the crisis in Britain. Interestingly, Christopher Walker wrote much the same thing in The Times after visiting Army barracks at that time. He reported such remarks in the

      207
      dying months of the Conservative Government headed by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). His articles were confirmed by Lord Carver, who presumably knew what he was talking about. I do not know why the Home Secretary dismisses that. It would be interesting to know whether MI5 investigated these activities—or did it take the view that as the Army officers were not engaged in Left-wing plots they needed no scrutiny?
      Amendment No. 76 includes a definition of subversion which is an improvement on that given by Lord Harris in 1975—if I may say so to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. Amendment No. 76 suggests that the definition should be Lord Denning's, which remained the definition of subversion until the change in 1974. It is far narrower than the unfortunate definition of 1975, which was continued by this Government. In another amendment I have suggested a further alternative definition which would mean actions that are calculated to overthrow parliamentary democracy.
      I do not disagree that it is necessary to protect national security and to provide protection against terrorism and sabotage. I have no quarrel with that whatever and would leave in the provisions relating to it because protection is one of the basic reasons for having a Security Service. I have long maintained that the definition of subversion should be as narrow as possible and should basically deal with actions that are calculated to overthrow by one means or another parliamentary democracy.
      I have no doubt myself about what parliamentary democracy means. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) is not in the Chamber. It means the right to put forward and advocate, however strongly, views that are different from those of the Government and to be able to put them forward in Parliament and outside without fear of punishment. That is the basic difference between a parliamentary democracy and a dictatorship. I see many weaknesses in our parliamentary democracy, and I should like to see them rectified, but I have not the slightest doubt that I live in a parliamentary democracy. I have never gone in fear of being tortured by secret police. I know that in most countries that is not the case. I consider it a great blessing to live under a system of parliamentary democracy and civil liberties.
      As I said earlier, I welcome the changes that are taking place in the Soviet Union and in Hungary. I see no reason for having any doubts in our minds about the definition of parliamentary democracy. One of the undoubted weaknesses in our system of democratic government is the way in which investigations and inquiries have taken place into matters that should not have been investigated. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) spoke about the Select Committee on Home Affairs and referred to the inquiry into the special branch, which was the first ever such inquiry. I take some credit for that because I was on the Committee and persuaded to my view the majority of its members who were at first reluctant to have such an inquiry. I also wrote the minority report.
      208
      The Committee heard evidence from Mr. Alderson, who had been the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall. He was an interesting witness and, presumably, he knows what he is talking about. He said that when he was appointed chief constable in Devon and Cornwall one of his first actions was to look through the records of special branch being held by the police there. He told the Committee that he found many records that were useless, out of date, or had absolutely nothing to do with subversion or crime. I wonder whether chief constables in other places look through such records.
      Mr. Hurd: Did Mr. Alderson give any views about the Security Service, which is the subject of our debate?
      Mr. Winnick: As the Home Secretary knows, special branch works closely with the Security Service. Special branch often carries out investigations at the request of the Security Service. Does the Home Secretary wish to challenge that in any way?
      Mr. Hurd: That is correct.
      Mr. Winnick: Special branch acts for the Security Service and I can understand why. I am not criticising that, but I criticise the keeping of records which Mr. Alderson said had absolutely no relevance to combating subversion. I wish that other chief constables would take the same attitude. Mr. Alderson told us that special branch had to report daily on industrial disputes and on the number of pickets involved in such disputes. He said that on some occasions daily reports were sent to the Home Office and always to police headquarters on all industrial disputes. That occurred in Mr. Alderson's time, and presumably things have not changed.
      My reason for putting forward amendment No. 39 is to omit the word "industrial" from the definition of subversion. It is quite wrong that people should be investigated because they engage in perfectly legitimate trade union activity or industrial disputes. I do not take the view that when one engages in legitimate industrial activity—one of the rights of a parliamentary democracy —one is engaging in subversion or something close to it.
      Why were MI5 files kept on Jack Jones and on Hugh Scanlon, now Lord Scanlon? Were they subversives? Is it suggested that Jack Jones, who at an early age went to fight Fascism in Spain, and who has always been in favour of our parliamentary system of democracy, is a subversive in the pay of Moscow? What about Hugh Scanlon? Why were MI5 files kept on such people? There have been abuses. It would not have been thought appropriate in any circumstances for special branch and MI5 to keep files on Tory politicians, however Right-wing. However, it was considered proper and legitimate—though not by me—to keep files on such leading figures in the trade union movement as Jack Jones and Lord Scanlon.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that certain elements in the security services do not see their function as defending parliamentary democracy? As I said earlier, as they see it, their function is to defend the status quo. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and I said earlier, that means capitalism. They are defending the status quo and capitalism and not parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy is acceptable to them and to many Conservative Members as long as it underpins and serves the interests of the status quo and capitalism. As soon as we start using

      209
      parliamentary democracy to try to introduce Socialism, we see how thin is the veneer of democracy on the Conservatives.
      Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend may or may not be right, and the Home Secretary may respond to his intervention. I do not want to undermine what I have said so far, which, is an indictment of some of the abuses that have occurred. However. in all fairness, there is some evidence that ultra Right-wing organisations have been investigated—and properly so—by MI5. Papers that have been brought into the public domain show that the Mosley movement was certainly the subject of investigation before the war. One assumes that the National Front is the subject of continued investigation.
      Perhaps I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West and, if so, it is one of the few disagreements between us. I do not object if organisations of the ultra Left are looked into, because I am in favour of parliamentary democracy, unlike a few Conservative Members. I am totally committed to parliamentary democracy, perhaps if only for the selfish reason—although I hope not—that I know that in a dictatorship I would be one of the first people sent to a concentration camp. I trust that there are many other reasons why I am in favour of parliamentary democracy. I would certainly be joined in a concentration camp by many of my hon. Friends.
      Mr. Tony Banks: It would be a pleasure to be there with my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Winnick: I do not think that it would be a pleasure.
      Perhaps I am also strengthened in my defence of parliamentary democracy because my ancestors lived in a country where there was no rule of law. They knew very well what happened when abuses occurred, and those abuses were often at the instigation of the police. I do not want to live under such a system. One of the reasons for my ancestors coming here was that they wanted to live under the rule of law and found such a life a great blessing compared to the situation in which they had lived before. I have many reasons for being grateful to this country, one of them being that it gave hospitality to my ancestors. Although they were not fleeing, they wanted to live in a different political climate.
      My final point is about the right of protest, advocacy or dissent. I know that that is covered in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and it is also covered in new clause 4, which is mine. That new clause clearly says:
      "Nothing shall be done under this Act which undermines the right of protest, advocacy or dissent."
      The Home Secretary will almost certainly say that nothing is done to undermine those democratic rights. But enough has been said in the debate today and yesterday and on previous occasions about the way in which people who legitimately engage in dissent on nuclear disarmament or civil liberties or on other matters have been investigated by MI5. It is quite likely that the Bill would not be before us if it were not for the outstanding cases to be brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and Miss Patricia Hewitt to the European Court of Human Rights.
      210
      7 pm
      When those cases are brought before the European Court of Human Rights—and they will not be abandoned —no doubt the Home Secretary or his agent will say, "These changes are taking place", and that will be his defence. If what I have said is right, we owe a tribute to those two women because they have demonstrated that if, in a parliamentary democracy, one is the subject of abuse, and if the state has acted against one without reason or justification, that should be pursued. That is a right that we should exercise whenever necessary.
      We should say time and again as we debate the Bill that the right of protest, advocacy or dissent—no matter how much one disagrees with the Government, be they Labour or Tory—are basic rights that should be protected at every opportunity, especially as the Home Secretary would net deny that abuses have occurred in recent years.
      In a foolish and stupid intervention, the hon. Member for Torbay suggested that there was some justification for investigating Lord Wilson. What was the reasoning of some MI5 official that Lord Wilson should be investigated, when even in his student days at Oxford—perhaps this is a criticism of him in relation to some of the ways in which young people of the time were protesting over what was happening in Spain and Munich—he was in no way involved? If a person such as he could be subject to investigation and suspicion-sustained suspicion, if the hon. Member for Torbay is right—simply because Lord Wilson made 18 or 19 trips behind the Iron Curtain, something must be very wrong indeed with certain officials involved with MI5 and with the attitudes of some Tory Members.
      I hope that the Home Secretary will recognise why my hon. Friends and I have tabled this series of amendments and why they should be accepted.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I do not find it as easy as does my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to define parliamentary democracy. Because it is so difficult to define, perhaps the Home Secretary will provide us with a definition. It may be said that parliamentary democracy can easily be recognised, but what is or is not permissible under a parliamentary democracy is more difficult to spell out.
      I welcome the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) because it represents at least an attempt to deal with clause 1(2), which is most unsatisfactory. In that connection, it is unfortunate that we are debating the Bill on the Floor of the House because that denies us the opportunity of the more detailed scrutiny of the measure that would take place in Committee upstairs, and we will not be able to return to many of these issues on Report.
      There is disquiet about the way in which subsection (2) is drafted, and it is unfortunate that because of the way in which the selection of amendments has been made, of which I make no criticism, we are having to debate many important issues together. Hopefully the Home Secretary will give his definition of parliamentary democracy so that we may judge how far activities that most of my hon. Friends would consider to be perfectly legitimate might be considered as undermining parliamentary democracy.
      My amendment No. 81 would delete the word "undermine" and I have tabled it in an effort to discover

      211
      whether what I consider to be legitimate protests would come under the definition of activities that the Security Service should be trying to thwart.
      Parliamentary democracy is much more than conducting elections or having votes in Parliament to give legitimacy to measures. There could be an element in a parliamentary democracy by which the minority gives its consent to be ruled by the majority. That is a difficult concept to develop and one which the Government do not fully understand, considering the way in which they treat certain parts of the British Isles, where the majority of people do not consent to the measures which are being inflicted on them by the Government.
      I will not pursue that aspect far. If the elected Government of the day impose an incomes policy and trade unions decide that such a policy is not acceptable, and they set out to try with industrial action to undermine that policy, is that a form of legitimate protest and dissent which they are entitled to pursue without being subject to scrutiny by the Security Service?
      There are many areas where individuals might try to alter Government policy by taking action. They may protest and organise in peaceful ways but ways likely to cause inconvenience and difficulty to other individuals. That would seem to me to be legitimate; the tradition in this country of peaceful, passive resistance is to be admired and that would not seem to be an area in which the Security Service should intervene.
      Once one moves from that area of peaceful activity to violent activity, there is every reason why the Security Service should be involved. But I am not certain that the Home Secretary shares my idea of the division between peaceful and violent protest. The definition of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills appears to be nearer to my definition than that which the Home Secretary would probably give.
      Clause 1(3) is extremely puzzling. On Second Reading several Members spoke of the economic well-being of the nation and the half answer we received from the Home Secretary was to the effect that our economic well-being was well defined and was contained in international treaty. I found that puzzling because if representatives of foreign Governments got together to cause a run on the pound or tried to create some other economic problem for us, that would be a legitimate area for the security services to investigate. But if the same people did the same thing in the City of London, it would appear not to be a legitimate area for investigation because subsection (3) refers to
      "threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands."
      That is puzzling because it seems to imply that the security services, which I understand operate within the United Kingdom, should try to find out what is going on abroad, whereas if the same activity appears to be happening within the country, that is not a legitimate area for investigation.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made great play with the fact that in his view the Bill is about serving the capitalist system. I should have thought that his remarks were relevant to subsection (3), the economic well-being of the nation. The difference between our economic well-being and capitalism would, I
      212
      imagine, be hotly debated in this Chamber. It is an area extremely difficult to define, and that is why the Government should delete clause 1(3).
      My amendment No. 82 is concerned with clause 2(2)(b) which states
      "that the Service does not take any action to further the interests of any political party."
      Why is that provision necessary? It seems automatic that the Security Service would not take action in the interests of any political party. But if it is necessary to include such a provision—and I can see good reason for having it—it should go further and add, as I suggest, that the Security Service should not take any action in support of
      "any individual, any company or any organisation."
      In other words, the Security Service should not be partial. In recent years there has been evidence to show that some people in the Security Service have operated in a way that has favoured the interests of a particular individual.
      There was a feeling that Chapman Pincher, as a reporter with the Daily Express, obtained certain pieces of information—or gave the impression that he had obtained certain pieces of information—because he was on a favourable footing with the security services. That state of affairs appeared to favour him as a journalist and to favour the security services because the information that he revealed helped them. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Torbay is not here at the moment. He gave the impression that certain people in the security forces have been more willing to talk to him than they have to other journalists. That has worked to his benefit because it has helped to build up his reputation as an expert on the security services. Presumably it has also helped the security services as they believe that they have found someone to put forward their point of view. The security services should not operate in favour of any individual in that way.
      I wish to deal now with the question of how far the security services should, or should not, operate in favour of a particular company. There is probably far more talk than action about the way in which other countries want to obtain good intelligence about our military operations and capability. Other Governments are keen to obtain that information, but there are many companies involved in the armaments industry for which it is just as important to know the exact capabilities of weapons systems made by other companies so that they can further their own commercial interests. That issue becomes particularly difficult when multinational companies are involved. They want to collect information about a weapons system so that they can put forward their system as the better system or find a defect in the system so that they can find a niche in the market. The security services should not operate a policy that favours particular companies.
      Those companies obtain a great deal of information from the ex-civil servants and people with a military background whom they employ. The security services should not favour any particular company or organisation. Some organisations have strong political links. It is not just political parties that contest elections, but anyone with strong political views which may be incorporated in an organisation, although such an organisation may not be recognised as a political party that puts up candidates for election.
      The Government must explain why it is necessary to define a political party as not having any support from the security services and why it is not necessary to include companies or organisations in the provisions. I hope that

      213
      they will explain why they have included clause 1(3) and that, as a result of this debate, they will find a far better definition than is included in clause 1(2).
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak now because the Committee has listened to all those hon. Members who tabled amendments. I should like to cover most of the points that have been raised.
      We have all enjoyed the increasingly frequent trips of the right hon. Members for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) back into the 17th century. I know that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield is an addict because he occasionally visits, in Burford churchyard in my constituency, the place where his heroes, the levellers, were taken out and shot by the hero of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, Oliver Cromwell. Obviously they have composed their differences today.
      The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent said that we are taking an area of public activity out of the realm of the prerogative and putting it into the realm of statute. He described that as the process of 1688. He was right to say that, as we are proposing to do that, the House should consider carefully the definitions proposed by the Government because they are now in statute and statute is in the custody of the House.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) then carried the argument forward logically. He was too skilful to ask for details of what was done, or not done, in the past, but he used his examples to pin us down about the future. We have asked Parliament to define closely, for the benefit of Government and the Security Service, the limits within which the Security Service will have to operate in future. That is the purpose of the Bill. We are asking Parliament to set limits which will be binding in future. It is therefore perfectly legitimate that we should spend a great deal of time on how those definitions are worked out.
      7.15 pm
      Then, logically, we come to the scheme produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). We should be clear about the difference between his approach and that of the Government, which is not a fundamental difference of principle, but one of flexibility, or relative inflexibility. My hon. Friend put his case very reasonably. In amendments Nos. 46 and 47 he seeks to define absolutely and comprehensively the purposes of the Security Service. The Bill takes a different approach. The House should understand that; I do not want anyone to be deceived hereafter. We define the protection of national security as the objective. The Bill states:
      "The function of the Service shall be the protection of national security".
      We then list a number of issues that fall into that category, which, at present, includes most of the activities of the Security Service.
      Under our supposition, other activities could be included, provided that it is for the protection of national security. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) raised this point. He was modest about his exposition of the case, but he put it very clearly. If we accept the Government's approach in the Bill, and if, therefore, the Security Service is not absolutely confined
      214
      by the definitions of the moment—for example, the definitions in my hon. Friend's proposal—will its scope go too wide? I should like to address that point.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I hope that my hon. Friend will clarify one point. Is he saying that this is only a partial definition? I should have covered the implications of the phrase "in particular" because it has tremendous implications for the issue of warrants. The Home Secretary, guided 11,nv the reference point of the statutory duty regarding the issue of warrants, controls the way in which national security is defined. The use of the phrase "in particular" appears to indicate that the provision refers to only some of the duties, albeit the principal ones. 11. implies that there are additional duties which could take. the issue much wider. It makes it difficult for the House to judge the matter in the context of the issue of warrants.
      Mr. Hurd: I am coming to precisely that point. So far, I have set out the difference between the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and the approach in the Bill. That difference was clearly expounded by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland.
      The definition has to be comprehensive. The committee would not want to establish a description of functions that did not cover all areas in which the Security Service might, now or in the future, have to become involved. If the committee did that, it could create an intolerable position, where the Security Service might be powerless to defend us or where there might be great pressure and, therefore, strains on the way in which the legislation was interpreted and understood. It would be wrong for the committee to establish a Security Service that was unable to protect the security of the nation from whoever threatened it.
      The term "national security" relates to the survival and well-being of the nation. That has been the continuing and consistent understanding of successive Governments and Parliaments. One can imagine a situation—I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills to consider this point—where everyone would expect the Security Service to take a hand in protecting the national security. No matter how clever we are now in working out allegedly comprehensive definitions, we may not succeed and the Security Service may find itself in a legal difficulty. For example, a new and devastating weapon could be secretly developed which had clear and obvious implications for the defence of this country. Unless it fell absolutely within the definitions set out by the committee if it adopted my hon. Friend's proposal, the Security Service could not do anything to identify or prevent the threat unless it involved terrorism, sabotage or the activities of agents of foreign powers.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South illustrated my point in his amendment requesting the addition of the word "chemical". He is concerned about a danger—he expressed his fear dramatically and well—which, he believes, is not only on the horizon but almost upon us. He believes that the Security Service should be trained and able, within the remit outlined in the Bill, to deal with that danger. Another hon. Member might make a similar speech about biological threats, but that issue is not dealt with in any of the amendments. My hon. Friend's point illustrates the difficulty of attempting to take into account all the uncertainties of the future.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Hurd: In drafting legislation that relates to the nation's security we cannot avoid recognising the fact that we cannot always foresee from where the next threat will come. If we had been drafting this legislation 30 years ago we might not have put the emphasis on terrorism as the Bill and the scheme of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills do.
      The Bill allows the Security Service to identify and, if necessary, take action to prevent such threats. It is right to do so. However, clause 1 makes it clear that the Security Service is not able to act except to protect the security of the nation and to safeguard its economic well-being from outside threats. It cannot act in support of sectional and other interests without acting outside its remit.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: As I understand it, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary says that the function of the Security Service shall be the protection of national security. He has added a few other words to show the extent to which that is so, but they are merely the icing on the cake. The essence of the clause is to say that the function of the Security Service is the protection of national security. That requires no definition because we have talked about it in previous debates and exigencies that we cannot now contemplate may arise in the future. Clause 1(2) cannot be an all-embracing definition, although it relates to a few serious threats to the nation. It is broad and it is not a definition of the proper function.
      Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has a different approach designed to provide, in January 1989, a comprehensive breakdown of how the protection of national security should be achieved. The Bill does not do that and I have explained why. I do not think that we can do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, by trying to add to that comprehensive breakdown an aspect which he believes to be important, has illustrated my point.
      Mr. Maclennan: The Home Secretary has taken issue with the attempt to define national security as set out in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I prefer the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills' amendment and I put my name to it, but there is an alternative. My amendment No. 74 was designed to give effect to what the Home Secretary has just said about the breadth of the phrase "national security". The Home Secretary said that by "national security" we mean that which threatens the safety and well-being of the state. That is an objective test which was included in Lord Harris of Greenwich's definition and in the Maxwell Fyfe directive. However, for some reason which is not clear to me, the Government have departed from their earlier definition and are using the phrase "national security" as if its meaning were obvious. As a result, they are opening wide the ambit of the service to look not only at matters which by any test are a threat to national security but at matters which are not a threat to national security and should not be covered by the Bill. Why will the Home Secretary not accept the language of Lord Harris of Greenwich's definition?
      Mr. Hurd: I have just re-read the hon. Gentleman's amendment. He seems to accept the basic point that it is difficult to define by statute all the circumstances in which the Security Service might intervene to protect national
      216
      security. I have given one or two examples, and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South gave another in the form of an amendment.
      Having re-read the hon. Gentleman's amendment, I do not think that it alters the position. The Bill as drafted sets out clearly the bulk of the activities of the secret service. That is not defined in a way that would prevent the service from moving into new spheres if it was found to be necessary.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Hurd: I wish to get on. This is a Committee stage and my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to speak.
      Mr. Shepherd: I wish to elucidate a point. That is the purpose of a Committee, it it not?
      Mr. Hurd: Yes. I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Shepherd: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made much of the concern about the word "chemical". Paragraph (a) of amendment No. 47 provides a mandate by which to pursue anxieties involving chemical warfare. It may be defined as sabotage and may be said to be detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom. It could be covered by paragraph (b), which involves a "threat to any person". There is a series of catch-alls for the contingency which concerns my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the House. The definitions in amendment No. 47 are wide enough.
      Mr. Hurd: I do not think that we can be sure that they are wide enough. If a crisis arose, it might be possible to slot it into my my hon. Friend's definitions. Presumably my hon. Friend tabled the amendment because he fears that it might not be possible, and it is better to be clear beyond peradventure that it fits in. Obviously my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South was not content to take his chances with amendment No. 47. In picking up his point and the points raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, I am expounding the Bill as it stands.
      Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. Friend's definition of national security include a Security Service investigation of a leak inquiry into the loss of a DHSS document?
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Hurd: The matter has been raised, and I have a statement of the present situation which would remain unchanged under the Bill. It is for Departments to make proper arrangements for the security of their papers before there is any question of a leak. They may take advice from the Security Service where appropriate. If there is reason to believe that departmental information has been leaked, obviously it is for that Department to deal with it. The advice and assistance of the Security Service would not be sought unless issues of national security were involved. That seems to me to be a reasonable position.
      I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and studied his amendment No. 40. Of course we are familiar with the different aspects of our national life. Indeed, in another context there is a proposal before the House concerning Northern Ireland. It is perfectly true that police constables and members of the armed services are given particular powers under the Crown. I do not consider that members of the Security

      217
      Service are in that category or that it would serve the purpose which the hon. Gentleman had in mind to put them, but not other civilian servants of the Crown, in that position.
      I now move to the concern about subversion which has been expressed by just about every right hon. and hon. Member who has spoken in this debate. It is generally accepted that the Security Service must be able to protect the nation from those who threaten national security by seeking to undermine or overthrow parliamentary democracy. There are differences in interpretation, but I do not wish to accept the invitation of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) to describe exactly what is meant by parliamentary democracy. If the House accepts the Bill, I do not consider that the courts will have very much difficulty on that point. The question concerns the definition of subversion. Despite their deep scepticism, I should like to allay the genuine concerns that have been expressed by the Opposition and by Conservative Members about how that is to be defined.
      We start from the definition by Lord Harris of Greenwich, who has had a terrible mauling from his previous friends. When the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent was in full swing about the horrors of that definition, I noticed the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) look rather attentively at his papers because he specifically endorsed that definition when he was Home Secretary. Therefore, it has a rather more distinguished lineage than the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent gave it credit for. It states:
      "Subversive activities are generally regarded as those which threaten the safety or well-being of the State and which are intended to undermine or overthrow Parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 February 1975; Vol 357, c. 947.]
      The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland was anxious that both legs of that definition—I think that he described them more elegantly as limbs—should appear in the Bill. I hope that I can persuade him that that is already the case. First,
      "the safety or well-being of the State"
      is covered by the reference in the Bill to
      "the protection of national security".
      I repeat that national security can relate only to the safety or well-being of the nation. The second limb is also spelt out in the Bill. I ask the Committee carefully to consider the restrictions in the Bill on that part of the functions of the Security Service. The Bill homes in on
      "actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means."
      Therefore, it is clear that there has to be a deliberate intention. It is not enough that a person's actions might be argued to have that unintended effect. However, if that is someone's deliberate intention, it is reasonable to include in the Bill those who seek to undermine parliamentary democracy as well as those who aim to overthrow it, otherwise there would be a weakness in our defence.
      Mr. Winnick: Will the Home Secretary give way?
      Mr. Hurd: I shall complete my argument before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has tabled amendments on this matter.
      Under the provisions of the Bill, even that would not be enough to bring the Security Service into play. As clause 1 is drafted, the Security Service could do nothing unless
      218
      such intentions represented a real threat to the security of the nation. I consider that it is a reasonable definition. It includes
      "political, industrial or violent means"
      because it would be naive to suppose that people with such a deliberate intention could not represent a threat to the security of the nation by exploiting the industrial life of the country. Under the restrictions that I have defined, it would not be sensible to accept the amendment that seeks to delete the word "industrial" because it is possible to conceive of people in that category using industrial means for their purposes. It does not mean that anyone engaged in industrial action is liable to the attention of the Security Service. I shall return to that point more positively in a moment.
      Mr. Winnick rose—
      Mr. Buchan rose—
      Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) has not yet spoken, but I shall give way to him and to the hon. Member for Walsall, North when I have completed my argument on this point.
      The Security Service should be able to identify and obtain information about those who exploit freedoms under the law to overthrow or undermine our parliamentary democracy. That is preferable to waiting, helpless and ignorant, until some illegal or violent action is taken to overthrow our democratic system. Therefore, I believe that the Bill is correct in that. I hope that I have shown the Committee that the power of the Security Service is strictly limited. We knew that that would be a particular concern, and we have spent a substantial amount of time mulling over it.
      Although the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent pressed me hard to accept the amendment, he suggested that it might be useful if I spelt out the point in a more positive way. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish also came close to making that point. There is no power in the Bill to enable the Security Service to take any interest in any person or organisation or any activity or enterprise: which presents no threat to the security of the nation as a whole. It does not matter if such people have views on the structure or organisation of Parliament or if they are involved in seeking to change industrial practices in this country or to negotiate a better deal if they are members of trade unions, or if they seek to challenge or change the Government's policies relating to defence, employment, foreign policy or anything else. The narrow party political interests of the Government of the day have no part to play in deciding on the necessary involvement of the Security Service. Its sole criterion in relation to a subversive threat is whether there is a deliberate intention to undermine parliamentary democracy and whether that presents a real threat to the security of the nation.
      In the light of the comments made in yesterday's debate, I asked for such a statement this morning, perhaps rather foreseeing the point made by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. I do not expect hon. Members to accept it in toto because that is not the nature of the debate. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members find that interpretation useful, and to some extent reassuring, in defining the purpose of the Bill. It is not meant as a declaration of ministerial policy but a statement of what the Bill contains.
      Mr. Winnick: What has just been stated by the Home Secretary should be in the Bill itself, so that there can be no doubt or ambiguity. Also, given that Lord Harris of Greenwich's definition has become so controversial and has been abused—though the Home Secretary will not admit it—what is wrong with the original definition given by Lord Denning, which was in use until 1975 and whose terms I have included in amendment No. 76? What is wrong with amendment No. 77, which would insert, instead of Lord Harris's definition,
      "which are calculated to overthrow Parliamentary democracy"?
      Mr. Buchan rose—
      Mr. Benn rose—
      Mr. Hurd: It may be helpful if I give way immediately to the hon. Member for Paisley, south.
      Mr. Buchan: It is not good enough for the Home Secretary to make a statement of the kind that he has made when the interpretation he offers could be accepted and written into the Bill by a Government amendment. There is no security provided by any statement made by a Minister at the Dispatch Box. There are other ways of dealing with the matter. A schedule can be inserted for the avoidance of doubt. It could be included in the Bill, preceded by the words
      "nothing in the above section means"—
      or something of that kind. Such an addition will provide security. Otherwise, the Home Secretary will create great anxiety and terror among many people in this country.
      Mr. Hurd: I was not attempting to make a statement of ministerial policy. Instead —and I took some care about it —I responded to an invitation extended by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, though I did not know that I would be doing so. What I set out is the interpretation of the Bill. It is a description of what the Bill contains —not only in clause I but in other clauses —including that concerning political influence.
      Mr. Foot: As the right hon. Gentleman has made his statement in the form that he has, I hope that he will consider incorporating those same words into the Bill—though whether they go as far as we would wish is something I should like to consider. If the Home Secretary incorporates those words into the Bill—and I trust that he will do so—I hope that he will then give the House an opportunity to consider them again, and to amend them if necessary. That is the proper way by which the House should legislate. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to take that course, which would be a concession that the House will greatly value.
      7.45 pm
      Will the Home Secretary also tell the Committee what he proposes to do about the suggestion that the amendment of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) deals with lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless it is carried on in conjunction with any of the activities to which the clause refers? Will he also undertake to ensure that such a provision, whether in the form suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) or in some other, will be included in the Bill? If he includes both, we shall be making a real advance. Certainly the Home Secretary must tell the Committee what is his view of the clause, which is designed
      220
      to protect liberal argument and discussion in the way that it has been understood in this country for many generations.
      Mr. Hurd: If the right hon. Gentleman studies the Bill—I have drawn on clauses concerning political bias that we have not yet reached—he will find that the points about dissent that concern him are covered. The scope of the Security Service is as I have rather carefully stated it. The definition of national security is as I have rather carefully stated it. I do not intend improvising further on that point. I am sure that anyone studying my remarks against the background of the Bill will find in the Bill textual justification for everything that I have said. I am not attempting to add a ministerial gloss. I am simply stating the Bill's impact.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Benn: It is well known that, when a case goes to court, the views of a Minister when presenting a Bill to the House carry no weight with the judges, who are there to interpret the words of the statute approved by Parliament and not the opinion of the Minister, who may be a bird of passage.
      By uttering words that we cannot examine in writing and amend, the Home Secretary denies us the power —even if we agree with every word of what he said—to enact in statute the assurance he gave. His assurance will not carry any weight in another place, because it was made in this House. Also, is it a collective statement? Has that statement been through the Cabinet, or is it just the Home Secretary's way of getting out of a difficulty in the light of the powerful arguments made today? I hope that the Home Secretary recognises that I am not being discourteous or unsympathetic but that we want matters affecting civil liberties to be enshrined in statute rather than rely on Lord Kilmuir or Lord Harris of Greenwich, or—dare I say it?—the present Home Secretary, whose future authority may not last for ever or be held to be adequate.
      Mr. Hurd: Of course it will not last for ever, and I am not pretending that it will. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was present in the Chamber when his right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent invited me to give the interpretation that I did. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent said that it was not binding in a court of law. I am not seeking to add to the Bill. I am simply explaining what the Bill contains, which is the whole purpose for which it has been worked out by the Government.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills drew attention to the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the Leander v Sweden case in 1987. We are satisfied that the Bill meets the requirements of the convention, taking account of its terms and of case law, including the judgment to which my hon. Friend referred.
      I come to the separate point concerning the nation's economic well-being, which is the subject of several amendments, and on which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish spent some time, as did other hon. Members. The purpose is to allow the Security Service to safeguard the United Kingdom's economic well-being from hostile foreign actions and adverse developments arising outside these islands. It relates to foreign affairs and not to the domestic affairs of this country. The hon. Member for

      221
      Denton and Reddish made a critical point, but what would be his view if protection of the nation's economic well-being had not been confined to threats from outside these islands? He would immediately pounce on the Government for attempting to allow the Security Service to intervene in any form of industrial action that might damage the country's well-being. That aspect is deliberately restricted and confined in the way that the Bill sets out. By virtue of the reference to the United Kingdom, it must be a matter of national significance, and not something trivial or peripheral to the nation's economic well-being.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills knows that the European convention on human rights defines a nation's economic well-being as being a matter of proper concern for a public authority. However, the Bill offers a much narrower definition than does the European convention on human rights. It is proper that the Security Service should be able to join with others in safeguarding the nation's economic well-being from outside threat. It must be in a position to contribute to that objective when it is best placed to do so—and that requires an appropriate provision in the Bill.
      It is not difficult to envisage the circumstances in which such a safeguard will be needed. One does not need to use one's imagination, because two such threats arose in dramatic circumstances over the past 20 years. It can happen that there is a threat from abroad in respect of a commodity upon which we are particularly dependent. One can think of oil as being such an example from the past, though not now. One thinks also of foreign powers employing covert intelligence methods to obtain scientific and technical secrets—though not by using agents, which will be covered either by the Bill or my hon. Friend's alternative.
      Although such occasions may not arise frequently, it is important that the Security Service should have the necessary power, subject to the restrictions and with the definition that I have explained, particularly as it is a power envisaged by the European Court of Human Rights as one for which the state may have special responsibility.
      I have tried to give way, as is right in Committee, and I hope that I have dealt with all the substantial points made on both sides of the Committee. Yesterday's debate was on a major point of principle. I do not think that questions of definition present such major points of principle, but—as the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills pointed out—they are crucially important as the legislation goes on to the statute book.
      I do not wish to be polemical, but we are still in a certain amount of difficulty because of suspicions felt especially by Opposition Members, which, although they are largely unfounded, somewhat obscure their vision of the future. I hope that, as they examine the Bill—which will bind the service and Ministers in the future—as it is and as it will be interpreted by the courts, they will find that, although it does not include everything they want, such as parliamentary oversight, it is a substantial step forward that most hon. Members will welcome.
      Mr. Foot: We still hope that, having gone so far, the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared seriously to consider incorporating in the Bill the form of words that
      222
      the has put forward. The Bill will have no Report stage unless an amendment is carried, and we want a chance to examine the wording.
      I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has answered the central question that I have put to him, as have other hon. Members: why do the Government refuse to include wording that underlines that lawful advocacy, protest or dissent carried on in normal ways is perfectly appropriate and that no Security Service operations can be allowed to interfere with it? Why do they not seize the opportunity to remove some fears by incorporating such a provision, in their own words if they wish? If, as he has said, that is what the Home Secretary means, why does he not say it in the Bill?
      Mr. Hurd: The Bill sets about the problem in a different way. It sets out to say what the Security Service can do rather than what it cannot do. It uses the Harris definition, which the right hon. Gentleman so dislikes, of subversion and the restrictions of damage to the United Kingdom as a whole, and the other restrictions that I have spelt out. Although, as is the custom in statute, the Bill approaches the question by saying what a Government can do, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that it arrives at the same conclusion.
      Mr. Buchan: I shall endeavour to be brief because there are many serious points to be made by my colleagues and we hope to achieve at least some progress in ministerial understanding. We have some serious words to say to the Home Secretary. He recognised, or at least said that he recognised, the genuine anxiety felt by Opposition Members. I stress that we are not engaged in a political ploy; we are desperately anxious about the present nature of the Bill and the resistance to change embodied in it. I remind the Home Secretary that we have only one opportunity to look again at the Bill in the light of his statement. If he accepts a small amendment today, we shall be able to debate the Bill on Report. There are several minor amendments which, if the right hon. Gentleman accepted them now—or accepted one of them—could be rejected on Report if he wished.
      Freedom is not a simple thing. It is very fragile, and I think that the Home Secretary is taking the concepts developed in the Bill rather too lightly. Yesterday we tried to find means of controlling the Security Service; today we are considering what is to be controlled. The position is the more serious because we made no progress yesterday in allowing the operations of the service to be brought before a Committee of the House. We are faced with a double jeopardy. The Security Service will be under the sole control of the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, with no public, representative or accountable analysis to be carried out by Parliament. Moreover, the material with which the service will be legally empowered to deal is, in our view, wide, extensive, dangerous and genuinely worrying.
      This is not a political point. It is one thing for those who make up the structure of government to behave in a secretive fashion, getting up to a kind of skullduggery—as it must now be seen—and sanctifying their behaviour by the law. The state as a whole is then moved towards accepting the destruction of freedom. When that was done in an underhand way—under the counter, as it were—at

      223
      least the basis of freedom sanctified in nation and state was maintained. But when it is made legal the state is in a mess: it is indeed in danger.
      The Bill says that the function of the Security Service is to protect the nation
      "from the activities of agents of foreign powers and from actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means"
      If that definition is not confined or limited, it will be an open sesame for this or any future Home Secretary. Without power to control, our parliamentary democracy cannot be regarded as safe. Parliamentary democracy is in a very weak condition. On issue after issue we have had to rely on the House of Lords to be progressive and to safeguard the well-being of the country.
      I was waiting to hear on what basis the Home Secretary could reject the words of safety introduced in many of the amendments, particularly those of his hon. Friends in amendment No. 47. They were not rejecting what he now says is the purport of the Bill; on the contrary, it was assumed that that should be its purpose. Amendment No. 47 defined and therefore limited it so as to bring about the safeguards that we seek.
      We cannot even get it written into the Bill that industrial or political action confined to lawful advocacy, protest or dissent will not be subject to the investigations of a body subject only to control by the Prime Minister. I do not know what security that gives to industrial workers given the behaviour of the present Prime Minister at the height of the miners' strike. If the Home Secretary had visited some of the mining villages he would have known the depth and sincerity of feeling there. The Government regarded the strike as a scandalous operation, not realising that hearts and souls were involved. At the height of that action few of us could see the mining villages without being touched by the genuine decency of the whole operation, but the Prime Minister chose to describe the people there as the enemies within. We cannot trust such a Prime Minister. I believe that I could trust the Home Secretary if he was not controlled by such a Prime Minister—I think that he is displaying weakness, not evil—but we certainly cannot trust a future unknown Prime Minister.
      8 pm
      In every way the liberties and the freedoms of this country have been whittled away. Now they are being whittled away from Parliament. We are not even given the opportunity to put into legal form the words and intentions uttered by the Home Secretary. If he means what he says, he must put it in the Bill. I too have been a Home Office Minister, or at least a home affairs Minister at the Scottish Office. Time and again one was told, "It is no use standing at the Dispatch Box explaining what you mean because no judge will listen. If that is what you mean, you must put it into legal form." What the Home Secretary means is not in the Bill. If it were, we might be discussing it or amendments to it. The Home Secretary says that it is implied in the Bill, but it is not stated in the Bill. If he wishes to state it in the Bill, there are easy ways of doing it. He could do it in a schedule. He could do it, as I said, by adding that nothing in the subsection affects the safeguarding of protest and dissent. If we examine what the Government actually believe the provision to be saying, it is for the protection of national security. His hon.
      224
      Friends have defined that in a series of ways and sought to limit it. His answer is that a situation might arise with new elements of terror, as in King Lear's
      "such things—what they are yet I know not, but they shall be the terrors of the earth."
      That is what he says, but it is nonsense. The threats are of espionage, terrorism and sabotage, but other Members have found means of qualifying that so that protest, dissent and industrial action can be permitted. We plead with the Home Secretary to do the proper thing here. He cannot do it unless he allows a Report stage because the provision is not in the Bill. His words are not in the Bill. If they were in the Bill, he would not have needed to come to the Dispatch Box to iterate them as being his point of view. Let us have a small amendment so that we can come back to the matter on Report.
      The legislation introduced alongside this—the legalising of burglary, bugging and so on—is an open and eager extension of what we used to accuse the security services of doing. I have given my own experience in relation to MI5 and the security system. We said that they should not be doing such things and were told that they could not be doing such terrible things. The Bill now says that they can. I do not think that the Home Secretary has taken on board what this is doing to liberty and freedom in this country, any more than he did when he failed to understand the judgment of the Law Lords in relation to the Official Secrets Act and the defence of public interest, which he has apparently discarded.
      I regret to say this to a genuinely honest and liberal Minister, but even if we come through this period without this blowing up in our faces he will still go down in history not as the most liberal Home Secretary but as the most illiberal and weak Home Secretary. He can show strength tonight by at least granting that single small concession. Let us have an amendment—there are plenty that he can accept without destroying the Bill—so that we can come back to the matter. Failing that, we must depend upon the House of Lords. What price parliamentary democracy now, when we cannot rely on the House of Commons to defend its own parliamentary democracy but have to rely on the House of Lords to do it for us? We have to look not to the heralds of freedom that we have found on these Benches in the past, but to the judges whose function should be to iterate the law. To them we must turn.
      This is a sad day for the Home Secretary and a sad day for the country. I hope that he will rethink.
      Ms. Abbott: There is always something slightly "Alice in Wonderland" about discussing the security services, and so it is this evening. About 10 minutes ago I heard a statement of policy by a Minister, who went on to assure us it was not a statement of ministerial policy, and we now understand it cannot stand up in a court of law. I am obliged to ask in all naivety, if it is not a statement of policy and it will not stand up in a court of law, why did he bother to make the statement? Is it simply to reassure us on a personal basis that the Minister is, after all, a kindly and humane man? We are not concerned with that. What I believe my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite are concerned with is the actual text of the legislation which we are debating this evening.
      It is with a certain amount of diffidence that anybody speaks in this debate, which is so full of people who have either worked for MI5 or have fantasised about working

      225
      for M15, and people who are Home Secretaries or have fantasised about being Home Secretaries. Nonetheless, I make a small contribution.
      I listened with care to the Secretary of State explaining the tangled and subjective wording around the definition of threats to national security and, as I understood what he had to say, he gave three explanations for words which everyone who has spoken has said are lamentable and fail to meet the case. He said that the wording simply sets out what the Security Service does at the moment. Some of us might say that that is the problem. He went on to say that the wording has to do with the fact that it is, of course, impossible to be comprehensive in a Bill. We on this side would argue that that is mere sophistry. The point which is so important about amendment No. 47 is what it says the Bill does not include. The Secretary of State's final explanation for his wording is that this Bill is about what the Security Service can do, not what it cannot do.
      This is the point of many of the interventions this evening. We believe that, given the very wide powers the Security Service has, given the absence of effective parliamentary scrutiny and surveillance, it is crucial that the legislation specifies what the Security Service cannot do, and that is the point of the final two sentences of amendment No. 47.
      We have heard from the Secretary of State very beguiling assurances, but they are assurances which have no weight, which have no force, and, above all, would not stand up in court. We on the Labour Benches believe that it is crucial that the text of this legislation embodies something which reflects the final lines of amendment No. 47 and reflects the spirit of what the Minister has said. It is not too late—in fact, it is in all respects appropriate that at the Committee stage an amendment should be brought forward which reflects the concerns that have been expressed on both sides of the House.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I have sat right the way through this debate getting more and more concerned by what I have heard raised on both sides of the Committee in terms of the amendments moved, and my fear and trepidation of this Bill was compounded by what the Home Secretary had to say. He gave us a considered view on what the definitions, as he saw it, were supposed to be all about. He gave us what amounted to an assurance from the Dispatch Box with regard to definitions, and yet he was not prepared to agree to a demand from both sides to incorporate such assurances, such statements, within the Bill.
      There is no report stage tonight, but what the Home Secretary said earlier could be incorporated in another place. If what has been said at the Dispatch Box tonight were put in writing, we could see how it accords with our understanding of the matter and whether it meets the various poins that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have tried to put forward tonight. If it does, it could easily be incorporated in the Bill.
      The Home Secretary must have thought long and hard about his statement in view of what was said yesterday and what he knew would be said tonight. It would be a shame to waste all that careful consideration and let it pass into the annals of parliamentary history; into the Official Report, but not into the Bill.
      As a number of hon. Members have already said, all the assurances in the world in Committee when legislation is being drafted mean nothing when the Act is considered in a court of law. We must all assume that the Bill will at
      226
      some stage be tested in court. Someone will be judging actions against the words of the legislation. We accept that the Home Secretary's intentions are honourable. but we want to make sure that those honourable intentions are enshrined in the Bill so that we can sleep more easily in our beds when it becomes an Act.
      As we have said throughout, we want to try to define more narrowly the boundaries within which the security services can legally confine their activities. That is perfectly reasonable. We understand that they operate in a grey area; that is the nature of the security forces. So much more important, then, is it that we should make sure that as far as possible we define their activities within that grey area. There will always be areas of discretion. On many occasions in future the Home Secretary will have to decide whether to authorise certain actions. We accept that as well. But we cannot allow the Home Secretary in effect to say that national security means exactly what he believes it to mean. That is not an adequate definition for us.
      There are many things that I could say about terminology. There is no immediate consensus between the Home Secretary, some Conservative Members and every Labour Member who has spoken tonight on parliamentary democracy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was right to ask what would happen if a Labour Government pressed for the abolition of the other place, which at the moment is part of Britain's parliamentary democratic set-up. If the Labour party campaigned at a general election for the abolition of the House of Lords and a Labour Government then took office determined to carry out their manifesto pledge, would they fall foul of the interests and activities of the security services? It could be said that by trying to eliminate the other place the Labour Government were undermining parliamentary democracy.
      In a political forum we can never completely agree on definitions that have any form of political connotation. That is obvious. However, it is reasonable to ask the Home Secretary to accept amendment No. 47 which excludes
      "lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to"
      from threats to national security which are the subject of activities by the security services.
      The Opposition believe fervently and passionately i n parliamentary democracy. Some Conservative Members might not believe that, but we do and we always try to preserve parliamentary democracy. The Opposition believe so much in parliamentary democracy that we want to try to achieve Socialism through parliamentary means. Many people outside the Labour party think that we are foolish, indeed stupid, to believe that that is possible. Unless the Home Secretary makes it clear in the Bill that any legal political activities that might call for the removal of capitalism—not the violent overthrow of capitalism—are consistent with the Bill, we shall always believe that the security services will be interested in the activities or Labour party Members and Labour Governments if those Labour Governments are determined to abolish capitalism and replace it with Socialism. That is what we are interested in protecting.
      8.15 pm
      As I have said, there are many who do not believe that Parliament can be used to achieve Socialism in Britain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said in his book "A Very British Coup", when a;

      227
      Labour Government threaten the status quo and the capitalist system, they will be destabilised. That is when the extra-parliamentary forces of the Conservative party will start to mobilise themselves in order to destabilise that Government. That is the time when many Labour Members consider that the belief that many Conservative Members say that they have in parliamentary democracy will be stripped away. They will support parliamentary democracy as long as that means the status quo or capitalism. As soon as it means Socialism, we could be accused of undermining parliamentary democracy and so fall foul of the Bill.
      I do not expect the Home Secretary to do anything to facilitate the passage of Socialism in Britain through parliamentary or any other means, but those who believe that Parliament can be used to achieve fundamental change in our society have a right to try to achieve that fundamental change. In the end, the issue will be decided at the ballot box. The electorate will decide, not the secret service agencies or the extra-parliamentary forces of the Conservative party.
      Amendment No. 47 and all those that seek to prevent the use of violence to overthrow systems that we would support should be enshrined in the Bill. But we are suspicious that, despite all that the Home Secretary has said at the Dispatch Box this evening—no doubt he means it seriously and sincerely — he is not prepared to incorporate it in the Bill. He cannot blame us for suspecting that he does not believe what he has said today and that he has no intention of enshrining it in the Bill.
      Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West): This issue has roused much passion in the Committee. It has been an interesting debate and I hope that there will be some movement by the Government. The matter has been considered in a completely non-partisan way. It is almost a House of Commons issue. Parliament should have its wishes taken into account in this matter and I hope that the Home Secretary will accept the amendment.
      The Bill has been dealt with in a rush. It has had only two days in Committee, yet there is so much to discuss. There is little in the Bill on civil liberties, and the fact that threats to national security do not include lawful advocacy, protest and dissent, must be in the Bill if we are to make any progress on civil liberties. Undoubtedly, the Committee wants change, so I hope that the Home Secretary will do that.
      Unlike some other hon. Members, I believe that the Home Secretary has not written off the matter. I listened carefully to his words and he said that we cannot be sure today. I hope that the Home Secretary will give further consideration to the matter and I believe that the House expects him to do so. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) spoke passionately about the matter and I know that he carried the Committee with him. I believe that, secretly, he carried the Home Secretary with him.
      What does the Home Secretary consider to be the mechanisms open to us? This is a Committee of the whole House, which is a fairly unusual procedure. The Bill will not have a Report stage, so how can we deal with this matter?
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): In Committee.
      Mr. Randall: The Minister says something about the Committee. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), I feel strongly that we should deal with this matter in the House of Commons rather than rely on the House of Lords, so will the Home Secretary tell us how we can give further consideration to the matter?
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Randall: I should welcome the Home Secretary's comments about further consideration.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I wonder whether—
      The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Norman Hogg): Order. I am not entirely certain that the hon. Gentleman has given way. If he tells me that he has, I shall allow the intervention.
      Mr. Randall: I think, Mr. Hogg, that my hon. Friend caught me before I reached the full stop. I give way.
      Mr. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend accept that it is not guaranteed that there will be no Report stage? However. the signs are ominous because the Government have not tabled any amendments and unless an amendment is carried in Committee the Bill will not have a Report stage. It would be perfectly possible for the Government to facilitate a Report stage by accepting one amendment. I believe that it is even possible for the Government to table a procedural motion. Will my hon. Friend press the Home Secretary and persuade him that it would be better to have a Report stage, where action can be taken, rather than to go on to Third Reading, in which hon. Members can merely vote for or against the Bill? I imagine that it has already been fixed up through the usual channels to have a day's debate for Third Reading, but it would be better to use that day for Report and Third Reading.
      Mr. Randall: I know that my hon. Friend is good on procedural maters. I hope, therefore, that following the point that he has made, the Home Secretary will accept the amendment. It is important that something should be done tonight. From what the Home Secretary said earlier, I believe that he may not want to rush into any action on this tonight. That has caused me some confusion. I am trying to make some optimistic sounds and I am taking the Home Secretary's words at face value. If the Home Secretary requires time to consider the suggestion, it seems that the Government will not accept an amendment tonight. The Committee is in a dilemma.
      I would like the Home Secretary to explain the possible options for accepting, in particular, amendment No. 47. The Committee, unquestionably, supports that amendment. The existing wording in the Bill is open to subjective interpretation. I do not want to repeat all the arguments, expect to say that the Committee supports amendment No. 47 and the Home Secretary would do the Committee a serious disservice were he not to accept it. I believe that, in his heart of hearts, he wants to accept the amendment. It is a step in the right direction inasmuch as it concerns civil liberties—unlike the Bill. It would be good for the Committee and the country if the Home Secretary were to accept amendment No. 47.
      Mr. Maclennan: Almost no hon. Member has raised a voice against amendment No. 47. The only hon. Member

      229
      who has sought to reject it is, of course, the Home Secretary. However, he is duty bound to listen to the voice of the Committee, which has been virtually unanimous on the matter. The problem has arisen because the Home Secretary has sought to incorporate in statute guidelines that have been used hitherto for the conduct of the Security Service. However appropriate the guidelines may have been for a non-statutory body—and one must call into question whether they were appropriate, in view of the embarrassments to the Security Service that there have been over the past decade from a number of its activities that took place improperly, as no one denies—it is not appropriate to incorporate them in legislation. All legislation that empowers must be precise in its language and make clear which categories of behaviour are legal and which are not.
      The Home Secretary has said that he does not want to define the phrase "national security" and that is why he has rejected the approach in amendment No. 47. He has said that he does not wish to define national security because he believes that there are circumstances that cannot be taken care of, by definition, in advance. That is not so. There are no circumstances that are incapable of being provided for if the language used is sufficiently broad to cover any action that constitutes a threat to national security. Because the Home Secretary will not define national security, an immense door has been opened to abuse. It is not part of my case—nor of the case of those who have tabled the amendments—to suggest that abuse is our main concern in setting up a statutory basis for the Security Service. Our concern is that we should have a Security Service that is effective, efficient and accountable and that protects the nation against threats to its life and well-being, which we all recognise exist. If we say simply that the service exists to protect the nation and national security, we open the door to subjective judgments about wherein national security lies, and the definition of what is a threat to national security may become so wide that abuse is inevitable.
      I do not accept the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) that the Home Secretary is a naturally liberal man. However, I believe that he is an extremely intelligent man who uses language with care and precision. I think that he has confused the issue slightly by suggesting that there is a definition of national security in the illustrative phrases which follow the words "in particular". He seems to be suggesting that the meaning of "national security" is set out in the references to
      "threats from espionage, terrorism and sabotage…the activities of agents of foreign powers and…actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy."
      Those phrases do not constitute a definition. They are only illustrations; they are examples of threats to security. They in no way qualify the general statement that it is the function of the Security Service to protect national security. The provision is too widely drawn, and in putting the Security Service on to a statutory basis Parliament has a duty to say what it means by national security.
      8.30 pm
      These matters are capable of very subjective judgments. Perhaps in this debate we have sometimes lost sight of the fact that we are talking about a use of powers by the Security Service which in any other circumstances would be regarded as illegal—in some cases, as a flagrant violation of the civil liberties of our citizens. In those
      230
      circumstances, we need a definition—albeit a broad definition—of national security if we are not to open a door to abuse which we shall have great difficulty in closing against it subsequently.
      The Home Secretary says that he has sought to incorporate the concept of subversion set out in the Lord Harris of Greenwich definition. I put it to him, in all humility, that he has not achieved that. In the matter of the construction of language, I believe that he has seriously altered the definition of subversion given by Lord Harris of Greenwich. In the provision that refers to
      "actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means"
      the Home Secretary has omitted the other half of the Lord Harris of Greenwich definition, which was that such actions had to threaten the safety or well-being of the state. The exclusion of that qualification means that we have no objective test of whether the actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy are such that they constitute a danger or whether they are simply perceived as such by their perpetrators.
      Perhaps in the light of my earlier strictures about the absence of definition of national security, the failure to define subversion in a broadly acceptable way is not of great importance. I think that the Home Secretary wished to perpetuate the definition of subversion accepted by successive Home Secretaries which was set out to the Home Affairs Committee in 1984–85 by his predecessor. I hope that he will reconsider his earlier answer because I believe that the matter is of some importance.
      When Ministers have taken great care to reflect their intentions in statute and have chosen words that they believe have served well in the past, they are naturally reluctant to review these matters. However, in the simple matter of statutory construction, the Minister has not achieved what he said he set out to achieve. I hope that for that reason, if not for the wider reason that he is willing to accept some form of definition of national security— which I should prefer to be his reason—he will undertake to look again on Report at the definition of subversion and perhaps agree to accept my amendment No. 74, which does not go to the definition of national security but simply seeks to incorporate the definition of subversion as part of a concept that has stood the test of time, and stood it well. Incidentally, it would also allow the wider consideration of other matters on Report. I cannot see how the Home Secretary can resist that suggestion, as it seeks to fulfil the objectives that he himself expressed support for earlier.
      Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Hogg. Reference has been made to a Report stage. As I understand it, however, no provision has been made for a Report stage. This is obviously an extremely important matter, and the circumstances have clearly been altered, largely as a result of the Home Secretary's statement. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he knows the feeling of the Opposition, and among some Conservative Members, that there is a need for a Report stage. I wonder whether you could help us, Mr. Hogg.
      The Temporary Chairman: A Bill can have a Report stage only if it is amended. Those are the only circumstances in which a Report stage would be possible.
      Mr. Aitken: I intervene to throw my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary a lifeline in the shape of a constructive

      231
      suggestion. He needs a lifeline because this Committee stage has developed into a true House of Commons exchange of views. My right hon. Friend is in the unfortunate position of the man down a deep hole all by himself, while the rest of the Committee has been making a series of valid criticisms about the highly unsatisfactory way in which the clause has been drafted. My right hon. Friend seems to acknowledge his own unsatisfactory position to some degree. He read out a rather helpful statement, which had the unhelpful dimension to it that it is not included in the Bill.
      We are now faced with a clause that includes no definition of national security. I said on Second Reading that this is a badly drafted Bill. Following this Committee stage we can all say "Amen" to that. Clause I must win the prize as one of the worst drafted clauses in the history of modern legislation. I wonder whether any recent Bill has included a rhetorical flourish which the phrase "in particular" constitutes. It is as though someone were addressing a loyal group of enthusiastic supporters. In effect, all the words after "national security" are merely a rhetorical flourish—a mere illustration. The words "in particular" could perfectly well be replaced by the words "for example" or "by way of illustration". The words "singing, dancing and tightrope walking" might just as well replace the solemn definition
      "espionage, terrorism and sabotage"
      The list of activities is merely an extravagant addition, by way of illustration, to the central phrase, and the only phrase which matters —"national security"—remains without definition.
      I cannot believe that the other place—with so many minds learned in the law and with so many experienced in parliamentary exchanges—will view the clause with anything other than the grave concern that has emerged in our long proceedings today. I suggest that when the Bill gets to the other place my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gives an indication that the Government will consider carefully the criticisms that have been made with a view to improving this unsatisfactory definition. At the moment "national security" is undefined. Therefore, the Bill is, in effect, giving a blank cheque not just to the well-meaning Home Secretary of the day, but perhaps to an MI5 in the future which could exercise its formidable powers in distasteful and sinister ways quite undreamt of in the present House of Commons.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Would the hon. Gentleman care to push his own Ministers to see whether the Home Secretary is even contemplating bringing something forward in another place along the lines that he has heard us all suggest this evening? Will the hon. Gentleman push his right hon. Friend?
      Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is more or less taking the words out of my mouth. With my customary courtesy, I am endeavouring to give an elegant version of a push to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but he does not often take my advice or suggestions in such matters. However, I hope that he is a good enough parliamentarian to concede that this is an unsatisfactory situation in which to leave the clause. We have had a long debate and the Home Secretary himself must feel some degree of unease,
      232
      otherwise he would not have popped up with that convenient definition to reassure us all that the Bill may mean something different from what it says.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend will take heed of the sentiment of the Committee, which goes right across party lines, and say that in another place he will at least be willing to look at the possibility of accepting a better definition of "national security" than the one that we have now.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I should like to return briefly to this group of amendments. Like my hon. Friends, I feel strongly that the Home Secretary should be prepared to put the words that he read out to the House on the face of the Bill. It would help our proceedings considerably this evening if he could make clear at the Dispatch Box either that he will facilitate a Report stage or that he will make that provision in the House of Lords.
      I wonder whether you, Mr. Hogg, could give me some guidance on amendment No. 82. I hoped that the Home Secretary would spend at least a minute or two commenting on it, but I realise that he had a lot of other issues to reply to. I wonder now whether you, Mr. Hogg, will allow a separate vote on that amendment at the appropriate point in our consideration of the Bill. If the Home Secretary catches your eye, Mr. Hogg, in a minute or two, perhaps he will say a few words in reply to my comments which would mean that it would not be necessary for me to press for a vote on that amendment. I assume that as we are in Committee it will be possible for us to have votes on other amendments that are grouped with this first group today if we want to do so when we reach the appropriate point.
      The Temporary Chairman: That would be a matter for whoever is in the Chair when those amendments are reached.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving some explanation of what his own clause meant. I had worked on the assumption that by changing to a statutory basis we were trying to put in the legislation a clear mandate of the purpose, functions and powers of our Security Service and of the way in which it defends our liberal democracy, whatever difficulties that gives to some hon. Members in its interpretation.
      However, what we have learned today from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is that
      "The function of the Service shall be the protection of national security".
      That is the definition of the function. Nothing limits it, but my right hon. Friend referred to some judgments, opinions, directives, letters and past views of the remit within that—the definition of subversion. I must advise hon. Members of all parties that what was written in the past and what the intentions then were do not matter, nor do the intentions of my right hon. Friend. We are legislating for a law that can be interpreted by courts and what comes before the courts is
      "The function of the Service shall be national security".
      But what is national security? It is whatever the incumbent of the office of Home Secretary or of the Prime Ministership determines it to be. It is an unlimited concept. There is nothing in the Bill to limit it. What does that phrase do? It gives the security services the right to enter premises and to remove documents. That is made lawful by the Home Secretary issuing a warrant on the ground

      233
      that it is necessary for national security. But what is national security? We do not know. It is whatever the incumbent of the Home Office says.
      8.45 pm
      That is our anxiety and it is genuine. If we are to stand for anything in this House, that anxiety must go right across the nation. When we give powers to police authorities we say what those powers are about. The Home Secretary said, "I approach this Bill somewhat differently from some hon. Members or from some of my hon. Friends." How right—he does approach it differently. However, the Bill does not set out what the security service cannot do; it sets out what it can do. We are told in the Bill that the security services can do almost anything as long as it is what the Home Secretary determines that they may do on the ground of national security. The Home Secretary would say, "We do not intend to say what they may not do." When we look at any area of our national life and at security in any form, for example, the police force, we have the rule of law and we set out what people may not do, but there is no such injunction in the Bill. Unless I am wrong and unless the Home Secretary points that out, that is an extraordinary position and I am grateful to the Home Secretary for explaining it.
      My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary may then go on to say, "Look, here I have a carefully worded statement which will show you that we have always had good intent." I accept that that may have been so in the past and that every Home Secretary that ever was scrupulously went through every activity personally authorising and agreeing it, and only doing good acts and making smiling signs, and being benign in the context of our democracy.
      However, we are going further than that. We are giving power to future generations and to future Home Secretaries and no one can assume that they will necessarily he benign. I advise the Conservative party and my hon. Friends that, although we stand for the rule of law and for our fear of the state—I have been elected three times because of the power of the state and in the belief that we were giving power back to the people—we are now saying that the state shall have every power. But who is the state? It shall he whoever is Home Secretary at any given moment. That may be a power that we shall come to regret because no court can question the basis on which this power is granted.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: Perhaps this point has been mentioned already but it follows immediately and most importantly from the points that the hon. Gentleman has just made. Is there not a grey area in the mind of any Minister between the security of the state and the security of the Administration of the day? There are fundamental democratic differences beween the two about which the Bill, as far as I can see, makes no distinction.
      Mr. Tony Banks: It has been drafted by Lewis Carroll.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I acknowledge what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has said because that has been more or less at the heart of our discussions all afternoon. We have tried to set down—it seemed to have some support from all corners of this horse—I mean house but it could be a horse if we were ridden—that there should be a limiting mandate which would try
      234
      to get out the specific areas of threat in a general way. Although one accepts that it cannot be precise in every detail, it should be a limiting mandate with a limiting clause. The Maxwell Fyfe directive has a limiting clause. We want something like that enshrined in the Bill. We want the functions clearly identified and limits placed on those functions in terms of the lawful dissent which is at the heart of our democracy.
      I noticed that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in a carefully considered remark said that I was right to refer to the Leander judgment. I genuinely do not now believe, having reread my right hon. Friend's clause—
      "The function of the Service shall be the protection of national security"—
      that it will meet the contentions of the European Court. My right hon. Friend and the Government will have the greatest difficulty in any submission before the European Court of Human Rights in saying that national security is anything that the Minister deems. In a sense, that is the problem that we are experiencing at the moment. The issuing of warrants on that basis will not and does not meet our rule of law in this area.
      As my right hon. Friend rightly said, these matters were based previously on prerogative power and for some reason our courts-and Sir John Donaldson —feel that the rule of law is thrown out of the window in the face of prerogative power. Now my right hon. Friend, quite rightly—everyone must applaud it —is putting that issue on a statutory basis. The very first principle, from Dicey onwards, in the law of the constitution is the rule of law. Of course, until today we could not have a statutory definition of what "national security" means because if nothing exists or if it is only under the shadow of prerogative power, one cannot legislate for a little bit of the prerogative power and say that it is still subsumed by the prerogative power because it becomes paramount to the prerogative power.
      We are now asked to try to make the paramount power the legislative power. The supremacy of Parliament is enacted as if it were subordinate to and reflective of the needs of prerogative power, but with the added protection that no judge may look behind it. There is the instruction in clause 1(2) that, whatever the Home Secretary says that national security is and issues a warrant for, it is the law of the land. It is enacted by the House, with all its powers, and will reflect the sovereignty of Parliament in clause 1(2) of the Security Service Bill. I notice that in the Official Secrets Bill it is referred to as enacted in 1988, but we can correct that, no doubt, to 1989. This Bill does not meet our contentions as to the balance of the rights of citizens. Again and again my favourite Home Secretary is educating me on the constitution in an almost malign way, because on every issue he is not weighing up that important balance between the rights of the citizen, the rights of this House and the rule of law, which is why believe that my right hon. Friend should reconsider the fact that there should be a statutory definition as to what constitutes national security.
      Mr. Hurd: I have listened carefully to what has been said since I intervened last time. I understand clearly and I have never cast any doubts on the concerns felt on either side of the House about this matter. In my earlier. intervention I tried to deal carefully with both the main points which have, as it were, re-emerged in the speeches of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr.

      235
      Maclennan) and other hon. Members, and especially in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I set out earlier the restrictions. It is not a matter of the Home Secretary saying that they exist—they are there in the construction of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and other right hon. and hon. Members will be able to see that tomorrow in print. Any interested right hon. or hon. Members who re-read my speech on Second Reading will find—in slightly shorter terms, I agree —in column 1115 of the Official Report for 15 December 1988 the same exposition of what the Bill is about as I have made today in response to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). I do not believe that there is a procedural difficulty here of the kind that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) indicated. Indeed, the record should show that he spoke with something of a grin on his face.
      We are in Committee of the whole House, and the Committee has spent today discussing a set of amendments to the Bill. I have tried patiently and at length to cover all the points, which I believe I have done, except for the point about economic well-being, about which I am courteously reminded. I believe that I can say quite honestly that the basis of the Bill and the point about national security being a matter for the United Kingdom as a whole really makes any amendment on that matter otiose.
      I have set out at substantial length, point by point, why I believe that as we move towards statute the definitions and restrictions of clause 1(3) are a better way of proceeding than the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and the Opposition have put forward. I believe that that is right and will turn out to be right. I was not seeking in the statement, which was treated as though it were something new, to divert attention or to add a little piece of sweetness at the top of the Bill, but I was actually defining what was in the Bill on the matters about which the House has shown concern.
      The House is in Committee. It has choices before it. If anyone wishes to press these amendments to a Division, we shall see how the Committee feels about them. When I referred to not being able to make up our minds today, I was referring to the effort made in amendment No. 47 to do that and to set out in statute today an exhaustive definition of the ways in which the Security Service should work. It was in that context that I used that phrase. There are, of course, further amendments and other important parts of the Bill to consider, but if the House approves the Bill it will go to another place, where they have eyes to see and ears to hear, and it will be considered. I cannot go further and say that we shall reconsider it, because that would give my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, who made the suggestion, an impression that I do not want to give because I believe that it would be unfair. The Bill as drafted achieves the objectives which I stated on Second Reading and again today. I believe that I have shown that. It is now for this House and then the other place to decide whether they agree with that or whether they prefer some alternative formulation.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Home Secretary explain why all hon. Members who have spoken, on both sides of the
      236
      Committee, have felt the need to incorporate into the Bill the interpretation that he actually gave? Why does he believe we want that? Apart from the Home Secretary, not one hon. Member has argued against that. Has nothing that has been said on either side of the Committee given rise to one smidgen of thought in the Home Secretary's head that he should perhaps think about this a bit more and come back with an announcement later?
      Mr. Hurd: I have listened carefully. The hon. Gentleman will admit that I have hardly left the Chamber. I have tried to deal with the points, but I am not persuaded by them. The Committee has been reasonably well attended for a debate of this kind but, of course, not overwhelmingly. A good many supporters of the Bill in its present form have not found their voices today. I make no complaint about that. That is normal. However, I am sure from my conversations with them that they have thought deeply about the Bill—as deeply as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has. I believe that if I amplified my answer I should be indulging in vain repetition.
      I believe that the Committee has obtained from this Dispatch Box not an addition to the Bill or a change in the Bill, but a rather fuller statement than I gave on Second Reading of what the Bill contains and does not contain on the issues that those right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken have emphasised. That appears to be a profitable and useful use of an afternoon and early part of an evening by this Committee. I believe that I must rest on that.
      Question put, That the amendment be made: —
      The Committee divided: Ayes 141, Noes 221

      Division No. 34]

      [8.58 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Crowther, Stan

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Cryer, Bob

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Cummings, John

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Darling, Alistair

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

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

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Dewar, Donald

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Dixon, Don

      Barron, Kevin

      Doran, Frank

      Beith, A. J.

      Douglas, Dick

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

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

      Eadie, Alexander

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Eastham, Ken

      Blair, Tony

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Blunkett, David

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Boateng, Paul

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

      Boyes, Roland

      Flynn, Paul

      Bradley, Keith

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Foster, Derek

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Foulkes, George

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Buchan, Norman

      Galloway, George

      Buckley, George J.

      George, Bruce

      Callaghan, Jim

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Gordon, Mildred

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Graham, Thomas

      Cartwright, John

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Grocott, Bruce

      Cohen, Harry

      Hardy, Peter

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Haynes, Frank

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Corbett, Robin

      Hinchliffe, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Home Robertson, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cox, Tom

      Howells, Geraint

      Questions accordingly negatived.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill>

    Clause 2

      THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—
      '(1A) The Director-General shall be appointed to hold office for a term not exceeding five years; but a previous appointment shall not affect a person's eligibility for a second term of office provided that no person shall hold office for more than ten years in aggregate.'.
      The Temporary Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 50, in page 1, line 20, after 'obtained', insert 'nor retained'.
      Mr. Shepherd: This is a short and not very important amendment, except in one respect. The amendment affects the terms of employment in a sense of the director-general. In the translation of the amendments from upstairs or in their transfer to the amendment sheet we appear to have lost the word "strictly" but that is not very important in view of the Government's spirit in these matters. Clause 2(2)(a) says:
      "that there are arrangements for securing that no information is obtained by the Service except so far as necessary for the proper discharge of its functions or disclosed by it except so far as necessary for that purpose or for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime; and".
      Amendment No. 49 is purely a business amendment to ensure that a director-general of the Security Service shall not be so immersed in his work that he is in the job for ever. The best example of that is the head of the FBI. Mr. Hoover was in office for so many years that many people thought he was dictating the course of American internal security. No one ever dared to challenge what he did on the basis that he knew too much about people.
      The more important of the two amendments would ensure that no information was obtained or retained. When one is engaged in extremely intrusive necessary investigation, such as phone tapping, one will obtain additional information that has no bearing on unrefined, unrestricted national security—to use the Home Secretary's words. It seems wholly appropriate that material that has no bearing on the defence of what we call liberal democracy should not be retained. Our amendment is a protective addition to the clause.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. John Patten: My answer to the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for amendment No. 49 is that, given the seniority of the appointment, it is unlikely in practice that we would have service by one individual for more than a total of 10 years. But I suppose it is not inconceivable that an individual might be appointed relatively early in his or her career and was then found eminently suitable to exercise continued and consistent responsibility for the work of the service over a period of years that might stretch for somewhat longer than 10 years.
      What is the merit of a statutory limitation on the term of an appointment? I suppose it is not inconceivable that just when the director-general was bumping up against, say, a 10-year statutory limit, there might be some possible state of war or emergency, when it would be a millstone round the neck of the national interest to have to move the person, who knew what was in the interest of the service at
      240
      that time and who had the experience to deal with the problem. I do not believe there is a particularly strong case for taking such a step.
      Mr. Allason: Although it would be unlikely, as my hon. Friend said, may I ask if he is aware that the first director-general of the Security Service stayed in office for 32 years?
      Mr. Patten: I was aware of that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said that he put more store by amendment No. 50 on the retaining of information. We do not believe the amendment would help intelligence work in this country, although I assure my hon. Friend that we appreciate the concerns of individuals, and I shall come later to the question of information about individuals. The amendment would create an unnecessary requirement on the service and could under certain circumstances leave the service shorn of parts of its memory which could be vital to the conduct of operations at a later date.
      One safeguard in the Bill is that the service can obtain information only that is relevant to its functions. That is a considerable safeguard. A second safeguard is that it can disclose it only for the purposes of those functions or for the additional function of detecting serious crime, and hon. Members will approve of that. Those safeguards go to the nub of the question, which is how and why the service acquires information and what it will do with it once it has it. Different considerations come into play in deciding the grounds for continuing to retain information.
      A person now reviewing a piece of information properly obtained some time ago may conclude that it does not meet the strict criteria of the amendment. It is then disposed of, perhaps shredded, only for it to be discovered at a later date that the key part of some complex jigsaw—and some intelligence sagas last for many years—has, alas, been thrown away. That could act against the national interest. So statutory safeguards are built into the Bill in relation to why information is obtained.
      There is also a statutory safeguard for the aggrieved individual, and we do not take such concerns lightly. If an individual were to feel aggrieved that the Security Service was wrong to continue to hold on to information about him, he could make a complaint to the tribunal. That is an important safeguard. Even if the tribunal found out at that stage and informed the alleged complainant or complainants that it thought the Security Service had been reasonable in initiating the complaint against the individual or individuals, it could still refer the issue of the need to retain the information to the commissioner who could investigate the matter. He would be able to consider the intelligence arguments and come to a view that he could then report to my right hon. Friend.
      The Bill properly reflects the necessary intelligence requirement, but it also ensures that any points of concern can be investigated and reported. With that reassurance, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his amendments to a vote.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 2, line 6, at end insert—
      '(3A)—(a) Subject to paragraph (b) below and in so far as it is strictly necessary for the proper discharge of the service's functions, the Service may enter into arrangements with

      (i) a Government Department;

      241

      (ii) a police force

      for help and assistance in carrying out the service's duties and functions save that no arrangement which relates to or includes entry on or interference with property shall be lawful unless it is authorised by a warrant issued under section 3 of this Act.

      (b) Any such arrangement mentioned in (a) above shall only be made with the approval of the Solicitor General.

      (c) A copy of written arrangements mentioned in (a) above shall be sent to the Inspector General and the Review Committee.

      The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

      New Clause 6
      Delegation of powers to other security services
      'Nothing in this Act shall impower the security service to act as empowered by warrant in this Act through the agency of or by delegation of their powers to the security services of any other country.'.

      New Clause 7
      Delegation of powers to police force
      'Nothing in this Act shall impower the security service to act as empowered by warrant in this Act through the agency of or by delegation of their powers to any police force.'.
      Mr. Shepherd: The Security Service uses its foot soldiers, special branch, for this purpose. As this is a statutory arrangement by which we legalise the necessary entry to premises, which was traditionally called burglary and bugging, it is appropriate that the status of the operation should come under the remit of the Home Secretary in respect of warrants issued under clause 3 of the Bill.
      The purpose of the amendment is to provide power for the Security Service to enter into such arrangements with special branch or with a Government Department and to ensure that the service does not bypass the arrangement. We believe that we would have set the measure in a statutory framework if there had been the necessary checks and balances, an independent review and a definition of the functions of the service, other than in respect of blanket national security, and the inclusion of the necessary elements to make the measure acceptable to the European Court. The Security Service could not then seek to bypass the requirement of receiving a warrant for entry into premises by going to friends in special branch, for example, who are under the supervision of the chief constables of the counties and may obtain the necessary information by other means. Some Conservative and Opposition Members are trying to obtain a balanced Bill through a series of balances and checks.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support the amendment of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), although new clauses 6 and 7 press in the opposite direction—seeking to probe the Government and obtain clarification about the relationship between our Security Service and the security services of other countries.
      I do not like the idea that the security services of other countries operate in the United Kingdom, but I accept that if we wish to stop international terrorism there may be occasions when another friendly country is taking the lead in trying to shadow a terrorist group and find out what it is doing, and it may be logical and necessary for that country to carry out some activities in this country to collect information that will be shared between us. If
      242
      another organisation operates in this country, it is essential that it should operate by our laws. Will the Minister make it clear that if illegal activity is deemed necessary it will be carried out under the provisions for a warrant rather than simply by some foreign agent acting off his own bat?
      My second point concerns the delegation and use of special branch. Hon. Members have discussed how much the Security Service uses the special branch of individual police forces. My impression is that it varies from police force to police force depending on the capability and size of the special branch concerned.
      I hope that the Minister will state clearly the relationship between the warrants required under this legislation, the position of special branch within individual police forces and the operations carried out by friendly Governments who share a common interest in collecting intelligence about terrorist activities.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: I support amendment No. 44 proposed by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) but I wish to speak to new clause 6, which states:
      "Nothing in this Act shall impower the security services to act as empowered by warrant in this Act through the agency of or by delegation of their powers to the security services of any other country."
      Tonight I had the pleasure of listening to Mr. John Stockwell, an ex-member of the Central Intelligence Agency, who was speaking in a Meeting Room in the House. He has written a good book about the CIA. That agency has bombed, bugged, assassinated, tortured and pillaged its way around most of the developing nations of the world in the interests of supporting American imperialism. It has done so without the consent of Congress. Mr. Stockwell resigned from the CIA because he knew that an operation in Angola 10 years ago was being carried out against the decision of Congress. He felt that that was not democratic. He also pointed out that the CIA, wherever it operated, developed a drugs ring, a golden triangle, in which it used CIA facilities to hand over drugs to various people, including the Mafia, in order to further its interests. I do not want our security services becoming involved with the CIA because it has a miserable and dirty record.
      The previous Labour Government found that our security services were working with the CIA to the extent that when it wanted Agee and Hosenball expelled from this country they, to my everlasting regret, carried out its instructions and requests. No doubt our security services, working with their sister organisation, briefed the then Home Secretary on the dangers of Philip Agee, telling him that Agee was giving away information about the American security service and therefore should be excluded from our nation. Philip Agee was revealing secrets about the CIA such as those that I have just mentioned. It is essential that our Security Service should be excluded from working with the CIA.
      The CIA is courteous—it does not carry out operations in our country without notifying MI5 and obtaining its agreement. Mr. Stockwell said that during an operation in Katanga of which he was in charge the CIA obtained the support of our Security Service to ensure the transit of mercenaries to be used against the Government that the CIA wished to usurp. The mercenaries went through Heathrow without any scrutiny or checks as a result of the involvement of our security services.

      243
      If that had become public knowledge, I dare say that there would have been a hue and cry because our citizens, quite properly, do not like such things. They do not like our security services becoming involved in illegal operations conducted by foreign powers, whether friendly or otherwise. Therefore, the Minister has a duty to accept new clause 6 in particular, to assure our citizens that the secret services are not involved in destabilising operations working against democracy and leading to serious situations and loss of life by linking our facilities to foreign operations in Britain or abroad.
      9.30 pm
      Whether the warrants would be issued to facilitate criminal or illegal activities, it is quite extraordinary that we are debating in the House of Commons the way in which Ministers can permit people to carry out what ordinarily would be criminal activities which we strongly criticise in a secret service. Although some people within those secret organisations may start off with the best intentions, because they are not accountable their enormous power can be abused. If that is done in conjunction with other people or organisations which have lied to Congress and got away with murder, sometimes literally, when it is revealed—not in Britain which is far too secretive, but in the United States which is much more open—our name would be dragged in and our personnel would be revealed as having been involved, perhaps even in deceiving the Minister about the purpose of the warrant and not revealing any intercontinental connection that might exist.
      I should have thought that new clause 6 was very straightforward. It seeks simply to make sure that the Minister exercises his powers solely within the United Kingdom, that he could not be subject to any abuse and would therefore be accountable to the House which is passing the legislation. Unless some amendments are made, when the legislation is passed there will be no link of accountability enabling us to have future debates of this nature. The subject will be closed. The warrants will be issued behind the closed doors of Whitehall and in secrecy. The reports will be presented in private, and members of the Security Service will be cuddling up to the Minister and explaining how everything is justified. The director-general will be presenting a very pleasing picture of the important work of the Security Service, and we shall be unable to make a judgment on the matter. Therefore, it is important that the Minister should say, "Some of you do not like the legislation"—that will include me—"but we think that it is necessary and in the operation of the legislation we shall ensure that the warrants are issued only for operations within the United Kingdom and there will be no connection with any security services from any other nations".
      Mr. John Patten: I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said in his brief introduction, and to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I recall that the hon. Gentleman raised the same issues on Second Reading and that I tried in my speech to reply to at least one of the points on that occasion.
      I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and the hon. Members for
      244
      Denton and Reddish—and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who appears to have come from quite an interesting meeting—that new clause 6 is not necessary, and I hope that I can do so briefly. I believe that the new clauses and amendment No. 44 are not necessary.
      They could impair the service's effectiveness, and they overlook the fact that the commissioner, whose role and functions are set down in the Bill, will be all the time at my right hon. Friend's elbow and looking over his shoulder. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish acknowledges that, from time to time, the Security Service must necessarily maintain contacts with foreign security and intelligence agencies. Such contact is vitally important in defeating, for example, IRA terrorism—as the recent seizure of shiploads of arms has shown. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman indicates assent.
      Threats of terrorism and espionage are international. They can be identified only if like-minded agencies deal with them together. In the same way—this point interests the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish—the Security Service must work closely with the police from time to time, where the service's functions and the responsibilities of the police coincide. I again cite terrorism as a classic example where such co-operation is right.
      Where others undertake work that is relevant to the service's functions and objectives, they will do so on the basis of their own powers and responsibilities. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that that is the context in which the Committee needs to consider the amendments. There are powerful and effective safeguards in the warrant procedure provided by clause 3, which we have not yet reached. I do not believe that the amendments will add significantly to them. A warrant application must be made by the Security Service, and it can be granted only if the Secretary of State is personally satisfied that the action is necessary to the functions of the Security Service—not to those of anyone else. The action must be to obtain information likely to be of substantial value in respect of the service's functions and which cannot be reasonably obtained by any other means. The warrant must specify both the action and the property. Furthermore, the commissioner is there to ensure that there is adherence to those criteria.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I have been greatly assured by my hon. Friend's comments about the commissioner. May we know whether the commissioner has any powers to undertake supervision of the operations of other security services operating in this country at the request of our own service?
      Mr. Patten: I was about to give an assurance to my hon. Friend and to the Committee that the Security Service is the only security and intelligence agency responsible for undertaking operations involving actions of the kind that will be authorised under the Bill. That was to be my closing note. With that assurance, I hope that my hon. Friend and Opposition Members will not press the amendment or the new clauses.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 2, line 9, at end add
      'and shall make such sections of his report public as he sees fit'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments:

      245
      No. 55, in page 2, line 9, at end add
      'and shall cause the Inspector General to be given a copy of each such report'.
      No. 93, in page 2, line 9, at end add—
      '(5) The Director-General shall make an annual report to Parliament'.
      No. 87, in page 3, line 6, at end insert
      'and the person to whom the information relates shall be informed of the Secretary of State's approval and the reasons for which the approval was given when information is disclosed in accordance with this subsection.'.
      No. 85, in clause 3, page 3, line 4, at end add—
      '(8) 10 years after the commencement of this Act and each year thereafter the Secretary of State shall review all warrants issued 10 years previously and shall compile a report to Parliament revealing as much information as he feels appropriate about the nature and the extent of warrants issued 10 years previously.'.
      No. 12, in clause 4, page 3, line 19, after 'Prime Minister', insert
      'and such report shall include:

      (i) the number of telephone intercept warrants granted;

      (ii) the number of other listening devices utilized;

      (iii) the number of warrants to interfere with property granted;

      (iv) the number of disciplinary proceedings taken;

      (v) the number of complaints referred to the tribunal;

      (vi) the number of Positive Vetting referrals handled;

      (vii) an account of Security Service opinion on current threats ad priorities;

      (viii) a case history relevant to the Service's work in the preceding year from each Security Service Branch; and

      (ix) a statement from the Director-General relating to any significant changes in practice.'.

      Mr. Bennett: Amendment No. 83 suggests that part of the director-general's report could, in certain circumstances, be made public. Clearly it is intended that the report will be given to the Home Secretary and to the Prime Minister. One of the reasons for the Bill is considerable public disquiet about the way in which the Security Service has appeared to operate in recent years. The Government's hope is that by putting the service on a statutory basis public concern will be allayed. However, the unsatisfactory way in which much of the Bill is drafted, which was highlighted in our earlier debate, will not allay that fear, and there will continue to be pressure for more and more information.
      I believe that it will not be long before people in the Security Service realise that unless they are prepared to be more forthcoming about the way in which they operate, and particularly to assure the public that they do not engage in activities that have caused concern to Opposition Members, the system will fall further into disrepute. The amendment merely provides that if the director-general of the Security Service feels that it would be appropriate for parts of his report to be made public, they can be made public, but on his decision alone.
      Amendment No. 85 deals with a much more complicated business—the general belief that a large number of burglaries and buggings are being carried out by the Security Service. I do not believe that the number is all that large, but from now on we shall have the opportunity for them to be recorded by warrants. There will, however, be no mechanism enabling the general public to know how many warrants are issued per year and how the process takes place. The amendment suggests that after 10 years there should be an opportunity for the number and extent of warrants to be made public.
      246
      In the vast majority of cases, what posed a security threat 10 years earlier will not continue to do so, and it would therefore be perfectly reasonable to provide some information about the extent of Security Service operations then. Clearly some operations will still be going on, and to divulge information about them would cause problems. I have therefore inserted the safeguard that, at the second date, it would be the Home Secretary who would decide whether it was appropriate to make the information public. Thus the original Home Secretary would give permission for a warrant to he issued, and 10 years later the information would become public unless the then Home Secretary believed that, in the interests of the Security Service and of the nation's security, it should not be made public.
      I tabled the amendment largely to probe the Government's intention. I understand that in many security instances the 30-year rule does not operate and information is withheld from the public for even longer. I do not feel that the totality of operations should be kept from the public for as long as 30 years. This seems to me an issue on which Parliament has a right of scrutiny.
      Mr. Cryer: My amendment No. 93 simply provides that at the end of clause 2 should be added the following provision:
      "The Director-General shall make an annual report to Parliament".
      Curiously, I have more faith in Parliament than perhaps it deserves, and I believe that when we talk about democracy we ought to practise it. I do not think that we should have double standards and be anti-democratic while preaching democracy. The Government claim that they support democracy, and here is an opportunity for them to put their claim into practice.
      Many benefits flow from a requirement for the director-general to make an annual report to Parliament. It does not lay down what he must include: it does not provide, for example, that he must include the number of warrants issued. The director-general would be able to make the report at his discretion, and he would no doubt omit any matters that he deemed sensitive. That, after all, is the sort of job to which we appoint him.
      The requirement for the director-general to make the report, however, would also push this place into a debate. We know that when what are termed sensitive areas develop the Government go through the usual channels and say, "We cannot deal with that just now", or "We shall follow the business with two Scottish orders so that the trouble-makers on the Front Bench below the Gangway do not keep the subject going for too long. We want to get rid of it—to sweep it under the carpet and out of the way."
      So I think it is very useful for an obligation to be clearly put on the director-general to provide a report, because it does not say that it has to be debated but, having provided a report and put it in the House of Commons Library, there would be an opportunity to exert pressure for a debate, and then there can be that measure of accountability, as I say, without any details that the director-general regards as sensitive. The Minister would have to be briefed and answer questions on the debate, and that would provide some element of security in the minds of the citizenry that this secret organisation would be less likely to abuse its power and position.
      It is always a salutary thought in all our minds that we are accountable to somebody. When we speak and vote

      247
      here we are accountable to the electorates in our constituencies. We record our votes so that we cannot say one thing in our constituencies and vote the other way here, and it helps us to clarify our minds. When I go through the Lobby—and I go through the Lobby on a number of occasions on various issues—I always try to make up my mind so that, if somebody in Bradford, South questions me about what I have done, I can provide an answer. That is a degree of accountability.
      9.45 pm
      Therefore, when the burgling and bugging is taking place, in addition to having to justify matters to the Minister or to senior civil servants—because in the Bill as drafted the Minister is not the only one who can authorise the warrants, and we shall come to that very shortly—they will have to think, "Our director-general is going to have to put a report before Parliament. There is going to be a debate." It may be a bit of a nuisance that Members of Parliament discuss their affairs, and that is no doubt the view they will have. Nonetheless, we shall have that opportunity.
      If we do not, what will happen? What has happened in the past? Several years ago there was an Adjournment debate on the security services. The various boxes were full of eminent people. The Home Secretary appeared for an Adjournment debate because it was deemed to be so unusual, so electrifying that the security services should actually be debated, and all the "big guns" turned out. That debate lasted just half an hour. It was not Government time; it was private Members' time and, of course, devices like the Consolidated Fund can be used. But I remind the House that, because of a consensus agreement between the parties, the Consolidated Fund is no longer a Consolidated Fund debate; it is a structured debate, fixed by Mr. Speaker; it is a series of Adjournment debates, and the ability of Back Benchers to scrutinise has thereby been diminished.
      The Minister will resist putting this in the Bill, because Governments do not like too much scrutiny of anything. They prefer to stay in their offices in Whitehall and have a few jolly half-day debates in here, when they can get a few cheers from their Back Benchers, and limit it to that. However, we are concerned here with accountability over a very serious section of our Government forces, and it seems to me not unreasonable therefore that we should be able to hold them to account by having a debate and impose an obligation on the director-general to provide an annual report to Parliament.
      I hope that there will be an opportunity to vote on this, because I would be interested to see those who are actually prepared to say that this House should be accountable and not just a place where a few empty words echo, nothing is done, and at 10 o'clock the Government bring out their troops and destroy what improvements might have been made to a piece of legislation. I shall be surprised if the Minister accepts the amendment but, if he has the concept of parliamentary democracy at heart, I would have thought it does no "damage" in his terms, because the director-general has the responsibility of providing the report; he can be selective. However, it does provide an opportunity for some sort of accountability to this House,
      248
      so that those Members of Parliament who are interested can have that opportunity and exercise it. That is a reasonable request.
      Mr. Allason: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the Committee's attention to amendment No. 12. In view of the loss last night of any chance of parliamentary oversight, that amendment is extremely important. Some hon. Members have mentioned how important it is to have a report and the Government are to be congratulated on requiring the Security Service commissioner to offer up an annual report. That is important, but the Bill has one fundamental flaw in that it omits any detail about what should be considered by the commissioner in his report. That is vital.
      Last night we accepted—some of us reluctantly—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's view that everything was safe in his hands. We lost the opportunity to have any parliamentary oversight. In effect, my right hon. Friend said that he and his successors would be able to cope with controlling all the other responsibilities that they have in the Home Office and be able to manage the affairs of the Security Service, and that any problems that there might have been in the past had now been put behind the Security Service.
      The difficulty is that there is no suggestion about what should go into the report. In other words, the commissioner has total discretion and if he feels like it he can say virtually nothing of any relevance or interest. A vital opportunity has been lost. I draw the Committee's attention to the Canadian experience. In Canada an annual report is published by the security intelligence review committee with 10 important chapters. They are not just for voyeurs of the intelligence community, but represent a public relations exercise as well as an educational exercise. Let me explain briefly what I mean.
      We have heard that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is prepared to bear the burden of supervising the Security Service without any assistance. The report that will be provided by the commissioner will go to him and the Prime Minister. But how are they to educate themselves? How are they to be well informed on the function, role and day-to-day activities of the Security Service? That surely is at the heart of accountability. Unless those two people have a firm grasp of the Security Service we shall put ourselves back in the position that we have experienced in the past when there have been mishaps—for example, when the director-general of the Security Service, Sir Percy Sillitoe, deliberately misled Attlee, and, on subsequent occasions, with Burgess and Maclean and so on.
      If we can draw up some parameters for topics that should be included in the report, that would be worthwhile. That would not conflict with clause 4(7) which allows the Prime Minister to decide whether a document is of such a sensitive nature that parts of it should not be disclosed in public or to the House of Commons. That can be retained.
      But is it not important, for example, to establish the number of warrants that have been issued under the Bill? The first example I list in the amendment is the number of telephone intercept warrants granted in any one year. Many of us believed that, with the Interception of Communications Act 1985, there would be greater public accountability and public knowledge about the way in which warrants were authorised and the number that were

      249
      authorised each year. Our expectations have turned out to be wrong and the amount of information that is supplied by the judge who reports annually on the interception of communications is less now than was previously available.
      What about the other items that should be scrutinised, such as the number of warrants to interfere with property issued by the Home Secretary each year? That is a euphemism for burglary and it is a proper topic on which the commissioner should report to the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. Let us not forget that the Prime Minister will not be privy to that particular information unless the Home Secretary decides to import it.
      Other matters should be considered as well in the report, such as the number of internal disciplinary proceedings that take place in the Security Service. The Bettaney case demonstrates that routine disciplinary procedures take place which are of considerable importance. We know, for example, that Michael Bettaney was employed by the Security Service in spite of the fact that he had two convictions for dishonesty. We also know that he was on a bottle of whisky a day and that that information was supplied to the director-general of the Security Service, who did not deem it appropriate or necessary to disclose it to anyone else. The Home Secretary of the day was blissfully unaware of that although, within a matter of months, Bettaney had gone over the edge and was making improper approaches to a KGB officer in London. Is it not worthwhile to try to persuade the commissioner, who will be the author of the report, that such information should go regularly to the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister?
      The Government are to be congratulated on setting up the tribunal, but how will we know about the performance of the tribunal and how many complaints have been referred to it? How will anybody know whether a complaint has been upheld or dismissed? The Canadian system provides a good example. In Canada, the names and some other details are excluded, but individual cases are mentioned in considerable detail in the report. Similarly, now that the Security Service is disposing of its mantle of secrecy, would it not be worthwhile to try such a system, which approaches a public relations exercise? Is it not appropriate that the Security Service should give an account of its work, as the service does in Canada? Is it not appropriate that the Security Service should publish some case histories to educate the public, to explain the threat and to explain what the Security Service perceives to have been its functions and responsibilites in the preceding year?
      The last topic that should be included in the report is a statement from the director-general about significant changes in practice. Technology is moving ahead all the time. We know about the interception of communications through telephone intercept warrants and we know that technology allows bugs to be inserted into property, without the need for a warrant. But technology may move on. Is it not appropriate, therefore, that the commissioner or the director-general should include in his report, sections of which will be read only by the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary, information to keep them up-to-date with the latest developments?
      I am grateful to you for your indulgence, Sir Paul, and I am sorry for the lateness of the hour, but I believe that the Committee should consider carefully whether these topics should be included in the Bill. Are we not giving hostages to fortune—
      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. Allason: This is an important issue because we have lost the opportunity of parliamentary oversight and we have greatly increased the burden on the Home Secretary. Surely one lesson of the past must be that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary of the day should be well informed of the activities of the Security Service, and what better way is there to keep them informed than through an annual report that could be examined not just by them but by the whole House?
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) said that we had lost the argument for parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that he is right in thinking that the Government will not concede that point at a later stage. They are a fortiori unlikely to concede the scrutiny by the back door for which the hon. Gentleman's amendment would provide. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is being over-optimistic if he thinks that the Government will be prepared to allow the director-general to report to the House on his duties. There is, in any event, a limitation upon the commissioner's ability to report on the Security Service.
      The hon. Member for Torbay gave the impression—I do not know whether it was deliberate—that it would be within the ambit of the commissioner's duties to consider the matters set out in amendment No. 12. As the Bill stands, the commissioner has no such general authority or oversight of the Security Service. His tasks are strictly limited to the matter of warrants covered in clause 3 and to the matter of complaint set out in schedule 1. There is no responsibility upon the commissioner to consider the general practice of the Security Service that would enable him to answer questions of the kind set out in the amendment. There is no general responsibility for surveying the priorities of the service or the particular problems that the service faces, save as they may be revealed by his work in conducting the inquiries that are referred to him.
      Mr. Allason: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to subsection 4(4), which requires every member of the Security Service to supply to the commissioner whatever information he needs to discharge his function? My amendment suggests that we add those responsibilities to his function.
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman may have overlooked the fact that the Bill describes an officer's functions quite precisely in both clause 3 and in schedule 1. Those functions do not include matters of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. If an officer were to have the duty of reporting to anyone, for example, to the Prime Minister within Government, or to Parliament, it would be necessary to give the commissioner a much

      251
      more wide-ranging remit than I believe it is the Government's intention to do. I do not raise that point in a spirit of carping criticism about the hon. Gentleman's intentions but simply to draw attention to the extremely limited nature of the role of the commissioner, who is not set in oversight over the conduct of the Security Service. It might reassure hon. Members if there were some independent oversight over the whole of the Security Service, but that is not the case.
      The hon. Member for Bradford, South has said that that is for the director-general, but the director-general is not in oversight of the service; he is the embodiment of the service. He is the executive at the apex of the structure. Therefore, he is not charged with reporting, independently, on how the service is working.
      One of the great weaknesses of the Bill to which, perhaps inadvertently, the hon. Member for Torbay has drawn our attention is that there is no independent judicial or other supervising authority to look at the sort of matters that he believes should not only be supervised but reported upon to the responsible Minister and to Parliament.
      Mr. John Patten: I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said in his description of the provisions under the relevant clause and schedule, just as I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) said, and to what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said when he opened the debate on this group of amendments. However, apart from the proposals for a 10-year review—more of that later—which I do not think would add anything, the other amendments could lead to dangerous breaches in the barrier of secrecy which must protect the work of the service to make it efficient.
      Let us look first at the idea of a director-general's annual report. There is no advantage in making such a report public for those who have no responsibility for the work of the service. Although that would certainly satisfy the curiosity of some—perhaps many—people, it would not do anything other than present a high risk to the security of the nation from time to time. Those who are hostile to this country will be interested in the policies and priorities of those who protect us. Risk assessments and assessments by directors-general of where they think that the threats are coming from are meat and drink to the intelligence agencies of other countries, ditto any explanation of our resources and capacities. Those are exactly the sort of managerial issues upon which the director-general must concentrate in his responsibilies for the efficiency of the service. Nor is there any need to require the Secretary of State to review decisions that were made 10 years ago, probably by his predecessors, as another amendment suggests. It is not the case that every threat that was live 10 years ago is necessarily dead 10 years later.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
      Mr. Patten: I will give way in a moment.
      There may be a latency in threats to the security of the country, as can be seen from the history of this century when we have tried to defend the country against such threats.
      Dr. Alan Glyn rose—
      Mr. Patten: I will give way first to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn).
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that I took that into account by making it possible for the new Home Secretary—the one 10 years later—to decide whether or not there was the opportunity to disclose that information? All that this group of amendments does, which I believe is what the House wants, is to appreciate that there will be continuing pressure for accountability of the security services. Unless the Home Secretary concedes a little more than he has so far, that problem will not go away for the Government and the Bill will not meet the Government's aims.
      Mr. Patten: I understand the reasoned and reasonable way in which the hon. Gentleman has both drafted his amendment and spoken to it, but he does not take into account another important factor. We do not have the benefit of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) in the Chamber at present, but there are constitutional issues involved. Sometimes, though not so often these days, there are changes of Government within a decade and issues about ministerial decision taking is the time of one Government being looked at by Ministers in the time of another. I do not believe that the amendment of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish deals with that point.
      Dr. Glyn: Intelligence is a jigsaw and even after 10 years the jigsaw might be completed with seemingly innocuous information which could nevertheless be important in the jigsaw.
      Mr. Patten: Characteristically, my hon. Friend has put his finger right on it. From time to time intelligence can be a jigsaw and there may be matters which for 10 or 15 years have lurked in the undergrowth, but which suddenly turn out to be matters of relevance to the security of this country.
      As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland has said, under the Bill an independent commissioner—we must not lose sight of the fact that the commissioner is a senior judge—is charged with reviewing the exercise by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of the powers under clause 3 and to report in the way which has been described. That is a better safeguard than a report on warrants made a decade ago under the powers of another Secretary of State.
      The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said that he would like to see these matters debated more widely in the House. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the time-honoured litany of junior Ministers at the Dispatch Box, matters concerning the arrangement of future business of the House are not for me. We shall, however, note what the hon. Gentleman said.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay has clearly put a great deal of thought into his amendment No. 12, but we believe that placing requirements upon the commissioner in preparing his annual report is both unreasonable and unsafe. For example, to set down in a public document risk assessments by the director-general or anyone else connected with the service would be most unhelpful to the security of the nation.
      Mr. Allason: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr, Patten: I will, but my hon. Friend had some time to deploy his arguments earlier and I was trying to reply to his points.
      Mr. Allason: My hon. Friend has suggested that it would be unsafe to supply this information to the Prime Minister or to the Home Secretary. He will recall that in this context I mentioned clause 4(7), which states:
      "If it appears to the Prime Minister, after consultation with the Commissioner, 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".
      All that I am suggesting is that these reports be supplied to the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, which is surely helpful to them.
      Mr. Patten: Of course, the supply of that information is necessary to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, where and when necessary, to the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend has only to look at what he has presumably drafted in amendment No. 12 to see that its import is to prepare matters of this kind for some future publication. I do not accept that that is desirable. Much of the material that the commissioner will be obliged to include in some report, prepared presumably for publication but then subject to security deletions, is not within his functions to acquire, nor would it be right for him to do so. Other material goes right to the heart of Security Service operations, and I do not believe that it could be published. I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay on that point.
      The aim of this group of amendments is to try to allow Parliament to know more about the Security Service and how it works. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Second Reading and by me during the winding up speech on that occasion, it is essential to our philosophy that the proper concerns of the public and of Parliament—they are extremely important—should be met by placing functions and safeguards, and a complaints procedure, on a statutory basis while ensuring that the secrets which are at the heart of our security can and should continue to be kept.
      On those grounds, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
      Amendment negatived.
      10.15 pm
      Amendment proposed: No. 93, in page 2, line 9, at end add—
      '(5) The Director-General shall make an annual report to Parliament'.—[Mr. Cryer.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 123, Noes 209.

      Division No. 34]

      [8.58 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Crowther, Stan

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Cryer, Bob

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Cummings, John

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Darling, Alistair

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

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

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Dewar, Donald

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Dixon, Don

      Barron, Kevin

      Doran, Frank

      Beith, A. J.

      Douglas, Dick

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

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

      Eadie, Alexander

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Eastham, Ken

      Blair, Tony

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Blunkett, David

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Boateng, Paul

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

      Boyes, Roland

      Flynn, Paul

      Bradley, Keith

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Foster, Derek

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Foulkes, George

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Buchan, Norman

      Galloway, George

      Buckley, George J.

      George, Bruce

      Callaghan, Jim

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Gordon, Mildred

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Graham, Thomas

      Cartwright, John

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Grocott, Bruce

      Cohen, Harry

      Hardy, Peter

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Haynes, Frank

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Corbett, Robin

      Hinchliffe, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Home Robertson, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cox, Tom

      Howells, Geraint

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Morley, Elliott

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Nellist, Dave

      Illsley, Eric

      Patchett, Terry

      Ingram, Adam

      Pike, Peter L

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Randall, Stuart

      Kennedy, Charles

      Reid, Dr John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Richardson, Jo

      Lambie, David

      Robertson, George

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Rogers, Allan

      Lewis, Terry

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Livsey, Richard

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Short, Clare

      McAllion, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      McCartney, Ian

      Strang, Gavin

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      McFall, John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Turner, Dennis

      McKelvey, William

      Vaz, Keith

      McLeish, Henry

      Wall, Pat

      Maclennan, Robert

      Walley, Joan

      McWilliam, John

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Madden, Max

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Marek, Dr John

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Wilson, Brian

      Martlew, Eric

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Maxton, John

      Worthington, Tony

      Meale, Alan

      Michael, Alun

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Mr. David Winnick and

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Mr. Nigel Spearing.

      Morgan, Rhodri

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Allason, Rupert

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Evennett, David

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Favell, Tony

      Ashby, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Boswell, Tim

      Forman, Nigel

      Bowis, John

      Forth, Eric

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Franks, Cecil

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

      Freeman, Roger

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      French, Douglas

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Fry, Peter

      Burns, Simon

      Gale, Roger

      Butcher, John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Butler, Chris

      Gill, Christopher

      Butterfill, John

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Carrington, Matthew

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Cash, William

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Chapman, Sydney

      Gow, Ian

      Chope, Christopher

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Churchill, Mr

      Gregory, Conal

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

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Colvin, Michael

      Grist, Ian

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Ground, Patrick

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Couchman, James

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Cran, James

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

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

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

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Harris, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Hayes, Jerry

      Dicks, Terry

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Hay ward, Robert

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Dover, Den

      Heddle, John

      Dunn, Bob

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Durant, Tony

      Hill, James

      238

      Hind, Kenneth

      Rattan, Keith

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Holt, Richard

      Redwood, John

      Howard, Michael

      Riddick, Graham

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

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Rost, Peter

      Hunter, Andrew

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Irving, Charles

      Ryder, Richard

      Jack, Michael

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Jackson, Robert

      Scott, Nicholas

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Shelton, Sir William

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      (Streatham)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shersby, Michael

      Knapman, Roger

      Sims, Roger

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Knowles, Michael

      Speller, Tony

      Lang, Ian

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Latham, Michael

      Squire, Robin

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lightbown, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Lilley, Peter

      Stern, Michael

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Lord, Michael

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Sumberg, David

      Maclean, David

      Summerson, Hugo

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mans, Keith

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Maples, John

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Marland, Paul

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Mills, Iain

      Tracey, Richard

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Tredinnick, David

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Trippier, David

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Trotter, Neville

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Twinn. Dr Ian

      Moss, Malcolm

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Neale, Gerrard

      Walker, Bill (Tside North)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Neubert, Michael

      Warren, Kenneth

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Watts, John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Wells, Bowen

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Wheeler, John

      Norris, Steve

      Whitney, Ray

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Wilkinson, John

      Page, Richard

      Wilshire, David

      Paice, James

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Patnick, Irvine

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Wood, Timothy

      Pawsey, James

      Yeo, Tim

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Portillo, Michael

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Mr. Tom Sackville and

      Price, Sir David

      Mr. Michael Fallon.

      Division No. 35]

      [10.15 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

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

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Blair, Tony

      Allason, Rupert

      Boateng, Paul

      Alton, David

      Bradley, Keith

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Barron, Kevin

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Battle, John

      Buchan, Norman

      Beith, A. J.

      Buckley, George J.

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      254

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      McFall, John

      Cartwright, John

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Cohen, Harry

      McLeish, Henry

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      McWilliam, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Madden, Max

      Cousins, Jim

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Cox, Tom

      Mallon, Seamus

      Crowther, Stan

      Marek, Dr John

      Darling, Alistair

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

      Martlew, Eric

      Dewar, Donald

      Maxton, John

      Dixon, Don

      Meale, Alan

      Doran, Frank

      Michael, Alun

      Douglas, Dick

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Eadie, Alexander

      Morley, Elliott

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Mullin, Chris

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

      Nellist, Dave

      Flynn, Paul

      Patchett, Terry

      Foster, Derek

      Pike, Peter L.

      Fyfe, Maria

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Randall, Stuart

      George, Bruce

      Robertson, George

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Ruddock, Joan

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Sheerman, Barry

      Gordon, Mildred

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Hardy, Peter

      Short, Clare

      Haynes, Frank

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hinchliffe, David

      Spearing, Nigel

      Home Robertson, John

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Hood, Jimmy

      Strang, Gavin

      Howells, Geraint

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Wall, Pat

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Walley, Joan

      Illsley, Eric

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Ingram, Adam

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Winnick, David

      Kennedy, Charles

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Worthington, Tony

      Lambie, David

      Wray, Jimmy

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Lewis, Terry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Livsey, Richard

      Mr. Bob Cryer and

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Mr. Tony Banks.

      McCartney, Ian

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F rest)

      Arbuthnol, James

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Ashby, David

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Couchman, James

      Beggs, Roy

      Cran, James

      Be van, David Gilroy

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

      Boswell, Tim

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwlch)

      Devlin, Tim

      Bowis, John

      Dicks, Terry

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Brazier, Julian

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

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

      Dover, Den

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Durant, Tony

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Evennett, David

      Burns, Simon

      Fallon, Michael

      Butcher, John

      Favell, Tony

      Butler, Chris

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Butterfill, John

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Forman, Nigel

      Carrington, Matthew

      Forth, Eric

      Cash, William

      Franks, Cecil

      Chapman, Sydney

      Freeman, Roger

      Chope, Christopher

      French, Douglas

      Churchill, Mr

      Fry, Peter

      255

      Gale, Roger

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Gill, Christopher

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Knapman, Roger

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Knowles, Michael

      Gow, Ian

      Lang, Ian

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Latham, Michael

      Greenway, John (Ryedalo)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Gregory, Conal

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Lightbown, David

      Grist, Ian

      Lilley, Peter

      Ground, Patrick

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Lord, Michael

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Hanley, Jeremy

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

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

      Maclean, David

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Harris, David

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Hayes, Jerry

      Mans, Keith

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Marland, Paul

      Hayward, Robert

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Mellor, David

      Hill, James

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Hind, Kenneth

      Mills, Iain

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Holt, Richard

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Howard, Michael

      Monro, Sir Hector

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

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Neubert, Michael

      Hunter, Andrew

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Jack, Michael

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Jackson, Robert

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Norris, Steve

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      256

      Page, Richard

      Summerson, Hugo

      Paice, James

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Pawsey, James

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Portillo, Michael

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Price, Sir David

      Thurnham, Peter

      Raff an, Keith

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Redwood, John

      Tracey, Richard

      Riddick, Graham

      Tredinnick, David

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Trippier, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Trotter, Neville

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Rost, Peter

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Rowe, Andrew

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Ryder, Richard

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Warren, Kenneth

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Watts, John

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wells, Bowen

      Shersby, Michael

      Wheeler, John

      Sims, Roger

      Whitney, Ray

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Wilkinson, John

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Wilshire, David

      Speller, Tony

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Squire, Robin

      Wood, Timothy

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Yeo, Tim

      Steen, Anthony

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Stern, Michael

      Stevens, Lewis

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Mr. Tom Sackville and

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Mr. John M. Taylor.

      Sumberg, David

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      Clause 3

        WARRANTS
        Mr. Richard Shepherd: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in page 2, line 10, at beginning insert—
        '() Where the Director-General believes, on reasonable grounds, that a warrant under this section is required to enable the Service to investigate a threat to national security, he may after having obtained the approval of the Solicitor General, make an application in accordance with the provisions of this section.'.
        The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments:
        No. 58, in page 2, line 11, leave out 'the Secretary of State' and insert
        'an order of a Judge of the High Court upon application by the Service'.
        No. 94, in page 2, line 12, at end insert
        'but this section shall not exclude an application to court for a judicial review of the reasons for the issue of the warrant and the consequent actions'.
        No. 59, in page 2, line 13, leave out subsections (2) to (7) and insert—
        '(2) An application to a judge for a warrant under subsection (1) shall be made ex parte in writing and be accompanied by an affidavit of the applicant deposing to the following matters, namely—

        (a) the facts relied upon to justify the belief, on reasonable grounds, that a warrant under this section is required to enable the Service to obtain information which is likely to be of substantial value in assisting the Service to discharge its functions;

        (b) that other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or why it appears that they are unlikely to succeed, that the urgency of the matter is such that it would be impractical to carry out the investigation using only other investigative procedures;

        (c) the type of information, records, documents or things proposed to be obtained and the powers referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (3) below proposed to be exercised for that purpose;

        (d) the identity of the person, if known, who has possession of the information, record, document or thing proposed to be obtained;

        (e) the persons or class of persons to whom the warrant is proposed to be directed;

        (f) a general description of the place where the warrant is proposed to be executed, if a general description of that place can be given;

        (g) the period, not exceeding sixty days or six months, as the case may be, for which the warrant is requested to be in force that is applicable by virtue of subsection (5); and

        (h) any previous application made in relation to a person identified in the affidavit pursuant to paragraph (d), the date on which such application was made, the name of the judge to whom each such application was made and the decision of the judge thereon.

        (3) Notwithstanding any other law, where the judge to whom an application under subsection (1) is made is satisfied of the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the judge may issue a warrant authorising the persons to whom it is directed to obtain any information, record, document or thing and, for that purpose,

        (a) to enter any place or open or obtain access to any thing;

        (b) to search for, remove or return, or examine, take extracts from or make copies of or record in any other manner the information, record, document or thing; or

        (c) to install, maintain or remove any thing.

        (4) There shall be specified in a warrant issued under subsection (3)—
        258

        (a) the type of information, records, documents or things authorised to be obtained and the powers referred to in paragraphs (3)(a) to (c) authorised to be exercised for that purpose;

        (b) the identity of the person, if known, who has possession of the information, record, document or thing to be obtained;

        (c) the person or classes of persons to whom the warrant is directed;

        (d) a general description of the place where the warrant may be executed, if a general description of that place can be given;

        (e) the period for which the warrant is in force; and

        (f) such terms and conditions as the judge considers advisable in the public interest.

        (5) A warrant shall not be issued under subsection (3) for a period exceeding—

        (a) sixty days where the warrant is issued to enable the Service to investigate a threat to national security within the meaning of paragraph (d) of the definition of that expression in subsection (2) of section 1; or

        (b) six months in any other case.

        (6) On application in writing to a judge for the renewal of a warrant issued under subsection (3) made by a person entitled to apply for such a warrant after having obtained the approval of the Solicitor General, the judge may, from time to time, renew the warrant for a period not exceeding the period for which the warrant may be issued pursuant to subsection (5) if satisfied by evidence on oath that

        (a) the warrant continues to be required to enable the Service to investigate a threat to national security; and

        (b) any of the matters referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) are applicable in the circumstances.

        (7) The Director-General shall be under a duty—

        (a) to apply in writing to a judge requesting the cancellation of a warrant at any time when he reasonably believes that the action authorised is no longer necessary;

        (b) to destroy forthwith any information, record, document or thing obtained as a result of the exercise of the warrant and which does not relate to the individual named in the warrant;

        (c) to destroy forthwith any information, record, document or thing which proves to be irrelevant to the investigation for the purposes of which the warrant is issued.

        (8) An application under subsection (1) to a judge for a warrant or a renewal of a warrant shall be heard in private.
        (9) The Solicitor General may make regulations—

        (a) prescribing the forms of warrants that may be issued under subsection (3);

        (b) governing the practice and procedure of, and security requirements applicable to, hearings of applications for such warrants and for renewals of such warrants; and

        (c) notwithstanding the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965 as amended, specifying the places where such hearings may be held and the places where, and the manner in which, records or documents concerning such hearings shall be kept.'.

        No. 95, in page 2, leave out lines 29 to 32 and insert 'by a Minister in his Department'.
        Mr. Shepherd: Amendments Nos. 56, 58 and 59 relate to the judicial issuing of warrants. An integral part of the scheme to give the checks and balances that are needed in the Bill was a requirement that warrants be issued by a judge. The amendments set out the terms and conditions under which the warrants would be issued. I am mindful that hon. Members are becoming impatient, but it is an essential concept that it should not be an arbitrary power, albeit that it is laid down in statute—if that is not a contradiction in terms—that determines that a warrant be issued.
        Under the arrangements that we were seeking to make in the Bill to give the checks and balances which we hoped

        259
        would make the Bill conform to the democratic requirements, it was necessary for the director-general of the Security Service to seek the permission of the Home Secretary or the responsible Minister who would authorise the application for a warrant. The director-general of the Security Service would then apply to a judge and these criteria would have to be satisfied. The omission from the Government scheme is that the issuing of a warrant will not be subject to any judicial authority. It will be solely an administrative decision taken by the Executive, and that is worrying.
        I know that the Government are well aware that this is contrary to the principle recommended by the Royal Commission on criminal procedure, that a person who is to be the subject of, for example, electronic surveillance should have his interests represented by the Official Solicitor or a similar body at a hearing prior to authorisation by a judicial authority. I am not certain whether that could be accommodated. I am also worried that the procedure is contrary to the procedures adopted by the United States and most European countries. Our amendments reflect what the Home Secretary referred to as the Canadian cloth. It is worrying lest a questionable practice is being included in the Bill, following the European Court judgment in Klass v. Federal Republic of Germany, which questioned
        "whether an administrative decision without judicial authority would meet the court's requirement of independence 'in a field where abuse is potentially so easy in individual cases and could have such harmful consequences for democratic society as a whole'."
        10.30 pm
        I will not delay the Committee by going through each part of the amendment. It is designed to ensure that the rule of law prevails—that the Executive is subject to a degree of independent scrutiny from the judiciary and that the actions of the judiciary in a narrowly defined way are subject to those tests.
        That is an important principle of our system of government, but in the Bill it is done away with for a number of things. The worry is that now that we have no definition of "national security" we are in the position, as we have said when debating earlier amendments, that, whatever the Home Secretary says is national security, it now becomes a lawful basis on which to enter premises.
        Thus, the criterion that we were seeking—a definition of "national security"—is not available for a judge to endorse when granting a warrant. Our purpose is to try, at each stage of the Bill, to ensure the continued democratic values and protections of society. That comes down to ministerial responsibility, with the services being responsible to Ministers.
        A judicial review of these aspects is necessary, for without those protections none of us can be free people.Otherwise it means the arbitrary power of the Home Secretary determining what he perceives to be a threat to national security, perhaps on the advice of the security services, and that could be the object of the scrutiny of the state through the surveillance of or entry on to premises. There is no safeguard of this judicial intervention.
        That was the reason for having, in addition, independent oversight, plus the Government's proposed commissioner or what we would have described under other amendments as the inspector-general. That would
        260
        have put all the necessary forms in place, with an inspector-general to review the warrants after they were issued to ensure that the purposes, duties and intent of the warrants were met by the Security Service in the execution of the warrants.
        In addition, those warrants could be scrutinised by an independent review committee comprised of, we suggest, Privy Councillors who could be within or without the House. That was designed to meet the anxieties of many hon. Members on these Benches who fear that genuine Security Service matters could suffer were there to be any extension of what is called the circle of secrecy.
        We do not see how this can be a reasonable Bill without there being some judicial oversight to ensure that the warrant that is issued conforms with the functions, needs and tasks of the Security Service.
        Mr. Cryer: I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who will agree that the amendments standing in my name, Nos. 94 and 95, are simpler than his. After the opening words of clause 3:
        "No entry on or interference with property shall be unlawful if it is authorised by a warrant issued by the Secretary of State under this section"
        my amendment No. 94 would add:
        "but this section shall not exclude an application to court for a judicial review of the reasons for the issue of the warrant and the consequent actions.".
        It appears very final for the House to say to anyone, including a Minister, that he can interfere with property through burglary, which is normally a serious criminal offence, albeit on the understanding that members of the security services are trying to protect us from terrorism or in the interests of national security, although that is very loosely defined. It could be in the interests of protecting the Prime Minister's reputation or position. Such wide definitions are possible under the terms of the Bill.
        This is a serious matter. People will be burgled unjustly and mistakenly. The security services contain people who will be less than effective. We have already heard about the way in which Michael Bettaney was selected at a time when he was drinking a bottle of whisky a day. The security services people operate in a twilight world. They cannot say around the table what they do. They cannot say, when the brown Windsor soup and other courses are out of the way, "I work for the security services and our work is very interesting." It is not that sort of job. They have to be secretive and, at some stage, they must deceive a number of people by lying about their occupation. That places stress and strain on them and can produce fumbled judgments and mistaken decisions. As a consequence, they can burgle people mistakenly and, in pursuit of such burglaries, possibly injure or harm people to cover up their operations.
        It is therefore reasonable that we should not be prepared to say that, simply because a warrant has been issued, there can be no challenge and that nothing done in pursuance of the issue of that warrant is unlawful. That is quite outrageous. My first amendment does not exclude the possibility of a judicial review of
        "the reasons for the issue of the warrant and the consequent actions".
        The Minister may say that we must give absolute sanctions to the people who carry out the duties laid down in the warrant. Under the Bill, the commissioner will be a senior member of the judiciary. The Minister may say that the

        261
        Government place great store by members of the judiciary and, if the Government place great store by them, why should not the ordinary citizen do so if he feels aggrieved and has direct access to the courts, irrespective of the complaints procedure established in the Bill?
        My second amendment states that a warrant shall not be issued except under the hand of the Secretary of State. There is a confused jumble in which a warrant can be issued when the Secretary of State says that it is all right to do so. It is endorsed by him and can be issued under the hand of an official of his Department.
        Too much work is given to Secretaries of State. We appoint junior Ministers and there is in every Department, particularly the Home Department, a junior Minister on duty when the Secretary of State is out of the country. We should not hand such a duty to an official, no matter how senior. The proposal in the Bill presents difficulties and possibilities for misinterpretations. My amendment simply states that a warrant shall be issued under the hand of the Secretary of State or a Minister in his Department. It will be clear that, when the Secretary of State has gone off to some conference of Common Market Home Office Ministers and their equivalents, the junior Minister who is in charge will be given the task of authorising warrants. I know that it is unusual for junior Ministers to be given important jobs, but junior Ministers are appointed and are part of the Government. When they make mistakes they are accountable, and sometimes the Government are embarrassed by their errors and discreetly get rid of them, so a junior Minister would be responsible for making sensible decisions. After all, junior Ministers sit in the House, and it would be wrong in principle if the Government, in producing the legislation, were prepared to hand over a very important task to a senior official "of or above Grade 3"—a description which smacks of "Brave New World".
        My amendment No. 95 simply places an obligation on the elected Government Ministers of the day to carry out the duty which they consider to be so important. I hope that my modest attempts to improve the Bill—which I do not like very much—will lead the Minister to recognise the attempts by the Committee to improve the degree of accountability and accept the amendments. That would save the time of the Committee.
        Mr. Aitken: I support the amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I support the principle that he enunciated of the desirability of having the judiciary rather than the Home Secretary in charge of the warrants. I shall not develop the same theme, because, given my views on the possible lack of infallibility of the Secretary of State, it is obvious that I should support it.
        I wish to develop the argument that was touched on by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) relating to the issue of warrants by the Secretary of State. We already know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have the strictest possible instructions not to make any concessions towards accepting any amendment so that the dreaded thought of a Report stage must be avoided at all costs. No matter how badly the Bill is drafted or how awful a dent is being made in our civil liberties, no amendments are to be conceded. However, I think that I have found a
        262
        classic example of how MI5, the drafters of the Bill, have shot themselves in the foot disastrously and will have to amend the Bill.
        Clause 3(3) deals with the issuing of a warrant. It states:
        "A warrant shall not be issued under this section except—

        (a) under the hand of the Secretary of State: or

        (b) in an urgent case where the Secretary of State has expressly authorised its issue".

        Presumably, when the Secretary of State is in the north of Scotland, he can authorise a warrant by telephone and an official in his Deprtment can sign it.
        The problem is that that scenario concentrates all warrant authorisation by signature or on the telephone exclusively and entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State. That is unworkable as there will be many occasions when the security services need a warrant quite quickly and the Secretary of State is unobtainable. For example, I understand that the Secretary of State is to visit the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is a semi-official visit, but knowing something of the hospitality there, I have no doubt that his schedule will include some up-country trips, perhaps a spot of falconry in the desert or some camping miles away from telephones or possible communication with the office in London. There could be many such occasions in the Secretary of State's life. He could be on holiday, swimming in the sea out of range of a telephone, or he could be ill or incapacitated.
        Mr. Maclennan: I wish that I could believe that the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) has discovered such a flaw, but it is a canon of statutory interpretation that use of the phrase "Secretary of State" does not confine itself to any particular Secretary of State. If, as he suggests, the Secretary of State for the Home Department is unavailable, the Bill empowers the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Secretary of State for Scotland, or another, to fulfil the task.
        10.45 pm
        Mr. Aitken: I know that that has been past practice. It is well known that, when seeking warrants, the security services have often called upon what might be called the weakest link in the chain—the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or the Secretary of State with responsibility for drains, as being the last man in Whitehall on a Friday afternoon, because he does not have a clue about what goes on and can be counted on briskly to sign the authorisation.
        Mr. Allason: I cannot believe that other Secretaries of State are authorised to sign warrants. In the past, and under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, it has been the practice to identify the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It will be improper if other Secretaries of State, who are not aware of the background, consider the detailed submissions that must be made to obtain a warrant.
        Mr. Aitken: No doubt the Minister will elucidate that point, but the Bill appears to give no scope for any person other than the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to whom the Bill refers throughout as the Home Secretary, and who is responsible for oversight and monitoring supervision, to sign warrants.
        I am baffled by the notion that the Secretary of State for the Home Department will not, in any circumstances, take a day off. If that is so—and clause 3(3) reads that way—it reveals a defect in the arrangements. Clearly, although

        263
        the Home Secretary has summoned up for himself amazing powers of oversight and monitoring, he cannot be everlastingly omnipresent and eternally vigilant so as to authorise warrants.
        I suggest that an amendment must be made to allow Secretaries of State—in the plural—to authorise warrants. It would be preferable if the judiciary, who are plural, did so. I hope that the point made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) concerning the canon of interpretation is not valid. As I read the Bill, it contains a defect, and the provision for issuing warrants will have to be amended.
        Mr. Menzies Campbell: I wish to speak briefly in support of amendments Nos. 56, 58 and 59, which were eloquently and persuasively spoken to by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). However, I do so with reservations, because amendment No. 58 refers to
        "an order of a Judge of the High Court",
        which I interpret to mean an English High Court judge.
        We have within the United Kingdom one other separate legal jurisdiction. In circumstances in which an application relating to Scotland is made by the Solicitor-General—leaving aside the question of whether or not it should be the Solicitor-General for Scotland—it is only right and proper that it should be made to a judge within the Scottish jurisdiction; whether of the Court of Session or of the High Court of Justiciary is something we need not debate this evening. That can easily be corrected at a later stage in the Bill's progress.
        We are concerned with a matter of principle. Where the innovation of one's personal rights, whether in respect of liberty of property, is to be justified by the issuing of warrants, it is only right and proper that the warrant by which such enervation takes place should be issued by a source that can have no interest in the consequential outcome. Judges, for all their faults, have long been more effective guardians of the freedom of United Kingdom citizens. It was not a Secretary of State who said:
        "Be you ever so high the law is above you."
        Had we had to rely on Secretaries of State to protect our personal liberties, I suspect that those personal liberties would have been in a far less effective and vibrant condition than they are today.
        Mr. Buchan: I believe that the interpretation of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was right: normally "the Secretary of State" means "any Secretary of State", which is even more appalling. The element of secrecy surrounding the Bill, and the fact that there is no scrutiny Committee with any public responsibility or accountability, but that all is left in the hands of the Home Secretary—who may be missing—and the Prime Minister, mean that if the one person who is being reported to in any detail on the workings of the Security Service is missing, an entirely unknown Secretary of State, for example, the Minister of Agriculture, may sign the warrant.
        Mr. Aitken: I am fascinated by all the constitutional experts who are popping up on the Opposition Benches. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will clarify the matter a little further. If the words "the Secretary of State" can mean "any Secretary of State", does that apply throughout the
        264
        Bill? Can the director-general be appointed by any Secretary of State, or the monitoring be done by any Secretary of State? Are all Secretaries of State transferable?
        Mr. Buchan: I think that legally the short answer is yes. The practical, empirical answer is of course no, but I think that that is the case unless it is written into the appropriate clause that the Secretary of State referred to is the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is very common: agriculture Bills tend to refer to the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland. If that definition is not given, what I have described could happen.
        Whether it happens or not, however, the position remains serious. We said yesterday that the whole apparatus of grim secrecy will be left in the hands of only one accountable person in Parliament—the Home Secretary, reporting to the Prime Minister. The director-general, and his position in relation to the Home Secretary, makes the thing even more private, even more secret and even more dangerous.
        It would be better if the wording were clarified, but of course the Government do not want to clarify it now. Many defects have been pointed out in the past two days, but the Government have dodged them all. Earlier this evening we saw an astonishing phenomenon whereby Conservative Members accepted the main burden of the argument put forward in the form of a statement by the Home Secretary, but there was no offer to bring it into legislation. They are afraid of the tiniest amendment because they do not want to come back to the Bill on Report, when more thought could be given to it.
        Mr. Cryer: What my hon. Friend has said suggests that any Secretary of State can ring up an official and say, "I expressly authorise a warrant." The official jots it down and then simply says, "The Minister of Agriculture happened to ring this morning and issued a warrant, which I endorse under my hand", and that fulfils the purpose of subsection (3)(b).
        Mr. Buchan: In some circumstances I think that that could be the legislative and technical position, but we shall find out shortly from the Dispatch Box. In practical terms it would not be the case, because there would already be a working arrangement between the Secretary of State, that curious group of people MI5, and the various ancillaries.
        Of course, it would be better if the matter were in the hands of a judge—if the judiciary in one form or another had given its imprimatur. But do not let us be too confident about that either. It was a head under a wig that made that infamous declaration in the Ponting case that the interests of the state were synonymous with those of the Government of the day. Incidentally, it is a terrible indictment of parliamentary democracy that we must lean on judges rather than on this place to try to save our democracy and freedom, and I understand why hon. Members say that accountability should be secured by a Committee of the House. It was, for example, a judge—the Lord Advocate-who signed the warrant to allow the invasion of the Scottish BBC, over the Zircon case—another entirely unnecessary and dangerous invasion of our freedoms.
        Mr. Menzies Campbell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will recall that the Lord Advocate was a Minister, but it was a Scottish judge who regarded the first warrant as incompetent and reduced it.
        Mr. Buchan: I withdraw what I said. The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. The judge rejected it as being a portmanteau warrant and therefore improper.
        I believe that the amendments put forward by two Conservative Members and supported by members of the SDP—or whatever strange name they call themselves nowadays—should be supported. It takes a lot for me to say that. The Government knew they were wrong throughout the debates yesterday and today. It was clear they knew they were wrong. They did not seem prepared to make the slightest amendment. Have some courage. Say yes.
        Mr. Harry Cohen: I shall be brief as I do not wish to delay the Committee too much longer. I raised this issue on Second Reading, but the Minister did not respond. I want to give him a chance to do so because it raises serious implications. As we are discussing warrants, there is an opportunity legitimately to raise this matter. Under this legislation there will be warrants authorising breaking and entering and burglary, allegedly in the interests of the state. Under the Bill, burglary would become legal. In those circumstances, what I described on Second Reading as the "Hilda Murrell" implications arise. We should have some answers from the Minister about those implications.
        What if the home-owner comes home and finds the warranted burglar, for want of a better word—it might not even be an MI5 man in these days of privatisation, as the job might have been contracted out to somebody—in his or her home and resists? That is not a hypothetical question. When people find burglars in their home they tend to resist. Many people put up a fight in defence of their property. What orders will the warranted burglar or MIS man have in those circumstances? Can the Minister tell us? What will the MIS man say in those circumstances? It is an important point and it has further implications. Ordinary burglars who are not MI5 men might say, if caught in the act, "I am doing it for MI5." What is the situation?
        What if the warranted burglar assaults the homeowner? Will he be subject to prosecution? Will the police have a role, or will they be told that they have to cover up for MI5 because it is secret and in the national interest? If the home-owner is injured, will he be eligible to claim compensation? In general, if home-owners are hurt they can claim from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. How will a home-owner go about seeking compensation in these circumstances? What if the home-owner assaults the warranted intruder? Will the home-owner then be prosecuted? Will he be punished or will he be left not knowing what is going on, perhaps waiting in fear for some sort of revenge from the burglar because he got the best of the issue?
        What will happen in such cases? The ensuing struggle might result in murder. What happens if the warranted burglar—the MI5 man—murders the home-owner? Will the matter ever come to court? Will it ever come out into the open? What will happen in those circumstances?
        266
        Conversely, what happens if the home-owner murders the MI5 man? Will he be quietly bumped off or will he be taken to court?
        The Government are making a new law with all those implications. They are not hypothetical questions. What is the position in law? The Government should tell us.
        11 pm
        Mr. John Patten: What an interesting debate this has been. It started quietly when my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) opened the batting for himself and his hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). I appreciate their concern for democracy and for the individual, but they can be met in a number of different ways and in the end one has to judge which is the best.
        First, let me deal with judicial intervention in the warrant-making process, which is where my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills began. Then I shall deal with the interesting and important points raised by the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South on the meaning of the words "Secretary of State" in the authorisation of warrants. Last but not least, I shall deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), which he also made on Second reading at column 1174 of Hansard, to which I was unable to respond due to pressure of time.
        The proposals on the role of the judiciary in the warrant-making process are not practicable in the context of Britain. It is always as well to begin with one's own country rather than some theoretical situation. The amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills propose a two-stage procedure involving approval by the Solicitor-General and a submission in writing to a High Court judge. Let us remember that in Britain the terrorist threat may be rather different from that in many other countries, as hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise. Matters may be extremely urgent. Terrorists do not wait for legal procedures to be completed before they act. We all recognise that.
        Therefore, it is essential to be able to deal with applications for warrants as quickly as possible. If we adopted some scheme for judicial intervention such as that put forward by my hon. Friends, argument would be on the basis of written papers. The judge might have no previous understanding of or experience in Security Service issues. He will have to make a first judgment on issues that have never been before him. [HON. MEMBERS: "So will the Secretary of State."] But Secretaries of State will at least—it is an important at least—have had considerable briefing on the Security Service and how ii: works. The judge will have had no previous experience in the consideration of Security Service work, or knowledge of the policy or background to the work. It is then up to the learned judge, according to my hon. Friends' amendment, to authorise individuals to obtain information and to do anything listed in subsection (3) of amendment No. 59. Moreover, the judge becomes involved in operational issues. I do not know whether that is my hon. Friend's design. He may set such terms and conditions as he considers advisable in the public interest.

        267
        What is the director-general to do if he finds that the warrant has allowed an operation to take place in theory but that it has been frustrated in practice because of the way in which judicial intervention has worked, because of pre-conditions laid down by the learned judge, or because of the value judgments made by the judge that some members of the service might have been placed at considerable personal risk? Those are important considerations.
        Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am charmed by my hon. Friend's hypotheses, but surely that is all that they can be. He has not produced any evidence to suggest that his hypotheses have any bearing in fact. For some time now, some of us have contended that our proposals are based on the statutory provisions of a country that shares our concepts of the rule of law, parliamentary democracy and ministerial responsibility and a judicial system not unlike our own. The Canadians have not had the hypothetical difficulties that my hon. Friend mentioned. The Canadians have to deal with terrorism too. They have had to deal with separatists—although the terrorist problem may not have been of the same dimension as ours—and they are part of the international community. An Air India aircraft originating from Canada was lost through terrorist activity.
        We are trying to bring to the Minister's attention the fact that there is substantial evidence to show that the Canadian system works. He may go off on a detour about hypotheses and say that people in this country are too foolish and that our situation is so special that such matters cannot be understood. The Home Secretary said that cloth that is woven anywhere other than in Whitehall is not relevant.
        Mr. Patten: I make no apology for speaking hypothetically, any more than my hon. Friend has. We are both speaking hypothetically about the possible adoption by this Government, or some other, of the proposals in amendment No. 56.
        Mr. Menzies Campbell rose—
        Mr. Patten: May I address myself first to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills before I give way? We have to deal with what may happen, so we are both speaking hypothetically. I had not, especially, wanted to discuss the Canadian system because I intend my remarks to be informed by the British experience. However, unfortunately from our point of view, it seems that in Canada—and I have looked into this too—it can take up to two days to achieve a judicial warrant. On some occasions, two days would not matter, but on others, when there was a serious terrorist threat, two days would matter.
        Mr. Menzies Campbell: I apologise if, through an excess of zeal, I appeared to be interrupting the Minister when he was answering another hon. Member.
        Will the Minister leave aside the hypotheses for a moment and address himself to the principle, about which hon. Members feel most strongly? Does he accept that, as the security services are an arm of the Executive, it is only right and proper, if they are to be authorised to commit what would otherwise be illegal acts, that the authorisation should come from the judiciary and not from the Executive?
        Mr. Patten: I do not accept that. In the context of the threats that we face in this country and the long-established roles of the judiciary and the Executive, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman, with his considerable experience in the law-albeit north of the border—has referred—[HON. MEMBERS: "There is nothing wrong with that."] I agree that there is nothing wrong with that. I did not realise that I had touched a raw nerve. The judiciary should not become involved in the day-to-day operational decisions of the Security Service. When one considers the threats that this country faces, one realises that to take decisions about warrants requires an appreciation of the overall objectives of the Security Service and the considerations relating to the well-being and security of this country.
        The judiciary could not reasonably be expected to assume such major operational responsibilities. It has been the theme of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself that such responsibilities are, properly, for Ministers. The system that is proposed in the Bill, with the additional protections given by the tribunal and the commissioner, is, I would point out to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), an effective way to protect the interests of the nation as a whole.
        I shall now deal with the interesting point, which was raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South and referred to by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, about the system for signing warrants.
        Our present system is a very good one. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is assiduous in his duties. He is not normally unobtainable, and I can tell the House—as a matter of the free dissemination of information—that neither falconry nor camping will be part of my hon. Friend's programme during his forthcoming visit to Saudi Arabia.
        All these points stem from the constitutional doctrine that any Secretary of State can carry out the functions conferred upon a Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland put his finger on it; he was quite right. It is nevertheless fanciful to suggest that the appointment of the director-general or the oversight of the service will be carried out by anyone other than my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South raised some important points, but I can confirm that the judgment of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland was right. Let me explain what would happen in the process. If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is fully informed while he is away from the office of the reasons why a warrant should be granted, he can give a civil servant of grade 3 or above the authority to sign the warrant. He can do that by his own direct personal authority. But that signature remains valid only for two days and the warrant can be renewed only over the hand of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Incidentally, I share the view of the hon. Member for Bradford, South, who said that he deplored the new description "grade 3". I rather liked the old phrase "under-secretary". Perhaps they will all be given numbers shortly.
        I have described what will happen when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is available. It is quite clear that another Secretary of State could authorise a warrant under the Bill—the point raised by the hon. Member for

        269
        Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan)—but it is nonsense to suggest that a Secretary of State will be authorised to sign warrants without any background knowledge. It will not surprise the Committee to learn that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is closely involved in these matters, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is also involved. I remind the House that the language used in the Bill is exactly the same as that used in the Interception of Communications Act 1985. There is no change.
        Mr. Maclennan: May we clarify the procedure? Suppose that the Home Secretary is in Saudi Arabia—not indulging in falconry but nevertheless unavailable to receive the intelligence from the Security Service that a particular matter requires the issue of a warrant. The Security Service will then have to convey that information to another Secretary of State; perhaps the Secretary of State for the Environment will be the only one available. As I understand the clause, an official of above grade 3 at the Department of the Environment would have to issue the warrant in the absence of the Home Secretary. I do not regard that rather bizarre set of circumstances as entirely fanciful. It is perfectly clear that from time to time the Ministers who are in touch with these matters and aware of the background are simply not available.
        Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman is not usually known in the House for his flights of fancy, although he is known for many other things. Before his lengthy intervention, which turned into a speech, I said that that it was the other Secretaries of State concerned with security issues—for example, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—who would properly have an interest in these matters from time to time.
        I come to the points raised by the hon. Member for Leyton. Although I think that I can give him a clear assurance, if he does not mind I shall not refer to the case of Hilda Murrell because I am not aware of it, and in any event I should not wish to comment on a past case. However, I can give the hon. Gentleman a cast-iron assurance that only activities that are legal and properly authorised will be carried out by the service. All that a warrant can authorise is action in respect of a named property, and both the action and the name of the property must be on the warrant. In no circumstances can a warrant authorise any attack on or interference with a person—that is no part of the service's task. So if, in the purely hypothetical case that was put to me by the hon. Member for Leyton, the owner resisted, he or she would be in exactly the same position as anyone else if he or she reasonably believed that the person entering was an intruder acting unlawfully.
        With that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Member for Leyton, other hon. Gentlemen and some of my hon. Friends will not seek to press their points in the Lobbies.
        11.15 pm
        Mr. Cryer: An amendment that was designed simply to ensure greater ministerial accountability has developed a little. From subsection 3(3) it now appears that any Secretary of State can authorise a warrant. The hon. Gentlemen who pointed that out were quite right because the particular Secretary of State is not defined. Moreover, any Secretary of State can not only authorise a warrant; he can authorise a warrant over the telephone to an official
        270
        above grade 3. The official then takes down a message, saying that the Secretary of State, or rather in this case the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, authorises a warrant for entering an intervention store. Under paragraph 3(3)(b) the note by the official accompanies the issue of the warrant.
        It may turn out that the Secretary of State did not make that authorisation, but that the official misheard what he said over the telephone. That sort of arrangement is permissible and authorised under the Bill. Therefore, under the Bill the Secretary of State does not have to write anything for a warrant to be issued—an official can simply take down a note.
        The Minister said that issuing a warrant involves a Secretary of State who is concerned with security issues—
        Mr. John Patten: It could.
        Mr. Cryer: Yes, it could, but the Minister actually said "concerned with security issues". That would be in the ordinary run of the mill, but that is not what the Bill states. It states "the Secretary of State". Curiously, paragraph 3(3)(b) does not state "where a Secretary of State has expressly authorised its issue", it states
        "where the Secretary of State has expressly authorised its issue".
        I suspect that those who drafted the Bill were not too sure about the position and drafted it in a general and sloppy way so that they could invoke anybody, if they so chose, without any criticism being directed at them.
        I have used the example of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If any hon. Member tables a question about the intervention stores in this country, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will not reveal where they are because it is a secret. Therefore, it could be legitimately argued that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is concerned with security issues because his Department has to hide all the locations of the cereal intervention stores. If somebody finds out that inside one of the intervention stores there are supposed to be cereals, but that instead it contains rotten apples, and. if the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food needs to find out that information—
        The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman is very amusing, but he is straying from the amendment.
        Mr. Cryer: My amendment No. 95 in fact requires a junior Minister to issue a warrant, and would exclude an official having anything to do with it.
        The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must keep to the point of the issue of the warrant.
        Mr. Cryer: I am absolutely with it. The point I am making is that the reasons that could be advanced for the issue of a warrant from a Department, which seem on the face of it highly unlikely, are actually a possibility in reality, because of the curious way in which we keep those intervention boards secret. Therefore, the Minister might argue that it is necessary to obtain a warrant and evidence that the secret of an intervention store is coming out.
        Mr. Buchan: Can I draw my hon. Friend's attention to clause 1(3), because we have been mystified up to now—
        The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The Committee has disposed of clause 1
        Mr. Buchan: It is completely relevant to this.
        The Second Deputy Chairman: It may be relevant, but the Committee has dealt with clause 1, with respect, and I must remind the hon. Gentleman—
        Mr. Buchan: Can I—
        The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I want to be reasonable about this, but the Committee has dealt with clause 1—that has gone.
        Mr. Buchan: It is precisely because we have dealt with it that it becomes relevant to this section. Clause 1(3) refers to problems posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands, which is precisely the point that my hon. Friend is making about intervention stocks in this country, because they could have come from Belgium, Holland or France and they could be on the fiddle.
        The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The amendment deals strictly with the warrant and not with any intervention stores. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) had come back to the point of the amendment, and perhaps he would now pursue that.
        Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is saying that the issue of a warrant could be justified under clause 1(3), and it is the issue of the warrant about which we are concerned. I entirely accept, Miss Boothroyd, your injunction to keep to the point of the warrant, but the issue of the warrant is so vague. If it was an issue for a warrant to pop on a box of chocolates to say that it was approved by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or whatever, we would not be too concerned, but we are talking about a warrant that authorises burglary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said, it is a warrant that authorises burglary with the possible consequence of people being injured. We believe that Hilda Murrell was killed by the security services. She was frightened, they were probably frightened, too, and something went terribly awry and she finished up dead.
        We are talking about something that is extremely important, yet here we have a set of circumstances laid down in this Bill. At the end of the day, whatever the Minister says, it will not be a question of what is contained in Hansard. The words of the Bill will define the procedure to be undertaken. We are saying that this procedure is sloppy and that it has no adequate definition. If the Minister says that it has been done in the interception of communications legislation, I was not in the House at that time—no doubt missed greatly for the scrutiny that I can apply. This is new legislation on something which this House has never done before—the right physically to enter other people's property and to carry out what in every other case would be a serious criminal offence, with a possible penalty of several years' imprisonment.
        I believe that the Minister should reconsider this, because it is a serious set of circumstances when any Secretary of State can authorise a warrant. It is no good the Minister saying that, of course, in practice it would not be any other Minister;, the fact is that under this legislation it apparently can be any other Secretary of State. The Minister is, in effect, saying that we are giving powers to every Secretary of State of every Department to issue warrants. That Minister will not be there all the time. We could have more nefarious, unscrupulous or ignorant
        272
        Ministers— [HON. MEMBERS: "Or Labour Ministers."] Labour will get rid of this licence for Ministers to authorise burglary and bugging. It is outrageous.
        The Bill does not depend on assurances from the Minister that its remit will be confined. Once the Bill is passed the power is handed over to be applied by any Minister who happens to be appointed at the time. Although the Minister of State may give us genuine, fond assurances that that power will be concerned for paltry accountability, and all the other platitudes that Ministers tumble out from time to time, we are worried about the law that is laid down in the Bill.
        As we understand it, any Secretary of State can authorise a warrant for burglary under the Bill. Consequently, a Secretary of State does not have to write anything to issue a warrant. He simply must say to someone, either directly, over the telephone or by other means, "Yes, I authorise you to issue a warrant." It could be that the Secretary of State's intention is distorted by a bleep in the electronic communications. The official may write down that the warrant is issued, whereas the Secretary of State said "The warrant is not issued." The official, in good faith, writes down that that warrant is authorised and it is then issued. It is absolutely incredible that such legislation is being pursued in the House.
        Do the Government have the same standards when issuing regulations for social security benefits? No, they do not. When the Government are dealing with social security benefit legislation they lay down page after page of careful drafting. There are regulations on every detail and schedules to ensure that the poor and wretched do not get a penny more than they are authorised to receive.
        If the Minister is doing something serious that authorises potentially criminal activity, he should, at least, be as careful in the primary legislation, as the Government are in other legislation on social security and other activities. That is not the case with the Bill. The Government are guilty of shoddiness because, once the Bill is passed, it will not come back to Parliament. It is true that there will be a parliamentary report from the commissioner, but there are no guarantees that it will be debated.
        Behind closed doors there will be lots of telephoning and mistaken messages will be recorded. All that will be covered up. Officials may be told that MAFF authorised a warrant, but that it did not mean to and that it wants that warrant to be returned. The reply to the Ministry may well be, "Sorry, we have done the burglary." The outcome will be "Hard lines. It is just one of those things."
        Nothing will be brought back to Parliament. That is not good enough and the Minister should be decent enough to issue a statement tonight to the effect that the Government will have another look at this matter and clarify the Bill to ensure that there is no mistake.
        Given that important and potentially dangerous powers are to be authorised, we should, at least, have some sort of clarity in the legislation. If the Minister is unable to obtain such clarification from the Home Department, he should go to the Department of Social Security, because it has had lots of practice at issuing clear legislation to stop the poorest in the land getting an extra penny. The Minister should bring such scrutiny to bear on the Bill.
        Mr. Maclennan: As the debate has progressed, the case for the judicial issue of the warrants has become stronger.

        273
        My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) asked the Minister whether he accepted the principle of judicial warrants. The Minister said that he did not because he believed that the person who issued the warrant should have some understanding of the background to the Security Service and the matters in hand. It has become clear from the debate that the Bill does not provide for that. It is clear that any Secretary of State may issue a warrant, not just the Secretary of State with responsibility for the Security Service. Worse, in an emergency the Secretary of State in question may not even be consulted. If the service judges that there is an emergency which requires the issue of a warrant, the Bill entitles it to shop around for a Secretary of State who is favourable to issuing one. It can then be issued by an under-secretary. That is not fanciful—it is farcical. It is an unacceptable intrusion on fundamental rights and freedoms, and the Bill entitles the Security Service to make that intrusion.
        11.30 pm
        The emergency provisions in clause 3(3), which amendment No. 59 seeks to tackle more satisfactorily, are not acceptable. The implication that a court cannot move with the rapidity of a Minister is not sustainable either. The courts are accustomed to keeping duty judges sitting for just such eventualities, and it is perfectly possible to ensure that duty judges—High Court judges, or judges of equivalent status in Scotland—are on hand at all times. It would be easier to do that than to ensure that a Minister of the appropriate level was always on hand. In the nature of things, Secretaries of State are called to perform many duties, and it is highly improbable that there will always be a Minister familiar with the workings of the Security Service at this level when one is needed.
        I hope that the Minister will eschew his position to the proposals on the grounds of practicality. Not only is it practical to operate a system of judicial warrants in this country, but such a system has been successfully operated in Canada and no one has ever suggested that it put the Canadian security service at risk or rendered its operations less effective.
        Ms. Abbott: Clause 3 is subtitled "Warrants". It should be titled, in the immortal words of Peter Wright, "Bugging and Burgling." It is about the conditions under which the Security Service can break the law. It is because it is about the power and capacity of the Security Service to break the law and intervene in the lives of ordinary people that I support the amendments.
        I listened with great attention to the Minister's explanation of why the amendments should not be accepted. It is always a pleasure to hear him lecture us on the facts of political life with his usual confidence, verve, elan and panache, but I suggest in all timidity that he did not quite meet the case. The Minister made three points with which my hon. Friends and I might differ. He accused the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) of making a hypothetical case, but the case was based on Canadian experience and was thus grounded in fact. It was the Minister's case that was hypothetical. He claimed that the problem with the Canadian system was that it might take up to two days. We do not accept that. We are quite sure that in urgent cases the judiciary could move more quickly than that. There are plenty of examples of judges being whipped from their beds to issue warrants.
        274
        The Minister claimed that the considered, careful and precise drafting of the amendment was not necessary because there would be a tribunal and a commissioner. The Minister has missed the point. The tribunal and the commissioner can come into play only after the bugging and burglary have taken place. The amendment seeks to make sure that before any elaborate illegality takes place the matter has gone through the due judicial process. Given the power and the capacity of the security services to break the law, intervention by the judiciary is not only necessary but appropriate. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Minister can be prevailed upon to change his opinion of the reasonable amendments that have been tabled.
        Mr. Aitken: I intervene to press my hon. Friend the Minister for a more convincing explanation of the procedure on the warrants as it affects the Secretary of State. I maintained in an earlier intervention that clause 3(3) is clearly directed at the Secretary of State, meaning the Home Secretary only. After a great deal of scribbling and passing of notes backwards and forwards between the Minister and his advisers and a little help from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) who is so learned in the law, it emerged that "Secretary of State" can mean any Secretary of State. So be it: we must respect the views of constitutional and legal experts.
        If that is the case, why on earth has the drafter of the Bill put in paragraph (b)? There is now an elaborate procedure for urgent cases by which grade 3 civil servants can have telephone instructions and can get two-day endorsements. Why is paragraph (b) necessary if any old Secretary of State can sign the warrant? My hon. Friend's position does not make too much sense if the Bill was drafted as correctly and as perfectly as he would have us believe. If "Secretary of State" means any Secretary of State, the procedure is simple and a warrant can be signed in many places in Whitehall. If that is the case we do not need the complex machinery of endorsements lasting two days made by grade 3 officials. Either that is the case or, as I suspected all along, the clause, like many others in the Bill, has been badly drafted. I press my hon. Friend for a better explanation than the one that he has given.
        Mr. John Patten: The explanation that I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) will be in Hansard for him to read. Tomorrow, when he gets the chance to reflect upon it, he will recognise that the system provides for complete overall supervision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Bill provides that in an emergency another Secretary of State, normally as I explained the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or the Secretary of State for Scotland, would have a hand in this. In addition, an under-secretary of state or deputy under-secretary of state who might take instructions by telephone about these issues on the personal authorisation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, would be a Home Department official.
        Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend cannot be allowed to get away with this so easily. Perhaps I could use a cricketing analogy. We have heard about a wicket keeper, a deputy wicket keeper and a long stop. We have never heard of a Bill in which 11 long stops are easily obtainable. Not only

        275
        can the warrants be signed by all Secretaries of State, but by many civil servants. Will my hon. Friend accept that this should be tidied up in another place?
        Mr. Allason: The Minister has made the extraordinary claim that any Secretary of State can sign one of these warrants. In the past these warrants have been signed, for example, in Scotland by the Secretary of State for Scotland and in Northern Ireland by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The procedure is detailed in the interception of communications legislation, on which this provision is clearly based. But the idea that in an emergency another Secretary of State could examine the detailed submissions that must be made before a warrant is granted is absolutely bizarre and I hope my hon. Friend will take this opportunity to correct himself.
        Ms. Abbott: The Minister said that there could not be judicial intervention in the signing of warrants because the judiciary would not have the expertise and briefing available to the Home Secretary. We are now being told that any Secretary of State—be he responsible for taxi cabs, agriculture and fisheries or whatever—will do. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that that contradicts his earlier statement that only the Home Secretary or a Minister in the Home Office with expertise could perform this task.
        Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am surprised that the debate on this issue has gone on for so long without the Minister really answering the point that has been adduced. I understand this to be simply a drafting matter. Whereas, in the past, in legislation specific Ministers were named, a point came when the Prime Minister wished to reallocate responsibilities and problems arose. So it has become a convention in recent legislation to refer to the Secretary of State and for the duties of a particular Secretary of State to be authorised from time to time by the Prime Minister. It seems that this legislation is simply following that convention. The Minister might have told us that at a much earlier stage.
        Mr. Tony Banks: Having been absent from the Committee for only a short while this evening, I return to find the Mad Hatter's tea party in progress. Will the Minister explain whether there are any parallels in legislation that would explain the situation that is giving rise to so much concern in the Committee?
        Mr. Maclennan: The mystery of the Minister's reluctance to answer the questions that have been put to him can be explained by recognising that he is endeavouring to retain the absolutely unfettered freedom of the Security Service to obtain warrants and to be in no way trammelled by the non-availability of a Minister.
        We recognise that urgency is an important factor, but the Minister cannot at the same time argue for urgency and for experts being available. Ministers with knowledge and background will not always be available. The Security Service will have to seek warrants from time to time without being able to adduce arguments with the support of a Minister with such expertise. The Minister has, by his reluctance to address this point, shot down his earlier argument that this had to be done by people with expertise and could not be done by a judge.
        Mr. Aitken: I have a final suggestion, it having now been revealed that a complex safeguarding of civil rights procedure is not involved in the issuing of warrants. Indeed, warrants can be instantly available. In this building there is an efficient organisation which, among other things, issues rail warrants. It is called the Fees Office. Would it not be simpler to put the Fees Office in charge of issuing these warrants on behalf of the Security Service, thereby solving the problem?
        Question put,That the amendment be made:
        The Committee divided: Ayes 50, Noes 180.

        Division No. 36]

        [11.44 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Livsey, Richard

        Aitken, Jonathan

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Alton, David

        Macdonald, Calum A.

        Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

        McFall, John

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        McTaggart, Bob

        Beith, A. J.

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

        Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

        Boateng, Paul

        Martlew, Eric

        Bradley, Keith

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Buchan, Norman

        Morley, Elliott

        Buckley, George J.

        Nellist, Dave

        Cohen, Harry

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Cryer, Bob

        Skinner, Dennis

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

        Spearing, Nigel

        Douglas, Dick

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Strang, Gavin

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Fyfe, Maria

        Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

        Gordon, Mildred

        Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

        Hardy, Peter

        Winnick, David

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Wray, Jimmy

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Kennedy, Charles

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Mr. Robert Maclennan and

        Leadbitter, Ted

        Mr. Menzies Campbell.

        NOES

        Allason, Rupert

        Fishburn, John Dudley

        Arbuthnot, James

        Fookes, Dame Janet

        Beggs, Roy

        Forman, Nigel

        Boswell, Tim

        Forth, Eric

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Franks, Cecil

        Bowis, John

        Freeman, Roger

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        French, Douglas

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

        Fry, Peter

        Burns, Simon

        Gale, Roger

        Butcher, John

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Butler, Chris

        Gill, Christopher

        Butterfill, John

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Carrington, Matthew

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Cash, William

        Gow, Ian

        Chapman, Sydney

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Chope, Christopher

        Gregory, Conal

        Churchill, Mr

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Grist, Ian

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Cope, Rt Hon John

        Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

        Couchman, James

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Cran, James

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

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

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

        Harris, David

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Hayes, Jerry

        Devlin, Tim

        Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

        Dicks, Terry

        Hayward, Robert

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Heddle, John

        Dover, Den

        Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

        Durant, Tony

        Hill, James

        Evennett, David

        Hind, Kenneth

        Favell, Tony

        Holt, Richard

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Howard, Michael

        277

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

        Raffan, Keith

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Redwood, John

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Riddick, Graham

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

        Hunter, Andrew

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Jack, Michael

        Ross, William (Londonderry E)

        Jackson, Robert

        Ryder, Richard

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Knapman, Roger

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Lang, Ian

        Speed, Keith

        Latham, Michael

        Speller, Tony

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Squire, Robin

        Lightbown, David

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Lilley, Peter

        Stern, Michael

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Stevens, Lewis

        Lord, Michael

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Lyell, Sir Nicholas

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Macfarlane, Sir Neil

        Sumberg, David

        Maclean, David

        Summerson, Hugo

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Malins, Humfrey

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Mans, Keith

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Marland, Paul

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Thurnham, Peter

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Mills, Iain

        Tracey, Richard

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Tredinnick, David

        Mitchell, Sir David

        Trippier, David

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Trotter, Neville

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Moss, Malcolm

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Neale, Gerrard

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Nelson, Anthony

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Neubert, Michael

        Warren, Kenneth

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Watts, John

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Wells, Bowen

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Wheeler, John

        Norris, Steve

        Whitney, Ray

        Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Wilkinson, John

        Page, Richard

        Wilshire, David

        Paice, James

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Patten, John (Oxford W)

        Winterton, Nicholas

        Pawsey, James

        Wood, Timothy

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Yeo, Tim

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Portillo, Michael

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Mr. John M. Taylor and

        Price, Sir David

        Mr. Michael Fallon.

        Question accordingly negatived.
        Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No.84, in page 3, line 4, at end add—
        '(8) Where any individual reports to the police any event which appear to be criminal, and where the police are satisfied prima facie evidence of a crime exists, they shall inform the individual if no crime has been committed because the events were permitted under a warrant issued under this act by the Secretary of State; and shall inform the individual of his rights to have the matter investigated by a tribunal as specified in Schedule 1 to this Act.'
        When speaking to the last group of amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) referred to a situation that I want the Minister to address—[Interruption.]
        The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I shall be grateful if right hon. and hon. Members leaving the Chamber will do so quietly, so that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) can be heard.
        Mr. Bennett: In the previous debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton referred to a problem that amendment No. 84 is designed to overcome, where something goes wrong with the activities of the Security Service. Clearly, the main purpose of warrants will be to undertake burglary or bugging, in such a way that the individual whose property is burgled or whose telephones are tapped will not know of it.
        If such activities are successfully undertaken, the individual is unlikely to know of them and to be in a position to complain. However, if something goes wrong, the individual will be left in considerable doubt as to what has happened. The purpose of amendment No. 84 is to ensure that the individual is given a clear statement that what he believed to be a criminal offence was not criminal but something authorised by the Home Secretary—and that as a result, he has a right, under schedule 1 to the Act, to appeal to the tribunal for redress.—[Interruption.]
        The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. It is very difficult for the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish to be heard. If right hon. and hon. Members at the Bar wish to continue their conversations, I shall appreciate it if they will do so on the other side of the swing doors, so that those of us who are involved in the Committee can hear the proceedings.
        Mr. Bennett: I am grateful to you, Miss Boothroyd.
        If a security operation goes wrong and the individual concerned discovers that his property has been burgled or bugged and makes a complaint to the police, they should be able quickly to establish that it was done under the Home Secretary's warrant. In those circumstances, the police should inform the individual accordingly. If a person returns to his property and discovers an intruder whom he then detains or arrests and hands over to the police, it will be most unsatisfactory if the police allow that intruder to go free without giving the victim an explanation and the information that the intruder is a member of the Security Service.
        I hope that the Minister will make it clear that, where an individual discovers that his property has been burgled or bugged and complains, he will be informed of the warrant and of his right to complain to the tribunal.
        Mr. John Patten: Sadly, the amendment would provide a ready means for anyone who suspected that the Security Service had discovered his or her activities to check, through the police, whether a property warrant existed in respect of any property in which he or she had an interest. I rather doubt that the hon. Gentleman meant that to be the effect of the amendment, but that would be its effect in practice. For example, a spy or terrorist would have a ready-made route to finding out as promptly as possible whether he was under surveillance. The Bill, however, contains a ready-made route for a citizen who feels aggrieved to go through a complaints mechanism. As with the Interception of Communications Act 1985, leaflets will be made widely available to anyone who wants them in such places as police stations, public libraries and citizens advice bureaux, making clear the avenues of complaint.
        12 midnight
        I do not think that the matter can be dealt with on a case-by case basis in the light of a particular warrant operation, as the amendment proposes. I appreciate the point about individual liberty with which the hon.

        279
        Gentleman is trying to deal, but whatever the purpose of the amendment its net effect would be to provide an open door for anyone engaged in illicit activity to damage the security of the state.
        Mr. Buchan: The Government have said, "We quite agree that individual liberty will be expended, but it is important that we retain the provision." That is nonsense. There is no question of a spate of individuals setting in train the demolition, stealing or removal of business papers or other material from their own homes—in such a way that the police accept that a prima facie case has been established—to try to investigate whether they are being bugged by MI5. Some of us have suspected that in the past, but by no stretch of the imagination would we have created an apparent crime that would convince the police that prima facie evidence of a crime existed.
        When civil liberties are weighed against a minor problem facing the Security Service, the House should always come down on the side of individual liberty. The Government are a disgrace to parliamentary democracy and the liberty of this country.
        Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister always responds to perfectly reasonable suggestions by claiming that the amendment, if carried, would give aid and succour to a terrorist or spy. I can understand that: I do not particularly want to end up dead in my bed having been killed by a terrorist, and if I thought that the Bill would protect me from such a sad eventuality I should be a little more enthusiastic about it.
        What concerns me about the amendment, which is perfectly reasonable, is how individuals who feel that they have suffered from criminal activity—because their houses have been broken into—know that they have grounds of complaint to the tribunal. Will the police officer be able to tell them, "Don't worry about it, Jimmy. It was not an ordinary burglar; it was someone who had managed to get a warrant from the Transport Office at the House of Commons"? It has been suggested that that might be the most convenient way of obtaining one.
        I should like to know the mechanisms, just in case I happen to be on the receiving end of a burglary and happen to catch the individual. I get in touch with Forest Gate police station; the police come and take the individual away. When I go along to find out whether I can press charges, will the police then say, "There is nothing to worry about; it was done through a warrant"? If the individual has the right of redress through the tribunal, what information will be given that will enable him to lodge a complaint? If no such information is given, what is the point?
        Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Supposing someone detains someone in his property and takes him down to the police station, what do the police do? Do they just let that individual walk away and give no explanation at all, leaving one to assume that it is not incompetence on the part of the police but the fact that they know a warrant existed?
        I am very disappointed with the Minister's reply because I did take the trouble in this amendment to make it clear that there had to be prime facie evidence that some criminal activity had actually occurred. As far as I can see, anybody who is likely to be involved in terrorist or other
        280
        activities who finds someone has broken into or bugged his property is going to know perfectly well that the Security Service was involved, or at least he will jump to that conclusion. What we are describing in this amendment is the protection for the individual whose civil liberties have actually been infringed, and wrongly infringed, so that they can have some clear evidence to take to the tribunal.
        I also suggest to the Minister that there is a practical problem. There is a great deal of disquiet in this country at the moment that often the police do not take investigations in burglaries sufficiently seriously. Is the Minister suggesting that every time an individual that feels his property has been burgled and the police have not pursued it with sufficient diligence he should refer it to the security tribunal to try and find out whether it is merely that the police have not shown much enthusiasm for his complaint or whether no crime had been committed because a warrant had been issued?
        Surely the Minister does not want to get thousands of cases being referred to the tribunal. He wants to make sure that those people who have a legitimate complaint have their cases investigated, and to avoid a huge number of complaints coming in. It does seem to me that there ought to be a clear process by which people can be told, if it has become obvious to them that their property is being interfered with, that it was done under the due process of a warrant.
        Amendment negatived.
        Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
        Mr. Tony Banks: I am not going to detain the Committee long. The point that I want to make is that this Committee seems to be inordinately relaxed about the way civil liberties are disappearing. There seems to be no real scrutiny of this clause or previous clauses. This is a Committee stage. If the Minister wants to reduce the whole thing to low farce, we should, by all means, continue in the way that we are going on.
        I ask legitimate questions. I do not want to keep myself out of my own bed tonight. I am not finding it particularly enjoyable to be here, and I am sure that is true of right hon. and hon. Members. Those of us who are taking part in this Committee stage are here because we want to assure ourselves about certain rather disturbing aspects of this Bill. Up to now we have been gravely disappointed, and we shall go away far more worried about this Bill than we were when we arrived here for the Committee stage.
        I ask that Ministers at least answer some of the questions directed specifically towards the clause stand part debate by me. I want to know how the procedure works. Is it unreasonable, even at eight minutes past midnight, to ask some specific questions in what is supposed to be the Committee stage of a Bill, when we can ask Ministers questions, and Ministers can respond? The rules of debate that apply to a Second Reading and other stages do not apply here. This is where we are supposed to be giving scrutiny to this Bill, and up to now we most certainly have not done that. We have been derelict in our duty, because the Minister has refused to treat this measure seriously.
        Mr. John Patten: I have given a full and helpful explanation to the Committee, and I ask that the clause stand part of the Bill.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      Clause 4

        THE SECURITY SERVICE COMMISSIONER
        Mr. Allason: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 5, leave out from 'appoint' to end of line 7 and insert 'two Commissioners for the purpose of this Act.'
        The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
        No. 60, in page 3, line 5, leave out 'a Commissioner' and insert 'an Inspector General'.
        No. 2, in page 3, line 8, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
        No. 68, in page 3, line 8, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Inspector General'.
        No. 3, in page 3, line 9, leave out
        'his appointment and there shall be paid to him'
        and insert
        'their appointment and there shall be paid to them'.
        Clause 4, page 3, line 11, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
        '(3) In addition to his functions under the subsequent provisions of this Act, the Inspector General shall be under a duty—

        (a) to monitor the compliance by the Service with its operational policies;

        (b) to review the operational activities of the Service; and

        (c) to submit certificates pursuant to subsection (4A) below; and

        (d) to keep under review applications made and warrants issued under section 3 and, in particular, the execution of such warrants'.

        No. 4, page 3, line 11, leave out 'his' and insert 'their'.
        No. 5, in page 3, line 12, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
        No. 6, in page 3, line 13, leave out 'his' and insert 'their'.
        No. 79, in page 3, line 13, leave out 'section 3 above' and insert 'this Act'.
        No. 7, in page 3, line 16, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
        No. 8, in page 3, line 16, leave out from 'as' to end of line 17 and insert
        'they may require for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their functions'.
        No. 9, in page 3, line 18, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
        No. 64, in page 3, line 18, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Inspector General'.
        No. 10, in page 3, line 19, leave out 'his' and insert 'their'.
        No. 11, in page 3, line 19, leave out
        'him on any matter relating to his'
        and insert
        'them on any matter relating to their'.
        No. 13, in page 3, line 22, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
        No. 65, in page 3, line 22, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Inspector General'.
        No. 14, in page 3, line 26, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
        No. 70, in page 3, line 26, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Inspector General'.
        No. 15, in page 3, line 31, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
        No. 71, in page 3, line 31, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Inspector General'.
        282
        No. 16, in page 3, line 32, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
        No. 72, in page 3, line 32, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Inspector General'.
        No. 17, in page 3, line 33, leave out 'his' and insert 'their'.
        No. 18, in clause 5, page 3, line 39, leave out
        'Commissioner shall have the functions conferred on him'
        and insert
        'Commissioners shall have the functions conferred on them'.
        No. 19, in page 3, line 42, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
        New Clause 1—Duty of Commissioners to attend meetings of Security Service Directorate—
        'It shall be the duty of the Commissioners appointed under this Act to attend all meetings of the Security Service Directorate unless the Commissioners decide that the discharge of their functions does not require such attendance.'.
        New Clause 8—The Security Service Commission—

        '(1) The Prime Minister shall appoint a Commission consisting of not more than three persons for the purpose of scrutinising the efficiency and effectiveness of the Security Service.

        (2) Members of the Commission shall hold office in accordance with the terms of their appointment and there shall be paid to them by the Secretary of State such allowances as the Treasury may determine.

        (3) It shall be the duty of every member of the Service to disclose or give to the Commission such documents or information as they may require for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their functions.

        (4) The Commission shall make an annual report on the discharge of their functions to the Secretary of State and may at any time report to him on the discharge of their functions.

        (5) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of each annual report made by the Commissions under subsection (4) above together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy in pursuance of subsection (6) below.

        (6) If it appears to the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Commission, that publication of any matter in a report would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Service the Secretary of State may exclude that matter for the copy of the report as laid before each House of Parliament.

        (7) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Commission and with the approval of the Treasury as to numbers, provide the Commission with such staff as the Secretary of State thinks necessary for the discharge of its functions.

        No. 20, in schedule 1, page 5, line 36, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
        No. 21, in page 5, line 37, leave out 'he finds' and insert 'they find'.
        No. 22, in page 5, line 38, leave out 'he' and insert 'they'.
        No. 23, in page 5, line 41, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
        No. 24, in page 5, line 41, leave out
        'his conclusion on any complaint so far as referred to him'
        and insert
        'their conclusion on any complaint so far as referred to them'.
        No. 25, in page 5, line 50, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
        No. 26, in page 6, line 2, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
        No. 27, in page 6, line 4, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
        No. 28, in page 6, line 19, leave out 'Commissioner' has and insert 'Commissioners' have.
        No. 29, in page 6, line 20, leave out 'he considers' and insert' they consider'.

        283
        No. 30, in page 6, line 21, leave out 'Commissioner considers' and insert Commissioners consider'.
        No. 31, in page 6, line 23, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
        No. 32, in page 6, line 28, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
        No. 33, in page 6, line 37, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
        No. 34, in page 6, line 38, leave out
        'Commissioner may report any matter referred to him'
        and insert
        'Commissioners may report any matter referred to them'.
        No. 35, in schedule 2, page 7, line 40, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
        No. 36, in title, line 4, leave out 'a Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
        No. 37, in title, line 6, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
        Mr. Allason: I shall not detain the Committee long. I fear that the late hour has in considerable part been caused by the Minister's performance. I take no pleasure in saying that. The Bill and the amendments are about checks and balances. My hon. Friend has consistently pushed aside the initiatives that have been taken. He has pushed aside the Canadian precedent by talking about the so-called British experience. He was blithely dismissive of a series of constructive proposals and he has rubbished useful initiatives.
        That is odd, bearing in mind that earlier my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took a much more positive line and was helpful. Indeed, he conceded that there have been problems in the past with supervision and control of the Security Service which it would be incorrect to ignore.
        Is there any matter of greater importance than the security of the nation? The amendments seek once again, probably in vain, to impose checks and balances. They seek to double the number of commissioners. Canada has no fewer than five members of the security and intelligence review committee. I am not going that far, but I urge the Government to consider two commissioners.
        The Minister has persuaded Government Members this evening—I am as guilty as everybody else—to go through the Lobbies and authorise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment and the Secretary of State for Energy to issue warrants to burgle homes. That is utterly bizarre. At the same time, he tells us that everything is safe in the hands of the Home Secretary.
        Let me give a couple of examples of where the Minister's confidence appears to have gone a little adrift. He rubbished the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) that there be a limit on the service of a director-general of 10 years. He said that it was unlikely to be longer than that. He clearly was not aware that the first director-general of the Security Service remained in that post for no fewer than 31 years.
        There was an attempt last night to impose some kind of parliamentary oversight. That was rejected. So too was the proposal to have some kind of arrangement with Privy Councillors. Again, that was a reasonable attempt to share the burdens of the Secretary of State. That too was cast aside. We have now had a ridiculous performance over judicial warrants. The last Division took place because the
        284
        Minister, for reasons that are still not clear to me, seemed determined to give authority for burglary and telephone intercept warrants to Secretaries of State who have nothing to do with those responsibilities. Indeed, that was in clear contravention of the Interception of Communications Act 1985.
        The amendments do not cast doubt on the commissioner's role. I seek to have two commissioners because experience tells us—I do not share my hon. Friend's confidence on the history of the Security Service—that when a single individual has overseen the role of the Security Service things have gone wrong. The examples are legion. I shall mention just three. There was the chairman of the Security Commission who was clearly misled over the Bettaney case; the chairman of the Vassall committee, going back years ago, and the evidence supplied by the Security Service; and the more notorious case of Lord Denning.
        I promised to be brief, so I shall merely urge the Committee to consider doubling the number of commissioners to two to avoid the danger of a single individual being nobbled. Anybody with a knowledge of what has happened in the past will concede that that is a real danger.
        12.15 am
        Mr. Maclennan: This large group of amendments may be characterised as seeming to provide for the oversight of the security services in various aspects by means more secure than those set out in clause 4. I shall confine my remarks to two of the amendments, although I support strongly several others, especially new clause 8 and amendments Nos. 60, 68, 62, 7, 64, 65, 70, 71 and 72, which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) may wish to address. I want to deal with amendments Nos. 62 and 79.
        Amendment No. 62, again, is based on the Canadian experience. It proposes that the inspector general—the officer whose functions are, essentially, those of the commissioner as proposed in clause 4—will have a more wide-ranging duty of scrutiny and supervision than under clause 4. It is appropriate for a service costing about £100 million per annum that there should be such oversight of the service beyond consideration by the Secretary of State of warrant practices, which we have been considering in relation to clause 3. It is right to ensure by establishing such an officer—the Government contemplate that he should be of the highest judicial standing—that not only how the Secretary of State has discharged his duties under clause 3, but whether the service is conducting itself appropriately in accordance with the Bill is scrutinised. It is important for that officer to stand apart, to some extent, from the direction of the service, which will be the responsibility of the director-general at the apex of the service. It is clear that a Minister cannot effectively do the job. That case has been partially conceded by the Home Secretary in seeking to appoint a commissioner. Amendment No. 79 seeks to ensure that the inspector general shall keep under review the exercise by the Secretary of State of his powers not only under clause 3 but generally.
        I accept that the provisions for warrants may constitute the single most important aspect of the functions of the Secretary of State under the Bill, but there are several other important functions of the Secretary of State which should

        285
        be subject to review. I draw attention to one provision in particular. Under the Bill it is open to the Secretary of State to specify the circumstances in which information held by the Security Service may or may not be released for consideration in determining whether a person should be employed. That very considerable power is exercised not under clause 3 but under clause 2. It seems to me that the power to intervene to affect employment opportunities—not only in respect of individuals, who would be entitled to make a complaint under the procedure set out in schedule 1, but in respect of the guidelines under which such information may be released—should be supervised by a commissioner as it has to be done in accordance with the provisions made by the Secretary of State.
        The proposal represents a modest extension of the commissioner's powers. I can see no argument of principle or of practice against it. I hope that the Minister will therefore respond positively.
        Mr. Aitken: In common with many of the amendments, new clause 8 returns to the question of oversight. Yesterday we had a long discussion about parliamentary oversight, which the Home Secretary rejected on the somewhat curious ground that Parliament could not be trusted. We also examined at some length the notion of a non-parliamentary, Canadian-type oversight, which the Home Secretary rejected on the somewhat curious ground that, although it worked well in Canada, it could not possibly work well in this country.
        New clause 8 is a probing proposal, whose purpose is to find out whether any form of oversight would be acceptable to the Home Secretary—in particular a form of oversight that fulfils the three important criteria that he spelt out in the days when he was by no means hostile to the idea of oversight. On 3 December 1986, in response to a motion tabled by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), the Home Secretary suggested that an oversight system might be acceptable if three tests were passed—the tests of preserving secrecy, of increased public confidence in the House, and of the need to avoid blunting and diminishing the clear responsibilities of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary in monitoring the security services.
        New clause 8 falls firmly within those parameters and meets all those criteria. It involves what might be called "professional oversight"—a group of genuine professionals who would have nothing to do with Parliament, politics or Privy Councillors and who could go behind the barrier of secrecy to give a vital dimension of continuity. Such continuity is most important in the light of the revelation by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that to his knowledge no incoming Government are allowed to examine the previous Government's monitoring of the security services. Such a group could monitor, above all, the effectiveness and efficiency of the Security Service. I cannot imagine a softer touch being applied to any organisation in terms of performance review and the monitoring of professional efficiency than is applied to the Security Service, which is simply monitored by the Home Secretary of the day who is arguably the busiest Minister in the Government.
        The case for monitoring the efficiency and effectiveness of the Security Service stems from the famous case of Michael John Bettaney. That gentleman lives on in the folklore of the security services. Although he now languishes in Coldingley prison for his treachery, he will
        286
        surely one day have his statue in the hall of history and fame of world security services because he caused extraordinary changes in our own Security Service, without which the grave defects of the past would still undoubtedly be with us.
        No novelist could have invented Michael John Bettaney and if any novelist had invented him, that novelist could not have written a plot in which Michael John Bettaney rose steadily to higher and higher posts of importance within our Security Service. He was an alcoholic, a misfit, a fantasist, a curious wild and way-out character, whose fatal weakness was alcohol in a big way. He used to be so drunk among his Security Service colleagues that he could not stand up. On one occasion, he even set fire to himself. He had two convictions for criminal dishonesty. At social occasions in the MI5 mess he used to say things such as, "Come and see me in my dacha when I retire". "I am sure the East Germans would look after me better." "I am working for the wrong side." Incidentally, those quotations were taken from the Security Commission's own report on the Bettaney case.
        However, despite all those clues that something might be slightly wrong with Mr. Bettaney, he was steadily promoted, even though officials had gone to their superiors to mention such incidents. After that epic saga, Bettaney sent notes to the Soviet embassy, revealing the order of battle and all kinds of secrets. He took all sorts of documents home but the Soviet embassy could not believe that such a figure existed and completely ignored him, so no great damage was done by Mr. Bettaney.
        Mr. Bettaney's story was finally told in the 1985 report of the Security Commission. From the Bettaney story it became perfectly obvious that the Security Service was in dramatic need of wholesale managerial reform. It must be stressed that none of this would have come to light had not the story that I have told come to a denouement with Mr. Bettaney sending letters to the Soviet embassy and, disappointed that there was no reply, finally knocking on the door of the Soviet embassy, thus getting caught.
        Mr. Winnick: Is it not possible that MI5 was so busy at the time that it is understandable that that lapse took place? If MI5 was spending all its time—as the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) told us earlier—trying to discover whether Lord Wilson was a Soviet agent, surely so many resources had to go into that that MI5 could not worry about other matters.
        Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman has a point below his humour because the same mentality and managerial efficiency that went into investigating the fantasies about Lord Wilson was the same kind of business efficiency that could not spot Michael Bettaney. There was a deep flaw in the whole of the Security Service. It is as well that the Committee recognises that successive Home Secretaries in charge of the monitoring of the efficiency of the Security Service had failed to notice that there was anything wrong, despite repeated assurances to the House from Home Office Ministers that they were monitoring the Security Service well.
        The case that I am deploying has nothing to do with politics or Parliament. I am saying that there is a case for an ongoing business or managerial oversight of the security services by professionals within the barrier. On one occasion only the Security Commission was able to do that.

        287
        In my new clause I recommend that there should be three commissioners and that they should be, for example, a former senior officer in the armed services, an academic who has specialised in the study of Communism or terrorism, a trade union official, a senior civil servant or a diplomat. They should certainly not be former members of the intelligence community, but quite separate and independent from its history. It should be a genuine independent oversight body with a small staff working on a continuous but part-time basis.
        The entire purpose of this is to ask such questions as arose out of the Bettaney case. For example, is the Security Service satisfied with the level of training and education? We know that Security Service officers are given training in what might be called trade craft and mechanics. On the Irish terrorism desk, however, there is some indication that there is little education in the true history and the politics of Ireland which would give the Security Service official the breadth of knowledge needed to grasp the dimensions of the problem.
        Someone should look at the extraordinary turnover of directors-general of the Security Service—five in the past 10 years. There have been about four directors of the counter-espionage branch in the past 10 years. Someone should look closely, above all, at the management of personnel and resources. Those are the sort of performance review duties which need to be carried out on a permanent basis. I submit that the Home Secretary has not the time, the thoroughness or the continuity of approach to tackle those matters in the depth required.
        I cannot understand why this country carries on being the only democracy in the English-speaking world which has no form of independent oversight, but simply says that we can trust one man—the Home Secretary of the day. He is assisted, no doubt, from time to time by the Prime Minister, but basically there is one Minister to do the job which the Security Commission did on one occasion in such a devastating way, but that was just a one-off ad hoc committee and we want something continuous.
        Mr. Allason: My hon. Friend is right about the point that he made about the Bettaney Security Commission report, but it is worth reminding the House that the parts that have been quoted were the publicly available sections of the report, and that the Security Commission reported at that time that there was an equally large and more damning annex to that report that was never published.
        Mr. Aitken: I am always getting nuggets of inside information from my hon. Friend which strenghthen my argument, and I am grateful to him.
        A permanent monitoring body of the kind I am suggesting could have the advantage of being able to be permanently behind the secrecy barrier and, therefore, completely fall within the basic criteria set by the Home Secretary.
        It has not been emphasised enough that in this strange world of the Security Service one of its most important roles is that of long haul counter-espionage. One must watch for years in this world and the monitoring in that area needs to be long on continuity and carried out on a long-term basis.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) made a valuable intervention in
        288
        this debate. He reminded us that the world of intelligence was a jigsaw, which is a good word for it. Such a jigsaw can only be put together and watched by those whose lifespan of monitoring is far longer than that of a politician or Home Secretary, which is why some form of permanent oversight body, on a purely professional managerial level, is highly desirable.
        I commend this proposition to the House in the great hope that the Minister will recognise that new clause 8 falls firmly into the category of acceptable oversight as outlined by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and, if there were any justice in this world regarding amendments, it should be entirely acceptable.
        Mr. Richard Shepherd: I want to support amendments Nos. 62, 64, 65 and consequential amendments Nos. 60, 68 and so on. The consequential amendments indicate the change from the term commissioner to inspector general. Essentially it is a cosmetic change, but it keeps the thread of continuity with the Canadian model.
        The purpose of amendments Nos. 62, 64 and 65, which should have been debated with amendment No. 63 in the first group of amendments yesterday, is to provide the opportunity for reinforcing ministerial responsibility and therefore accountability. The inspector general's job is to act internally to monitor the issuance of warrants, and compliance with those warrants, to determine that the service has acted ethically, appropriately and in accordance with the law, and to report back to the responsible Minister. That mechanism in law ensures that there is one limb of oversight, primarily on behalf of Ministers, which makes a report. This is set out clearly in amendments, but to get a more coherent picture my hon. Friend should read the amendments in conjunction with amendment No. 63. The amendments deal with the internal means of monitoring.
        The overall structure that we are seeking is ministerial responsibility to Parliament. Ministers will have an internal inspector general who monitors the issue of warrants and who reports on the conduct of the service and the pursuit of its objectives. That would ensure that the service conforms with the law, with propriety and with the instructions and directions from the political element of the management of the security service.
        That is the basis of our actions. If the Government accepted those processes, they would be reinforced by an external oversight procedure, which would give the public confidence that it was not just an internal matter.
        Mr. John Patten: The suggestions put forward in this interesting group of amendments fall into three categories. First, there is the idea of an inspector general, proposed by my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). Secondly, there is the idea of non-executive directors or commissioners proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason). I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his speech. When he reads the record of the debate in Hansard he will see that everyone's questions have been answered by Ministers. He may wish to reassess his remarks in the light of that. The third suggestion was the full scheme outlined in new clause 8 for up to three commissioners, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South. All the amendments and new clauses illustrate the muddle and confusion that could arise when there are attempts to

        289
        distort and change the clear statutory nature and function of the Security Service commissioner proposed in the Bill into a mutant new person with a new set of powers or into a group of people with de facto unlimited and unclear powers.
        Let us consider the widening of the oversight powers. Whether one is talking about an inspector general or two or three commissioners, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I believe that the same impossible situation arises. In effect, the proposals give power without responsibility. That may not be the intention of those who have drawn up the amendments and new clauses, but they provide a recipe for intervention and muddle which could, on occasions, be dangerous and does nothing for those who want the director-general of the service and the Minister under whose authority he works to be accountable to Parliament. That accountability is already achieved by the clear structure set out in the Bill.
        Wider functions of review and scrutiny can only usurp the responsibilities of Ministers and of the director-general. It is that belief which separates my right hon. Friend and myself from people like my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, who looks as though he is hovering to intervene and to whom I had better give way.
        Mr. Richard Shepherd: The whole purpose of the amendments is to support the Minister. How can the Minister assure himself that the political objectives of the system are carried out in the way he wants by the service? If things are concealed from the responsible Minister, that is a matter of concern for the Minister and for the House. Things have been so concealed in the past. To assist Ministers in their responsibilities, we tried to construct a clear mandate for an official with the power to overlook the activities of the service. That was intended to support the Minister, not to muddy the waters. Our aim was to enable the Minister to assure the House that he was informed, that he understood what was happening in the service and that it was done in accordance with his requirements.
        Mr. Patten: I appreciate the constructive way in which my hon. Friends put forward the amendment, but in a previous Adjournment debate I described the clear line of relations from the service to the director-general, from him to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and in certain circumstances from the Home Secretary to the Prime Minister. Those relations are based on clear lines of responsibility and accountability, the commissioner always being at my right hon. Friend's elbow or looking over his shoulder. In practice, these matters cannot be reviewed effectively by someone who does not also carry the responsibility for what he reviews.
        Mr. Shepherd: Before I came to the House I was a business man. I employed an accountant, who was responsible to me. He handled money and affairs close to the success, or otherwise, of the business. Fortunately, the law also requires that independent auditors come in to do the same accounting. That was helpful to me, as my knowledge of book-keeping might have been limited. The practice of everyday life is not inappropriate for the security services. The Government are in extraordinary awe of their security services. Such mystification should not exist. It is in all our interests that the security services
        290
        be made accountable, but Ministers are acting in a subservient way and claiming that everything is perfect as it is.
        I have eschewed listing historical cases of the problems that have occurred, but we must remember experience elsewhere. Reform has been predicated on massive scandals in almost every civilised western democracy in which the security services have got out of control or not been kept on a leash. We want to avoid that happening here. The Government's deference is as much as to say that they cannot discuss these issues with the House—or introduce the rule of law—or, indeed, do anything at all because it would not be appropriate. Every time a route out is offered to Ministers—the Bettaney case has been mentioned, and there were many others before it—Ministers say that it is impossible.
        Is the Minister in such awe of, or so subordinate to, the security services that he cannot weigh up the rule of law, common decency and appropriate action for the courts? Liberty and freedom must be balanced in any decision on how to control and review the service.
        Mr. Patten: That was a long intervention, but I will do my best to reply to it.
        I accept that my hon. Friend needed an accountancy service from outside for his business. He had his auditors. In the same way, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary closely audits what goes on in the Security Service. He is responsible not for a successful business, such as that which my hon. Friend ran, but for a non-commercial organisation which deals with the security of the state. That is the difference which separates my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and others from the Home Secretary and me. It is the divide that was between us in the earlier part of the debate when we discussed judicial intervention in the warrant-making process.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills would like to see some functions reviewed in different ways by outsiders, and to that end he has put forward helpful amendments. In practice, these matters cannot be effectively reviewed by people who do not also carry the responsibilities for the matters that they would review. That is the issue of judgment that separates my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and me.
        12.45 am
        I can illustrate that by saying that the degree to which the amendments would require the overseer—if I may use that shorthand term—to become involved in the detailed operations and policy of the Security Service is startling. That would be an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of giving people free range over the activities of the whole service. The same argument applies when we look in detail at the role of the inspector general. I am now moving from ' the general to the three specific cases that have been put forward. Not much would be achieved by way of public assurance because the inspector general in his other guises would be responsible to Ministers for their work.
        It seems impossible for annual reports to be published without dangerously breaching the security within which the service must operate. Each of the proposals suggests that that should happen. Such reports could not go into many, if any, of the wider review findings. The director-general would not be much helped in the discharge of his responsibilities by the appointment of an

        291
        inspector general. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department would not be helped in the discharge of his responsibilities by such an appointment.
        The idea of two non-executive directors or commissioners was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason). He seems to think that two heads would be better than one and does not seem to think there is any special advantage in appointing senior judges to these positions. We do not think that this job would be best carried out by a two-man crew or perhaps even the three-man crew suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South. From the amendment drafted, I presume, by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, it is not clear whether the commissioners would jointly review every warrant decision by the Secretary of State and come to a collective view. If they disagreed, who would arbitrate and decide what was to happen?
        We attach considerable importance to the need for the commissioner to have senior judicial experience for carrying out his adjudicating functions and grave responsibilities. New clause 8 certainly does not disbar the idea of senior judicial figures being appointed as commissioners. However, the sort of work that the Bill identifies for the commissioner should not be carried out by a wider commission. I and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary think that these are matters for an independently minded judge of standing and authority drawn from the senior judicial bench and not matters for a committee.
        The work of a commission of up to three people would be much wider than the work provided for in the Bill and would be a substantial change to the way in which the Bill is cast. For the reasons that I have given, the Government are clear that such a wider role is not necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South asked whether my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would regard his scheme as providing acceptable oversight. It is clear from what my right hon. Friend said yesterday and earlier today that such a scheme does not fall into the category of acceptable oversight. Clearly, a substantial difference in principle and view divides my hon. Friends and me. I regret that, and I hope that they will not press their amendments.
        Ms. Abbott: The Minister having rejected any form of parliamentary oversight, clause 4 offers a chance of securing administrative oversight. The idea of parliamentary scrutiny was not acceptable to the Minister because, he said, he could not trust Members. His argument against administrative scrutiny rests on the claim that all would be muddle and confusion.
        I do not follow the Minister's logic. I see no difference between having a panel of commissioners under this legislation and the existing prisons inspectorate, which has oversight but which does not have political responsibility. Either the Minister has not read his brief properly or he is not acquainted with the structure of his Department.
        I say that because there are many examples in the Home Office of groups of administrators exercising oversight without carrying responsibility of the type that we are discussing. That is no coincidence because of all the great offices of state, the case load, complexity and accident-proneness of the Home Office is the greatest.
        292
        It cannot sensibly be argued that the Home Secretary is in a position to exercise oversight without the assistance of some of the structures to which hon. Members have referred. We regret the Minister's failure seriously to address our arguments on administrative oversight. Instead, he has thrown up a smokescreen of bogus considerations. There is no reason why the structure that we propose should not work in practice. Will the hon. Gentleman at least explain why this structure would not work in principle?
        Mr. Maclennan: The Minister rejected the various forms of oversight proposed in this long series of amendments by saying that they all provided for power without responsibility, and he thus swept them aside. But the commissioner whom he envisages establishing to conduct part of the job of oversight will, by the hon. Gentleman's definition, enjoy power without responsibility. Why does he seek to confine this oversight simply to his role in the issuing of warrants and the investigation of complaints?
        Will the Minister now reply to my amendment No. 79, which would at least give the commissioner responsibility, not for supervising the entire Security Service, but for supervising the Minister's role under the measure? I drew attention to the Minister's powers to deprive people of employment on the ground that they had in some way been found unacceptable to the Security Service. Although the hour is late, we are dealing with matters of great importance. After all, we are having a very short debate on truncating the civil liberties of the people by a measure which empowers the Security Service to do what without the Bill would be illegal.
        The Minister's attempts to answer the case put by his hon. Friends were perfunctory, but at least he tried to answer it. My amendment would enlarge in a modest way, without infringing any principle or practical consideration, the role of the high judicial officer, whom he and his right hon. Friend think it appropriate to supervise the issue of warrants. Why could not that officer supervise the conduct of the duties of the Secretary of State in respect of the provisions of the Bill generally?
        Amendment negatived.
        Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      Clause 5

        INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS
        Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move amendment No. 80, in page 3, line 42, leave out subsection (4).
        I move this amendment in search of information as well as to make a proposal that I hope may command itself to the Government. I am not fully clear about the impact of clause 5(4), which provides that
        "The decisions of the Tribunal and the Commissioner…shall not be subject to appeal or liable to be questioned in any court."
        That appears to deprive the citizen of the right of judicial review enjoyed at present and appears to be the deliberate intention of the Bill. However, the proposal may go further than that. It may deprive the citizen of the right to take a case to the European Court of Human Rights. If that is the case, that should be explicit in the Bill. If it is the Government's intention to exclude the jurisdiction of the European Commission or the Court of Human Rights, it should be so provided in the Bill. Does the Minister intend

        293
        to notify the Commission of an intention to derogate from the convention in any way so as to deprive the citizen of that right which is currently being exercised by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman)?
        The Minister nods his head negatively and I am, therefore, living in hope that he does not intend to exclude the jurisdiction of the Court of Human Rights, but we better have that from the Minister's own lips.
        Mr. Buchan: I cannot resist following that beautiful remark which appears to describe the conduct of Ministers over the past few days. They have either been nodding their heads negatively or shaking their heads positively on issue after issue. I understand the depth of feeling experienced by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). We have received the same negative approach from the Government on every issue. I cannot understand it. We suggest a judge and the Government say, "We cannot accept anything judicial." We suggest a commissioner and they say "We cannot accept a commissioner." The sole Government intention that has emerged has been to keep MI5 inviolable. I understand the difficulties of a junior Minister, but the Home Secretary shook and nodded his head with equal positivism and negativism.
        Once upon a time, Ministers received their instructions from the Box, whose occupants said, "Resist", occasionally. "Accept". and often, "Resist, but agree to consider". There is no such middle ground here; there is only resistance. Ministers' instructions are not to listen to and consider the debate or even to obtain the best decisions for the security services.
        A number of proposals have been put forward, not to criticise the operation of the Security Service, but to attempt to make it even more efficient. However when we complain about the infringement of liberty—from personal experience and other factors—and when other people—including the Conservative Back Bench element who are knowledgeable about MI5—and—two hon. Gentlemen who are concerned above all about the freedom of the individual, the liberty of the state and parliamentary democracy as well as the efficiency of the service support us, the Government do not listen.
        1 am
        Why in heaven's name, when we are discussing an issue which is crucial to our freedom and our liberties, has a Minister been sent to this Committee—Parliament is supposed to be the sovereign authority in this country—with one instruction—to prevent a Report stage? Are the Government afraid that if the debate continues for another week or two more evidence and more case histories will be produced? I believe that Opposition Front Bench Members made an appalling error in agreeing to a two-day timetable. If the Bill had been considered in Committee under normal procedures, there would have been hours of discussion on issue after issue and amendment after amendment. I was pleased to learn that the Bill was to be debated on the Floor of the House. I considered that it was the proper place to examine our problems. Now, because of the Government's behaviour during the two-day slot that we accepted, mistakenly or with difficulty, the Bill has been shuffled through without ever touching the conscience or the consciousness of this country. We have witnessed shocking behaviour, especially as the Bill is linked with a number of other forthcoming measures.
        294
        What does the amendment seek that the Government find so difficult to accept? After the tribunal has made a decision, someone may wish to appeal. That will not reveal any issue of security. It will merely provide a little safety for some individuals who have been caught up in such issues. Is the Minister really saying that indviduals cannot appeal to the European Court of Human Rights? Under clause 1(3) foreign elements can be investigated by MI5, but because we have brought about such an appalling regime of lack of justice, lack of appeal and lack of openness in this country, it will be impossible even to appeal abroad. If that is the case, a new tyranny will be deployed throughout all the available courts in Europe and elsewhere. The Minister is shaming the nation.
        The amendment is mild and does not shame our liberties. The Bill is pulling away the last strand to which someone can appeal. For God's sake, the Minister should respond or at least allow the matter to be discussed. He should consider it instead of being afraid of a Report stage. He should send for the Home Secretary—we shall discuss the matter until he returns. At this final stage he should allow that to happen.
        I am appalled by what I have seen tonight and by the way in which the Minister has treated his Back Benchers. But I am more appalled at what he is doing to the freedoms of this country. We have seen the record of MI5. Points have been raised about the errors committed by most security services when they are under a dictatorship or when they are not sufficiently controlled. No methods of control have been allowed or considered. There is no measure of appeal. No man who has been burgled can find out whether he was subject to the actions of MI5 or the Security Service. Now the Government are saying that the decisions of the tribunal established to deal with those problems cannot be investigated. We are not all absolutely correct on all issues. Let us leave a loophole through which some errors can be rectified. We appeal to the Minister to do that. If he accepts the amendment, the matter can be considered on Report and the Home Office can consider it again.
        I fear that the civil servants have listened with more openness than the Ministers. Perhaps the Prime Minister can be brought to her senses if she is causing this. Above all, the Minister might come back on Report with a paper which said, "Resist, but reconsider at a later stage if forced to." It is late, but we would love that to happen.
        Mr. Ian Gow: In so far as I understood the speech of the former leader of the Social Democratic Party, he felt that there should be an appellate procedure involving the European Court.
        Mr. Maclennan indicated dissent.
        Mr. Gow: I understood the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to say that there should be an appellate procedure involving the European Court. I believe that he was not in his place when, earlier today, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport told the House that the Government's excellent proposals for privatising BREL will require the European Commission's consent. I regard that statement as an affront to the House, and I am against the amendment that I thought was moved by the SDP's former leader.
        If anything is clear about this country's security services, it is that we do not require a right of appeal using any apparatus involving Europe.
        Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman makes his analysis of what he thought was said, and states that he is not in favour of any appeal involving Europe. However, the Bill concerns itself also with this country's judiciary procedure. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he is against citizens of this country having access to an appellate procedure in this country? If not, he should support the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
        Mr. Gow: I was confining my remarks only to the idea that a European tribunal should have jurisdiction over decisions taken under the Bill's provisions. It was at that aspect that I directed my remarks.
        Mr. Richard Shepherd: We are signatories to a convention that already makes us liable, should the need arise, to appearances before the European Court. Unfortunately, the Government find themselves in some difficulties in respect of that court. It has found against us on a number of occasions, and that happened also to Labour Governments. The court's existence is a fact, and it is also a fact that we are signatories to the agreement. If my hon. Friend is saying we should tear up the agreement, that is not germane to the amendments before the Committee.
        Mr. Gow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity he gives me to say that I deeply deplore the fact that we are a signatory to an agreement that gives to a foreign jurisdiction the right to impose its will on the decisions of the House of Commons and to superimpose its will on United Kingdom tribunals. Because some right hon. and hon. Members still believe that the ultimate tribunal in this land ought to be the House of Lords, and because the SDP's former leader seemed to assert the legal superiority of the European Court, I wanted to make that plain in this my first, my only, and—you will be glad to know, Sir Paul—my last intervention in Committee.
        Mr. John Patten: I must disappoint the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan). I can say no more than that to him.
        As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—and I acknowledge the pointed intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow)—clause 5(4) does not exclude the Strasbourg bodies, so the European convention on human rights will apply. However, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself are convinced that the Bill's apparatus for helping the aggrieved citizen—the tribunal and the commissioner—will guarantee that a successful application will never go before the European Court.
        I have only one other thing to say. It does not surprise me that no other hon. Member in the Chamber—apart from one member of the Social, Liberal and Democratic party—has put his name to the amendment. I read a rather cruel article about the SLD in the Financial Times yesterday, which said of its Front Bench spokesmen:
        "Performances in the Commons have rarely been inspiring, some barely competent, and there is thinly-disguised despair among certain Democrat MPs about the ability and commitment of some of their colleagues."
        I know that that did not refer to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), because he has been sitting here for the last two days paying close attention to the Bill and making some important points. I must tell him, however, that the net effect of amendment No. 80 is absolutely dotty. It would undermine the security
        296
        of the state. It would allow an aggrieved citizen to bring before a court of law in this country all the details that would be necessary for the judicial review process, and whether that process took place in open court or in camera, the defence—including those acting for international terrorists—would have available to them all the information that they would simply love to have.
        The intention behind the amendment may have been a fine one, but its effect—as I have said—is absolutely dotty, and I urge the Committee to reject it if it is forced to a Division.
        The First Deputy Chairman: The Question is, That the amendment be made—
        Mr. Maclennan rose—
        The First Deputy Chairman: As many as are of that opinion say Aye, to the contrary No. I think the Noes have it—
        Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Sir Paul. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was plainly on his feet with the intention of replying. With respect, this is a Committee stage.
        The First Deputy Chairman: I do not think that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was seeking to catch my eye, but if he was, wholly exceptionally, I shall reverse engines and call him.
        Mr. Maclennan: I am exceedingly grateful, Sir Paul, and regret that I may not have made my intentions clear.
        I listened to the Minister with interest. These matters are at present subject to review in the courts. If it has been alleged that the security services have burgled or bungled their way into the homes of private citizens, they can appear before the courts. The suggestion that that should still be the case does not seem to me as dotty as the Minister has suggested, and to seek—as I did at the beginning of my remarks—an assurance that the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights would not be excluded by the clause is to introduce a matter of considerable importance.
        I am bound to say that, in the light of some of the Minister's earlier assurances, given no authority at all, I find it difficult even to accept his assertion that the plain language of the Bill does not mean what it says—which is that any court may not consider these matters, and that the issues
        "shall not be subject to appeal or liable to be questioned in any court."
        By what rubric of construction is the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg not "any court" within the meaning of the Bill? What provision of what statute makes this not apply to that court? I ask the Minister to address that question, and unless he does I feel bound to divide the House.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The Committee divided: Ayes 66, Noes 139.

        Division No. 37]

        [1.14 am

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Buchan, Norman

        Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Cryer, Bob

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Darling, Alistair

        Beith, A. J.

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

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

        Dewar, Donald

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Dixon, Don

        297

        Doran, Frank

        McLeish, Henry

        Douglas, Dick

        Maclennan, Robert

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        McTaggart, Bob

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

        Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

        Eadie, Alexander

        Maxton, John

        Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

        Meale, Alan

        Foster, Derek

        Michael, Alun

        Foulkes, George

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

        Fyfe, Maria

        Mowlam, Marjorie

        Galbraith, Sam

        Nellist, Dave

        George, Bruce

        Pike, Peter L.

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Robertson, George

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Sheerman, Barry

        Haynes, Frank

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Home Robertson, John

        Skinner, Dennis

        Hood, Jimmy

        Spearing, Nigel

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

        Ingram, Adam

        Wilson, Brian

        Kennedy, Charles

        Winnick, David

        McAllion, John

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Wray, Jimmy

        Macdonald, Calum A.

        McFall, John

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

        McKelvey, William

        Mr. Malcolm Bruce.

        NOES

        Arbuthnot, James

        Heddle, John

        Boswell, Tim

        Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Hill, James

        Bowis, John

        Hind, Kenneth

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Holt, Richard

        Burns, Simon

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

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Carrington, Matthew

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Cash, William

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Chapman, Sydney

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Chope, Christopher

        Hunter, Andrew

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Jack, Michael

        Cope, Rt Hon John

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Cran, James

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

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

        Knapman, Roger

        Devlin, Tim

        Lang, Ian

        Dicks, Terry

        Latham, Michael

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Lightbown, David

        Dover, Den

        Lilley, Peter

        Durant, Tony

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Favell, Tony

        Lord, Michael

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Maclean, David

        Fishburn, John Dudley

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Forman, Nigel

        Malins, Humfrey

        Forth, Eric

        Mans, Keith

        Franks, Cecil

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Freeman, Roger

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        French, Douglas

        Mills, Iain

        Fry, Peter

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Gale, Roger

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Gill, Christopher

        Moss, Malcolm

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Neubert, Michael

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Gow, Ian

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Gregory, Conal

        Norris, Steve

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Page, Richard

        Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

        Paice, James

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Patten, John (Oxford W)

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

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Harris, David

        Portillo, Michael

        Hayes, Jerry

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Hayward, Robert

        Price, Sir David

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Raffan, Keith

        298

        Redwood, John

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Tracey, Richard

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Trotter, Neville

        Ryder, Richard

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        Warren, Kenneth

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Watts, John

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Wells, Bowen

        Speed, Keith

        Wheeler, John

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Whitney, Ray

        Squire, Robin

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Wilkinson, John

        Stern, Michael

        Wilshire, David

        Stevens, Lewis

        Wood, Timothy

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Yeo, Tim

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Sumberg, David

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Summerson, Hugo

        Mr. Michael Fallon and

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Mr. Tom Sackville.

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Question accordingly negatived.
        Mr. Aitken: I beg to move amendment No. 92, in page 3, line 44, at end add—
        '(5) Complaints from serving or former members of the Security Service may at the request of the complainant be dealt with informally by the Staff Counsellor of the Security Service.
        (6)The Staff Counsellor shall be appointed by the Prime Minister.
        (7) The Staff Counsellor shall be available to be consulted by any member or former member of the Security Service who has complaints or anxieties relating to the work of his or her past or present service.
        (8) The Staff Counsellor shall have access to all relevant documents and to any level of management in the Security Service. He will also have access to the Secretary of the Cabinet, the Secretary of State and to the Prime Minister.
        (9) The Staff Counsellor shall be available to give. guidance to members or former members of the Security Service who are seeking authorisation to publish information about their past or present service.
        (10) The Staff Counsellor shall make an annual report on his activities and on the working of the system to the Prime Minister.
        (11) The Prime Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of each annual report made by the Staff Counsellor under subsection (10) above together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy in pursuance of subsection (12) below.
        (12) If it appears to the Prime Minister, after consultation with the Staff Counsellor, 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.
        (13) The Secretary of State may after consultation with the Staff Counsellor and with the approval of the Treasury as to numbers provide the Staff Counsellor with such staff as the Secretary of State thinks necessary for the discharge of his functions.'.
        I realise that the House is fibrillating at the prospect of three hours of Scottish business as soon as possible, so I shall not detain it unduly. However, the amendment is important and has a particular significance to our proceedings. Those hon. Members who have managed to endure this marathon will have noticed that the Government have had a wild determination at all costs not to give way to any amendment because, for some mysterious reason, they oppose a Report stage. No matter how bad the drafting and no matter how deep the hole they have got themselves into, they have not dreamed of accepting an amendment.

        299
        Here at last, however, I believe that I have managed to draft an amendment from which it will be impossible even for my hon. Friend the Minister of State—the great Houdini in this debate—to escape. My amendment has only two ingredients—the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and a promise given to the House by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. With those two elements, the amendment is almost inescapable and I wait with interest to see how Houdini can escape from it, as I know that he will endeavour to do.
        The amendment seeks to write into the Bill the position, role and duties of the staff counsellor of the security services. A staff counsellor was, until recently, an unknown animal in the world of security, but was created in 1987 as a direct result of the activities of Mr. Michael Bettaney, of blessed memory, whose activities have already been discussed and whose treachery and subsequent story have been relayed already to the House.
        What emerged from the Security Commission's report on the Bettaney case is that throughout the Security Service many officers had been deeply anxious about the conduct of Michael Bettaney, his possible treachery and his instability. I treasure the memory of the report by the Security Commission on a Mrs. X, an employee of the Security Service, who was cloaked in suitable anonymity. She had gone to a party with Mr. Michael Bettaney and a woman friend and Mr. Michael Bettaney had, in the course of the party, drunk two bottles of neat whisky, set fire to himself and announced that he would much rather be working for the Russians. Despite that, back at the office the following morning Mrs. X felt unable to tell anybody about this dimension of Bettaney's instability, insecurity and unworthiness to be a member of the Security Service because there was no one to tell. After a great deal of internal criticism and soul-searching, the Security Service said, "We really need to have someone to whom the troops can talk in confidence about their grievances, worries and fears about their desire to see a more efficient and effective Security Service."
        Another incident confirmed the need for a staff counsellor of the Security Service. A distinguished committee investigated the case of Sir Roger Hollis. Rightly or wrongly, it concluded that the "preponderance of probability"—a good bureaucratic phrase—was that Sir Roger Hollis was a Soviet agent, but its members could not then tell anybody. They eventually found someone to tell because Mr. Stephen DeMowbray had a cousin at No. 10 Downing street. He was somewhat surprised when the doorbell rang, but asked for an appointment for Mr. DeMowbray, who managed to get in to see the Cabinet Secretary by that circuitous route to tell him that the head of MI5 was, in the view of a number of his colleagues, a Soviet agent.
        1.30 am
        The fact that the routes of communication were so unsatisfactory led even the Government—who, as we know, believe in the total efficiency and wizardry of the solo monitoring of the Security Service by the Home Secretary—to decide that it was time to do something. The appointment of the staff counsellor was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 2 November 1987 in a written answer which described his functions and terms of reference. The words of the Prime Minister are
        300
        encapsulated, more or less verbatim, in the amendment, which would write into the Bill the terms and conditions of the staff counsellor as announced by the Prime Minister. Some of us do not necessarily approve of government by written answer. If the staff counsellor is to play a pivotal role, let us not rely on a written answer given in 1987. If we are to restructure the legal basis of the Security Service, let us write into the Bill the appointment of the staff counsellor, because he fulfils an important role.
        I have added one further function to the functions of the staff counsellor—a development that dates from 21 December, when the Official Secrets Bill had its Second Reading. I have forgotten which statesman said that he had caught the Whigs bathing and walked away with their clothes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disraeli."] In that case, I have donned the mantle of Disraeli. I have caught my hon. Friend the Minister of State buying votes, walked away with his promise and sought to put it into the Bill.
        My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who is unavoidably detained, travelling in the southern hemisphere, has authorised me to say that he supports my amendment. He expressed considerable concern about the impossibility even of innocuous and patriotic memoirs and comments by former members of the Security Service ever being authorised. In a very good speech on 21 December, my right hon. Friend argued that some members of the Security Service might from time to time wish to express their views on policy matters—while not revealing any operational secrets—and that there was no system of authorisation to allow for that. Even Mr. Anthony Cavendish, who dug up only innocuous old remains, received the message "Please delete eight chapters" when he sent his Christmas card in for authorisation.
        Closer to home, one recalls that on the day when the BBC was to put out the first of an admirable but basically boring and anodyne series of programmes on the security services called "My Country, right or wrong" the Attorney-General rushed to the Dispatch Box, hurled out writs like confetti and banned the programme because some members of the Security Service had commented on it. When the dust settled—when the writs had stopped flowing and somebody had finally listened to the programmes and read the transcripts—not one sentence or comma was deleted. Several weeks later it transpired that the only comments made by the former members of the Security Service had been in the most responsible areas—suggesting, for example, views on whether it was desirable to have oversight which could not deserve a ban.
        Clearly, there are situations in which, despite all the talk about absolute bans and life-long confidentiality, former members of the Security Service can make comments and express views that have no bearing on national security, which do not in any way jeopardise secrets, but which are just comments on policy. Therefore, it is desirable to have some means of authorisation.
        In the debate on official secrets my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion pressed for a system whereby, if a former member of the Security Service were dissatisfied and found himself unreasonably blocked from saying anything and forced into the role of a Trappist monk, he would have somewhere to turn. My right hon. Friend said, "I am not prepared to vote for this Bill unless I can get an assurance on this subject." I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister of State flew off on an excitable unpinioned wing to buy off my right hon. Friend's vote because he did

        301
        not want a well-known patriotic Privy Councillor such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion to vote against the Government on official secrets legislation.
        The Minister quickly cobbled together a formula to buy back the vote of my right hon. Friend. He did so with the following words:
        "My right hen. Friend then asked where a member of the service would turn if he still felt dissatisfied. He will turn to the staff counsellor. At present our distinguished staff counsellor is Sir Philip Woodfield. That is a matter of public knowledge. This applies not just to present members but to former members of the services. If a member or former member is seeking to use publication to report anxieties that he or she may have about his or her work or former work, or if he or she is concerned about the reasons for a refusal of publication, he or she can go to the staff counsellor".—[Official Report, 21 December 1988; Vol. 144, c. 538.]
        In this vital area of free speech for former Security Service officials, the staff counsellor was suddenly shot into the role of arbiter, adviser, man of guidance and the man who would steer the former Security Service official wishing to publish his memoirs or say his piece on the radio on to the strait and narrow path of authorised disclosure. Subsection (9) of my amendment therefore simply adds to the staff counsellor's role the words:
        "shall be available to give guidance to members or former members of the Security Service who are seeking authorisation to publish information about their past or present service."
        My right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion has asked me to say that he strongly approves and supports that part of the amendment.
        I think that I have made out my case, using the Prime Minister's words taken straight from a written answer, and the promise made by the Minister of State. The amendment is perfectly tailored to fit the Bill. It is an ideal amendment to the Bill. How will Houdini escape? Watch this space, Sir Paul.
        Mr. Cryer: We should not allow this matter to pass without comment. I know that there is pressure of business, but this is an important measure and the Bill and amendments have been debated without wasting any time. During our debates important issues have been raised. I thought that the Minister proposed to remain immobile and would not answer the points that have been raised, so I should like to raise one or two more points so that he can give a reasoned reply. However, I have no doubt that the Minister will refuse to accept the amendment.
        If we consider the work that spies undertake, we must recognise that they are under great pressure. They have to lie to people, often to their own families, and deceive other people in their close circles. Naturally, they will not want to do that. They cannot disclose by whom they are employed. They must say, "I am employed by Box 500", which would be a less than satisfactory explanation, or they must dream up a more conventional excuse. That naturally leaves them in a closed world in which their only understanding and relationship is with people who can share their secrets. Because of the nature of their occupation, they cannot chatter to friends and acquaintances, as most ordinary mortals can, about difficulties at work. The staff counsellor can, therefore, perform a useful function.
        In addition, as the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said, there is the question of writing memoirs as a means of divulging information. The staff counsellor will be able to point to a few useful alternatives. In the
        302
        past, when the Government wanted to publish information about the spies, they did not allow the spies to write directly, but told them to get in touch with Chapman Pincher of the Daily Express, who would publish it as being from non-attributable sources, which is what they did with Peter Wright. The Government became hot and bothered about Peter Wright's revelations, but we should bear in mind that one of Peter Wright's grumbles was that Chapman Pincher did not do a very good job in ghosting his memoirs and did not include all the information. Those were memoirs that were approved by officers of the Government.
        When the Government said that there was a life-time obligation of secrecy, that was not quite accurate. They were prepared to allow some information to dribble out as long as it did not appear to have the absolute authenticity of a real full-time working spy but just came from a hack. The staff counsellor will be able to give advice as to who to contact at the Daily Express and the ghosting cost for providing information on "My life as a spy". He will be able to take the heat off the difficult circumstances in which people, who, after all, are ordinary human beings following a somewhat extraordinary occupation, can find themselves.
        The amendment contains a bit more parliamentary accountability. It takes one's breath away that people can sit on the Treasury Bench and talk about there being a parliamentary democracy, which these spies are working to protect, but in the next breath they can take away the essence of that accountability in a parliamentary democracy. Yet subsection (11) of the amendment provides
        "The Prime Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of each annual report made by the Staff Counsellor",
        with the qualification that, if there is anything that prejudices the network, the information or the position, it can be deleted by the Prime Minister. It will assure people in this difficult occupation that the staff counsellor is doing his job. The spies, too, will be doing theirs without encountering any difficulty. The staff counsellor will have the information about pensions at his finger tips if a new Peter Wright comes along and says, "Look, my pension will be rotten; I need another earner. Can you give me some guidance?" He will be able to produce new figures for pensions. As everybody knows, that is the basis on which Mr. Wright wrote his book, and that is something which he reiterates again and again in the book.
        An annual report by the staff counsellor laid before Parliament would be a bit more pressure to provide time in this House. As the Minister said in an earlier debate, it is not just a question of curiosity. This Parliament is the most important Chamber in the country. We all face elections, we are all accountable, and it is not just a question of vicarious enjoyment in some sort of Bond escapism.
        We are talking about a serious section of Government work. Therefore, we should have the opportunity to have: debates on that work. I believe that subsection (11) provides that opportunity.
        I hope—I do not have faith that it will happen—that the Minister will accept the amendment and, if there are deficiencies in its drafting, will suggest that it be moved in another place.
        1.45 am
        Mr. John Patten: As they used to say in the old days when the great escapologist broke free, "With one bound he was free."
        My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) used the excellent words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which he reported accurately. He also reported words when I replied to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and I thought that they sounded rather good. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South has introduced the themes in his amendment, but he has not demonstrated the vital missing ingredient of need and, therefore, why the amendment is necessary. Hence my ability to escape, Houdini-like, from the dialectical trap of the well-honed words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself into which he attempted to encompass me.
        When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the appointment of the staff counsellor to a surprised House on 2 November 1987 she made his functions clear. I refer hon. Members to column 512 of the Official Report for that day, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South has already referred.
        The system is in place and is working well. It does not need any legislation to underpin it. I understand that the staff are well aware of the staff counsellor's existence and of the arrangements for consulting him, which are simple and direct.
        On 21 December, during Second Reading of the Official Secrets Bill—to to which my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South referred—I made clear the sort of circumstances in which the staff counsellor might be approached by a member of the security and intelligence services regarding a member's wish to publish information about his experiences in the services. That system had never been spelt out so fully before and I have nothing to add to what I then said.
        I see no need for my hon. Friend's proposal to extend into statute law the life of an official who is successfully carrying out his role as staff counsellor.
        Mr. Maclennan: The Minister said, as he might have said before the Bill was introduced, that the system is working well and that there is no need to put it on to a statutory basis. We do not think that the system is working well and certain admissions from Ministers during our deliberations tonight confirm our view. For that reason we want the system set on a statutory basis.
        The reality is that what a Minister concedes under pressure from his Benches one day he can withdraw on another day. The statutory provision, along the lines outlined in the amendment, would provide a degree of permanence to an arrangement that, by its nature, is transitory. There is a need for permanency, at least until Parliament can think of a better way in which to provide for anxious members of the Security Service.
        When the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) returns from the nether regions or from the Antipodes, I doubt whether he will be satisfied with what the Minister has said. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will want to consider his stance on the Official Secrets Bill carefully once he has read this debate. The Minister has advanced no argument of substance against a statutory
        304
        basis. Once again he has shown the Government's unwillingness to accept any amendment, however sound and however much support it enjoys.
        Mr. Aitken: As they say in American show business, "The opera ain't over until the fat lady sings." In this case she is played by Sir Philip Woodfield, the Security Service staff counsellor. We are solemnly told that there is no point in writing his role and functions into the Bill because there is no need to. Everything is working perfectly well. I do not know how much detail we have about Sir Philip's activities, or about how many members of the service have been to see him, or about what his functions have been. We shall have to take it on trust that everything is going perfectly.
        But one part of the amendment cannot possibly be said to be working well or to be unnecessary. Here I return to the promise made by my hon. Friend the Minister to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). How can there be no need for subsection (9), which writes into statute the promise my hon. Friend gave on 21 December? It was given only three weeks ago; there has not been a surge of people going to the staff counsellor asking for their memoirs to be authorised. I do not suppose those authors have all read the small print of Hansard closely. It cannot be true that there is no need for this to be written into the Bill. First, the staff counsellor's role needs to be put on a permanent basis, rather than depending on a written answer. Secondly, if only to get my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion to vote again on the Official Secrets Bill, there is a need to write the memoir and communication assisting parts into the Bill.
        We have reached the comic opera finale: not one amendment will be accepted under any circumstances by the Government. There is a funny side to that, but a sad side, too, and on that note I close.
        Amendment negatived.
        Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
        Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister intend to bring the clause into operation at the same time as the rest of the Bill, or does he intend to delay it, using his powers under clause 7?
        Mr. John Patten: This subject will be discussed during consideration of the next amendment. But I can say now that we do not yet know the final shape of the Bill. This matter will require the usual consideration after we know that, which will enable us to make full use of the commencement provision.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
        Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      Clause 7

        SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
        Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 4, line 2, leave out subsection (2).
        Anyone reading the past two days' debates on this legislation would realise that we have been through a farcical procedure. Most people will marvel that the Government have pushed through the measure that they claimed would give the Security Service a statutory basis with so little input and scrutiny by the House. It is also amazing that the Government think they can get away

        305
        with a measure that leaves all the power in the hands of the Home Secretary and Prime Minister. They claim a statutory basis, but the Bill leaves all decision-making to Government Ministers—nothing is set down in statute.
        The final affront is the commencement order at the end of the Bill. Clause 7(2) reads:
        "(2) This Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by an order made by statutory instrument appoint, and different days may be appointed for different provisions or different purposes."
        That means that the Secretary of State wants a blank cheque for deciding how much of the legislation he will bring into force. He has just told my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that he will wait until the end of the legislation process, until the Bill has completed its progress through the House of Lords, before deciding how and when the legislation will come into operation. That is totally unsatisfactory.
        This is a simple measure and there is little in it that needs to be brought in over a lengthy period. It would be quite simple for the Government to follow the precedent set by other Bills and not insert a commencement clause, in which case the legislation would come into operation with the Royal Assent. The Government claim that the measure contains checks and balances. If that is so, it is reasonable to ask for the whole measure or none of it. We do not want the Secretary of State deciding over several years when certain parts of the measure can come into operation while others do not operate at all.
        We have some means of scrutinising statutory instruments, but we do not have procedures for scrutinising statutory instruments that are not laid. It is a gross abuse that measures containing regulating powers often go through the House and Ministers do not use those powers for many years afterwards. Sometimes they are never used, hut there is no way in which the House can scrutinise them. I seek from the Minister an assurance that the whole measure will be brought into operation at one time. He should not say that the first part of the Bill, which gives extra powers to the Secretary of State, will be brought into operation at once while the second part, which allows for some mild scrutiny, will not be brought in until later.
        I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment because it would ensure that the whole of the legislation would be operative on Royal Assent. We should also have a proper Report stage so that hon. Members may return to the many issues that have entered the debate and which have not been satisfactorily answered. We should get answers here rather than having to wait and hope that the other place carries out the scrutiny that we should be allowed to carry out.
        Mr. Cryer: I asked a question on clause 5 because I wanted to hear the Minister's comment before we came to this amendment. His comment at that time was as unsatisfactory as all his other comments. The Minister must have a strong sense of irony because he said that he would wait until he knows the shape of the Bill. Every amendment has been rejected and the Whips have been operating to get the majority of Conservative Members—most of whom have not troubled to listen to the debate—to vote. The Minister must either be very stupid-and I do not think that he is—or very ironic to say that he does not know the shape of the Bill. He knows its shape perfectly well because it is in the document before the Committee. He knows 99 per cent. of the shape of the Bill.
        306
        The Government know what will happen in the Lords. The Bill is not about rural buses for which a few Lords might come out of their castles and vote against Government legislation. The Minister knows that the Bill will go easily through the Lords. Clause 7(2) does not even say that the Minister will bring in clauses by order when he chooses. It says:
        "different days may be appointed for different provisions or different purposes."
        That means that the Minister can bring into operation any section of the legislation. He can bring into operation part of a section or part of a schedule, and that is unusual. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has said, statutory instruments will be dealt with by the negative procedure. We do not object to that. However, we object to the fact that the Minister is not able to give an assurance.
        2 am
        We want an assurance that, when it is brought into operation, the Bill will include the appointment of the director-general to oversee the efficiency of the service. and we want clause 4 to be included because it will enable the commissioner to keep an eye on the Minister in the exercise of his function in issuing what have been described as burglary warrants. The Minister should be reasonable and agree to introduce the safeguard clauses at the same time as the rest of the measure. It would be an outrage, with an elective dictatorship trampling on the rights of Parliament, if the Minister failed to give that assurance.
        Clause 5 must also come into force at the same time., because it safeguards people who feel abused by the burglary warrants. As it establishes a tribunal to deal with complaints, it must be introduced early, and it is no excuse for the Minister to say that he does not know the final shape of the Bill. The Government must heed the words of the former Lord Chancellor and not adopt the stance of an elective dictatorship, casting aside their responsibilities to Parliament. It would be a disgrace if they did that.
        Mr. John Patten: I hope I can reassure the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). The provision which the amendment standing in the name of the latter would delete is the usual formula which permits flexibility in the implementation of any measure. An example of that is the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which the Home Secretary and I took through the House. That is now being implemented quickly and in various stages.
        On present indications, we have no plans to bring this measure into force, should it become law, in a piecemeal fashion. It is our intention that the whole measure should come into force as soon as practicable after Royal Assent.
        Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman uses the phrase "as soon as practicable." Will he give an indication of the time scale? He will be aware that many pieces of legislation do not contain commencement orders and come into operation as soon as they receive Royal Assent.
        Mr. Patten: The Bill as drafted is coherent and inter-related and all of a piece. It is the intention of' the Government, as soon as Royal Assent is achieved, to bring it into play as soon as possible.
        Amendment negatived.
        Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill

      SCHEDULE 1

        INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS
        Mr. Winnick: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 5, line 7, after 'his' insert
        'and shall have the right to appear in person, or by his legal or union representative, before the Tribunal.'.
        It is not clear whether somebody making a complaint to the tribunal must appear in person or can authorise his union or legal representative to appear on his behalf. The tribunal must first decide that the complainant has a case. The Bill makes it clear that if it is a frivolous complaint the tribunal will not consider it.
        Once the tribunal has decided that the complainant has a case to adduce, the Security Service will do its utmost to produce evidence seeking to justify what it has done. If the complainant cannot appear or have a representative, he or she will be very much at a disadvantage. For instance, I cite the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) which is being brought before the European Court of Human Rights. Clearly, she will have legal representation, but if the Bill were already on the statute book and she and Patricia Hewitt had made that complaint against the security services and the Government to the tribunal, she would not have been able to appear in person or have legal representation. That would have been most unfair.
        I hope that the Minister will accept my proposal. If he does not and a complainant has no right to appear before a tribunal in person, it makes a complete mockery of the tribunal procedure. It emphasises once again the view put forward over the past two days by Labour Members, and by some Conservative Members, that there is no real control over the security services and that they are and to a large extent will remain a law unto themselves.
        Mr. John Patten: There may be cases in which the tribunal considers that a complainant or complainants—I shall not consider the particular cases raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—should be asked to attend in person or to be represented. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman's amendment gives me the chance to clarify that point.
        Under the Bill the tribunal is free to determine its own procedure, subject only to the restrictions concerning the disclosure of information provided to it. The Bill does not, therefore, prevent the tribunal from hearing oral evidence from the complainant, or from others appearing on his or her behalf—for example, the trade union official to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, or a solicitor—where that would help the tribunal to discharge its functions.
        If the complainant were invited to attend, he or she could ask to be represented or accompanied. There is certainly no bar in the Bill to a complainant taking legal advice or being legally represented. It is similar to the procedure under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. Under that Act, the applicant is required to sign the form, which is a freely available document, but that is all. It makes it clear that he or she could ask a solicitor, for example, to submit the application to the tribunal on his or her behalf. In the same way, if oral evidence were needed from the complainant by the tribunal, the tribunal would be free to hear his or her legal representative or any other representative proposed by the complainant.
        Mr. Buchan: For one golden moment, I thought that we were about to receive a better assurance from the Minister, but he is determined to end our debate on the same sour note of the past two days. There is no guarantee that a legal or trade union representative will be present in such cases. Why does the Minister not simply accept the amendment and write it into the Bill? If he will not, it means that he considers that there are cases in which that right should not be given to the complainant. Will he not accept the amendment even at this late stage? If that provision is not written into the Bill, there is no assurance that the Minister believes that a complainant can of right be legally represented or represented by his trade union. Will the Minister give us an assurance that that will happen? If he cannot do that, will he accept the amendment so that he can give us that assurance?
        Mr. Winnick: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), I hoped that the Minister's opening remarks meant that he saw some reason or justification for my modest amendment No. 41. Surely it is a basic principle of British justice that if a person brings a complaint before a tribunal or a court, that person should be able to appear or to be represented. I have some experience of these matters. Before I returned to the House I represented people who lodged appeals on immigration cases. It was never thought that those people should not be allowed to appear before the adjudicator or tribunal or be duly represented.
        If the Minister cannot accept my amendment, is he willing to say that the matter will receive favourable consideration in another place? Nothing in the Bill goes anywhere near what the Minister said.
        Finally, I repeat what was said earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). When matters are brought before a tribunal or court, decisions are made according to the Act passed by Parliament, not what a Minister said or what is written in Hansard. Therefore, if the Minister cannot accept the amendment because the Home Secretary is not around, and he needs his right hon. Friend's authorization—I understand that and am not being sarcastic—if he will say that the points that have been raised are worthy of further consideration, he will give some partial satisfaction.
        Mr. Cryer: Ministers usually set out in statutory instruments the procedures to be followed by tribunals. That is to ensure that the tribunals are fair. I am sure that the Minister wants the tribunals to be fair in their adjudication on complaints. I should have thought, therefore, that he would have given at least some indication of the procedures that they should follow.
        Although the tribunals are appointed by royal warrant—whatever that is—in practice they are appointed by the Government. As the tribunal is a creature of Government, the Government would normally inform the tribunal about the procedures that it should follow. Because it is a highly secretive tribunal, I am being indulgent. I believe that its rules should be set out in a statutory instrument, as for all other tribunals that Ministers in various Departments set up to adjudicate on various matters. In this case, however, I am prepared to indulge the Minister by saying not that there must be a statutory instrument making everything open and above board but that we expect the Government to inform the House about the procedures that the tribunal will follow and to allow the

        309
        right of representation. That should be made absolutely clear. The Minister has told the House that that process may be followed but he has also said that tribunals make up their own rules, so if a tribunal is determined to ignore the right of representation because that is convenient for it, it can presumably do so. Will the Minister tell us that it will be the Goverment's recommendation to the tribunal to accept representation? Despite the undesirability of the lack of clear rules, is the Minister prepared to do that?
        Mr. Winnick: I have invited the Minister simply to say whether the matter should be considered in another place. We are in Committee. Surely the Minister can answer yes or no.
        Mr. John Patten: I have given a very good explanation of the Government's position and I do not intend to add to it.
        Amendment negatived.
        Schedule agreed to.
        Schedule 2 agreed to.
        Bill reported, without amendment.
        To be read the Third time this day.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): We come now to motion No. 2 on Scottish housing.
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Not moved.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that motions Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are not to be moved.
        Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
        Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government have not moved the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1989 because of the lateness of the hour. I wish to place clearly on record that the reason that the hour is so late is the Government's obduracy in refusing to accept a single amendment among all the constructive amendments proposed to the Security Service Bill. It is scandalous of the Government to treat the House with the contempt that they have shown it tonight in every respect.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Adjournment motion has been moved, and hon. Members must be aware that they are now taking the time of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).

Leighton Hospital, Crewe
2.16 am
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Prime Minister makes great play of the fact that, in future, we should consider the National Health Service in a completely new light. We are told to look for new partnerships between the Health Service and private medicine, and that we should seek to improve the amount of work that is done in the NHS other than by those who are employed by it full time. It is important that we consider what has happened in the Crewe and Nantwich district health authority, because it gives some indication of what the future is likely to hold. I refer to the private hospital built in the grounds of Leighton district general hospital in my constituency, which will be run by Bioplan Holdings.
I was interested to read in the Health Service Journal of 17 November 1988 an account by the district health authority's current finance director as to how the partnership came about—not least because it is extremely instructive. Addressing a seminar on the need to create deals with the private sector, that finance officer commented that Crewe and Nantwich set out to devise joint ventures only because the amount of money required—£500,000—was not available to the health authority if it had wanted to go ahead alone. He added:
"We didn't involve the Treasury, or the Department of Health or the region, until it was too late for them to do something. I am not saying it is what everyone should do, but there are a lot of people around who are saying that they wished they had ploughed their own furrow, too."
Why is this important? First, NHS hospital land is, without exception, Crown land. How the value of that land is assessed and what deals are entered into with the private sector will be of interest not only to the taxpayer but to the Public Accounts Committee. The value of the leases that are handed out on NHS property will affect the viability of any private unit, and it is therefore important that the taxpayer is protected in all such deals.
One delegate who was concerned tackled Mr. Thomas because Crewe had not put the deal out to tender. How, he asked, did Crewe know the value of the land on the open market? Mr. Thomas said that he was convinced that the company had made a good offer. Another asked whether Crewe had carried out any investigation into Bioplan. Mr. Thomas said that internal audit staff had been unable to find out much because the company was so new.
I can honestly say that after 22 years in the House I have developed a new aspect of my work with which I have never had to deal before. Virtually continuously, I have had someone at Companies house researching the status and background of private companies seeking to enter into deals which concern themselves with state assets. In this instance, Bioplan is no exception. I have in my hand the microfiches relating to the company's records, and I have considerable sympathy with Crewe DHA, because it is very difficult to find out any useful information from those microfiches about the company's financial standing, its overall accounts or the way in which it has been run.
Yet Peter Townsend, who is referred to as the chair of Bioplan Holdings, said when he was talking to the same seminar that having started out with its own private hospitals in 1986 Bioplan decided that its future lay in partnerships. The company concentrated on the acute sector and the care of elderly people. I can find no useful

311
information about Bioplan, and Crewe DHA was manifestly in the same position. It entered into the deal with, presumably, no accurate figure for the cost of the land, and therefore presumably finding it extremely difficult to produce an accurate assessment for the lease; not knowing anything about the company with which it was dealing; and going ahead without having consulted, on the evidence of the finance officer, anyone either at regional or at any other level. It is extremely risky for anyone to enter into a business partnership on that financial basis, yet the pattern could well be followed if the NHS continually seeks to put an estimate on the assets that it has by virtue of being a state authority.
I was extremely concerned about the creation of this private hospital. First, it is extremely small: it has only 20 beds, and in normal circumstances could not conceivably create a viable unit. I was also concerned because it was created at a time when nearly £2 million had been cut from the amount made available for the running of the DHA. Moreover, when the press statements were put out about the Bioplan agreement, we were told that there would be no capital or revenue outlay; Crewe health authority would lease the one-and-a-half-acre site and would generate income of approximately £80,000 a year. A number of services were also listed as being part of the deal. The agreement was that Bioplan would build a new private hospital at a cost of£1.5 million, and that it would also invest a substantial amount in upgrading and improving the X-ray department in Leighton hospital. Other facilities were also promised.
This matter was of particular interest to me, as only last December I received the final answer to a series of letters that I had written to the DHA about a number of cases in which my constituents who were non-urgent cases required straightforward X-rays relating to conditions likely to be of major importance to them, and had been told that there was a wait from 2 September 1988 until 10 March 1989. It was therefore of considerable importance to me to know that there was to be this great investment of extra money and extra teams, which was to make an enormous difference for my NHS patients, because this is what I have been told all the way along: "Of course it will not detract from the National Health Service. It will provide a much better level of care."
We in the Crewe district have considerable doubt about the level of management that exists already in the DHA. The chairman has more than once pushed through very important decisions on his casting vote. There is also a history of senior officials leaving the authority. I suppose that I should not have been altogether astonished when the gentleman of whom I am talking, Mr. David Thomas, who had negotiated all of these contracts, very soon afterwards announced that he was leaving Crewe and going elsewhere. My local paper reported on 31 October that Mr. David Thomas, who had served as director of finance for Crewe, had announced plans to quit the post early next year and take up a new role with a private health care company which is currently building a 20-bed non-NHS hospital at Crewe.
There is no other profession in the world where one may leave and set up business immediately on the same premises as those people with whom one was working. I therefore asked the Minister a question about the
312
conditions under which employees can leave the National Health Service, presumably taking with them a great deal of expertise, only to be told by the Minister that this was a matter for the individual DHA.
I remain very concerned. This hospital will have a direct effect on the quality of care within the NHS. It has been set up in such a way that there is no transparency in its financial arrangements, and it has now taken on its staff someone who has detailed knowledge of the running of the NHS. That is very important, because it is money from the NHS that will create the viability of this unit. The company has already been given considerable contracts for providing certain care for NHS patients, and it is the number of people who will be pushed into this unit that will, in the final analysis, make the difference to its economics.
It goes much wider than that, however. There has been an enormous cut imposed upon the ambulances in the area, and when I read the consultation document it suddenly became clear that, to find£47,000, one of the things that had certainly been suggested was that something like 50 per cent. of the travel in the Crewe area was represented by journeys to Leighton hospital. The ambulance service was saying, in effect that, if people did not fully qualify for an ambulance—I do not know how that is justified, because that must imply that people using the ambulances have no right to do so—and if there was a need to make swingeing cuts, one of the things that could be said was that 50 per cent. of ambulance journeys within Crewe town were to Leighton hospital and thus could be abandoned in the name of economy. So it becomes very clear that what happens at Leighton will affect us right across the board. Certainly, the way the establishment is run in relation to the private hospital is affecting us across the board.
I do not expect the Minister to give me detailed answers to what are real problems, but I want to make it clear that if we are to talk within the NHS about partnership, we have to face one basic question. Crown land is not assessed in the normal way in dealing with the creation of a new hospital. That is what has happened here. How those assets are assessed must materially affect the viability of the projects.
Contracts between people working within the NHS and private contractors must carry with them at least some protection for the NHS over a period of years. Most professional organizations—doctors are no exception—insist that written into the contracts of people employed should be undertakings that they will not carry with them into exactly the same area in which they have operated the expertise that they have gained without some protection for their previous employer. It is not good enough for the Department of Health to say only that that is entirely the responsibility of the district health authority.
It is also vital that we have an urgent investigation into the general management of Leighton hospital. There are considerable difficulties with the staff there. There is a great deal of unease. The regrading of the nurses is only one example of the problem of morale, which has been exacerbated, becoming barely tolerable for many staff.
In short, if private companies are to be allowed to go into the NHS, I want to know who investigates their viability, who demonstrates their expertise, who tells us where they have come from and what ability they have. I have already investigated three other companies that were applying for geriatric care within the same health

313
authority, only to find that two of them were directly connected and, even more interestingly, that one of the companies had put in a high tender for the service and one had put in a low one. When I made it clear that I knew the connection between the two companies, strangely enough one of the tenders was withdrawn.
I take a great deal of care about investigating the private firms that are interested in coming into the NHS, but I want a simple assurance from the Minister that there should be no deals with the NHS unless the criteria that apply would be acceptable to the Public Accounts Committee or the House of Commons as being completely open and transparent. We would not accept less in any other area, and I see no reason why we should accept less in the NHS.
The matter of Crown land must be looked at, how it is assessed, how the deals are entered into and what the implications are. Private companies must not come in, milking the NHS for all the facilities that they can lay hands on, using NHS patients to improve their facilities and promising to provide many new services with high-powered equipment, but in fact using the NHS for their own purposes without demonstrating any comparable improvement in facilities for my constituents. It is not good enough to talk about the gain to my district health authority without being able to provide all the relevant facts on the other side of the equation.
Above all, I ask that the management and the immediate past management should be investigated urgently so that never again will people who negotiate financial deals suddenly reappear on the other side for the private company concerned, working within the Crewe district health authority. That is offensive, and I have considerable doubts about the professionalism or the responsibility of companies that allow that to happen.
2.33 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on obtaining this Adjournment debate and presenting her arguments so clearly. I shall spend a short time on the general subject of private hospitals in the NHS and then deal with some of the points that the hon. Lady has raised. She has kindly said that she does not expect me to answer all the points that she has raised tonight. I shall try to answer as many as possible, but if I cannot answer them all in the time available I shall read the Official Report carefully with my officials and write to her.
The Government very much welcome the contribution of the private sector to the totality of provision for health care. Such a contribution should be regarded as adding to the total resources devoted to health care and offering flexibility to health authorities in the delivery of services. Government policy, therefore, is to encourage partnership between the National Health Service and the private health sector when this is a cost-effective way of providing or extending services. Many constructive arrangements already operate to the benefit of NHS patients, but there is scope for much more. Innovative approaches from private organisations are welcome, particularly where they accord with overall policy objectives. If a profit-making organisations can give the NHS better value for money there is no reason to put artificial barriers in the way. Equally if the NHS generates income by selling services to
314
the private sector it should be given every encouragement, always provided, of course, that there is no detriment to the NHS.
I must take issue with the hon. Lady. She, perhaps, did not mean to imply that all partnership arrangements between the private sector and the NHS could be typified as milking the NHS or using it for private profit. I assume that she was making her criticisms specifically in relation to the transaction at Crewe.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Minister think that people enter into agreements with the NHS to make money for themselves or to provide a service on the generous basis of wishing to serve humanity?
Mr. Freeman: Private companies enter into partnerships with the NHS not only to make money—which is the nature of private companies—but to do so in co-operation with the NHS. That broadens the choice available to patients and enhances total patient care. In my judgment, the two are not incompatible.
Against this background, individual health authorities must decide for themselves whether to enter into contractual arrangements with private health care organisations and establishments. To answer the first of the hon. Lady's points, it is the responsibility of the local health authority—in this case the district health authority to satisfy itself about the credibility, reputation and standing of any organisation with which it wishes to do business. That is where the responsibility should be exercised. It is not my responsibility to pass judgment on each transaction. In coming to such a decision—that is the partnership between the private company and the NHS—health authorities will need to take a great many factors into account in determining the feasibility of such arrangements in the light of local needs and priorities. Cost will, of course, be an important consideration but by no means the only one. Ultimately, it is all done for the benefit of patients.
I shall now turn to the particular circumstances of Crewe and the questions that the hon. Lady put to me. I shall deal first with the financial arrangements. In June 1988, Crewe DHA and Bioplan Holdings plc signed an agreement that would enable Bioplan to build a new private hospital in the grounds of the existing Leighton hospital at Crewe. The development—known as the South Cheshire private hospital—is now under construction on a site leased to Bioplan by Crewe health authority on terms agreed by the district valuer of the Inland Revenue. The terms of the lease were on the basis of advice that was provided by the district valuer.
I understand that the new private hospital with 20 beds should be ready for patient use in April 1989. The development does not involve any capital or revenue outlay by Crewe health authority—on the contrary, the agreement is expected to generate additional financial resources. I understand that the press release—of which the hon. Lady probably has a copy—that was issued at the time of the announcement of the transaction referred to amounts of up to£140,000 per annum. Those are additional financial resources that are available to Crewe health authority. That additional funding will be reinvested in Leighton hospital to improve services for NHS patients. Crewe health authority anticipates that the NHS and the private sector will flourish side by side to the

315
mutual benefit of all concerned and, in particular, the patients. The net result of the transaction is to provide incremental resources to the local district health authority.
I want to deal briefly with the comments that the hon. Lady made about Mr. David Thomas. The hon. Lady has particularly referred to the part played in negotiating the agreement with Bioplan by Mr. David Thomas, who resigned as director of finance with Crewe health authority with effect from 16 December 1988 following his appointment as Bioplan's operational manager for the new private hospital in Crewe. In view of the concern expressed by the hon. Lady, I shall briefly explain the position as I understand it. Bioplan Holdings initiated discussions in August 1987 with Crewe health authority through consultant staff, then in turn with the chairman, Mr. John Taylor. As I have said already, dealings between the company and the authority were carried out on a proper, formal basis.
Mr. David Thomas left the employment of the authority on 16 December 1988. As I understand it, Mr. Thomas played no part in the initial approaches by Bioplan. As the exercise progressed, he took no independent decisions whatever in relation to Bioplan. All decisions were taken by Crewe health authority members at formal meetings of the authority. All valuations were conducted through the district valuer, with revenue detail being based on Crewe's actual accounts. The legal documentation was conducted through the Mersey regional legal adviser. The general approach was discussed with the officers of the regional health authority. The siting of the new private hospital was dealt with by Crewe health authority's director of estates. I give this factual information in the hope that it will alleviate some of the hon. Lady's concerns by showing that a significant number of people were involved in the exercise and that the proper procedures were followed at all stages.
The hon. Lady asked whether it is proper for someone leaving the district health authority immediately to go to work for a private company that has financial relations or dealings with that authority. The hon. Lady knows that the current position is that it is for the employing health authorities, which are statutorily independent bodies, to decide whether to introduce into individual contracts of employment any restrictive clauses of the type that I have outlined. That policy is consistent with the views of the Royal Commission on standards of conduct in public life, which concluded in 1976 that it should be left to local authorities and other public bodies to appraise their own needs in this respect.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I remind the Minister of the quotation from Mr. Thomas:
"We didn't involve the Treasury, or the Department of Health or the region until it was too late for them to do something."
I ask the Minister to look again at what I have said. I understand what his brief says, but I am asking him to look at the facts and then to tell me if he is still satisfied.
Mr. Freeman: I fully understand what the hon. Lady says, and, as I said at the outset, I shall do just that.
Finally, let me deal with the question of waiting lists and the use of Bioplan by Crewe health authority to perform surgery on about 300 patients. The hon. Lady did not refer in detail to this aspect but perhaps I may put the arrangements on the record. It is necessary briefly to rehearse the background to the matter. Crewe health authority has been among those with the most serious waiting times for surgery. To improve that situation it has set itself specific targets in agreement with the Mersey regional health authority—first, that all patients waiting for surgery for two years or more should receive their operations by 31 March 1989 and then successively to reduce waiting time to a maximum of one year by 31 March 1990. This might be termed a war on waiting times. To achieve the first objective, Crewe health authority has adopted a number of measures. These include extra sessions at Leighton hospital, referral to other NHS hospitals in Mersey region and the use of a Ministry of Defence hospital in Swindon.
Even after all those actions, some 300 patients across four specialties will remain to be treated by 31 March. These will be dealt with under a contract with Bioplan Holdings. The work will start on 6 February and patients will be treated in ward and operating theatre accommodation at Leighton hospital. This accommodation has been closed for routine work for four years as the hon. Lady probably knows. Bioplan will provide nursing, theatre and medical staff who have been recruited in advance of the opening of the new South Cheshire private hospital in April. The arrangement that has been negotiated allows Bioplan to cover expenses only and provides for no profit. In other words, during the build-up of staff pending their full employment when the new private hospital is opened, they will be attacking the waiting lists at Leighton hospital, which will benefit all the patients in the district health authority area. The average cost per case in the Bioplan scheme is way below that available locally in the private sector. Another private sector hospital was approached. The total cost would be considerably higher if Crewe health authority itself attempted to deal with the 300 cases, mainly because agency rates used for the staff groups required on a short-term basis are considerably higher than those quoted by Bioplan.
To sum up, the Government believe that private hospitals can work in partnership with NHS hospitals for the greater good of the community and without diminishing NHS care. I hope that I have dealt with the hon. Lady's concerns about arrangements. As I said at the outset, she has raised a number of points and I shall read the record and reply to her. I hope that she and I are at least agreed about one thing: that what counts above all is care of patients, whether they are treated in the private or NHS hospital in Leighton in Crewe district health authority. I pay tribute to the work of all those who work in the Leighton hospital.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Three o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Exposure Draft 42
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he proposes to make a statement on Exposure draft 42, "Accounting For Special Purposes Transactions".

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department commented on Exposure draft 42 last summer. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs subsequently made an announcement in August on related matters: changes to the definition of a subsidiary, which are now included in the Companies Bill; and the circumstances in which it may be necessary, in order for group accounts to show the required true and fair view, to treat a body which is not legally a subsidiary as though it were one. I have no plans to make any further statement in connection with Exposure draft 42.

  Single Market
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why, in the single European market literature that has so far been published by Her Majesty's Government, there is no mention of the common agricultural policy for 1992 and onwards.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department of Trade and Industry's single market pack describes the available details of the European Community's single market programme. Common policies in the agricultural area are of long standing and the implications of completing the single market for them are generally limited to the agrimonetary system on which the Commission is due to report shortly.

  Companies (Wrongful Trading)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many prosecutions have been brought against companies for wrongful trading under the Insolvency Act 1986; if he will list the companies concerned; and how many of these prosecutions have(a) been completed and (b) resulted in conviction.

  Mr. Atkins
  Wrongful trading is not a criminal offence under the Insolvency Act 1986. It is a civil remedy available to the liquidator of a company in insolvent liquidation. My Department does not maintain records of wrongful trading actions.

  Post Office
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he intends to bring forward legislation to remove the monopoly for postal items under £1; and if he will make a statement.
  106
  Mr. Forth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to him on 16 January 1989,Official Report, column 16.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has or proposes to have with the chairman of the Post Office, following the disruption of the post in the London south-west postal districts over the Christmas period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of the Post Office at regular intervals to discuss a range of matters of current interest.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what products exported from the United Kingdom require export licences; and what is the average period of time taken for the issue of such licences.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Products requiring export licences are listed in the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987 No. 2070), as amended. Applications for licences are considered on their merits. The time taken to process these is dependent upon the nature of the product, its destination and possible end use. It is not possible to state an average period of time for the processing of such licences, but for non-sensitive applications; my Department would normally expect to issue a licence within three weeks.

  Century Newspapers Ltd., Belfast
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his reasons for not immediately referring the takeover bid for Century Press by Thomson Regional Newspapers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]The application by Thomson Regional Newspapers has been made under the financial urgency provisions in section 58(3)(a) of the Fair Trading Act 1973. This legislation allows the Secretary of State one month in which to consent to the transfer or refer it to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for inquiry. No decision on the application will be taken until all relevant factors have been taken into account, including representations by third parties.

  EC (Structural Funds)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the areas of Derbyshire which he has submitted for consideration to the European Commission under its review of the European Economic Community's structural funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]The European Commission is to draw up a list of areas; to receive support from the Community structural funds, including the European regional development fund, under the funds' new objective 2 (conversion of industrial regions). We believe that the following parts of Derbyshire satisfy criteria in Council regulation (EEC) No. 20522/88 qualifying them for consideration for selection, and have
  107
  asked the Commission to include them in the list:

  Chesterfield Travel-to-Work Area (TTWA)

  The Derbyshire parts of: Mansfield TTWA

  Sheffield TTWA

  Worksop TTWA

  Derby City Urban Programme Area.

  The Commission's decision is expected during

  EC (Takeover and Merger Policy)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement setting out the respective powers and responsibilities of his Department, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the European Economic Community Commission in relation to the takeover of United Kingdom companies; what will be the impact on these responsibilities of the proposals being considered by the European Economic Community on takeover and merger policy; and if he will make a statement on the implications of these supervisory and control powers for the anticipated bids for GEC.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]The powers and responsibilities of my Department and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are contained in the Fair Trading Act 1973. Under that Act the Director General of Fair Trading has a duty to advise the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on whether a merger or merger proposal should be referred to the MMC for further investigation and report. The EC Commission has power to enforce the competition rules in articles 85 and 86 of the treaty of Rome, which may apply to certain mergers. Regulation of the market conduct of takeovers in the United Kingdom is carried out by the panel on takeovers and mergers. There is currently no provision in EC law in respect of such regulation. Discussions are currently in train on a Commission proposal for an EC merger control regulation, and proposals for an EC takeover directive are due to be published soon. Issues of principle and detail are outstanding. It is too early to assess the implications. Were a bid to be made for GEC, it would be considered under existing procedures, in so far as they may be applicable.

  Dish Aerial Receiver Units
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will abolish without delay the currently applicable £10 licence charge payable to his Department at the moment of purchase of satellite television dish aerial receiver units, in view of enhanced consumer demand for such units.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]I have nothing to add at this stage to my reply of 20 December 1988 to my hon. Friend at column 154. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will, however, make a statement as soon as possible.

  Net Book Agreement
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what evidence he has about the implications of the net book agreement for the number of independent and chartered booksellers, and their financial viability.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 13 January 1989]The implications of the net book agreement for independent and chartered booksellers were among the matters taken into account by the restrictive practices court in 1962 when 108
  it considered the agreement under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956. The court then judged that the restrictions in the agreement did not operate against the public interest. Under present legislation, it is open to the Director General of Fair Trading to apply to the court for a review of its decision if he considers that there has been a material change in the circumstances on which the original judgment was based. My Department has no role in this process and does not therefore collect the kind of evidence to which the hon. Member refers.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he intends to publish his Department's review of the net book agreement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 13 January 1989]My Department is not engaged in such a review. Under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 and the Resale Prices Act 1976, the review of voluntary agreements such as the net book agreement is a matter for the restrictive practices court, on application by the Director General of Fair Trading.

  EC (Research Council)
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress was made at the meeting of the Research Council of European Community Ministers on 15 December; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I represented Her Majesty's Government at the meeting of the Community's Council of Ministers (Research) in Brussels on 15 December.

  The Council adopted a common position on Joule, a Community programme of research in the field of non-nuclear energy and efficient use of energy supplies with Community funding of 122 million ecu (£79 million) over 39 months. The programme will cover rational use of energy including energy efficiency, conservation and storage, renewable energy sources including solar, wind and geothermal, and research into hydrocarbons and the better use of solid fuels.

  The Council also adopted a common position on a new Brite/Euram research programme combining research previously carried out under separate programmes in the fields of industrial technologies and advanced materials. The programme will provide Community funding of 499·5 million ecu (£324 million) over four years with the aim of helping to improve the competitive position of the Community's manufacturing industries. A total of 35 million ecu (£23 million) of the total will be devoted to aeronautical research.

  Export Services
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the Government's review of export services.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Following the export services review foreshadowed in the White Paper "DTI—the department for Enterprise" (Cm. 278), DTI export services have been strengthened to meet exporters' needs more effectively, and simplified in their presentation so that businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises new to exporting, will find them easier to use. As the export initiative, the services form part of the DTI enterprise
  109
  initiative, a comprehensive package designed to help business improve its competitiveness both at home and overseas.

  The main improvements to the export services are as follows:

  (a) Introduction of new export advisory service to be administered in co-operation with the Association of British Chambers of Commerce (ABCC), leading regional chambers, and in some cases export enterprise centres. The Government will provide up to £2· of funding on a tapering basis over a maximum of three years. The scheme involves the appointment of 31 export development advisors nationwide who have considerable private sector exporting expertise. They will take a positive role in identifying potential exporters and offering practical assistance tailored to the specific requirements of individual firms.

  (b) Greater involvement of the private sector in delivering export services and advice to potential exporters. This includes:

  (i) contracting out the administration of the export marketing research scheme to the ABCC for three years from 1 December 1988;

  (ii) enabling private sector contractors to compete with the Department for the provision of stand design and installation at overseas trade fairs which the Government support; with effect from the 1989–90 financial year;

  (iii) faster delivery of export intelligence information by contracting out to a private sector firm the marketing, sale, and delivery in the United Kingdom of overseas market information provided by diplomatic service posts (and other sources);

  (iv) setting up a three-year pilot study in conjunction with The Netherlands-British chamber of commerce to provide new export counselling services to British companies which will complement the work of our diplomatic service posts; if successful, similar schemes could follow elsewhere in Europe.

  (c) Improvements to the quality of management of the export services and to staff training. We have introduced a system under which an industrial market research company will monitor standards of export service delivery worldwide, enabling us to ensure that export services remain relevant to customers' needs. A major new training programme for DTI export staff has been implemented. This will be augmented with the support of the CBI, ABCC, and Institute of Export by a new programme of short-term attachments for DTI export staff to gain first-hand experience in exporting companies.

  (d) Better marketing of the Government's export services. We are issuing in 17 January 1989 a new introductory guide to exporting designed to help firms new to exporting understand the exporting process, and how the Government can help. It is accompanied by a new promotional video. This will be supported by a sustained campaign in newspapers and technical journals advertising our services.

  (e) Rationalisation from 1 April 1989 of the charges made for Government export services. We will extend charges to cover advice and information on overseas markets provided by diplomatic service posts abroad in response to specific requests from British companies. This will enable us to offer a more professional and cost-effective service, and to concentrate resources on the services of most value to exporters. We will introduce at the same time a simplified payments system, based on the use of a servicecard specifically for export services. This will be accepted by all diplomatic service posts oversea.: and relevant Government offices in the United Kingdom. It will be operated for us by a private sector company.

  110

  (f) The introduction from 1 April 1989 of a scheme in which my Department and companies will jointly provide funding for training people from overseas who have, or may in future hold, important procurement responsibilities. The aim will be to give the individuals concerned the opportunity to acquire experience in British companies and of British business and manufacturing methods. This will strengthen ties between our exporting companies and their overseas customers.

  Other improvements to the services include closer integration of the export initiative with other elements of the enterprise initiative, particularly the consultancy in export strategy available under the marketing initiative; the development of an export market information centre in the DTI; and restyled Government export publications and trade literature.

  The new and improved services will help to ensure that smaller companies and those new to exporting receive better Government support. The strengthened export initiative should also benefit larger and more experienced companies, who make a major contribution to British exports. They play a vital role in retaining a British presence in overseas markets by winning large export contracts which provide considerable numbers of sub-contracts of benefit to smaller and medium-sized firms. To succeed in these highly competitive areas, and to secure the deals which provide such striking advertisements for British technology, consultancy and management skills, our companies must be able to compete on equal terms with their foreign counterparts. The Government offer a wide range of project services to enable them to do so, and have a continuing commitment to winning major projects overseas. These services include the aid and trade provision, which is Government-to-Government aid, within which is the global soft loan facility introduced in November 1985. The Overseas Projects Board will continue to give its valued guidance to us in these activities.

  The British Overseas Trade Board will continue to be closely involved in the planning and operation of the export services, in promoting greater awareness of overseas markets and best practices in exporting, and in promoting British business overseas. In addition, it will in future be responsible for helping to develop a corporate plan, ensuring that our export promotion strategy and priorities reflect market developments and businesses' needs.

HEALTH

  Salmonella
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will publish a summary of the evidence in the possession of his Department at the time when the Protein Processing Orders 1981 were drafted about the proportion of poultry affected by salmonella.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Agriculture Ministers carried out a process of consultation on proposals for the control of protein processing in 1978 and again in 1980 before the making of the Diseases of Animals (Protein Processing) Order 1981 and the Importation of Processed Animal Protein Order 1981. The central public health laboratory carried out two surveys of frozen whole chickens the results of which were as follows:
  111

  year

  Number of samples

  Salmonella from

  Number

  Per cent.

  1970–73

  495

  168

  33·9

  1979–80

  100

  79

  79·0

  Consultations took place against the background of growing concern about the increasing incidence of salmonella in livestock.

  Since the making of the orders the public health laboratory service has carried out a further survey of frozen whole chickens, the results of which were as follows:

  Year

  Number of samples

  Salmonella from

  Number

  Per cent.

  1987

  101

  65

  64·4

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the figures for reported cases of human salmonellosis for December 1988 as soon as they are available; and what were the figures for each of the previous 12 months.

  Mr. Freeman
  Laboratory reports on identifications of salmonella infections in man are collated weekly. The following table gives provisional four-weekly totals, to week 52, of laboratory reports of salmonellosis submitted to the public health laboratory service in 1988.

  The new clinical grading structure for nursing, midwifery and health visitor staff—numbers of old clinical grades assimilated to each of the new clinical grades on the basis of duties and responsibilities on 1st April 1988: Nottingham DHA

  Previous grade

  Staff in post1

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G1

  H

  I

  Nursing Auxiliary

  1,263·58

  1,147·18

  114·40

  2·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Nursery Nurse

  34·50

  —

  32·00

  2·50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Enrolled Nurse3

  799·75

  —

  —

  131·96

  652·83

  14·96

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Enrolled District Nurse3

  27·30

  —

  —

  —

  26·30

  1·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Enrolled Nurse3

  103·45

  —

  —

  1·40

  83·55

  18·00

  0·50

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Nurse3

  1,045·30

  —

  —

  —

  215·53

  788·18

  41·59

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Midwife3

  120·82

  —

  —

  —

  23·00

  97·82

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Deputy Sister3

  50·13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·00

  48·13

  —

  —

  —

  Nursing Sister II3

  590·90

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  260·86

  328·04

  2·00

  —

  Midwifery Sister II3

  153·10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23·13

  129·97

  —

  —

  District Nurse (Sister II)3

  112·04

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  112·04

  —

  —

  Nursing Sister I

  6·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6·00

  —

  —

  Midwifery Sister I

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Health Visitor

  124·45

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  123·45

  1·00

  —

  Senior Nurse 8

  71·60

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·00

  39·60

  27·00

  3·00

  Senior Nurse 8 Midwife

  7·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7·00

  —

  —

  Senior Nurse 7

  45·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5·00

  8·00

  32·00

  Senior Nurse 7 (Midwife)

  10·93

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9·00

  1·93

  Clinical Teacher

  26·16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  26·16

  —

  Fieldwork Teacher

  14·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14·00

  —

  Practical Work Teacher

  24·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24·00

  —

  Tutor

  38·03

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  38·03

  Tutor Midwife

  8·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8·00

  Post Basic Students

  Enrolled

  35·00

  —

  —

  35·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Nurse

  183·00

  —

  —

  —

  183·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Deputy Sister

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sister II

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Others

  2·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·00

  TOTALS

  4,89604

  1,147·18

  146·40

  172·86

  1,184·21

  921·96

  376·21

  751·10

  111·16

  84·96

  1 Whole-time equivalents.

  2 Excludes some additional "G" posts which health authorities have indicated they intend to create in future on existing two-sister wards.

  3 Excludes Post Basic Students.

  112

  1988 (provisional) four-weekly period

  Weeks

  Reports

  1–4

  1,072

  5–6

  779

  9–12

  788

  13–16

  776

  17–20

  1,221

  21–24

  1,579

  25–28

  2,143

  29–32

  2,803

  33–36

  12,033

  37–40

  3,585

  41–44

  3,348

  45–48

  2,636

  49–52

  1,360

  Total reports

  24,123

  1 Postal strike.

  NHS Staff (Grading)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff from each of the old grades have been assimilated to each of the new grades in the current clinical grading structure in Nottingham district health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is given in the table.
  113

  Abortion
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are taken by his Department to ensure the implementation of his requirement that centres where late abortions are preformed have immediate access to resuscitation equipment in the event that the child is born alive.

  Mr. Freeman
  Places in the private sector approved to carry out abortions after the 20th week of gestation are required to give additional assurances as to the availability of resuscitation equipment, including suction apparatus, incubator and oxygen supply. These facilities are monitored by the Department's medical/nursing officers during the course of routine unannounced visits.

  General Practitioners (Pay)
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he proposes to review the funding arrangements for general practitioners so that they are paid according to the number of patients they attract, and the quality of services they provide.

  Mr. Mellor
  The White Paper "Promoting Better Health" (Cm. 249) announced a range of changes to the general practitioner's contract with the National Health Service which includes raising the proportion of income which is related to the number of patients on a GP's list and linking pay more directly than at present to service and performance. The Government are currently consulting the GPs' representatives on the arrangements necessary to introduce these changes.

  Health and Local Authorities (Co-operation)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details of plans currently being considered within his Department to improve liaison and cooperation between local authorities and district health authorities.

  Mr. Mellor
  Our current examination of community care policy following Sir Roy Griffiths report includes consideration of the need for any changes to be made to the current arrangements for joint planning between health and local authorities. We continue strongly to encourage authorities to work and plan together within existing systems to develop a co-ordinated range of services.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on ethnic monitoring in mental hospitals.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information on the ethnic origins of detained mental patients in special hospitals has been recorded for some years. We are now exploring the feasibility of collecting data on the ethnicity of patients in NHS hospitals, including mental hospitals. If feasible, implementation would take some time because of the need to adapt health authorities' current data collection systems and in order to link with any question of ethnicity in the 1991 census.

  Hospital Building Programme
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's hospital building programme.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information held centrally shows there are currently 528 health building schemes, each costing over £1 million, at various stages of planning, design and construction with an estimated total value of £4·1 billion. In the next financial year capital expenditure of £1 -2 billion is planned, an increase in real terms of 43 per cent, since 1979.

  Health Authority Managers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of bonus payments made to health authority managers since their introduction; if he will list them to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Health authority general managers, have been eligible for performance-related increases in salary since 1 September 1987 and senior (second-in-line) managers since 1 September 1988. The numbers of awards notified to the Department to date are as follows:

  1987

  1988

  General Managers

  690

  668

  Senior Managers

  —

  601

  Individual awards cannot be listed because they are based on confidential assessments of individual performance.

  The performance-related pay scheme is working well and we shall shortly be extending it to a wider group of managers at region, district and unit level.

  Health Services (Duplication)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the steps he is taking to reduce the duplication of functions between local government social services departments and family practitioner committees and district health authorities.

  Mr. Mellor
  Health authorities, local authorities and family practitioners committees are required to co-operate in the planning and delivery of their services. We strongly encourage them to plan and work jointly, and with voluntary organisations, in order to minimise the possibility of any gaps or duplications in their activities and to promote the development of a co-ordinated range of services.

  Hospitals (Opting Out)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will issue guidelines about the involvement of regional, district and unit general managers in discussion about the possibility of individual hospitals opting out; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Government's proposals for the future management and structure of the Health Service will be published shortly in a White Paper.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will publish any guidelines issued by his own
  115
  Department to regional health authorities on the privatisation of their services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Health authorities were asked in September 1983 to put their domestic, catering and laundry services out to tender. Detailed guidance has been issued by the Department to authorities on how the process should be carried out. Copies of the most recent guidance (November 1987) which updated and refined earlier guidance have been placed in the library. We encourage health authorities to consider the possibility of competitive tendering in any area of their services where this is seen to offer scope for increased effectiveness and value for money. Progress has been made by authorities in extending the range of services subjected to tendering.

  Politically Sensitive Issues
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will publish any guidelines issued by his Department to regional and district health authorities in the involvement of their employees in public discussion on politically sensitive issues; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. All NHS employees are expected to conduct themselves in a manner appropriate to their position. Their conduct is, however, a matter for their employing health authorities and there are no centrally issued guidelines.

  Listeria
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield, Official Report, 8 December, column 339, what procedures exist which would effect the withdrawal of cooked food in sealed packages which contain listeria monocytogenes.

  Mr. Freeman
  The procedures for dealing with cooked ready-to-eat food contaminated with a pathogenic micro-organism depend upon the circumstances of each case. A locally distributed food can be dealt with by local authorities using powers under the Food Act 1984. More widely distributed food may require rapid communication by the Department to inform and advise all local authorities on the extent and type of local action.

  Cook-Chill Catering
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield,Official Report, 1 December, column 384, on what date Mr. Arthur Pinegar of the Leeds public health laboratory ceased his involvement in private research concerning cook-chill catering.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to him by my predecessor on 1 December 1988, at column 384.

  The public health laboratory service has no further details of when Mr. Pinegar ceased those activities to which the hon. Member refers.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to ensure that hospital patients in health authorities which introduce cook-chill catering also have the opportunity to consume food produced by conventional methods as an alternative.
  116
  Mr. Freeman
  Health authorities are responsible for determining the delivery of catering services and take into account the needs of the hospital patients.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is possible for cook-chill food from commercial catering companies to be supplied at hospitals with central production units within the requirements of his Department's 1980 guidelines on pre-cooked food in catering.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes. Health authorities should satisfy themselves that any cook-chill food from outside sources meets the recommendations in the 1980 guidelines.

  Medical Physicists
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department intends to take to improve morale and pay prospects for medical physicists working in the National Health Service; and what recent representations he has received from the Institute of Physical Sciences in Medicine in that regard.

  Mr. Mellor
  The management side of the Scientific and Professional Staffs Council has set up a working party to investigate the scale of reported problems of recruitment and retention of medical physicists and other scientists. I have received no recent representations from the Institute of Physical Sciences in Medicine about these matters.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Yorkshire regional health authority has sought the opinion of district health authorities within the region regarding the implementation of cook-chill catering.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes. It consulted on a strategy document between 25 March and 30 June last year.

  Radiation (Exeter)
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will provide the finance required by the Exeter health authority to provide compensation for its patients given excess doses of radiation;

  (2) what additional funds his Department will provide to enable Exeter health authority to pay substantial compensation to patients given excess doses of radiation.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) on 20 December 1988, at column 251.

  Medical Defence Bodies
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sum in the current wage settlement for junior doctors has been earmarked to cover their premiums to medical defence bodies.

  Mr. Mellor
  No specific sum was identified in respect of junior doctors as a group. In 1988–89, £31 million was made available to health authorities in the United Kingdom to meet the estimated full cost of reimbursement of two thirds of the cost of Medical Defence Society subscriptions payable by doctors employed by them.

  Cancer (Children)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of cancer affecting children were
  117
  reported in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure 30 years previously.

  Mr. Freeman
  National registrations of newly diagnosed cases of cancer are not available over a period of 30 years. However, the table shows the number of registrations, and the registration rate per 100,000 population for persons aged under 15 years of age for 1962,1974 and 1984 (the latest year available) for England and Wales. The statistics should be interpreted with care as the ascertainment of cases has improved over the whole of this period.

  Number of registrations of newly diagnosed cases of malignant neoplasms, and rates per 100,000 estimated population, persons aged 0–14 years. 1962, 1974 and 1984. England and Wales.

  Year

  Number

  Rate

  1962

  966

  9·1

  1974

  1,164

  10·1

  1984

  1,085

  11·3

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors have been responsible for the alterations in the incidence of cancer in children.

  Mr. Freeman
  Very little is known generally about the causes of childhood cancer. A great deal of research into this subject is continuing by various groups in this country, including the Childhood Cancer Research Group, which is supported by the Department.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Expenditure
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much expenditure on social security has increased since 1978–79; and what increase in spending is planned for 1989–90.

  Mr. Scott
  Total spending on the social security programme increased from £16·4 billion in 1978–79 to an estimated £47·6 billion in 1988–89. This represents a 33 per cent, real increase in spending of almost £12 billion over the period.

  Social security spending is planned to rise to £51·1 billion in 1989–90. This is £3·5 billion higher than in 1988–89.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will make it his policy to ensure that the social fund budgets allocated to social security offices in Scotland for 1989–90 are not less in total than for 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are currently considering the allocation of the 1989–90 social fund budgets to local offices and will make an announcement as soon as possible.

  Community Care Grants and Loans
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will launch a publicity campaign informing potential claimants of the availability of community care 118
  grants and loans, to ensure that the budgets are fully spent by the end of this financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Take-up of community care grants has increased significantly over recent months and expenditure is currently running at 77 per cent, of monthly profiled expenditure. However, we are taking action further to improve awareness of the help that can be provided.

  Local office managers have been asked to improve and maintain their liaison with local statutory and voluntary organisations since these are often best placed to identify people who may be eligible for help. We are also considering what additional measures might be taken to improve national information material on the scheme. In addition social fund officers have been reminded of the need to be flexible in applying guidance to individual cases and we are currently revising existing guidance in the social fund manual to make this clear.

  Expenditure on loans has now reached national monthly profiled levels and we do not consider that further action is required in this area.

  Medical Appeals Tribunals (Deafness)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has plans to ensure that evoked response audiometry machines will automatically be available at medical appeals tribunals when cases of industrial deafness are under consideration.

  Mr. Scott
  This is a matter for the president of social security and medical appeal tribunals and the hon. Member may care to contact him direct.

  Service Homes
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with Servite Houses on the funding of its homes for the frail elderly; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security met representatives of Servite Houses Ltd. on 26 May 1988, and there was a useful discussion of issues of mutual concern. The information provided by Servite Houses Ltd. was taken into account along with evidence provided by other organisations, in the most recent review of the income support limits.

  The Government's decisions were announced in October 1988 as part of the general uprating of benefits. From April 1989 additional help will be provided to nearly nine out of 10 income support claimants in homes.

  Disablement Income Group
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had from Mr. Peter Large of the Disablement Income Group in regard to the report entitled, "Being Disabled Costs More Than They Said", a copy of which was sent to him on 3 January; what reply he is sending; if there is any action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I have received a letter from Peter Large enclosing a copy of the Disablement Income Group's
  119
  "Being Disabled Costs More Than They Said". Mr. Large's letter summarised the main points of the report and asked the Government to take note of them. In my reply I have made it clear that we will consider carefully the points raised in the report.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many mobility allowances were granted in 1988; how many were refused; how many went to appeal; and how many of those appeals were successful.

  Mr. Scott
  The available information is as follows. It relates to decisions given on claims (including renewal claims) during the year, not to claims made during the year.

  Numbers

  Claims decided

  Awards

  127,560

  Disallowances

  77,305

  Appeals and references decided by medical boards

  Number decided

  20,980

  Decisions in favour of claimant

  6,122

  Appeals decided by medical appeal tribunals

  Number decided

  6,547

  Decisions in favour of claimant

  1,846

  Department Offices
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give details of proposed changes in staff levels at social security offices in the north-west region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The staffing reductions from the implementation of operational strategy in local offices in the north-west region are currently expected to be 1,575 posts between 1 April 1989 and 31 March 1993. Changes in staffing levels may also be required from time to time to reflect changes in local office workloads.

  Heating Costs
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, pursuant to the statement of 10 January,Official Report, column 814, he will identify the sums incorporated in income support to cover the cost of heating.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The income support rates are intended to provide for all normal day-to-day living expenses, including heating costs. There is no separately identifiable sum included for heating costs. It is for individuals to decide how best to spend their benefit in the light of their own needs and preferences.

TRANSPORT

  Public Service Obligation
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what amounts of financial resources have been paid to British Rail under public service obligation grants for each year since 1983; and what proportion is given to the south-eastern region of British Rail.
  120
  Mr. Channon
  The figures for Government support for the British Railways Board taken from the final claims for grant in compensation for the public service obligation under EEC regulation 1191/69 and section 3 of the Railways Act 1974 are given below. 1984–85 is a 15-month period reflecting a change in the board's financial year. The figures for 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89 remain provisional; final claims have not yet been agreed. All figures are cash.

  £ million

  1983

  853·6

  1984–85

  1,065·9

  1985–86

  820·0

  1986–87

  713·9

  1987–88

  800·6

  1988–89

  572·5

  Grant is paid to the board in respect of subsidised passenger services as a whole; it is not hypothecated to business sectors. From 1983 to 1987–88 approximately 30 per cent, of the grant was allocated to Network SouthEast (and its predecessor London and South East). It is not yet possible to provide a figure for 1988–89.

  Motorways (Private Vehicular Access)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a list of all sites of private vehicular access to each motorway not being motorway junctions; and if he will provide a map to make such sites easily identifiable.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Yes. It will take a little time to prepare the material.

  M1-A1 Network
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he intends to take to ensure that motorists using the M1/A 1 networks can travel reasonably quickly and freely; if he envisages increasing the number of carriageways; if he will be implementing charged tolls on sections of these roads; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are a number of schemes in the programme to reduce congestion on both the M1 and the Al. The extension of the M40 to Birmingham will provide relief to the M1.

  We are currently reviewing the road programme. We expect to make an announcement in the spring.

  There are no plans to charge tolls on the M1 or A1.

  Irish Sea Ferries
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the maximum loadings allowed on each ferry between Ireland and Great Britain; and what action is taken to ensure that these figures are not exceeded.

  Mr. Portillo
  The maximum loading allowed on ferries corresponds to immersion of the hull up to the clearly visible load-line mark. The maximum number of passengers allowed is stipulated on the passenger ship safety certificate which every passenger ship including ferries must carry. It is the statutory duty of the master to ensure before his ship proceeds on any voyage that the load-line mark is not submerged and that the maximum number of passengers permitted is not exceeded.
  121

  Road Transport Cabotage
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures will be taken in the context of the single European market to ensure that road transport cabotage will not infringe the European Community's treaty on the environment.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  All vehicles, whether undertaking cabotage or international journeys, will have to comply with both Community law and the national laws of the countries they are visiting.

  NATO (ACTICE Study)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the posts, ranks and responsibilities of those attending the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation ACTICE study held at the civil defence college in April 1988.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department hosted a training session for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation agency for the co-ordination of inland surface transport in central Europe (ACTICE) at the civil defence college between 25 and 29 April 1988. The proceedings and details of attendees are classified.

  NATO (Transport Planning Conference)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which organisations, departments or individuals have been invited to attend the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation transport planning conference, to be held at the civil defence college in spring 1989.

  Mr. Portillo
  The department will host a routine meeting of the northern Europe sub-committee of the planning board for European inland surface transport (PBEIST) at the civil defence college in spring 1989. The meeting will be attended by representatives from Norway, Denmark, Germany, Canada, United States of America and the United Kingdom.

  Chiltern Line
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he is yet in a position to announce his response to British Rail's request for additional signalling equipment and rolling stock on the Chiltern line services.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail have only just submitted their proposals to me for renewing the Chiltern line rolling stock. I hope to be able to announce a decision very shortly. Work on modernising the signalling is already making good progress and is expected to be completed in 1990.

  West London Line
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will request the chairman of British Rail to publish figures of how many passenger and freight trains, respectively, cross the Thames on the west London line each day; how many passengers are carried; and how many trains use this route between 11 pm and 7 am.

  Mr. Portillo
  On weekdays there are 12 passenger trains in each direction, on Saturdays 3 in each direction and on 122
  Sundays one in each direction. Up to 25 freight trains use the line daily, but separate figures for the 11 pm to 7 am period are not kept. Approximately 1,100 passengers use the line on weekdays, and considerably fewer at weekends.

  River Thames (River Buses)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the number of public river buses operating on the Thames and the number of passengers carried, for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Portillo
  Thamesline plc began a regular public service in June last year which at the end of the year was using seven vessels and carried about 5,000 passengers a week. Statistics of riverbus services are not available on an annual basis for the last 10 years.

  River Thames (Tunnels)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the tunnels under the Thames, between Kingston and the estuary, giving in each case the present and past use and the width of each.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Thames tunnels between Kingston and the estuary

  width in metres

  (i) Road tunnels

  Rotherhithe

  4·9

  Blackwall, Old

  6·1

  Blackwall, New

  6·1

  Dartford, West

  6·4

  Dartford, East

  7·3

  (ii) Railway tunnels

  Victoria Line at Vauxhall

  3·8

  Northern Line at Charing Cross

  3·6

  Bakerloo Line at Charing Cross

  3·7

  Waterloo and City at Blackfriars

  3·7

  Northern Line at London Bridge

  3·6

  East London Line at Wapping

  3·4

  (iii) Pedestrian tunnels

  Greenwich

  1·6–2·8

  The use of these tunnels has remained unchanged since they were built.

  In addition there are various service tunnels used for purposes other than transport.

  EC (Railways)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each European Economic Community country the mileage of newly constructed railway opened for public service in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Portillo
  I regret that my Department does not have this information.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each year since the passing of the Transport Act 1968 the number of rail services which have been withdrawn and for which a substitute bus service has been provided; whether the bus service is still in existence in each case; and, if not, why it was terminated.
  123
  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that this information is not available. Unlike substitute bus services provided under the Transport Act 1985, earlier replacement bus services did not require ministerial consent before they were withdrawn. No substitute bus services have yet been provided under the new provisions of the 1985 Act.

  Fishing Vessel New Dawn
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the collision between the fishing vessel New Dawn and the USS Will Rogers on Tuesday 3 January; what investigation or inquiry he proposes into the incident; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The collision took place at about 0730 on 3 January, some 5 miles south of the Isle of Arran in the Firth of Clyde. Neither vessel was seriously damaged and there were no injuries.

  An investigation was ordered on 3 January and is being carried out by one of the Department's marine surveyors.

  Motor Vehicles (Clocking)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has considered the proposals of the motor trade working group, chaired by the Director General of Fair Trading, to introduce mileage recordings at the driver and vehicle licensing centre, in order to combat the practice of clocking of motor vehicles.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The implications of the proposal, which involves a DVLC-based mileage recording scheme, are still being considered. An announcement will be made shortly.

  Home Report
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the joint working party established to consider the Home report's recommendations on diversionary works has completed its deliberations; and when he intends to introduce legislation putting into effect the Home report's conclusions.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The diversionary works working party, which includes representatives of the utilities, local authority associations and British Railways Board, has recently completed a draft code of practice dealing with the procedures to be followed when highway or bridge works affect utility apparatus, including cost sharing. The code will shortly be referred to the relevant organisations for endorsement. Legislation to implement the recommendations of the Home Committee will be introduced when a suitable opportunity can be found.

  Burley-on-Wharfedale (Relief Road)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his plans to allow the building of a relief road around Burley-on-Wharfedale.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Good progress is being made on this scheme which appears in the last roads White Paper for a start of construction in the period April 1989 to March 1991. The decision was announced in December last to proceed with the making of the line and side roads orders. The draft compulsory purchase order is due to be published this spring.
  124

  British Airways/British Caledonian Airways (Merger)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the merger between British Airways and British Caledonian Airways has been implemented consistently with the revised proposals put to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission by British Airways.

  Mr. Channon
  On 5 January 1988 my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping wrote to the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority asking him to establish monitoring arrangements to ensure that the BA/B-Cal merger proceeded on the basis proposed by British Airways to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  The chairman of the CAA has now submitted a full report to me and from the information contained in this report I am satisfied that British Airways has fulfilled its commitments to the MMC during the year under review. I have placed a copy of the CAA's report to me in the Library of the House together with a copy of my reply. The CAA will also be publishing its report in its weekly proceedings.

  East Midlands Air Crash (Fund)
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give further details of the Government's contribution to the disaster fund set up by the North West Leicestershire district council for the victims of the east midlands air crash and their families.

  Mr. Paul Channon
  I have announced that the Government will be making a contribution of £250,000 to the east midlands air crash disaster fund. I very much hope that the Government's example will encourage others to join in helping the bereaved and those who suffered as a result of the accident. Neither the fund nor the Government's donation to it will affect claims for compensation.

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will donate £100,000 from resources available to him, and £150,000 will be contributed by my Department. Parliamentary approval for these payments will be sought in Supplementary Supply Estimates. Pending that approval, both donations will be met by repayable advances from the respective contingencies funds. As savings are sufficient to meet these sums, there will be no increase in the public expenditure planning total.

  United Kingdom-Singapore (Air Services)
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of talks between Her Majesty's Government and the Republic of Singapore on increasing air services between the two countries.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 12 January 1989]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.

  Airport Security
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what research his Department has
  125
  commissioned into the use of neutron beam detector systems in relation to airport security; what level of funding is being allocated to this work; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many companies have been invited to tender for the supply of neutron beam detectors for airport security use; when such tenders were invited; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer, 13 January 1989]: Development work on using the thermal neutron activation analysis technique for detecting explosives is taking place both in the United States of America and this country (at Harwell). The technique employs large neutron sources, and this raises considerable radiation protection problems. In both countries the results of tests carried out under laboratory conditions were encouraging, and prototypes are now being tested to establish reliablility and suitability for searching baggage under operational conditions. The United States prototypes have been more extensively tested. They have been on trial at San Francisco airport and the FAA has recently ordered five production models. We and the United States authorities maintain close liaison on such matters.

  £ million

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89 (to date)

  1989–90 (planned)

  UNICEF, General Resources

  6·3

  6·5

  7·0

  7·5

  8·0

  UNICEF, Supplementary funded projects

  1·338

  6·570

  8·223

  1·880

  1—

  Save the Children Fund, Joint Funding Scheme

  0·675

  0·905

  1·045

  1·925

  1—

  Save the Children Fund, Supplementary grants

  7·958

  1·718

  4·787

  n/a

  1—

  1 To be decided.

PRIME MINISTER

  GATT
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if the European Council will be considering its policy on the future subsidising of agriculture before the next meeting of the general agreement on tariffs and trade.

  The Prime Minister
  The European Council will next meet on 26–27 June 1989. Negotiations on agriculture in the current GATT round are continuing and the Community will participate in them on the basis of positions agreed in the Agriculture and Foreign Affairs Councils.

  European Commissioners
  Mr. Tam Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will meet Señor Felipe Gonzales, chairman of the Council of Ministers, to discuss the criteria for the appointment of European Commissioners.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Technology Assessment Unit
  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) whether she will publish a list of the technology assessments which have been carried out by the technology assessment unit established in the Cabinet Office in 1988;

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Child Starvation
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much overseas aid this year is being specifically directed towards ending child starvation and hunger in the Third world; what were the corresponding figures for each of the past three years; and if he will increase this figure for the next financial year.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  It is not practicable to separate expenditure directed towards ending child starvation and hunger from that designed to benefit the poor of the Third world generally. The object of the British aid programe is to promote sustainable economic development and to alleviate poverty. In 1987 over 80 per cent. of the bilateral aid programme went to the poorer countries—those with annual incomes per head of less than $800—where the incidence of hunger and malnutrition is greatest.

  Her Majesty's Government's contributions to key organisations with a specific remit for children and with programmes concerned with child nutrition include the following:

  (2) whether it is her intention to publish any of the technology assessment reports carried out by the technology assessment unit of the Cabinet Office;

  (3) whether the technology assessment unit of the Cabinet Office has been asked to undertake an assessment of the scientific validity of the Commission of the European Community's decision to ban the import of beef produced from cattle which have been fed with hormones.

  The Prime Minister
  The Cabinet Office's science and technology assessment office does not itself undertake assessments of this kind. As explained in the Government response to the first report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, 1986–87 Session (Cm. 185), its role is to encourage the adoption of sound assessment systems by Government Departments and other bodies concerned with publicly funded research and development.

  Department of Food and Health
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will now reconsider the proposal to establish a single Department of Food and Health, thereby closing down the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and whether she will publish an estimate of the effect on public funds of such a proposal.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to establish a single Department of Food and Health.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on her initiatives to co-ordinate interdepartmental action on the greenhouse effect.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 16 January 1989, at column 1.

  Engagements
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.

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

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Fax Machines
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many fax machines were purchased by hon. Members for their use in the House; and at what cost.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information requested by the hon. Member is not available centrally since the purchase of such equipment is an individual matter for right hon. and hon. Members.

  Library Papers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will ensure that a copy of every Library deposited paper is supplied to the branch library in Norman Shaw North; and if he will monitor the situation in the future.

  Mr. Wakeham
  About 80 per cent. of papers deposited in the Members' Library are also available in the branch library. Some papers because of their size, format or 128
  restricted contents, cannot easily be duplicated. However, I have made arrangements to remind Government Departments of the desirability of sending a second copy to the branch library whenever possible. The Library keeps deposited paper arrangements under constant review.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  National Savings
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total current number of national savings ordinary accounts.

  Mr. Lilley
  There are approximately 56·2 million ordinary accounts of which only 7·7 million are active, that is, which received a deposit during the last five years.

  Drugs
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, according to substance, weight, street value and point of location or interception, major quantities of dangerous drugs seized by Her Majesty's Customs in each of the years 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: I regret that this information is not readily available in the form requested.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Israel (Palestinian Detainees)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his latest estimate is for Palestinians detained without trial in Israel; how many of these come from the occupied territories; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We understand that there are just over 900 Palestinian administrative detainees currently held by the Israeli authorities. These are among a total of between 4,000 and 5,000 Palestinians detained so far without trial in Israel and the occupied territories. In addition to the administrative detainees, there are those awaiting trial, under investigation, sentenced for short periods or of as yet undefined status. We have made clear repeatedly to the Israelis our strong opposition to the practice of administrative detention.

  Citizenship (European Community)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Portugal or within the Council of Ministers regarding harmonisation of the citizenship and nationality arrangements for people in dependent territories of each member country of the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Weapons
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy not to agree to North Atlantic
  129
  Treaty Organisation modernisation of nuclear weapons until the House of Commons has expressed its view thereon.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government's support for modernisation is well known and is reflected in their endorsement of successive NATO communiqués reiterating the Alliance's determination to keep its forces, nuclear and conventional, effective and up to date. The modernisation issue has already been raised in the House on numerous occasions. Moreover, the Government have undertaken to report to the House on nuclear modernisation as it affects British forces when the appropriate moment comes.

  BAOR
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average number of(a) British land forces, (b) British main battle tanks and (c) British armoured personnel carriers stationed on the mainland of Europe in 1987.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The figures requested by the hon. Member for 1987 were approximately as follows:

  Number

  (a) British land forces

  160,300

  (b) British main battle tanks

  2650

  (a) British armoured personnel carriers

  31,900

  1 Includes 3,000 in Berlin.

  2 Does not include reserve stocks.

  3 Includes a number of non-troop carrying vehicles.

  These figures include the British Army of the Rhine and forces stationed in Berlin.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average number of trained infantrymen in each British Army of the Rhine infantry battalion.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The establishment of infantry battalions in BAOR varies according to role. The current average establishment is approximately 660 officers and soldiers. This figure is subject to change as the re-equipping of infantry battalions with Warrior and Saxon, and the conversion of 6 Brigade from the airmobile role, continue.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average number of main battle tanks in each British Army of the Rhine armoured regiment.

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

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average number of anti-tank guided missile systems in each British Army of the Rhine infantry battalion.

  Monthly sorties in the United Kingdom low-flying system

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  January

  10,034

  9,271

  9,567

  9,794

  8,954

  9,723

  11,532

  8,222

  11,179

  February

  8,373

  10,208

  9,456

  12,197

  9,112

  10,436

  12,264

  12,527

  14,279

  March

  9,884

  11,854

  14,992

  12,265

  11,505

  12,973

  10,145

  12,515

  15,494

  April

  11,045

  10,105

  10,759

  11,802

  12,972

  12,793

  14,863

  13,006

  11,733

  May

  11,716

  11,196

  12,116

  12,520

  12,967

  12,534

  13,366

  14,364

  12,990

  June

  11,602

  14,124

  11,827

  15,010

  13,715

  13,158

  13,413

  13,787

  14,220

  July

  12,229

  12,830

  11,443

  15,109

  13,678

  14,267

  17,519

  14,071

  12,653

  130
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to give details of the number of anti-tank guided missiles in operational units or formations.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average number of surface-to-air guided missile systems in each British Army of the Rhine air defence regiment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to disclose the numbers of surface-to-air guided missile systems in operational units or formations.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average amount of time spent by each British Army of the Rhine infantry battalion in(a) training and (b) exercise in 1987.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In 1987, BAOR infantry battalions deployed for up to 26 weeks of training, of which approximately 15 weeks was for battalion level training and 11 weeks for company level training. The form in which records are held does not differentiate between training and exercise deployment and the specific information requested by the hon. Member could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average amount of time spent by each British Army of the Rhine armoured regiment in(a) training and (b) exercise in 1987.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In 1987, BAOR armoured. regiments deployed for up to 23–25 weeks of training, of which approximately 14 weeks was for regimental training and eight weeks for squadron/troop training. The form in which records are held does not differentiate between training and exercise deployment and the specific information requested by the hon. Member could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of complaints about low-flying aircraft for each training area for each month since January 1980 and give for each month the relative number of sorties involved.

  Mr. Neubert
  Monthly breakdowns of low-level military training sorties and complaints and inquiries received at the Ministry of Defence about such training are as follows. It should be noted that some of the monthly figures for earlier years were corrected on aggregation and yearly totals calculated by aggregating the monthly figures given may differ slightly from the yearly totals supplied previously to the House.
  131

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  August

  7,976

  10,005

  10,366

  10,482

  10,532

  11,634

  10,229

  11,959

  13,182

  September

  10,714

  11,551

  10,950

  9,768

  9,973

  11,338

  12,847

  12,954

  11,459

  October

  11,156

  12,476

  10,339

  11,585

  12,421

  12,849

  12,950

  11,950

  11,589

  November

  9,365

  11,431

  11,053

  10,201

  9,929

  12,993

  12,968

  12,892

  —

  December

  8,756

  6,790

  7,477

  8,614

  7,761

  7,064

  9,068

  8,814

  —

  Monthly Complaints in the United Kingdom Low Flying System

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  January

  222

  159

  142

  246

  206

  145

  238

  224

  283

  February

  194

  228

  257

  212

  145

  190

  210

  227

  311

  March

  170

  209

  323

  288

  150

  170

  164

  236

  324

  April

  276

  283

  367

  405

  288

  224

  308

  305

  449

  May

  242

  329

  235

  619

  370

  406

  401

  405

  668

  June

  383

  540

  232

  589

  885

  301

  569

  515

  634

  July

  372

  721

  405

  727

  1,009

  487

  636

  777

  643

  August

  389

  483

  290

  814

  925

  573

  1,062

  691

  917

  September

  459

  724

  418

  516

  480

  591

  701

  723

  497

  October

  328

  329

  192

  211

  401

  382

  454

  691

  349

  November

  160

  298

  276

  294

  324

  390

  294

  714

  —

  December

  170

  199

  168

  146

  186

  274

  267

  187

  —

  It is not our practice to publish detailed information relating to specific low-flying training areas.

  Royal Yacht (Costs)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the total running costs of the royal yacht Britannia for the year 1987.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The overall running costs for HMY Britannia for financial year 1987–88 were approximately £7·3 million.

  Shipping Collision
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has received from the United States Navy about the collision between the USS Will Rogers and the fishing vessel New Dawn on 3 January; what action he proposes to take; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence was informed on 3 January 1989 that the submarine USS Will Rogers had been involved in a minor collision while on the surface with the 50-ton fishing trawler New Dawn in the Firth of Clyde. The collision occurred at approximately 0730 during USS Will Rogers' passage to Holy Loch. The trawler reported only superficial damage and continued under way. On return to port, an initial hull inspection of USS Will Rogers revealed minor scraping and chipping of paint. The US navy is conducting an investigation regarding the incident.

  Trident (Costs)
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimate of the cost of the Trident programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Younger
  I am pleased to announce that for the third year running I am able to report a reduction in the estimated costs of the Trident programme. The revised estimate at average 1988–89 prices is £9,089 million. The estimate is based on the exchange rate of £1=$1·76 used for the current long-term costing of the defence programme. The forecast proportion of the programme to be undertaken in the United Kingdom has risen to 68 per 132
  cent., the highest level so far. After allowing for the effects of inflation and exchange rate variations, the new estimate represents a real reduction of some £104 million compared with last year's estimate and a real reduction of £1,051 million compared with the original 1982 estimate, over and above the savings of some £784 million resulting from the decision to have United Kingdom missiles processed in the United States facility at King's bay, Georgia.

  The Select Committee on Defence previously asked that when announcing the annual revised estimate I should report on the state of the project as a whole. I am pleased to say that the project remains on programme to enter service as planned in the mid-1990s. There has been no slippage in the in-service date since the decision to proceed with Trident II was announced in March 1982. I am, as in past years, sending to the Chairmen of the Select Committee on Defence and the Public Accounts Committee a more detailed report covering the progress of the various elements of the Trident programme. I am also placing a copy of the report in the Library of the House.

  HMS Resolution
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decision has been reached over the refurbishment of HMS Resolution; what is the estimated cost of such refurbishment; and what would be the total defence budget allocation to Polaris for 1988–89 in the event of such refurbishment.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 15 December 1988]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence today. In particular, I refer to the more detailed report mentioned in that reply. It has been placed in the House of Commons library, and states that the Ministry of Defence has decided that a fourth refit for the Polaris submarine HMS Resolution is not required.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Teachers
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers have joined the profession in state schools over each of the last five years; how many have left; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  The numbers of teachers entering and leaving the maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools sector in England in the last five years for which figures are available were:

  Year ending 31 March

  Entering

  Leaving

  1982

  22,700

  30,800

  1983

  23,400

  29,400

  1984

  25,600

  29,600

  1985

  24,600

  31,100

  1986

  25,800

  30,800

  These figures include teachers entering from or leaving to other parts of the maintained sector.

  Vandalism
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools in the Bolton area were damaged by vandalism, in particular arson, during each of the last five years; what was the cost to the education authority of this damage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  Data concerning the number of schools affected by vandalism are not available, but I understand that the majority of schools in the Bolton area have been affected. The cost of damage during each of the last five years is given in the table. Such a level of loss is unacceptable, and I am discussing with the local authority associations a range of measures to improve the security of school premises.

  Financial year

  Vandalism £

  Arson £

  Number of fires

  1983–84

  114,098

  18,951

  17

  1984–85

  136,911

  85,000

  12

  1985–86

  155,032

  85,536

  11

  1986–87

  160,967

  14,829

  14

  1987–88

  193,808

  153,202

  20

  Graduates
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of graduates went into industry in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  Seventeen per cent. of first degree graduates in Great Britain in 1987 of known destination entered industry.

  Records of Achievement
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department has any plans to provide additional funds for the development of records of achievement for pupils in secondary education; and if he will make a statement.
  134
  Mrs. Rumbold
  Specific grant funding will be available in 1989–90, as in 1988–89, to support pilot projects in a number of areas and to support in-service training of teachers in all local education authorities. The final report of the records of achievement national steering committee will be published for consultation shortly. Decisions on future developments will be taken in the light of those consultations.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Fires (Investigation)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report for each fire authority in England and Wales for each of the last five years (a) the number of domestic fires described as doubtful, where malicious or deliberate ignition is suspected, and (b) the number of domestic fires where malicious ignition has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

  Mr. John Patten
  The readily available information does not separate suspected deliberate fires from those where it is established beyond reasonable doubt that a fire was started deliberately. A total for the number of deliberate and possibly deliberate fires in occupied buildings for each fire brigade area is published annually in "Fire Statistics United Kingdom", (table 64 for 1986, table 63 for 1985, table 60 for 1984, table 58 for 1983 and table 57 for 1982). Comparable data for 1987 are expected to be published in spring 1989. Provisional estimates for 1987 are given in the following table.

  Deliberate or possibly deliberate fires, by brigade area, 1987

  Number

  England and Wales Total

  15,271

  England—Non-metropolitan counties:

  Avon

  239

  Bedfordshire

  141

  Berkshire

  159

  Buckinghamshire

  130

  Cambridgeshire

  101

  Cheshire

  269

  Cleveland

  236

  Cornwall

  39

  Cumbria

  90

  Derbyshire

  111

  Devon

  153

  Dorset

  107

  Durham

  129

  East Sussex

  144

  Essex

  212

  Gloucestershire

  98

  Hampshire

  215

  Hereford and Worcester

  109

  Hertfordshire

  146

  Humberside

  314

  Isle of Wight

  18

  Kent

  355

  Lancashire

  365

  Leicestershire

  207

  Lincolnshire

  70

  Norfolk

  130

  North Yorkshire

  96

  Northamptonshire

  176

  Northumberland

  63

  135

  Number

  Nottinghamshire

  363

  Oxfordshire

  70

  Shropshire

  79

  Somerset

  53

  Staffordshire

  175

  Suffolk

  107

  Surrey

  188

  Warwickshire

  100

  West Sussex

  100

  Wiltshire

  70

  England—Metropolitan counties:

  Greater Manchester

  1,490

  Merseyside

  1,238

  South Yorkshire

  302

  Tyne and Wear

  713

  West Midlands

  1,295

  West Yorkshire

  756

  Greater London

  2,935

  Wales:

  Clwyd

  69

  Dyfed

  28

  Gwent

  86

  Gwynedd

  51

  Mid Glamorgan

  152

  Powys

  16

  South Glamorgan

  146

  West Glamorgan

  67

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report for each fire authority in England and Wales whether it has a specialist fire investigation team.

  Mr. John Patten
  Only the London and West Midlands fire and civil defence authorities have full-time specialist fire investigation teams. About half the remaining fire authorities have teams whose members combine their duties with other responsibilities. But all fire authorities now have officers trained in fire investigation techniques and are able to use their services, ad hoc, whether individually or as a team as circumstances demand.

  Passport Office, Belfast
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) permanent, (b) temporary and (c) part-time staff have been employed in the Belfast passport office; how many applications for passports have been handled by that office in each of the last five years; and what proposals he has to increase permanent staffing levels at the Belfast passport office.

  Mr. Renton
  The information requested in respect of the Belfast passport office is as follows:

  Year

  Number of passports issued

  Permanent staff1

  Casual satff2

  1984

  33,707

  15

  6

  1985

  34,655

  15

  6

  1986

  45,472

  16

  6

  1987

  51,305

  18

  5

  1988

  60,248

  18

  8

  1 The figures for permanent staff include two part-time staff in 1986 and six part-time staff in 1987 and 1988.

  2 The figures for casual staff are the maximum for the year.

  136
  Staffing levels at all the United Kingdom passport offices are closely monitored. There are no current plans to increase the permanent staff complement at Belfast.

  Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the new prison buildings under construction in England and Wales, giving in each case the original date for completion and the present expected completion date:

  (2) how many of the prisons now under construction are on target for the scheduled date of completion; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will list all current delays in completion of the building of new prisons or the refurbishment of prison wings in England and Wales together with the length of the delays and their reasons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The contracts for the construction of prisons, as for comparable schemes, customarily allow for the possibility that there may be delay for reasons such as bad weather. Planning is accordingly taken forward on the basis of the target opening of the new establishment. The original target opening date for the prisons now under construction were as follows; it is still expected that these targets will be met.

  Prison

  Target opening date

  Brinsford

  September 1990

  Bullington

  April 1991

  Whitemoor

  May 1991

  Woolwich

  April 1991

  Lindholme 2

  June 1991

  Lancaster Farms

  July 1992

  Milton Keynes

  July 1992

  Wings are currently being refurbished at the following establishments. Except where indicated, the contracts are in each case expected to be completed on time.

  Prison

  Delay

  Liverpool

  —

  Risley

  —

  Stafford

  —

  Pentonville

  Nine months. Contract extended to include provision of low cost integral sanitation.

  Wormwood Scrubs

  Six to 12 months. Staffing difficulties.

  Lay Visitors
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what insurance cover exists for lay visitors visiting magistrates courts or police stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There is no insurance cover as such for lay visitors, but lay visitors within the Metropolitan police district have been informed that sympathetic consideration will be given to paying compensation, on an ex gratia basis, to any lay visitor who suffers injury or loss or damage to personal property while carrying out his or her duties as a lay visitor. Claims will be paid out of the Metropolitan police fund. Lay visitors were advised of the arrangements in a circular letter dated 2 March 1988.

  Arrangements outside the Metropolitan police district are a matter for the police authority concerned.

  Mobile Homes (Parking)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to tighten the laws on illegal parking and trespass by tinkers and other travellers with mobile homes.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to change the laws on illegal parking or trespass.

  Football (Arrests)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests in Football League grounds during season 1987–88 led to convictions.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This information is not recorded centrally.

  Football (Identity Cards)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Police Federation in respect of the proposed identity cards scheme for spectators at Football League matches; what was the nature of any such representations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Police Federation has made its representations to my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport.

  Blasphemy
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the Law Commission's report on the laws of blasphemy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the question from the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (M r. Young) on 20 December 1988, at column 185.

  Mr. Layman (Cardiff Prison)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the hon. Member for Caerphilly's correspondence concerning his constituent Mr. Layman, currently held on remand in Cardiff prison.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I hope to reply to the hon. Member within the next two weeks.

  Badgers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in respect of the publication and distribution of a book entitled "Badger Digging with Terriers"; and if he will make a statement on his proposed response.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In reply to correspondents who wrote three years ago we explained that if the book openly encouraged people to commit an offence, a charge could be brought of incitement to commit a crime.

  Breathalyser Tests
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish information available 138
  on the number of motorists breathalysed by the Metropolitan police in the month of December and the proportion of those which were negative.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Provisional figures in respect of the Christmas and new year period (19 to 31 December) indicate that 10,937 motorists were required by the Metropolitan police to provide breath specimens. 980 (8·9 per cent.) of those tests produced positive results.

  Full statistics of screening breath tests will be published later this year.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will request the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to have examined the equipment used by police to administer breathalyser tests to motorists leaving the rugby match at Twickenham on 6 December 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  All breath testing instruments used by the Metropolitan police are checked at frequent and regular intervals.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend his orders banning the broadcasting of terrorist interviews so as to make clear the precedence of the statutory duty laid on the British Broadcasting Corporation and Independent Broadcasting Authority to exercise due impartiality.

  Mr. Renton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to amend the notices in this way. They do not affect the impartiality of the BBC and the IBA, which continue to be able to report events and words uttered.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend his orders banning the broadcasting of terrorist interviews so as to permit an elected Sinn Fein councillor to be interviewed on matters to do with(a) housing, (b) the arts, (c) social services, (d) health, (e) planning and (f) local government finance.

  Mr. Renton
  No. The notices are intended to prevent the broadcasting of direct statements by persons representing those organisations named in the notices.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his ban on broadcasting terrorist interviews permits the words of a person representing or purporting to represent a proscribed organisation being spoken by another person while both persons appear on screen.

  Mr. Renton
  The directions prevent the broadcasting of direct statements by persons representing, or purporting to represent, supporting or inviting support for, the organisations named in the notices. It is for the BBC and the IBA to decide how the directions should be applied in particular circumstances.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether his ban on broadcasting terrorist interviews covers interviews recorded more than 20 years ago;

  (2) whether his ban on broadcasting terrorist interviews covers interviews recorded with persons who have since died;
  139
  (3) whether his ban on broadcasting terrorist interviews applies to archive material older than 25 years.

  Mr. Renton
  No time limit has been set on the use of archive material, and the restrictions may apply to the broadcasting of interviews with persons who have since died. But any statement which cannot be broadcast directly under the restrictions can still be reported and drawn upon in the course of a particular programme.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is his intention that a television play should be regarded as a genuine work of fiction for the purposes of his ban on broadcasting terrorist interviews.

  Mr. Renton
  Works of fiction are not subject to the restrictions. It is for the BBC and IBA to determine which programmes fall into this category.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for a review of the management structures of magistrates courts.

  Mr. Hurd
  The magistrates courts occupy a central position in the criminal justice system. I greatly value the contribution which locally based lay magistrates and their staff make to the effective operation of the courts and the criminal justice system in general. The present arrangements for the management of magistrates courts date substantially from 1949; since then there has been a considerable increase in the volume and complexity of their work and in the resources used by them. Against this background, I think it timely to examine radically the management and organisational structure of magistrates courts and the arrangements which govern their resources and their use with a view to identifying how these might be improved. I have therefore set in hand a scrutiny of magistrates courts with the following terms of reference:

  (i) to review the present arrangements governing the distribution, management and control of resources in magistrates courts;

  (ii) with due regard to the advantages of a locally based system of summary justice, to make recommendations to ensure that the mechanisms, at national and local level, for determining resource levels and resource management and control are best suited to the efficient, economic and effective discharge of the responsibilities of the magistrates courts;

  Persons detained and charged under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 by length of detention, legislation under which charged and outcome of charge

  Number of persons (Great Britain)

  Length of detention

  Total detained

  Number charged

  Outcome of charge

  Under the Act

  Under other legislation

  Found guilty

  Other outcome

  Awaiting trial

  1986

  Less than 1 day

  73

  6

  2

  8

  —

  —

  1 day and less than 2 days

  74

  5

  8

  12

  —

  1

  2 days and less than 3 days

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3 days and less than 4 days

  14

  —

  3

  3

  —

  —

  4 days and less than 5 days

  13

  1

  6

  7

  —

  —

  5 days and less than 6 days

  8

  1

  4

  5

  —

  —

  6 days and less than 7 days

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7 days

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  202

  13

  23

  35

  —

  1

  1987

  Less than 1 day

  66

  4

  1

  5

  —

  —

  1 day and less than 2 days

  110

  4

  4

  5

  —

  3

  2 days and less than 3 days

  9

  —

  3

  1

  2

  —

  140

  (iii) to make proposals for any changes in management structures in the magistrates courts service;

  (iv) to identify the potential for further action to reduce unit costs in magistrates courts, shorten delays and improve fine enforcement; and

  (v) to ensure that recommendations under paragraphs (i) to (iv) above are consistent with the legitimate interests of defendants, parties to civil proceedings, legal representatives, witnesses and the various criminal justice agencies.

  The scrutiny will be carried out by a team of officials led by Mr. Julian Le Vay (grade 5, Home Office) under the ministerial supervision of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten). The scrutiny will begin in mid-February and I expect to receive its report in June.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been charged under the prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 since enactment of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act; and how many of these were charged within 96 hours of arrest.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will list, for each year since 1975, the number of people who have been detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act; and if he will give a breakdown of each annual total, specifying the number of people detained for periods of(a) one day or less, (b) two days, (c) three days, (d) four days, (e) five days, (f) six days and (g) seven days and the number of people in each category (a) to (g) who were (i) eventually charged and (ii) found guilty.

  Mr. Hurd
  [holding answers 13 and 20 December 1988 respectively]: The available information, which relates to persons detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 during the period 1 January to 30 September 1988 is given in the table. Corresponding information for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information on persons detained is published quarterly in Home Office statistical bulletin, issue 2/87 which gives, in tables 1 and 2, the figures for years up to 1986. Copies of this bulletin are in the Library of the House. I shall write to the hon. Members updating the table to the end of 1988 after the bulletin for the fourth quarter has been published.
  141

  Length of detention

  Total detained

  Number charged

  Outcome of charge

  Under the Act

  Under otherlegislation

  Found guilty

  Other outcome

  Awaiting trial

  3 days and less than 4 days

  12

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  4 days and less than 5 days

  9

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  5 days and less than 6 days

  7

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  6 days and less than 7 days

  11

  1

  15

  2

  14

  —

  7 days

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  225

  9

  18

  18

  6

  3

  19882

  Less than 1 day

  53

  2

  3

  1

  —

  4

  1 day and less than 2 days

  57

  3

  4

  7

  —

  —

  2 days and less than 3 days

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3 days and less than 4 days

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4 days and less than 5 days

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5 days and less than 6 days

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6 days and less than 7 days

  -

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7 days

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  2130

  5

  7

  8

  —

  4

  1 Includes two persons who were subsequently deported or removed.

  2 1 January to 30 September.

  Racial Discrimination
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of racial discrimination the Commission for Racial Equality has been unable to pursue, through the courts, in each of the last five years, due to lack of funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 12 January 1989]: An estimated 25 in 1988. None in the previous four years.

  In the light of increased legal costs and an increase in the number of applications, the Commission for Racial Equality had to adopt a more selective approach in 1988 towards people seeking assistance in pursuing complaints of alleged discrimination.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why the price of Ordnance Survey sheets has been increased; when it was increased; what is the percentage increase in price; when the previous increase in price was; and by what means the public was advised that the prices of Ordnance Survey sheets were to be increased.

  Mr. Needham
  The prices of Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland map sheets are reviewed annually in comparison with those of Ordnance Survey of Great Britain to ensure broad comparability.

  The new prices are effective from 1 January 1989, the average percentage increase was 20 per cent. The last increase was on 1 January 1988.

  The latest price list was published in January 1989 and is distributed to major users and to the wholesale and retail trade.

  Special Education Needs
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of pupils recorded with special educational needs in Northern Ireland primary and secondary schools by board area and by controlled/maintained category.
  142
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Provisional figures at January 1989 are as follows:

  Education and LibraryBoard Area

  Controlled

  Maintained

  Voluntary

  Belfast

  Primary

  8

  26

  —

  Secondary

  3

  5

  3

  Western

  Primary

  57

  81

  —

  Secondary

  27

  48

  8

  North-Eastern

  Primary

  81

  24

  —

  Secondary

  97

  14

  20

  South-Eastern

  Primary

  56

  26

  —

  Secondary

  29

  10

  5

  Southern

  Primary

  137

  60

  —

  Secondary

  86

  65

  2

  Note: Figures for secondary schools include both secondary intermediate and grammar schools.

  Teachers
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the total number of teachers at September 1988 employed by grant-aided schools in Northern Ireland, and if he will break down the figures by age band and by sex.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  Age groups

  Numbers

  Under 35

  Male

  1,698

  Female

  4,331

  35 to 49

  Male

  3,850

  Female

  5,938

  50 and over

  Male

  1,217

  Female

  1,899

  143

  Age groups

  Numbers

  Total Teachers

  Male

  6,765

  Female

  12,168

  Further Education
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students attend the further education colleges in Bangor, Newtownards, Newcastle and Downpatrick; and how many full-time and part-time lecturers are at each of these colleges.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Available information is as follows:

  Further education colleges

  Students

  Lecturers

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  North Down

  —

  —

  1137

  1200

  Bangor Campus

  572

  3,522

  —

  —

  Newtownards Campus

  198

  1,881

  —

  —

  Newcastle2

  277

  993

  34

  51

  Downpatrick2

  649

  2,732

  67

  125

  1 Appointments are to North Down college of further education,not to an individual campus. These figures include staff who also serve in other centres of the college, that is the Holywood campus and some small outcentres. Figures for students at these centres are not included.

  2 Figures for Newcastle include outcentres and for Downpatrick include also the Ballynahinch campus and outcentres.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why part of the Ards peninsula is within the area of Downpatrick college of further education; whether the college of further education in Newtownards is more convenient to that part of the Ards peninsula; if he will reconsider this administrative arrangement; if he will seek the opinion of residents in that part of the Ards peninsula; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Enrolment policy in the area is a matter for the South-Eastern education and library board. I understand that further education students usually attend the nearest appropriate college and the board would not attempt to direct students from the southern part of the Ards peninsula to Down college of further education, Downpatrick.

  Level of bank advances1

  Estimated interest charges2

  Calendar year

  At current prices £ million (1)

  Index in real terms (1985=100) (2)

  At current prices £ million (3)

  Index in real terms (1985= 100) (4)

  1977

  57·1

  63

  6·3

  46

  1978

  75·8

  77

  8·5

  58

  1979

  106·5

  95

  16·7

  101

  1980

  134·6

  102

  24·2

  124

  1981

  143·9

  97

  22·1

  101

  1982

  148·4

  92

  21·2

  89

  1983

  158·6

  94

  19·2

  77

  1984

  172·3

  98

  21·0

  81

  1985

  186·9

  100

  27·6

  100

  1986

  205·2

  106

  27·7

  97

  1987

  209·4

  104

  25·8

  87

  Messrs. Montupet (Factory Site)
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has directed to the attention of Messrs Montupet any sites for a new factory within the constituency of Strangford.

  Mr. Viggers
  The company is at present considering locations within the Province for the siting of a toolroom factory. I have asked the IDB to encourage the company to examine all areas before it reaches its decision.

  Agricultural Land
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the average price paid for agricultural land in Northern Ireland in each year since 1977 showing the sums in cash and real terms.

  Mr. Viggers
  The average price paid for agricultural land in Northern Ireland in each year since 1977 in current prices and in real terms is as follows:

  Calendar Year

  At current prices £ per hectare

  Index in real terms (Base 1985=100)

  1977

  1,846

  121

  1978

  2,618

  158

  1979

  3,327

  177

  1980

  3,227

  146

  1981

  2,897

  117

  1982

  2,683

  100

  1983

  2,866

  102

  1984

  2,958

  100

  1985

  3,130

  100

  1986

  3,128

  97

  1987

  3,205

  95

  Farmers
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report a table to show information available to him on the sums on loan to farmers in Northern Ireland by the banks in each year or financial year since 1977 showing the sums in cash and real terms and also indicate in those same terms the interest charges due on those sums for each year or financial year if more convenient.

  Mr. Viggers
  The annual average level of bank advances for farming purposes and the estimated interest charges due on those sums for each year since 1977 in current prices and in real terms are as follows:
  145
  1 Adjusted to exclude farmers' estimated borrowings for non-agricultural purchases and for land purchases.

  2 Interest on bank advances as in column (1). This differs from the interest estimates published in "The Statistical Review of Northern Ireland Agriculture", which also include interest on hire purchase and trade credit agreements.

WALES

  Infant Deaths
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if his Department is providing financial or other forms of assistance to any private company in the research or development of an early warning temperature monitor for human infants.

  Mr. Grist
  Financial assistance has been offered by the Department to a private company to help research the market opportunities for an early warning temperature monitor for human infants and the setting up of a manufacturing facility.

  Domestic Water Supplies
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many disconnections of domestic water supplies there have been in 1988.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is not available in the form requested. In 1987–88 the Welsh water authority disconnected 2,067 properties within their area of supply. Of these 1,400 were reconnected after payment of bills.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will meet the chairman of the Welsh water authority to discuss a revised code of practice relating to the disconnection of domestic water supplies.

  Mr. Grist
  The Secretary of State regularly meets with the chairman of the Welsh water authority to discuss a number of issues.

  Football Spectators Bill
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the application of the Football Spectators Bill[Lords] in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Bill will apply to England and Wales. I will be responsible for licensing grounds and for designating which football matches in Wales will be subject to the national membership scheme. I propose to set up at an early date a working party to advise me in Wales as to whether any particular match should be designated.

ENVIRONMENT

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department was under any obligation to notify the European Commission under the terms of directive 80778 Quality of Water Supplied for Human Consumption (article 10); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  South-West water authority applied to the Department for an emergency derogation under article 10 of the EC drinking water directive (80/778/EEC) on 3 August 1988 as some water samples in the Camelford area 146
  were continuing to exceed the directive standard for aluminium. The Department concluded that a derogation to permit the directive standard to be relaxed would not be appropriate. It wanted drinking water quality to return to compliance with the standard as soon as possible. It was also satisfied, on medical advice, that there was no public health risk. On 24 October 1988, by which time the Camelford supply had been complying with the aluminium standard for some weeks, the SWWA withdrew the application. Under the directive member states are required to inform the Commission when they grant a derogation under article 10. Because no derogation was granted, there was no obligation to notify the Commission.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he intends to take to control lump labour in the construction industry.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he intends to take to control lump labour in the construction industry and to reduce the number of fatal accidents among self-employed construction workers.

  Mr. Trippier
  In construction, the use of self-employed labour is often appropriate because of the industry's fluctuating work loads and the increasing specialisms within it. Contractors and self-employed workers should generally be free to agree on the contractual arrangements that best suit their particular circumstances. Due to the itinerant nature of much of the work force, there have always been special difficulties in collecting the tax properly due from all those engaged in the industry. There is at present a special scheme for collecting tax from self-employed operatives, and this was the subject of an efficiency scrutiny in 1988. Several recommendations have been made for improving the current scheme, and these are now under consideration.

  The Government are concerned about the high level of fatalities and serious injuries occurring in the industry. New regulations are being prepared which provide for the management and co-ordination of health and safety on multi-contractor sites, increase the number of safety supervisors in smaller companies and amend the site notification procedure to identify sites where there are high-risk activities. The introduction of regulations to make the wearing of safety helmets compulsory on construction sites is also planned. Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive will be paying more attention to the quality of site management and its ability to manage health and safety. They will pursue their inquiries and any enforcement action to the highest levels in companies which do not measure up to the standards expected of them. The Government have also provided the Health and Safety Executive with an additional £6·7 million in 1988–89, which will allow an increase in the number of inspectors and raise the number of inspections carried out.

  Radiation Monitoring
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment where the nearest(a) permanently and (b)

  147
  periodically manned radiation incident monitoring network stations are to Doncaster; and if he will also list the sites of (a) and (b) above along the Al and A1(M) main road routes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The nearest Rimnet station to Doncaster is at Finningley. Other sites close to the A1/A1(M) are at Heathrow, Wyton, Leeming, Newcastle and Boulmer. All these stations are permanently manned.

  Building Materials (Illegal Tipping)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has initiated with local authority associations, representatives of the construction industry and others about the illegal tipping of building materials.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There was very extensive consultation before the Government announcement of 29 June last of their intention to impose on waste producers, including those in the construction industry, a duty to care to ensure the safe and legal disposal of their wastes. The announcement also contained the Government's intention to require the registration of carriers of waste with powers to remove carriers from the register if they are convicted of waste disposal offences, including fly-tipping. Consultation is currently in progress on proposals to make registered keepers of vehicles used in fly-tipping liable to prosecution.

  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to impose tougher penalties to curb the illegal tipping of building materials.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Penalties for fly-tipping include fines of up to £2,000 or, on indictment, unlimited fines and up to two years' imprisonment. We have no plans at present to increase these.

  Leasehold Reform
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire of 1 November 1988,Official Report, column 564, if he has now considered the responses to the consultation paper on disputes about valuations under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

  Mr. Trippier
  We are still considering the responses to our consultation paper. I will announce our conclusions as soon as possible.

  Derelict Land Grant
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much derelict land grant has been paid in respect of the site of the former Ansells brewery in Birmingham; and on what date payment was made.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department's west midlands regional office authorised the approval of derelict land grant of £300,000 in October 1986 in respect of this site.

  Payment of grant totalling £300,000 was made to Birmingham city council in two instalments—£170,393 on 28 May 1987 and £129,607 on 21 January 1988.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his proposals for the transitional arrangements for the introduction of the national non-domestic rate.

  Mr. Gummer
  As soon as possible.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state by local authority where the 257 toxic waste disposal facilities are in south Yorkshire.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 19 December 1988 at column 40. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has a record of 257 waste disposal facilities in south Yorkshire. These are listed by local authority area:

  Number

  Barnsley

  63

  Doncaster

  54

  Rotherham

  59

  Sheffield

  81

  They do not all accept special waste. Details of the type of waste for which each facility is licensed can be obtained from the appropriate waste disposal authority, which is required to keep a public record.

  Domestic Property (Compensation Code)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now publish his proposals for dealing with the compensation code for domestic property which, under current legislation, is based either upon gross, net annual or rateable values for implementation on 1 April 1990, under the Local Government Finance Act 1988.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department and the Welsh Office will shortly be publishing a consultation paper on compensation issues which will refer inter alia to the implications of the abolition of rateable values for home loss payments.

  Housing Land Supply
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he takes to verify the returns of planning authorities to establish that they maintain a five-year housing land supply in accordance with the requirements of PPG3.

  Mr. Chope
  We encourage planning authorities to carry out land availability studies jointly with representatives of the local housebuilding industry. Though my Department is not in a position to check the results in detail, we have no reason to doubt that joint studies give a broadly reliable picture of land availability.

  Housing Act 1985
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish the outcome of his review of part III of the Housing Act 1985, previously the Homeless Persons Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I shall make a statement when the review is completed.
  149
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has completed the review of the housing subsidy system as it applies to large-scale disposals of local authority dwellings announced by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 11 February 1988 during the Standing Committee on the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department and the Welsh Office are today issuing a consultation paper resulting from the review of the housing subsidy system. The review was needed to deal with anomalies in the present housing subsidy system for some authorities upon complete or partial disposal of their stock, and to achieve a more equitable and rational mechanism for taking account of disposals. Under the present rules, authorities may sometimes continue receiving subsidy on dwellings sold even if they incur no further expenditure, or may not be entitled to subsidy where they are left with residual debt.

  The new proposals provide for the payment of residual debt subsidy (RDS) in respect of loan charges on any notional residual debt related to the dwellings sold. RDS would be paid at a rate of 75 per cent, of the loan charges for sales under the tenants' choice provisions of the Housing Act 1988, under right to buy, and in respect of individual sales. For all voluntary sales of stock to other landlords it is proposed that the rate of RDS would be 90 per cent, leaving 10 per cent, to be met from the authority's own resources, except in Wales, where it is proposed that RDS should be 90 per cent, in all cases. This arrangement should give authorities an incentive to obtain a keen sale price and to take management decisions which maintain the value of the stock in advance of disposal.

  For those local authorities where it is proposed to create a housing action trust (HAT), the Government intend that any losses caused by the disposal to a HAT, which are not covered by subsidy entitlement following disposal, should be met by the Exchequer by means of a safety net. The idea is to ensure that no additional costs resulting from the transfer of the stock to a HAT should fall on the remaining tenants or ratepayers in the form of rent or rate increases.

  It is intended that the new rules should come into effect from 1 April 1989. Copies of the paper have today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations over rehousing are taking place between his Department and local authorities arising from the effect of higher mortgage interest rates on the ability of some families to meet the repayments.

  Mr. Trippier
  None. If a borrower finds it difficult to make his regular repayment he should immediately contact his lender, who can then offer him appropriate advice. If his house is repossessed by the lender the local authority, which has the responsibility for housing the homeless, must decide on the appropriate housing provision, taking account of all the facts of the case.

  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to seek to amend the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act.
  150
  Mr. Trippier
  I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quinn) on 6 December at column 198.

  Nirex
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to receive the report from Nirex on suitable sites for the disposal of nuclear wastes; and what timetable he envisages for his decision.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to receive Nirex's proposals for a radioactive waste disposal facility shortly. The Government will respond to the proposals as quickly as possible.

  Nationalised Industries (Rating)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the annual rates bill, at the latest available date, levied on the nationalised industries; and if he will make a statement on what arrangements he proposes for these industries following the reorganisation of local government finance.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on nationalised industries' rate bills is not held centrally. These industries will continue to be rated on a basis comparable with the private sector under the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. To the extent that rateable values are determined by statutory formula at present, this form of assessment will continue for the 1990 rating lists. The main exception will be the coal industry, all of whose property will be valued by conventional means from 1990.

  Housing Act 1988
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether an Italian national living in a council house will be eligible to vote under tenants' choice provisions made under the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Trippier
  Yes, as long as he or she meets the criteria laid down in the Act. British nationality is not a necessary qualification for voting under tenants' choice.

  Domestic Water Supplies (Disconnections)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many disconnections of domestic water supplies there have been in each English water authority in 1988.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 30 November at column 282.

  Waste Disposal Sites
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications for planning permission for waste disposal sites have been made in the last five years by private sector companies; how many were granted; how many refusals were appealed against; and how many such appeals were successful.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department does not have information about the number of planning applications for development involving waste disposal. The table gives information
  151
  from the Department's records about appeals against refusal of planning permission for waste disposal sites since 1 April 1984 (the earliest date for which such information is available):

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Appeals received

  20

  26

  30

  34

  Appeals decided

  2

  14

  29

  21

  Appeals allowed

  0

  4

  13

  11

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many deemed applications for planning permission for waste disposal sites have been made in the last five years by local authorities; how many were granted; how many refusals were appealed against; and how many such appeals were successful.

  Mr. Chope
  Local authorities have powers to grant themselves deemed planning permission for such development; although in certain circumstances they may be required to apply to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for permission. Statistics are not held centrally of the numbers of such permissions and applications.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications have been made for waste disposal sites licences under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in the last five years by private sector companies; how many were granted; how many refused; and how many granted on appeal.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  From information held by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, the numbers of waste disposal site licences granted to private sector companies in England and Wales during the period 1983–87 are as follows:

  Number

  1983

  287

  1984

  344

  1985

  367

  1986

  334

  1987

  1362

  1 4 of these were granted on appeal.

  Figures for 1988 are not yet available.

  There is no centrally held information on the number of site licence applications refused by waste disposal authorities.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many waste disposal sites occupied by waste disposal authorities have been authorised by a resolution of those authorities in the last five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  From information held by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, the numbers of waste disposal sites operated by waste disposal authorities in England and Wales and authorised during the period 1983–87 are as follows:

  Number

  1983

  39

  1984

  37

  1985

  34

  1986

  40

  1987

  40

  Figures for 1988 are not yet available.

  Community Charge (Registration)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library copies of the advice his Department has given to local authorities about drawing up a registration form for the poll tax.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax. Advice on community charge registration was contained in community charge practice note No. 8, copies of which were placed in the Library when it was published on 11 November 1988. The note includes a model registration form.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the public inquiry to begin its work in determining planning applications by Mr. J. Jackson which are being called in by his Department; how long he expects the inquiry to last; and when he hopes to be in a position to give his final decision on the application.

  Mr. Chope
  Arrangements are in hand for a public inquiry. I understand that the planning inspectorate will shortly be in touch with Mr. Jackson with dates when an inquiry might begin.

  It is impossible at this stage to say how long the inquiry will last or indeed when the Secretary of State is likely to issue his decision. But I can assure my hon. Friend that all steps will be taken to ensure an early decision.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each year since 1978 the number of local authority homes sold to sitting tenants and the number of new local authority homes built(a) in England as a whole and (b) for each local authority in England.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information requested is as listed. The available information for each local authority has today been laid in the Library: this shows total local authority sales and local authority new building completions for each financial year from 1980–81 to 1987–88. The equivalent for England is as follows:

  Local authorities: England: numbers of dwellings

  All sales

  Housebuilding completions

  1980–81

  68,200

  65,300

  1981–82

  128,200

  39,700

  1982–83

  181,200

  27,200

  1983–84

  1122,000

  28,000

  1984–85

  91,400

  26,800

  1985–86

  82,300

  21,400

  1986–87

  86,100

  17,900

  1987–88

  2110,300

  15,300

  1 Includes 3,000 dwellings in Cantril Farm sold to Stockbridge Village Trust.

  2 Includes 5,500 dwellings sold by London Residuary Body to Thamesmead Town Ltd.

  Water Supply
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 12 December,Official Report, column 410, if he will identify areas of

  153
  London where drinking water supplies have, at any time, exceeded standards set in the European Community drinking water directive in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 10 Janauary 1989]Some 250,000 analyses a year are carried out in the London area by the Thames water authority and occasionally an analysis will indicate that a standard has been exceeded. This is because of the inherent variability in the nature of water and its supply and the stringency of the standards.

  Hazardous and Toxic Wastes (Barnsley)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the names and addresses of all sites in the Barnsley, East constituency which are used for the disposal and dumping of hazardous and toxic wastes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 13 January 1989]I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to the Lon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 19 December 1988 at column 40. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has a record of 257 waste disposal facilities in south Yorkshire, of which 63 are located in the Barnsley local authority area. Its records do not allow for segregation at constituency level. I refer the hon. Member to the Waste Disposal Authority for details of which facilities are licensed to accept special wastes.

  Watermead Country Park
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received any representations from Leicestershire county council about the proposed access to Watermead country park; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]The Department received representations from Leicestershire county council on 7 December against Leicester city council's proposal for a vehicular access to Watermead country park. The city council decided to deem itself planning consent on 5 December and subsequently sought the Department's views on the validity of that action. A reply to both authorities is in preparation.

  Importers and Exporters (EC Regulations)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department issued its advice supplementary notice to importers and exporters No. 6 on article 6 of the EEC regulation 3626/82; how many cases have been brought to his Department's attention before and since this advice; and what has been the result of the investigations into those cases.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]Supplementary notice to importers and exporters No. 6, which superseded advice given in earlier notices to importers and exporters, was issued in April 1987. Comprehensive details of infractions of article 6 of EC regulation 3626/82 brought to the attention of the Department are not available. Since 7 November possible infractions have been brought to the notice of the Department; five have been referred to the enforcement authorities for any appropriate action; and two are under consideration within the Department.

  Libraries
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to require local authority libraries to charge for their services.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 12 January 1989]As my consultative paper stated, the Government are committed to the continuing provision of a free basic public library service to individuals. Library authorities already have discretionary powers to charge for some services, and as my consultative paper made clear any additional powers which might be introduced would also be discretionary. As I said on 8 December in reply to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) at column 2561 shall make a statement shortly.

  Maerdy Fish Hatchery
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment is he will make a statement on his current plans for the future of the Maerdy fish hatchery in the Clwyd, South-West constituency since the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West last wrote to him.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have been asked to reply. No decision has yet been taken on the future of the Maerdy fish hatchery.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. French
  To ask the Attorney-General how many oral parliamentary questions he has answered by written reply because the question was not reached at Question Time, for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  The Attorney-General
  In 1988, of a total of 98 oral parliamentary questions, 55 were answered as written questions, because the question was not reached at Question Time.

  Obscene Publications Act
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will meet the Director of Public Presecutions to discuss possible action under the Obscene Publications Act in respect of newspaper photographs showing the corpse of a murder victim in Surrey in the week beginning 12 December.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service has considered possible action under the Obscene Publications Acts in respect of the photographs referred to but has concluded that there is no realistic prospect of a conviction for an offence under those Acts. I agree with that view.

ENERGY

  Electricity Boards (Liabilities)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will identify separately the Central Electricity Generating Board's and the South of Scotland Electricity Board's provisions for(a) decommissioning, (b) reprocessing of irradiated fuel and (c) other liabilities at 1987–88 prices, up to 31 March 1988;
  155
  (2) if he will give details of the provisions made by the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board for (a) decommissioning, (b) reprocessing of irradiated fuel and (c) other liabilities, on an annual basis from 1977 until 1988.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member. The South of Scotland Electricity Board is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Private Coal Mines
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list by year for the last five years(a) the number of private deep coal mines, (b) their locations, (c) the number of miners employed therein and (d) the number of miners employed by British Coal for the same periods; and what assessment he has made of the implications for private deep coal mines of the proposed privatisation of the electricity industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Points(a) to (d) are matters for British Coal, and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member. The privatisation of the electricity supply industry should provide new opportunities for the coal industry as a whole.

  Electricity Supply Industry
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the level of capital expenditure in the electricity supply industry in 1987–88; and what is his estimate of the level of such capital expenditure in 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Capital expenditure by the electricity supply industry in 1987–88 amounted to £1,089 million. Investment approval for 1988–89 and 1989–90 amounts to £1,474 million and £1,644 million respectively.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what amount planned expenditure on capital investment to the electricity supply industry during 1988–89 was raised following his decision that electricity prices should be increased from April 1988.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The decision to raise the financial targets of the industry was taken in the light of the forecast disappearance of surplus capacity and the longer-term needs of the industry, not short-term changes in the industry's capital investment programme. The decision on the financial targets did not therefore lead to an increase in the planned capital investment of the industry in 1988–89.

  Plutonium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will provide in separate tabulated form in the Official Report figures for(a) the total annual amount of civil separated plutonium exported, (b) the total annual amount of civil separated plutonium imported, (c) the total annual amount of civil plutonium in spent fuel exported and (d) the total annual amount of civil plutonium in spent fuel imported for each year since May 1979 until the date for which the most recent records are available.
  156
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 30 November 1988]Total exports and imports of civil separated and unseparated plutonium in the period May 1979 to March 1988 were as follows:

  (Kg)

  Imports

  Exports

  Un-separated

  13,720

  130

  Separated

  245

  2,865

  Total

  13,965

  2,995

  I regret that the total export figure of 2,960 kg given in my reply to the hon. Member on 8 November at column 116 should have read 2,995 kg.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  EC Price Agreement
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the National Fanners Union on the European Economic Community price agreement for 1989.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the National Farmers Union to discuss the European Community price agreement for 1989.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Commission is expected to publish the 1989 price proposals shortly.

  Bacon and Meat Industry (Self-regulation)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will monitor the Bacon and Meat Manufacturers Association's mandatory scheme of self-regulation with a view to assessing its relevance to other sections of the food industry.

  Mr. Ryder
  I am aware of the initiative taken by members of the Bacon and Meat Manufacturers Association to self-regulate their activities. Each other sector of the food industry must, however, judge for itself the relevance of such a scheme.

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

  Mr. Ryder
  I met representatives of the Farm Animal Welfare Council on 17 May 1988 to discuss the council's three new studies which are:

  (i) evaluation of new husbandry systems, techniques and equipments;

  (ii) enforcement of existing welfare legislation and compliance with the welfare codes;

  (iii) improvement of welfare by better promotion and education

  Sheep Variable Premium
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the sheep variable premium.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Proposals from the EC Commission for a review of the Community's sheepmeat regime include one to phase out the variable premium. Negotiations on these proposals have made little progress.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about separating milk from cows being treated with bovine somatotropin while field trials are carried out; what replies he has given; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have received a number of representations. My replies have explained that the safety of BST was carefully established before certificates to hold the field trials were granted. Milk from cows treated with BST is entirely safe, so there is no reason for it to be treated differently.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the recommendations of the veterinary products committee on the possible licensing of bovine somatotropin.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The veterinary products committee will be in a position to make recommendations when the companies manufacturing bovine somatotropin have generated and submitted all data necessary to support their product licence applications and these have been assessed.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations Her Majesty's Government have had from the veterinary products committee about the use of certain BST products on cows; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have referred to the veterinary products committee several applications from companies interested in developing and marketing BST products for use in milk production. Following the committee's advice that the data relating to the products' safety and quality are satisfactory, permission for field trials has been granted.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has received about the health consequences of the use of BST in milk production; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The advice that I have received is that BST is safe for use in milk production.

  Listeria
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department is taking to deal with the problem of listeria in food.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My Department is jointly responsible with the Department of Health for regulations under the Food Act. The Department of Health has already issued a statement on 12 January 1989 on the evidence available to it from routine monitoring of human cases of listeriosis.

  As part of our continuing review of the impact of new technology on the safety of food, MAFF has in hand work which we have commissioned on the cooking conditions required to kill listeria monocyctogenes in poultry meat. A major study, jointly funded by industry, on physical aspects of microwave cooking is also under way.

  I can assure my hon. Friend that as soon as the appropriate scientific information is available from these studies, we will immediately consider with the Department
  158
  of Health what further action is required if any is revealed to be necessary. We shall also take into account evidence from other outside studies.

  Meanwhile my Department, together with the Department of Health, and industry representatives, is considering current food processing, distribution, retailing and labelling of cooked and chilled ready-to-eat products to ensure that safety margins are satisfactory.

  Animal Feedstuff's
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what organisations he is consulting in his preparation of the code of practice on the production of animal feedstuffs containing processed animal products; and when he intends making his code of practice public.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]Proposals for the code of practice on the production of animal feedingstuffs will be discussed with those organisations whose members will be affected. Officials have already discussed the matter with the United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association (UKASTA) and will consult others, including the British Poultry Federation (BPF) and the National Farmers Union (NFU).

  Parallel discussions are also being conducted with other organisations to consider a code of practice for manufacturers of animal protein used in animal feedingstuffs. The codes will be published when the consultations have been completed and the points made in those consultations have been properly assessed.

  Tuberculosis
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food(a) how many animals and (b) what types of animals have been subject to movement restrictions applied under article 15 of the Tuberculosis (England and Wales) and (Scotland) Orders 1984 for each year since 1984; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]Under articles 15 in both the Tuberculosis (England and Wales) Order 1984 and the Tuberculosis (Scotland) Order 1984 notices may be served on occupiers of premises where animals are or may be infected with tuberculosis. Details of the numbers of notices served and types of animals to which they applied for each of the last five years are as follows:

  1Number of notices served on occupiers of premises

  Types of animals

  1984

  Nil

  —

  1985

  5

  Deer

  1986

  Nil

  —

  1987

  Nil

  —

  1988

  12

  Deer

  1

  Alpacas and Guanocos

  1 As notices served can apply to a number of animals it is not possible to say how many animals were involved.

  Protein Processing Plants (Salmonella)
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon.
  159
  Member for South Shields of 14 December, Official Report, columns 579–80, what statutory restrictions there are on the release of the identity of the 21 protein processing plants that were found to contain salmonella in 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]There is no statutory prohibition on the release of the information. However details about protein processing plants are collected by my Department in order to carry out inspections as provided for under the Diseases of Animals (Protein Processing) Order 1981. It would be wrong to disclose such data for purposes other than those for which they were collected.

SCOTLAND

  Dornoch Rail Bridge
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will reassess the Dornoch rail bridge project as a result of recent developments in possible financial support.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. Rail investment is a matter for British Rail. However, the Government's commitments to improved transport in the area are shown by the substantial investment of over £100 million in improving the A9 north of Inverness. British Rail's commitment to the rail line is shown by new signalling investment and the introduction of sprinter units.

  Health Boards (Delegation of Functions)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland under what statutory authority health boards delegate functions to their committees.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Section 2(10) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 and paragraph 11 of part II of schedule 1 to that Act; and regulation 8 of the National Health Service (Health Boards: Membership, Procedure and Payment of Subscriptions) (Scotland) Regulations 1975 (SI 1975 No. 197 (S 16)).

  Water
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people resident in Scotland live in areas of Scotland which receive their water services from an authority based in England.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No part of Scotland receives water services from an authority based in England.

  Fishing
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if there are any prosecutions pending or in progress concerning the use of monofilament net; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Proceedings in respect of three such cases have been raised but have yet to be concluded.

  YTS
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many YTS places are available for 17 and 160
  18-year-olds in the travel-to-work areas for Girvan, Ayr and Cumnock; how many of them have registered for places; how many have been placed; and how many of those remaining without placement have had benefit withdrawn, for each of the above areas, in the last 12-month period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lang
  The information sought either does not exist or is unavailable in the form requested. Information on YTS places is not available by travel-to-work area; nor is it possible to count how many places are filled by young people of a particular age. Information on young people registered with the careers service cannot distinguish between those seeking work only and those seeking a YTS place; nor is it available centrally for separate areas within Ayrshire. Information on numbers of young people who have no benefit and have not been placed on YTS is not available. All 18-year-olds however are entitled to income support.

  Health Service Managers
  Mr. Daly ell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the value of the money spent on merit awards to Health Service managers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Parliament House, Edinburgh
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of terminating the services of employees providing security services at Parliament House, Edinburgh.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  To date, no such costs have been incurred.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the annual cost of the private security service now in operation at Parliament House, Edinburgh; and if he will indicate the contractors to whom payments are made.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A joint contract for the provision of security services at Parliament House and Edinburgh sheriff court was awarded from 1 January 1989 for a period of three years to Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd. The annual cost of the contract is confidential for commercial reasons, but the lowest tender for the service required was accepted.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the annual cost of providing security services at Parliament House, Edinburgh, in 1987–88; and how many people were employed to provide the security services.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The cost of providing security services at Parliament House in the year ending 31 December was £137,000. Eleven staff were employed.

  Education Reform
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total spending on the preparation of the recently launched school boards video.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The cost of production was £31,000.
  161
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has recently met representatives of the Scottish Council of Independent Schools.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received any representations since June 1987 from the Scottish Council of Independent Schools.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Yes.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received from parents' organisations regarding opting out of the local education authority system.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Two since we published our paper "Self-Governing Schools" on 7 December.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received from teachers unions regarding opting out of the local education authority system.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  One.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities regarding opting out of the local education authority system.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received from local education authorities regarding opting out of the local education authority system.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received any requests from non-maintained or independent schools to opt-in to the state sector since 22 November 1988.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has contacted the Audit Commission regarding the financial aspects of schools opting out.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. The remit of the Audit Commission does not extend to Scotland.

  Grant Maintained Trust
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if an application for financial assistance has been received from the grant maintained trust.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has met or received representations from the grant maintained trust.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Yes.

  Lockerbie Air Disaster
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's contribution towards the Lockerbie air disaster appeal.
  162
  Mr. Rifkind
  The sum of £150,000 has been contributed to the appeal fund. Parliamentary approval for this will be sought in a supplementary Supply Estimate for the prisons, hospitals and community health services, etc., Scotland Vote (Class XVI, Vote 14). Pending that approval this expenditure has been met by a repayable advance from the contingencies fund.

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what appointments or reappointments he has recently made to the Ayrshire and Arran health board; whether each has any known political affiliation; and what such affiliation is in each case.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]The only recent appointment (in July 1988) was that of Mrs. J. A. C. McNally of Ayr, who is a qualified nurse and was appointed to fill a vacancy left by a nurse. Members are appointed according to the individual contributions which they can bring to the board.

  Teachers
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received any representations regarding section 88 of the Education Act; and how many teachers were dealt with under such provisions in each of the years 1985–86 to the most recent date for which information is available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Following the issue to all schools and further education colleges in October 1988 of an explanatory paper about the proposed repeal of section 88 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, the following bodies have responded:

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities;

  Teachers' Side of the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee for School Education;

  Scottish Secondary Teachers Association;

  National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers (Scotland);

  Central Regional Council;

  Borders Regional Council;

  Orkney Islands Council;

  The views of two individuals have also been received.

  Information on the number of cases in which education authorities have invoked section 88 of the Act is not held centrally.

  The main committee of inquiry, which reported in October 1986, provided details for the period from 1975 in an appendix to its report.

EMPLOYMENT

  Equal Pay
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has met the chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission to discuss changes to equal pay legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has not discussed changes to equal pay legislation with the EOC chairman. I understand that the commission will shortly be publishing a consultative document about the legislation.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of employment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the size of the employed labour force in December 1983, December 1986 and December 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fowler
  The work force in employment in the United Kingdom was 25,739,000 in June 1988—the highest level on record. This compares with 24,041,000 in December 1983 and 24,982,000 in December 1986. In December 1979 the work force in employment was 25,486,000—about a quarter of a million less than latest estimates.

  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment in Lancashire.

  Mr. Lee
  In November 1988 the level of unemployment in Lancashire was 48,039—a fall of 14,787 over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in how many parliamentary constituencies unemployment fell by 50 per cent, or more between September 1983 and September 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Between September 1983 and September 1988 unemployment fell by 50 per cent, or more in 44 parliamentary constituencies in Great Britain.

  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people classed as long-term unemployed were without jobs in December 1988 and December 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Unemployment figures are analysed by duration quarterly. In October 1988 the number of unemployed claimants who had been unemployed for one year or more in the United Kingdom was 885,504 compared with 1,142,899 in October 1983—a fall of 257,395 over the period. This comparison is slightly affected by changes in the coverage of the count.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of those in employment in the north-west are in manufacturing industries; and what was the comparable figure in 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  Estimates of the civilian work force in employment in manufacturing industries in regions are not available as the self-employed and work-related Government training programmes statistics are not analysed in this way.

  In June 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, 23 per cent, of the total civilian work force in employment (which is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and participants in work-related Government training programmes) in the north-west region were employed as employees in employment in manufacturing industries. The comparable figure for June 1979 was 34 per cent.

  Mr. David Martin:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many 16 to 18-year-olds were unemployed in December 1983 and December 1988; and if he will make a statement.
  164
  Mr. Cope
  In November 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 5,826 people aged under 18 claiming unemployment-related benefits. The recent extension of the guaranteed offer of a YTS place to all those aged under 18 not in full-time education or employment means there is now no need for these young people to be unemployed. Consequently, only a few now remain entitled to unemployment-related benefits following the associated change from September 1988 in the benefit regulations for under 18-year-olds. In December 1983 an estimated 199,600 people under 18 were claiming unemployment-related benefits.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the rate of change in unemployment levels in the last 12 months in East Anglia.

  Mr. Lee
  In November 1988 the level of seasonally adjusted unemployment in the East Anglia region was 43,500, compared with 61,100 in November 1987, a fall of 17,600 or 28-8 per cent, over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment in London.

  Mr. Lee
  In November 1988 the level of seasonally adjusted unemployment in Greater London was 259,800, a fall of 67,000 over the last 12 months.

  Sir Marcus Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Mr. Lee
  In November 1988 the level of seasonally adjusted unemployment in the Yorkshire and Humberside region was 209,800, a fall of 41,500 over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were self-employed in the United Kingdom in December 1988 and December 1979, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently self-employed in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In June 1988, the latest date for which estimates are available, there were 2,985,000 self-employed in the United Kingdom. In June 1979 there were 1,906,000. Currently 12 per cent, of the work force in employment are self-employed.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the levels of unemployment in the south-west of England.

  Mr. Lee
  In November of 1988 the level of seasonally adjusted unemployment in the south-west region was 118,700, a fall of 37,200 over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the levels of unemployment in the east midlands.

  Mr. Lee
  In November 1988 the level of seasonally adjusted unemployment in the east midlands region was 130,900, a fall of 31,100 over the last 12 months.
  165
  Mr.Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage change in the level of unemployment in Barnsley since 1985.

  Mr. Lee
  In November 1988 the number of unemployed claimants in Barnsley local authority areas was 12,649, compared with 16,739 in November 1985, a fall of 4,090, or 24·4 per cent., over the three-year period. The figures are affected by the change in the compilation of the count in March 1986 to reduce over-recording and by the change in the coverage from September 1988 due to new benefit regulations for young people aged under 18.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the unemployment figures for(a) one year ago, (b) two years ago, (c) three years ago and (d) the latest available date.

  Mr. Lee
  The table shows seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom for November 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Unemployed claimants1

  November

  Number

  1985

  3,052,900

  1986

  3,086,700

  1987

  2,604,400

  1988

  2,108,800

  1 Seasonally adjusted, consistent with the current coverage.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of unemployment in the northern region of England.

  Mr. Lee
  In November 1988 the level of seasonally adjusted unemployment in the northern region of England was 163,800, a fall of 23,300 over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of employment in the west midlands.

  Mr. Lee
  In June 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 2,354,000 people in the civilian work force in employment in the west midlands region. This represents an increase of 234,000, or 11 per cent. since June 1983. The civilian work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the three industries or services in the United Kingdom which have provided the largest increase in employment over the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Between June 1987 and June 1988, the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available, the largest increase in employees in employment in the United Kingdom were observed in the following industries:

  Number

  Per cent.

  Business Service

  +93,000

  +7·3

  Hotels and Catering

  +49,000

  +4·4

  Education

  +34,000

  +2·0

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which travel-to-work area had the lowest 166
  level of unemployment and which had the highest level of unemployment at the most recent available date; what were their respective levels of unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In November 1988 Crawley travel-to-work area had the lowest rate of unemployment at 1·8 per cent. and Cookstown travel-to-work area had the highest rate of unemployment at 29·5 per cent.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of employment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lee
  Between March 1983 and June 1988 the work force in employment in the United Kingdom increased by 2,178,000 to 25,739,000, the highest level on record. This rising trend has now continued for more than five years. The figures have been adjusted for the effects of seasonal variations. The work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed, Her Majesty's forces, and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what he will do in 1989 to help reduce unemployment in north Devon in general and the Ilfracombe areas specifically.

  Mr. Lee
  My Department operates a wide range of employment, enterprise, and training measures and offers services in support of small firms and tourism, all of which are available to people throughout north Devon, including Ilfracombe.

  During the 12 months to November 1988 unemployment in the Devon, North constituency fell by 909–26 per cent. of the November 1987 figure. In the same period unemployment in the Barnstaple and Ilfracombe travel-to-work area has fallen by 713–24 per cent. of the November 1987 figure.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to take to reduce fatalities in the construction industry in the London area.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In my answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) earlier today, I set out the action being taken to improve safety in the construction industry on a national basis. As regards London, the action being taken is the same.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he intends to take to reduce deaths and crippling injuries in the construction industry.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to take to reduce fatalities in the construction industry caused by the use of crane excavators and dumpers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  New regulations are being prepared which provide for the management and co-ordination of health and safety on multi-contractor sites, increase the number of safety supervisors in smaller companies and amend the site notification procedure to identify sites where there are high-risk activities. The introduction of regulations which would make the wearing of safety helmets compulsory on constructions sites is also planned.
  167
  In addition to concentrating on the inspection of the more hazardous activities in the industry. Health and Safety Executive inspectors will also be paying more attention to the quality of site management and its ability to manage health and safety. They will be looking at the level of training and supervision that has been provided and the precautions that have been taken to prevent accidents. They will pursue their inquiries and any enforcement action to the highest levels in companies which do not measure up to the standards expected of them.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he intends to take to ensure that health and safety law is enforced more stringently on those who have charge of others on construction sites.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I am confident that the law is already being enforced stringently. However, new regulations are being prepared which provide for the management and co-ordination of health and safety on multi-contractor sites and increase the number of safety supervisors in smaller companies.

  The Health and Safety Commission has also recently published two booklets aimed at improving safety management in the construction industry and in future the Health and Safety Executive inspectors will be paying special attention to the quality of site management and its ability to manage health and safety.

  Inspectors will also be looking at the level of training and supervision that has been provided and the precautions that have been taken to prevent accidents. They will pursue their inquiries and any enforcement action to the highest levels in companies which do not measure up to the standards expected of them.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he intends to take to protect those members of the public who stray on to construction sites.

  Mr. Nicholls
  At visits to construction sites, inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive will continue to remind employers and contractors of their obligation under section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure that the health and safety of persons not in their employment, including members of the public, is not affected by the way in which they carry out their operations. Enforcement action will be taken in appropriate cases where this duty is not met.

  The Health and Safety Executive is currently revising its published guidance to the industry on the safety of children at construction sites and will continue to use the media to remind contractors, children, parents, teachers and members of the public before major school holidays of the dangers of construction sites.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to take to reduce fatalities in the construction industry due to poor maintenance of plant and equipment.

  Mr. Nicholls
  New regulations are being prepared which provide for the management and co-ordination of health and safety on multi-contractor sites, increase the number of safety supervisors in smaller companies and amend the site notification procedure to identify sites where there are high-risk activities.
  168
  In addition to concentrating on the inspection of the more hazardous activities in the industry, Health and Safety Executive inspectors will also be paying more attention to the quality of site management and its ability to manage health and safety.

  They will be looking at the level of training and supervision that has been provided and the precautions that have been taken to prevent accidents such as those arising from poor maintenance of plant and equipment. They will continue to draw attention to Health and Safety Executive published guidance on the maintenance of plant and equipment.

  Inspectors will pursue their inquiries and any enforcement action to the highest levels in companies which do not measure up to the standards expected of them.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to take to reduce fatalities in the construction industry due to electrical hazards.

  Mr. Nicholls
  New electricity at work regulations have recently been proposed to the Secretary of State by the Health and Safety Commission and are currently being considered. They are directed at the prevention of injury due to electrical hazards at all places of work including construction sites.

  Other new regulations are being prepared which provide for the management and co-ordination of health and safety on multi-contractor sites, increase the number of safety supervisors in smaller companies and amend the site notification procedure to identify sites where there are high-risk activities.

  In addition to concentrating on the inspection of the more hazardous activities in the industry, health and safety executive inspectors will also be paying more attention to the quality of site management and its ability to manage heath and safety.

  They will be looking at the precautions that have been taken to prevent accidents, such as those arising from electrical hazards, and will continue to draw attention to HSE published guidance. A new guidance note "Avoiding Danger from Underground Services" will be published in the near future.

  Inspectors will pursue their inquiries and any enforcement action to the highest levels in companies which do not measure up to the standards expected of them.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he intends to take to reduce the number of deaths from construction accidents.

  Mr. Nicholls
  New regulations are being prepared which provide for the management and co-ordination of health and safety on multi-contractor sites, increase the number of safety supervisors in smaller companies and amend the site notification procedure to identify sites where there are high-risk activities. The introduction of regulations which would make the wearing of safety helmets compulsory on construction sites is also planned.

  In addition to concentrating on the inspection of the more hazardous activities in the industry, HSE inspectors will also be paying more attention to the quality of site management and its ability to manage health and safety.

  169
  They will be looking at the level of training and supervision that has been provided and the precautions that have been taken to prevent accidents.

  They will pursue their inquiries and any enforcement action to the highest levels in companies which do not measure up to the standards expected of them.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to take to reduce fatalities in the construction industry caused by fires and explosions.

  Mr. Nicholls
  New regulations are being prepared which provide for the management and co-ordination of health and safety on multi-contractor sites, increase the number of safety supervisors in smaller companies and amend the site notification procedure to identify sites where there are high-risk activities.

  In addition to concentrating on the inspection of the more hazardous activities in the industry, Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspectors will also be paying more attention to the quality of site management and its ability to manage health and safety.

  They will be looking at the precautions that have been taken to prevent accidents such as those arising from fires and explosions and will continue to draw attention to HSE published guidance on fire and explosion risks. A new guidance note "Avoiding Danger from Underground Services" will be published in the near future.

  Inspectors will pursue their inquiries and any enforcement action to the highest levels in companies which do not measure up to the standards expected of them.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to take to reduce fatalities in the construction industry caused by falling materials or objects.

  Mr. Nicholls
  New regulations are being prepared which provide for the management and co-ordination of health and safety on multi-contractor sites, increase the number of safety supervisors in smaller companies and amend the site notification procedure to identify sites where there are high-risk activities. The introduction of regulations which would make the wearing of safety helmets compulsory on construction sites is also planned.

  In addition to concentrating on the inspection of the more hazardous activities in the industry, Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspectors will also be paying more attention to the quality of site management and its ability to manage health and safety.

  Inspectors will be looking at the level of training and supervision that has been provided and the precautions that have been taken to prevent accidents such as those caused by falling materials and objects and will continue to draw attention to HSE published guidance on this subject. They will pursue their inquiries and any enforcement action to the highest levels in companies which do not measure up to the standards expected of them.

  "Employment for the 1990s"
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received following the publication of the White Paper, "Employment for the 1990s", and if he will make a statement.
  170
  Mr.Fowler
  To date, over 300 organisations and individuals have made representations about the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s". The overwhelming majority have expressed interest in and support for the establishment of the new training and enterprise councils.

  Tourism
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received in response to his tourism review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The review team has spoken to almost 150 individuals and organisations in the tourism industry in preparing the report. In addition, I have received a number of written submissions which have also been seen by the review team. I have also received a number of representations on matters of tourism policy which I shall be considering in addition to the report from the review team.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the chairman of the British Tourist Authority to discuss the promotion of tourism in the north-west of England.

  Mr. Lee
  I last met the chairman of the British Tourist Authority on 9 November 1988. Discussions related to the promotion of tourism in all parts of the country.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in tourism and tourism-related employment in the United Kingdom in December 1988 and December 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The latest available estimate for employment in tourism-related industries relates to September 1988, when there were 1·4 million employees in employment in tourism-related industries. The equivalent estimates for September and December 1983 are 1·2 million and 1·1 million respectively.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the tourism review.

  Mr. Fowler
  I hope to consider the report on this shortly.

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking to support tourism and leisure industries within traditional seaside resort towns.

  Mr. Lee
  The development of the tourism and leisure industries in seaside towns is primarily a matter for the private sector and the local authorities. The national and regional tourist boards provide support and advice through a range of marketing and development activities.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications were received by the tourist boards for section 4 tourist grant; what were the total funds awarded in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In 1988, 694 applications were considered for assistance by the English tourist board under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969. The total value of assistance offered during this period was £12·3 million.

  Rural Areas
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what specific proposals he has to reduce unemployment in rural areas.

  Mr. Cope
  Specific measures introduced by my Department and others to help rural areas are described in "Action for Rural Enterprise" available to Members from the House of Commons Library. Since this was published, our adult training provision has been reorganised and enhanced by the introduction of employment training and we are currently examining ways of further improving rural access to our programmes and services.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the progress of the employment training scheme in inner city areas.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employment training is progressing well in inner city areas, as it is elsewhere. Information on the numbers in training in inner city areas will be available at the end of January.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will provide the latest available figures for(a) the numbers of places and (b) the numbers of trainees in employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There is provision for up to 300,000 places on employment training once the programme is fully operational. At 6 January there were 111,000 people training on the programme.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently undertaking training on the employment training scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of people training on employment training at 6 January 1989 was 111,000. This is a tremendous achievement after just four months of the programme's operation and is a reflection of the considerable interest shown by unemployed people in getting quality training to help them get back into a job.

  Mr. Ground
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the employment training programme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employment training has made a tremendous start. On 6 January, just four months after the programme's launch, there were already 111,000 people training on the programme.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of places on employment training have been taken up by workers aged 50 years or more; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information available is for those aged 51 years and over. So far, about 5 per cent. of all those joining the programme have been in this age group. The programme will continue to provide opportunities for unemployed people over 50 who want to improve their prospects of getting a job through quality training.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to meet the general 172
  secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss the employment training scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have no plans to do so. Employment training has made a very successful start with over 100,000 people training after just three months. The policy adopted at the last conference of the Trades Union Congress towards the programme cannot help long-term unemployed people to get back into jobs.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his proposals to meet the skill shortages currently encountered by British industry and commerce.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the training section of the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s", published last month. About 100 training and enterprise councils are to be established with this as one of their prime goals. The business growth through training programme also announced in the recent White Paper will help employers to develop strategies for the training and development of their staff in line with business objectives.

  The Training Agency plays a strategic role in helping employers to plan and take action to develop occupationally specific skills. It seeks to develop young people and to help reskill unemployed adults with programmes to meet labour market needs. Both YTS and employment training are delivered in close collaboration with local industry and commerce.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish estimates of the effects of his White Paper, "Employment for the 1990s", on employer-based training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The aim of the new framework for training set out in the White Paper is to ensure that training is carried out to the scale and to the quality our economy will require in the 1990s.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from Bury council on the employment training scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has not received any representations from Bury metropolitan borough council about employment training. Bury college had a contract with the Training Agency to operate as a training agent for employment training. The decision of the borough council to terminate this contract following threatened industrial action by the local branch of NALGO is most deplorable. This cannot possibly be of any help to unemployed people in Bury.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will provide the latest available figures for those transferring to employment training from the community programme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  By the end of October 1988, the latest date for which information is available, a total of about 6,000 people had transferred from the community programme to employment training.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of employment training places are employer based.
  173
  Mr. Nicholls
  At 6 January there were 111,000 people training on employment training. Information on the percentage of trainees in employer based training is not yet available, but will be available at the end of this month.

  Employer Networks
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what role he proposes for employer networks in the training and employment councils proposed in his White Paper, "Employment in the 1990s"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  In some areas local employer networks might form the nucleus of a training and enterprise council. In other areas training and enterprise councils might absorb their functions or link with them in a constructive way.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of job clubs.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current number of job clubs in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  There are currently 1,220 job clubs open. Since April 1986, when central records began, 121,494 people participating in the job club programme have found jobs and a further 31,268 have gone into other positive outcomes, such as training, a place on the community programme or the enterprise allowance scheme. Currently, 71 per cent. of all those leaving a job club do so having achieved a positive outcome. The shape of the programme for 1989–90 is currently under consideration as part of the employment service's annual planning round.

  I am pleased that job clubs are continuing to give such positive help to long-term unemployed people who are at a disadvantage in the labour market.

  EC (Ministerial Meetings)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the other Employment Ministers of the European Economic Community countries to discuss unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The next full meeting of European Community Labour and Social Affairs Ministers will be on 6 March at an informal meeting of the Labour and Social Affairs Council. The United Kingdom will continue its efforts to ensure that trainig and employment growth are Community priorities. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I also have frequent bilateral meetings with other Community Ministers.

  Lost Working Days
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost through strikes in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The estimate of the number of working days lost through stoppages of work due to industrial 174
  disputes in 1988 is not yet available. The most recently available figure for a 12-month period is for the period ending October 1988 during which it is provisionally estimated that 3,719,000 working days were lost.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he intends to take to reduce the incidence of injuries causing people to be off work for over three days.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Responsibility for ensuring the health and safety of people at work is laid upon employers by the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The efforts of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive are targeted on those areas of work where people are at the greatest risk from death, injury or disease.

  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 raised by a further £8·8 million gross, allowing for gross expenditure of £118·3 million. The planned provision for 1989–92 allows for real growth in the HSE's activities. This will enable the executive to increase the number of inspectors and the amount of inspection planned to promote and secure compliance with the law in order to help prevent occupational fatalities, injuries and diseases.

  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost through strikes in December 1987 and December 1978; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of working days lost through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in December 1987 was 60,000; the comparable figure for December 1978 was 542,000.

  YTS
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give details of the number of vacancies on the YTS in the Norwich area.

  Mr. Cope
  At 16 December 1988, of 2,920 agreed YTS places in the Norwich local authority district 787 were unfilled.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Government are in a position to carry out their commitment of a guaranteed YTS place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Yes. There are more than sufficient unfilled YTS places available in all areas of the country to fulfil the guarantee of the offer of a suitable YTS place to all who apply.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds who have not been offered a YTS place.

  Mr. Cope
  This information is not available. Once young people leave full-time education they art not required to tell the local authority career service what they are doing. There are a number of options open to 16 and 17-year-olds. Those who chose other options will not, of course, be offered a YTS place. However there are more than sufficient YTS places available in all areas of the country for all who apply.
  175
  Mr. Siliars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the effects on the 16 to 17-year-old group of the operation of the YTS placement scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  YTS has been a resounding success for young people and employers alike, providing good quality structured vocational training in the foundation skills which young people need at the start of their working lives.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the progress of two-year YTS.

  Mr. Cope
  The scheme continues to play a major role in meeting the training needs of young people and employers. Over 2 million young people have been in YTS since its inception and around three quarters of trainees currently find employment or go into further education or training. We shall continue the drive for positive outcomes through YTS, in particular nationally recognised vocational qualifications for all trainees and employment on completion of their training.

  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people are currently training on two-year YTS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people are currently on YTS training schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  At the end of December 1988 there were 419,900 young people in training on YTS.

  As the Government made clear in the recent White Paper "Employment for the 1990s", YTS has been a resounding success. The task now is to increase still further the contribution which YTS can make to meeting the needs of the changing labour market.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to improve the safety of YTS training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Health and safety remain of paramount importance in YTS. There is a contractual requirement on all managing agents to secure the health, safety and welfare of trainees both in work placements and in off-the-job training. In addition, a positive commitment to health and safety is one of the criteria which have to be fulfilled by managing agents as a condition of approved training organisation status.

  We constantly try to improve health and safety and we have in hand improved training materials for both young people and trainers.

  Pre-entry Closed Shop
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has received about the pre-entry closed shop; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Ministers and officials in the Department of Employment continue to receive letters from employers and employees describing difficulties that they have experienced as a result of the operation of pre-entry closed shops. As announced in our recent White Paper, "Employment for the 1990s", the operation of the 176
  pre-entry closed shop will be examined over the coming months and we will take any further legislative steps that are needed on this or any other aspects of industrial relations which constitute a barrier to employment.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many counselling sessions were provided by the small firms service during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  In 1987–88 the small firms service in England conducted 39,138 counselling sessions.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the director general of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the development of small businesses.

  Mr. Cope
  My right hon. Friend and I are in regular contact with the CBI to discuss issues affecting small firms and other matters.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the British Venture Capital Association to discuss the development of small businesses.

  Mr. Cope
  I met Mr. John Nash, chairman of the British Venture Capital Association when I opened the BVCA financial forum on 1 December. I have no immediate plans to meet representatives from the BVCA again in the near future but I do have regular contact with the association.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to provide the House with an annual report on the state of small businesses in Britain.

  Mr. Cope
  The annual report of the small firms service is published and is also sent to hon. Members and placed in the Library each year.

  Consideration is being given to the possibility of including in the report in future material covering a wider range of small firm's matters. Reports and discussions on various aspects of small businesses appear in the Employment Gazette.

  Skill Shortages
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to deal with skill shortages in British industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the training section of the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s", published last month. Some 100 training and enterprise councils are to be established with this as one of their prime goals. The business growth through training programme also announced in the recent White Paper will help employers to develop strategies for the training and development of their staff in line with business objectives.

  The Training Agency plays a strategic role in helping employers to plan and take action to develop occupationally specific skills. It seeks to develop young people and to help to reskill unemployed adults with

  177
  programmes to meet labour market needs. Both YTS and employment training are delivered in close collaboration with local industry and commerce.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in 1988 joined the enterprise allowance scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In the period from 1 January to 20 December 1988, 100,435 people joined the enterprise allowance scheme. Since the scheme began early in 1982, more than 400,000 unemployed people have been helped to start their own business.

  Safety at Work
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he intends to take to preserve the lives of people at risk of being killed during simple routine work.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Responsibility for ensuring the health and safety of people at work is laid upon employers by the Health and Safety at Work, Act 1974. The efforts of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive in promoting compliance with the Act are targeted on those areas of work where people are at the greatest risk, regardless of whether the activity is simple and routine or complex and varied.

  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 1989–90 allows for real growth in HSE's activities over the next three years. This will enable the executive to increase the number of inspectors and the amount of inspection planned to promote and secure compliance with the law in order to help prevent occupational fatalities, injuries and diseases.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new proposals he has to improve the employment prospects for disabled people.

  Mr. Lee
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on 6 December 1988 at column 141.

  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the number of disabled people in employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Comprehensive information on the number of disabled people on employment training is not yet available. Early indications suggest that about 6 per cent. of those joining the programme have disabilities.

  Accident Prevention (HSE Report)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he intends to take in response to the recent report published by the Health and Safety Executive's accident prevention advisory unit.
  178
  Mr. Cope
  The Health and Safety Commission has recently published two booklets aimed at improving safety management in the construction industry and in future HSE inspectors will be paying special attention to the quality of site managment and its ability to manage health and safety.

  New regulations are also being prepared which provide for the management and co-ordination of health arid safety on multi-contractor sites, increase the number of safety supervisors in smaller companies and amend the site notification procedure to identify sites where there are high-risk activities. It is intended to introduce soon regulations which would make the wearing of safety helmets compulsory on construction sites.

  Industrial Training Boards
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received on the future of the industrial training boards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  We have received several representations from industrial training boards and interested organisations about the future of ITBs since the publication of our White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" The Government believe that the voluntary commitment of employers to independent sectoral bodies will yield better results than regulation based on statutory powers. Independent industry-level training organisations have an important role to play in setting standards and forecasting skill needs for their industries. We shall, therefore, be consulting each industrial training board and the appropriate employers' organisations with a view to drawing up a timetabled programme for each board to become an independent non-statutory body.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received on the future of wages councils following the publication of his White Paper, "Employment in the 1990s"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Fifteen such representations have been received up to 10 January. Final decisions on the future of wages councils will be taken in the light of responses to the 1988 consultation document on wages councils, published with the White Paper, which invites comments by 3 February.

  Training and Vocational Experience
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on progress of the training and vocational education initiative.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) on 6 December 1988 at column 142.

  Inner city Initiative
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's contribution to the inner city initiative.
  179
  Mr. Cope
  My Department makes a substantial contribution to inner city regeneration through its employment. Training and enterprise programmes which bring an estimated expenditure of £1·1 billion to the 57 urban programme authorities. Our aim is to ensure that inner city residents share in the growing prosperity of their cities and, in particular, to help them acquire the self-confidence, training and motivation to enable them to compete on equal terms in the jobs market, or in setting up and running their own businesses.

  In addition to existing programmes we have, as part of the action for cities programme, committed £3·25 million this year towards the development of 30 schools/industry compacts which guarantee jobs or training to school-leavers. We have opened six new inner city offices of the small firms service and appointed specialist inner city business advisers.

  We have established a £600,000 loan fund to support projects by local enterprise agencies in inner cities and extended the guarantee on Government loans to small firms in task force areas to 85 per cent. We have provided extra training and advice for enterprise allowance scheme participants and given special help to unemployed people with language, literacy and numeracy difficulties. We continue to improve access to information on jobs and training opportunities and on my Department's programmes.

  Productivity
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the increase in productivity in(a) 1987 and (b) 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Productivity in manufacturing, as measured by output per person employed, was 7·3 per cent. greater in 1987 than in 1986. Figures for the first 10 months of 1988 show an increase of 7·2 per cent. over the corresponding period of 1987. Productivity for the economy as a whole was 2·8 per cent. higher in 1987 than in 1986. Figures for the first half of 1988 show a 3·4 per cent. increase over the first half of 1987.

  Labour Market Information System
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the development of the computer-assisted local labour market information system.

  Mr. Cope
  The computer-assisted local labour market information system is based in each of the Training Agency's 57 area offices, and holds information on local employers and their skills and training needs. It is used in planning training and vocational education provision, to help ensure that local labour market needs are met effectively.

  CALLMI was introduced in 1986. A database of, on average, about 1,000 employers per area office has been built up and the labour market analyses produced have made an important contribution to the planning of work-related further education, YTS and employment training.

  Further developments will focus mainly on exploring the most effective means of co-operation with other collectors and users of local labour market information, such as chambers of commerce and local authorities. It is
  180
  expected that training and enterprise councils, as they are set up, will take over responsibility for local aspects of LMI including CALLMI.

  VAT
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new registrations were made for value added tax in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  In 1987, the latest year for which figures have been published, the estimated number of new registrations for value added tax was 205,000. The net increase in the number of VAT-registered businesses in 1987 was 45,000, or nearly 900 a week on average. The indications are that the rate of increase during 1988 has been faster.

  Wages
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with trade union leaders regarding wage increases.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has had none. Pay is primarily a matter for employers and employees, or their representatives, to determine in the light of their own circumstances.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of wage increases; what was the figure for the same month in 1988; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy in relation to the level of wage increases.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Latest available figures show that the underlying increase in average earnings in the 12 months to October 1988 was 9 per cent. over the economy as a whole. This compares with 8 per cent. in the 12 months to October 1987. The average earnings index reflects all movements in pay, including those related to output and productivity, as well as basic pay settlements.

  The Department's approach to pay is set out in chapter 3 of the White Paper "Employment in the 1990s", a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will update the information on establishments underpaying and prosecutions for underpayment given in his answer of 2 December,Official Report, columns 431–32.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information given in my answer of 2 December was incorrect in that, for the years 1979 and 1982, it included prosecutions which were not for underpayment offences. Revised figures, with those for 1988 updated to include the whole of that year, are given in the following table.

  Establishments underpaying

  Prosecutions1

  1979

  10,969

  9

  1980

  12,154

  8

  1981

  10,074

  8

  1982

  9,269

  4

  1983

  9,842

  2

  1984

  9,461

  2

  1985

  9,064

  2

  1986

  8,205

  2

  1987

  4,443

  4

  1988

  25,597

  10

  181
  1 For failing to pay not less than the legal minimum

  2 Provisional

  Industrial Relations (Industry and Commerce)
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service to discuss industrial relations in the private sector of British industry and commerce; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. Ministers of the Department meet the chairman of ACAS from time to time to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many qualifications have been accredited to date under the National Council for Vocational Qualifications scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The National Council for Vocational Qualifications has accredited 80 qualifications to date and is making good progress towards the objectives set by the Government in 1986. The council is on target to have the first four levels of the national vocational qualification framework in place by 1991.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will be in a position to publish findings of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications inquiry into vocational qualifications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The National Council of Vocational Qualifications was established in September 1986, following the report of the review of vocational qualifications working group, to develop a national vocational qualification framework covering all occupations and to improve qualifications themselves by basing them on the standards of competence required in employment. Good progress is being made on both fronts and the council is on target to have levels 1–4 of the framework in place by 1991. A copy of the council's first annual report has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to draw up a scheme of comparable competence for vocational qualifications on completion of the European Community internal market in 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The Training Agency is already coordinating the United Kingdom's response to the European community's initiative to establish the comparability of vocational qualifications in the Community. It is expected that this work will continue beyond 1992 and that the results of the first qualifications to be compared will be published this year.

  Long-term Unemployment (London)
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received following the publication of the survey of long-term unemployed in London.
  182
  Mr. Lee
  My right hon. Friend has received no representations following the publication of the surveys of vacancies and longer-term unemployed people in London.

  Business Growth Through Training Programme
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received on his proposals to introduce the business through training programme outlined in the White Paper, "Employment for the 1990s."

  Mr. Cope
  No representations on the proposal to introduce the business growth through training programme has been received so far.

  Employer-School Compacts
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many areas have applied for development funding for employer-school compacts to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Forty-six areas applied for funding to establish a compact. Partnerships of employers and education authorities in 30 of these areas are currently preparing applications for operational funding. I have been pleased by the positive response from both employers and the education service and I look forward to the establishment of the first compacts later in the spring.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will announce the formation of the first training and enterprise council.

  Mr. Cope
  The first training and enterprise council is likely to be approved before the end of 1989.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received on his proposals to create training and enterprise councils contained in the White Paper, "Employment for the 1990s"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Since the White Paper was published on 5 December over 300 individuals and organisations have written to this Department to inquire about training and enterprise councils. I am very pleased about the positive response from employers who, throughout the country, are already meeting to discuss the formation of training and enterprise councils in their local area.

  TUC
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet representatives of the Trades Union Congress to discuss the effect of his Department's policies and legislation on trade unions.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans for such a meeting.

  National Training Task Force
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on his proposals to introduce the national training task force contained in his White Paper, "Employment in the 1990s"; and if he will make a statement.
  183
  Mr. Fowler
  I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight).

  Computerisation
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many organisations are currently using the national on-line manpower information system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The national on-line manpower information system (NOMIS) is a computer system which gives fast and flexible access to a wide variety of official statistics covering topics such as population, employment and unemployment. It is run for the Employment Department: Training Agency to assist in labour market analysis and planning, but access by other Government Departments and a range of outside users is also encouraged.

  Currently, about 160 organisations use NOMIS. Just under half of these are local government organisations, a third are academic institutions, and the remainder are split between Government Departments and commercial users. The House of Commons Library has had a terminal giving access to the system since 1985. Use of NOMIS is growing rapidly. During 1988 the number of registered users doubled.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to ask the retail prices index advisory committee to undertake a further review of any methodological issues.

  Mr. Lee
  The committee is currently considering the effect of the abolition of domestic rates on the construction of the retail prices index, and a report is expected on this shortly. It will then go on to consider the way in which expenditure on holidays should be taken into account in the index and to review progress on implementing longer-term recommendations made in its last report in 1986.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications have been made following the new incentives for loans under the loan guarantee scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The rate of applications under the loan guarantee scheme has almost doubled since 1987, to over 180 a month. This follows the introduction in January 1988 of simplified administrative procedures for loans up to £15,000 and the increase in the maximum guarantee for businesses in the 16 inner city task force areas from June 1988.

  I have recently announced that the scheme is to be continued and that the maximum guaranteed loan will be increased from £75,000 to £100,000.

  Enterprise Agencies
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress and number of enterprise agencies currently operating in the United Kingdom.
  184
  Mr. Cope
  We know of 429 local enterprise agencies operating in the United Kingdom. Of these, 389 are approved under provisions of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (previously under provisions of the Finance Act 1982) which allows business sector sponsors tax relief on their contributions to such bodies.

  The local training and enterprise councils announced in the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" will provide a means for ensuring that the provision of small firms counselling and training relevant to local needs is extended and co-ordinated. I would expect enterprise agencies and others to be able to bid for sub-contracts for counselling, training and enterprise councils themselves. This will rest with training and enterprise councils themselves. This will be an important opportunity for local enterprise agencies.

  Skills Unit
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the work of the skills unit.

  Mr. Cope
  The Training Agency skills unit was established in 1986 to gather, analyse and interpret information on overall skills supply and demand, and disseminate that information to those concerned in training and vocational education. The main focus of its work is changes brought about by new technology, changing work practices and new materials. The skills unit produces a regular skills bulletin, a skills monitoring report, and research reports. Copies are held in the Library. It also provides a reference and library service and mounts seminars, workshops and conferences. Its output is being used by industry and commerce, including chambers of commerce and employers' organisations, by the education service, by training providers, and by other Government Departments.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he intends to take to ensure that contractors comply with the law and report deaths, major injuries and three-day accidents to the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive will continue to remind contractors of the requirement under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 to report deaths, major injuries and "over three-day" injury accidents to the appropriate enforcing authority. They will continue to take prosecutions for failure to report accidents in appropriate cases.

  Hotels
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of new hotel developments completed in the United Kingdom in 1988.

  Mr. Lee
  The English tourist board's survey of investment in major tourism projects shows that during 1988, 58 new hotel developments with a value of greater than £500,000 were completed in England.

  Industrial Action (Ballots)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received on changing the balloting rules to be followed by trade unions before industrial action; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The statutory requirements which must be satisfied if a trade union organising industrial action is to protect itself against legal action by an employer, customer or supplier, or by a member, are set out in part II of the Trade Union Act 1984 as amended by the Employment Act 1988, and in section 1 of the Employment Act 1988. There have been a number of representations, in a variety of forms, about changes to these requirements.

  A draft statutory code of practice to promote desirable practices in relation to the conduct by trade unions of ballots on industrial action was published last November. The consultation period on the draft code continues until 3 February. Some representations received on the draft code have also included suggestions for further changes to the relevant primary legislation.

  Workers Charter
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if there are any plans to introduce within the context of the European single market a workers charter, providing for the rights of workers to be involved in discussions regarding mergers and closures of companies.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Injuries to children, 18 years of age or younger, reported to the Health and Safety Executive's factory and agriculture inspectorates for years beginning 1 April.

  1986–87

  1987–881

  Fatal

  Major2

  Fatal

  Major2

  Resulting from sports activities in school playgrounds

  0

  995

  2

  765

  Resulting from indoor and outdoor play activities in school

  0

  2,161

  1

  1,234

  In playgrounds other than those in schools

  1

  87

  0

  84

  1 Provisional.

  2 Major injuries as scheduled under the Reporting of Injuries' Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985 (RIDDOR).

  Young People
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received regarding the Health and Safety Commission's view on the need for control of young persons' hours of work.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has had none.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy with regard to the continuation in force of section 74 of the Factories Act restricting the employment of young people on specific operations.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The restrictions on the employment of young people in certain lead processes should remain.

  Skillcentres
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what would be the estimated cost of closing down all the skillcentres, including redundancy payments.

  Mr. Cope
  The White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" explains that the Skills Training Agency must

  Training Agency
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to reduce the number of staff employment by the Training Agency: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 11 January 1989]: The staffing levels of the Training Agency, as of other Government organisations, are under constant review in the interests of improving efficiency and effectiveness. The major programmes for which the Training Agency is responsible are for the most part demand led; and as unemployment falls there may be some reduction in the total staff required.

  Playground Accidents
  Mr. Robert G Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of children who turn up at hospital because of playground accidents for every month since his Department started collecting figures; and if he will make a statement about those figures.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 December 1988,c.381]: My earlier reply gave details, in a table, of injuries to children 18 years of age or younger as reported to the Health and Safety Executive's factory and agricultural inspectorates. I regret that the table contained an error.

  There were no fatal accidents to children in playgrounds other than school playgrounds in 1987–88.

  The following table gives the correct figures.

  become more competitive and more viable, and that it would be in a better position to seize opportunities for business if it were in the private sector where it could adopt best commercial practices. My right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) on 21 December, at column 331, announced the appointment of Deloitte, Haskins and Sells to advise on the feasibility of such a move. Its terms of reference do not cover the cost of closure of all skillcentres, and we have no plans to ask it for such an estimate.

  Restart Interviews
  Mr. Bowls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Battersea,Official Report, 22 December, column 465, what investigations he has made into the non-attendance at restart interviews of 1·5 million out of the 6·5 million called for interview since 1 July 1986.

  Mr. Lee
  Everyone who fails to attend a restart interview is followed up. Some people do not attend for acceptable reasons—for example, they may have started or be about to start work. However, those people who, after
  187
  two invitations, fail to attend their restart interviews are attending. If claimants still do not attend an interview investigated further to find out their reasons for not
  188
  attending. If claimants still do not attend an interview without a valid reason their benefits are withdrawn until they agree to attend.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

The Post Office: Quality of Service
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to prevent the service given to the public by the Post Office from deteriorating.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the quality of the postal service is a matter for the Post Office. The Chairman of the Post Office has said that he attaches high priority to improving the quality of service. I welcome his determination to do so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is not the efficiency of the postal service also a matter of concern for the Government in view of the vital part it plays in the working of British life and the British economy? If the Government are not satisfied as to the efficiency of the Post Office, are they prepared to do something about it?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I suppose that I should say to my noble friend that concern is greatest among the customers who wait to receive their mail or occasionally to receive their bills. The Post Office has taken a large number of steps to improve the quality of service. It is establishing quality assurance teams in most major sorting offices. It has phased introduction of new, faster mechanised sorting machines, which are scheduled for completion in 1990. It plans to introduce more accurate end-to-end measurement on letter delivery performance. This year it is to publish more clearly defined service standards which customers should expect for local mail, medium distance mail and long distance mail. It has had great difficulty with recruitment, particularly in the South-East. It is taking steps to solve that problem. However, at the end of the day what counts is the quality of service itself, which is a matter of constant concern.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does not the problem lie with what is known as the real unit cost reduction target? This target is designed by the Treasury to achieve greater efficiency but only greater efficiency as measured in accounting terms. Should not the target take account of the quality of service as well, so as to ensure that the Post Office cannot meet the financial target simply by allowing its service to deteriorate?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that that is a rather better red herring than usual—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the standards with which the chairman is concerned are the quality of delivery and of service in the Post Office. That is the matter with which he is concerned. It is the chairman of the Post Office who has responsibility for service in the Post Office and not the Treasury.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that no single measure would add more to the efficiency of the Post Office and do more to strengthen the economy of the postal services than the completion of the postal code? What prospect is there for that to be completed, with all the saving of manpower and increases in efficiency which might be expected?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the problem is not so much the completion of the postal code, which is indeed important, but the introduction of new, faster mechanised sorting machines which are dependent on the postal code. That is scheduled for completion in 1990, next year. When those are in, we shall see some of these improvements coming through.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it is not for the noble Lord, who is himself an expert manipulator of the red herring, to make that unworthy charge in respect of my noble friend's question. Can he say how the –20 million made available to the Post Office last September to improve customer service has been spent?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it was not a red herring. What we are discussing here is the quality of service of the Post Office and not some Treasury method which is supposed to have some effect on it. I shall certainly take the opportunity to write to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition setting out the ways in which this £20 million has been invested. I shall place a copy of the letter in the Library.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, in view of the substantial deterioration in the service of British Telecom since privatisation, will the Minister give an assurance that he will not be tempted to follow a similar path with the Post Office?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is not very often that 1 have the opportunity to disagree too strongly with the noble Lord but on this occasion I fear that I must do so. Therefore I shall also have placed in the Library the latest survey results which show that the satisfaction level with British Telecom has risen over the past 12 months to historically high levels. These are independent surveys. The noble Lord can judge for himself when he see those figures.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is it not a fact that, while it may not be 100 per cent. efficient. the British Post Office is a great deal more efficient than most post offices in developed countries? It is infinitely more efficient than the American Post Office. Is not the main trouble that all post offices in developed countries are swamped by unsolicited junk mail?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is only for the receiver to categorise mail as junk. In our society we all have the right to post letters. It is not for anyone here to say what is junk and what is worth receiving.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that both in London and in the country I have received the very best possible service from my local postman over the past two years? The Post Office should be given credit for that.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I should like to pay great tribute to the work carried out by the staff of the Post Office. Alas, 1988 was a poor year for industrial relations, with some 129 disputes between April and the beginning of October. I hope that we are now entering into calmer conditions and that we shall see the reputation of the Post Office fully restored.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, these new machines will soon be coming into operation. What percentage of business and private customers use the post code at present.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I can certainly make inquiries to see whether that information is available. However, I am sure that once these automatic sorting machines are in place far more people will recognise the sheer necessity of using the post code and will start to remember at least their own post code.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, contrary to the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, many letters come from this city to Hampshire—a distance of 60 miles—in two and a half days, which works out at an average movement of one mile an hour?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have a faint suspicion that when the chairman of the Post Office reads Hansard, as I am sure he will, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter will find that the quality of his service may well improve.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether he considers that the introduction of first-class and second-class mail, with experience over the years, has helped or hindered the speed of letter delivery'?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, we live in different times. It is undeniable, if we go back enough decades, that there was a time when we relied upon the post far more than we do today and when there were many deliveries and collections each day by the Post Office. However, that was a different age and we are now coming into a time when fax and different methods are being used. We must ensure that we have a Post Office with a quality of service which is satisfactory. Indeed, the chairman of the Post Office is dedicated to improving the quality of service and I welcome his determination to do so. However, I think that we shall have to judge that by results.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us when the full postal code will be put into the telephone book?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I suppose that is a matter for British Telecom, but I shall make inquiries and, again, I shall let the noble Lord know the outcome.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, does the Minister agree that none of the exchanges which have taken place to date should he seen as reflecting adversely on the personal services given by the postmen and women who deliver and collect the mail?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he said. I accept that totally.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, even if British Telecom puts postal codes in the telephone book, how are you supposed to find out the postal code of someone who is not on the telephone?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am tempted to say "pass" at this point.

Drink-Driving Prevention Campaign
2.46 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the results of the recent campaign to stop drinking and driving over the Christmas and New Year holiday period compared with those in previous years.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it is too early for a full assessment. However, preliminary police figures for England and Wales suggest that a substantial 40 per cent. increase in their enforcement effort during the full holiday period compared with the previous year caught only 4 per cent. more drivers who had been drinking. It is clear, therefore, that more people are becoming aware of the dangers arid that there is a long-term downward trend in the amount of drinking and driving.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I welcome the general trend of improvement. While recognising that both the campaigns and the collection of the results were carried out separately in Scotland and in England and Wales, can he indicate whether parts of the United Kingdom were better and others were worse than in previous years, although it may be invidious to point out that some areas start with better records?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as I said, the original statistics consist of provisional and incomplete figures from police forces in England and Wales. There are wide differences between force areas. The fact that the figures are not yet complete means that comparisons would not be particularly meaningful at this stage.

107
Figures in respect of Scotland have just come to hand and I can tell my noble friend that the number of drivers tested increased by 80 per cent. and the number of those who failed the test fell by 13 per cent.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, can the Minister say whether as part of their campaign on drinking and driving Her Majesty's Government have made representations to the Brewers Society to reduce the cost of non-alcoholic beers and lagers? If they have not done so, the public will never seriously believe in their campaign.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an interesting and, I think, most important point. I can say that we welcome the strong support from the private sector, especially the brewers. I am pleased to say that the sales of low and non-alcoholic beers are increasing rapidly. As regards their cost, I shall certainly draw that point to the attention of the brewers.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister say whether the Government have finally decided against random breath testing? Further, is he aware that there is more than one form of such testing and that unless we have some kind of random breath testing the position will remain unsatisfactory?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, calls for random breath testing reflect the welcome hardening of society's attitude towards the drinking driver. The police already have wide powers and they can stop at random. However, they have now said that they would like the law to be changed to allow unfettered discretion to test.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether any thought has been given to encouraging pubs to run milk bars?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, no; not so far as I know. However, I know that a large number of pubs do sell milk.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, now that the winter holidays are over, can my noble friend and his colleagues also direct their attention to the reckless and inconsiderate driving at other times of the year perpetrated by people who are perfectly sober?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that was a most interesting question. We shall shortly be publishing our conclusions in response to the North Report on Road Traffic Law, including its proposals for dealing with reckless driving. However, our publicity campaign is aimed at improving driving standards and will, of course, continue.

Planning Control: Policy
2.50 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is their policy to ensure that the exercise of planning control takes account of aesthetic considerations.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The Government's advice stresses that local planning authorities should not impose their own tastes on developers simply because they believe them to be superior. Local planning authorities should not seek to control the external appearance of new developments except where there is a clear justification; for example, because the development is out of scale or out of character with its surroundings.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am marginally grateful for that reply? Will he bear in mind that beauty is not only in the eye of the beholder; it is an attribute of the deity? Does he agree that most people think that Chartres cathedral, for example, is superior to a pre-fabricated bungalow? Pending divine illumination, will he encourage local authorities to issue guidelines on questions such as the bulk, scale, massing and context of buildings within their area? Will he encourage them to appoint local panels along the lines of the Fine Art Commission to advise them in such matters?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am obviously grateful for any marginal agreement from my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley. It would not be profitable to dwell upon certain aspects of buildings and the merits thereof. The planning policy guidelines are clearly laid out in planning policy note No. 1.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, will the Government consider rejecting on aesthetic grounds the ill-judged proposal to build in London Wall near to St. Paul's a 31-storey skyscraper which will be as high as the cathedral, in view of the total unsuitability of that project?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am endeavouring to be helpful to the noble Lord. I have said that I think it would be inappropriate to comment upon certain buildings, but if he is referring to the Paternoster Square/St. Paul's Precinct development, I can say that as yet there has been no planning application.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am talking about Winchester House in London Wall, of which the noble Earl should be aware.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it would still be unwise to discuss the merits or otherwise of certain buildings.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, while I acknowledge that my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley speaks from Sinai on matters of faith and morals, and also as arbiter elegantiarum—a sort of modern Maecenas—will my noble friend decline the office of censorship which he seems to be having imposed upon him?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that point is in danger of getting above my head. I regret that I am neither a Latin nor a Greek scholar, but I take the point that my noble and learned friend has made.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is not the degree of modesty shown by the Minister welcome not only to the noble and learned Lord but to us, especially when we look at the building of the Department of the Environment, which is a strong candidate for being the ugliest building in Great Britain?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then ugliness too is in the eye of the beholder. Although I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has said, I can assure him that it is a comfortable and convenient building in which to work.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if the considerations now taken into account are added to in any way, it will make it even more difficult to get planning permission for anything and he will not be doing anyone a good turn?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the best way forward for good design is to have close co-operation and understanding between planner and developer.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his first Answer will cause some dismay to those people who are concerned with local conditions for development and that it could almost be taken to mean a licence for developers to go their own way and do what they want? Is he also aware of the increasing concern felt in certain areas about the use of private parliamentary Bills by developers in order to bypass the normal planning procedures? Finally, what is the situation in some city centres where such buildings have been taken out of the control of the local authority and placed under the control of the urban development corporation, which also becomes the planning authority? What procedural vehicle is left open for someone who wants to object to that type of development by an urban development corporation other than to go cap in hand to the Secretary of State?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that we are dealing with aesthetic considerations. The type of building materials to be used externally are of interest to both the planning authority and the developer; it is the building's eventual use which is important to the client.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Earl has reminded us that planning authorities are not supposed to take account of aesthetic factors. Bearing in mind the recent court decision which said that they were not allowed to take account of social factors either, is there not some risk that the Government may conclude that there is nothing left worth having in the planning system and seek to abolish it? If there is such a risk, will they resist that temptation in view of the fact that we shall fairly soon remember why we set it up in the first place?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is extremely difficult to legislate for good design. I believe that the way I answered a previous question is appropriate. Good design cannot he achieved merely by controls and regulations.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Earl reconsider his replies to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, and recommend a review of the notes of guidance? He must be aware, as I am. that it is almost impossible in my area to find a beholder who finds any beauty in the concrete monster that is being built for the British Library or For Sainsbury's "oil rig" which has been opened in Camden Town. Some guidance must be given to local authorities if we are to avoid a repetition of those monstrous buildings which are being put up in central London.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point that it is always important to see that notes of guidance are updated. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that when the British Rail Channel Tunnel scheme comes forward there will be a need to avoid the desecration of Kent, which at the moment is only too obvious?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, at the end of the day that will not necessarily be the case.

Family Planning Clinics
2.58 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether some health authorities, contrary to Section 4 of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973, are closing down or reducing the services provided by NHS family planning clinics; and if so what steps they will take to reopen such clinics and restore such services.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the local provision of family planning services like other health provision is for individual health authorities to decide.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but is he aware that it is more than marginally unsatisfactory? Does he accept that the action of district health authorities in cutting family planning services in recent years is contrary to statute and is causing unwanted pregnancies and more abortions? When will the Government face up to their responsibilities for ensuring that that section of the law is complied with?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am very much aware of the concerns of the Family Planning Association about the closure of family planning clinics. However, I understand that proposals for the closure of clinics and reductions in services are not being taken forward in the form originally proposed once they have been fully debated and discussed locally. I think it is significant that no closures have been so contentious that the full consultation process involving referral to Ministers has been brought into play to date.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that the Minister's first reply was misleading? When he said that it was up to local authorities, was he not contradicted by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who quoted correctly the statute that is being broken as these clinics are closed down? Will the Minister not now rescind his original answer to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and admit that this is a government responsibility under statute?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, will find that the statute says:
"The Secretary of State's duty to arrange to such extent as he considers necessary to meet".
That, combined with the second answer I gave to my noble friend Lord Renton, provides, I believe, a satisfactory answer.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind that up to 25 per cent. of district health authorities have either cut, or are proposing to cut, their family planning services, and bearing in mind the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that there has been a 5 per cent., or rather 12 per cent., increase in abortions over the last five years, apart from the increase in teenage conceptions, was the Minister saying in his earlier reply that the department and therefore Ministers are turning down these proposals for a reduction? If so, will he accept from me our grateful thanks? Will he go further and ensure that the family planning services are not reduced as it is now proposed they should be? Will he take a firm stand, not just on behalf of the Family Planning Association and its requests but of all of us who are concerned about this issue?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have indicated that the Department of Health has made clear that it expects health authorities to make full use of their family planning services. I again draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, to the point I made concerning my second answer to my noble friend, Lord Renton. As to the increase in abortions, I have to say that we cannot state that the closure of family planning clinics has a direct effect on the abortion rate because there is no basis on which the detail of the reasons for the increase in the abortion rate could be satisfactorily compiled.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, is not the Minister's reply a trifle disappointing in view of the recent most welcome emphasis by the Prime Minister on the importance of family planning and containment of the world population in the context of environmental pollution? In particular, will the noble Lord kindly say whether he can give any information on the progress of the three family planning and pregnancy counselling projects for young people set up by the Department of Health and Social Security in 1986?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with regard to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, concerning the three research projects which are going on at the moment, I believe I am correct in saying that the results will be available at the end of 1989.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that closures have taken place because the district health authorities have had to make economies? Does he consider it right merely to pass the costs from one National Health Service budget to another possibly at greater expense, because the Family Planning Association considers that its provision of family planning services is cheaper than if the patient were to go to a GP? Also, can the Minister say what has happened to the Government's banner of freedom of choice and explain why women cannot choose to go to a family planning clinic if they wish rather than to their GP?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Countess is aware that there is a certain level of disagreement concerning the cost effectiveness of the two alternatives, certainly as concerns the department. I must once again draw her attention to my earlier remark which is that a great number of the closures which were proposed have not in many cases taken place after further consultation.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Children Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Petroleum Royalties (Relief) and Continental Shelf Bill will be taken.

Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [H.L.]
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House to whom the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [H.L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clause 2,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 3 to 7,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 8 to 13,

Schedules 4 and 5,

Clauses 14 to 16,

Schedule 6,

Clause 17.

—(Viscount Davidson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Children Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 18 [General duty of local authority in relation to children looked after by them]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 14, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) The local authority shall ensure that a plan to meet the individual needs of every child in their care is drawn up and that a named officer shall be responsible for this plan.").
The noble Lord said: From our discussions already on Clause 18 before, it is clear that subsections (3) and (4) spell out well the duties of the local authority. However I feel that this amendment is justified in order to spell out more clearly how children should be looked after. I think that my amendment will strengthen the rehabilitative duties of the local authority. Each child is a unique individual, and in the words of the Cleveland Report:
"The child is a person, not an object of concern".
Therefore I feel that it is necessary to underline more clearly how these duties might be carried out.
Perhaps I might sum up by saying that it will do no good if we create a sophisticated and sensitive prevention and protection service, only to fail the child personally who cannot live at home. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wish to support this amendment very strongly. It is essential to have the amendment to ensure that the framework of the Bill operates according to the true intendment. That is an important omission from the Bill.
The amendment in no way conflicts with any provisions of the Bill. On the contrary, it is in clear implementation of the legislation. The amendment is worth very serious consideration because it involves the drawing up of a plan, the meeting of the needs of each individual child in care and a designated officer responsible who, if unable to retain a responsibility, by implication, if not clearly expressed, hands over to another officer designated by the local authority.
The drawing up of this plan involves a mandatory statutory duty enforceable as such in the courts on judicial review. A duty of consultation arises under subsection (4) as regards any decision. But making a plan also inevitably involves consultation and ought to include those persons referred to in the subsection.
Somewhat of a lawyer's point arises and I raise it for the consideration of my noble and learned friend. A plan for action to be taken is perhaps not in the judicial thinking a decision as to action to be taken within the scope of the plan. Perhaps to some slight degree Amendment No. 94 may require a drafting
114
amendment in that regard. However, subject to that qualification, I support Amendment No. 94. If it were put to a vote, I should support it as it stands, because at a later stage of the Bill any drafting amendment of that kind could be carried.
This amendment would ease the means of reasonable resolution of many very difficult and disparate problems. On Second Reading I referred to one such problem. I frankly confessed that I could not devise any resolution of it. As time is precious I shall accept and produce only one example of the types of difficult problems that may arise.
On Second Reading, at col. 508 of Hansard, I referred to the child mother and the child mother's child. I said that either or both of them were in need of supervision. The mother, being unmarried, enters a voluntary home. She then leaves it to go to bed and breakfast accommodation. That is a serious problem, and 1 shall show how this amendment would, if carried, vastly contribute to a reasonable and humane resolution of it.
On Amendment No. 80, moved by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, reference was made to this problem in the context of priority on housing lists. She was supported by the noble Baroness, Lady David. I supported that amendment. I drew the Committee's attention to its relevance in the context of this amendment. But my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor took the point that Amendment No. 80 was concerned with Part III of the Housing Act, as amended, and lay within the remit of another department—the Department of the Environment. So be it. My noble and learned friend said that he had Amendment No. 80 very much in mind.
If one excludes the housing element, this amendment is wholly requisite to deal with the voluntary home and bed and breakfast situation to which I referred. Incidentally, its effect would also be to some degree to ease and indeed resolve the housing element to which reference was made on Amendment No. 80, without introducing any amendments whatever into this Bill to accord equal priority to voluntary homes.
We are concerned with the problem to which I referred; namely, unmarried mothers of 16 to 18 who may have one or more children, and where perhaps the wishes of the mother to go into bed and breakfast accommodation may not be in the interests of the child. A conflict of interests could arise between two children. That is a delicate and sensitive question of balance and is but one way in which this amendment could serve the ends of this Bill and the interests of children.
3.15 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: I rise to support the amendment. When a child goes into local authority care, he may well be suffering from a deep physical or emotional trauma. With the right kind of help the child is able to recover and lead a fulfilled and happy life. Children have very different kinds of needs and what is appropriate for one child may be quite unsuitable for another child. Common sense dictates that each child must have a plan which is designed to meet his or her individual needs.

115
The Cleveland Report highlighted the importance of multidisciplinary working. It emphasised that this must also apply to a child who is in care. Someone must be responsible for ensuring that a child has access to all the locally available resources. A named officer could take responsibility for this and provide advice on the basis of which a child could make informed choices. If the child is too young to do that for himself, the named officer could help to guide the child.
Children should not be allowed to drift through the care system. On occasion they may even get lost in the system. Therefore a named officer would seem essential. It is much easier for a child or other family members to get information if they know whom to go to. Equally, if a child wants to make a complaint he also knows whom to ask.
Baroness Faithfull: I rise to support the amendment, though perhaps from a different point of view. In order to meet the individual needs of a child, a very skilled initial assessment has to be made of that child's needs. At the moment a kind of tariff system is often operated. First of all, social services departments or perhaps a voluntary organisation try to put a child into a foster home. That fails, so the child is moved to another foster home. That fails, and the child is then put into a children's home. That fails, and finally the child is either sent to a school for maladjusted children or perhaps comes before a juvenile court and is put into youth custody; by which time the child is perhaps 12, 13 or 14 years old and it is too late to influence him to any great extent. I support the amendment in order to press for a skilled initial assessment to be made of a child, so that he is not moved from place to place while he is in care.
As regards the point about a named officer, I know that a number of social services departments think it is impossible to have a named officer because of changes in staff. But every time an officer leaves the case in question should immediately be given to another social worker, so that there is always somebody responsible for the child even if at that stage the new person does not know the child very well. On those two points, therefore, I support the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: I too wish to support the amendment. There are children in care who do not have a plan for the future. One of the DHSS-sponsored research studies revealed that social workers did not actively plan what should happen to children when they entered care. The study revealed that the plan which most social workers tend to adopt is a wait and see policy.
In assessing what is happening to a child, what is likely to happen to him and what should have happened to him, the attitude of social workers is one of neutrality. That evidence emerged from a DHSS research study. What is required from the day a child enters care—the amendment is silent on the date when the plan is to appear—is a more positive stance. That stance should necessitate a plan being prepared for each child in care. That will concentrate the mind on the need to map a child's future. Basing my
116
comments on the DHSS study document, that would appear to be essential.
There is another spin-off, if I may use the word. in that the preparation of a plan when a child enters care would also counter the drift and passivity in care cases. The DHSS researchers were startled to stumble across this passivity and drift. We believe that this amendment should be acceptable to the Government because, notwithstanding what is happening at ground level, it is in accordance with government policy. We very much wish to support the amendment.
Lord Meston: I also should like to support the amendment, not least because one would like to think that the drawing up of a plan of the kind that is proposed is what happens already in practice. It is very important to avoid what the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, has described as a child drifting in care. One knows from experience that children do drift in care and the line of least resistance is often taken. Those in local authorities who are responsible for children often do not think ahead or think ahead far enough. It seems to me particularly important that there should be some such provision in the Bill if the ability of the courts to intervene and to give directions as to what should or should not happen to a child is to be limited.
The only misgiving that one might have is that a plan can become over-rigid. However, I should hope that, perhaps by later amendment or by regulations, provision could be made to limit over-rigidity in a plan, possibly by means of periodic reviews of the case of a child in care. Generally speaking I support the principle of the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: I should like to say first that I very strongly support the view that the child is to be considered as a person and that all his or her needs and aspirations should be taken into account. Secondly, I believe that all of us would wish to see steps taken to prevent drift, as it has been described by the noble Lady. In a sense, drift is one result of not treating the child as a person but allowing it to become involved in a structure in which its personality and individuality are lost sight of. Therefore, I do not believe that there is any disagreement between my noble friend Lord Mottistone and myself on the basic objectives of the amendment, and the same applies in relation to the other noble Lords who have supported the amendment.
However, there are some more technical matters to be considered. First, the amendment is restricted to children in the care of the local authority. Generally speaking, the provisions that we are considering in this Bill relate to all children whom the local authority is looking after, which, as your Lordships know, is a wider concept than in care. Children in care are in a sense the extreme cases and we hope that it will not be necessary for most children to be in care. The aim is to try to look after them in such a way that they may not need to be taken into care. Therefore the scope of a duty of the kind proposed ought to extend beyond merely the children who are subject to a care order and ought to be more general.

117
Secondly, I should like to refer to the provisions of Clause 18 of the Bill, which set out a general duty in relation to children looked after by the local authority. As I said, the Government are anxious that the children should be considered individually and that proper account should be taken of their personality and so on. It is necessary that the children who are covered by Clause 18 should be looked after in a way that recognises those factors. It is apparent that in order to look after a child properly a considerable amount of detail is required, and I should have thought that a plan would require some degree of elaboration to be a useful concept.
I suggest to your Lordships that other clauses in the Bill, if properly implemented, will achieve the objective of the amendment. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, the amendment does not specify a date for the plan.
The first specific point that I wish to make is that we intend that the rules of court to be made under Clause 70 should require a local authority, when applying for a care order, to provide the court with details of its proposals for the child should the order be granted. That will have an effect in relation to the matter raised by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. It may not be possible at that stage to prepare a full assessment of the child's needs but at least the attention of the local authority will be directed to the need to consider the particular child for whom a care order is being sought and to set out to the court its proposals in relation to the child.
As your Lordships will remember, one of the key necessities for an order is that the court should be satisfied that the order will be of some benefit to the child. So the court needs to know, in broad outline at least, what the local authority proposes for the child. At that stage the proposals may be in the nature of an embryo plan rather than a full, detailed plan such as might have been contemplated in connection with this amendment, but they will go into as much detail as possible.
Secondly, under Clause 22, local authorities will be required to review the cases of all children whom they are looking after—children in their care and children who are being looked after but who are not technically in care—at intervals to be laid down. Those reviews will necessarily imply a check on what is required for the child and the nature of the development which is being considered. There is a reference to implementation of such decisions and I shall expect such implementation to be entrusted to a named officer under regulations to be made.
As my noble friend Lady Faithfull has pointed out, local authority staff are apt to change and therefore it would be appropriate to have in regulations a mechanism for ensuring that if a member of staff leaves someone is nominated to take the place of that officer in respect of the child in question.
More generally, both at reviews and in making any other decisions in respect of the child, the responsibilities of local authorities to children they are looking after under Clause 18 require that the local authorities safeguard and promote the child's welfare in the provision of their services. That will
118
require a considered approach and planned proposals for the child. I believe that it is more appropriate that the detailed provisions which are required and which underlie the concerns expressed by the promoters of the amendment should be dealt with in that way. I believe that fairly detailed regulations are required to ensure those objectives. I lay particular stress on the initial requirement in respect of care proceedings, which we anticipate will be provided for in rules of court. There are also possibilities in relation to general guidance and so on, but I believe that most of those matters ought to be provided for under the regulations which the Bill presently provides.
I hope that, in the light of these remarks, my noble friend will feel that the considerations which he has in mind are also very much in our minds and can be adequately catered for under the regulations.
Lord Mottistone: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for carefully spelling out how he considers that the aims of this amendment might be met. I am also grateful to him for so clearly understanding our intentions. As we all do, I always have slight misgivings about matters which will appear in regulations before we actually see those regulations. I am therefore riot entirely happy about this situation but certainly I intend to read with great care what my noble and learned friend has said and shall perhaps come back at a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 15, line 8, at end insert—
("(8A) Subject to subsections (8B) (8C) (8D) and (8E) below, the local authority shall ensure that no child whom they are looking after is subjected to corporal punishment.
(8B) Subsection (8A) shall not apply when the child is placed with—

(a) his parents,

(b) any person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him, or

(c) any relative of his.

(8C) Subsection (8A) shall not apply to a child placed with a local authority foster parent before this Act was brought into force for the duration of that placement.
(8D) Subject to subsection (8E) below references in this Act to giving corporal punishment are references to doing anything for the purposes of punishing the child (whether or not there are also other reasons for doing it) which apart from any justification would constitute battery.
(8E) A person is not to be taken for the purposes cif this section as giving corporal punishment by virtue of anything done for reasons that include averting an immediate danger of personal injury to, or an immediate danger to the property of, any person (including the child).").
The noble Baroness said: My interest in the abolition of corporal punishment will be fairly well known to the Committee. I have spoken about it before and we have achieved a certain amount of success in this matter with help from all round the Chamber. This amendment is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, and the noble Lords, Lord Seebohm and Lord Henderson. I hope that it will also be supported from the Benches to my right. It has

119
support from all round the Committee as well as from a large number of associations. The National Children's Home, Barnardo's, the Child Policy Review Group of the National Children's Bureau, the National Foster Care Association and the Children's Legal Centre have all given their support to the amendment. It has very strong backing both inside and outside this assembly.
This amendment aims to protect all children in care from physical punishment, with two exceptions. The definition of physical punishment is taken from the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 and as such should cause no difficulties to the Government. That is comprised in subsection (8D). There are two exceptions to the authority's duty to ensure that no child in care is physically punished. The first is as is contained in subsection (8B), which covers circumstances when children are sent "home on trial" to parents or other relatives. The authority is under a duty to promote the upbringing of children with their families, and it is obviously important that the need to protect children from physical punishment should not conflict with the children's need to be with their parents and family. The authority would not be able to compel parents and relatives not to hit the child. The only means of meeting its duty under the amendment without this exemption would be not to send the child home, which would not be in the child's best interests. The Secretary of State must issue regulations on "home on trial placements" (as set out in Clause 19(4)) and could require authorities to use their best endeavours to dissuade parents from using corporal punishment.
Secondly, the other circumstance is where the child is already placed in a foster home. Local authorities will be able to stop foster parents from hitting children in care by making that a part of the fostering contract and by setting it as a condition for inclusion on the panel of approved foster parents. However, there will be some children already in foster placements where this new contract is not in place and where the foster parent is accustomed to using a certain amount of corporal punishment. Without the exemption (set out in subsection (8C) of the amendment) the authority would be placed in the invidious position of having to remove such a child who, perhaps, had been living and settled in the home for many years. As I have already said, the amendment is supported by the National Foster Care Association.
The Government are already committed to banning corporal punishment in most child care institutions. In a Parliamentary Answer given in January 1988 the then Minister, Mr. Tony Newton, stated that the Government would shortly be consulting on draft Children's Homes (Control and Discipline) Regulations which would prohibit corporal punishment in residential establishments where children and young people are accommodated as well as amending the Residential Care Homes Regulations (which cater for some children with mental handicaps).
Although welcome, these regulations do not offer adequate protection for children in care. Of course, corporal punishment is particularly inappropriate for
120
that group of children who may have come into care because of physical abuse. There is also a great difference between being hit by one's own parent and by someone who is a comparative stranger.
But the proposed regulations will not cover mental nursing homes. These are a small number of private homes which cater for mentally disturbed adolescents and which are governed by the Nursing and Mental Nursing Homes Regulations. Those regulations were amended in the summer but they did not ban corporal punishment. When the Children's Legal Centre asked the Department of Health why it had not done so, the officer responsible said that he had received legal advice that medical personnel could not use corporal punishment. That is inaccurate. There is nothing in health legislation to prohibit the use of corporal punishment and anyone with the control or charge of children can hit them. In any event the homes have staff who are not medically qualified.
These homes are dealing with the most difficult and disruptive young people, often those whom every other establishment has rejected. They are young people who are therefore very much at risk of physical abuse. In this context I should like to mention the Aycliffe Centre for young people which has at its head Mr. Masud Hoghughi, who came to speak to the All-Party Penal Affairs Group. The centre is the United Kingdom's largest specialised facility for severely disordered adolescents and it caters for a total of 156 boys and girls between the ages of eight and 19 years. It has 50 secure beds and forms the largest concentration of secure accommodation in the country.
These are children who have the most difficult problems and who have probably gone through almost every aspect of child care already. But the centre has a principle of not using corporal punishment or medication for purposes of control, which is very important. That is its policy. It caters for the most difficult of children and is managing successfully without such means.
Banning corporal punishment by regulation in the way in which I have spoken earlier would also leave unaffected the children in foster care. In 1984 the Children's Legal Centre surveyed local authorities' policies in relation to corporal punishment. It established that 10 of the 37 respondents had banned the use of corporal punishment in foster homes; in other words, it had made that a condition before placing a child with the foster parent. Presumably there were others which had such a policy but which did not reply to the centre; and I should hope that there are still more which have followed this course since the date of the survey.
The practice of those 10 authorities—not to mention the many states and countries elsewhere in the world which ban the use of corporal punishment in foster care—shows that the provision of foster care is not impaired by a prohibition of that sort.
Many children are taken into care because of physical abuse by their parents. It is clearly wrong that they should be at risk of physical punishment in care. Local authorities should be setting the example of good parenting by guaranteeing children in their

121
care a non-violent upbringing. Physical punishment passes on the message that violence solves problems. We are all appalled by the extent of violence in our society today and I believe that this Chamber should play its part in expressing disapproval by banning corporal punishment for those who are in the care of the state. I beg to move.
Lord Seebohm: The noble Baroness, Lady David, has made the case for this amendment extremely clearly, as she always does. Obviously I shall not again go into all the details which she has covered so well. However, it seems to me that the intentions of the Government as regards corporal punishment are already determined, as is evidenced by the Education Act 1987, to which the noble Baroness has referred, which abolished corporal punishment in state-supported schools and, I understand, is committed to banning it in most child care institutions.
We are here concerned with children in care. We are concerned in particular with those who arc with foster parents or on leave with parents, which I believe is a very important process in restoring family life to the child. We are also concerned with those in mental homes who are not covered by the proposed residential care homes regulations.
The debate between what I call hitters and non-hitters continues and will continue. But the hitters have lost in Parliament and it is no use raising the debate all over again. It is worth pointing out that Dr. Barnardo homes abolished corporal punishment 12 years ago and are convinced that they took the right decision especially as so many children are in care because of physical abuse at home.
The letters that some of us have received from hitters have misunderstood or misinterpreted the amendments, which make it clear that the rights of parents or relatives in caring for children are unaltered. Under common law they can use reasonable force to control their offspring. Many non-hitters would go a good deal further than this amendment and Amendment No. 259 that comes later. However, that is not what is proposed and I can see no departure from government policy already enacted or declared. I therefore support the amendment.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I rise to support this amendment and to endorse all that has been said by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady David. Children in care are the responsibility of the authority and sometimes of one of the great voluntary organisations, in particular the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. In many cases they are in care because they have been abused by their parents or their guardians and are already frightened and probably very difficult to manage. But to inflict more violence will make everything worse. When they are in the care of the public authority, it should not mean more punishment of that kind. Understanding, persuasion and consultation can nearly always prevent the child from becoming more difficult.
Part of the responsibility would be to help the parents to understand the child better. This is where experienced and well trained social workers are vital.
122
It is difficult if children are in mental care, but with the knowledge and experience we have of mental disorder today there is no reason to bring in corporal punishment, which would certainly do nothing to help under those conditions.
I do not think that our laws interfere with families at home unless one of the children's officers or the probation officer finds out that cruelty is being inflicted and report this to the police. They can then intervene and put the parent on trial. Sometimes the mother suffers by the husband who abuses the child and she cannot prevent him; but the children's officer should find out and call in the law on these occasions.
From the Children's Legal Centre I have been given information about what is happening in other European states. It is encouraging. For example, Sweden is one of the countries which has abolished corporal punishment in schools, as has Finland and other Nordic countries, and the result has been a decrease in children coming into care and a decrease in child abuse.
In 1987 the Council of Europe recommended that corporal punishment of children by their parents should be strongly discouraged and in several countries it is illegal. In the modern world there is so much more knowledge of child care and psychiatric treatment, apart from other simple punishments that have nothing to do with corporal punishment. We have already abolished corporal punishment in state schools and it is time that other educational establishments did the same. I should not like our nation to be the only European country which still persists with corporal punishment in the year 1989.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Banks: I should like to support the amendment. I agree very much with the noble Baroness, Lady David, that corporal punishment is particularly inappropriate for children in care, many of whom are there because of physical abuse. I also agree that there is a great difference between receiving corporal punishment at the hands of the parent, whatever view one may take of that, and receiving it at the hands of a relative stranger.
As I understand the position, the Government have pledged themselves to ban corporal punishment in all child-care institutions. This is to be done by means of regulations. I am not quite clear what the position is about those regulations at the moment. I do not know how far the consultations referred to in a ministerial Answer in January 1988 have progressed. However, the proposed regulations, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, made clear, will not cover mental nursing homes. She also told us that they will not affect the position of new foster emplacements, although 10 local authorities have made it a condition of fostering that there should be a ban on corporal punishment. The passing of this amendment will cover both mental nursing homes and future foster emplacements. It will give a comprehensive cover to the ban on corporal punishment, thus giving full effect to what we understand to be the Government's intentions. I hope very much that they will be able to accept the amendment.
Lord Renton: I too am in favour of this amendment but I am not in favour of the exception created by subsection (8C) where foster parents are already looking after the child. To make that exception appears to me to be wrong. We are perpetuating a wrong. I listened to what the noble Baroness, Lady David, said and I did not think that the reasons she gave justified making that exception.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: As my name is down for this amendment perhaps I may briefly support it. I believe that it is only a small step in the direction that we have already taken. It is no more than a logical extension of the abolition of corporal punishment in state schools to state care. It is entirely appropriate that this extension should be initiated in this Chamber, which initiated the abolition of corporal punishment in state schools. It is completing the work that the Government are already doing with regard to state care.
The amendment would extend the abolition of corporal punishment to those children who are in private mental homes or in new foster placements. It cannot be right that they should be subject to corporal punishment. It would be most unfair to abolish it in some placements and not in others. I regard this as no more than a completion of an exercise which was begun some years ago and initiated in this Chamber.
Perhaps we ought to look at the interesting point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. On reflection I cannot see that there is any reason why the relative of the child should be made an exception to the general rule. I do not know whether the noble Baroness would consider that amendment to her amendment. It seems to be an improvement.
However, in view of the reception of the amendment in this Committee, I hope that it can be agreed to in principle without a Division.
Lord Mishcon: There is no point in my repeating arguments so well advanced by other Members of the Committee. I merely say from this Front Bench that we support the amendment. I know that noble Lords will forgive me, should the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor somewhat unexpectedly say something with which I disagree, if I address the Chamber again.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I should like to utter a word of warning here. Foster parents should treat foster children in exactly the same way as they treat their own children. I believe that it is very important that no differences should be made. For that reason I cannot agree with the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. If any form of corporal punishment—even the odd slap, which is what it usually amounts to—is forbidden to future foster parents, it may lose many potential foster parents. I suggest that it may be better for children in care to have the occasional slap from a foster parent, along with the foster parent's children, than for them to be put into a home. I wished to put that thought to the Committee.
Lord Hankey: I hesitate to rise on this subject but I want to express a serious philosophic doubt about how we are dealing with this matter. If disorderly children did not occasionally attack their teachers I should understand fully what we were doing, but teachers and doctors are in trouble. Some children are extremely disorderly. I do not like comparing children with dogs, but I have had a dog occasionally. If one was never able to beat one's dog, he would make an awful muck of the house. It is not that you want to beat him often, but if a dog knows that he will never be bashed he will very soon get out of hand. I do not believe that children ought to be bashed, but I know of extraordinary cases.
I know of a case where a man's daughter let a young man into the house. The daughter was in her early teens. The father discovered what was going on and tried to chuck the young man out but he did not want to go. He said "If you touch me I'll have the law on you. Children are not allowed to be beaten now". I know of another case which I am sure is true of a lady teacher in a school in the Midlands. There was one very disorderly young man. She was arguing with him about something and he began to make it quite clear that he intended to bash her, so she knocked him down. She wondered what was going to happen, for she was a slip of a girl. The other children who had suffered a good deal from this young man were absolutely delighted. They all stood up and cheered and the young man was very abashed. The teacher went to the headmaster to tell him what she had done. The headmaster said "Oh, my goodness; it's very awkward. I'm sure you were right. I'll stand up for you if I can, but I expect the parents will come round".
Next day the parents came to the school. I dare not mention names. They said "We have come to thank you for what Miss So-and-So did to our Johnny. He's been out of hand for a long time and now he's quite easy to live with". I merely express a philosophic doubt. I do not believe that we should be too extreme in these matters. I am not suggesting that the Committee rejects the amendment but we should keep an open mind on this issue.
The Lord Chancellor: The spirit of the amendment is, as has already been pointed out, in accordance with the policy on which the Government have acted in this area generally. I should like to begin by saying a word or two about what has been done in this area by the Government in the prohibition of the use of corporal punishment in the various forms of child care establishment, normally by amendment of the appropriate regulations. It is fair to say that some of these have been completed and some are still in hand. Completed have been the regulations required in the case of homes registered under Part I of the Registered Homes Act 1984 and in the case of maintained schools, and the ones in hand are in the case of care placements in independent schools and in community homes and voluntary homes where draft regulations are at an advanced stage of preparation. In the case of private children's homes the Children's Homes Act 1982 is unimplemented. It is reproduced and amended in Part VIII of the Bill and regulations

125
made under it will prohibit corporal punishment and generally control discipline in such homes.
As regards children who are placed by local authorities in foster homes—boarding out, as it is known at present—the question of discipline and punishment is referred to in guidance issued with revised regulations the Foster Placement Regulations 1988 made in December.
I believe that it is quite important on this subject when one is considering foster parents that we should remember the point made by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, because the general principle in relation to foster parents is stated in the boarding out regulations issued in 1955 under which foster parents agree to bring a foster child up as if he or she were a child of their own. Many first-class foster parents and potential foster parents would be lost if they were prohibited from giving even the mildest form of corporal punishment to their children.
The Committee may like to consider whether this problem is not best dealt with by attempting to reach agreement with foster parents. As I said, there are provisions for that and the noble Baroness, Lady David, mentioned them. I understood my noble friend Lord Renton to he referring to her paragraph (8C), not paragraph (8B)(c) to which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, was referring. I believe that there was a slight confusion there. The noble Baroness explained why this provision is put into the amendment: she does not wish to disturb existing arrangements which are working perfectly well in a given situation. The Committee will have to consider carefully this matter because there is a valuable principle involved in saying that a foster parent should treat and bring up the foster child as if it were a child of his or her own. I am sure that those who are good foster parents would wish to do that.
Many foster parents have their own children as well. My knowledge of these matters, such as it is, suggests to me that perhaps the best foster parents are those who are willing to take additional children to foster and bring up along with their own families. I have seen very successful fostering of that kind where the children have been brought into the home at ages that perhaps are intertwined with the ages of the natural family in the home and the whole are treated as one. I have seen badly disturbed and badly treated children being brought into a home where it would be fair to say that corporal punishment was not entirely unknown, but it was very evenly distributed and did no harm that I could appreciate to anyone. I was amazed how quickly these disturbed children responded to the home atmosphere and felt themselves integrated into the family.
There is a risk—I believe that the Committee will appreciate this—of damaging that balance if one tries to distinguish between the rules that apply to the parent and to the foster parent. The amendment deals with that. Therefore I wonder whether all of us who are concerned with this matter should not reflect on this—whether the matter is not best approached by seeking agreement at the time the fostering arrangements are made. The overall object is clear.
126
There are several small technical matters to address. It would be preferable to aim any such direction at those who bear the responsibility—for example, the foster parents—rather than at the local authority. To put on the local authority the onus of ensuring that no child whom it is looking after is subjected to corporal punishment is a difficult obligation to enforce totally. Circumstances may occur outwith the knowledge of the local authority. In general the regulations which prohibit corporal punishment are directed towards those who have immediate control in the establishment; for example, the management.
There are no present regulations covering mental nursing homes registered by health authorities. I believe that the principle would apply but we have not been made aware of a need for it. We have not understood that evidence exists to show that such incidents have occurred in those establishments. If there is evidence to suggest that it is a problem which must be dealt with, we shall consider the matter afresh and sympathetically.
The present regulations do not directly attack the matter in the case of foster parents for the reason which I have explained to the Committee. In the light of that explanation the noble Baroness may feel that the amendment requires further thought and she may feel able to withdraw it.
4 p.m.
Lord Renton: Having spoken in support of the noble Baroness's amendment, and having heard what has been said by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I should like to make a plea to her. A good deal of what was said by my noble and learned friend was not familiar to me and it must affect my judgment on the details of her amendment. Therefore, it would be better to consider the issue further and not be pressed to take a decision now.
Lord Mishcon: I understand the sentiment that has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. However, some of us are troubled because, while always extremely clear and frank, the noble and learned Lord has left some of us in doubt about where the Government stand on the issue.
I have been told that the National Foster Care Association has made its position clear and is in favour of the amendment. I and other Members of the Committee understand that we should reconsider the position of foster parents. The argument that they should be in the same position as parents is one to be examined. In order that no Member of the Committee misunderstands the position—and I should hate anyone outside the Committee to misunderstand—I should like to say in parenthesis that the law does not allow parents to bash their children in any way that they see fit. It is only the administration of reasonable punishment that is permitted. I should hate the wrong impression to be created because of the amendment.
Bearing in mind the Government's policy in respect of educational establishments, which has been made abundantly clear, is the noble and learned Lord saying that in principle he agrees with the

127
argument that no institution will look again at foster parents and that no institution under local authority administration which looks after a child shall be permitted to administer corporal punishment? Is he saying that he would like to look again at the case of foster parents in order to equate them with ordinary parents but that the principle of the amendment, apart from the issue of foster parents, is one with which the Government agree? If the noble and learned Lord will tell the Committee I shall be grateful. We can then reconsider the position of foster parents and tidy it up at Report stage.
The Lord Chancellor: I am sorry if I have not made the position sufficiently clear. I tried to explain that the necessary steps have already been taken or are being taken in order to prohibit the use of corporal punishment in the various forms of child care establishments which I described.
The only matter which has not been addressed and which would come within the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David, is the position of health establishments. I understand that there is no evidence to show that any prohibition is required. I further understand that the method of caring for children in such establishments is along the lines described by the noble Baroness at the Aycliffe Home.
In principle the Government take the view that in an institutional setting for child care there should be no question of corporal punishment. Regulations are in place or are being put in place subject to consultation on the matter. However, the case of foster parents is different. In one sense it falls within the principle but it is exceptional. There we are trying to reproduce as closely as possible the natural relationship and one wishes to provide a situation in which that can be achieved.
Equally the local authority is responsible for making the arrangements. The view that has been taken so far is that it is not right to deal with the matter by means of statutory regulations which directly affect it, but rather to try to arrange it through agreements which must be made at the placement stage.
I ought to have mentioned the fact that the guidance that has been given in connection with those agreements stresses that a child, if old enough, should know and have agreed to the content of the agreement reached about his care. The child, if able to appreciate what is happening, should agree with the arrangements. I believe that in this situation that has the attraction of being the best way forward, but I agree that it is a matter for consideration. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question.
Baroness David: I am grateful for the support which the amendment has received from all Members who have spoken but with the possible exception of those speaking for foster parents. The National Foster Care Association is in favour of the abolition. In their contracts with foster parents many local authorities are already making a condition that there should not be corporal punishment.
I should like to have seen this House slightly ahead of public opinion rather than always trailing along a
128
little way behind. However, after what has been said by the noble and learned Lord about the regulations I believe that it would be only fair to look carefully at any commitments which he may have given and to reconsider the position of foster parents. I reserve my position to come back to the issue at Report stage. I should like to have seen the establishment of the principle of no corporal punishment in state care as it exists in state schools. I give warning that I may come back on Report. I shall look carefully at what has been said and think carefully about the position of foster parents. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Provision of accommodation and maintenance by local authority for children whom they are looking after]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 15, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) placing him with relatives or friends or other suitable person (subject to any regulations made by the Secretary of State) on such terms as to payment by the authority and otherwise as the local authority may determine;").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to press local authorities and voluntary organisations to consider relatives and friends and other suitable people as making very good foster parents.
I move this amendment because I have been told that the placement of children in care with relatives, friends and the wider circle of the family has dropped. There are many relatives who are fearful of coming forward and offering themselves as foster parents in case they appear to be interfering or on the other hand who are fearful that they may become involved in family difficulties involving the parents of the child concerned.
A publication by the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering shows that there has been a steady decline in the number of children who are formally boarded out with relatives. Between 1978 and 1980, when the number of children placed in foster homes rose, the number of those children placed with relatives diminished by 6 per cent. Research has also shown that children who are placed with relatives tend to do better and are happier than those children placed outside the family circle.
Therefore, it may be that the noble and learned Lord will say that this is a matter for regulations Of course, the boarding out regulations are not positive about the use of relatives but it is a way of drawing to the attention of the social work world, both voluntary and statutory, that relatives should be used if practicable and possible.
There are a number of relatives who take in children; for example, following a terrible accident where perhaps the parent of a nephew or niece has died. After a year or so they then find that for financial reasons they cannot keep the child. We ask whether it is possible for those parents to receive grants because one does not wish to remove children from a home where they are very happy. It may be

129
that that is a matter for regulations, but I press Members of the Committee to consider that, where possible and practicable, children should he placed with relatives. I beg to move.
Lady Kinloss: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull and I agree with what she has said. It is an unfortunate development that the number of children fostered by relatives has declined, as such children appear to do better and are better adjusted.
When the Bill was published, the boarding out regulations had not been placed before Parliament. They were laid on 22nd December 1988 and will come into force in June 1989. The Family Rights Group hoped that the wording of the regulations would be improved and made more positive as a result of consultations carried out by the DHSS. Unfortunately, that did not happen. That seems to make it more necessary to explore and exploit what family members and close friends have to offer young children.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I should like to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I believe it is very important that, wherever possible and practicable, where there are relatives or friends who are suitable children should be sent to live with people who are familiar to them and not with strangers.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I agree with every word spoken in support of the amendment as regards policy. However, I wonder whether I want that to he written into the Bill. We are passing about 3,000 pages of primary legislation every year. The Liberal Government of 1911, which had the reputation of being a reforming government, passed about 450 pages of primary legislation in that year. I wonder whether our general line that everything which should occur to anybody with any common sense or decency must be written into every Bill is really a good policy.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Meston: They were 450 very good pages. This is something which I wish to see in the Bill. Any positive statutory encouragement to consider the wider family should be supported. I prefer not to see it in regulations. I am afraid that there is a tendency to overlook the wider family; it is a tendency particularly prevalent among younger social workers. They do not consider all the options. Often there are uncles, aunts, grandparents and so on who are ready, willing and able to step in but who are simply overlooked. The consequence is that local authority social workers often create difficulties for themselves in the long run. Accordingly, although it adds to the Bill, we support the amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I rise to support the amendment. There is merit in positively stating in the language of the Bill itself that local authorities should look, and be encouraged to look, to the child's wider family and friends as a placement for the child. That
130
is obviously desirable but I believe it is worth spelling it out.
As to the size of legislation, one cannot measure its quality either by its size or its brevity. Sometimes the latter is disastrous. It depends on what comes before the House. I am afraid that this avalanche of legislation which this Government, contrary to all their protestations, are putting before us is placing us in difficulty.
The Lord Chancellor: I am sure that the Government are seeking to place before the Chamber the best possible legislation and indeed this Bill is a good example. It must be right not to add unnecessarily to the Bill.
The distinction between the two types of placement in Clause 19 is that Clause 19(2)(a) results in a placement where the persons do not have parental responsibility for the child. In Clause 19(4) the persons in question have parental responsibility for the child. That is the basic distinction between the two. I am sure that my noble friend is aware that Clause 19(2)(a) covers what she wishes to happen and it is a question of giving that prominence rather than anything else.
I am against having a separate category which is neither one nor other of the two which I mentioned. However, having heard what she said, it occurs to me that it may be possible to give prominence to the wider family while still maintaining the same division. In other words, instead of going immediately to:
"a family or other suitable person",
I should like to consider whether we might rephrase that so as to give prominence to the wider family in the way my noble friend desires without splitting the legal categories in a different way from that aready in the Bill.
As far as I recall, under the Child Care Act 1980 there is a split between relatives and friends on the one hand and others on the other. I believe that that has caused difficulties and I should not be surprised to learn that that may have assisted in the downward trend to which the noble Baroness referred. I believe it would he dangerous to split those particular categories so that they have different consequences. However, I shall certainly consider whether we could slightly alter the expression in Clause 19(2)(a) to give particular prominence to that. I cannot commit myself because I did not fully appreciate the nature of the point. I should like to consult parliamentary draftsmen to see whether, without damaging the underlying structure, I can accommodate my noble friend's wishes and the wishes of those who have supported her.
Baroness Faithfull: I am grateful to all those who have spoken, and particularly to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I take the point that he makes and I am grateful that before the next stage of the Bill he will consider a rephrasing, not absolutely, so that emphasis is put on relatives and friends. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 15, line 28, after ("with") insert ("any").
The noble and learned Lord said: With this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 134 and 135. The purpose of these amendments is to clarify the powers governing the arrangements which may be made by local authorities for placing children in certain types of accommodation referred to as "other arrangements" in Clause 19(2)(f).
Clause 19 lists various ways in which a local authority can provide accommodation for children whom it is looking after. This includes placement with a family in various kinds of residential accommodation or by making such other arrangements as seem appropriate to the local authority. This category of other arrangements covered by Clause 19(2)(f) is intended to include half-way houses, hostels and any other type of accommodation not included in the categories already defined.
We have included a power to make regulations, but in the way in which it is phrased at the moment in the absence of regulations we would not be able to use this power and we want a flexible power to use, subject to regulations. That is the purpose of the amendment.
The two further amendments I have mentioned are designed to remove unnecessary restrictions on the arrangements which local authorities or others with parental responsibility may make. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 15, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) Where a child is in the care of a local authority he may be allowed to live with his parents or with a person who is not a parent but has parental responsibility for him in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to be able to place a child back with his parents, or the persons who had parental rights over the child, with a view to rehabilitating the child. Those of us who work in child care know that there are a number of children who do not want to return home and cannot do so; but there are a number of children who want to return home and to be rehabilitated. However, it is difficult for the local authority or the social worker to place the child back home temporarily, in the first instance, without having some supervisory capacity to control what is going on.
Therefore, the amendment would simply enable children to be placed back with their families while still in care to help a child to merge back with the family. It is a risk that a social worker has to take as regards both the child and the parents. Therefore, to get the order rescinded and then place the child back would not he a wise move. The purpose of the amendment is simply to enable social workers to rehabilitate a child with the family, or those who have parental responsibility, over a period of time while the child is still in care. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: I agree entirely with the spirit of this amendment. It is extraordinary to find in the Bill, in subsection (4) of Clause 19, a negative presentation. One knows that the draftsman intended certain things to happen, but one wonders whether the Government intended that the accent should be on the negative. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to read out subsection (4). It states:
"Where a child is in the care of a local authority, the authority may not allow him to live with—

(a) a parent of his: or

(b) a person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him,

except in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State".
It occurred to those of us who are associated with Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 that the positive way of putting this in order to encourage, where appropriate, that a child should be returned to the family is, as the Committee will see from the amendments not yet moved, to delete the word "not" in the second line so that the subsection reads:
"Where a child is in the care of a local authority, the authority may allow him to live with … in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State".
In other words, if the regulations negatived the possibility in the interests of the child, that affirmative way of putting it would not apply.
Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will see fit to agree that Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 would be rather more acceptable.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have a point to make on this amendment which relates to Schedule 2, paragraph 13, where, in addition to the parents and the person who has parental responsibility, there is also,
"any other person connected with him".
I am not sure what those words mean, but in any case if they are relevant in the schedule it seems to me that they might also be considered in connection with the amendment. I do not expect an immediate answer, but perhaps my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will undertake to consider that point.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marleybone: Perhaps I may add a couple of sentences. I agree with my noble friend Lady Faithfull about the desirability of circumstances in which parents should be allowed to retain care and control of a child who is the subject of a care order. However, I wonder whether my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench may think that to make this the subject of a contract between the local authority and the parents, as is done in the case of fostering, would be a better and more flexible way of dealing with the situation than by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Lord Meston: As reference has been made to Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 and as it seems to me, as it did to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that Amendment No. 98 entirely produces the effect which I certainly intended to produce in my amendments, I suppose I ought to support it. Clearly, the purpose of my amendments and therefore also of the amendment moved is not to add anything to the

133
Bill or, indeed, to alter the Bill in any substantive way but simply to remove two words which produces the same meaning and give a more positive emphasis.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred to the schedule. It seems to me that the advantage of putting this clause in more positive terms is that it would be more consistent with the positive expression of duties which appear in the schedule. Moreover, it ensures that the local authority does not lose sight of its ultimate target, which is the rehabilitation of children in their own homes if at all possible; but it does not rule out the ability of regulations to put in appropriate provisions to safeguard children and to ensure that they are not returned to their homes if circumstances are not appropriate.
Therefore, whether the Committee accepts Amendment No. 98 or prefers Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 I certainly support the principle.
Baroness David: I have my name to Amendment No. 98 so perhaps I may say a few words about it. I believe that it gives more positive encouragement than merely excluding the words "not" and "except" by Amendments Nos. 99 and 100, though I appreciate that the general purpose is the same. However, I should like to remind the Committee that the House of Commons Social Services Committee in its well-known report in 1984 said that far more skills and resources went into finding new families for children than in trying to get them back with their own. So what we want is positive encouragement. I think that is what is given in Amendment No. 98 and on the whole I would support that amendment.
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: Once again, there is very little difference between us on what we want to achieve. The policy underlying Amendment No. 94 is that the allowing of the child to go back with a parent or a person who has parental responsibility for him is to happen in accordance, and only in accordance, with the Secretary of State's regulations. In other words, they are not to be able to do it except on the terms set out in the Secretary of State's regulations.
Parliamentary counsel have been asked to look at this because I have the same feeling as some other people that in a way it might be better expressed positively. My understanding and advice at present is that the only way, in the sort of style that the parliamentary draftsman has adopted to ensure that such a placement occurs only in accordance with the regulations, is by using this method.
Amendment No. 98 has the advantage of being strong and straightforward. However, if one looks at it strictly the local authority may allow the child to live with his parents in accordance with the regulations of the Secretary of State but not necessarily only in accordance with them. There is no restriction here on powers to do otherwise than allow the child to live with his parents and therefore something else is necessary. As an amateur draftsman, I thought of putting in to meet that point some such phrase as, "But only in accordance with
134
the regulations made by the Secretary of State". However I have not yet had the opportunity of confirming with the parliamentary draftsman that the result would be exactly as we would wish it.
However, your Lordships may take it that if you give me the opportunity we will explore this further and see whether there is a way of achieving the policy in a more positive form. The same problem, in so far as there is a problem, arises in connection with Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 because the permission would not necessarily have to be in accordance with the regulations. All these amendments have that particular difficulty but there may be a way of overcoming it in a simple way. In the light of that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment. It may be that Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 can he postponed possibly altogether.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: With regard to the point that I raised, in a number of places in the Bill there is a reference to,
"parents or persons who have parental responsibility".
So even if the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment I would be most grateful if my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would consider the point that I raised about "persons connected with", which is not defined in the interpretation clause. That might be the right way to deal with it.
The Lord Chancellor: Most certainly. I was taking advantage of my noble and learned friend's kind remark that he was not expecting the answer immediately. I certainly had not overlooked the point he made. I think I have an answer but I would prefer to have more time to consider whether it is a full answer. I would certainly have in mind to let him know what my considered answer is. I certainly did not mean to overlook it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. I never for a moment doubted that he would have an answer, but I am perfectly prepared to wait for his considered answer.
Baroness Faithfull: It is quite obvious that in your Lordships' Committee we all agree with the spirit of the amendment and it is also obvious that there are different views on how it should be dealt with and framed, as was said by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Hailsham, and by others. Therefore, with the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 not moved.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 100A:
Page 15, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) Where a local authority provide accommodation for children who are siblings whom they are looking after, they shall (subject to the provisions of this Part) secure that they are, so far as is reasonably practical and consistent with their welfare, accommodated together.").
The noble Baroness said: I move this amendment on the recommendation of the National Association

135
for Protection of Children in Care. In a way I am rather moved by this amendment because it is a plea from children who have been in care, many of whom are indeed still in care, that they should not be separated from their brothers and sisters. This seems to be something that we would all accept though I have to say that, sadly, in both the voluntary and statutory sectors, there are times when children are separated from their brothers and sisters. It is quite bad enough to be separated, albeit perhaps rightly, from parents, but to be separated from your brothers and sisters is very hard to bear.
Going back to the last century and looking at the histories of Barnardo children, some of whom were separated from their brothers and sisters, I know that they sought to find their brothers and sisters when aged 50 or 60. That fact really brought it home to Barnardo's how important it is that brothers and sisters should not be separated. Therefore representations have been made to me by the children and young people themselves that, wherever possible and practicable, they should not be separated. I beg to move the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: Again, I am absolutely clear that it is important that children who are siblings and who have lived together as a family should continue to do so if it can be arranged and if it is consistent with their welfare. I understand that many local authorities already make arrangements where they can for sibling children to be looked after in the same family or children's home. I can see some advantage in making this a statutory requirement, and if my noble friend will allow me time to consider the point further I shall be glad to do so.
The second amendment deals with contact between siblings. I think the paragraph to which my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale referred—paragraph 13 of Schedule 2—is intended to deal with this, and siblings would be within the class of those connected with the child. However, I agree that the point which has been raised needs to be looked at further. I think that it is certainly intended to cover this particular matter, among others.
Baroness Faithfull: On behalf of the children in care who have made this representation, may I say how very grateful they will be to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said. They will be very grateful to him for saying that he will look at this matter again and bring it forward at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Advice and assistance for certain children]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 16, line 22, leave out ("advise and befriend him") and insert ("advise, befriend and assist him in the manner of a good parent.").
The noble Baroness said: Grouped with this amendment are Amendments Nos. 102 and 104. The purpose of this amendment is to place local authorities under a specific duty to provide financial
136
assistance, advice and support to young people who have left the authority's care. The phrase,
"assist him in the manner of a good parent".
is taken from the House of Commons Social Services Committee's short report of 1984 which has been much admired.
In the second Sitting of the Committee before Christmas I spoke to an amendment attempting to change the Social Security Act to give young people who are leaving care some financial support. There was a great deal of support in the Chamber. It was realised that there was a great problem with young people who were suddenly thrown out into the world without any family to help them or support them in any way. There are a great many of them. Every year approximately 8,000 young people leave care. The majority have no suitable family home to return to and are therefore forced to live independently.
Ideally, when a young person leaves the family home to live independently a parent would wherever possible provide not only advice and continuing support but also financial assistance. In the same way, when a young person leaves the care of a local authority the same parental responsibilities should apply. The authority should have a duty as a good parent to provide every assistance to a young person making the very difficult transition from care to independent living.
The current legal duties to young people in care are set out in the Child Care Act 1980. The legislation is muddled and uncoordinated. Authorities vary enormously in the amount of practical help they offer to those leaving care. Recently the National Association of Young People in Care, which was an organisation set up to improve conditions for those in care, conducted a survey of local authorities, asking for details of the provision, financial or otherwise, made to young care leavers. Some of the results were disturbing.
Oxfordshire County Council replied that of the total of 754 young people who left its care in 1987 the authority could account for the whereabouts of 193 only. It had no idea what had happened to the remaining 561 young people. Shropshire County Council replied that it was not its policy to provide any young person leaving care with accommodation.
It is clear that many young people, after spending years in local authority care, leave at the age of 18 unprepared, alone and very vulnerable. They may be left to find their own accommodation, which is often a cramped bed-sitting-room or a hostel, or they may even he forced to live in a dangerous and run-down squat. Indeed, many become homeless. Successive surveys have shown that young people who have left care are over-represented in the number of homeless people. Recent estimated percentages have included 25 per cent. in a Centrepoint study last year and 33 per cent. in a Department of Environment study in 1981.
There is added concern for the welfare of care leavers because the situation for them has been worsened by recent social security legislation. I went into that point in the amendment that I moved at the earlier Sitting. Barnardo's has recently produced a report on the impact of social security changes on

137
young care leavers. I read one of its case studies about a young man called Sean when I moved the last amendment. There were several other case studies, and I thought of reading another but decided that perhaps the Committee would prefer me to get on with the business. Sean was just one example, and there were six very moving examples. I expect that a number of Members of the Committee have received the Barnardo's paper, but I shall repeat what one young women in a similar plight who had just left care said when asked what she felt about the situation: "They are just setting us up to fail".
We cannot leave these young people in such a precarious situation. We should remember that the House of Commons Social Services Committee recommended in its short report that local authorities should be placed under a duty to prepare young people for leaving care and to support those leaving care, to quote the report,
"in the manner of a good parent".
That is where this phrase comes from.
The amendment has the support of Barnardo's, the British Association of Social Workers, the Children's Society, the Children's Legal Centre, First Key, the National Children's Homes, the National Foster Care Association, the National Children's Bureau, the National Association for Young People in Care, the Save the Children Fund and the Voice of the Child in Care.
This is a problem which has been recognised, and I hope that the amendment—which is a very mild one but it should give some assistance, both financial and otherwise, to young people in a very difficult situation—can be accepted. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Amendment No. 102 is grouped with Amendment No. 101, and I rise to speak in favour of No. 101. Amendment No. 102 was an error on my part. The NSPCC, which drafted it, wanted me to put down the wording which is in Amendment No. 101, so I think we may forget Amendment No. 102.
It is difficult to add to the splendid remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady David, who has covered the ground very fully indeed. I should like to endorse everything that she said.
I should like to make one or two other comments. I welcome Clause 20, which is splendid. All we are saying here is that it does not go quite far enough. In subsection (1) it says "advise, assist and befriend", and in subsection (3)(a), "advice and assistance", but in the part after subsection (c) with which we are dealing it just says "advise and befriend" and not "assist". It seems rather strange to leave out "assist" when it has been in before. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend will be able to expound on that for us. I should have thought that there was every reason to include "assist".
We have talked about "in the manner of a good parent" before, and I think my noble and learned friend was not in favour of the phrase. However, it is very important to have a standard of that nature. Advising, assisting and befriending can be very arid
138
and can be handled in an unfriendly sort of way, albeit by dedicated people who are trying to do the right thing, if they do not have basic sympathy for the person to whom they have been asked to give advice, assistance and friendship.
It is useful to have wording which is clearer, and what could be better than "in the manner of a good parent"? We all try to be good parents. For some of the time we succeed and for some of the time we do not. Sometimes we even beat our children, but that would not appeal to some Members of the Committee. The fact is that a good parent sets a standard, and I think it is necessary to have something like that included here.
Finally, from the NSPCC's point of view it is particularly important to have an amendment of this nature because all too frequently young people between the ages of 16 and 21—if I read subsection (2) correctly—may themselves be considering family life and parenthood, so it is good that they should be given an example of how they should behave if and when they have a child of their own. All too frequently those who have been in trouble may inadvertently be in the family way.
I hope that my noble and learned friend will be sympathetic to this phrase even if he has been advised that it is not frightfully good from a draftman's point of view. It would be nice to get it into the Bill in order to take the edge off the not necessarily properly balanced wording of the clause as it stands. I hope that we shall have a favourable response.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment. It does two things. It strengthens the obligation by including the duty to assist, which is a relevant and useful obligation. It sets a standard, albeit a variable standard as all parents are variable. Some beat their children when they are very young and some do not. It is better to have a variable standard than no standard. For that reason too I support the amendment.
I seek the assistance of my noble and learned friend because I too remember that the phrase did not appeal to him very much at an earlier stage. If I am correct, the objection was based on the fact that it should have been included, so to speak, in the check list of general principles in Part I. It was an error to introduce an additional standard in one clause in relation to another. That objection, if that be the right objection, would not arise in this case because Clause 1 is only concerned with the proceedings of the court. In this respect we are not concerned at all with court proceedings. We are concerned with a standard and a duty in a totally different context. If my understanding of the objection is right, on that ground the objection would dissolve. I support the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the amendment. To save the time of the Committee I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 105, which seeks to leave out the words "in exceptional circumstances". The Bill as drafted states:
"Assistance given under this section may be in kind or, in exceptional circumstances, in cash".
I should like to follow the example of the noble

139
Baroness, Lady David, and quote two cases. One Christmas Day I was driving across Magdalen Bridge in Oxford. I saw a figure whom I recognised walking across the bridge. I stopped the car and found that it was a young man aged 18 or so. He had been in care for eight years. I asked, "What are you doing here?" He said, "What else is there to do?" I said, "It's Christmas Day. Aren't you going to spend it somewhere?" He said, "I've got nowhere to go and nowhere to spend it". I realised that he needed help and assistance both in cash and in accommodation. Needless to say I scooped him up and he spent the rest of Christmas Day—never mind where he spent it.
I am a governor of a school for disturbed and unhappy children. We have often found that we have wasted our money, because children leave care and have to find their own way. This home, the Caldecott Community, has set up bed-sitting-rooms under supervision. Vulnerable young people can live there until they are able to live on their own. Our families would help us in exceptional circumstances. They would help financially, with accommodation and in kind. I support the amendment together with my Amendment, No. 105.
Lady Kinloss: I should like to support Amendment No. 101. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that the words "assist him" are better in Amendment No. 101. I should also like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in her Amendment No. 105. I agree with her that people who leave care will need assistance with money and with finding accommodation. As a parent I have frequently had to help my children with money and in finding them somewhere to live. I support the amendment.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I should like to support the amendment as strongly as I can. We all know that when young people leave care they can get into trouble because there is so much trouble around. There is nobody to turn to. The figures given by the noble Baroness, Lady David, have shocked me, as I am sure they have shocked the rest of the Committee. The support that should be given to young people is not being given. With this amendment perhaps it will be given in the future. I warmly support it.
Lord Banks: I should like briefly to support the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady David, told us that each year approximately 8,000 young people leave care. Research indicates that 70 per cent. of young people leaving care go to live on their own. This compares with 0.2 per cent. of the general population of that age. When the noble Baroness moved Amendment No. 70 she reminded us that for those in the 16 to 25 age range benefit available has been reduced. This will affect the most vulnerable, including those leaving care, the majority of whom go to live on their own.
Local authorities will have to assume financial responsibility for topping up in many cases but there is no financial provision in the Bill. The income problems of those leaving care would better be dealt with by social security. The noble and learned Lord
140
the Lord Chancellor said when replying to Amendment No. 70 that the Government would monitor the Social Security Act and the working of the new system introduced in April. He said that all that was said in the debate on Amendment No. 70 would be conveyed to the Secretary of State for Social Security. That is good as far as it goes. Even so I am not hopeful that there will be any substantial change in the near future. In the short term and probably in the long term local authorities will be obliged to stand in. This amendment will strengthen their hand in doing so. With reduced benefits, high levels of youth unemployment and widespread homelessness, all of which affect those leaving care more than proportionately, the need for assistance of various kinds is clear. It is imperative that local authorities continue to treat care leavers in the manner of a good parent.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I should like to support the amendment. At any age to have no one to turn to and to have nowhere to go is a sad state of affairs, but when one is young and vulnerable it is dreadful.
5 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I should like to add a word to the debate. I entirely agree with this amendment and with the further amendment which has already been spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. However, I should like first to congratulate the Government upon including Clause 20 in the Bill. It is a very great advance and they should be positively congratulated in that respect. Here is a lacuna in national life because we do not look after children who leave care and we do not look after children who leave prison.
There are those children who are in custody. Children under 16 receive nothing when they leave custody. If they wish to claim income support they find that they can only receive it two weeks in arrears. Therefore, for two weeks they have nothing at all on which to live.
There is not that much difference between children needing care and those needing custody. They both very much require the comfort that someone can give them in loco parentis. In this instance I can see that there is a case for social security to take that role. On the other hand, at the moment such services are not able to do so because they cannot give income support for two weeks. Therefore, the child receives nothing if he has no home to go to. That point is one of very great importance.
I make no apology for comparing the child in custody with the child in care. In my view there is not that much difference between them; they both very much need our help. Therefore, I hope that, when it comes to having a criminal justice Bill, a provision along those lines will be included in the legislation for the benefit of those who are in custody. But, in the meantime, I strongly applaud the Government for including this clause, which I hope will be improved by means of the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: I shall be very brief in what I have to say but I should like to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady David.

141
The statutory duty set out in the last limb of subsection (3) is too restrictive because it simply provides for a duty to "advise and befriend". As noble Lords have pointed out, it omits the duty to assist. Of course, social workers will provide advice and moral support. However, I believe that it is pretty obvious that financial support is equally important. That is the advice which we have received from the 10 organisations which my noble friend has already mentioned.
The statutory duty, as expressed in subsection (3), is also inadequate as it does not set out the standard which the local authorities should seek to achieve. Indeed, that point was made by the noble Lords, Lord Mottistone and Lord Campbell. The standard which is recommended in the amendment is that of a "good parent". If the term "good parent" poses a problem of interpretation, I should have thought that it would still be possible to formulate a workable test which requires the local authority to act at least as a parent would act, and that would be consistent with the local authority standing in loco parentis to the child.
The Government will have noted the 10 organisations which support this amendment and the three or four connected amendments. That shows the breadth of support for the amendment outside this Chamber. It is also evidence that the 10 organisations, each with its own emphasis and expertise, have arrived at the conclusion that this amendment ought to be supported.
The Lord Chancellor: I should like to begin by taking up the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. Clause 20, as a whole, is a very considerable move forward from the existing law. I believe that it is most important. I also think that it is quite important to understand that it has to cope with many different matters but that it is not intended to cope with social security matters. That is an entirely different field, and I know that noble Lords are well aware of that fact. It must be kept in mind that we are not here to deal with social security legislation in its general provision; we are dealing with a very specific situation. I am sure that Members of the Committee will wish to be careful and to concentrate on this particular situation to ensure that what is proposed is appropriate.
It is true—I shall just mention the point at this stage, but I shall return to it in a moment—that in the original report by the Select Committee it was suggested that local authorities should support those leaving care:
"In the manner of a good parent".
That was the kind of support that was being discussed there. However, when in setting up the interdepartmental working party on child care law, we came to consider the point, and what we should do, the alternative approach which particularises the nature of the support and uses the word "befriend" was favoured. I must say that I find it difficult to understand how you can befriend anyone in anything other than a friendly manner. Surely there is a warmth already included in the clause in that way. I think that perhaps my noble friend Lord Mottistone was not conveying the full effect of the clause.
142
I agree that it is possible to give advice in an unfriendly manner and even, possibly, to help someone in an unfriendly manner. But when it comes to "befriending" someone, I think that that word does give the impression which we want. It is not too paternalistic. After all, these people are growing up and leaving care. They do not want to be, as it were, overborne by a paternalistic figure. It is a figure of friendship and support, the hand of friendship, that is required. That is what the clause provides for. I must say to Members of the Committee that that is a very good standard and a very apt way of describing the matter.
I think that if most young people read this legislation they will understand what is meant by the word "befriend" or what it means to have a friend. In fact, in view of their history, they may well understand the meaning better than the idea of a good parent, because, sadly, they did not, in some cases—although not all—have full experience of good parents and that is why they got into their present situation. Therefore it is important to talk to them and about them, treating them as people, in language that they can understand. I commend to Members of the Committee the approach that the Bill has taken.
Again, in relation to that aspect, I spoke previously about the phrase:
"In the manner of a good parent".
The point I was making then was quite different from the one which I am making now. If I remember rightly, the amendment in which that phrase occurred was one moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I took the view then that it was the subject matter that was in question rather than the manner in that particular case. The amendment dealt with children in need and I took the view that what was required was a definition of the scope of the subject matter. In other words, the phrase,
"In the manner of a good parent",
describes the manner of looking after them rather than defining the subject and for that reason it was inappropriate. However, this is a different point altogether.
I think that noble Lords may have slightly overlooked the provision contained in subsection (1) of Clause 20. Perhaps the most critical time is when the child is leaving, or about to leave, the care of the local authority. The subsection provides that,
"Where a child is being looked after by a local authority, it shall be the duty of the authority to advise, assist and befriend him with a view to promoting his welfare when he ceases to be looked after by them".
So that is imposing upon local authorities, I think for the first time, a general duty of this kind when the child is about to leave them. The right time must be when the child is still with the local authority but is coming to the end of the care period. Therefore that duty rests upon them. If anyone were going to be a good parent one would have thought that it would be the local authority which had looked after the child. That is what Clause 20(1) deals with.
Subsection (3), with which we are dealing in this amendment, is not quite directed towards that situation. It deals with a situation where a person

143
who has been in care, or who has been looked after, has come into an authority's area. The authority may be the same. The young person may be in a local authority's area after the period of care has expired. We all know that people may be in care in one authority's area and move to another. Subsection (3) covers that situation. That is done by defining in subsection (2) that,
"'a person qualifying for advice and assistance' means a person within the area of the authority who is under twenty-one and who was, at any time after reaching the age of sixteen but while still a child—
(a) looked after by a local authority".
Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) are then set out.
That is the new situation after termination of care. We are providing here for where a child—I take it as the case that throws up most significantly the difference—has been with one authority and is now in the area of another. That new authority and, of course, if it is the old authority, the old authority, "shall advise and befriend him". That is a continuing situation basically after the age of 16 and before 21. There is a continuing duty to advise and befriend such a person if he was being looked after by a local authority or was accommodated by, or on behalf of, a voluntary organisation. In any other case—in other words, if he was looked after by some other body—it is a power to advise and befriend.
The conditions required to be satisfied are that,
"it appears to the authority that the person concerned is in need of advice and being befriended".
The provision does not mention anything about assistance. One could well have a person who did not require assistance. There may be someone who has sufficient resources but who requires advice and friendship such as the young man who was fortunate enough to meet my friend on Magdalen Bridge on Christmas Day. He was fortunate to have a friend and he could obviously do with some assistance. I was unable fully to follow the detail as to whether the assistance was in kind or cash, but I feel sure that it was generous assistance all the same. That is the type of situation that is being dealt with.
We are not now at the stage of the child who is about to leave care; we are at the later stage. What is said in effect is that if the person was in local authority care there is a duty on the local authority in whose area he is for the whole time until he is 21 to advise and befriend him. If he is in any case other than those covered, the local authority has a power to advise and befriend him.
I shall be moving an amendment to subsection (4)(b) to make clear that it relates to where a child is not looked after by a local authority. Then subsection (5) provides:
"Where as a result of this section a local authority are under a duty, or are empowered, to advise and befriend a person".
That relates to subsection (3), the later stage. Where there is a power to advise and befriend, the local authority also has the power to give the person assistance. The Committee will notice that there is no condition that he requires assistance; so it seems appropriate that in such a situation it should be a power and not a duty to give assistance. That is a
144
drafting point. The draftsman is making a distinction, properly, between the first branch of what comes after Clause 20(3)(c) and the second branch. It is difficult to get assistance properly into that, so the draftsman has provided separately for the assistance where that assistance is vested in the local authority.
There is a duty to assist at the stage at which a child is leaving care. After that, it is a duty in respect of qualifying people to advise and befriend, coupled with a power to give assistance. I submit that that is appropriate. I may be wrong but I rather think that the amendment was put on the basis of the original leaving of care. That is of course an important time. But is is dealt with in subsection (1) where the duty is imposed.
I come now to the exceptional circumstances. The real point is to make it necessary for the local authority to consider the particular circumstances before giving cash; otherwise that power might be seen as part of the social security system. That would be wrong and inappropriate. I hope that my noble friend will see that that phrase—one might think of other phrases—or something like it is necessary to ensure that assistance in cash is appropriately targeted and is not an ordinary regular payment that one would receive under the social security system.
I hope that in the light of the considerations I have put forward the Committee will feel that these amendments, although I fully understand the spirit of them, may not be necessary and that the Bill as it is effectively deals with the matter. It is a new area. I must emphasise that we are taking a considerable step forward. It has been taken with a good deal of thought. While I can see that anything one does may be improved upon. I should like the Committee carefully to consider whether in the particular circumstances to which it is directed, the amendment is an improvement.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I should like further explanation as to why the noble and learned Lord has an objection to describing such behaviour as,
"in the manner of a good parent".
He has, in a most interesting way, explained why what he is saying is what he means. However, if one adds a certain aspect to that, does he take the view that one is damaging the provision or that one is being sentimental, contradictory, or what? I have not heard one reason, although I listened with great care, to suggest that the amendment would not improve each of the three stages.
The Lord Chancellor: I tried to point out that,
"in the manner of a good parent"
is used as an omnibus description of all that has to be done. It was felt by the interdepartmental working group, I understand—I have given the Committee some references—that some precision was required in this area. What would a good parent do? A good parent would advise; a good parent would offer friendship; a good parent would offer assistance if it were necessary, or give assistance when the person

145
first sets out in life. So instead of saying, "You do what a good parent does", you say, "This is what you do". It is not necessary to say both. It is duplication.
I think, and it is a point of view that attracts me, that one must be careful about getting the matter at the right level. Friendship is a good level. To include
"in the manner of a good parent"
does not add anything. The provision is not directed merely to social workers; it is directed to the young people. I hope that the young people who are affected by the provision will read and understand it. I believe that they will understand it well. To many of them,
"in the manner of a good parent."
sadly will not be something of which they have had much experience. Some people are in care for reasons which have nothing whatever to do with their parents' deficiencies. I do not wish to make an omnibus statement about that. But as regards many, it will be so. In a sense that is rubbing in the loss that they have suffered. One also has to be careful about that. On the whole at the moment I tend to prefer what the interdepartmental working group recommended, looking at it in the light of the Select Committee's report. I hope that the Committee feel that it is not so bad after all.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor a short question. If he says, "Well, it really does not mean anything", but on all sides of the Committee we thought it did—and some of us, including myself, still think so—does it matter if we put it in?
Lord Mottistone: I must say that speaking as, I hope, the "good parent" of Amendment No. 102, I find my noble and learned friend's arguments most persuasive on all points. I do not know whether the people who advised me will find that; but my inclination would be not to pursue this further and perhaps to come back to it at a later stage if that were necessary.
Baroness David: My inclination is not the same. I have listened very carefully to what the noble and learned Lord has said. I do not think he has addressed himself enough to the situation that exists at the moment and the practical problems of these young people. They really need the assistance.
I have looked very carefully at the point. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that we are very glad to have Clause 20. It is a great improvement on what existed before. However, I do not think it goes far enough in the circumstances that we have today. When the social services report came out in the Commons in 1984, we did not have the present social security legislation depriving these young people aged 16 to 25 of the financial assistance that they received before. We are in a very different kind of game, and I think we must give the local authorities the opportunity to assist. I know it is there in subsection (5) that they may give assistance. I think that the amendment makes it more positive and I like that.
146
With all the support that I have received from around the House, the number of people who have spoken and who have liked the amendment has been remarkable. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said, what harm would it to do put it in the Bill? It would probably do a great deal of good. In this case I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
The Lord Chancellor: I think that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was referring to "in the manner of a good parent". Regarding the duty, the point I make is that for a person to qualify there is no requirement that he should be in need. I quite concede the point that I may be entirely wrong. I do not claim infallibilty; but I do claim to have carefully considered the difficulties with which this provision is designed to deal. I have sought to set out my consideration of those. However, there is no qualifying condition that the person must be in need. He has to require friendship and assistance; but there is no necessity, in order for him to be subject to the duty, that he should be in need. He must be in need if there is to be a duty implied to require assistance. If the amendment implies a duty to assist, it may well involve a duty to assist people who have no need of such assistance. Not every person who has been in care between the ages of 16 and 21 has the need for financial assistance. Some do and some do not.
Baroness David: If I may say so, the phrase, "in the manner of a good parent" gets round that problem completely. A lot of parents do not assist their children if the children are doing all right. Why should a local authority assist with cash if the child is doing all right? I think that "assist him in the manner of a good parent" gets it just about right.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: When speaking broadly of assistance, one cannot talk of assistance unless there is a need for it. The very use of the term "assistance" presupposes surely that there is a need. As the noble Baroness on the opposite Benches says, "in the manner of a good parent" qualifies the matter in any event.
The Lord Chancellor: I am sorry, I do not wish to take up time unnecessarily on this. Obviously if the noble Baroness wishes to press the point, then she is by all means entitled to do so. All I am saying is that there is no necessity, in order to qualify under this clause, that one should be in need. If to have a duty to assist "in the manner of a good parent" means that one need not assist, then I am not sure that we are improving the clarity of the Bill. However, those are matters for the noble Baroness to consider.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am quite sure that it is my fault, but as so often happens when one discusses a number of related amendments, I am not clear in my mind on which amendment the noble Baroness, Lady David, is inviting us to vote.
Baroness David: It is Amendment No. 101.
5.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 101) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 110; Not-Contents, 114.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Airedale, L.

Kitchener, E.

Ardwick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Attlee, E.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Banks, L.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Blease, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blyth, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mais, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mar, C.

Chitnis, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Meston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Craigavon, L.

Mishcon, L.

David, B.

Mulley, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridgc, L.

Oram, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Phillips, B.

Ennals, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Erroll, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller]

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ezra, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkender, B.

Rea, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Flowers, L.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Rugby, L.

Gallacher, L.

Russell, E.

Galpern, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Glenamara, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gregson, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Grey, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hampton, L.

Stallard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hylton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Thurlow, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jacques, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Whaddon, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

White, B.

Kagan, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Butterworth, L.

Aldington, L.

Caithness, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E,

Caldecote, V.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Allerton, L.

Carnock, L.

Ampthill, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Arran, E.

Cathcart, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L

Auckland, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Belstead, L.

Cranworth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Blatch, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Broxbourne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

148

Derwent, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V

Dilhorne, V.

Mottistone, L.

Dundee, E.

Munster, E.

Elibank, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Nelson, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Newall, L.

Faithfull, B.

Norfolk, D.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Orkney, E.

Ferrier, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gainford, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pender, L.

Gisborough, L.

Portland, D.

Glenarthur, L.

Reay, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renton, L.

Greenway, L.

Renwick, L.

Gridley, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rochdale, V.

Hailsham of Saint

Romney, E.

Marylebone, L.

St. Davids, V.

Halsbury, E.

St. Germans, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Harvington, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Henley, L.

Savile, L.

Hesketh, L.

Selborne, E.

Holderness, L.

Shannon, E.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strange, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Suffield, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swansea, L.

Loch, L.

Swinton, E.

Long, V.

Terrington, L.

Lurgan, L.

Teynham, L.

Lyell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trafford, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Margadale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Marley, L.

Wise, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Middleton, L.

Young, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.34 p.m.
[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 16, line 26, after ("(b)") insert ("where that person was not being looked after by the authority,").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an amendment to paragraph (b) that we were considering a moment or two ago. Its purpose is to clarify the intention of this provision—Clause 20(4)(b)—which sets out one of the conditions for a local authority to advise and befriend children who have been but are no longer being looked after by a voluntary organisation, a registered children's home or a private foster parent.
We wish to make it clear that a local authority should inform itself of any services and facilities that another local authority may be providing before it provides services and facilities under this clause as all local authorities will have statutory powers and duties placed on them by this Bill.
This provision is also intended to ensure that local authorities will advise and befriend the young person only if the person—namely a voluntary organisation or a registered children's home—who had the primary responsibility for looking after the child does not have the necessary facilities to do so. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 16, line 33, at end insert—
("6A) Any assistance given in cash or in kind under subsection (6) above shall not count as income in respect of any benefits payable under Part II (Income Related Benefits) of the Social Security Act 1986.").
The noble Lord said: The objective of this amendment is to probe the Government's intention as to how cash assistance given by local authorities to a young person leaving care is to be treated by social security officials. Cash assistance will be given when social services departments consider that income support will be inadequate for a young person's needs.
However, if social security officials then treat the cash assistance as income in the assessment of entitlement to income support, the income support will be reduced. In that situation cash assistance given by local authorities because of special circumstances they will have to be satisfied that special circumstances exist—will be of no use. I understand that in some parts of the country payments which are currently made under Section 27 of the Child Care Act 1980 are being treated as income in the assessment of entitlement to income support. So each £1 of income support given by a local authority will result in the social security department reducing its benefit by £1. For each £1 of housing benefit paid by a local authority, 85 pence is withdrawn from the social security benefit.
One very much fears that that precedent will apply to cash payments made by local authorities under this legislation. The intention of the amendment is to probe the Government's intention. Is it intended that the support given by social security will be reduced because the young person has received assistance from a social services department? I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: As I understand it, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that when a local authority provides a young person with assistance under subsection (6), be it in kind or cash, such assistance is disregarded for the purpose of calculating entitlement to benefit payable under Part II of the Social Security Act 1986. That is the part of the Act which deals with the income related benefits: income support, housing benefit and family credit.
While I recognise the concern about the issue, I do not consider that it is appropriate in this Bill to be introducing changes which affect the principles and application of policy under social security legislation, which is the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. I said in relation to matters debated under Amendment No. 70 that I would draw noble Lords' concerns to the attention of my right honourable friend.
I shall give my understanding of the provisions of Sections 27 to 29 of the 1980 Child Care Act to which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has referred. There is no specific rule covering those payments in the income-related benefits legislation; nor was there before April 1988. Because they are made at the discretion of local authorities they are covered by the
150
normal rules relating to voluntary payments. As such, local authorities have considerable flexibility to help young people who have been in care without affecting the level of benefit being paid.
For example, I understand that the first £5 of regular payments is normally disregarded so that a local authority could provide an income of up to £5 a week without benefit being reduced. In addition any payments for housing or accommodation costs not met by income support or housing benefit are disregarded in income support, and payments in kind (a subject of the amendment) are completely disregarded in all income-related benefits.
A further easement introduced from 12th December 1988 means that any one-off payments are treated as capital and will not affect benefit unless they take any existing capital above £3,000. I do not think that that is a situation which is likely to arise in the matters being contemplated here. That enables a local authority to make a lump sum payment, if necessary, to meet an exceptional need without affecting income-related benefits. The same principles will apply to assistance from local authorities under Clause 20(6) of the Bill.
That is the information that I have been given, and I believe that it answers the question which the noble Lord raised in connection with the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: As I see it, there remains a possible conflict between the local authority social service department and the application of the social security legislation. We should have thought that this would be an opportunity to seek to resolve that possible conflict. It would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would be good enough to draw the attention of his right honourable friend to that possible conflict and ensure that some guidance is issued so that the payments made by the local authorites do not automatically reduce the level of income support that will be paid by social security.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may intervene briefly to say that the Secretary of State for Social Security has agreed to accept a deputation from statutory and voluntary bodies on this very matter. That meeting will take place in a fortnight's time and arises from the discussion of the amendment which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, in an earlier session of the Committee.
Lord Prys-Davies: In the circumstances I do not propose to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 17, line 4, at end insert—
("(10) The local authority shall ensure that these children and young people are aware of the assistance which may be given to them by the local authority under the terms of this section.").
The noble Lord said: As my noble friend Lady David pointed out when she spoke to Amendment No. 101, in England and Wales about 8,000 young people leave care at the age of 18 and have to make their own way in society. I do not know how many

151
young people leave care at the age of 16 or 17. It may be said of the vast majority of those young people that they are the children of the poor and that there is much homelessness, unemployment and poverty affecting that section of society. There is plenty of evidence to show that those young people are faced with immense difficulties.
We say that against that background the local authority should be under a duty to ensure that the young people leaving its care are aware that the local authority may be a source of assistance to them. The onus for offering and giving information, advice and support should be on the local authority. It should not be for the young people to seek out that information. I accept that the clause in the Bill is helpful, but we believe that our amendment should be accepted because it places a firm responsibility on local authorities to seek out the young people and give them the advice which they need. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: Having read this excellent clause very thoroughly, it seems to me that the particular point covered by the amendment is omitted from the clause as it now stands. There is a great deal to be said for the new proposed subsection (10) which would round off the clause and make sure that the local authority takes the extra trouble that the amendment implies.
The Lord Chancellor: I would not think that there is any difference between us on this matter. However, again there are two stages to the question and I am not certain which stage is dealt with by the proposed subsection (10).
As I said earlier, the local authority which is looking after the child has a duty to advise, assist and befriend him with a view to promoting his welfare when he ceases to be looked after by the authority. That is a duty which applies at the time when the care is coming to an end. I should have thought that that would include giving all the necessary information as to what assistance the local authority can provide and that must be an integral part of the process.
The situation relating to young people who have been out of care for some time is more difficult. I suspect that it is those people with whom the amendment is concerned in particular. Under Clause 20(8) there is a duty on the local authority in whose care the child has been to inform the authority into whose area the child has moved. It may not be very easy for the new authority to fulfil the obligation imposed on it.
If the noble Lord is willing to accept it, I should be very happy to look at the matter further. Perhaps he would also be kind enough to look at it further, because I think that there may be a more difficult problem than at first sight appears. I think that the main issue will be catered for at the time the child leaves the care of the local authority. At that time the local authority should give the child all the information and advice about the services he or she could look for, either in the area of that authority or in the area of any other authority to which the child may move. If the noble Lord will accept that suggestion, I should be very happy to look at the
152
question further. Perhaps we could have a word about the matter in the meantime.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may say a word about First Key, which I believe is the only specialist national organisation which deals with the problems associated with young people leaving care. First Key says that:
"During the past 5 years or so in the course of work on this topic neither First Key nor other concerned organisations know of more than a handful of individuals who have approached a local authority social service department for the help and assistance which may be available to care leavers under the terms of current legislation".
Therefore there is a need for such information to be made available to young people. I think that it is an important matter and I am glad that the noble and learned Lord will be looking at it. But I think that First Key could provide more information if it is wanted.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps I may say to my noble and learned friend that I do not think necessarily that subsection (1):
"with a view to promoting his welfare when he ceases to he looked after by them"
would be taken by every local authority necessarily to mean that it would include informing him about all the aid that he might receive later on quite apart from stage two, which is obviously more difficult. I think that it is jumping to something of a conclusion to assume that from that wording, which is very general and rather more caring than practical, if you like. It does not in fact say that this will include telling the person when he leaves that all the following sets of resources are available to him from local authorities wherever he may go, as the proposed subsection (10) sought to do.
When my noble and learned friend looks again at this point, perhaps he would think about whether subsection (1) is wide enough to cover what this amendment seeks to do.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I confess that I may still be confused as I was over the last amendment when I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady David, was addressing her remarks—as indeed other Members of the Committee were doing—to cash assistance. When I read this amendment I thought that it related to cash assistance; but as the Committee has now rejected Amendment No. 101. assistance under this amendment is not limited to cash assistance. Indeed, it refers back to subsection (1) of Clause 20. Perhaps that point could be considered by my noble and learned friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, when they give further thought to this matter.
Lord Prys-Davies: The 10 organisations that have written to us in support of this amendment tell us of the difficulties experienced by young people in ascertaining their entitlement to benefits and services. I am very grateful for the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and certainly we shall return to these organisations for further guidance as to how we can possibly improve and indeed perfect the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.

153
Clause 21 [Use of accommodation for restricting liberty]:
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 107A:
Page 17, leave out lines 10 to 15 and insert ("that if he is kept in any other description of accommodation he is likely to injure himself or other persons or suffer significant harm").
The noble Lord said: In introducing this amendment, with the leave of the Committee I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 107C, which is grouped with it. The amendments are tabled at the request of a charitable institution concerned with the welfare of children. I owe the Committee a brief explanation because my name stands against the Motion which follows these amendments; namely, that Clause 21 do not stand part of the Bill. It is not my intention to move the Motion that Clause 21 do not stand part of the Bill. Clause 21 cannot stand part if the principle of Amendment No. 52, which is concerned with secure accommodation, is accepted.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has undertaken to look into the matter of principle as to whether that concept should be removed from Part III and placed in Part II of the Bill. It is a complicated matter and I am pleased to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in his place because he was concerned with these considerations and understands that it is a complicated matter. Therefore while it is under consideration—and my noble and learned friend has written to me but I have not yet received the letter—I shall not oppose the Question that Clause 21 stand part of the Bill.
Therefore as Clause 21 is in a state of suspended animation, the reason why I have tabled Amendment No. 107A is to ensure by this form of words that secure accommodation would not be available for children who needed treatment in the form of a punishment. It should only be available if strictly necessary.
Perhaps I may quote from a letter that I have received from the charity to which I referred. It says that in their experience—and of course at is not my experience but theirs:
"those in secure accommodation are often amongst the most abused—abused by their own families and by the system. Children in care sometimes run away—the phrase used by social workers and the police is 'abscond'—simply because of the appalling circumstances surrounding their life. The current law relating to secure accommodation allows running away—absconding—to be used to justify locking children up in secure accommodation. These children need help, not punishment. Running away should not be grounds for a secure accommodation order".
Those are precisely the sentiments that were expressed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor who, when speaking to another amendment, said that in no circumstances should secure accommodation be used as a punishment.
This is a probing amendment to discover whether it commends itself to the Committee as a preferable form of words in order to achieve our common object. That is all that it is.
Amendment No. 107C speaks for itself:
"No court shall exercise the powers conferred… unless… [the child] is represented by a guardian ad litem".
154
The Committee may think that that is a reasonable provision. But, as before on Amendment No. 52, on this very difficult matter of secure accommodation, with the greatest respect I canvass the views of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether again we should try to clarify our minds on a very important matter. Anything that relates to a youngster in secure accommodation must immediately evoke the attention and consideration of all Members of the Committee. I had understood, perhaps quite incorrectly, that a history of absconding was not a history of absconding from a home of ill-treatment or school where the youngster was not understood. It may be that I was quite wrong, and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will enlighten me on this point when he comes to address the Committee; but I took it for granted that a history of absconding meant absconding from local authority institutions. That is how I understood it.
The reason therefore for having to put a youngster into secure accommodation was that there had been a history of absconding from local authority places of an alternative kind; or indeed it might even have involved absconding from foster parents into whose care the youngster had been placed. A youngster was not put into care as a result of absconding from his own home. And the fact that if he absconds he is likely to suffer harm is a conjunctive and not an alternative reason. Therefore my reading of the matter was as follows. Not only does he have to have a history of absconding from places where it would have been for his benefit to remain, but also it is thought that he is likely to suffer harm as a result of absconding again. If that interpretation is right, has the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, the same sentiments that he had when addressing us on this amendment?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: It is difficult for me to answer directly as I would wish to do as always because I have no personal experience of the matter. That is why I took the rather exceptional course for me of quoting a letter and disclosing to Members of the Committee that I put this before noble Lords at the specific request of a charity concerned with the welfare of children. In doing so, I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Faithfull for convening the all-party conference at which the representative from this association contacted me.
I am afraid that I cannot assist the noble Lord. I understand completely my Amendment No. 52 on which I spoke in moving it. That is under consideration. However, it would mean that Clause 21 does not stand part. Clause 21 would go and the provisions would appear elsewhere in the Bill in another and more general form.
6 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: We are in difficulty here because this is very much a question of social work practice. I know of one child who absconded 10 times. I said to him, "If you abscond once more we

155
shall not look for you. We shall make no effort to get you back." He absconded and was knocked down by a car. Noble Lords can imagine how I felt. I felt that I ought to have kept him in secure accommodation.
It is the luck of the game. My difficulty is this. It depends on the individual case, the individual circumstances, and on meeting the needs of the individual child. It may be rather restrictive to follow the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and take these words out of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: The history that has been given to my noble friend by the charity may not be sufficiently related to the law in the matter. The secure accommodation regulations are not all that ancient. There may be some problem about that. With regard to these regulations, and the provision is repeated in the Bill, a child is not to be held in secure accommodation for absconding—not at all—and still less for absconding from home. The situation is that he is likely to abscond from any other description of accommodation. In other words, short of secure accommodation, there is nowhere that we can keep this child safely. We have no other accommodation, however attractive, beautiful or homely, from which he is not likely to run. That is the first point. One must consider all the other accommodation that the local authority can provide for the child.
The second point is this. It was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. If the child absconds he is likely to suffer harm. In other words, the provision of secure accommodation is not a punishment but a protection against his doing harm to himself for example, by running away and then suffering harm in the manner to which my noble friend referred.
Amendment No. 107A may have the effect of making secure accommodation more available. It would delete a very important condition for the use of secure accommodation. The point has been illustrated vividly in the example that my noble friend Lady Faithfull has given. I certainly could not accept this amendment. I know that my noble friend is only probing on this point.
On Amendment 107C, I am inclined to think that where secure accommodation and a child's liberty are in question, where the child has a point of view it ought to be possible for the child to express that view through a representative of his choice. The mere existence of a guardian ad litem, however useful, might not be the right course in that situation.
In these circumstances I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I repeat what I said. I am looking carefully at the points that he made in relation to Amendment No. 52.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am most grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken and in particular to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I know that the charity concerned will be relieved to be able to study the contributions of Members of the Committee and to understand that their very real fears are not realistic or justified. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 107B:
Page 17, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) provide that in any application made under this section in respect of a child who is a ward the child is a full party to the proceedings in his own right and has the opportunity to instruct a lawyer of his own choosing.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is to ensure that wards of court have a fair hearing in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights before they lose their liberty by being put into secure accommodation under Clause 21.
In 1982, after pressure in the House of Lords, the Government took advice from the Attorney-General on the use of secure accommodation in the care system. He confirmed that the existing procedure whereby young people in care had no court hearing on deprivation of their liberty might indeed constitute a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 5 of the convention provides that everyone deprived of liberty shall have the lawfulness of their detention "decided speedily by a court". Article 6 defines this as a fair and public hearing. Cases on this point have determined that a fair hearing includes the right to a lawyer of choice.
The Government therefore used the 1982 Criminal Justice Act to insert Section 21A into the Child Care Act 1980. This secured that all young people in care could be locked up only under strict conditions set out in Clause 21(1) of the Bill and that after 72 hours authorisation should be sought from the juvenile court. This left wards in local authority care in an anomalous position. With regard to wards the authority had to seek permission from the High Court for any change in their placement including a placement in secure accommodation. With a young person in care, the authority also had to have permission from the juvenile court. This meant that there had to be two separate hearings—an admittedly cumbersome process.
The Government came under pressure from the High Court judges. They had expressed disapproval of a situation where their jurisdiction could be superseded by the juvenile court which could veto an order that the ward be locked up. Local authorities were also protesting about all the legal legwork needed to lock up wards.
Therefore, in 1986 the Secure Accommodation (No. 2) (Amendment) Regulations came into force. These provided that wards be locked up only pursuant to the direction of a judge exercising wardship jurisdiction. This meant that local authorities could not lock up wards on their own initiative, not even for the first 72 hours, and that permission need no longer be sought from the juvenile court.
The provision also had more sinister implications. Although judges were still bound by the criteria set out in Section 21A of the 1980 Act, they were not in the passive role of the juvenile court, simply agreeing to an application. They were in a position to order the ward to be locked up. Moreover, juvenile courts could authorise this only for a maximum of three months followed by six-monthly renewals. The High Court was not bound by these time limits and could order indefinite deprivation of liberty. It was also exempt from the need to gain the Secretary of State's

157
permission to lock up those under 10 years. The new regulations also meant that the local authority could not release a ward even when the conditions ceased to apply. Permission had first to be sought from the High Court. Perhaps most serious of all, wards were to be denied the right to a fair hearing.
Wards of court are not necessarily even parties to their own cases. When they are, they are represented through a guardian ad litem who by practice direction of the court is normally the Official Solicitor. The Official Solicitor, unlike other solicitors in secure accommodation cases, is not under a duty to act on his client's instructions. He sees his duty as conveying the ward's wishes to the court, but advocating the ward's best interests may be seen by him as being quite different from the ward's wishes. The ward will not be present in court when this is done.
At the time these regulations were made, the Children's Legal Centre pressed that wards of court, like all others in care, should at least have the right to instruct their own lawyers. Although the Department of Health and the Lord Chancellor's Department recognise the centre's concern, the only safeguard was the issuing of a practice direction. Before locking up a ward the court should, unless the ward is already represented by a guardian ad litem or there are special reasons why the ward should not be represented, join the ward as a party to the proceedings and appoint a guardian ad litem to protect his interests and ensure that his views are made known to the court.
Local authorities were also advised in the circular to draw this to the attention of the court and to consider someone other than the Official Solicitor being appointed as guardian ad litem. None of this overcomes the problem of the ward. Even if joined as a party and represented by a guardian ad litem the ward would not have adequate legal representation.
The Children's Legal Centre has already encountered one case where the ward did not wish to be locked up but was represented by the Official Solicitor, who recommended that she be locked up. It is also currently making an application to the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of a ward who has been locked up for 24 months, without even being made a party to his proceedings, contrary to the practice direction and circular, neither of which has mandatory force. Given this case the Government may agree to accept this amendment, or they may prefer to put forward their own. If the UK has been in breach of the European Convention in this matter it is very important that it takes steps to remedy the law. To refuse this opportunity to remedy the breach would be deplorable.
The amendment does not solve the problem as to how wards should have a fair hearing, whether this be by reinstating the juvenile court application or by changing High Court procedures. This can be done through rules of court by government. As it stands, Clause 21 is technically flawed in relation to wards. Subsection (7) provides that the court shall exercise powers to lock up children in care only if a child is legally represented, unless he was not eligible for or refused legal aid. I understand that wards cannot
158
have legal aid. The equivalent provision under Section 21A of the 1980 Act placed only juvenile courts under this duty. The words "juvenile court" were changed to "court" because of the Bill's introduction of concurrent jurisdiction. Where wards are concerned they cannot apply for legal aid and are not legally represented.
The Government may argue that the Official Solicitor legally represents wards. The reply is, first, that there is no guarantee that the Official Solicitor will be appointed. Secondly, and more importantly, the Official Solicitor is not a child's legal representative because he will not take instructions from the child. I am sure the Committee will agree that there is a real problem here. I hope that if the noble and learned Lord cannot accept that wording of the amendment he will accept the importance of the points made and make a commitment to come back with his own amendment at Report stage. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Surely there are two questions. The first is that of legal representation—I am looking at the amendment—and the second is whether a child is a full party, whatever that may mean. The first question surely is met by Clause 21(7):
"No court shall exercise the powers conferred by this section in respect of a child who is not legally represented in that court".
Whether a child is a ward or not, that is all-embracing. The other question is whether the child mentioned in the amendment is a full party. On the assumption that he is, or would be by some rules of court, under Clause 21(7) he would be legally represented.
On these assumptions it is not quite understood—at least, I do not understand—how there could be a breach of the Convention on Human Rights as regards representation. I spoke to this point on Second Reading, but not in this context. I am sensitive to the fact that, as I said on Second Reading, the child should be a full party, that he should be represented by a lawyer of his choice. I hope that when my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor enters into consideration in depth of the principle involved in Amendment No. 52, which stands in substitution for this clause, he will accept that I accept that the Official Solicitor is not the appropriate representative but that the client should have a lawyer of his own choice.
Be all that as it may. I do not quite see why the amendment is necessary and, moreover, why it cures the possible taint of a breach of the Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Meston: I have to admit that I have never come across the problem which was identified by the noble Baroness in explaining the amendment. I felt considerable surprise when she suggested to the Committee that the wardship jurisdiction had been effectively eroded to the extent she suggested. But if there is a problem it must be addressed, though I am by no means sure as to the scale of the problem. In the vast majority of cases, in particular those cases in which there is any apparent difficulty, the ward will

159
be a party to the proceedings. He will be joined. It is almost automatic nowadays and in the vast majority of cases the ward will be represented by the Official Solicitor as his or her guardian ad litem.
As the noble Baroness said, there is no guarantee of that. Perhaps she is right to press that there should be. It also surprised me when she suggested that there were circumstances in which somehow the wardship jurisdiction was superseded by the juvenile court jurisdiction. It has always been my understanding that it was precisely the other way round.
Baroness David: That has been superseded and is not the position now.
Lord Meston: That is what I understood her to go on to explain, and certainly that is right. But be that as it may; it is still a surprising proposition.
The other factor, and one thing that is certain about wardship jurisdiction, is that any move in the placement of the child has to be notified to the court. That is part of the rules. It has to be recorded by the court. If the child is represented by the Official Solicitor he also has to be informed, so if there is any proposal to move a child matters will inevitably come to the attention of the Official Solicitor.
That leads me to the suggestion that there was something deficient in the representation of the child by the Official Solicitor or by some other guardian ad litem. There are other guardians ad litem in such cases, but normally it is the Official Solicitor. Of course he is not merely the mouthpiece of a child in the way a paid lawyer may sometimes find himself as such, but it does not mean that the Official Solicitor is not an independent, intelligent and forthright representative of the child. It would he unfortunate if the impression were given that there is a deficiency in the representation given to a child by the Official Solicitor.
The Lord Chancellor: If a problem exists in this respect there are powers to deal with it, in particular the powers to make regulations as provided to the Secretary of State under the clause. The noble Baroness, Lady David, suggested that in the case to which she referred it was complained that the child's attitude was not represented: it was revealed but not represented. Perhaps in that case the question arises of what is meant by legal representation in the circumstances. It is a difficult issue, but powers are provided to the Secretrary of State to deal with it under the present law if necessary. If the Bill comes into effect, additional powers will be provided.
Will the noble Baroness be kind enough to allow me to consider how I can take the matter further? I am sure she appreciates that such matters are not always easy to solve. I draw attention to a proposal in the Bill whereby the wardship matter may no longer be of importance in this connection. It is proposed that, in exercising wardship jurisdiction, the court should not put a child into care nor direct the child be kept in any particular accommodation. That is a good and satisfactory solution to the problem. I shall be commending it in due course but not without challenge from certain quarters—I hope
160
not from the noble Baroness. If the Bill is accepted by the Committee it is not clear that there will be a continuing problem.
On that footing perhaps the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment at this stage, see what happens in respect of the wardship jurisdiction proposals contained in a later part of the Bill and, if necessary, return to the matter at a later stage.
Baroness David: I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is a difficult area. It is particularly difficult for me because I am not a lawyer. It appeared that there was a problem and issues needed to be resolved, as must the position of the Official Solicitor. He cannot always act exactly as the child's representative putting forward the wishes of the child.
I should like to read what has been said by Members. However, I understand from my box that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is wrong in saying that subsection (7) cannot apply to wards because they are under a disability of age under the rules of the Supreme Court and they cannot be parties in their own right or instruct a lawyer but are dependent on a guardian ad litem. That is the message that I received from my advisers' box, and I repeat it for what it is worth.
I appreciate the difficulty but I wish to see that the right thing is done. If in this Bill the Committee is presented with the opportunity to do the right thing I think that it should do it. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will write to me before the Report stage and I shall have the opportunity to come back then should I so wish. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 107C not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Review of cases and inquiries into representations]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 107D:
Page 18, line 18, at end insert ("and shall provide that reviews shall take the form of a meeting.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to tidy up the position of the grouping of the amendment. In the list which has been proposed to the Committee it is grouped with Amendment No. 108 (which is right) and No. 109. Members of the Committee will see that in the second part of Amendment No. 109 there is a provision,
"requiring the authority to advise the child of the right of application to the court to discharge the order".
That has nothing to do with the point which I am trying to make in respect of Amendment No. 107D and which others whom I support are trying to make in respect of the amendments I have mentioned. It is also grouped with Amendment No. 110, and that is correct.
Lord Mottistone: I should have liked to speak separately to the first half of Amendment No. 109 as distinct from the second half. No doubt it was put together because it looked neat to those in the Public Bill Office.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may quote my noble friend Lady David and say that such box as is available to the Opposition—I should like to know where it is, because I have never found it—takes a different view and does not believe that it is neat. With the Committee's permission, I shall not address any remarks to the second part of Amendment No. 109.
The amendment to which I am speaking deals with an important matter and Members may consider it to be the most important. It is in respect of a child in care who is being looked after by a local authority, and it is the review which must take place every six months. If what the Committee is dealing with in the Bill is to be effective everything depends on the way in which the review is conducted. I have received certain information from the Family Rights Group. In my view it is my responsibility to put it before the Committee in order that it may be properly appraised of the situation at present inherent in certain local authorities' review procedures—or lack of them. Members of the Committee may feel it is right and proper that an amendment should be tabled dealing with the way in which a review must be conducted and the people who should be invited to be present.
Members of the Committee will realise that no part of the law sets out in statute or otherwise requirements in regard to a review procedure. At the moment all that exists in law is a provision that a review should take place every six months. I am told by the Family Rights Group that in many cases reviews are not carried out in the form that Members would ever consider when using the description "review". A DHSS report published in 1980 concluded that reviews,
"are not carried out or are carried out in a perfunctory manner".
There is then a reference to another DHSS report. Members of the Committee may think that that must, of necessity, be a very objective source. That DHSS report of 1986 by the social services inspectors found that,
"In one authority there had been delays in the reviewing of every case and in another authority it was found that statutory reviews rarely took place".
In 1984 there was a DHSS-sponsored research study of reviews in one particular local authority. That found that 70 per cent. of the 230 reviews studied took fewer than 15 minutes to complete. We have talked about a special plan for a child in care. We have talked about the ways in which that could be implemented, if not by those words. We are dealing with some local authorities whose habit in 70 per cent. of their cases has been to conduct a review lasting 15 minutes which will take place once every six months.
Therefore, whether or not this be the right way to do it, I should be interested to hear the views of Members of the Committee and certainly the response of the noble and learned Lord to this matter. I believe that the proper way to do this is to enforce a meeting, which is required only once every six months, with an invitation extended to the parents, or to anyone standing in loco parentis, and to the child, where appropriate, to attend for part of the
162
meeting. However, it should not be done by an exhange of correspondence or the filling out of a form.
Members of the Committee may ask about the filling out of forms. There was another DHSS research study in 1986 which found that where reviews were based on filling in forms the forms were often completed inadequately with a simple word being given in answer to a complex question, that goals set at reviews were usually written in vague terms, that tasks to be done were not attributed to individual workers, that goals set at one review were not examined at all six months later, and that often the same goals were reset without consideration being given to how realistic they were. Members of the Committee will understand why I feel that filling in forms is not an adequate way to conduct reviews.
At this important stage of the Bill where we are dealing with reviews I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel that this discussion is more than worthwhile and that, in the light of these amendments, the solution may be to ensure that a meeting be held and that the invitations mentioned in these amendments be extended to the parties most vitally interested, if necessary to attend only part of the meeting if that be deemed to be in the interests of the child. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Meston: I share some of the dismay expressed as to the grouping because the amendment which has just been moved deals with the form of the review. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, advocates and I support the view that the review should be in the form of a properly constituted meeting. To my mind the separate questions as to participation in the review are covered by the first part of Amendment No. 109 and Amendment No. 112, and the separate question of representation at review is dealt with by Amendment No. 111. As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, the second part of Amendment No. 109 concerns a separate question altogether; that is, advising the child of the right of application to the court.
Be that as it may, perhaps I may soldier on and speak primarily to Amendment No. 108 which concerns me because in a sense it is the first and most anodyne of the series of amendments dealing with the question of who is to be present at the review. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, the whole process of the review is of the greatest importance in a fair system of care because that prevents. or should prevent, children from drifting, which is the expression already used this afternoon. Fairness and the appearance of a fair review procedure is absolutely crucial.
As far as I can tell, the Bill is absolutely silent about who should be present at a case review. There is no clue in the Bill as to who could be present. I believe I am right in saying that there are departmental guidelines on the subject but experience shows that there are discrepancies as between one area and another. It should be an important function of any review that the parents and the children concerned are kept informed. It is also important—and this takes the question of participation a little

163
further—that steps are taken to ensure that those who have something else to add and something else to contribute should have an opportunity to do so—for instance, the local family doctor, the teacher of the child or the wider family. If the child who has been in care has been home on trial, it may well be that there is a family helper. I remember a case in which the review decided that the child should go home. However, had the family helper been present at the review, it would have been told by that family helper that a matter of hours before the local authority social workers decided that the child could go home, both mother and father were roaring drunk. Therefore, one important feature of participation is to enable those carrying out the review to have the best, most up-to-date information from those in the best position to give it.
However, to return to the participation of parents, it is very true that parents resent the fact that decisions seem to be made behind closed doors. They are not present; they are not told what is discussed. They are not told what evidence or points were put forward one way or the other. They are not even provided with minutes of the review meeting, if there was a meeting. The jealousy with which the local authorities cling on to the minutes of the meetings and will not disclose them is a matter of some surprise to those of us who practise in this area of the law. I have never understood why, because they should have nothing to fear. However, that sense of secrecy causes resentment, feeds the hostility which is I am afraid a feature of those cases and is contrary to any concept of shared care.
As to the child's participation, that is a separate question. Generally speaking, the child should be able to understand the implications of what has been undertaken and should be able to understand the time scale of what is proposed for his or her future. It is often good for the child to realise that there are so many people present at a meeting concerned only with that particular child. That is very good for the child and is of enormous value. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, indicated, there will be cases when it will be quite inappropriate for the child to be present, and regulations will provide for that. There may be other cases where it is of doubtful benefit for the child to be present. That is something that also needs to be considered by regulations. However, by and large, if the child is not present, there is perhaps a stronger case for saying that the child should have a representative of some sort.
As I said, Amendment No. 108 is perhaps the most anodyne of this series of amendments. It simply adds another enabling, rule-making power to the Bill. For that reason I hope it is the amendment which finds most favour with the Government.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope that it may be convenient if I make a point that I had intended to raise on clause stand part but which I think is more relevant here.
I certainly have no objection in principle to Amendment No. 107D of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Indeed he seems to make a case for some such specification. My hestitation would be on the
164
word "meeting" without anything further mentioned. A meeting of whom? A meeting where? If that were specified in the form of a meeting of such persons, and so on, my objection would probably go.
I go further. I question the appropriateness of the whole of subsection (2) of Clause 11. It is a formula that the draftsman has used not only in this clause but on several occasions elsewhere. I am very hesitant to criticise the drafting of this Bill where obviously an effort has been made to express the enactment in a way that can be understood by the persons affected by it. Nevertheless, what is done here and elsewhere is to say that the Secretary of State may make regulations of a general nature relating to such and such. I emphasise the word "may". The clause then goes on to say that the regulations may (again "may") in particular make provision as to a number of matters. The obvious reaction is that of course he may. If he may make regulations relating to a general matter, he may make the particular regulations that are subsidiary or incidental. It would be entirely different if it were mandatory in each case.
That was the point (I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will remember) that arose frequently on the Prosecution of Offences Act. Here we have the word "may". The Secretary of State "may" make regulations generally relating to a matter and he "may" in particular make other provisions which are incidental thereto. As I said, of course he may. If the correct answer is that of course he may, then the whole of subsection (2) can be omitted.
The Committee will remember some words that fell from my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham earlier this evening in which he deprecated unnecessarily adding provisions to a statute. He compared a modern statute with the statutes enacted at a time of great legislative activity under the Liberal Government before the 1914–18 War, to which one can perhaps add this. In the year after the Renton Committee reported, the public and general statutes ran to three volumes. Ten years later fewer statutes than in that year ran to six volumes.
On the whole we over-legislate, not only in regard to interfering with people but in the way of verbosity. If we can, as I think we can here, omit a substantial provision which adds nothing to the generality of what has gone before, I suggest to the Committee that we should do so.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may intervene for one second at this stage. I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord, to whom we always listen with great respect, is advocating that this should be mandatory in order to mean something; in other words, the Secretary of State "shall" make regulations, because I do not think that any Member of the Committee—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I was not going that far, but it would make sense if it were mandatory. It does not make sense as it is purely voluntary.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I believe that it is necessary to have a meeting, or whatever it

165
is called. At that meeting the parents or parent should be present. The child or children should be present but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, other people should be present who are dealing with the child; that is, the teacher, the head of the home if the child is in a children's home, and the social worker. In that way, if the matter is discussed between them all, everyone understands everyone else and they are facing in the same direction.
That does not necessarily mean that the meeting will do what the child wants and asks. What is important is that the child understands and has an explanation as to why things are happening and what is being done for him. Difficulties arise when a child does not understand what is happening. Difficulties also arise if the other people dealing with the child—the school, children's home, foster parents—do not understand one another. Therefore, I very much support the review taking the form of a meeting, provided everyone concerned with the child attends that meeting where practicable and possible. The purpose of that meeting should also be clearly understood. It is not necessarily to do what the child wants at that time but that he should understand what is being done on his behalf.
Lord Mottistone: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 109. I shall concentrate on the first part of the amendment which goes with what we are now discussing but, on the assumption that my noble and learned friend has been given advice on how to comment on the whole amendment, I shall say a few words about the second part later.
The first part of my amendment is very like Amendment No. 112 which, of course, I support. However. I prefer my own amendment because it deals with the business of making sure that the child understands. Of course, a child of, say, three months, would not be very suitable at that sort of meeting.
I shall make a few remarks which have been suggested to me by the Children's Legal Centre. It states that the review is, or should be, the crucial time for planning and decision-making for children in care. The local authority is already under a duty, before making any decision about a child in care, to ascertain and give due consideration to the child's wishes and feelings about the decision, as is set out in Clause 18. A review meeting is where people relevant to the child's life gather together to exchange views—my noble friend Lady Faithfull has just made that point—make decisions, formulate plans and allocate responsibility for their implementation.
It is extremely difficult to see how the authority could fulfil its duty under Clause 18 without having the child present at the meeting. Ascertaining the child's wishes and feelings before the meeting—as proposed by Clause 22(2)(d)—would be inadequate since the child would not be in a position to know what others would propose at the meeting; nor would the child be able to challenge any of their views.
The Children's Legal Centre conducted a survey of local authority reviewing policies in 1983. At the same time the National Association of Young People in Care canvassed the views of about 500 young people in care. Fifteen of the 63 authorities replying to the centre said that young people were always
166
invited to their review. Most of the others said that young people were sometimes invited. Reasons for exclusion included the assessed maturity of the child's ability to cope with the review—and there my amendment has a point—the existence of sensitive information and the need for professionals to have private discussions. In practice, the centre has yet to encounter an adequate justification for excluding a young person who is keen to attend. If information or discussion is relevant to decisions about their life they have a right to know it. Obviously, painful information should not be disclosed at a review and the young people should be adequately warned and prepared that upsetting facts exist. I think that is quite an important point and I would hope very much that something along the lines of my amendment might be acceptable. Other noble Lords have made other points in connection with their own amendments.
If I may now turn to the second paragraph of Amendment No. 109, the aim is to ensure that the child is in a position to know of his right, which exists anyhow, to instruct a solicitor to seek a discharge. It seems to the NSPCC that it is important that somewhere in an appropriate place in this Bill the duty should be laid on authorities to make sure that children know they have that right. At the moment the Bill does not include that fact, and that is the point of the second part of Amendment No. 109.
Lady Kinloss: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 109. It is felt by the NSPCC that it is consistent for the child to take part in administrative reviews. I think it is essential, so long as they can understand their right to do so. It is possible that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will say that these matters would be better dealt with by regulations but I feel they are better dealt with in primary legislation.
In the second part of the amendment, the child has the right to apply for variation or discharge of an order. Clause 22 also requires that the local authority, when a review takes place, should consider whether an order should be discharged. If the review process is in part to focus a local authority's attention on the continuing necessity for an order, should this not also apply to the child? A reminder to the child on a periodic basis of his or her rights should help the child to clarify what he or she feels to be the best course of action open to him or her. There is little point in giving children rights if they are not able to exercise them, having no knowledge that the rights exist.
The Lord Chancellor: My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in speaking to these amendments, really invited a more radical point to be looked at: namely, whether the whole provision of Clause 22(2) is inappropriate. So far as Clause 22(1) is concerned, giving the Secretary of State power to make regulations does have effect and I think it is a very normal way of doing it. If one were to have a duty one would perhaps have to make directions about that in more detail. The Secretary of State certainly means, as part of the implementation of this Bill, to make regulations, and we would hope, before the whole structure is put into position, to have those regulations available. It is obvious that they would

167
need to be the subject of much consultation, and that would be intended. So, assuming that the Secretary of State is to have power to make regulations, he could of course make regulations requiring the case of each child who is being looked after by a local authority to be reviewed in accordance with the regulations. Notwithstanding that general power, however, I believe it is appropriate in what is an important part of the provision at least to provide for particular provisions that the Secretary of State will be empowered to make.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Would my noble and learned friend allow me? Both subsections (1) and (2) are permissive and not mandatory, in contrast to subsection (3). If subsection (2) were not there, would it not be permissible for the Secretary of State nevertheless to make regulations on those matters?
The Lord Chancellor: I think it might be arguable, for example, whether he could make regulations covering all these matters. Perhaps the one that is most obvious is the requirement for the authority to monitor the arrangements they had made with a view to ensuring that the regulations were complied with. I think it is perhaps doubtful whether the general power in Clause 22(1), without that specific provision, would empower the Secretary of State to require the authority to monitor what it is doing, but the purpose of this is really to try to set out in fairly clear language what is intended to be dealt with by these regulations. The Secretary of State may well have done that without such power, but I think it is as well that to a certain degree these headings should be specified. Of course it is a question of judgment as to what degree one goes.
I would think that all the provisions proposed in the amendments, subject to the particular point about the local authority advising the child of the right to make an application to the court to discharge an order, would be covered under these specific heads. In particular, the regulation-making power to make provision as to the manner in which each case is to be reviewed would certainly enable the Secretary of State to require that this should he done by way of a meeting.
However, I think the difficulty is to deal with a fairly complicated matter in a way that is going to apply to every possible case. I believe that the total review ought, at any rate in many cases, to include more than just a meeting. It ought to include, for example, getting a report in relation to the child. If, say, a child is having some form of medical treatment, it might be right to get a report from the doctor in order that everyone connected with the matter could study it in advance, and then the doctor could well be asked to attend any subsequent meeting.
The whole process of review may well involve a meeting, but I doubt very much whether it would be right to say that the review should take the form of a meeting: in other words, that nothing should form part of the review which is not a meeting. This is just a point of detail but it illustrates the difficulty of getting into too much detail in the primary legislation. I would take it that the preliminary work
168
of the review would have to be done, generally speaking, in advance of any meeting that might possibly take place.
I agree with the view which has been expressed that, very generally, some form of meeting would be a central part of any review. The bringing together of all the people involved so that they understand one another and are not subject to the mistakes of reporting, or even the nuances that are necessary in some of the delicate cases, is highly desirable. I would say strongly that the correct way to go into the kind of detail that is required to cover all the possible cases is really a matter for the regulations.
I can assure your Lordships that, in proposing the regulations, we should take fully into account all the concerns which have been expressed about what should form part of the review and who should be at it. For my part, I should be sorry to see the power to make regulations too much cut down on the one hand, or made too elaborate on the other hand. Here we have a general list of headings which would enable all the concerns that have been expressed in these amendments to be taken into account.
In relation to the second part of Lord Mottistone's Amendment No. 109, that sets something apart from the review and is a more general matter. I shall certainly consider whether anything needs to be done about that separately.
So far as concerns the details of the review and the way in which it should take place I believe that all the anxieties which have been expressed in these amendments could properly be taken into account in framing the regulations under the headings that we have. I shall undertake that all the matters referred to here will be very much kept in mind in considering the form of regulations to be proposed.
7 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: Some of us are in a difficulty which is inherent in the fact that more and more of our primary legislation depends upon a Minister who, with great veracity and honesty of purpose, tells us about regulations yet to be made. They are not before the Committee. This is not the first time that this point has been raised; but I have to raise it again because of the duty that lies upon us to see that matters which we think are very important, if they are not be in the statute, are eventually to be in regulations.
That is one of the matters that always makes me feel how wonderful it would be if a Minister—one has no doubt having thought about a Bill with great care—saw fit to ensure that the regulations which are always mentioned in Bills were available in draft at the same time as we considered the statute. Then we would all say we had done out duty.
All I can do on this occasion, in addressing myself to the noble and learned Lord and thanking him for the care that he has taken in his reply, is to repeat—I promise not in detail—what I tried to say when moving the amendment. There are examples which have been found by DHSS reviews of the completely unsatisfactory way in which reviews are held by certain local authorities. In my submission, it will be the duty of the Committee to see that that is not repeated after the Bill goes through the House.

169
The noble and learned Lord has conceded with complete grace that in most cases meetings would be appropriate. I would not insist upon saying that a meeting had to be held in every conceivable case, even when inappropriate, although I do not think it would do very much harm. But can the noble and learned Lord give an undertaking to the Committee that in the regulations which are to come there will be specific regulations as to the parties who will be present at a review in the same form as in this amendment; namely, that the child should have an opportunity where it is appropriate, and the parents and anyone else who really has something to contribute? I think that was an addition to the discussion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. Can he also say that the regulations will provide that in most cases, since that would be suitable, there should be a meeting after consultations and reports of an appropriate nature?
If the noble and learned Lord will say that is going to be the position, for my part I shall then say, having the word of the noble and learned Lord which all of us trust completely, that I have done my duty. The regulations will be there and they will cover those points. Without that undertaking, I should really like to give the noble and learned Lord on behalf of the Government an indication of how the Committee feels by testing the opinion of the Committee, hoping that everybody, since we are all in agreement, will vote for the amendment. I do not want to do that if the noble and learned Lord can tell us in specific terms that the regulations will definitely deal with the matters which are inherent in the amendments.
The Lord Chancellor: Regarding the people to be involved in the review, we have sought to deal with that matter in Clause 22(2)(d). That is:

"(i) the child;

(ii) his parents;

(iii) any person who is not a parent of his but who has parental authority for him; and

(iv) any other person whose views the authority consider to be relevant,

including, in particular, the views of those persons in relation to any particular matter which is to be considered in the course of the review;"
For example, a doctor or someone of that sort would be involved.
I think that deals fully with the matter that—
Lord Mishcon: The requirement is merely to take views.
The Lord Chancellor: I have not finished yet.
Lord Mishcon: That remark was meant for my noble friend Lord Meston.
The Lord Chancellor: It happened to reach me also, and therefore I take advantage of it.
That is the first point as to the parties. As to the form, I must hold to the view that I could not go along with saying that reviews should take the form of a meeting because I think that is too restrictive. I believe that a meeting of some kind will be appropriate generally in a review for the reasons that
170
have been explained. It would be wrong to say that in every conceivable circumstance of review a meeting should be necessary, because there might be requirements for reviews that are precipitated by particular circumstances when some urgent decision was required. However, generally speaking, I should expect a review to include a meeting of those who are able to contribute to the matter.
If something more definite than that is required, I cannot go any further than that today. My view of the matter is that to be effectively conducted these reviews would normally involve a meeting. The amendment goes no further than providing that the Secretary of State could make such provision; so I do not believe that there is much between us on this matter.
The views which have been expressed in the course of this debate will certainly be taker into account in formulating the regulations. I do not believe that in general it is right to try to formulate the regulations until one knows what the statutory power is under which they are to be exercised, and it is proper to have consultations before the form of the regulations is settled. That is the best indication I can give at the present time.
Lord Mishcon: The noble and learned Lord is very kind. He says that there is not much difference between us. Unfortunately, the difference between us is that of certainty and uncertainty. The noble and learned Lord says with complete frankness that he would expect that the regulations "might deal" or that he would expect that "provision might be made". Can he at least say on behalf of the Government that the regulations will provide that in normal cases—I accept that there may be abnormal ones—a meeting should take place by way of the review? If it can be said that in normal cases that is what the regulations will say, although I understand that the noble and learned Lord cannot tie himself to the precise words of the regulations, I shall be personally content not to press the amendment. But if he cannot say that—I shall understand that it is not because of lack of good will—I shall have to press the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I am not sure that I understand the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I usually do, but on this occasion I am not quite sure that I understand him. The Bill states that the child should be consulted and that the parents should be consulted. One cannot have those consultations without a meeting. It is implicit that a meeting should be held.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Baroness is right; we usually agree. Indeed, on these Benches we shall always have great respect and affection for the noble Baroness because we so much like her views.
Having said that, I should like to point out to her with deep respect that at the moment the clause provides that before any review takes place the views of certain people mentioned in the clause should be taken. It says that the Secretary of State may make those regulations. It does not say in what form the views may be taken. It may be just a chat. It does not

171
say that the person who has expressed the view will be present at the review procedure in order to argue that view. This is all before a review takes place.
The Committee may feel that, because of the scandals that were revealed in the DHSS reports about the way in which reviews have been carried out by certain local authorities in the past, something definite must be done to ensure that reviews for the children being looked after by local authorities take place in every local authority in the future. The noble and learned Lord says that generally a meeting ought to take place and that there should be reports, and so on, before the meeting. I am asking for an assurance that the regulations will so provide. I shall understand if he cannot give such an undertaking. In that case I shall have to press the amendment if only for the purpose of registering the Committee's view in order to ensure, pray heaven, that the regulations do so provide.
The Lord Chancellor: I am not sure that I can take this matter very much further. I cannot undertake that a meeting would necessarily be held involving all the people at the same time. I mentioned the doctor as an example. I am certainly prepared to undertake that the people involved in the review will include people of the kind referred to in paragraph (d)—this meets the point made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull—and I shall also undertake that meetings will form part of the process where it is appropriate to get the people together. That is as much as I can say.
I made it plain that from my knowledge of these matters I would regard it as appropriate normally for a meeting to take place. However, I cannot absolutely tie myself down to saying that a full meeting involving all those people will have to take place in every case. I would regard a meeting generally to be appropriate, and the views of parties of the kind described in Clause 22(2)(d), which very much matches the words of my noble friend, would be taken into account. The meeting would not necessarily encompass all of those but would have to take proper steps to be apprised of their views. In many cases these views would be best given at the meeting. I expect the regulations to proceed on those lines.
Lord Mishcon: The noble and learned Lord cannot be expected to go further than that. I thank him. If he finds that his expectations are not realised by the ministerial regulations which come forward, I ask, but not with great seriousness, that he should find a legal process in order to punish the Minister concerned.
The Lord Chancellor: I think that prevention is better than cure.
Lord Mishcon: In view of the understanding reached with the noble and learned Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 108A:
Page 18, line 28, leave out ("authority") and insert ("responsibility").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is essentially a drafting amendment to correct what is either a typographical or a printing error. It substitutes "responsibility" for "authority" in two places, in regard to Amendment No. 108A and Amendment No. 197 to which I also speak. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 109 to 112 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 19, line 8, leave out ("considering any representations") and insert ("all aspects of the care system, to consider any complaint or other representation").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 113 is grouped with Amendment No. 115, to which my noble friend Lord Mishcon will speak. We readily accept that subsection (5) is an important beginning. It introduces a representations procedure which will have an independent element. This is most welcome. However, there is ground for concern that the word "complaint" is not used in the clause. That is the basis of the amendment. Nowhere in the Bill do we find the word "complaint". One accepts that the word "representations" includes a complaint, but we are strongly advised by many organisations that the word "complaint" should itself appear in the subsection.
There are three strong reasons for the amendment. The word "complaint" is a time-honoured word. It is generally used when one wants to draw attention to an injustice which one feels one may have suffered. It is time-honoured but not old-fashioned. Therefore why not use it in the Bill in addition to the word "representations"? We can assume that substantial inarticulateness exists among the client group. A parent or a child may not readily understand that the word "representations" includes the old-fashioned complaint. The Voice for the Child in Care charity believes it essential that the word "complaint" should appear in the subsection. I produce that evidence because from the charity's study and experience over 10 years it believes that the word "complaint" should be there.
That is also the conclusion of recent research undertaken by the National Institute for Social Work in association with the National Consumer Council and the Association of County Councils. They say:
"Using the term Complaint procedure is vitally and symbolically important to both clients and staff."
Another reason is that if complaint is to be wrapped up in representations, the authorities may not see the need for setting up a clear system for dealing with complaints, quite apart from a system to deal with general comments and representations. We say that because experience shows that there has been a reluctance to set up complaint procedures in most social services departments.
There is a further reason. The amendment would make it abundantly clear that there is a statutory right to make a complaint. That would give assurance

173
and clients would feel protected by the existence of a complaint procedure. The difficulty which has been experienced in persuading social service departments to establish complaint procedures indicates that there is considerable doubt as to whether a client has the right in law to complain and to require his complaint to be considered. Those are the three reasons—we submit, good reasons—for the inclusion of the word "complaint".
Baroness Faithfull: I seek information from the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I appreciate the need for a complaints procedure. In time gone by, when the authorities were small, the children very often knew who the director or the children's officer was and felt that they could go to that person with their complaints.
I am not quite sure from reading the amendment moved by the noble Lord who the children are to go to. Is the complaint procedure to be set up within the social services department? Will complaints be made to a councillor of the local authority? Or will there be an outside person, such as a chief executive or, even, a local ombudsman? I find myself in some difficulty over the matter. I believe that children, or parents, who wish to make a complaint will not be quite sure that the outcome will he completely objective if the complaint has to be made within the department. Perhaps the noble Lord will give me some guidance.
Lord Prys-Davies: I wonder whether Amendment No. 116 really addresses the problem presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, namely, that there should be a "complaints procedure manager". We shall of course come to that aspect later. I hope that then we can deal with the problem that worries the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. At the moment, I am speaking to Amendment No. 113.
Baroness Faithfull: I am afraid that the point I raised is not really covered. I wish to know whether the complaints manager will be someone within the social service department or someone outside that department.
Lord Prys-Davies: I have not received any particular guidance as to where this complaints manager is to be located. As I understand it, the important thing is that one knows that there is a complaint procedure and who the complaints manager is.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wish to support the amendment in principle because it is a most important one. It paves the way to the establishment of an appropriate and satisfactory complaints procedure. Whether it starts within or without the department is, for this matter, perhaps irrelevant. The main concern of Members of the Committee must surely he that any interested person should be entitled first of all to be represented by a lawyer of his choice in this complaints procedure; that the interests of the child should always be represented; that the local authority should give some sort of reasoned
174
judgment; and that there should be access to the courts of the Family Division for some binding and final adjudication.
Is it not therefore a matter of serious concern that Clause 22 envisages in subsection (4) a complaints procedure where two members—for example, an officer of the local authority and one person who is not—can make a finding which to all intents and purposes is final, binding and conclusive. Why should that be? Is it not a matter of concern that each local authority may establish its own procedure, there being absolutely no requisite for any uniformity?
Further, is it not also a matter for concern in complaints against a local authority as to the discharge of its functions, under Part III of the Bill, that the general responsibility towards children, and their families, should not be subject to some more formal adjudication and review as is envisaged by the amendment? I say that in particular because this mandatory checklist of general principles concerning the welfare of children is only referable to proceedings in courts and not to any determinations, or findings, by a local authority. It may be said that that aspect will be covered by regulations under subsection (5). However, how do we know? Once the Bill has received Royal Assent convention precludes amendment of subordinate legislation.
In conclusion—I apologise for detaining Members of the Committee but I must do so because this key amendment introduces what could be an appropriate and effective complaints procedure—is it not a matter of concern that there are many areas of crucial importance, including this one, which are covered by regulations and not by primary legislation?
There is, apart from the right to challenge, a complete denial of access under the Child Care Act 1980 which is assimilated—I am grateful for that—and very substantially extended by Clause 29. However, apart from that, there is no effective right now and under the Bill for parents, relatives or others to challenge a local authority decision over children in its care. In that context the courts have rightly ruled out access to wardship. Further the Cleveland Report recommended reconsideration in this regard, which Clause 71 rejects. If there were to be access to the Family Division at the end of a properly conducted and constructed complaints procedure, then the whole question of resort to wardship would not arise. I shall only make this point once. I suggest that that is the only effective kind of complaints procedure which this amendment, in substance and in principle, carries with it.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: I too support the amendment. The National Institute for Social Work and the National Consumer Council, which work together, have shown that there is a tremendous reluctance to set up a complaints procedure in most social services departments, and even where complaints procedures exist they are rarely publicised. I could continue on that score. On the other hand, their research has shown that using the term "complaints procedure" is vitally and symbolically important to both clients and staff.

175
The introduction of complaints procedures legitimises the complaints of clients. Staff are concerned about attacks on individual officers, which happen perhaps not so much with young children as with teenagers. They are generally reduced when there is a formal and clear procedure. Again, I could go on about that matter. I could give all the points in favour. However, we do not have much time as we are coming to the end of this period. There may be an opportunity later, if we return to this point at another stage, to push the point strongly.
Lord Meston: I too support the amendment. During the passage of the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill in the summer of 1986, I put forward a probing amendment much along these lines. The argument then, and I think the argument now, is that there should be a specific complaints procedure to deal with matters, which may be relatively trivial or serious, that need to be ventilated and redressed, but which perhaps are not appropriate matters to put before the court.
The importance of a complaints procedure is three-fold. It enables problems to be defused; it enables standards to be maintained and, perhaps most importantly, it enables children to be protected. In some local authorities there are ad hoc arrangements and in some local authorities those ad hoc arrangements work well; but, as has already been said, there is no uniformity. In some areas there is a general reluctance to have any such procedure. The Government's response back in 1986, as I remember it, was that they provided general guidance about these matters to local authorities, and that they were then waiting for the outcome of the White Paper. Well, the White Paper has arrived, and so has the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill specifically about complaints. Since 1986 there has also been the research which has produced the excellent briefing paper, to which reference has already been made, from the National Institute for Social Work.
It had not occurred to me until I heard the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, open his arguments on the amendment that we were perhaps looking at the matter from the point of view of simple semantics and that the word "representations" covered complaints. I suppose that not all representations are complaints, and not all complaints are necessarily polite enough to be called representations. If this is ultimately to be an Act which is to be understood by laymen as well as lawyers, it should be made clear that this is primarily a question of dealing with the effective ventilation or redress of complaints. For those reasons I support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: The Bill provides:
"every local authority shall establish a procedure for considering any representations made to them by"
and then the list is set out. We have gone a good deal forward from the Government's position at the time to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred when we were awaiting the inter-departmental report which preceded the White Paper. What is here in question is an obligation on every local authority to establish a procedure. That is a big step forward. The only question is whether we should say "any
176
complaints or other representations". In later amendments we find references to "complaints managers" or such people. It is wise to consider whether one wants to have to categorise the particular matters that are being raised with the local authority at any stage. Surely what is wanted is a good procedure which takes account of everything that a child wants to say to a local authority about the way he is being looked after.
As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, it may depend upon how politely a matter is expressed as to whether it is a complaint or representation. That shows that "representation" is the correct word. I cannot see why a person who is polite should be dealt with any less favourably than a person who is impolite. If anything, I would go in the other direction. One may not be put off by moderation in representations, and so the word "representations" is designed to cover all possible matters that could be raised by way of complaint. The main matter that might arise could be in the nature of a complaint but it might be expressed in a way that suggested that some change should be made: "Instead of staying here, I should like to stay there". Is that a complaint? It is certainly a representation. It may be regarded as a complaint against the place where the person is staying. He may wish to go somewhere else. The word "representations" appears to cover such circumstances.
To answer the point made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, the Government's proposal includes an independent person in the procedure. Subsection (4) provides for someone who is not a member or an officer of the authority to take part. There is an independent element in the procedure. The whole procedure must conform with regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of that subsection. In the regulations he will set out minimum standards which are required to be complied with. Some local authorities will do it one way and some another.
I have listened with care to what has been said about the various organisations that have supported the amendment. It is fair to say that no research has been conducted against the background of a situation in which there was an obligation to set up a representations procedure. The old idea has been "complaint". I believe that it is better to talk about a representations procedure—an open procedure—which would cover every form of complaint. It is very much a matter of semantics. "Representations" is a general word, and the procedure is intended to cover all possible types of representation. I therefore believe that the generality in this case is a wise one.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Surely the man in the street will be impressed by the existence of a complaints procedure. There is something special about complaints. I remember a hymn, "He heard my complaints"—I will not go into the music of it. It is a term that is commonly understood. A provision that does not provide for a complaints procedure will be understood by the man in the street as lacking in something. A complaint is something more positive than a representation in the eyes of the ordinary citizen who is concerned about his interests. One

177
cannot very well redress a representation; one can redress a complaint. Let us have the word "complaint" in please. It does not cost any more.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not know many hymns about representations.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I can sing one on another occasion.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not know that it is very important. The procedure should cover all forms of complaint and other representations. The word is intended to cover that. If the feeling is very strong about it, then obviously I should be happy to consider this further. However, I do not mean by that to go into all the business about complaints managers and people of that kind. That is a different matter altogether.
Lord Prys-Davies: I very much welcome the last few words of guidance which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has given to the Committee. We readily acknowledge that this clause represents a step forward and that the word "representations" is wide enough to include complaints. However if the amendment is resisted at the end of the day I cannot help feeling that the Government are not paying adequate attention to the message which we have received from so many organisations. For the time being, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that this might be a convenient moment at which to break for dinner. I suggest that we return to the Committee stage of the Bill at 8.40 p.m. I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Petroleum Royalties (Relief) and Continental Shelf Bill
7.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords. I beg to move that this Bill, the Petroleum Royalties (Relief) and Continental Shelf Bill, be now read a second time.
As your Lordships will have noticed, the Bill is very short. It has two specific but nevertheless important purposes. The first of these is to abolish royalities for fields in the southern basin of the North Sea and onshore which received development approval on or after 1st April 1982. The second will enable this country to implement the recent agreement with the Republic of Ireland on the delimitation of the continental shelf.
The Bill is not concerned with safety. However, the Piper Alpha disaster of last July has tragically
178
reminded us of the terrible price we can pay in terms of human lives for the extraction of energy. Safety must remain of paramount importance in the wake of this tragedy, and the Government are determined to do everything possible to prevent such events from ever happening again.
As your Lordships will know, the Department of Energy has already carried out a technical investigation of Piper Alpha. An interim report was published on 29th September last year, and a further report was published on 22nd December. The public inquiry which the Secretary of State for Energy announced immediately after the disaster will start its work in Aberdeen on Thursday of this week under the chairmanship of Lord Cullen.
I make no apology for having referred to Piper Alpha even though the Bill which is before us does not in any way concern safety. Nevertheless, even this tragedy should not be allowed to obscure the fact that the development of the North Sea over the past 25 years has been a great achievement by the international oil industry and a tremendous success for the United Kingdom. This Bill will contribute in two relatively modest but nevertheless significant ways to the continuation of that success.
The first part of the Bill gives relief to the oil industry, in certain circumstances, from the obligation to pay 12½ per cent. royalties to the Government on oil or gas production from new fields. The Government wish to encourage the development of worthwhile new fields in the North Sea. Because the obligation to pay royalty is relatively insensitive to the economics of individual fields there is a danger that it could inhibit such development. For this reason royalty has already been abolished for new fields in most parts of the North Sea but it remains in force in the mainly gas-bearing southern basin and onshore. The Bill provides for the ending of royalties for new fields in these areas also.
This will mean that all new fields, whether onshore or offshore, will have been freed from royalty and a significant disincentive will have been removed. One very substantial new development which would not otherwise have taken place—the Ravenspurn North gas field—has already been secured and the Government believe that there is now a real prospect, if the industry responds positively, that most, if not all, of Britain's gas requirements for the 1990s can be met from our own resources.
The ending of royalties for new fields in the southern basin of the North Sea and onshore is part of a package of North Sea fiscal changes which were announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement last year. The other elements of that package, which mainly concerned petroleum revenue tax, have been implemented through the Finance Act. Taken as a whole and over the lives of the fields concerned, the package is expected to be revenue-neutral to the Exchequer.
The first two clauses of the Bill are concerned with royalties. Clause 1 exempts from royalty all fields in the southern basin of the North Sea or onshore which received their development consent from the

179
Department of Energy on or after 1st April 1982. That is the measure which I have been describing.
Clause 2 is needed to ensure that the exemption from royalties which already applies elsewhere in the North Sea will apply to licences issued in the forthcoming eleventh licensing round and subsequently.
I turn now to the second purpose of this Bill, which is to enable the United Kingdom to implement the agreement which has recently been negotiated with the Irish Republic on the delimitation of the continental shelf. This is dealt with in Clause 3.
It is very much to be welcomed that it has proved possible to resolve issues concerning conflicting claims to the continental shelf which have been outstanding for 25 years. The Republic of Ireland has agreed to give up some of its original claim and so have we. Copies of the detailed agreement have been available in the Library since 8th November, when my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary announced his signature to the agreement. Agreeing boundaries will open up new opportunities for the oil industry and, potentially, for the offshore supplies industry.
The short clause is needed because, without it, the Government do not have the power to de-designate areas that have once been designated. The clause makes it clear that the power it confers can only be used to implement this particular agreement with the Irish Republic. I can assure noble Lords that there is no possibility of its being used in any other context.
The final clause, Clause 4, is simply concerned with the Bill's short title and extent.
This is not a Bill of far-reaching consequence but it contains two significant and useful measures each of which will help to sustain the vitality of our North Sea industry for the future. I do not think that this is in any way a divisive Bill and hope that it will obtain support from all sides of the House. I commend the Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Hooper.)
7.49 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing the Bill. It is a short Bill, as she has said, but it contains some important provisions. If I may, I shall take a little more time than she did to discuss some of the provisions and some of the consequential effects of the Bill.
The royalty provision which has previously obtained and which is now, as the noble Baroness pointed out, effectively to be abolished by this Bill constitutes an overt demonstration that the oil and gas in the ground in the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom continental shelf are public property. I should not like the Bill to go through on the nod without reinstating or re-emphasising that particular proposition, which I think has obtained since 1934: that is, that it is public property with which we are dealing, whatever licences may be obtained by various operators to get that oil and gas out of the ground.
180
In the case of the southern North Sea basin it is, as the noble Baroness said, a question mainly of gas production. There are two points that I wish to start with. First, as I understand it, the existing legislation allows the adjustment of royalties on a field by field basis, so we do not need blanket abolition of royalties here. Why therefore is a blanket abolition now recommended by the Government?
Secondly, British Gas is the monopoly purchaser of gas in the southern North Sea basin. It is, in the words of The Economist, "monopsonist" and as such it fixes the prices. I think we are all aware that the effect of British Gas purchasing prices in the mid to late 1970s and the early 1980s was effectively to dry up exploration in the southern North Sea basin. It now appears that partly as a result of a different gas purchasing policy and partly as a result of a change in the structure of gas prices the southern North Sea basin is for British Gas what is known as a swing producer. In other words British Gas plc, which is a privatised monopoly, purchases its gas then signs a contract with the gas producers in the southern North Sea basin which states that it will purchase so much over a year, and that if it runs into a deficit in its gas supplies in the summer or the winter it will purchase from the producers. British Gas will balance out its supplies by purchases from that basin.
It is my information that were the southern North Sea basin not to be in a position to occupy that role, the alternative would be Norwegian gas. We recognise that the southern North Sea basin is in a difficult position. and that it is crucial to our balance of payments in that we do not want to see Norwegian gas being purchased by British Gas, in periods when the latter is in deficit in its supply, to the detriment of our balance of payments. Given that, it is absolutely clear that British Gas dictates the price of the gas produced in the southern North Sea basin and hence the pace of development, production and indeed secondary recovery.
The first question I have for the Minister is: what constraints are there on British Gas in playing this important role? Are we certain that British Gas will not take the benefit of the public surrender of the royalty right just to increase its own return? There are two related points to this, and both of them give rise to questions. The economics are profoundly affected, not only by gas price or the tax regime or the royalty regime, but also by the residual cost of shutting down the field and removing the physical structures that have serviced it.
As the Minister has said, we know about the Piper Alpha disaster in the northern North Sea. We know from previous Government statements that the Piper Alpha platform is to be toppled, that is to say the platform will simply be pushed down to the bottom of the North Sea. What will happen to the rest, and in particular what will happen to those gas producers, who are covered by this Bill, who from time to time will find that their installations need to be dispensed with because the fields which they service have been exhausted? What will happen to them? A ministerial assurance in another place indicated that the decision to topple Piper Alpha is not in any way a precedent for other installations. But we should like to hear the Government's policy on these matters.

181
Decommissioning anything involves a large cost. Decommissioning any North Sea installation involves a large cost also.
If anything is going to be toppled, the Government should bear in mind that not very long ago in the course of a NATO exercise a German submarine tried to hide in a platform in the Norwegian section of the North Sea. The submarine did substantial damage both to itself and to the platform in the course of the exercise. That gives rise again to the question of safety of installations and of platforms which are simply pushed to the bottom of the sea. Are the Government aware of that issue?
The related point to that is the matter of safety offshore. The noble Baroness was quite right to draw our attention to the fact that the Piper Alpha public inquiry is to start the day after tomorrow. We hope that it will be a full and fair inquiry into what happened. We very much hope that there will be no compromise on safety in North Sea offshore installations. But, of course, the multiplicity of agencies responsible for safety in the North Sea in our view hampers effective safety action. The Department of Energy, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Health and Safety Executive are all involved. A lot of people have different roles to carry out in the safety field. We believe that some co-ordinated role is necessary.
So much for the royalty question offshore; that question also arises onshore. Here the economics are not good because the lack of transferable PRT relief onshore has made onshore exploration relatively less attractive than offshore. For instance, an onshore well drilling to 6,000 feet will attract a gross cost of £750,000. There will be corporation tax relief on that and the net cost will be £487,500. An offshore well in the central North Sea which is drilled to 12,000 feet, twice as deep as the onshore well, will attract a gross cost of £2,700,000. But, given a full PRT relief of £2,025,000, it will attract a net cost of £675,00 which, after corporation tax relief, gives a net cost of £438,750.
So the offshore central North Sea well drilled to 12,000 feet is cheaper than the onshore well drilled to 6,000 feet. That is a point that the Government must consider. Indeed it was considered by the Select Committee in another place when it studied the problem of the independent sector in the North Sea exploration business.
We accept the need for royalty relief, but we wonder whether this is the right way to go about it. After all onshore the major problem, as the Select Committee of another place pointed out, is not so much the fact that it is less economic to drill but that environmental fears and the difficulty in getting planning permission impede proper exploration and development. I wonder whether the Government are considering the suggestion that was mooted in the report of that Select Committee that royalties should be shared between central government and local government. Nothing encourages a local authority more in giving planning permission than the fact that it may get a slice of the action and benefit from what is going on in its area. I also believe that we ought to
182
try to encourage independent oil companies in the exploration sector. I believe that that point was made by the Select Committee.
I am afraid that I have taken up a certain amount of your Lordships' time because I think that there are some important points upon which the House may wish to ponder before giving the Bill a Second Reading. I shall spend no time at all on the question of the continental shelf between the United Kingdom and Ireland. I shall simply say that any agreement between ourselves and the Republic of Ireland must be welcomed at this time. Goodness knows, there are so many points of difference. We certainly support that development.
I hope that the noble Baroness in her reply—I gave notice of some of the points that I have raised—will be able to satisfy us that the Government have taken into consideration the questions I have raised. In the meantime, I am happy to be able to say that we certainly shall not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as has been pointed out by the noble Baroness in introducing the Motion, the Bill is limited in its extent but it deals with a very important subject. Over recent years the North Sea has, through its provision of oil and gas due to the exertions of the companies involved, transformed the economy of Britain. Therefore anything that is done in that connection has to he very closely examined.
Oil presently contributes some 32 per cent. of the total energy consumed in this country and gas 25 per cent., both coming from the North Sea. In addition, there are exports of oil. I am glad to say, in view of my past affiliations, that coal still leads, providing 34 per cent.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, have both pointed out that that great success story of the North Sea is not without its risks. We have seen that dramatically exposed by the Piper Alpha disaster last year. I have myself been through similar but not such large-scale experiences in the coal industry in my time, and I know how terrible that is not only for those directly affected and their families but also for the management of the companies concerned. Let us all hope that as a result of the inquiry being conducted into that disaster such dire events will be avoided in the future.
Turning to the Bill, I should like first to deal with the agreement with the Government of the Republic of Ireland on the respective rights in relation to the continental shelf adjacent to both countries. I welcome that agreement. I think that it is highly desirable that that question is sorted out and I therefore give my full support to the proposition contained in the Bill.
Dealing next with the other issue considered in the Bill—namely, that of royalties—I should like to say that there has always been a degree of anomaly about that impost. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, its impact is insensitive to economics. It is related to the total production of the product irrespective of whether it is sold at a profit or not. That is an undesirable form of tax.

183
In the Finance Act 1983 royalties in the northern and central basins of the North Sea were abolished for future fields but were retained in the southern basin. The present Bill proposes to abolish royalties for oil and gas fields in the southern basin and onshore subsequent to 1982. So it would appear that the whole of the North Sea and onshore exploration would be put on the same basis in relation to the abolition of royalties. That would appear to be eminently desirable.
However, the abolition of the royalties in the southern basin has to be looked at in conjunction with the provision introduced in last year's Finance Act, to which the noble Baroness referred. That provision was brought in by the Government to achieve what they call bringing about revenue neutrality. They achieved that by, at the same time as the abolition of the royalty was introduced, reducing the oil tax allowance from 250,000 tonnes per chargeable period to 100,000 tonnes so that on the one hand the royalty impost was removed but on the other hand the tax allowance was reduced. The question is whether those two things balance out.
The oil companies contended that the Government's original proposition went too far. On the basis of very detailed calculations which they carried out they suggested that revenue neutrality would not be achieved below a tax allowance of 160,000 tonnes. The Government looked at the question again and eventually compromised at 125,000 tonnes. I have looked into the matter and I feel that the oil companies have a case.
What worries me is that the Government have apparently set out to stimulate exploration and development in the southern basin by removing the royalty charge, but what they have given on the one hand they appear to have more than taken away with the other. I think that it would be reasonable to invite the noble Baroness to explain the real motives of the Government. Is this a device for raising more tax revenue, by removing a smaller impost on the one hand and replacing it with a larger one on the other, or is it really intended to stimulate activity in the southern basin?
If the Government are not prepared to increase the tonnage qualifying for tax allowance, because that has already been passed in another place, would they at least consider bringing forward the date of application of the measures from 1982 to the date when the Bill is passed? That would enable companies, when planning future operations, to take account of the new tax regime and would therefore he much fairer. I do not personally believe that retrospective tax changes are in any circumstances desirable.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, having spent the greater part of my business life in the oil and gas sectors I have experienced a variety of royalty regimes. Despite the noble Baroness's view that this is an uncontroversial Bill, I think that there are some important implications which could have far reaching effects, as has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
184
Petroleum royalty has traditionally been seen as a form of economic rent, a levy paid in return for the right to exploit a natural resource, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams. pointed out. Any change in the level of royalty alters the terms of the licences under which a particular field has been developed and thus has a direct effect upon its economic profile. As proposed in this Bill, the effect is beneficial. However, once the concept is established that the negotiated terms of a licence can be altered by legislation at the will of a government, there is nothing to prevent, a government from reimposing a royalty or in fact increasing royalty rates ex post facto.
One of the objectives of the Bill presumably is to create incentives to explore and develop both offshore on the continental shelf and onshore. However, as has been mentioned. in effect it penalises the more mature fields developed before the specific date of, I think, March 1982. It is those fields which have suffered most from the continuing depressed prices that have been experienced in the past few years since the newer fields already enjoy a substantial advantage with a lower rate of petroleum revenue tax.
In addition I think it is fair to say that it is precisely the mature fields that have produced the revenues to fund further exploration and development both onshore and offshore. Having embarked on this course of what might be termed royalty adjustment. the Government should very seriously consider taking the definitive decision to remove Crown royalties altogether from both comparatively new and mature fields. I believe that that would reduce the total marginal government take in taxes altogether, including the whole regime, from 86 per cent. to 84 per cent.—a matter of two percentage points—and would have an immediate effect on cash flow benefit where it is most needed.
Furthermore, it would ease the administrative burden that the present cumbersome system imposes on both the producer and the Government. I refer in particular to the complications of reporting, the auditing and the reviewing that have to be done on royalty returns which are filed twice a year. At the same time it would create considerable added incentives. Thus investment decisions would be put on a comparable basis between new and old fields, since production from neither would attract Crown royalty.
8.13 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate, so enabling us to benefit from their knowledge and expertise. I shall endeavour to reply to as many as possible of the questions raised and no doubt I shall be reminded should I omit any point.
I turn first to the series of questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. First and foremost there is the question of oil and gas being public property. And, of course, oil and gas in the North Sea are vested in the Crown. That will remain the case. There is no dispute on that. That is why we have royalties in the first place, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy. I do not see any immediate prospect of abolishing royalties

185
altogether, as he suggests. Indeed, the reason for dealing with this matter other than on a field by field basis is to have consistency overall in the area of new exploration.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, also referred to the monopsony powers of British Gas. Your Lordships will know that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission published its report on British Gas on 19th October last year. It made a number of recommendations intended to promote competition in the supply of gas. These included a requirement for British Gas to publish a price schedule for the supply of firm and interruptible gas to contract customers and a requirement on British Gas to contract initially for no more than 90 per cent. of any new gas fields.
My noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked the Director General of Gas Supply to seek agreement with British Gas to modifications to its authorisation so as to effect remedies on British Gas pricing and contract policies. He has asked the Director General of Fair Trading to consult interested parties on the basis of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's 90 per cent. recommendation with a view to proposing by the 31st January—the end of this month—a scheme which will make it easier for organisations other than British Gas to buy gas from the developers of gas fields.
We very much welcome these developments. We believe that they will promote competition and that they should he welcome to British Gas contract gas customers and potential competitors. In fact we are already seeing the first signs of a growing market in gas that is sold direct by producers to consumers. A contract for the sale of gas from the Miller field to the North of Scotland Hydro-electric Board for power generation at Peterhead power station has already been announced, and the issues that have been raised about the market power of British Gas are being addressed in a comprehensive fashion. We believe that the Bill will encourage new developments in the North Sea, as in the example of the Ravenspurn North field to which I referred and therefore will tend to reduce any future need, for example, for Norwegian gas.
On the question of abandonment to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred, the Act governing abandonment is the Petroleum Act 1987 which was introduced after considerable consultation with interested parties. The objective underlying the Petroleum Act was to institute an effective abandonment regime which, while taking account of the requirements of international law, the safety of navigation, fishing and environmental interests, would aim to minimise the costs of abandonment in each case. It enables the Secretary of State to require the submission of costed abandonment programmes for all offshore installations and pipelines and, where a programme is approved, makes it the joint and several duty of the companies which submitted it to secure that it is carried out.
It is the Government's intention when calling for abandonment programmes to require the companies
186
concerned to consult the fishing organisations about their proposals and to submit a report on those consultations with their programme. I recognise of course that costs are involved in abandonment, as indeed in safety, but the principle is not new and companies have indeed been making provision for abandonment over the course of a number of years.
As to what will happen to disused installations in the southern basin, these platforms are in relatively shallow water and the current recommendations of the International Maritime Organisation require that they be entirely removed. The Government have made clear that they intend that the domestic abandonment arrangements under the Petroleum Act 1987 will meet the IMO requirements.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves the question of abandonment, can she very kindly give us some indication of the guidelines that the Government will he adopting and recommending to companies when they seek the permission of the Government to adopt certain abandonment provisions'? As the noble Baroness will know, very important sums of money are involved. It is a matter of concern in the industry that, under the Petroleum Act 1987, we are all up in the air. The Piper Alpha precedent is not regarded as being a precedent. What is the policy that the Government will try to urge on companies when they submit their abandonment plans?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Piper Alpha incident was unexpected and action had to be taken quickly. I am not in a position to say whether or when the Government will be issuing guidelines. However, as I have said, the arrangements that have been made so far have been made as a result of considerable and wide consultation. That consultation process will obviously not be stopped out of hand at this stage. I believe that the overall estimated costs of abandonment—which in the majority of cases will not be taking place or occurring until the turn of the century—are in the region of £4 million. Those are the figures that I have been given.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the sum £4 billion or £4 million?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is £4 million.
Perhaps I may return to the question of PRT relief for onshore exploration. We have carefully considered all representations on this issue in the past. We have not been persuaded that restoration of Section 5A relief for onshore drilling is the right way to promote new onshore activity. Many small companies which do not pay PRT would have been unable to take advantage of the relief. It is even more appropriate to introduce a measure from which all companies involved onshore could benefit. Hence the measure announced by the Chancellor in his Budget to abolish all royalties for post-1982 onshore fields which is now the subject of this Bill.
Removing the one element of the fiscal regime that was not profit-related should be of significant benefit to companies involved onshore. The revised oil allowance enacted in this year's Finance Act should

187
still protect virtually all onshore fields from PRT. We shall of course consider all aspects of the recent Select Committee report which I understand welcomes the introduction of the royalty provisions of this Bill.
I must stand corrected. The figure was £4 billion, not £4 million. I misread my notes.
On the question of the multiplicity of offshore safety agencies, as a result of Piper Alpha, the present arrangements for offshore safety are in line with the recommendations of the Burgoyne Report of 1980. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy has said that if the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, can suggest improvements to the current safety regime, his recommendations will be accepted. I am sure that this is welcomed on all fronts.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, referred to the question of fiscal neutrality. In formulating the Budget proposals originally, the Government looked carefully at the impact that these proposals would have on the industry. In making the tax regime more profits-related, and by opting for an overall fiscally neutral package, it was inevitable that there would be both winners and losers. The main criticism of the package came, naturally enough, from the companies which stood to lose most. Companies' perceptions of the Budget's impact were sensitive to the precise assumptions used in particular in relation to the falling price of oil.
The department held numerous discussions with the industry to obtain a clear picture of the industry's view of the proposed changes. The strong reaction of industry which concentrated on the PRT change, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has already pointed out, resulted in the Government announcing the concession on petroleum revenue tax oil allowance which was accepted during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill in another place. This concession took full account of the discussions with the industry and was the maximum that could be justified in all the circumstances.
I can assure the noble Lord that the overall package was most certainly intended to stimulate the industry, and furthermore that the Government intend to keep the North Sea tax system under review. Inevitably fields already in production will sometimes be affected but the nature of the southern basin tax changes was to make the system more sensitive to field economics. Generally speaking therefore the fields that were losing under these changes were fields that were highly profitable and will remain so.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has also suggested that this change was retrospective. I should say that technically that is not the case. The change did not come into effect until 1st July last year.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is it not a fact that it will affect all committed future fields from 1983? The suggestion I made was that it would be much better if it were to affect all future fields as from now so that the companies could take into account the new regime in assessing the economics of those fields.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I appreciate the point of the noble Lord. However, I can say only that it is not unusual for tax changes to affect revenue from existing assets and existing production. Unfortunately we are all subject to the effect of tax changes.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. It is wholly unusual for tax changes to be retroactive in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has specified. This is something that I do not think has ever occurred in tax law.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I understand it, the tax changes are effective from July of last year as a result of the Finance Act although they may apply to operations which have been in existence since 1982. Therefore they are not retrospective.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am very sorry but I must say that I am totally confused by this situation. What would be wrong, in introducing a new regime of taxation, in saying that it should apply from now, as is normally done in any budget? It is the retrospective element over which there is some doubt.
As the noble Baroness rightly said, there are winners and losers. We do not know what the balance is. Why not say that from the time this Bill is passed this new tax regime will apply? Then all oil companies operating in the southern basin will be able to take account of it in judging the economics of their operations.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I fear that I have not succeeded in explaining the position as I understand it. The tax changes are effective—that is, the additional tax, if any—from July last year on all operations that have started in 1982. However, the tax will not be backdated to apply as from 1982. I hope that that clarifies the position slightly more.
Finally, to wind up, we have referred to the tragic events of Piper Alpha and to safety in general in these types of operations, but in doing so we should not forget the tremendous achievements of the oil industry in the North Sea over the past 25 years and the immense benefits which they have brought to the United Kingdom. In that period the industry has produced more than 1 billion tonnes of crude oil and 700 billion cubic metres of gas worth over £140 billion in the money of the day. The taxpayer has benefited from tax and royalty payments to the Government of over £65 billion and some £25 billion worth of orders for goods and services have been placed with United Kingdom suppliers. By any standards this must be regarded as a major success and one that is largely due to the technical and managerial skills of the international oil industry.
We have now reached a stage in the life of the North Sea where almost certainly the largest discoveries are behind us and where the outlook for oil prices is uncertain. It is a great tribute to the industry in these challenging circumstances that it has shown great ingenuity and technical skill in adapting its operations to the new economic reality. As a result we continue to have an active and

189
vigorous North Sea industry. In some respects, and taking account of the current economic climate, it is more vigorous than it has ever been.
In 1988 the Department of Energy gave the largest number of project approvals that has ever been made in a single year. The 24 projects concerned involved total new investment of over £3 billion, and 11 more projects are still under discussion. We are aware that several further development plans may come forward for consideration this year. That is the picture in the development of new fields. Exploration and appraisal activity is required to identify new fields in the future and the picture here is similarly bright. Last year 175 exploration and appraisal wells were drilled, the second highest total since offshore drilling began in 1964 and far outstripping the 1987 total. A total of eight discoveries were announced last year, including one onshore.
It is against this very encouraging background that the Government have brought forward the Bill, which will help to create the right fiscal environment for new developments in the southern basin and onshore which will make available for licensing in the future certain areas that have been disputed with the Irish Republic. I am most grateful to your Lordship for the welcome that you all unreservedly gave to those provisions in relation to the agreement with the Irish Republic. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.33 to 8.40 p.m.]

Children Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 22.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 19, line 14, at end insert—
("(e) any person who has demonstrated a reasonable interest in the child's welfare,").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to enlarge upon the number of people from whom representations should be considered under subsection (3) of the clause. The people I have in mind are other family members such as grandparents. Being a grandparent, I feel strongly because they can be helpful to children of all ages and they could have a close interest.
It is interesting to note that in several of the reports which have examined accusations of abuse to children in residential and foster care, junior members of the social services staff have often spoken for the child concerned. However, they have had no way of ensuring that the child's and their own worries can be taken into account. That is a surprising omission from subsection (3). Such people are specifically excluded by subsection (4). It is suggested to be important that where members of staff have become aware of a child's complaint and the child may not wish to pursue it for fear of some reprisal, the staff member can do so on their behalf. There may
190
be other independent visitors or friends visiting the children in residential or foster care. If the provision contained in my amendment were adopted, they would also be able to make representations under the paragraphs of subsection (3). I beg to move.
Lady Kinloss: I support the amendment. The NSPCC and the National Children's Bureau believe that it is vital that interested parties such as relatives, grandparents or a teacher should be able to make a complaint on the child's behalf. That applies especially in the case of young children, vulnerable young people and disabled children. For example, there may be a mentally handicapped child in a home who has been abandoned by his parent or parents. In those circumstances, there would be no one in the paragraphs (a) to (d) who could make a complaint about the child's treatment in care.
The National Children's Bureau states that it is interesting to note that in several of the reports which have examined accusations of the abuse of children in residential and foster care junior members of staff have often spoken for the child concerned. However, they have had no way of ensuring that the child's and their own worries can be taken into account. It is important that where members of staff have become aware of a child's complaint, and that the child may not wish to pursue it for fear of some reprisal, the staff member can do so on their behalf.
The Lord Chancellor: My noble friend Lord Mottistone mentioned the fact that junior members of staff are excluded; but subsection (4) is intended to secure the presence of an impartial person in the procedure. Therefore it would not be appropriate for a junior member of staff to be that person and it is right that they should not be named in subsection (4).
I am anxious that the representation procedure should be reasonable. However, the amendment does not help a great deal. It provides for:
"any person who has demonstrated a reasonable interest in the child's welfare".
That presupposes a demonstration to somebody so that there is an adjudication procedure as a preliminary to making a representation. It would be better if one could define the category so that a person was either in or out of it and not leave the matter too wide.
I concede that there may be difficulties in that respect but I consider that the amendment is too wide. I am also a grandparent and therefore I have an interest in securing the child's welfare. Indeed, some other categories may be thought of. I invite my noble friend and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, to consider whether the problem can be avoided by a form of classification of people who may be allowed to make representations.
On the other hand, I am sure that my noble friend and the noble Lady will be aware of the need to ensure that if the representation procedure is to work it cannot be open to everyone. It must be a reasonably selective procedure. At the moment none exists, and we are making a considerable advance by introducing it. Therefore one does not wish to have a provision so wide that the time of local authorities is continually taken up with trying to determine such

191
matters instead of looking after the child. There are disadvantages in the provision being too wide and I hope that my noble friend will consider that the matter requires further consideration.
Lord Mottistone: Yes, I understand my noble and learned friend's anxiety about making the provision too wide. On the other hand, I suggest that the fact that a junior member of staff and a grandparent, for example, are not covered by subsection (3) is a fault of that subsection, and it needs to include more people. Our attempt to describe them in the words:
"any person who has demonstrated a reasonable interest in the child's welfare".
was an attempt to fill that gap. My noble and learned friend believes that it is too wide and must be defined more closely: but I believe that there is room for the provision of someone else in the subsection.
I have the impression that my noble and learned friend is sympathetic to that suggestion. I should be grateful if he could say that he is sympathetic and that he will try to find a phrase which will cover it.
The Lord Chancellor: I meant to imply that, and I shall give further consideration as to how best it can be done in the light of the examples that have been given. However, it is a difficult problem and all members of the Committee will have their own predelictions in the matter. I certainly intend to consider it further, and my noble friend can have that assurance.
Lord Mottistone: That is very kind of my noble and learned friend. I am grateful that he will I look at this matter to see if he can cover the sorts of people about whom we are talking. Of course we shall do the same, observing what he said about our attempt. With that undertaking, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 19, line 16, leave out ("Part") and insert ("Act").
The noble Lord said: The Law Society and the Children's Legal Centre join hands in hoping that the Committee will agree to this amendment. I can state the purpose of it very shortly. It is to ensure that the complaints procedure to be established by subsection (3) relates to all parts of the care system and, for example, covers any grievance of any child looked after by a local authority whether under a care order or voluntarily. I beg to move. That was short and sweet!
The Lord Chancellor: I shall endeavour to be sweet but I am not sure that I can be quite so short.
The requirement in Clause 22 is that local authorities should establish procedures for considering representation about the discharge of any of their functions under Part III of the Bill in relation to a child. The proposal that the procedure should apply in respect of all aspects of the care system is unclear. That could be taken to extend to court matters and matters of that sort and it would be wholly inappropriate for local authority
192
representations procedure to be capable of examining matters that go before the courts and for which an appeal is provided: for example, applications related to the way in which they were operating a particular application to the court. This provision achieves, and I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that that is sufficient, that all local authority functions under Part III will be subject to this procedure. Part III of the Bill extends to all a local authority's responsibilities in respect of services for children in need and for children whom they look after, whether or not they are subject to a care order.
I realise that there are other provisions to which one might wish to extend the availability of a representations procedure, such as those relating to children who are not looked after by local authorities but who arc accommodated in voluntary or registered children's homes or privately fostered. We can certainly look at that sort of matter. However, I believe that to cover the Bill as a whole is going too far. However, we are looking at that particular aspect.
I believe that the powers to make these regulations in respect of voluntary or registered children's homes are sufficient to enable us to make regulations of this type in respect of these also, but we shall certainly look further at the point. However. I believe that it would be going too far to cover the whole Bill.
Lord Mishcon: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for pointing out something which had not occurred to me: namely, that this might cover court proceedings. I should not have thought that it did. He has been good enough to say that he is looking at the question of extending this beyond Part III because there are certain other categories of children who should he covered by the complaints procedure, and, with that kind undertaking, I am satisfied and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 19, line 22. at end insert (", and that a complaints procedure manager should be identified to ensure an effective and speedy response to complaints.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 117. I believe that the noble and learned Lord indicated earlier this evening his approach to Amendment No. 116 and I was not particularly encouraged by his words. That is why I am particularly anxious to also speak to Amendment No. 117. in the hope that I shall he more successful.
However, confining my remarks to Amendment No. 116 at present, we believe that an officer should be made unequivocally responsible for the receipt and the investigation of complaints. Unless there is a complaints procedure manager or the holder of a similar post, people will find it very difficult to know to whom to make a complaint or, indeed, how to make a complaint. We are advised that currently many complaints go all over the place. Some go to the Director of Social Services, some to known managers, others to elected members and indeed some become lost within the system. Therefore, it is recommended that there should be a named and identified complaints officer who should act as a

193
channel for all complaints to ensure that they receive the same treatment and are dealt with effectively.
Such an appointment is described by the various voluntary organisation as being crucial for clients and also important for all staff and politicians so that they can become used to using the correct channels. Amendment No. 116 rests on that argument.
Perhaps I may move on to Amendment No. 117. A worrying inadequacy of the present complaints procedure, where it exists, is the virtually complete absence of the complainant when a complaint is considered. There is much dissatisfaction that the complainant cannot appear before the committee or the panel to justify his complaint. If he is not present, his views may not be taken fully into account or he may feel that they have not been taken fully into account or feel that the grounds of his complaint have been misunderstood. Therefore, openness is better than secrecy in the hearing of complaints. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The essential factor in this provision is the obligation on every local authority to establish a procedure for considering any representations made to it. In order to define that as a reasonable procedure we have provided for the persons who may make the complaint or representation the essential independent element in the consideration of the representation, subject to the undertaking I have already given to my noble friend. We have also provided that the authority shall have due regard to the findings of those considering the representations and to whom it shall intimate its decision and so on.
Those are the essentials that the procedure must follow. There are varying conditions in the local authorities and, in this situation where something new is being provided, it seems right to give the local authority the obligation of considering what is best in its area. The regulations provided for in subsection (5) will ensure a minimum. I should have thought that the kinds of matter which are dealt with in Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 are matters which fall to be considered in the light of the regulations as a whole. After all, I believe that the regulations are required to be reasonably comprehensive although they are providing for a minimum.
I should not wish to carry forward a distinction into the procedure as between representations and complaints. That goes back to what we were talking about earlier. There will be one procedure for every form of representation or complaint, assuming that complaint is expressly mentioned. Therefore, I believe that these matters are properly dealt with in the regulations. Obviously we wish to secure an effective, speedy and adequate consideration of complaints.
It may be that in some places a single officer should be designated. There may be other ways in which the matter could be handled, so long as it is clear that a procedure for initiating complaints will not lead to the complaints being overlooked. So long as the local authority has a system for ensuring that, I do not believe that it is right to go into detail on precisely how it should be done. It may be that a particular
194
elected member should have that responsibility—perhaps the chairman of the social services committee. Therefore, these are matters which must depend on the arrangements made in the local authority concerned.
As regards the second amendment, again that must depend on the arrangements that are required for consideration of the complaint or representation. I should have thought that the requirement that the child or his representative should be present was a matter that would be the subject of consideration when the regulations are being made. Moreover, one must not overlook the possibility, as I mentioned earlier in relation to reviews, that some representations may require to be speedily dealt with.
9 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: The response from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is a little worrying; at least, I find it so. The details to be covered by the complaints procedure are not spelt out, apart from the need for an independent element which is contained in subsection (4). That is in sharp contrast to the matters which are to be covered by the review cases procedure.
Here we have only two requirements—that there should be a procedure and that there should be an independent element. For example, we are advised by the National Children's Bureau that the existence of a complaints procedure alone would be useless in protecting children. That is the bureau's conclusion. Therefore, I should have thought that the Government could move to meet the amendments by including a reference to such matters in the regulations. For my part, I am disappointed and I shall have to take further advice. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 19, line 28, leave out ("regard to the findings of those considering the representation") and insert ("consideration to providing redress to a complainant where a complaint is upheld").
The noble Lord said: Subsection (6) requires that the local authority shall,
"have due regard to the findings of those considering the representation".
However, it is felt that subsection (6) gives too much discretion to the local authority. It is felt that when the complaint is upheld it should be acted upon provided the situation or the conduct complained of is capable of being remedied. I accept that that is not made clear in the amendment as drafted.
However, unless the situation is remedied the procedure will be of little value. That is the basis of the amendment. The right to complain will hardly be worth having if it does not carry with it the right to a remedy if the situation is capable of being remedied. We are told that where a complaints procedure is in existence, redress or remedy is often forgotten about. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: I support this amendment, which is an almost verbatim version of Amendment No. 119, but I wish to develop the arguments a little further. It

195
seems to me that it is one thing to allow procedure which enables complaints to be ventilated but another thing to provide for actual redress for the individual complaint. It may be that the representation or complaints procedure will ensure that, in general terms, the same situation will not occur again; but it does not necessarily follow that the individual who has complained will obtain the redress which he or she seeks.
That needs to be spelt out in the Bill, because if it is not the body dealing with the complaint may feel that it has no power to give any teeth to the complaints procedure. There is a risk that if redress is given and there is no provision in the Bill specifically providing for redress to be given someone will suggest that the redress has been given ultra vires. In the circumstances I believe that the amendment, or an amendment like it, is not only desirable but necessary.
The Lord Chancellor: This amendment proceeds on the footing that only complaints are at issue. The amendments propose that the obligation is to give due consideration to providing redress (as in Amendment No. 119) and consideration to providing redress (as in Amendment No. 118). Therefore, the amendments propose due consideration or consideration to providing redress.
I venture to suggest that representations include complaints and it is on that footing, as I said, that we are proceeding. An obligation to have due regard to the findings of those considering representations is, I believe, a stronger obligation than to consider whether to provide redress. To have due regard to the findings is surely a stronger obligation and requires that the authority should take the findings with considerable seriousness. Merely to consider whether to provide redress does not seem to be as strong as that.
Therefore, in the interests of achieving a good result I should have thought, subject to the point about complaint, that what we have in the Bill is better than what is proposed. In the light of those considerations I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who has moved the amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who is thinking of moving his amendment, will agree that the position is perhaps best left as it is.
Lord Meston: With respect to the noble and learned Lord, I think that my amendment adds the requirement to give due consideration, whereas Amendment No. 118 takes out the words in the Bill and substitutes the requirement to give consideration. For that reason, I suppose I ought to prefer mine, and indeed, on balance, I think 1 do. But, with respect to the argument of the noble and learned Lord, it does not strike one, reading it, that "having regard to the findings" is as strong as a specific provision requiring consideration to be given to providing redress. Certainly my impression is that the strength to which he alludes simply is not there in the Bill. Of course, not every representation is a complaint and not every complaint will require a redress. It is for that reason that both amendments simply require consideration to be given to providing redress.
196
Certainly the intention underlying the amendments is to make sure that the authority is in fact empowered to provide redress. It does not have to do so but it has the power. If it is in the Bill in this form, there can be no complaint or argument, that the local authority is acting outside its legitimate powers if it decides that some form of redress is appropriate. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, intends to do, but perhaps the noble and learned Lord would at least undertake to have another look at this.
Lord Prys-Davies: We are of course concerned with a representation which is a complaint. I should have thought that merely to call on the local authority to give due regard to the consideration could be pretty meaningless, whereas in our amendment we are asking the local authority to direct its attention to a remedy or a relief or a redress. It may in some circumstances be no more than an apology, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that to press the local authority for a redress or a remedy or a relief, where the situation is capable of being remedied, is stronger than asking the authority to give due consideration to the findings. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 19, line 40, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) Information about policies and procedures relating to the discharge of these functions shall be available to children, their families and representatives.").
The noble Lord said: We fully support the underlying principle of subsection (7) that the local authority must publicise its complaints procedure, but again the subsection allows complete discretion to the authority as to how the procedure is to be publicised. The evidence we have received from almost all the organisations reveals a consensus that the local authority should be under a duty to take steps to ensure that the parents, the children and indeed the staff are clearly informed of the existence of the complaints procedure and of their right to make a complaint. It occurs to us that this information might form part of a readable information booklet for children and parents. That is obviously a matter which would properly be left to their discretion, but, unless the local authority is under a duty to bring the procedure to the attention of children and parents, they may not become aware of its existence.
As I mentioned in relation to another amendment, the existence of a complaints procedure by itself is not a safeguard but knowledge on the part of parents, children and staff of its existence would be a much-needed safeguard. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: Again, I think we are aiming at the same objective. It is a question of precisely how one arrives at it. Without adequate publicity, a procedure such as is envisaged in this part of the clause would be considerably reduced in effectiveness.
In my view, the clause which the present amendment seeks to delete has two features which

197
have much to commend them. First, the clause requires publicity to be given, rather than, as here proposed, information to be available. Clause 22(7) therefore puts the onus on local authorities to communicate to the public the existence of the representations procedure. A general duty to publish information regarding services provided under Clauses 15 to 17 is provided in Schedule 2. Paragraph 1(2) specifically requests that reasonable steps be taken to target information at people who may benefit from such services. Therefore I think the sort of information package to which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was referring would reasonably be referred to at that place.
Secondly, Clause 22(7) gives local authorities an element of discretion as to the amount, nature and direction of publicity which is undertaken. In contrast, the proposed amendment would impose an absolute duty to make available to certain persons information regarding policies and procedures. I venture to think that the Bill is to be preferred here for its relative flexibility. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that local authorities should not be forced to make available information in inappropriate circumstances. For example, I do not see why authorities should be required, with no exception, to provide information about their policies on representations procedures to persons who may not be in receipt of services under this part of the Bill. It is difficult to see that anything further is required than that publicity be of a proper and targetted kind.
Availability of information in relation to the services to be provided is required under Clauses 15 to 17. My view is that the proposal which we have is a better way of dealing with the complaints procedure, particularly if the amendment of my noble friend Lord Mottistone to widen the scope of those who may complain is to be given effect to any extent. We are both left considering that particular matter.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his response. We were particularly anxious that the procedure should be made known to parents and children because they are the people who will probably originate the complaints. But the noble and learned Lord has referred to Schedule 2, and we shall have to consider the provisions in the schedule. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 19, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) Independent appeal panels shall be established to make final and binding adjudication on complaints.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 121. If there is a complaint or representation about the way in which a local authority has carried out its duties under this part of the Bill we feel that there should be a means of appeal against any decision which the local authority is competent to make. We feel that that appeal should be heard by people who are not involved in the particular case or in the running of the section of the social services department involved.
Therefore in this amendment we have provided for the establishment of independent appeal panels which would decide on behalf of the local authority on any matters presented to them. We think that such a system would be fair and designed to increase confidence in the complaints procedure. The panels would deal only with such matters as the local authority would be required to decide upon in any event. Of course there are such appeals panels already in existence in connection with some local authority social services departments.
In a local authority setting there are limitations on independence, particularly given the importance of including on any panel someone with experience of the work of social services. Appeals panels already in existence typically comprise three people: one, an elected member (possibly the chairman or the vice-chairman of the social services committee); another, a senior social services worker unconnected with the sections of the department actually involved; and the third an independent person selected from a pool of independent people who are not employed by the department.
We believe the availability of an appeal to such a panel would strengthen confidence in the fairness of the complaints or representation procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: All of us appreciate that in many cases throughout this land local authorities have behaved with the greatest of care and consideration regarding the children under their care. But your Lordships will also remember some dreadful cases that have occurred which show that some local authorities have not behaved as they should have done. Things have been concealed when they should not have been concealed; people have not been reproved when they should have been reproved; and things have not been investigated properly when they should have been investigated.
The Committee may be satisfied that the citizen will regard as independent something that takes place in the town hall of the local authority against which the complaint is being made. The average citizen will not. However the tribunal is made up, when parents walk into that local town hall they will regard it as a complaint against the very people to whom they want to complain. In an attempt to satisfy public opinion and to ensure that we try everything we can to avoid some of the dreadful cases that have occurred—I agree that they are the minority of cases—some such speedy procedure—I emphasise the word "speedy"—is necessary. It is important that in regard to children speedy decisions are made even when dealing with complaints. I hope that there can be a speedy procedure for independent panels of appeal to operate where required. I support the amendment.
Earl Russell: I should like to support my noble friend. The amendment adds something to the other amendments about the complaints procedure. It adds the word "independent". It is possible, to put it no higher, that complaints will be directed against the local authority. Whether those complaints are proved or not, it seems to be equally in the interests of the local authority and of all other parties to have them investigated by somebody whose findings will

199
command confidence. There is at least a possibility of a suspicion that the local authority will be regarded as judge and party in its own cause. That is why the word "independent" adds a great deal of strength and attraction to the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, as he proposed the amendment. I am inclined to think that the independence was secured by the presence of at least one person who was neither a member nor an officer of the authority. Other members might not be concerned with a particular case but might well be officials of the authority. In any event, with the independent element to which I have referred already, what we have is a large step forward. We want to ensure a working machinery. We do not want a system that is hedged about with complaints procedures, appeals, further panels, judicial review, and so on. A child has to get on with living. I agree that there is also scope for people who administer complaints procedures and appear in them to live as well. But the primary purpose is to bring the situation to the attention of the local authority by reference to an independent person.
It is difficult for me to accept that elected local authorities should be tied hand and foot by appeals panels of this kind. After all, the members of the local authority are elected representatives of the people in the locality. They are obliged to have regard to the representation procedure decision taken by a system which includes an independent element. I should have thought that that was a wise arrangement in a practical matter. To try to build further structures of appeal and so on upon it would be to build a structure which is too heavy and apt to divert useful resources from taking care of the children to procedures which might have less than desirable effects.
Lord Mishcon: I sincerely hope that the noble and learned Lord will have second thoughts about the matter. I have no doubt that all he said would apply to planning matters, in spite of the fact that there are appeals for planning procedures. Indeed, all of it might apply to building regulations and many other matters which are dealt with by local authorities where of course other procedures are available.
Indeed there is the procedure of judicial review in regard to anything which any tribunal seems to be doing in the land at present. All that is very healthy. However, I should have thought that much more important than a planning application and building regulations is the complaint of a child or a parent that something is going terribly wrong with the way in which care is being administered.
For all the eloquence of the noble and learned Lord, I wish that I had precisely the same picture of the elected representatives of local authorities as being always experts on matters concerning children or indeed upon many aspects of life. It is one of the features about which many of us are apprehensive. With powers being taken away from local authorities, as they have been, and funds not being available to them, the same type of member which some of us remember in local authorities does not appear to be coming forward for election.
200
The same applies to local government officers. Let us be perfectly frank—they are not made of the stuff that local government officers were made in days gone by, as I remember from my many years in local government. We must be realistic about this. The point is that we are dealing with human lives and complaints involving children. Everyone in the Committee cares much about this matter, otherwise we would not be here at this hour discussing it at the Committee stage. But to deny the right of an appeal panel to an aggrieved parent or an aggrieved child is quite wrong; it would hardly add to the administration. I repeat, if we have an appeals procedure for nearly everything else in the land and a judicial review where we have not, what about the children?
Lord Banks: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and to my noble friend Lord Russell for their support on the amendment. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor thought that it would be too complicated and heavy. However, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out the number of other cases where similar procedures are followed. Indeed I mentioned in my remarks that it already works with some social services departments, and it is merely a question of extending what already exists over the whole field.
The noble and learned Lord set a great deal of store by the independent person who is provided for in the Bill and who would be involved in the making of the initial decision. That provision is certainly good as far as it goes, and is to be welcomed. However, here we are trying to provide an appeal against the initial decision if someone should feel so aggrieved by what has been decided. We feel that that additional appeal would give greater confidence in the system. However, in view of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I should like to consider the matter further and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 19, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) Every local authority shall establish procedures to monitor complaints and other representations, and shall review procedures and practices in the light of such information.").
The noble Lord said: If we believe that a fair complaints or representation procedure should be an important part of local authority care, then it is equally important to keep that system under constant supervision. That should be achieved by arranging, as the amendment does, for the establishment of a procedure to monitor complaints and representations. Reports on the work of the complaints procedure would provide the local authority with information as to whether the procedure was working in practice and what changes, if any, were necessary.
As things stand, complaints are rarely monitored, and their potential value in terms of quality control and the identification of gaps in the service is not often utilised. The results of the monitoring should influence policy development, service promotion, training and managerial systems. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: As I said earlier, the clause and the part of the Bill that we are considering put a new obligation on local authorities to establish a representation procedure. That development by itself will lead to consideration and reconsideration of their practice. The Secretary of State will have power, by regulation, to set minimum standards to which the local authority would have to adhere.
I should expect local authorities, as a matter of good local authority practice, to monitor their operations. I doubt that any further statutory obligation is required. The matter will be provided for in guidance. It is entirely reasonable that that should be so. I am not sure that it would be easy to put such obligation into the Bill. I shall consider whether anything requires to be added to the power given to the Secretary of State by regulations on that head. As I said in relation to Clause 22(2), it is doubtful whether a mere power to provide minimum regulations in respect of the procedure would entitle the Secretary of State to oblige the authority to have any sort of monitoring system, so I am willing to consider that point.
Lord Banks: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that reply. He said that he expected that local authorities would monitor the work of the complaints system; but expectations are not always fulfilled. I was glad to note that the subject will be referred to in guidance. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his willingness to see whether there is anything further in that respect that he feels he can do. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 123 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 19, line 42, at end insert—
("(8) Every local authority shall ensure that parents are informed of case conferences and invited to attend for all or part of the conferences unless, in the view of the Chairman of the conference, their presence will preclude a full and proper consideration of the child's interests. Regulations shall specify what information shall be made available to parents before the conference.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment refers to a case conference. A case conference decides whether to place a child, whether or not he is in care, on a child protection register and is therefore an important decision. However, it is rare for a parent to be informed of a case conference in relation to his or her child, let alone to be invited to such a conference. We often have a case conference without the parents being present. That omission has been heavily criticised. The Cleveland parents were not invited to a case conference.
In her report, Lord Justice Butler-Sloss recommended, in general, that parents should be informed of case conferences and invited to attend for all or part of the conference. Amendment No. 124 is identical to the recommendation made by Lord Justice Butler-Sloss. We are content to rely upon her wisdom, but if further evidence is required I
202
understand that it can be found in the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and in the most recent advice to professional workers by the British Association of Social Workers. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in moving this amendment referred to the conclusion of Lord Justice Butler-Sloss in the report on the Cleveland inquiry in which she said, among other things:
"The child's interest must be the determining factor and the extent to which parents can be involved must be tempered by the nature of the matter under discussion".
In this matter, therefore, I urge your Lordships not to attempt to set a legislative rule. Questions on participation in case conferences would be best dealt with in guidance issued by the Secretary of State where a flexible approach can be adopted to the many and various situations which can occur. In fact guidance on the lines of this amendment was issued in circular LAC(88)10 issued on 6th July 1988 when the Cleveland Report was published. The Committee should note that Clause 18(4) of the Bill requires a local authority, so far as it is practicable, to ascertain the wishes and feelings of the child, his parents and any other person with parental responsibility before making any decision with regard to the child. This is a new statutory obligation.
That brings me to another aspect. Case Conferences are not statutory. The noble Lord has explained when they normally take place. But they are not statutory and there is no definition in this amendment or in the Bill of what a case conference is. It is a system which has been developed for seeking to get a good decision at the stage to which the noble Lord has referred. But since the system itself is not on a statutory basis, it is wise, I believe, that the matter should be dealt with as a matter of good practice by guidance, reinforced by the new provision of Clause 18(4) which of course has effect on every decision, including the decision which a case conference would take.
Lord Prys-Davies: Once again I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his reply. He reminded the Committee that relevant guidance was issued last year in respect of case conferences. But we have been pressing for guidance on parental participation to be incorporated in the Bill or in regulations. It would appear that, notwithstanding the advice which has been issued, local authorities are on the whole slow and unenthusiastic about following the guidance. However I note the reference of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to Clause 18(4) of the Bill. I am sure that that will be helpful.
In the light of the reply we shall consider whether to bring this amendment back for further consideration. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.

203
Clause 25 [Miscellaneous]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 20, line 46, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment would remove a superfluous reference imposed on local authorities by Sections 1 and 2 of the Child Care Act 1980 which are replaced by provisions in Part III of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Local Authority Support for Children and Families]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 76, line 20, at end insert ("; and
(c) publish information on such other services as the authority consider appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 126 to 130 are all aimed in the same direction. I shall talk to Amendments Nos. 126 and 127 separately and 128 to 130 together. It is essential that local authorities have strength and power in duties to promote strategies to prevent child abuse in all its forms. The purpose of these amendments is to enshrine these in primary legislation in order to concentrate the attention of local policymakers on the necessity to provide a range of preventive services to children and families.
I turn to Amendment No. 126 in particular. Local authorities often work in partnership with voluntary sector agencies to provide a range of welfare and educational services to the local community. There are also many community-based organisations which provide services that benefit children and parents. Examples include playgrounds and out-of-school provision for older children. All these have the potential either directly or indirectly to improve the quality of a child's family life.
If a local authority considers these services appropriate, they should be publicised in order to provide an extended range of services as a choice for families. An authority might also consider it appropriate to publish information on services provided by profit-making organisations which provide relevant facilities or services. I think that that could usefully be added to the end of paragraph 1 of Schedule 2. I beg to move.
Lady Kinloss: These amendments seek to do two things. They seek to allow local authorities to publish information on services provided by people other than the statutory authorities, which often work in partnership with voluntary organisations. Given that many services, particularly those for under-fives, are provided by voluntary or community groups, it would be useful, if local authorities thought it appropriate, for these services to be widely known about.
Amendments Nos. 128 to 130 seek to give statutory recognition to the emotional abuse of children. I believe there is no strict legal definition of emotional abuse. However, it must be stressed that this is a form of abuse recognised by the NSPCC and is a working definition commonly used by social
204
workers. A child can be said to be emotionally abused in situations where, for example, he is constantly taunted or shouted at or where he is manipulated by parents who have a disagreement with each other. I accept that in some circumstances, such as a particularly nasty divorce, there may be little a local authority can do. However, family centres and child guidance, which are mentioned later in the schedule, could be of enormous benefit to the emotionally abused child in other circumstances.
Lord Hylton: For a long time now we have heard a great deal about partnership between the statutory and the voluntary sectors. Everyone agrees with this, but of course it does not happen uniformly across the hoard. Some places are very much better at it than others. Nevertheless this seems to be an opportunity in the Bill to make sure that it really happens. We acknowledge that the Government have taken certain steps since they came to power to encourage giving to charities. They have sought to help the voluntary sector in other ways. I do not see how the Government can resist this amendment and I personally support it very strongly.
The Lord Chancellor: I am not proposing to enlighten the noble Lord, because I accept the principle of this amendment. If my noble friend will allow me to consider how it can be taken on board, I shall certainly agree to do that. It appears to be a useful point for which I am indebted to my noble friend and to all those who have supported it.
Lord Mottistone: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. As I understand that he is going to put the amendment into the proper language, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, wihdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 76, line 27, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: This amendment strengthens the duty of a local authority, in turning "may" to "shall", to assess the support which an individual child may require. If a local authority knows that a child is in need, it seems only right that the child's needs are assessed. I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel that he can be equally generous with this amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I think there may be some slight misunderstanding about this. My understanding is that this amendment would require a local authority, rather than allow it, to assess a child's needs for the purposes of Part III, at the same time as any assessment is made of his or her needs under the other statutes specified in paragraph 3(a) of Schedule 2. The purpose of the word "may" in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 as drafted is to allow the local authority to carry out an assessment of a child's need of services under Part III at the same time as any other statutory assessment which may be appropriate is carried out if it is sensible and practicable that they should be done together. That will sometimes but not always be so. If any assessment had been carried out under one of the other statutes a few weeks earlier,

205
under the amendment the assessment for the purposes of Part III either could not be carried out or would require the earlier assessment to be done again.
The discretionary provision provides flexibility in the matter, which is surely desirable. It is not suggested that an assessment under Part III will not be required but rather the Bill allows flexibility as to when such an assessment should be undertaken. It would be sensible normally to carry out the assessment with the others but there may be circumstances in which that is not possible. Therefore I think that the word "may" is more appropriate to cover that possibility.
Lord Mottistone: I understand what my noble and learned friend has said. I still think that there ought to be compulsion, but we shall consider that question and come back to it at a later stage. At this point I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 76, line 37, leave out first ("or").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 128 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 129 and 130. My noble friend Lady Kinloss has in effect told the Committee exactly what the amendments are all about. We are seeking the inclusion in this part of the Bill of an additional form of abuse; namely, emotional abuse. It has no legal definition at the moment and I think that we should have to give it one if my noble and learned friend thought that it was reasonable to include emotional abuse in the Bill.
Emotional abuse is referred to in Department of Health circulars so it is not an entirely new concept. There is no doubt that emotional abuse is used, sadly, in the maltreatment of children. I should very much like to think that we could find some way of including it in Schedule 2 to the Bill. 1 hope that my noble and learned friend may feel that he can help me in that direction. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: I should like at once to say that I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said about the need to add something to paragraph 4 of Schedule 2, Part I. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will agree that it is terribly important that when one places a duty upon a local authority in an Act one has to be careful about the language used because the courts may have to construe whether or not a local authority is carrying out that duty.
At present there is a limitation to the reasonable steps which a local authority has to take; namely, that through the provision of services under that part of the Bill they must
"prevent children in their area suffering neglect or physical or sexual abuse".
There it ends. As the noble Lord said, and as the noble Baroness said before him, we must try to
206
include the category of abuse which many of us know by the term emotional abuse but which a court would find extremely difficult, in my humble submission, to define with any precision.
In an endeavour to meet the very point which the noble Lord has made I looked elsewhere in the Bill. I had a little bit of inspiration. The noble and learned Lord may want to describe it in another way, but I hope that it was a little bit of inspiration. I turned to the definition clause on page 22 of the Bill, where subection (8) states that in that section,
" 'ill-treatment' includes sexual abuse and forms of ill-treatment which are not physical".
That seemed to me to fit the bill, if 1 may use the phrase.
Therefore bearing in mind Lord Mottistone's point, I thought that that was a useful way of dealing with the matter; namely, with the very language of the Bill in another part. I have made the speech that I would have made were Amendment No. 130A to be called. It will not be called, but I promise the Committee not to make that speech again. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will think that the suggestion is an acceptable one.
Lord Meston: I should like to support what has just been said, in particular with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, preferring Amendment No. 130A, because it seems to me that emotional abuse, although that is a phrase which is sometimes used, is more generally referred to as emotional deprivation. Emotional deprivation, which is not perhaps so easy to describe as a form of abuse, nevertheless would fit within the definition suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
The Lord Chancellor: I entirely agree that this is an important matter. I am very grateful for the suggestion contained in Amendment No. 130A, and I certainly do not wish to describe it in any less appreciative terms than those used by the author himself. I should certainly like to consider it.
I suspect, though I may be wrong, that in some of the elements that were described by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, there may be types of emotional abuse which, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, amount to emotional deprivation perhaps, and are in the nature of emotional neglect. However, I think that this phrase will probably be as good as we can obtain.
However, the matter is so important that I think we ought to consider it further. Various suggestions have been made to me; and certainly a number of difficult questions, with which I shall not trouble the Committee tonight, are posed about the borderline and what can happen at the borderline. I think that everyone would agree that we are in a particularly difficult area and the more thought that we can give to the matter, the better. Our thoughts having been stimulated, perhaps we can agree to return to it at some other time.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble and learned friend, and indeed other noble Lords and the noble Lady who have spoken on this matter. I think that we have a very good point. My noble and learned friend said that perhaps the word "neglect" might cover some of the points made by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss. She mentioned being shouted at, taunted or verbally abused, and one cannot call that neglect. That is emotional abuse. There are no two ways about it. The difficulty is probably met by the definition of ill-treatment that the noble Lord, Lord
208
Mishcon, so cleverly dug out of the back of the Bill.
I look forward to seeing a government amendment. In the meantime, I shall get to work and try to produce another one just so that we do not lose the point. It is important that it is written into the Bill. However at this stage I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 128.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 130A:
Page 76, line 37, after ("abuse") insert ("or forms of ill-treatment which are not physical").
The noble Lord said: I merely want to say that I entirely resent the jealousy of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in endeavouring to get an alternative to Amendment No. 130A.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): It seems that Amendment No. 130A is not moved.
[Amendment No. 130A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 131 to 133 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 78, line 36, leave out sub-paragraph (a).
The noble and learned Lord said: Paragraph 11(a) of Schedule 2 provides for regulations as to the description of arrangements that may be made under Clause 19(2)(f) which provides for local authorities to make other arrangements for children as seem appropriate. The amendment would remove this provision, which is unnecessary and is potentially restrictive of the other arrangements that may be made. The Committee may remember that I explained this point in relation to Amendment No. 97.
Amendment No. 134 removes an unnecessary restriction in this part of the Bill which is associated with that provision and I invite the Committee to approve it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 78, line 41, leave out sub-paragraph (e).
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment was discussed with Amendment No. 87.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 135A:
Page 79, leave out lines 14 to 16 and insert—
("(1) Where a child is being looked after by a local authority, the local authority shall, unless it is not in the interests of the child to do so, promote contact between the child and—").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is to ensure that local authorities are positively encouraged to promote contact between children in care and their families. The current statutory code of practice on access provides,
"that local authorities have a positive responsibility to promote and sustain access".
That appears in paragraph 3 of the code.
Recent research, in particular that of Spencer Millham and others, entitled Lost in Care, and that of David Berridge and others entitled Foster Home Breakdown, has shown clearly that, firstly, promoting and maintaining close links between children and their families is essential if the objective of reunification is to be achieved, and, secondly, that, even
210
if children are not to return home, enabling them to remain in contact with their families and friends gives them greater security, a sense of identity and a sense of belonging.
Casework carried out by the Family Rights Group, training experience, and the evidence of recent research shows that, regrettably, social services departments do not actively promote and encourage contact between children and their families. All too often meaningful contact is seen as one or two hours a week, often with a social worker or foster carer present. Insufficient attention is paid to making visits between children and their families relaxed and enjoyable for all concerned. It is therefore very important that the legislation gives a lead in stressing the role that local authorities have to play in promoting contact. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: In supporting the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady David, perhaps I may save time by speaking to Amendment No. 135B. I am asked to bring it before the Committee by the National Association for the Protection of Children in Care. The amendment is very much in line with Amendment No. 100A. The position is the same as that described by the noble Baroness, Lady David, namely, that,
"Where a child is being looked after by a local authority, the authority shall, so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with his welfare, endeavour to promote contact between the child".
and under (c),
"any other person connected with him".
My amendment inserts "his siblings" in place of "him".
The Lord Chancellor: The Bill as drafted endeavours to deal with this point by stating in Schedule 2, paragraph 13(1) of Part II:
"Where a child is being looked after by a local authority, the authority shall, so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with his welfare, endeavour to promote contact between the child and his parents"
and so on. The effect of this amendment is to leave out "reasonably practicable" and the reference to "endeavour".
The principle is being aimed at, but one has to recognise that it is not right to put duties on local authorities that it is not practicable for them to carry out. We are providing what the noble Baroness wants "so far as is reasonably practicable". It would be most awkward and wrong should the local authority find itself in breach of this requirement in circumstances where it is not reasonably practicable to endeavour to promote contact. For example, there are cases where the whereabouts of the parents of the child are not known. In these circumstances, where the local authority has no way of getting in touch with the parents, it would be impossible for the local authority to carry out a requirement to promote contact. I hope the Committee will agree that this example demonstrates that the qualification "so far as is reasonably practicable" is wise and necessary. We are anxious to secure exactly the same result, but we must try to tailor the words of the obligation to what can be done.

211
For similar practical reasons we believe that it is important that the duty should require a local authority to endeavour to promote contact. It should not be limited to a duty to promote contact. The local authority could make every effort to promote contact between a child and his family, but its efforts could fail because contact could only be achieved in any meaningful sense by the mutual agreement of those concerned. If the parents or the child refuse to see each other or respond to letters or telephone calls, with the best will in the world the local authority will not be able to promote contact. The proposed amendment would mean that the local authority would find itself in breach of the statutory requirement if it could not achieve the result. That is why we have used the word "endeavour". The principle is exactly the same, but we have tried to tailor the words of the clause to a practical situation. The same applies in relation to Amendment No. 135B and I think I gave a clear explanation when we discussed it with Amendment No. 135A.
We are at one on the principle, but not about the way to express it. I believe that we have expressed it as strongly as is reasonable in relation to all the possible circumstances with which a local authority may be faced. I am sure that both my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady David, are familiar with cases in which contacts with parents are not possible to achieve. I myself have had experiences, especially in divorce cases, where it is not possible to achieve those contacts much as one would like to do so. One must continue to endeavour. One does not want to give up just because it does not work once. Therefore the word "endeavour" implies the idea of continuing to work at it in the hope that ultimately it will prevail. I believe this contains the flavour that would be appropriate for this sort of situation.
10 p.m.
Baroness David: I suspected that that would be the answer. I believe that we are aiming at the same end. We are hoping that a rather more positive approach would have a better effect. I appreciate what the noble and learned Lord has said, that we want the same result.
At the moment I shall not push this amendment any further but am prepared to withdraw it. I shall have to reconsider the matter and decide whether we need to raise it again. I must emphasise that we know how important it is for contacts to be kept or established as far as possible between the child and his family. That was the reason for the amendment, but I shall think more about it and for the moment beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 135B not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 135C:
Page 79, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) Where a child is being looked after by a local authority, the local authority shall follow the guidance contained in the Code of Practice on Access to Children in Care.")
The noble Baroness said: This is continuing along the same lines. The statutory code of practice on access was introduced in 1984 and has proved extremely helpful to local authorities, children and families. It sets out general guidelines for good practice in relation to access. It goes into far more detail than would be appropriate for legislation or regulations and it is a vital accompaniment to legislative guidance on the importance of local authorities in promoting contact between children and their families. All the amendment tries to do is to stress that the guidance should be followed. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The code has been of great value and I am glad to know that the noble Baroness agrees with that point of view. It is the only child care issue subject to a statutory code of practice of this kind.
At present access can only be challenged in the courts by parents or others when access is actually terminated or refused. They cannot challenge a decision severely to restrict access. The code among other things specifically addressed that question of restriction of access, and more generally contact in relation to children subject to care orders.
The new provisions in the Bill bring substantial reform in this area, including most of the matters which are currently dealt with in the code. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 requires local authorities to take reasonable steps to enable children living away from their families to live with them, and to promote contact between them and their families where this would be in their interests. Where a child is being looked after by a local authority paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 provides for the promotion and maintenance of contact between the child and his family.
There will be a presumption of reasonable contact between a child in care and his parents and others. Local authorities will be expected where possible to agree on arrangements for contact at an early stage.
We have tried to include in the Bill the main issues contained in the code. It would not now be appropriate to return to the code, a large part of which is overtaken by those changes. I hope that the noble Baroness will consider that we have included important parts of the code in the Bill and that that shows the importance we attach to them.
Baroness David: I think that I am convinced by what the noble and learned Lord said but, as is so often the case, I shall need to read it to be totally convinced. I shall do so during the course of the next few days in order to decide whether I need to come back. I suspect that I shall not but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 136 and 137:
Page 81, line 46, at end insert ("or").
Page 82, line 1, leave out sub-paragraphs (d) to (f).
The noble and learned Lord said: With permission I shall take these two amendments together. The purpose of these amendments is to remove inappropriate grounds for dispensing with the need for a parent's consent for a local authority to arrange for a child in care to live abroad. It is important that, where a local authority wishes to arrange for a child to live abroad, there are proper procedures in place to secure the child's safety and well-being. Local authorities do not make these arrangements very often.
Usually it happens when a foster parent with whom the child is living wishes to emigrate or when a suitable relative living abroad wishes to look after the child. At present, under the Child Care Act 1980, local authorities have to apply to the Secretary of State to give his approval to the arrangements. The Government have decided, however, that making arrangements for a child to live abroad is such a serious step and so fraught with potential difficulties for the child that in future a court procedure would he more appropriate.
One of the particular safeguards we wish to provide for is the need for the consent of the parents or person with parental responsibility to be obtained before the court can give its approval. However, as in adoption proceedings, provision has to be made for those situations where it would be appropriate to dispense with the need to obtain the parents' consent. We think, on reflection, that this is adequately provided for in the grounds in subparagraphs (5)(a) to (c). These are where the court is satisfied that the person concerned cannot be found, is incapable of consenting or is witholding his consent unreasonably.
We consider that the grounds for dispensing with consent are uncomfortably close to the existing grounds for a care order which this Bill seeks to set aside and replace and that those subparagraphs in (5)(a) to (c) provide the correct basis for dispensing with consent where appropriate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 137A:
Page 82, leave out from beginning of line 40 to end of line 12 on page 86.
The noble Baroness said: I moved my last two amendments admirably briefly but I am afraid that I shall be a little longer in speaking to this amendment. It is extremely important so I give warning that I shall be speaking for several minutes. The purpose of the amendment is to abolish the requirement on parents and children to contribute to the maintenance of children being looked after by the local authority.
I should like to explain the current position. Parents of children in care are liable to make contributions towards the maintenance of those children unless those parents are in receipt of income support or family credit. If the parents are not exempted from payment a local authority must require contributions to be made unless it considers it unreasonable to do so in an individual case.
The local authority has the power to charge all parents the same or to fix the charge according to family income. It is required by law to notify a parent of its proposed weekly charge and the local authority
214
and parent have one month to reach an agreement about the amount to be paid. If agreement cannot be reached the local authority applies to a magistrates' court to obtain a contribution order. The court must take into account the parent's ability to pay but beyond that cannot consider the merits of whether or not a parent should be ordered to pay a contribution.
Perhaps I may turn to the changes proposed in the Bill. Paragraphs 19(1) and (2) of Schedule 2 give the local authority greater discretion to decide not to require contributions to be paid.
I should now like to refer to the problems which exist and which will remain under the new legislation. We believe that the system is unfair to families. A survey by the Family Rights Group on the charging policies of 77 local authorities in England and Wales provided a picture of local authorities chiselling contributions out of the poorest families—contributions which did not amount to much in comparison to the costs of providing care but which caused immediate hardship to the families. For better off families on wages of up to £110 per week—that was in 1981 and would not perhaps be considered to be a very good wage now—the recovery of sums of up to £35 per week for a single child in care and over £l 0 for several, at a rate of up to 75p in the £1 or even £1 in the £1 from their net incomes, transforms the poverty trap into a financial black hole. Not surprisingly many families do not or cannot pay, and arrears are endemic.
A detailed study by members of the Association of British Association Social Workers in Coventry found that 80 per cent. of parents requested to pay contributions were in arrears and in one in 10 cases this necessitated court action. The study stated that the heavy charges made some families reluctant to have their children admitted to care and led others to withdraw them prematurely from care.
The 1983 report of the Joint Working Group on Personal Social Services Charging Policies produced by the AMA and ACC stated:
"attempts to collect debts can put severe strains on the families of children in long-stay care. Further, if the social services department press for a maintenance contribution for a child in care, that can hinder the rehabilitation of the child with his family".
The House of Commons Social Services Committee report on children in care in 1984 submitted:
"evidence received shows the damage and difficulties which parental contributions can in some circumstances cause … far from helping maintain links with the child"—
that is one of the arguments in favour—
"a contribution when taken with the financial burden of travelling to visit a child, buying presents, etc, can be the last straw. The NSPCC told us that there were even cases of parents being sent to prison for failing to contribute and the FRG survey showed that most families were in arrears on their contributions. Contributions can cause unnecessary strains, for example, on parents with children in care who have another family to care for, to the extent that they may seek to have a child back to avoid that financial strain, with disastrous results".
Perhaps I may give an example of one or two cases. In a social inquiry report presented to a juvenile court opposing the discharge of a care order, a social worker said that the mother should pay off her heavy debts before she was reunited with her three children in care. Over half the money was owed to the

215
council's finance department for arrears of parental contributions. A father appeared in court recently who was being prosecuted for arrears of contributions in respect of his son to whom he had been denied access by the local authority for the past two years. He could not believe that that gave him no defence in court.
Different parents receive different treatment. Different local authorities have different policies on charging. Currently the parents of children in National Health Service institutions or in local authority educational institutions are not liable for contributions. The effect is that there will be children living in the same institution receiving the same care but the parents of some children are subject to contributions while the parents of others are not.
One local authority noted in 1983:
"If a young offender is sent to a borstal or detention centre, there is no charge on parents but if the offender is committed to care the parents are assessed to pay. If a handicapped child is in hospital there is no charge but if in care, there is. A child in need of boarding school education in a special school is often committed to care because of the shortage of boarding school places. There is no charge for the boarding school but there is a charge if the child is in care and goes to a day special school. If a mentally handicapped child is cared for by the social services department under the Mental Health legislation there is no charge but if the child is in care under children's legislation there is."
It is manifestly unfair.
The House of Commons Social Services Committee noted these anomalies in its 1984 report and concluded by saying that,
"The ADSS [Association of Directors of Social Services] hinted strongly in their evidence that in view of these anomalies, the high costs of collection as against the low returns, and the frequently aggravating side effects of collecting contributions, there was considerable professional support for abolition of the idea of contributions."
It is not clear whether these anomalies will continue under the Bill or whether the effects of Clause 25(6) will be to introduce charges to the parents of handicapped children who arc currently not subject to such charges. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will enlighten the Committee in that respect. The system is complex, inefficient and costly to administer.
The local authority departments and their staffs have little, if anything, to gain from charging. It is the view of local authorities that the amount of money they collect does not meet the administrative costs of assessing parents' liability to pay, of bringing court proceedings and following up parents who fall into arrears. The joint working party of the AMA and the ACC which published a report in 1983 on parental contributions pointed out that the £2 million collected was insignificant in relation to the £200 million which was then spent on providing accommodation for children in care. It commented that,
"if charges were dispensed with, there would be a cash saving as well as a saving in staff time."
That was contained in paragraph 353. In 1984 the House of Commons Social Services Committee stated:
"We recommend that contributions should only be levied on parents on the basis of there being an exception and positive reason
216
to do so. In such circumstances we would expect to see full information about such liability to contributions given to parents at the time of a child's entry into care. Subject to this proviso, we recommend the abolition of parental contributions in respect of children in care."
At a meeting of many organisations last Tuesday, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, this matter was discussed. I was amazed at the unanimity in the room among the associations represented there who supported this amendment and who hope that the amendment will succeed, with the abolition of the necessity for parents to contribute. However, that may not be fully decided and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to give encouragement and perhaps even support the amendment. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: The noble Baroness is right that I chaired that meeting, and that the majority of the people there supported the amendment. However, the noble Baroness will remember that while I do not necessarily disagree with her amendment, there is another point of view to be considered before we finally decide on the matter.
The assessment process and the collection of contributions is expensive. Equally, I have to say that there are two types of cases. First, there is voluntary care—that is, when parents apply for their children to go into care. I am slightly worried that without assessment more parents will apply for their children to go into care when they are in financial difficulties.
Secondly, it depends how the assessment is done and who does it. I was very fortunate in having a most sympathetic assessment officer. It meant that the parents were kept in touch with the department from the point of view both of assessing and of collection. Also there was a sense of dignity financially, in that, even if you were only contributing 50p, £1, £5 or £10 a week for your child, you had a sense of responsibility for your child. It is the purpose of all of us to try to rehabilitate children so that they can go back to their families. The fact that parents had to pay for them, however small the amount, did mean that there was a sense of responsibility for the child.
I have to say that, in a number of cases where no assessment was made, the parents tended to disappear and you could not then rehabilitate the children back into their families. So I am in some difficulty. The noble Baroness has made a splendid case for her amendment but I would ask your Lordships to consider that there is another point of view. What we have to pay for we value: and I think it helps a number of parents to feel that they have not completely lost contact with their children if they have to pay something towards their support, however difficult that may be.
Finally, I would say that never at any time, although I believed in assessing parents in regard to payment for their children, did we ever take them to court. Certainly we would never have wanted them to go to prison for such a debt. Such cases were referred to the then social services committee, which would then decide to wipe off the debt. This is a very difficult and complex situation, but I think that if parents do not pay anything at all for their children they can lose

217
interest in them and lose their sense of responsibility for them.
Baroness David: I always have the greatest respect for what the noble Baroness has to say—
Baroness Faithfull: Not in this case.
Baroness David: Yes, I do. There is only one thing with which I would totally disagree: that is that the parents would push their children into care in order to save money. I find that extremely hard to believe. The other thing is that I am sure the noble Baroness was an extremely enlightened director of social services and that she influenced her authority very well, but I am not sure that happens everywhere and I still feel, on balance, that it would be better to abolish the demand for contributions.
Lord Hylton: I do not expect the Government at this time automatically and necessarily to welcome this amendment with open arms, but the noble Baroness, Lady David, has made out a very strong case for it. She mentioned the possibility, when families do not have to make a contribution, of their using the money in order to travel to visit their children in care, thereby maintaining the family link.
Perhaps I may give some other examples of ways in which parents could use what they would otherwise have to spend on contributions. Taking holidays is another way of maintaining the link between the parent and the child. For example, there could also he saving towards a new home into which to bring the child when it comes out of care. For families which are very disorganised there are courses in home management and home economics, or even practical tuition in parenting. All these may need to be paid for or may require travel and the payment of fares. I recognise that there is very unlikely to be any way of compelling parents to spend their money on these desirable things, but I suggest that it would at least be an improvement if they were given the opportunity of doing so.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has correctly anticipated the stand which I propose to take. Perhaps your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that I cannot agree to the wiping out of a large part of Schedule 2 by means of this rather neat amendment.
As the noble Baroness, Lady David, pointed out, this provision replaces and simplifies Part V of the Child Care Act 1980 but—this is most important—it lays greater emphasis on reasonableness. I feel sure that the matters to which she referred were under the previous law, while this attempts to deal with the matter by improving the situation.
Paragraph 19 specifically provides that local authorities should consider whether or not to recover contributions towards the child's maintenance and that they may only recover contributions if they consider it reasonable to do so. They must take account of all the circumstances in reaching that decision. It exempts parents from contributions during any period when they are in receipt of income
218
support or family support under the Social Security Act 1986.
It encourages local authorities to reach agreement with the contributors by providing that a contributor is not obliged to make any contribution except as agreed between him and the authority or, failing agreement, as determined by the court, which is required by paragraph 21(3)(6) to pay due regard to the contributor's means. So there are no circumstances in which the court could order a payment which did not have proper regard to the contributor's means.
The authority is further encouraged to reach agreement with the contributor outside the court by the provision in paragraph 21(3)(a) of the schedule that a contribution order made by the court shall not specify a weekly income to be contributed greater than that specified in the authority's initial contribution notice. So there is no question of going to the court to get more than the authority initially sought.
There is further protection for the parent or child that he may withdraw his agreement to pay particular contributions at any time—this is paragraph 20(8)—if, for example. he falls on hard times, or indeed for any reason. Appeals against court orders will be provided for in rules of court while aggrieved parents will also be able to make representations; or, if the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is given effect, a complaint under the new procedure in Clause 22.
I do not think there is anything objectionable in principle in enabling local authorities which are looking after a child subject to a care order or providing accommodation under voluntary arrangements to ask for contributions from parents, or, if he is over 16, the child towards the cost of his maintenance, provided they satisfy themselves that they can afford to pay and the contributions sought are reasonable.
After all, there will be some savings to the parents by virtue of the fact that an authority is looking after the child. No doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, if some parents were able to save money in that way they would put it to good use; but not everyone would do that, as he recognised. Accordingly, I believe that the changes we have made are changes which modify the effect of the old law in a constructive way, and have the effect of introducing this overall reasonableness which gives the local authority an area of discretion that helps to avoid difficulty.
I do not wish to go over the ground covered by my noble friend Lady Faithfull because I cannot improve on the words that she used, but that aspect of the matter also has to be taken into account.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked about handicapped children. The situation is that local authorities can charge, subject to means, for children looked after. There is no charge for National Health Service provision. If I am at home I have to pay for looking after myself. If I go to a hospital I do not have to do that. That may be regarded as anomalous by some, but one has to take account of the fact that children in care are children the responsibility for

219
whom has been taken over by the local authority, and if the parents are able to pay it seems reasonable that they should be required to pay a reasonable contribution to what otherwise would have been their responsibility.
Accordingly, I hope that the noble Baroness may feel able not to press the amendment. But if she were to do so I hope that the Committee would feel that the reasonable provisions in this part of the law should be given effect.
Baroness David: I shall not press the amendment at this time of night but I am not entirely convinced by that response. There are still anomalies. I shall read carefully what has been said and I may well come back at the next stage. I suspect that it would be very much simpler to abolish the payments altogether. However, at this moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Local Authority Support for Children and Families]:
[Amendments Nos. 138 to 143 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
10.30 p.m.
Clause 26 [Care and supervision orders]:
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 21, line 26, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

(" (1) (a) any application by a local authority or authorised person for an order placing the child with respect to whom the application is made in the care of a designated local authority shall be made to the High Court;

(b) any application made by a local authority or authorised person for an order putting him under the supervision of a designated local authority or of a probation officer shall be made in the High Court or in a County Court;

(c) nothing in this section shall affect the power of the High Court to make a supervision order on an application by a local authority or an authorised person for a care order.").

The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is to provide that care orders are dealt with exclusively in the High Court; that supervision orders are dealt with either in the High Court or in the county court; and that the magistrates' court has no involvement in either of those sets of proceedings. It is my unique talent for timing that leads me to move this substantial amendment at this hour, but I fear that I have to speak to it in a little detail in order to do it some justice.
I should like to set out the arguments for excluding magistrates from dealing with applications for care or supervision. I would be the first to pay tribute to the huge contribution made by lay magistrates to the administration of justice. Their commitment is unquestioned. The purpose of this amendment, however, is to argue that it is unacceptable that decisions which may lead to the permanent severance of a child from his parents should be taken by a lay bench. Care proceedings involve the sifting of complicated evidence and the assessing of a large number of separate incidents and issues in order to draw conclusions from their cumulative effect. In
220
addition, difficult questions of law have to be applied to the facts as found. That requires legal training and competence of a high order and it is unreasonable to expect magistrates to achieve that standard.
The involvement of magistrates in care proceedings is a hangover from their duties as guardians of the Poor Laws, and, like their role in illegitimacy cases, is simply out of date. The almost invariable experience of practitioners is that such cases before magistrates take much longer than before a trained judge. In addition, the difficulty of ensuring that magistrates are available to continue hearing a case until it finishes, particularly when its length cannot be accurately assessed before the issues are investigated during the hearing, often means that many weeks and sometimes months can elapse before a case is finally concluded.
In view of the excellent emphasis in the Bill on the need for expedition, that is highly unsatisfactory because of the unsettling effects on the child concerned and also because it results in most of the detailed evidence at the first sitting not being correctly or properly remembered at a later hearing, which therefore tends to concentrate on the most recent parts of the evidence. Again, the experience of most practitioners is that an experienced judge will cut through matters that are peripheral so as to narrow the issue and save time by inviting the parties to concentrate on what really matters.
At the moment there is no provision for exchange of statements or affidavits in magistrates' court hearings. That practice in the High Court and in the county court means that the judge has read the papers beforehand and so is able to see what the issues are and direct the hearing to deal with those issues.
If magistrates are to continue to be used, then plainly there will need to be a system of exchange of written evidence and also a requirement that the magistrates themselves should read the papers in the case before the hearing. I should be interested to hear if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wishes to say anything on this aspect of the exercise by the magistrates of their present functions.
It is not difficult to conclude that the magistrates may well feel overwhelmed with the volume of documents available to them, and the necessity to go through them before the hearing must entail an onerous imposition upon the free time of unpaid lay persons.
The common practice by which a professional judge will take an initiative which often results in a case settling is almost unheard of before a bench of magistrates. That is of greater importance in family cases than in any other class of case because the emotions which are almost always generated by those proceedings make it very difficult for the parties—that is, spouses, parents, social workers, and so on—to co-operate subsequently. That is what I have to say about the magistrates' jurisdiction.
I now turn to the arguments in favour of the High Court dealing exclusively with care cases. A care order removes from a child the right to be brought up by his own parents. It may also lead to severance of all contact between parent and child and may well

221
lead to adoption. So the point is this: should not a professional judge of the highest calibre be made available to decide an issue of this gravity, which goes to the heart of family life?
I raise next the question of whether the county court bench is not much less suited than the High Court to deal with complex care cases. The circuit judge necessarily applies the whole gamut of the legal trade. Family cases are traditionally recognised as highly specialised. No doubt that is why Queen's Bench Division judges never try family cases. The breadth of the duties and the functions of the circuit judge surely makes him much less qualified than his counterpart in the Family Division of the High Court for those specialised and important cases.
Of course we welcomed the indication that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave on Second Reading that special training is to be given to county court judges dealing with children's cases. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will think it right to elaborate on that aspect when replying to the amendment. Is what is envisaged a trained and interested pool of circuit judges who will give themselves enthusiastically to this class of case? But how can that be achieved consistent with all their other duties?
It must also be said that there are serious organisational difficulties which tell strongly against the county court in this class of case. The county court is not well organised to deal with cases which last longer than a day. The busy county court judge has to deal with the workaday problems of a busy centre and it is very rare that a substantial case can start much before 11.30 or 12 o'clock because of other matters which must be got out of the way. So, if the case goes over a day, especially if this was not anticipated when listed, it is almost impossible to continue into the next day, and a split hearing with all the attendant shortcomings will result.
Finally, one great advantage of the High Court in this area is that the judges travel the country administering a uniform standard of justice born out of regular contact with the mainstream thinking of the High Court judges and the Court of Appeal.
Therefore the amendment proposes care orders for the High Court, supervision orders for the High Court or the county court and no involvement of magistrates in either of those areas. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): If Amendment No. 144 is agreed to, I cannot then call Amendments Nos. 145 or 146.
Lord Meston: The timing of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, is impeccable. Moving an amendment of this type at this time at night means that there are fewer magistrates to take offence at what he has just said and at what I am about to say, because I support everything that he has just said.
The problems in this area of the law are to some extent derived from the involvement of the lay magistrates, invaluable in many ways as their contributions otherwise are. There is the problem of assimilating and assessing evidence, dealing with hearsay evidence and assessing diagnostic evidence,
222
especially in sexual abuse cases. There is a lack of any provision for affidavit evidence or the advanced disclosure of evidence in the matrimonial courts. A bench of three magistrates who are all unpaid part-timers cannot sit more than a few days consecutively on what may be complicated cases which need a speedy resolution.
As advocates we all know that appearing in front of a professional tribunal, which can take on a perhaps more involved inquisitorial role in court, enables proceedings to be shortened because a judge can say, "You do not need to trouble to address me on points A and B; I just want to hear what you have to say on points C and D." A bench of magistrates does not operate like that. It has to have everything explained to it at some length. It does not have the ability or confidence to shorten the proceedings and to refine the issues down to the short points on which it needs to hear evidence and argument.
If we are to have a system under the Bill in which the public is to have confidence, we must have one which ensures the highest calibre of tribunal to deal with these difficult cases. If one is entitled to have a county court judge decide which of two insurance companies should pay for a relatively trivial motor accident, surely one is entitled to at least a county court judge or a High Court judge to decide the most important matters of whether a parent should be allowed to keep or see his or her child ever again. I support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: The amendment is of a piece with those that we shall come to later which would exclude the magistrates' courts jurisdiction under other parts of this Bill and which seek to fix in primary legislation which tier of court should hear particular matters. However, in relation to this particular amendment, I should emphasise that the Government recognise the seriousness of intervention in the family that a local authority's applicaton for a care or supervision order represents. As I made clear in my Second Reading speech, one aim of the Bill is to match the weight of the case to the level of court. There are however factors other than weight to be taken into account in deciding which court should consider a particular case.
One example is complexity. Some cases relating to care and supervision may be straightforward while others may be much more complex with, for example, no direct evidence of physical abuse and perhaps with conflicting medical and other expert evidence. It is also generally accepted that delay is itself a major risk to children and their families, and given finite court resources the decision about where a case should be heard will sometimes need to take account of the harm that delay may cause. Further, stress has been laid on the need to hear all cases relating to the same child and his family in the same court if possible. This amendment would impede the Bill in taking those matters into account by fixing rigidly that all care cases had to be taken in the High Court.
Children and their families will not be helped if this Bill provides inflexible rules about where applications should be made which, on the one hand, ignore important factors which should influence where an application is made, and on the other hand ignore the

223
realities about the likely availability of judge and court time in the superior courts and the consequent need to ensure that the most difficult cases are not delayed because the superior courts are saturated by cases which could properly be dealt with at a lower level.
I understand that there are complex cases that take a long time, but there are also shorter cases which take rather less time.
I shall explain again in greater detail when we reach amendments on Clause 69 what the Government have in mind in relation to jurisdiction generally. However, what is already clear on the face of the Bill is the Government's determination to create a flexible system which will enable subordinate legislation to be made about where cases should start and which will provide for the transfer of proceedings between courts if that seems desirable.
The purpose of the starting rules will be to ensure that cases start in the court where they are most likely to be heard, thus reducing overall delays and the expenditure of resources caused by transfer.
Although we recognise that a proportion of care cases justify hearing by a county court or in the most difficult cases the High Court, we expect that a considerable number, perhaps the majority, will continue to be dealt with by magistrates. Accordingly, apart from cases where there are already other family proceedings pending, we intend to provide by order that, at first at least, applications for care or supervision orders should be made to magistrates.
The Government are aware that criticisms are made from time to time of care proceedings in juvenile courts. However, as the scope of the reforms in the Bill demonstrates, those courts have to, and are continuing to, operate at the present time a system of law and procedure which is seriously flawed and which no court could reasonably be expected to administer without considerable difficulty. That said, the juvenile panels have developed considerable experience and expertise in this field and have devoted themselves to it with great commitment. The Bill improves care law and procedure. We will be taking powers to transfer the care jurisdiction to the domestic bench. All that should help to lay to rest the criticisms now levelled at the arrangements for care proceedings.
However, we recognise that some cases will be so complex as to require a professional judicial officer to hear them. We therefore intend to provide for the transfer of cases from the magistrates' court to a registrar who will then allocate the case within the county court or the High Court. If a magistrates' court or justices' clerk does not transfer a case to a superior court, it is intended to make provision for an aggrieved party to challenge the decision.
I would only add that the powers we intend to take under the Bill are such that should practice show that the majority of care or supervision cases need to be heard in the county courts and the High Court it will
224
be possible either to allow or to direct that initial applications for care and supervision orders should be made to a superior court. We regard this power as being of the utmost importance. At present there is relatively little information of a general kind available about the nature and complexity of care cases and, in any event, the changes under the Bill would render that information of little value for planning the future. Our intention therefore is to keep the operation of the care and supervision aspect of the Bill under close review and to be ready to make any changes necessary to ensure that the best jurisdictional arrangements exist for dealing with the cases involved.
On a severely practical note, it must be very doubtful that the county courts and High Court could absorb the extra cases. On a broad estimate, the amendment could involve about 10,000 extra applications before those courts. On average the cases might take perhaps two and a half days. In terms of full-time judges that would mean fairly extensive finding of new judges. Cost aside, and despite the fact that registrars would have a part to play, that figure, I think, shows that this amendment would create very considerable difficulties.
The system in the Bill is designed to ensure that we can match cases to courts. I believe that an amendment which seeks to say at the outset that all care cases should go to the High Court and supervision cases to the county court or above is contrary to achieving the kind of flexibility and the system which the public expects for the determination of these matters. For these reasons, I would not feel able to accept this amendment.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: if I may say so, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made a most detailed and interesting answer which I shall read with care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: I think we have probably reached the moment in the day when we should adjourn the Committee. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Port of Tyne Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eleven o'clock.

  HOUSING SUBSIDY SYSTEM REVIEW: CONSULTATION
  HOUSING SUBSIDY SYSTEM REVIEW: CONSULTATION
  PRISONERS' EDUCATION: EXPENDITURE STATISTICS
  PRISONERS' EDUCATION: EXPENDITURE STATISTICS
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS: MANAGEMENT REVIEW
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS: MANAGEMENT REVIEW
  PRISONERS: RECONVICTION RATES
  PRISONERS: RECONVICTION RATES
  REFUGEES AND ASYLUM-SEEKERS: EC POLICY
  REFUGEES AND ASYLUM-SEEKERS: EC POLICY
  CONVICTED MURDERERS: RELEASE STATISTICS
  CONVICTED MURDERERS: RELEASE STATISTICS
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS
  MISLEADING PRICE INDICATIONS: CODE OF PRACTICE
  MISLEADING PRICE INDICATIONS: CODE OF PRACTICE