Sitting of 23 January 1989

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

    Severn Electricity Tunnel
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the implications for the development of Welsh industry of a second Severn electricity tunnel; and what steps he is taking to secure such a tunnel.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): This is an operating matter for the industry, but I understand that there is more than sufficient generating capacity in Wales to meet expected demand in Wales well into the next century. The industry, therefore, has no plans to build a second cable tunnel.
    Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, because the construction of such a tunnel would cause considerable disruption in and around my constituency. Would he, however, bear in mind that given the strength and the growth of the industry in Wales generally, such provision may be necessary at some time in the future?
    Mr. Walker: We are, obviously, reviewing this carefully. Certainly, the present trend in Welsh industry is of remarkable expansion. The inward investment in 1988 is to provide 13,600 jobs and the regional grants which were on offer in 1988 involved 31,500 new jobs. Therefore, one has carefully to examine the needs for energy during a period of such expansion.
    Mr Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend knows well that the tunnel is not the only alternative, because in his former incarnation as the Secretary of State for Energy, he dramatically increased the public commitment to a Severn barrage, which could also include a road crossing. In view of the chaos last week caused by the closure of the Severn bridge, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to demonstrate his commitment to the second crossing and state when he expects it to be in place?
    Mr. Walker: I am pleased to say that the Ministry of Transport has speeded up the arrangements to obtain the appropriate tenders. I believe that there will be a need for this to be in place as quickly as possible and I envisage that it will be in place by the mid-1990s.

    Water Privatisation
    Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of water privatisation on the environment of Wales and the health of the people of Wales.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The establishment of the National Rivers Authority has been widely welcomed on environmental grounds. I am satisfied, too, that the proposed regulatory regime, under which the successor company to the Welsh water authority will operate, will provide adequate protection for the customer both in terms of quality of service and charges.
    Mr. Powell: As a wet in the Cabinet, is the Secretary of State now drying out on the question of water privatisation, or has he been dangled a carrot by the Prime Minister, as a carrot was dangled to the chairman of the Welsh water authority by his predecessor to persuade him to change his mind about privatisation in one weekend? Has the right hon. Gentleman read in today's Independent an article by Jeremy Warner, which forecasts a 20 per cent. increase in water charges within the next few years—and that is before the investors get their greedy hands on our water? Over the past 10 years it has cost 10p to spend a penny. How long will it be before it costs us £10?
    Mr. Walker: I warmly welcome the prospect for the first time of the people of Wales having a direct stake in their water company. I welcome, too, the fact that they will be able to arrange investment programmes without constant reviews by the Treasury, which were especially harsh during periods of a Labour Government. I believe that the provisions secure the river system that was created under the last reorganisation of water and that the Welsh people will warmly welcome the opportunity of having their own direct stake in this industry.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Is not a respectable percentage of British water already under private ownership? Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether there have been all these terrible consequences because of that fact?
    Mr. Walker: No. What is true is that prior to the last major water reorganisation, when a lot of water was in the hands of local authorities, there were enormous increases in pollution, great problems and a failure to invest. It is true, too, that the investment programmes of water authorities have since been affected by the Treasury decisions of all political parties. I believe that a company very much owned by the Welsh people and its employees—independent and strong—will be a considerable success and an advantage to Wales.
    Mr. Livsey: Most people in Wales are opposed to water privatisation, but, nonetheless, it seems as though the Government will try to push this measure through. Has the Secretary of State any practical plans to enable consumers to become shareholders in Welsh Water plc?
    Mr. Walker: We will have many plans for all the people of Wales to participate if they wish. I look forward with great pleasure to the hon. Gentleman's party and all the other parties making a commitment at the next election to renationalise the water industry, but I doubt whether they will.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Welsh people are extremely pleased and confident in the steps that he is manifestly taking to ensure that, if there must be privatisation of water, the interests of Welsh consumers and the environment of Wales will be fully protected?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. That is an important matter and I am delighted at the conclusions that we have reached.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is the Secretary of State aware of the sharp increase in the number of disconnections of water supplies to households? Will the Government introduce a statutory code on disconnections to ensure that the Welsh water authority sends a representative to visit every house to discover whether it is disconnecting water supplies to the frail, elderly or the disabled, because that is what is happening at present?
    Mr. Walker: That is happening under a system that the hon. Gentleman wants to protect and retain. I only hope that if that system is working badly now, it will improve under privatisation.
    Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as the Welsh water authority regards 95 per cent. of the 88,000 acres of land it owns as operational—in other words essential to water supply and water treatment—and as that land is and will continue to be subject to our planning laws, the threat to the Welsh environment is more imaginary than real?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. It is an understandable ploy to try to create a scare before privatisation—it frequently happens. The present water authority has disposed of land under the present system and I have no doubt that that practice will continue if it considered that it is sensible and correct. I believe that there is no danger on environmental or recreational grounds. In fact there may well be a considerable improvement on recreational grounds.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that if Welsh Water plc comes into existence—regrettably it appears that that will be the case—people will not be forced, under any circumstances, to take water meters in their homes, because of the adverse effects that that would have on health?
    Mr. Walker: I do not know what policy will prevail on water meters in future. However, such a system has operated in certain places in England for some time, for example in Malvern, and I do not believe that there is any evidence that that system has had an adverse effect on people's health.
    Mr. Barry Jones: May I confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that the people of Wales already own the Welsh water authority. Surely in health matters the guiding principle is need before profit. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept that, we are in danger of regressing to Victorian standards with major implications for public health in Wales. Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an absolute assurance that, after privatisation, we shall not have a steep rise in disconnections and in prices? Will he also come clean on the future of the Wrexham and East Denbighshire water company? Surely he will not abandon that little £6 million company to the takeover specialists.
    Mr. Walker: The "owned by the people of Wales" argument also could have been applied to electricity and gas when a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to raise an extra £200 million to meet the payments to the International Monetary Fund from gas and electricity price increases. I do not believe that the people of Wales feel that they have any direct control, ownership or participation in Welsh Water when the investment programmes are settled, not by them, but by the Treasury.
    I shall consider the detail and the points raised about the Wrexham and East Denbighshire water company. All I can say is that under present arrangements mergers betwen water companies have taken place, but what happens must be in the best interests of Wrexham and Wales.

    Rail Services
    Mr. Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of British Rail to discuss rail services in Wales.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I met Sir Robert Reid on 12 December 1988 when we discussed a range of issues. I am glad to say that since that meeting British Rail has announced additional morning and evening trains on the Paddington to south Wales line, with an additional 1,600 seats per day on the evening service out of Paddington from May 1989. Indeed, some extra trains are being introduced this very day.
    Mr. Anderson: When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of British Rail he should raise two matters designed to maximise the advantages to Wales of the Channel tunnel. First, because the new terminal will be sited at King's Cross, will he consider the importance of the cross-London link with the west and Wales route? Secondly, if the advantages of the Channel tunnel are to be spread throughout south Wales, will he consider the need for a second freight terminal in south-west Wales, ideally in Danygraig near Swansea?
    Mr. Walker: I shall certainly convey those views to the chairman of British Rail. We had a long discussion about the Channel tunnel. British Rail's final schemes have not been fixed and the final decisions have not been taken, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in the view of the chairman of British Rail the potential of freight from south Wales was of considerable advantage to British Rail which is anxious to have good arrangements for the use of the Channel tunnel. I shall convey the specific points raised by the hon. Gentleman to the chairman of British Rail.
    Mr. Coleman: Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied with his discussions with British Rail about improved passenger services? Is he aware that those of us who use the line from Cardiff to Swansea are experiencing a diminution of the service? Is he aware that not all Inter-City 125 trains terminate at Swansea?
    Mr. Walker: I specifically discussed the line from Cardiff to Swansea and its future. I am pleased to inform the hon. Gentleman that the line is doing well and remaining viable and that freight and passenger traffic is increasing. British Rail has plans to improve the volume of service and the availability to passengers on that particular stretch of the line.
    Mr. Stern: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he raise yet again the effect of a curfew on travel from Wales via Bristol late at night? For some time it has been impossible to travel back to Bristol at any sensible time in the evening. Would it not be a good idea to reinstate the service, which I am quite sure affects the constituencies of many Opposition Members as well as my own?
    Mr. Walker: The service between Bristol and Cardiff was not specifically discussed. I shall certainly look into the matter and convey my hon. Friend's views to British Rail.

    European Community
    Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to visit the European Commission or to attend the Council of Ministers in relation to the particular needs of Wales.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I hope to visit Brussels during the next few months for discussions with incoming members of the Commission on matters of relevance to Wales.
    Dr. Thomas: How many times has the Secretary of State for Wales attended the Council of Ministers as a United Kingdom Minister? If he has not, done so, why not?
    Mr. Walker: I have not done so because, having negotiated with the Council of Ministers on previous occasions, I believe that the best negotiating strength is to have one negotiator. I hold that view very strongly. I know that the hon. Gentleman is in the middle of an election campaign. I am very happy to discuss the considerable investments that have come to Wales, including those parts that he is hoping to represent, as a result of negotiation which I have influenced and in which I have taken part.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: When the right hon. Gentleman meets the Commission will he explain that his Government's policy of high interest and exchange rates is now beginning to have a damaging effect on the Welsh economy? Will he also ask the Commission to bring pressure upon Her Majesty's Government at last to join the European monetary system so that we can have lower interest rates, more realistic exchange rates and a better chance for the Welsh economy?
    Mr. Walker: In the right hon. Gentleman's views of the current state of the Welsh economy I recognise the eagerness of the Labour party to spread depression at the earliest possible moment. The figures that I gave in answer to an earlier question—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman would like the last three months' figures on inward investment into Wales, it is just possible that the high interest rates affecting some overheated parts of the economy are making firms and industries elsewhere consider the possibility of moving. I am also glad to say that last week interest was expressed in an acquisition of considerable importance in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Setting aside the manifest desirability of Britain joining the European monetary system and exchange rate mechanism, just how much influence does my right hon. Friend reckon Wales would
    676
    exercise in Brussels were we to follow the policies advocated by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas)?
    Mr. Walker: The influence is very considerable. I believe that the talks that I shall have with individual members of the Commission, specifically bringing to their attention some of the problems in Wales in various sectors of economic activity, are very important. I believe that the total clout of the British Government in achieving those objectives is considerable and would he diminished if the policies pursued by at least one party in the House were carried out.

    Eggs
    Mr. leuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of egg producers in Wales; and what was discussed.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Representatives of egg producers in Wales have not requested any meetings with my right hon. Friend, but meetings with officials have been arranged.
    Mr. Jones: Does the Minister agree that the confusion that arose following the statement by the then junior Health Minister, which led to disastrous consequences for egg producers and uncertainty among consumers, was the result of Government inefficiency, in that two Departments were giving conflicting advice? Does the Minister further agree that the real lesson to be drawn as a result of this episode is that on issues such as this the Government should speak with one voice and issue clear and unambiguous guideliness to both consumers and producers?
    Mr. Roberts: I disagree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Uncertainty over the implications of salmonella gave rise to a sharp decline in egg sales before Christmas. In those wholly exceptional circumstances, the Government decided to introduce short-term measures, which have been very effective. The surplus has been removed and there is every prospect of balanced production in the near future. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is close liaison on health aspects between the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. There is similar close liaison between the departments in the Welsh Office that are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that both sides are equally vital: that without the fanner there would be no consumer and that without the consumer there would be no farmer? I believe that my hon. Friend, and his counterpart in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, should be congratulated on introducing the compensation scheme at such short notice. It has achieved fairness for both the producer and the consumer and it has cost the taxpayer far less than was anticipated.
    Mr. Robert: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right; the measures were introduced very quickly and they have been successful. The interests of

    677
    both producers and consumers have been protected as far as possible, and of course, much more will be done in the future.

    Local Authority Associations
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the Welsh local authority associations; and what matters were discussed.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): My right hon. Friend met representatives of the Welsh counties committee and the committee of Welsh district councils at a meeting of the Welsh consultative council on local government finance on 8 December to discuss the Welsh rate support grant settlement for 1989–90.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that in these discussions the district councils in Wales have been pressing for more cash in order to reduce the appallingly high number of people on housing waiting lists in Wales, now at a record 70,000? Does he also agree that house prices in Wales have risen faster than in any other part of the United Kingdom? Does he not accept that housing prospects for young people in the Principality have now reached crisis point?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that housebuilding in Wales is reaching a new peak and that over £70 million was voted for new housebuilding in Wales this year. It will have a major impact on housing conditions. I am afraid that waiting lists are a reflection, as much as anything, of social change and breakdown. That is something that does not lie within the Government's remit to alter. Prices are a reflection of demand. Demand in Wales is rising because we have a successful economy. Rising prices are also a reflection of rising earnings, which regrettably are part of the inflationary spiral that we wish to bring down.
    Dr. Marek: Will the Minister confirm that housing benefit will continue to be paid to local councils in Wales according to how much, in each year, they pay out?
    Mr. Grist: Housing benefit will be made available to councils to meet the cost of economic rents for those in receipt of benefit. We have made that plain from the start.

    Health Service
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he plans to take in 1989 to improve the standards of the Health Service in Wales and increase the morale of staff at all levels of the Health Service.
    Mr. Grist: Record numbers of patients were treated in 1987–88, and the record level of resources announced recently by my right hon. Friend should enable authorities to do even better in 1989.
    Mr. Michael: Does the Minister recognise the inadequacy of that response? Does he realise just how much ancillary workers contribute to the tender loving care that is provided by the Health Service and that their low pay is now a real embarrassment to consultants and administrators as well as to patients and the general public? What does he say to the domestic worker who this
    678
    month told the South Wales Echo that the reward for 18 years' service was to be forced into part-time work and to lose £18 a week?
    Mr. Grist: That is a change of song from how badly paid nurses were and remembering how badly paid medical staffs were in the 1970s. The hon. Gentleman changes his tune as it suits him. We have been seeking to ensure that payments in the Health Service go towards patient benefit. Competitive tendering is to the benefit of the patient and the Health Service. We shall continue that policy within the Health Service and local government.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that health authorities in Wales use the money that is allocated to them in the best possible way? Is he aware that the South Glamorgan health authority, for example, proposes to use it in the wrong way? It intends to build an utterly unnecessary hospital in south Cardiff and not to make use of the marvellous facilities that are available in hospitals such as Sully hospital in my constituency. That is the absurdity of the position. Many consultants in the Llandough-Sully area have told me that they regard the proposed hospital for south Cardiff as wasteful, unnecessary and harmful to the Health Service in the county of South Glamorgan.
    Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend's support for Sully hospital has been noted for many years. What he said this afternoon will be taken note of by my right hon. Friend in considering the draft strategic plan of the health authority which is before him at present.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Has the Minister had recent discussions with junior doctors? What hours do they work? I believe that their hours are still very long. What has the Welsh Office done in the past year or two to provide resources to cut the hours that junior doctors on call must work in hospitals?
    Mr. Grist: It is fortunate for us in Wales that few junior doctors in Wales work the long hours that have been reported in England. We take the matter seriously. Our district authorities convene meetings to look into the matter, and we are monitoring closely. As I said, we do not have the problem that is experienced in England.
    Mr. Raffan: When does my hon. Friend expect to publish the study that he commissioned on cancer treatment services for patients in north Wales? What action is the Welsh Office taking to reduce the lengthy time that north Wales patients must wait for cardiological services at Liverpool?
    Mr. Grist: I shall write to my hon. Friend on the latter point. On the comprehensive study of cancer services, which was started on 1 September last year, it is a little early as yet for a report, but we shall certainly release it as soon as we can.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister explain—if he cannot explain, will he order an investigation—the substantial increase in deaths from breast cancer in six out of eight Welsh counties and from cervical cancer in four out of eight Welsh counties over the past 10 years? In view of the alarming figures, is the Minister satisfied that the screening programme in Wales is adequate?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Lady must accept that it is a little difficult to assess matters over the past 10 years when we

    679
    have only just put in place the cervical cancer screening service, which is covering the whole of Wales now, and the breast cancer screening service, which, as she knows, was launched at the headquarters and with the new team in Cathedral road, Cardiff, and will be available shortly. It is a little early to draw conclusions from the past 10 years so I cannot answer her on that.
    Mr. Favell: Are there any firm proposals to contract out medical services, following the excellent private sector kidney dialysis unit at Bangor, Caernarvon, which has saved lives and reduced waiting lists? Is that to be done elsewhere in Wales?
    Mr. Grist: Certainly, this is a system that we would recommend widely. As my hon. Friend said, it has been spreading through Wales and we hope that it will serve as an example for other parts of the United Kingdom.

    A470
    Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for improving the A470 trunk road in mid-Wales.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: Our policy for the A470 is to continue to undertake selective improvements to reduce journey times, improve road safety, and remove through traffic from communities. Details of planned schemes will be included in the forthcoming edition of "Roads in Wales".
    Mr. Livsey: Has the Minister studied the development of the A9 in Scotland, from Perth to Inverness, which overcame many of the sorts of problems with which the A470 is confronted in Wales? Does he have plans to put into action a programme of a similar type to that for the A9, which has cost historically £240 million for 112 miles of road, as a comprehensive scheme to improve the A470 and bring Welsh communications into the 20th century?
    Mr. Roberts: The A9 in Scotland is a far cry from the A470 in Wales, on which we have already spent about £134 million, involving 26 schemes, since 1979. We are due to spend another £43 million on a further 26 schemes which are in preparation. If my arithmetic is correct, those two figures added together are pretty near the figure the hon. Gentleman gave for the A9.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Minister accept that improvements to the A470 in mid-Wales will merely make more accessible the land holdings now owned by the Welsh water authority? That being so, does he recognise that they will become more attractive to foreign investment? The safeguards that the Secretary of State announced on 11 January, which were designed to keep Welsh water holdings in Welsh hands after privatisation, will not be successful. Will he bear these points in mind when improving the A470, and take all necessary steps to protect our valuable holdings?
    Mr. Roberts: I have already said that we have about 26 further improvement schemes for the A470 in mind. They will help to make that beautiful part of mid-Wales more easily accessible.
    With regard to the land holdings of the water plc, as my right hon. Friend has just told the House, the water authority has the power to sell land and the future plc will
    680
    have the same power. But that is subject to planning permission and all the other constraints related to the purity of the water supply.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he proposes to take to improve services for physically disabled people in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Grist: Wales has often taken the lead in the provision of services for the disabled. We will continue to consult with the main interested bodies over further developments.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the dismay at the length of time it has taken for the Welsh Office to respond to the representations made last July by the Welsh Council for the Disabled and the Spastics Society in Wales? I understand that it will be next month before a meeting takes place. Does he accept that the Welsh Office's planning statistics show that there has been a steady decline in expenditure by social service authorities on services for the physically handicapped over the past 12 years? What will he do to ensure a strategic approach that guarantees fair play for physically handicapped people in Wales?
    Mr. Grist: I pay tribute to the discussion document to which the hon. Gentleman referred, to his part in it and to the activity behind it. We certainly take next month's meeting between these organisations and officials in my Department extremely seriously, and I hope that we shall be able to progress from there.
    It is a little unfair to say that expenditure has been falling, as there has been an increase of about £3·5 billion in expenditure on the disabled under this Government—a 92 per cent. real increase since we came to office.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure the Minister is aware that the people of mid-Wales have been trying to collect £400,000 to buy a scanner for Bronglais hospital in Aberystwyth during the past four months. Up to now we have exceeded £220,000 in that attempt. Does he have any plans to give us a contribution?
    Mr. Grist: My wife is a member of the league of friends of Cardiff royal infirmary and she is doing her best for that hospital. I have visited Gwynedd and viewed its new scanner which, I believe, was opened today. There are voluntary movements all around Wales, which are a sign of the local spirit and of the local communities' support for their health authorities and their health movement. We should like to see a great deal more of that.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for unemployment in (a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; and if he will give the equivalent figures for 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.
    Mr. Peter Walker: On 8 December 1988 the number of unemployed claimants in the Newport district, Gwent and Wales were 6,056, 18,200 and 114,533 respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a basis that enables a valid comparison to be made. I am sure that

    681
    the hon. Gentleman will welcome the continuing downward trend in unemployment in Wales which fell by 24,800 in the past 12 months, and by 59,800 in the past 33 months.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State agree that Britain is now regarded as the filthiest country in Europe, with streets littered with litter, junk and graffiti and that there is plenty of evidence of that in Wales? Therefore, would it not be sensible to take people off the dole queue to perform the vital work of clearing it up? It is one thing to keep down the rates, but does the Minister agree that that should not be at the expense of essential services?
    Mr. Walker: This Government have a remarkable record of providing jobs in community programmes. I was disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not turn up at the last Welsh Question Time to ask that question. I thought that that was because he was depressed by the progress that has been made. That progress has now accelerated and there has been a terrific improvement in the position in Newport so I hope that, for once, the hon. Gentleman will welcome it.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in terms of unemployment decreasing, the record in Wales is excellent? Many of us in the south-west, and certainly in Weymouth in my constituency look with great pride at the way in which Welsh people have demonstrated their ability to attract high technology jobs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the thoughts of the people of Wales should not be on picking up rubbish and litter but on the high technology jobs that the Government have provided?
    Mr. Anderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was that not a clear abuse of the House?
    Mr. Speaker: It is a United Kingdom Parliament.
    Mr. Walker: I am sure that my hon. Friend regrets that several Opposition Members, representing Welsh constituencies, are not as enthusiastic as he is about the considerable inward investment in Wales, the considerable volume of new businesses that are being created in Wales and the wide diversity of free enterprise economies that are now taking place in Wales which, I am afraid, leave no place for Socialism in the future.
    Mr. Barry Jones: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the sharp attack on high interest rates that was made by the CBI director for Wales, the much respected Mr. Kelsall? Did the right hon. Gentleman see the reference by the Cardiff chamber of trade to high interest rates being "a headache"? Does he agree that the policies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are creating difficulties that imperil the Welsh economy's capacity for recovery? We all know that the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on high interest rates, but what is he going to do besides making coded attacks?
    Mr. Walker: One thing I will not do is be lectured by a Minister of a former Administration, under whom high interest rates and penal taxation were combined with high inflation. There was very real damage during that period, which compares with last year when there was record inward investment, record regional assistance and regional
    682
    aid, record factory building and record numbers of new businesses. I am delighted that the CBI in Wales is delighted at the progress being made.

    Nurses (Pay)
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many appeals have been lodged by nurses employed by the South Glamorgan health authority and in Wales as a whole.
    Mr. Grist: The number of formal appeals is not yet known.
    Mr. Morgan: I welcome that comprehensive answer. It must be a record for comprehensiveness. Without pressing the Minister on the absent statistics, may I ask him whether as a matter of principle he has yet made up his mind about accepting appeals from bank nurses? In England they appear to have been told that they can appeal against their grading, but they cannot do so in Wales despite the heavy responsibilities which, like night nurses, they carry in the hospital service.
    Mr. Grist: I think that the hon. Gentleman has been in correspondence with us. Bank nurses have never had the right of appeal and it is not the case, as some people have asserted, that this has been removed from them by their employers. There is an exception in some cases where a bank nurse works regular hours each week and where she might be classed as a part-time member of staff. I think that that is where the misunderstanding with England may have come about.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the implications of the introduction of poll tax for the percentage of the population of Wales of 18 years and over who will appear on the electoral register for 1989.
    Mr. Grist: We do not expect the community charge to have any effect on the electoral register.
    Mr. Barnes: By common usage and common sense, the community charge is generally known as the poll tax because it taxes people per head. Are people liable to lose their political heads by not registering for payment either on the poll tax register or on the electoral register, and will that not affect Wales as well as England and Scotland?
    Mr. Grist: I think that the hon. Gentleman makes the wish father of the thought. Over 99 per cent. of people in Scotland have registered for the community charge despite the best efforts of what I regard as some irresponsible Opposition Members.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    House of Fraser (Takeover)
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the progress of consideration by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of serious fraud office of the inspectors' report on the takeover of the House of Fraser and the contents of the book "A Hero from Zero".
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Investigations are continuing and will be concluded as soon as possible.
    Mr. Rooker: I thank the Solicitor-General for that reply. Does he accept that it is six months this week since the serious fraud office received the inspector's report on the House of Fraser? Will he confirm that there is no undue delay in reaching a decision one way or the other simply because people in high places are involved? Does he accept that the longer the delay in reaching a decision, the greater will be the concern of the thousands of House of Fraser employees who have been bought and sold by international business men as if they were pawns? It appears from the report that they are, in the words of one of the judges, being bought and sold
    "from cash from under the mattress."
    The Solicitor-General: I certainly confirm that the matter is of considerable complexity and has been proceeding with all proper expedition.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Does the Solicitor-General have any additional information about the book "A Hero from Zero"? Could he tell the House the selling price, how many copies have been sold and whether it has yet appeared in the best-seller lists? Will he be recommending it for the Booker prize for fiction?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend will appreciate that those facts do not fall within my responsibilities.

    Director of Public Prosecutions
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what was discussed.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): On Wednesday 18 January. We discussed a variety of matters of departmental interest.
    Mr. Mullin: Does the Attorney-General not agree that it is extraordinary that these two rogues, the Al Fayed brothers, have pulled off one of the biggest stings in British financial history? They have misled the Government and their merchant bankers, Kleinwort Benson, and have breached the Companies Act. Will the Attorney-General tell us whether it is out of concern for those in high places whose reputation is at stake that he has waited so long to take any sort of action in this case?
    The Attorney-General: I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has dealt with that part of the hon. Gentleman's lengthy question which falls within the responsibility of the Law Officer.
    Mr. Lawrence: Did my right hon. and learned Friend discuss with the Director of Public Prosecutions the Green Paper on the future of the legal professions? In particular, is he aware that if solicitor members of the Crown Prosecution Service, or any other solicitors, are accorded extended rights of audience in the higher courts, there will be no reason for youngsters entering the legal profession to choose the Bar with its much lower early earnings, and, as a result, the Bar will wither away? Is that part of the Government's intention?
    The Attorney-General: These matters will, no doubt, fall within the purview of the Green Paper to be produced shortly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.
    Mr. John Morris: While I welcome the appointment of a distinguished lawyer as Director of Public Prosecutions, is it not time to consult the head of the Civil Service on whether a top administrator should be drafted in to support him? Will the Attorney-General accept that there is deep concern, at a senior level within the CPS, about achieving its objectives and providing an organisation of which young lawyers can be proud? Will he now examine the concern about the divorce between those who make the policy and those who handle case work and the undue pressure to produce bits of paper as tools of management? Since "tinkering with the system"—to quote the Sunday Times—is ineffective, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman object to some of the administrative responsibilities of himself, the Lord Chancellor and the Government's legal service generally being subjected to the scrutiny of a Select Committee?
    The Attorney-General: I have full confidence in the administration of the Crown Prosecution Service under the directorship of the DPP, Mr. Allan Green. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that there are always difficulties when one sets up a new service, as has been the case here. However, it is more constructive and helpful generally to those who have worked extremely hard and effectively within the service, admittedly understaffed in the lawyers' section in its first two years, to reflect on the views of, for example, the president of the Association of Chief of Police Officers, the chairman of the Magistrates Association and the deputy assist ant commissioner, who heads the Metropolitan police liaison with the CPS. All of them have remarked recently on the great improvement in the performance of the CPS in comparison with its early months.

    Abortion
    Mr. Ken Hargreaves: To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions were brought by the Crown Prosecutions Service under the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 in 1988 and if he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General: None, Sir.
    Mr. Hargreaves: May I suggest that the Infant Life Preservation Act is not being implemented? As it gives no protection to children capable of being born alive or, for that matter, to babies being born alive and left to die, would it not be better to repeal it?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend probably misunderstands the requirements of the Infant Life Preservation Act. The case that he has in mind was carefully looked into and it is clear that there was no evidence on which anybody could have been charged. The Act could, nevertheless, be helpful in appropriate circumstances.
    Miss Widdecombe: Bearing in mind that the Carlisle baby was born alive, are we to assume that the Infant Life Preservation Act not only fails to give coverage to those capable of being born alive but gives no recourse in law to the parents of a child born alive but allowed to die?
    The Solicitor-General: Once again, I think that my hon. Friend does not appreciate the ingredients of the Act, but I should be happy to discuss them with her, in private.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Attorney-General what steps he proposes to take to improve staffing levels in the Crown Prosecution Service; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General: I have recently announced a new recruitment campaign, led by a senior lawyer in the Crown Prosecution Service, aimed at reducing its current shortfall of some 400 lawyers. The Government's acceptance last week of Sir Robert Andrew's recommendations for an improvement in the pay of Government lawyers will be of significant help to our efforts.
    Mr. Vaz: I listened carefully to the reply given by the Attorney-General to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and I agree that we should congratulate those who work in the service on the enormous work that they do under great pressure. However, is not the operation of the CPS approaching a crisis? In Leicester, only 10 of the 22 established posts for lawyers have been filled. Although this is a new service, is it not important that we have an independent inquiry into the way in which the service is operated, because of the staffing levels? I say this as a friend of the service and as one who campaigned for the establishment of an independent service.
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said and for his support of the service, which is acknowledged and much appreciated. The answer to his question about an independent inquiry is no. The difficulties are well known. The CPS is deploying its bait for recruits in a pool that is already overfished. Contrary to popular impression, there is a shortage of lawyers. We have to make the CPS more attractive, and we are already succeeding in that because of the pay increase that I was able to announce towards the end of last year. Sir Robert Andrew's recommendations hold further promise for improvement. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but it would only be an unnecessary distraction if the inquiry that he suggests took place.
    Mr. Hind: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that once the Green Paper, to be published on Wednesday, comes before hon. Members, pressure will inevitably develop for the Crown Prosecution Service to be able to hire its own barristers to undertake Crown court cases? Will he therefore consider, when the matter is raised, that at present salary levels, senior juniors with 15 or 20 years' experience who are currently carrying out prosecutions for the service at the Old Bailey and in Crown courts throughout the country, will not be attracted to the service?
    The Attorney-General: Those are considerations that might usefully arise after the publication of the Green Paper. I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me if I do not follow him into those realms now.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    War on Want
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretaryof State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet representatives of War on Want to discuss aid policy.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): I am prepared to meet representatives of War on Want to discuss matters of mutual concern.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Minister meet representatives of War on Want to discuss the overseas aid provided by the Government? At 0·28 per cent. of GNP, it is shameful and nowhere near the United Nations recommended level of 0·7 per cent. of GNP. Will he take the opportunity to read the fourth report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and set a timetable for the Government to do their duty by the United Nations and the people who require aid, and ensure that they meet the United Nations target?
    Mr. Patten: I shall be delighted to meet representatives of War on Want, or other non-governmental organisations, at any time. I shall be happy to point out to them that our aid programme is set to increase by 5 per cent. in real terms and 18 per cent. in cash terms over the coming public expenditure period. To those figures I hope that we can now add the substantial additional assistance that will be provided to Nigeria.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Were my hon. Friend to meet representatives of War on Want, would he express the view of many voluntary workers that War on Want should spend less time on party political bashing in this country and more time on providing additional assistance to those in need abroad, where it should be actively involved?
    Mr. Patten: War on Want's campaign material is not balanced or objective and I suspect that it is not meant to be. Its content is a matter for the trustees and, from time to time, for the Charity Commissioners.
    Miss Lestor: If the Minister meets representatives from War on Want or any other agency, no doubt they will remind him that the Prime Minister, when referring to the Government's 1981 overseas aid spending, said:
    "When economic circumstances permit, we will move towards the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP."
    War on Want and others, including the Select Committee, remind the Government that, as the Christian Aid report published this month states, official development assistance is now only 64 per cent. of its real value in 1979. Therefore, it depends on from where the Minister selects his figures. Will the Minister say when a timetable will be set to meet the United Nations target?
    Mr. Patten: Our position on a target is the same as that of our predecessors, the previous Labour Government. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my other right hon. Friends will be able to point to the real terms increase of our aid programme as an indication of what we can do with a stronger economy.

    Afghanistan
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British assistance given to Afghanistan.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of aid being given to Pakistan to assist with the provision for refugees from Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Chris Patten: We have provided about £60 million of aid since 1980 through United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations for the relief and support of Afghan refugees in Pakistan. Our contribution this financial year is £10 million.
    Mr. Butler: Will my hon. Friend confirm that no aid will be given to prop up the Kabul regime? After the fall of the regime, will aid be given for crop substitution to prevent the problem of drugs arising from that area?
    Mr. Patten: We shall not be providing any aid to the Kabul regime. We shall continue to provide assistance through international organisations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Red Cross and through non-governmental organisations such as the admirable Afghan Aid. I hope that we shall be able to provide assistance for crop substitution programmes. We support some good ones that are just over the border in Pakistan. I look forward to the day when in a free Afghanistan we can provide similar assistance to such projects there.
    Mr. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that although Pakistan is a poor country it has set an example to the world in the dignity, understanding and charity with which it has looked after so many refugees for such a long time? Bearing in mind that those refugees are unlikely ever to return to Afghanistan even if the war comes to an end and peace is restored, does my hon. Friend accept that the free world has a continuing responsibility to Pakistan?
    Mr. Patten: I endorse what my hon. Friend has said about the role that Pakistan has played in hosting so many refugees for so long. Having seen some of the camps near Peshawar, I think that he is entirely right to give the Pakistan Government a good deal of credit for the way in which they have behaved over the past few years. I hope that he is being pessimistic in suggesting that there will not be a substantial return of refugees to Afghanistan. Such return as there is will depend on peace and stability in that country. We hope that those conditions will return, but in the meantime we shall continue to provide assistance through every channel that is available.

    Burundi
    Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what development assistance Her Majesty's Government have offered to Burundi following the widespread killings there in October.
    Mr. Chris Patten: We have provided through Oxfam £65,000 for Burundian refugees in Rwanda.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Is there stability now and have the massacres ceased? Has any more development assistance been offered within the country since the European Community provided about 650 million ecu in August?
    Mr. Patten: There has not been any additional European assistance beyond the European Community's
    688
    contribution, to which we contributed about £115,000. We are substantial contributors to the UNHCR's programmes in Africa as a whole, spending about £13·6 million on its African programmes last year. The hon. Gentleman will know that we do not have a permanent diplomatic mission in Burundi, but we believe that the situation is calm at present and that the majority of refugees have returned. We welcome the recent steps to increase Hutu representation in the Cabinet. We hope that the president will introduce Hutu officers into the ruling military committee for national salvation.

    Nigeria
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he will assist trade and education opportunity in Nigeria during 1989.
    Mr. Chris Patten: We continue to support Nigeria through our substantial technical co-operation programme, which includes assistance to the education sector. Trade opportunities in Nigeria should benefit from the ecomomic adjustment programme on which we hope Nigeria is about to reach agreement with the International Monetary Fund. We have offered Nigeria a grant of USA 100 million in 1989 on condition that the IMF standby arrangement is approved and that other donors make a substantial contribution.
    Mr. Speller: I thank my hon. Friend for his useful answer. Does he accept that if a young person is trained in a host country such as the United Kingdom, the odds are that he will use British methods, equipment and machinery for the rest of his working life? Does he accept also that any cut in aid to overseas countries for education will be in every sense counter-productive for our commercial interests in the years to come?
    Mr. Patten: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's argument though I do not think that matters are as mechanistic as he suggests. I am grateful for the work that he does through the West Africa committee to improve Anglo-Nigerian relations and to draw attention to the arguments that he has adduced. I am sure that he will he delighted to know that our technical co-operation and training programme in Nigeria is set to grow quite substantially. We shall be training about 365 Nigerians in the United Kingdom this year, and we intend to increase that figure to about 470 next year.

    Surplus Food
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy on giving to third world countries which suffer from famine, surplus food produced in Britain; whether this forms an integral part of the overseas aid programme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Chris Patten: We give priority to meeting requirements for famine and other emergencies under our food aid programme, which is an integral part of the overseas aid programme. We seek to purchase food from the most appropriate source, making use of both surpluses in developing countries and surpluses produced in Britain and other European Community countries.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that there is something immoral in there being such massive food mountains in the West and pressure—indeed financial inducements—on producers to reduce production when people are dying of famine? Thousands have died of famine during this hour of Question Time. Is there no way in which we can be more positive about the logistics and mechanisms involved in diverting food to those who need it?
    Mr. Patten: I sympathise with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument, which is why we made reform of the European Community's food aid programme one of our major priorities during our presidency of the Council of Ministers. We succeeded in implementing that priority
    690
    task. Food surpluses, questions about which should perhaps be directed to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, can ultimately be tackled only through international action to reform agricultural policies in the richer countries of the world. We have been prominent in pressing for reform, but there is nothing more important to developing countries than continuing liberalisation of trade arrangements, and especially reductions in agricultural subsidies.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
    Ordered,
    That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 3) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Point of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the weekend, the Home Secretary, in a well publicised speech made to his constituents, talked about immigration matters, and, yesterday, to listeners to BBC radio, he again made remarks which are directly connected with an article that appeared in yesterday's The Observer under the headline:
"Police set to raid sanctuaries".
The article reported what was described as
"a well-placed source in the Home Office's Immigration Service"
as saying:
"the word is to go out and whack them. It is going to be like Mendis—snatched and deported within 48 hours"—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I accept this is a matter for the Home Secretary, not for me. What is the hon. Member's point of order?
Mr. Madden: As the Home Secretary is now walking towards the Dispatch Box, can I plead with him, through you, Mr. Speaker, to make the statement that he refused to make last Thursday and Friday before the deportation of Viraj Mendis? May we ask him to make a statement about his policy on deportation, in view of most disturbing remarks by one of his officials, which The Observer published yesterday?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Home Secretary. I am sure that he has heard what has been said.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Allocation of Time)
3.32 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:
There has often been a sense of routine about the timetable motions that I and my predecessors from both sides of the House have introduced in the past. They have usually been moved because the Opposition of the day had been making rather too enthusiastic a use of a legitimate weapon—time—while the Government of the day, in the end, were entitled to get their business. Barring one or two occasions, such as the famous one in July 1976, the debates have followed a fairly standard pattern, with the Leader of the House explaining how reasonable the Government were being, and his opposite number claiming that the guillotine motion heralded the imminent arrival of a police state.
Today, however, is not one of those occasions. Since tabling this motion, further discussions have taken place through the usual channels, but before I discuss that, I wish to remind the House that today we are dealing with a Bill which, if not enacted by a specific date, will have repercussions extending considerably beyond an embarrassment to the Government at suffering delay to their programme, or a temporary boost in morale for the Opposition.
As the House knows, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 expires on 21 March this year. It is essential, if our society is to have adequate means with which to fight terrorism, that the current Bill receives Royal Assent on or before that date, and comes into force on 22 March.
If the Bill does not come into force on that date, arrest and detention powers and the power of exclusion will be lost, both of which would have extremely damaging consequences. Police throughout the United Kingdom would be without the power to arrest a person on reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorism, and would have to wait until they had a reasonable suspicion of a particular offence. By that time it may be too late to prevent acts of terrorism occurring. The prevention of terrorism is a prime aim of the Bill.
Furthermore, if the Bill is not enacted in time, not only would the people currently excluded under the 1984 Act be able to enter Great Britain or Northern Ireland freely, but

695
there would be no power for the Secretary of State to exclude anybody now thought to be involved in acts of Northern Irish terrorism. Active terrorists could move freely about the country to prepare and commit further atrocities. Moreover, if the current powers of proscription were lost, the IRA could parade through the streets of Britain, recruit members openly, and even raise funds in public. There would thus be severe consequences, if the Bill were to fall behind its timetable.
The constraint on time for the Bill means that it must finish its passage through this House by the end of this month, so as to allow another place a proper amount of time for its consideration of the Bill. I recognise that this is a tight timetable, but nevertheless it was originally possible through the usual channels to negotiate an agreement on how the Bill should be discussed in Committee. The latest confirmation of the agreement was made through the usual channels on the morning of 10 January, but during the afternoon sitting of the Committee the Opposition took a different view, giving as the reason the Government's reaction to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Brogan case. That had been announced by the Home Secretary to the Committee more than two weeks previously on 22 December and confirmed by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in a letter to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on 9 January.
The Brogan judgment was extensively discussed at the sittings following the Christmas recess when my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State advised the Committee that there was little prospect of the Government's final response being available before the Bill was through Parliament. That was an honest and realistic appraisal of the position. It was intended to be helpful to the work of the Committee by eliminating any uncertainty about the timing of any proposals we might want to bring forward.
Earlier in Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield had referred to the Opposition's aim of keeping to
"a schedule that facilitates the timetable of the Bill that we know the Government must meet"—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 22 December 1988, c. 236.]
By 12 January he was saying that the Opposition
"could no longer co-operate on a timetable"—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 January 1989, c. 439]
and to underline that, was giving the Committee a lengthy homily on airport security, together with an anecdote of how he once wind-surfed from Majorca to France. Since then there have been extensive discussions through the usual channels and I shall listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) to see whether the Opposition find that they can co-operate with the Government on this timetable motion. I very much hope that we shall be able to agree to it without a Division.
So small a margin for flexibility, however, remains with this Bill, that I still consider the timetable motion vital. As the House will remember, there was a variety of opinions, both for and against the Bill, expressed on Second Reading and a substantial minority of the Opposition voted against it. I have every faith in the word of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, but in view of the formidable delaying powers of his hon. Friend the Member for
696
Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), which we witnessed recently, I should sleep more easily if I had the insurance policy of a timetable for this Bill.
The Committee has now sat for about 52 hours and has discussed 25 clauses. There are two clauses remaining, in addition to five new clauses tabled by the Labour party.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam (Redcar): Will the Leader of the House give way?
Mr. Wakeham: I was about to refer to the hon. Lady and I shall finish what I was to say before she intervenes.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) helpfully stated in Committee that by the time clause 17 had been reached, the meat of the Bill would have been dealt with.
Ms. Mowlam: I would hate the right hon. Gentleman to mislead the House. It is not a question of five new clauses being left to be debated, having been put down by the Opposition. We have debated nearly all of them. Only two new clauses are left, which we could have finished debating if Conservative Members had been prepared to sit late last Thursday. They were not, so we are having to go through all this now. We should blame the inefficiency and incompetence of Conservative Members, rather than hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House.
Mr. Wakeham: That, I think, is a recommendation for the timetable motion, because there is adequate time to discuss those two clauses.
What the hon. Lady said in Committee is now the case, and in view of that I do not think that there can be much exception to the terms of my motion, which would allow another full day, up to 11 pm, in Committee tomorrow, followed by a full day for the remaining stages.
I said that this was not a normal timetable motion. To fail to get the Bill on the statute book by 22 March would leave the country without adequate defences against terrorism. Recent events, from Lockerbie to the discovery of arms and explosives in Battersea, should have convinced hon. Members that our society is still gravely threatened, as much as it was when the Labour party passed the Prevention of Terrorism Acts in 1974 and 1976. To defeat the motion would make it impossible to achieve Royal Assent by the necessary deadline, and would enormously weaken our ability to prevent terrorism. That is simply unacceptable. Therefore, I invite all right hon. and hon. Members to vote to maintain our weapons against those who seek to destroy both our democracy and many of our people, and to join me in the Aye Lobby in support of the motion.
3.40 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: As the Leader of the House has said, this is an extraordinary guillotine motion. It asks us to curtail debate tomorrow on the Committee stage of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, when that Committee stage would have ended last Thursday if only the Government had let it. I suggest that it is a case of closing the stable door to stop the horse from getting into the stable.
Of course, the guillotine motion does not stop there. It is designed to curtail debate on Report and Third Reading, so that the Act can in operation by 22 March when the existing law expires. I am afraid that, if the Leader of the House is bothered about the tight timetable that he faces and wants to find a culprit, he need look no further than

697
have known since 1984 that the existing law would run out on 22 March this year. They could have introduced the Bill in the last Session. After all, there was plenty of time: the last Session dealt with fewer Government Bills than the first Session of any Parliament since the war.
But the Government did not bother. Instead, they decided to introduce the Bill in this Session. That did not leave much time for it to be considered properly because the Session started so late, the Queen's Speech being one of the latest on record. That was because the previous Session dragged on for far longer than usual—despite, as I have said, being faced with the smallest amount of legislation on record. It was the Government who gave themselves so little time to get the Bill through all its stages.
The problem has been made much worse by the Government's own failure to decide how to respond to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Brogan case. The court decided that part of the present law that we are being asked to re-enact is contrary to the European convention on human rights—that is, that this country is breaking the law. Admittedly, that judgment was made just before the present Bill was published, but the Commission had held the present position to be incompatible with the European convention as long ago as May 1987.
Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, and I am making a genuine inquiry. He said that if we did not abide by a recommendation by the European Court of Human Rights we were breaking the law. What law are we breaking? Do we not make the laws ourselves here?
Mr. Dobson: Yes, and one of the laws that we have undertaken is to obey and fall in line with the European convention on human rights. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, we have. That is why, if we are not going to do so, we need to derogate formally from it. But the Government appear to do no contingency planning. They seem to have ignored the likelihood of the court upholding the Commission's views, because the records of—admittedly—successive British Governments before the European Court of Human Rights is that we lose more cases than we win. The Government even ignored the promptings of Lord Colville of Culross, when he reported to them in December 1987 on the working of the Act. He suggested that the Government, in preparing the new Bill, should take into account what he mildly described as the possibility of the court upholding the opinion of the Commission.
The Government appear to have done nothing of the sort. Instead, the court's decision seems to have taken them by surprise. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that he would give the Government's response to the court's decision before the Bill left the Commons. He indicated that the Government's proposals would be in time to be debated in Committee. He then went to the Committee and said that Britain would derogate from the court decision—that is, not comply with it—until he had managed to sort out some solution. After Christmas it was made clear that derogation would prevail for longer than had been originally indicated.
698
Therefore, today, when the Government are seeking to curtail further debate on the Bill, we do not know what the Government are asking the House to do. Are they saying, "Pass the Bill as it is and then, after it becomes law, we will amend it to comply with the European court ruling", or, on the other hand, are they saying, "Pass the Bill as it is, because we have no intention of complying with the court ruling"? We know, however, that the Government propose to curtail debate on either alternative. Any suggestion that a slight extension of this guillotine motion today might permit the necessary discussion seems to us to be absurd. If we are to obtain from the Government a proposition that might meet the requirements of the European court ruling, it certainly merits longer discussion than would be provided for under this guillotine motion.
We say, too, that for the Government to derogate from the court ruling is a most serious development. To do so, the Government must claim to the Council of Europe that the present situation in this country was
"a public emergency threatening the life of the nation"—an emergency akin to a time of war.
Whatever is the situation in Northern Ireland, to assert that the IRA or any other of the terrorist groups pose a threat to the life of this nation as a whole is to attribute to those murdering psychopaths a significance that they do not deserve, but in which they themselves revel. It would accord to those who shoot to kill and bomb to maim a status that their actions alone will never achieve—a threat to the life of this nation. Their bombing does not do that. A mature democracy, which has survived far worse dangers than any posed by the IRA, can surely survive what it is threatening.
Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman is giving a lot of importance to the European Court of Human Rights. Will the hon. Gentleman say how the goings on in that court can be the laws of this land? At what stage did Parliament enact anything that obliges us to follow that? When have Members of Parliament debated it? How is it part of the law of this country? When was the country consulted as to whether we should be obliged to follow those particular—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Ask the Prime Minister. She decided that.
Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to obtain the details, he had better rush off to the Library. This country has undertaken to abide by the European convention on human rights. If we do not accept that court ruling, we shall have formally to say that we are not complying with it. The hon. Gentleman may not like that situation, but that is the situation which prevails.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: It might be as well to recognise at this stage that a British Government played a central role in setting up the European Court of Human Rights. Not only that, they played a central role in drawing up the European convention under which it has been found that this Government are guilty, because of the way in which they are detaining people.
Mr. Dobson: It has always been my understanding that it was a great source of pride that this country was the first signatory to the European convention on human rights, which is all the more reason for us to attempt to uphold it at all times.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that, when we enter into international agreements. they are invariably done under preogative power. By and large, both sides of the House have accepted the right of the Executive to enter into those agreements on behalf of the nation as a whole. Therefore, when they are entered into, the House wants to support them. It is right that the House could take it back, but, by and large, we thought that this was a proper area into which executive government, on behalf of us all, could enter.
Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Member (Mr. Shepherd) for his assistance.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is correct, we should have incorporated the European convention into our municipal law? In those circumstances it would have served to bind this country and all persons within it until Parliament took a decision to make a change. As we have maintained that convention as an international treaty only, it is open to Her Majesty's Government to derogate from it, and there is nothing disgraceful in so doing.
Mr. Dobson: The European convention on human rights specifically provides for the "high contracting parties", the Governments who have signed it, to derogate from it if they wish, but I shall consider the significance of that in a moment.
The issue of derogation brings me to the difference between our response to terrorism and that of the Government. Everybody recognises that everyone has a duty to prevent terrorists securing their objectives. It is from that desire to deny terrorists their objectives, however, that our dilemma, in a democratic country, stems. Shootings or explosions may be the immediate object of a terrorist attack, but that is not the end of the story. The death or destruction directly caused by a terrorist is not an end in itself, it is a means to an end. What the terrorist wants to do against a democratic society is to bring about a reaction from those in authority which reduces the openness of that society, undermines its normal democratic values and casts doubt on its normal Judicial processes.
The terrorist also seeks a form of prestige—the prestige of being acknowledged as an extremely dangerous threat. We must bear in mind those long-term objectives of terrorists when we decide how to respond to their acts. Whatever benefits the supporters of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 claim for it, there is no doubt that that law reduces the openness of our society and undermines our normal democratic procedures.
To announce to the world that the very life of our nation is at risk certainly accords the IRA and other groups the loathsome privilege of being acknowledged as a very dangerous threat. We believe that that is too high a price to pay. We also believe that, although our democratic instruments and institutions may inhibit our ability, as a country, to take direct, immediate and deadly action against terrorists, they are also a strength and a source of national pride. I remind the House, as I have done before, that although dictatorships have been undermined by terrorist methods in modern times, no
700
democracy has fallen to terrorists. The strength of democracies may be less apparent, but they are deeper and more lasting.
Although we support the new proposals aimed to reduce the funds to which terrorists have access, we oppose the rest of the Bill. Its provisions for detention breach the European convention on human rights. They invade civil liberties and alienate large numbers of otherwise law-abiding people. The exclusion provisions amount to a system of internal exile, which Lord Colville, in his review of the workings of the Act, felt did more harm than good.
The right of the Executive to bar people from a part of their country without judicial interference bears an uncanny resemblance to provisions in countries whose human rights records are rightly criticised by both sides of the House. My objections, however, go further than that. The situation in Northern Ireland poses terrible problems for the people living there, for the people of England, Scotland and Wales, for the Government, for the police and security forces and for the institutions of democracy.
Individual measures which may seem justified in response to the threat of terrorism can, taken together, amount to a threat to our democratic institutions. Our sensitivity to incursions against our liberties becomes literally calloused by the repetition of horrifying events and our responses to them. We become used to things that, 20 years ago, were unthinkable anywhere in this land—trials without juries, detention for seven days without redress, internal exile, the abolition of the right to silence, newspapers supporting the shooting of unarmed people and even the Prime Minister announcing that suspects are guilty. Each of those is an understandable response to the horrors of terrorism, but taken together they amount to an erosion of all that our country has fought and argued for throughout the 20th century.
What is more important—I address this remark to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton)—they damage our reputation abroad in a way which makes the fight against terrorism harder. Whatever one's point of view on the merits of the Patrick Ryan case, it demonstrated our dependence on the Governments of other countries. It demonstrated that our reputation for good or ill affects their judgments and their willingness to co-operate with us. Clearly, the maintenance of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and a permanent derogation from the provisions of the European convention of human rights will undermine and add doubts to the willingness of other European Governments to assist us in the fight against terrorism.
Mr. David Sumberg: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, when the Labour party was in power, it ever derogated from the European convention on human rights, if it did so, why and in what circumstances?
Mr. Dobson: Various Governments, including Labour Governments, have done so in the past. The hon. Gentleman appears not to know that the derogation has never applied to England, Scotland or Wales. In some cases it applied to Northern Ireland and in previous cases to colonial territories during states of emergency. The hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind.
If I lived in Northern Ireland, I might think that what is happening there was a threat to the life of that part of the nation, but the Opposition believe that the threats or

701
the actions of the IRA ought not to be portrayed to its advantage as a threat to the life of the nation. That is why we believe that, on balance, the provisions of the Bill will do more harm than good. That is why we oppose the Bill and the guillotine.
3.57 pm
Mr. David Sumberg: I shall support the motion as briefly as I can. Strictly speaking, this afternoon we are debating what we know formally as the timetable motion, but which most of us call the guillotine motion. It is an odd title. When I was talking to some of the more Right-wing members of my constituency party during the weekend and I told them that I had to get back to London promptly to speak in support of the guillotine in the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, the reaction of a constituent who is not particularly supportive of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in these matters was, "At last the Government have got it right in dealing with the affairs of Northern Ireland."
The debate is important in itself and for the attitudes, beliefs and feelings which it exposes in the Opposition. Despite all the images that they present on television, the Opposition remain the party of the past. Rather like the Bourbon kings and queens, they have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. I enjoyed tremendously the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) making it absolutely clear to the House that the Opposition totally oppose the Bill.
The Labour party proclaims in ringing tones that it wants to defeat the evil of terrorism, yet it consistently opposes, fights and rejects the very measures which have a chance of doing just that. Labour Members resent it tremendously—as they did in Committee—when we justifiably remind them that back in the 1970s a Labour Government, supported by what was then a loyal Conservative Opposition, first enacted an anti-terrorism Bill. The Opposition's reaction then was in marked contrast to their reaction today. Their reaction now is irresponsible. They believe in freedom of opposition. Long may the Labour party adopt that policy of irresponsibility and freedom of opposition. It says that there is no need for measures such as this, yet it fails to accept that, sadly, in the last 10 years terrorism has got worse, not better.
It is extraordinary that the shadow Leader of the House should have said that derogation is acceptable in relation to Northern Ireland-at least, it was acceptable when the Labour party was in power; I do not know whether that applies today to Northern Ireland—but that derogation is unacceptable for the whole of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom as a whole faces a terrorism threat. I do not need to set out at length all the incidents that support that contention. Although Northern Ireland faces a far worse threat, sadly the mainland is not immune from it.
Sensible members of the Labour party abhor the men of violence, yet there is a sizeable minority within its ranks who welcome representatives of the men of violence into their midst and give them tacit support. What are we in this House and, more important, what are people outside it to make of the fact that a Bill such as this is in this position today? The Bill ought to have all-party support and it ought to be warmly welcomed by the Labour party. I suggest that the Labour party of 20 years ago would have
702
given it a warm welcome. The usual channels should have been able to agree a fixed and reasonable timetable for procedure. If that would have happened 20 years ago, what is the reason for the extraordinary situation in which we find ourselves? The Bill is designed to fight terrorism and it ought to command all-party support. It would have attracted all-party support in the United States of America and in most parts of continental Europe.
The Government had to act and table this motion. To be fair to the Opposition, they gave the Government due warning of what they intended to do and how they intended to behave. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) who led for the Opposition in Committee may find this a rare and unusual occurrence, but sometimes the words that he uses are taken seriously on the Government Benches. He made it clear to the Government that any co-operation on the Bill had vanished, following the statement to the Committee by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 22 December 1988 in relation to the Brogan case.
After my right hon. Friend had made his statement on the Brogan case, the hon. Member for Huddersfield said:
"This has been a truly co-operative Committee."
He was right about that. He continued:
"We have worked exceedingly well on a proper scrutiny of the Bill and have kept to a schedule that facilitates the timetable of the Bill that we know the Government must meet."
That is an interesting statement. Up to 22 December the Opposition had agreed, through the usual channels, a timetable to which they had kept. They were aware that the Government were under pressure, because of the timetable to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred, to get it through. The hon. Member for Huddersfield then said:
"What a mess this statement has left us in…How can we carry on in the spirit of co-operation, faced with the great difficulties with which the Home Secretary has presented us? …We shall have"
he said, in a meaning and threatening tone—
"a very different attitude to the Bill when we return on 10 January."—[[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 22 December 1988; c. 236.]
The hon. Gentleman and those of his hon. Friends who support him are men and women of honour and they keep their word. They were as good as their word. When we returned to the House after turkey and plum pudding they adopted a very different attitude to the Bill. Acting, I am told, under the orders of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) they embarked on guerrilla tactics, the aim of which was merely to delay. As my hon. Friend the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) would testify, had he not been sworn to silence, the Opposition were unable and unwilling to agree on how the Committee should proceed in an orderly and proper fashion in its examination of this most important Bill.
Ms. Mowlam: Ought not the hon. Gentleman to tell the House that on 12 January the Government introduced a new clause and 14 amendments, which meant that the Committee had to discuss new material that Opposition Members, without a body of civil servants to help them, had to go through? If the hon. Gentleman is to paint a true picture of what happened, could we please have all the facts?
Mr. Sumberg: I accept that what the hon. Lady says is true. However, the reports of the Committee debates show

703
what tactics were adopted by Opposition Members. Moreover, the statement of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, to which I have already referred, is on the record.
The Opposition said at first that they would co-operate, even though they did not like the Bill very much. Then they were at sixes and sevens; they did not know whether to proceed quickly, slowly or not at all. All hon. Members who serve on the Committee know that to be true. Opposition Members may have been working according to the directions and instructions of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. I make no criticism of that. He is responsible for the Labour party's policy on home affairs. It is right that he should have some influence on how the Committee behaves and the tactics that Opposition Members adopt in Committee.
If that is what the right hon. Gentleman told them to do, and if they accepted his instructions, I think that the Labour party has taken leave of its senses. What better evidence does one give one's political opponents that one is not serious, that one does not recognise the urgency and that one has failed to be in touch with public opinion than that which one gives on terrorism? What better evidence can one give than to play—to quote the words of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) on another matter—"clever silly" in relation to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill? That is the evidence that some of my hon. Friends require about the motives of the Labour party.
During one of those late evenings when sleep was difficult because of the charms and eloquence of some Opposition Members, I chanced to read an article in The Times when I was looking for an explanation of this extraordinary behaviour by Opposition Members, particularly that of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. The article was by a former close colleague of Opposition Members. During his time in this House he took a close interest in home affairs. I refer to Kilroy, as he is now known—Robert Kilroy-Silk. When I read his article in The Times on 6 January it satisfied me as to why we are here this afternoon.
I shall read out part of the article. It gives the reason as to why we are debating this motion today. The article is headed
"One of the Paler Shadows".
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is not here. An hon. Member: "He is having his tea." He will read Hansard, anyway.
The article continues:
"Where has the shadow Home Secretary been hiding himself for the past few months? Who is the shadow Home Secretary? No, that is not a sarcastic or a rhetorical question, or at least it was neither what I asked it of myself at the beginning of this week.
For a brief but disturbing moment I could not recall the name or face of the incumbent of that august office…My temporary lapse of memory was occasioned by the fact that it is difficult to think of anything of note that Labour's shadow Home Secretary has said or done recently on home affairs."
Mr. Richard Holt: Does my hon. Friend agree that about the only pronouncement that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman was on football identity cards? Again, he is 100 per cent. out of tune with the British public.
Mr. Sumberg: I quite agree.
704
The article was written on 6 January, and the right hon. Gentleman has since made his statement. He is right out of tune with the British public. To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, he spoke on the case of Mr. Viraj Mendts, a case of great interest to many of my constituents.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: He was out of touch again.
Mr. Sumberg: My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman) makes the point that he was out of touch with the vast majority of people. He was certainly out of touch with the vast majority of my constituents, many of whom work in the city of Manchester and pay rates there.
The article—it is by Robert Kilroy-Silk, not me—concludes with the words:
"The fact that I had to pose the question to myself is in itself an indication of his failure to make an impact."
We have the answer there. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made an impact today, and so did other Opposition Members, by allowing us to get into the situation in which a guillotine motion must be proposed. [Interruption.] Some Opposition Members are here. I see the former Solicitor-General the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). He makes up in quality what the Opposition lack in numbers.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and many other Opposition Members have made an impact, but not in the way that they probably would have wanted. They made an impact by saying to the House and to the British people that saving the face of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, proving Kilroy wrong rather than right, and justifying the right hon. Gentleman's virility is more important than making sure that the country has weapons to defeat the bomber and the gunman.
When we debated the matter in Committee, certain Opposition Members, no doubt sincerely—the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) was one of them—and with some credibility argued that terrorism could never be defeated, that we had to learn to live with it, that we have always had it, and that we have to do our best to contain it. I am not prepared to accept that view and neither, I hope, is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Whatever is required, a civilised society must prevail. It will not be easy to defeat the terrorist.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Although it is difficult to defeat terrorism, the only way it will be defeated is if terrorists believe that, despite the means that terrorists deploy, no Government will ever grant them their political objectives. As long as the Opposition show a lack of firmness of purpose, as they are doing today, they will give hope to terrorists and make it more difficult for us to defeat them.
Mr. Sumberg: My hon. Friend is quite right. Many times in Committee we asked the Opposition how they proposed to deal with terrorists. They answered by saying that they are perfectly satisfied that the ordinary criminal law is sufficient to deal with terrorists. In the light of their record, that is an extraordinary statement. It bears no relation to the reality in Northern Ireland or in the rest of the United Kingdom. Opposition Members recognise that, in 1974—certainly during their period of office—there was a need for specific anti-terrorist measures. It is a reflection on the change in the Labour party and the pressures that have caused that change that the Opposition now feel politically unable to say to the Government, "We accept

705
that there is a need for a specific measure against terrorism. Okay, there are certain points in the legislation with which we do not agree and which we want changed, but, in principle, we see the need to deal with a specific situation." They say that the ordinary law is sufficient and that we should try to deal with terrorism on that basis.
Opposition Members should say that to the people of Northern Ireland. They should say that to the people who have suffered from terrorism in this country. They should tell people who have lost friends and relatives that the ordinary law is sufficient. I only wish it were. If it were sufficient, we would not have to spend time this afternoon and all the time that we spent in Committee debating the issue. If we have determination, we can defeat terrorism. We must provide the means. We must give the forces of law and order the means to tackle and combat the men of violence.
Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Gentleman's face is new to me in this kind of debate. I have been here all the years since terrorism first occurred. I remember every Minister, including a previous right hon. Member for Barnsley who is now a lord, telling me how we were destroying terrorism and that we were winning. I argued that the idea was utter nonsense and that terrorism would continue for many years.
The hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) speaks with the attitude that we will conquer terrorism and that it is easy to conquer it if only the Prevention of Terrorism Bill is enacted. Hon. Members who have never taken part in such a debate before are giving the House guidance about how to do it. The hon. Gentleman should wake up. The matter is far more serious than that. It will go on for a long time due, to some extent, to the kind of nonsense that I have been hearing from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Sumberg: I rather regret giving way. The hon. Gentleman plainly was not listening to what I said.
Mr. Flannery: Yes I was.
Mr. Sumberg: Then he did not listen well enough. I said clearly that the fight against terrorism is difficult. It will not be easy to win through. If the hon. Gentleman did not hear me the first time, I hope he heard me the second time. If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he will find that I said that. In any event, it will not be easy to win through, but it will be much harder if we follow the Opposition's policies. We would have no chance at all.
Opposition Members take the view that all is hunky-dory in the garden, that there is no need to do anything, that we can rely on the general criminal law, that we are just dealing with a group of rather horrible people, and that, somehow or other, sweetness and light will prevail. The public do not believe that. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) should talk to his constituents. He will find that they are 100 per cent. behind what the Government ae doing. They want us to succeed with the measure. They find it extraordinary that the Opposition should not have co-operated with us in Committee and this afternoon. If the matter goes to a vote and the Government win, we shall press ahead with the
706
Bill. The Opposition will rue the day they showed themselves not to be supporters of the Bill but the tacit friends of the gunman and the bomber.
4.18 pm
Mr. Peter Archer: Not for the first time, the Government have introduced us to "Alice in Wonderland". Hon. Members may remember the debate in that story about executing the Cheshire cat. The king's argument was that anything that had a head could be beheaded. The executioner's argument was that a head could not be cut off unless there was a body from which to cut it. Even as a small child I found the executioner's argument more persuasive.
This is precisely what we are discussing this afternoon; it is the issue which the Government have raised. A guillotine is an instrument for separating one thing from another. In the context of Committee proceedings, it is to separate those parts of the proceedings which may be discussed from the parts that will not be discussed. There is no sense or meaning in a guillotine which relates to discussions that have already been completed. One cannot cut off the completed portion of a Committee's proceedings unless there is an uncompleted portion from which to separate it.
It is true that this motion deals with the remaining stages of the Bill, and it is proposed to allot one day to the whole of the remaining stages. That is disgraceful, and it cannot possibly appear as anything but running away from the debate. But whatever the appropriate period of time for the remaining stages, that is not a matter on which the Opposition could prevent the Bill from reaching the statute book, because it is wholly within the control of the Government, who decide how many days shall be allocated to it. Usually, that is a matter for business questions.
If it is said that the Committee stage is not quite complete—there remain the two debates about which my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) interjected, selected in the marshalled list—the Government are not chopping off a head: they are clipping toenails. The Committee is to sit tomorrow morning in any event, and those two debates will be disposed of well within the morning. If the Government believe that, for some reason, the Opposition proposed to extend those two debates, I ask where the evidence for that is in the context of anything that has taken place in the Committee.
Of course, the Government say that the Opposition have wasted time. Governments always say that and the Opposition say that they have not. Nothing would be added to that discussion by my denying it this afternoon. I simply ask any right hon. or hon. Member who would like to familiarise himself with the events of the Committee, and who would like to know whether the debate there occupied an inordinate amount of time and whether we invented fanciful suggestions for debate, to obtain a copy of the Committee's proceedings in the Vote Office and preferably read it all. If hon. Members do not have time to read it all, they should take any of our discussions at random and judge whether they were extended artificially, whether time was wasted, or whether we had a perfectly normal, rational debate on matters of genuine concern.
It is true that, at the outset of the Committee, we objected to the Government's bland assumption that when

707
the Government get themselves into a mess with their legislative programme the solution is always and automatically for the Opposition to behave reasonably, curtail debate and agree a timetable. We do not accept that, because it is not a well-founded constitutional doctrine. It was the Conservative party which complained a few years ago that there was too much legislation and that we needed a rest from it, yet they created this problem by trying to cram too much sausage through the machine last Session, and then again this Session. So we started this Session late. Then they said that the simple solution was for the Opposition to curtail debate and be reasonable and helpful. We said that we did not accept that proposition, but our point was a constitutional one. No one who has read our debates could suggest that we extended them artifically or were unco-operative.
I complain at the travesty of our debates that we heard in the speech of the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg). If anyone accepts his argument, I plead with him to go and read our proceedings. For anyone who has heard or read them that suggestion is a sheer calumny; for anyone who has not, it was a silly and ignorant construction. I have said this before in the Chamber, but I resent the suggestion that we in the Opposition do not care about terrorism and that we take lightly the tragedy, loss and foolhardiness of it all. Some of us have known the victims of terrorism, so when hon. Members suggest that that explains the differences—
Mr. Neil Hamilton rose—
Mr. Archer: Let me finish.
When hon. Members suggest that this is the explanation of our differences, such suggestions arise purely from their ignorance. If it is not from ignorance, it is from something more sinister.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: I make no imputation against the right hon. and learned Gentleman or the vast majority of his colleagues, or against their firmness of purpose in opposing terrorism I said that their opposition to reasonable Bills such as this is perceived by terrorists as a lack of firmness of purpose, and that is the problem we are discussing.
Mr. Archer: If the hon. Gentleman had been familiar with our debates in Committee, he would have known that a great deal of our time was taken up with what is counter-productive as a means of dealing with terrorism. I know that I would be out of order if I embarked on the subjects that we discussed, and I do not propose to do that. But I resent the suggestion—it may not have come from the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), but it has certainly been made by other Conservative Members—that what is at issue with this Bill is whether we are opposed to terrorism.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department who dealt with the Bill in Committee has not suggested that we wasted time or that our discussions were in any way improper. He appeared to be interested in the points we were making; he directed his mind to them and replied to them. We were not always in agreement, but I always understood his replies, which is not true of every Minister of this Government whom I have heard in Committee. We have had no complaints from the Minister that what was said in Committee was in any way inappropriate.
708
Right until the sitting after dinner on Thursday evening, after the Government announced that they were introducing this motion, we had heard no suggestion—although there had been no agreement about a timetable—that time was being wasted. Then, when the Committee resumed after dinner on Thursday, two things happened which I, at least, failed to predict. First, Conservative Back Benchers became different animals. Until then, although they had participated from time to time in our discussions and had made brief contributions, they had chiefly dealt with their constituency correspondence, wandered in and out of the Committee, and looked through the window. In one case, an hon. Member had brought a Division to a standstill until being shaken awake and told what to say. At that moment, I almost had a conscience about having called a Division, but the Division did not seem to interrupt his slumber, because a few moments later he adopted a somnolent posture and passed the rest of the sitting peacefully. In short, they were behaving exactly as Government Back Benchers are expected to behave in Committee, but after dinner on Thursday evening they began to exhibit an intense interest in our deliberations. They intervened in our contributions and made substantial contributions themselves, to which Ministers rose and replied. It was a real joy; but it was almost as though the Government side of the Committee did not want the business to be concluded.
Then, at 10 pm, the second unpredictable event occurred. We had had a number of late sittings, about which we made no complaint. We appreciated that there was urgency, but there were matters that we genuinely wanted to discuss. However, on the stroke of 10 on Thursday, the Government Whip moved the adjournment of the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said that there was so little left to discuss that we could easily dispose of it if we sat a little later, but the Government side voted down his proposal.
So it is not open to the Government to say that the business of the Committee was not concluded. It was nearly concluded, and would have been if they had not deliberately prevented it from being so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and, indeed, the Leader of the House have said, we have all taken part many times in guillotine debates and we could rehearse all the usual arguments in our sleep. Normally, our only problem is to remind ourselves of whether we are in government: or opposition so that we do not transpose the arguments.
But this debate is unique. The usual arguments are simply not applicable. The Government cannot say that we are bringing business to a standstill and preventing vital legislation reaching the statute book because there is nothing left in Committee for the Opposition to prevent. We, the Opposition, cannot say that the Government are ignoring the rights of the House and inhibiting free speech, because there is virtually nothing left for us to say. If Lewis Carroll had thought of that far-fetched situation, I have no doubt that it too would have been in "Alice in Wonderland".
The Opposition should resist the motion, first, because although it makes provision, it makes disgustingly inadequate provision for the remaining stages. In other situations, we would have had to say this in business questions, but, as it is, that seems a good reason for

709
resisting the motion. Secondly, we should resist it because the House should not encourage pointless and unnecessary motions.
It only remains to ask, why are the Government doing this? Why should they want to do something that Governments normally resist having to do? Why should they want it to appear that the House is more divided on the principle of the Bill than it really is? Is it true that in this House we have a hobby of ascribing motives to one another. If an hon. Member mentions the state of the weather, we all speculate as to what reason he might have for introducing that subject. Even if he tells us of the reasons, we all ask one another whether those are the real reasons or whether there might be some deeper and more cunning reason.
I have racked my brains, but I cannot conceive of any reason why the Government should want to introduce this motion—
Mr. Michael Foot: Fake publicity.
Mr. Archer: Well, my right hon. Friend has made one suggestion and perhaps we could all put forward our own suggestions, but I can think of no reason, commendable, disgraceful, or morally neutral. On Thursday evening I found myself wondering whether we had entered some Kafkaesque situation in which the inhabitants of the lunatic asylums take over and the people are governed by lunatics. That would explain a number of things that have happened in the House in recent months.
There is one other possibility, which is found back in "Alice in Wonderland." I have reminded the House of the king's argument and of the executioner's argument. The queen's argument was that if something was not done at once, she would have everybody executed. That was not the most logical contribution, but it was the most effective in concentrating people's minds. I take leave to wonder whether the "Queen of Hearts" has let it be known to her Ministers that they must be seen to be energetic and effective; that they must stand no nonsense and flex their muscles to let everybody see who is boss. I wonder whether they are demonstrating their macho response by introducing a guillotine motion every time there is a debate. I see only those two possible suggestions. I still have not heard a third.
4.33 pm
Mr. Kenneth Hind: I congratulate the hon. Member for Warley, South—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I congratulate the hon. Member for Warley, West—[Interruption.] I shall start again, I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). However, like his hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), he has put a huge smokescreen over what has happened in order to apologise for the activities of the Labour party. The public will not see this matter the same way. Therefore, it is for myself and my hon. Friends to expose the activities and the cavalier attitude towards the safety of the public of the Labour Opposition in relation to their dealings with the Prevention of Terrorism Bill in Committee.
Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hind: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my point, I shall then allow him to intervene.
The timetable motion has been forced upon the Government. There was no choice in the matter. That decision was forced on the Government by the Opposition, not by anybody else. As a member of the Committee, I was aware, as were all my colleagues, that there was an understanding between the Government and the Opposition that Committee consideration of the Bill would be finished by 19 January so that it could come back to the House for Report and Third Reading and then go to the House of Lords. That was because, if we did not complete our consideration of the Bill by 23 March, there would be no Royal Assent; the existing temporary provisions legislation would expire and the public would have no protection from terrorism in terms of the special powers that the Bill provides and neither would the police have the special tools that are specifically given to them by the House to deal with terrorism. That is what was at stake and that is what is at stake in this debate on the so-called guillotine motion.
It has been argued that the Opposition have said that the Government have reneged on the agreement because of the decision of the European court of human rights. In considering that position, we should remember that no extra Committee time was spent on the court decision because my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department made it clear that they were considering the matter.
What we are facing—it is the most important thing in the days after the accident at Lockerbie, after Enniskillen and the Battersea bomb factory—is the fact that without the Bill there is no protection against terrorism. That is what people outside the House must realise. They should also realise that the party that forced the guillotine did not support the Bill on Second Reading. It supported part of it and many Opposition Members voted against it. Indeed, two Opposition Members felt so strongly that they resigned from their Front Bench. The fact is that the Labour party today is against any legislation that gives power to deal with terrorists. That is what is at the root of this and that is what the public outside must realise.
I have two major points to make about the Bill. First, it does not deal only with terrorism in Northern Ireland. That is something that we all forget. The original 1974 legislation was indeed designed to deal with that problem, but today we are not just dealing with terrorism in Northern Ireland. The attempt to bomb an E1 A1 jet at Heathrow airport illustrates that. We have seen international terrorists kill diplomats on the streets of London and we have seen WPC Yvonne Fletcher shot down on duty by a terrorist from the Libyan embassy in London—
Mr. Dobson rose—
Mr. Hind: We have seen the recent Lockerbie explosion—
Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hind: I shall give way in a moment if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish.
We have seen a jet blown out of the sky at Lockerbie. Those acts were carried out by international terrorists. Those are the situations to which we, as Members of

711
Parliament, must apply our minds in order to provide protection for the general public in this country. We are not just talking about Ireland because the Bill has other major facets.
Mr. Dobson: When the hon. Gentleman talks about the shooting of WPC Fletcher, is he suggesting that the prevention of terrorism legislation did or did not work in her case? What I remember—and bitterly as a London Member of Parliament—is that I protested immediately the Libyans announced that they were going to use the so-called Libyan people's bureau as a base from which to pursue the enemies of the Gaddafi regime. I demanded that the British Government close it and throw them out, but for years the Government took no action. It was as a result of that failure to act that WPC Fletcher was shot from the window. What is more, this Government, who say that they do not deal with terrorism or talk to terrorists, negotiated with the Libyans about how they should leave this country. Finally to add insult to injury, the Metropolitan police were forced to carry out the humiliating task of providing their colleague's murderer with safe conduct from this country. We shall take no lessons from Conservative Members about how to fight terrorism, because they have nothing to teach us.
Mr. Hind: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I did not remember his protest about that, because he protests about so much.
If the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 had been in force and the Government had taken the hon. Gentleman's advice it would have been of use. If he thinks carefully he will realise that the Act would have been important in that case. The people in the embassy had diplomatic status and that enabled them to leave. Because of the international conventions on diplomacy, the Government were not allowed to touch them. The hon. Gentleman knows that Conservative Members felt as strongly about that as he did. We had no control over the situation, which was forced on us by international agreements.
We are dealing with an international situation. On the streets of our country there are trained terrorists, many of whom have been trained in the middle east by the Libyans, the Syrians and Palestinian groups. Many of them are learning to counter the techniques of interrogation, and the Bill will at least give the police some of the tools that they need to get round that problem.
No doubt some of my hon. Friends who served on the Committee will remember the arguments advanced about security checks at airports. Those checks are currently being carried out at Heathrow and Gatwick and at all our airports to protect people using American airlines to fly to the United States and back. They are to counter the threat about a plane from Frankfurt being bombed which resulted in the Lockerbie air disaster. The powers to carry out those checks are contained in the Bill. Are the Opposition saying that those checks are not necessary? If they are necessary, how are they to be carried out if the Opposition prevent the Bill from becoming law?
What will the Opposition say to the relatives of those who may die as a result of proper checks not being carried out because the police or the security services did not have the powers contained in the Bill? I am sure that the Opposition would not be very happy if they were put in that position. That points to the need for the Bill. We must
712
also be mindful of the planes that fly from London and from all over the world to Belfast. Surely people flying in and out of Ulster are entitled to the protection of the special provisions contained in this Bill and in others and which allow for the searching of baggage and checks for bombs and weapons. They also allow for the detention for 12 hours of suspected terrorists, people who may not be able properly to account for their activities.
These are important protections not only for the people on the United Kingdom mainland but for those citizens of the United Kingdom who live in Northern Ireland. Those matters were forgotten by the Opposition when they filibustered on the Committee. Let us deal with the Irish situation. Today the Irish terrorist is far more professional than he was in the past. I learned a great deal in Committee by listening to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) who told us much about first-hand dealings with terrorists. It was quite frightening to hear that, especially after incidents such as the one at Eniskillen. Many of these terrorists are trained by the Red Brigades and Baader-Meinhof and middle eastern terrorist groups and they come to Ulster to do their worst. We must prevent them from doing their worst on the mainland.
As an English Member, I have a duty to my constituents to ensure that they are safe. That can be achieved through the exclusion orders in the Bill. Their purpose is to keep known terrorists who are in Northern Ireland away from the mainland, to prevent them from running a bombing campaign in the rest of the United Kingdom. Most of them are at large only because of the intimidation of witnesses in Northern Ireland. Nobody will come forward to give evidence against terrorists in the courts so that they can be properly convicted because the families of potential witnesses will live in fear.
Typically and laughably, the Opposition pray in aid the Brogan case decided at the European Court of Human Rights. That case involved five known terrorists with convictions, typical of this situation, who were excluded by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary from the United Kingdom. Nobody can tell me, and I am sure that nobody can tell the public, that those exclusion orders were not necessary. We have only to look at the Battersea bomb factory to see that. In that case terrorists were arrested, but some are still at large in London. The police suspect that bombs with long fuses, similar to the one at the Grand hotel in Brighton, are ticking away waiting to go off. We need to find the people who planted those and nobody can tell me that the Bill is not necessary to help root them out.
The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act prevented a seaside bombing campaign in the United Kingdom and was used some months ago to prevent the assassination outside his home of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In the Grand hotel explosion some of my colleagues and I saw the building virtually falling around us as an IRA bomber attempted to wipe out the whole Government in one go. Are the Opposition saying that the tools of detection and prevention of terrorism are not necessary in such cases?
Mr. Archer: If we are to take seriously the hon. Gentleman's contribution on this subject, will he tell us whether he really thinks that the Brogan case had something to do with exclusion orders? Has he even read it?
Mr. Hind: I have already spoken about the situation in relation to that. I cited the people in that case as typical of the sort of people that we know about and for whom exclusion orders are used. Given that situation, I am happy, as I am sure many of my hon. Friends are, about the existence of exclusion orders. One has only to look at bombings in London and at bombings at military establishments and at the Brighton case, which is typical, to see that such measures are necessary.
I now turn to the European Court of Human Rights case about Brogan and others. Because of the case put forward in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary it was not necessary to spend much time dealing with the Brogan case. The Government clearly told the Committee that they would have wide consultations about judicial supervision in the case of suspected terrorists who were detained for seven days. They needed to consult the judiciary in Northern Ireland and in Scotland, England and Wales. They also needed to consult three Government Departments and the matter had to be considered in detail. No extra time was used in dealing with that matter. The Opposition cannot pray in aid the Brogan case because the decision was made after the Bill was published. The date for the debate was already announced before the European Court of Human Rights deliberated on this matter. In order to come to a proper conclusion, widespread consideration of that decision is important.
It ill becomes members of the Opposition to accuse the Government of derogating from that position. My right hon. Friend had no alternative but to derogate. Had he not, we would have been in contravention of the European court's ruling and his actions would have been illegal. He did what the then Labour Government did, as a result of different factors, in 1974 and 1978. Again, the derogation was the result of action taken under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. It ill becomes the shadow Leader of the House to say that the Labour Government derogated only on Northern Ireland. Those 14 or 10 years ago, international terrorism was nowhere near as bad as it is today, so the criteria for dealing with international terrorism were different. I support the derogation.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—I am sure that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) will tell the right hon. Gentleman about this—told us earlier in the year in the debate on the Security Service Bill:
"The protection of our liberties is too important to be left to judges."—[Official Report, 16 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 39.]
It seems that the Opposition will use the judges when it suits them. but in this case, as an apology for the position that they have taken on the prevention of terrorism, will say that the judges are a sufficient protection. When the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook comes to the House, we shall have to check to see which face he is wearing.
Mr. Sumberg: Although my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has left the Chamber, no doubt temporarily, he has been here from the beginning of the debate, but the spokesman for the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was here for a few minutes at the beginning and has not been seen since. How are we to take seriously his claim to be the principal spokesman on home affairs?
714
Has my hon. Friend any idea where the right hon. Gentleman has gone, or when he will be back and whether he will play any part in these proceedings?
Mr. Hind: I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman is, and I do not care either.
A Committee is considering the Bill, and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is not a member of that Committee. Despite that, Conservative members of the Committee are aware that the right hon. Gentleman's sticky fingers are all over the way in which that Committee has been conducted. That conduct has resulted in the introduction of this guillotine motion. If the agreement to finish on 19 January had been honoured, the public would not have been put in danger and we would not have been forced to truncate the debate on this important Bill. Such behaviour sends out the wrong message to the public. It shows them that the Labour party is soft on terrorism, and its attempts in Committee to water down every strong item of the police's powers to deal with terrorism merely shows both the terrorists and the public that the Opposition are weak on terrorism and that they are likely to be the terrorists' friends.
Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hind: No, I will not.
Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to any hon. Member as the terrorists' friend?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I doubt that the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) has implied that. If he has, I am sure that he will withdraw it.
Mr. Hind: I will certainly withdraw it. The point that I was making was that the Opposition's actions will be interpreted outside in that fashion. I know many Labour Members and I am sure that that is not so. I am saying that the wrong message is being sent out to the British public by Labour Members.
Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend may not wish to retract too conclusively his statement about terrorist supporters on the Opposition Benches, when he remembers the activities of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).
Mr. Barry Sheerman: That must be retracted.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) will find that statement as offensive as the Chair does, and will retract it.
Mr. Holt: I find nothing that I have said about the hon. Member for Brent, East offensive.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is unacceptable to the Chair and to the House for hon. Members to refer to other hon. Members as a terrorist's friend. I hope that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh will reflect on what he said and will make an apology.
Mr. Holt: I will apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and if you rule that what I said was an unparliamentary remark, I will withdraw that and allow the public to choose.
Mr. Hind: When all is considered and the public look at the Bill in the light of what has happened in the Committee, they will note that on Second Reading the Opposition abstained, and many Opposition Members voted against the Bill. Opposition Front Bench spokesmen have said that they support only that part of the Bill that deprives of their funds the bankers and financiers of terrorism. Those who are so cavalier in their attitude to the safety of the British public cannot be regarded as capable of forming a credible Government. I am sure that that will be reflected in the attitude of the British public in future elections.
The British public are entitled to be protected from terrorism, and the Government will provide that protection, and have accepted their duty by truncating the debates on the Bill. After Lockerbie, Enniskillen and many other horrors, the British public will not understand the stance of the Opposition.
4.56 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: It is not altogether clear why the Government have thought fit to introduce the guillotine motion. Had they provided as much time for the later stages of the Bill as for the debate this afternoon, there might have been a perfectly adequate amount of time for consideration of these matters.
I come to the debate with no axe to grind, because the third parties have been largely excluded from the debate. The Committee is not graced by the presence of any of my right hon. or hon. Friends and we would wish to consider, at a later stage of the proceedings, a number of the extremely important matters—some of them new—that the Bill contains. Therefore, we are extremely resentful of the Government's decision to truncate the Report stage and Third Reading and to squash them into a single day. This is a contemptible procedure, and one that we cannot possibly support.
I need not re-emphasise the view of the Democrats that the Bill is necessary, as I made that clear on Second Reading. The Government must have their legislation on the statute book by 21 March, the date when the Act ceases to have effect. The official Opposition appear to be divided about whether the Bill is necessary. The speech of the shadow Leader of the House suggested that the Labour party is opposed to the Bill, and may be opposing the timetable motion in part because of that, but that is not part of our argument.
Our view is that the substance of the Bill has changed since Second Reading. This is the last time, probably for quite some time, that the House will have the opportunity to debate these exceptional provisions, which are required to defeat terrorism. Although it will be necessary, if the Bill is enacted, to re-enact its provisions by affirmative resolution, that will give us the opportunity only to reject or accept the Government's case for the legislation in total, or to respond as the Government give the lead. We shall not have the opportunity to change the content of the legislation by amendment, save where the Government decide to lay such amended revisions before us. This is exceedingly important legislation, and although we are persuaded that it is broadly acceptable, we should have time to test its provisions in full on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I am confused by what the hon. Gentleman said. I appreciate the fact that he believes in the importance of
716
this measure and that it has to complete the parliamentary process by a certain date. However, I am not entirely certain whether the hon. Gentleman resents it being dealt with on the Floor of the House as at present, or whether he would prefer it to be discussed at greater length in a Committee of which neither he nor I am a member and to which, therefore, we could not contribute.
Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman's intervention was entirely academic, as the Bill has practically completed its Committee Stage. The Leader of the House has made no serious complaint about the way the Bill was debated in Committee. Any objective observer taking the trouble to read the proceedings of the Committee would find that the Bill kept up with the timetable initially announced by the Government.
There was a hiccup when the Government announced that they did not intend to address the question whether a substantive change in the law should be made in response to the finding of the European Court of Human Rights. In that may lie the explanation that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) was seeking, of why the Government have introduced this otherwise wholly unnecessary guillotine.
It is worth recalling the history of the Brogan case because of its impact on the discussions on the Bill. The Home Secretary gave the House to understand in his announcement of 22 December, that, under article 15, he was embarking on a temporary derogation from the provisions of the European convention on human rights. He said that he hoped to introduce a judicial element into the procedure to comply with article 5·3 of the convention. The House waited expectantly to discover the obstacles to achieving that. We are still in the dark.
When the Committee resumed on Tuesday 10 January, the Under-Secretary of State read out a letter, which some of us have read. The letter said that the Government did not expect to have reached a conclusion as to how to respond to the Brogan case in time to incorporate any necessary changes in the law before the enactment of the legislation and the Royal Assent. The date for that was given as 21 or 22 March.
Why are the Government delaying their response to the Brogan case? What difficulties have led to this parliamentary interruption of the improperly short deliberations on the Report stage of the legislation? I hope that the Minister will give the House the answer.
When this legislation was introduced, it did not take the Government three months to decide how to act. However, we have been told that it will take more than three months to reach a conclusion on the modest issue of detention for seven days, which the European court found to be a violation of the convention. The Home Secretary is behaving in an unacceptable and dilatory fashion. He may have been unable to carry his Cabinet colleagues with him in preferring the judicial solution. If that is so, we are entitled to know. If someone outside the Government is preventing them from doing what they wish—to introduce a judicial element to review the case of those detained for up to seven days—we are entitled to know.
It has been reported in some parts of the press that some judges have said that they will have no part in it. If that is so, it is serious. If judges are saying that they wilt riot carry out, not only the views of Parliament but the law of Parliament, we are entitled to know. It is unacceptable for

717
the Home Secretary to seek to hush up this constitutional debate by confining the Report and Third Reading to a single parliamentary day.
Will the Minister convey to the Home Secretary the strength of our feeling that this issue should be debated on the Floor of the House. We must know why the Government are not yet ready to report to us. We have been told that it is because of interdepartmental consultations—my foot! That is not sufficient explanation. These matters can be conducted quickly if the will is there. The Government's willingness to deal with the matter is clearly lacking.
Mr. Mallon: Lest the House be under any misapprehension that discussions have reached stalemate with the judiciary only, hon. Members should be aware that the Army and police are refusing to give their intelligence to that type of judicial review. That is the stumbling block which should be confirmed by the Home Secretary today.
Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make that speculation. The House will listen with respect to the Home Secretary's explanation. We understand that he is dealing with a difficult security matter but he must give a frank explanation to the House. We have not received any such explanation. Instead, a Bill of profound constitutional importance which continues to curtail our citizens' liberties is being rushed through the House. [Interruption.] Some Conservative Members would like to sow the seeds of confusion about the attitudes of all Opposition Members. I have already explained our support for the Bill and our belief that it must be re-enacted. That does not diminish the constitutional importance of the measures before us, nor the seriousness of providing internal exile for more than 100 of the citizens of this country. It does not diminish the importance of holding people in detention for up to seven days.
Parliament must scrutinise and justify those matters at every possible opportunity. In future we shall not have an opportunity to amend the legislation, except on a Government motion. That is why we must be given adequate time to consider the Bill properly now. It is even more important to do so because the Government are legislating against the advice of Lord Colville, who disagreed with the way they intended to proceed on one aspect of the Bill.
Mr. Hind: I and many Conservative Members appreciate the hon. Gentleman's support for the Bill. Does he agree that, considering the point made in the European court about judicial supervision of suspected terrorists in detention, it would involve a simple Bill once consultation had taken place? With all-party support, we could get that Bill through the House quickly. Does he also agree that it is important to have widespread consultation with all those involved—as much as anything, to win their support—because they will have to operate the legislation?
Mr. Maclennan: No doubt there are those who, like myself, are willing to enable the Government to pass their legislation as fast as is reasonable, and will do the same if they introduce another Bill. I object to the fact that the Home Secretary is not telling the House what is causing the delay in his response. Why is it that we cannot incorporate the conclusion of the deliberation in the Bill if
718
that proves to be necessary? Surely that would be a far more sensible way in which to proceed. We have had not a whisper of information beyond the fact that discussions are still taking place.
Some of us fear that, when the Bill has received Royal Assent, we shall be told that the temporary derogation from the European convention is continuing, and will continue to the point at which it can no longer be regarded as temporary. The United Kingdom's commitment to the European convention on human rights will have then been seriously and unnecessarily weakened.
I recognise that the Labour Government thought it right and necessary to derogate from the convention to deal with Northern Ireland in 1978. It is conceivable that that will have to happen again, but it is not a light matter. It is a step that we should take only in the most exceptional circumstances. I am not persuaded that that can be said of the present circumstances. The Home Secretary has indicated what his preference is. If he intervenes in the debate, I hope that he will reaffirm at least that.
I hope also that he will tell us why it is that the House is having forced upon it a truncated procedure for further consideration of the Bill that is unrelated to anything that the Leader of the House said in his introductory remarks. It is a calumny to suggest that the members of the Committee have been unreasonably delaying progress in Committee. As I am not a member of the Committee, I read the reports of its proceedings with some detachment. I was left with the impression, however, that arguments were being advanced and followed properly, and that the timetable was being kept. The Government must do far better if they are to convince the House that it is right to guillotine the Bill.
5.12 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold: The attendance this afternoon exemplifies the fact, as I would describe it, that most hon. Members are sick and tired of the lengthy deliberations that have arisen from terrorism, especially that in Northern Ireland. It is true to say that there is considerable sympathy in the House and throughout the country for the long-suffering Royal Ulster Constabulary, the armed forces and the people of Ulster. The fight against terrorism must be continuous. If we are to fail in Northern Ireland, we shall find ourselves in the position that is being suffered by the people of Beirut. Such a situation in Northern Ireland would spill over into the Republic of Ireland and into Great Britain itself.
I would have expected all-party support for the Bill. It is interesting that, when the Bill began to be considered in Committee, it had the full support of the old hands of the Labour party. It has been said that, after the Christmas recess, the Labour party returned to this place ready to cause obstruction and to slow down the progress of the Bill through Committee. We can draw our own conclusions. Could it be that the new Labour party got at the old Labour party and ensured that the Bill would be delayed by means of inefficiency?
Mr. Sheerman: If the hon. Gentleman reads the report of the proceedings in Committee, he will learn why there was a change in tempo, or a suggested change in tempo, after the Christmas recess. It had everything to do with the Home Secretary's remarks shortly before Christmas, about temporary derogation. When we returned on Tuesday 10 January, we were handed a letter by the

719
Under-Secretary of State. Any change in tempo had everything to do with the Government's lack of reaction to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, and nothing to do with any change in attitude on the part of the Opposition.
Mr. Arnold: The Committee members should have dealt with that issue. The cumulative result, however, was delay, and that has thrown the entire process into danger. The delay was well exemplified by the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who first made a good case for the Bill but then had to scrape the barrel to find reasons for delay.
Mr. Sheerman: I intervene again to complete the hon. Gentleman's education. He is not a member of the Committee. If he feels so strongly about these matters—I understand that he would not be one of those who has been dragooned by the Government Whips to come into the Chamber to contribute to the debate—and if he examines the relevant issues in detail, he will learn that, if the Committee had sat for a further two hours after 10 o'clock on Thursday 19 January, there would have been no necessity for the introduction of a guillotine motion. If he is aware of that, why has that not coloured his remarks?
Mr. Arnold: If we were able to believe that the debate, which has continued for more than two hours, is about only an additional two hours of discussion in Committee, there would be no problem. It is clear, however, that the problem is far more widespread than that. At best, it can be attributed to the Labour party's knee-jerk reaction of opting for opposition for opposition's sake. That is the best interpretation that can be placed on the Opposition's actions. The worst interpretation is that they reflect the Labour party's failure to stand firmly and solidly with the rest of the House against terrorism.
We are debating the motion with the knowledge that the existing legislation will expire on 21 March. If the Bill does not receive Royal Assent before that date, we shall have once again an influx of identified terrorists to the United Kingdom. Again, the IRA will be fund-raising in the streets of Great Britain and in our pubs and clubs. We should not allow that to happen; that is why we must proceed quickly with the Bill.
All people in both parts of the United Kingdom would expect a united Parliament to get on with the Bill and to make progress with it. The opposition to the motion seems to be a perfect example of the obscure art of odontopedology, where the Labour party opens its mouth and puts in its foot. When measures of this sort come before the House, why is it that the Labour party has an unerring capability to back losers? Over recent months, we have seen it backing losers time and time again. A Bill of this sort will have the undoubted support of the British people, yet the Labour party seems to be doing so much to delay its passage on to the statute book.
Ms. Mowlam: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we do not have both feet in our mouth when we speak, as he does. The Government control the timetable and they were able to decide when the Bill went into Committee. They could have arranged adequate time for the Bill to be considered in Committee, by the House and by the other place. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Government are incapable of doing that, or why they are incompetent?
Mr. Arnold: Without a guillotine motion, and assuming the co-operation of all parties within the House, the Bill could be enacted quickly. It is the irresponsibility of the Labour party that has thrown the timetable into doubt and that is why the Government require a guillotine motion. They wish the Bill to meet the time limit that must be placed upon it by the expiry of the current legislation.
As I have said, it is extraordinary that, time and lime again, the Labour party seems to be able to back losers. Its obstruction of the progress of the Bill is an example of how it is out of step with the remainder of the country. Only last week, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) proved how the Labour party is out of step with the remainder of the country in its backing of Viraj Mendis—a law breaker, an exam fader and a marriage of convenience contracter. What is more—this is very much opposed by the British people—he is a social security sponger. Yet somehow the Labour party puts itself into the position of backing such a person.
A further example is the Labour party's backing of unilateralism, at precisely the time that multilateralism is breaking through. The Labour party has an extraordinary ability to back failures. A perfect example is the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who suddenly decided that he would back capitalism. He reached that decision only a week before black Monday and the collapse of the stock market. That demonstrates his great success in backing winners.
The House must keep up the fight against terrorism. There is a background of terrorist incidents such as the Lockerbie disaster, the terrible events at Enniskillen arid the discovery of the Battersea bomb factory. That shows that we must never let up in the fight against terrorism.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras mentioned the case of the Libyan embassy and said that he, a terrifically important person, called on the Government to close it. If embassies and high commissions in London are to be closed on the demand of ordinary Members, how many will remain open? How does one judge which embassies should remain open to avoid terrorism? Did the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras call for the closure of the Cuban embassy after the gun incident? He did not say what steps he would have taken after the murder of the policewoman. The killer was not identified. The head of the mission forbade interrogation, as he was entitled to do under diplomatic immunity, but the hon. Member did not tell us how he would have identified the killer or how he would have dealt with him.
It is clear that the united view of the House and the country is that the Bill should be got on with. The Government will keep up the fight against terrorism, without the Opposition's support, if necessary. I most certainly support the motion.
5.20 pm
Mr. Bruce George: During the past couple of hours, Conservative Members have treated us to a curious mixture of pomposity, silliness, irrelevance and malice. Terrorism affects everyone. It affects all political parties.
Conservative Members try to tar the Opposition in eyes of the public by word association, conjuring up names such as Lockerbie, Enniskillen and Libya, and claim that the Conservatives are the only party interested in fighting

721
terrorism. That is appalling nonsense. Just as everybody can remember where they were when President Kennedy was assassinated, most people can remember where they were when they heard of the Birmingham pub bombing. Hon. Members from the west midlands certainly can. Accusing Opposition Members of being indifferent to people's suffering and unconcerned about terrorism and its consequences is stupid and malicious beyond words. Everybody here wants to eradicate terrorism. The difference arises on the route we should take to achieve that common objective.
The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hinds) said that we have to fight terrorism with every means at our disposal. We must fight terrorism with every means at our disposal within the confines of a democratic system. The Argentine military dealt with terrorism using every means at its disposal and, in so doing, defeated its own objective. We are a democracy. If we descend to the level of our terrorist opponents and use dirty tactics, we deserve to be judged by the same standards.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the hon. Member please reconsider what he has just said? Surely he is not drawing any analogy between my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Government of Argentina.
Mr. George: This subject deserves far more seriousness than that question displays. I would draw a distinction between what the Home Secretary has said and the nonsense that we have heard from behind him. Each Conservative Member who has spoken has exceeded his predecessor in stupidity, which takes some doing.
Mr. Taylor: Answer the question.
Mr. George: There is no need for the hon. Member to wave as though he is about to take off. In no way would I equate the Home Secretary, for whom I have great admiration, with a Fascist dictatorship. If, however, we resort to lunatic tactics to fight terrorism, others might make such a connection. That must be avoided.
The Bill is constitutionally important. In our parliamentary system, the Government have every right to get their legislation through as long as they have a majority. In our parliamentary system, the Oppposition also have rights. With legislation as fundamental as this we, the Opposition, have a right to scrutinise it. The man in the street who comes into the Strangers Gallery and listens to our debate would form the impression that the Opposition team on the Committee are a group of Che Guevaras, Ho-chi Minhs or guerrilla war fighters, and that the Minister was met by a group of violent assassins. That is a travesty of the truth. If such a person believed that there had been an incessant guerrilla war, he should know that it was a short war, as the Bill was introduced only in December and it will be out of Committee in January.
Anybody who reads the reports of the Committee will discover that we are up to our 14th sitting. I do not know how we can be expected to deal with such fundamental, constitutional, security-related legislation in 14 sittings. We are being castigated for having reached only clause 24, but that hardly constitutes an appalling filibuster. We have dealt with the Bill remarkably expeditiously. In addition to our scrutinising the Bill, we have heard the Home Secretary make an important statement. Late in the day,
722
the Government have introduced additional amendments. I feel no shame at being charged with scrutinising legislation. In no way does taking 14 sittings to deal with 24 clauses constitute parliamentary Luddism. We have done our job of scrutiny.
As has been said, at 9.55 pm last Thursday, the Government clearly intended to prevent the Committee from sitting beyond 10 pm. Those who read the report will see that the Government and their supporters voted to finish at 10 pm. The Opposition voted against that proposition. We were quite prepared to carry on. There are only a couple of amendments to deal with. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary should stop muttering, as his attendance of the Committee has not been 100 per cent. He was certainly not present then.
We are coming to the end of the Bill. If the Government had had the guts last Thursday to tell their Back Benchers, "Don't go home at 10 pm. Let us stick it out a little longer so that we can finish," we could have finished. The irony is that we are guillotining a Committee stage which has almost ended. We are not guillotining a large chunk of a Bill, merely a salami slice.
The process of guillotining goes back to 1887. It is wrong that the guillotine should be used in this case. I advise hon. Members to read an excellent fact sheet—No. 23—produced by the Library on guillotine motions in the House of Commons. The Library has examined at what stage legislation has previously been guillotined, and how long the Committee stage has continued after a guillotine motion has been passed. Hon. Members will find few occasions when such fundamental legislation has been guillotined after so few sittings.
If anyone is to blame, it is the Government business managers—not the Home Office—who introduced the Bill late and then imposed a deadline which makes a mockery of parliamentary scrutiny. What the hon. Members for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) and for Lancashire, West said does not represent the Committee that I attended.
Ms. Mowlam: Has my hon. Friend noticed that, according to the fact sheet from the Library, the average time for the Government to guillotine a Bill is 86 hours? This Committee has sat for only 52 hours, which gives a firm indication of how irrationally the Government have acted in this case.
Mr. George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I made one of the longest speeches, which lasted about 40 minutes and dealt with an amendment on two serious points. Two serious aspects of counterterrorism were disposed of in that 40 minutes. I would not wish to inflict my speech on many people except as a form of punishment, but if hon. Members care to look at it, they will see that about a third of that time was spent responding to interventions from Tory Members. My speech could have been completed about 20 minutes earlier.
Moreover, the Chairman, who certainly would not permit superfluous, irrelevant and repetitious speeches, had to ask them to let me finish my speech without such frequent interruptions. So there is no evidence of filibustering. If hon. Members make a textual analysis of the speeches, they will see that they were not excessively long.
It is not right to argue that the Committee was beset with bad temper. The Opposition were not hellbent on

723
filibustering, but wanted to do a proper job of scrutiny. The Committee was reasonably amicable. The travesty described by Tory Members is not a representation of fact. Anyone who is interested in a serious, objective analysis of what took place in Committee, who reads the unfair and silly speeches of Tory Members and then the Committee reports will come to the conclusion that Committee members made a legitimate expression of parliamentary opposition, as is the role of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, be it the Labour or Tory party.
Terrorism, whether indigenous or international, affects many people adversely. The rise of international terrorism must be contained. The hon. Member for Bury, South has argued that terrorism can be eradicated, but I would rather cite more learned authorities than him. Because weapons are so freely available and so many causes adversely affect so many people, either in reality or imagination, terrorism will be with us in perpetuity. It is nonsense to say that terrorism will be eradicated only by firmness. That is untrue. Even if we could eliminate domestic terrorism, which we cannot, we shall always have to deal with other people's terrorism. The Belgian people have little indigenous terrorism, but they have imported terrorism.
It is dreadful to argue that Labour Members are indifferent to the consequences of terrorism. Opposition Members who have spoken hardly represent the militant edge of the Labour party. I resent my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), the former Solicitor-General, being castigated for being soft on terrorism. It is unfair of Tory Members to accuse us of indifference or, as the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) did, of being sympathetic to, and the friends of, terrorists. I am delighted that he withdrew that unfair remark, albeit with bad grace.
Our task in Committee was made more difficult, not so much by our endeavours, as by the timetable restrictions and the lateness in introducing the legislation. It was made even more difficult by the confusion consequent on the proceedings being interrupted by the Home Secretary's interim decision on the European Court of Human Rights' judgment. That the Home Secretary came before the Committee was welcome, but it took up one sitting. It is difficult for us to deal with legislation when the Government's response to an important part of it is suspended until after the Committee has completed its deliberations.
How can we legislate on the prevention of terrorism when the Government say, "Sorry, we can't provide you with adequate information because we have not made up our mind how we shall respond to the human rights judgment"? Our task was made more difficult as too little time was allocated to the Committee.
Tory Members who peruse the proceedings will conclude, as will any fair-minded person, that on 19 January we could have completed our proceedings. The Government for one reason or another did not want that because they wanted to come to the House today and guillotine a Bill that to all intents and purposes had been completed. As has been said, they wanted to show that they were macho and to castigate us for indifference to terrorism. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West has cited often quotes from "Alice in Wonderland". I add another—that if one shuts one's eyes and says something three times, it must be true.
724
Conservative Members may think that, if they point a finger at us and say that Labour Members do not care about terrorism, some people may believe it.
In some ways we do great damage to our cause by causing confusion—
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: The hon. Gentleman invited the House to study the Committee proceedings. I notice that on Thursday 19 January, the very day he has mentioned, he made a speech in excess of three quarters of an hour on one small point. Can he justify that not being a filibuster?
Mr. George: If the hon. Gentleman had been here and awake five minutes ago, he would have heard me explain that. Either his attention span is short, he was sleeping or he was absent. If he was not present, he should not point the finger at me when I have the right explanation. For his benefit, I repeat that much of the time was spent on responding to silly interventions from Tory Members who for one reason or another wished to conclude proceedings at 10 o'clock by filibustering, yet we are being accused of filibustering. My second point was that the amendment dealt with two fundamentally important elements to counter terrorism and that to spend 45 minutes on them was do do them less than justice. Furthermore, I had the protection of the Chairman, who told Tory Members to let me finish my speech because it was unfair to make so many interventions.
Mr. Sheerman: My I assist my hon. Friend? May I draw his attention to column 691 of the last sitting of the Committee, when a further two hours would have seen the end of the proceedings and the Chairman had to reprimand Tory Back Benchers. and upbraid them because they did not wish to make progress? If the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) wishes to make a serious point about the longest speech, which was only 40 minutes on an important point, surely he should take into account the Chairman's criticism of Government Back Benchers.
Mr. George: I welcome that intervention.
We must combat terrorism by the means at our disposal, in conjunction with our friends and allies abroad. That can be done through legislation—through more normal, ordinary legislation. If we can only re-create a degree of consensus we may succeed, but the task of achieving more harmony is not likely to be advanced by speeches such as we have heard from Conservative Members.
Everyone present today wants domestic and international harmony, which would allow people to lead the lives they deserve. We all agree on the goal, although there are differences between us. I hope that Conservative Members will have the good grace to realise that there are other ways of proceeding. I trust that not all of them feel affinity or sympathy with the motion. In fact, hardly anyone whom I have come across fits the caricature that has been described this evening.
I also hope that those who are impartial—I exclude the overwhelming majority of Conservative Members from this accusation—will conclude that the Committee stage need not have been guillotined unless the Government wished to guillotine it. When we proceed with the Bill tomorrow, if there is to be any prolongation—which I hope there will not—it may be as a result of formal

725
guillotining. If the Government had let the Committee reach its natural conclusion, this slot in today's proceedings could have been used to deal with matters infinitely more important than allowing Conservative Members a glow of pleasure from making the emotional and rather silly speeches to which we have been subjected.
5.41 pm
Mr. Ian Taylor: I wish to speak because I feel that my constituents would be rather concerned if they thought that there was any danger of the Bill not reaching the statute book within the time necessary, and thus not clearing the House by the end of this month. We are debating a timetable motion, but on occasions during the debate that seems to have slipped the minds of some hon. Members. I thank the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) for clarifying his statement, because I felt that he was verging on the extremism of which he was accusing Conservative Members when he made certain allegations affecting my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
A timetable motion should not have been neccessary. It should have been apparent to both sides of the House that this was a vital piece of legislation. I have not had time to look through the reports of all the sittings and, given the way in which these things work, I am sure that not every member of the Committee has listened to every word. I have noted, however, that there were 14 sittings, making 19 sessions. A quick perusal of the documentation suggests that Opposition Members' speeches did not always feature conciseness of thought, and that has contributed to the concern that has forced my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to bring forward the motion.
The problem is not that any member of the Committee is irresponsible. I am sure that Opposition Members are upright and clear about the need to combat terrorism. Some, at least, of their remarks are concise, and no doubt their approach to the legislation is responsible. I am sure that they share the views of a former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who said, when discussing the introduction of an earlier Bill to deal with terrorism:
"Unpleasant as are the powers contained in the Act, they are, in my view, necessary in order to prevent the far more serious consequences of terrorist violence."—[Official Report, 21 March 1979; Vol. 964, c. 1520.]
Opposition Members who take that view will, I am sure, be aware that some of their colleagues are not so responsible. They are, I am afraid, extremely confused. I happened to notice that last year the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said:
"Conservative Members uphold the Act year after year when innocent people are being terrorised."—[Official Report, 16 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 942.]
That shows not just confusion, but severe confusion, about whom the Bill is trying to protect. It is trying to protect innocent citizens of the United Kingdom, and doing so, as the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South said, means that there must be tough provisions. To take the view that those provisions are causing unnecessary hardship to suspected terrorists seems perverse in the extreme.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr.
726
Flannery) is not in the Chamber at present, but he was present a little earlier. Did the hon. Gentleman give to my hon. Friend that he intended to refer to him and attack what he had said? My hon. Friend may have an answer to what the hon. Gentleman has said. He may have been talking about people who are not suspected terrorists, but have been held for some time and then released. That has happened, after all.
Mr. Taylor: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments, but I would have hoped that the hon. Member for Hillsborough would continue to listen to the debate with the same interest that 1 have shown. If he feels that I have misquoted him on 16 February 1988—I have his speech before me—I am sure that he knows what he can do to rectify that.
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have always known it to happen in the House—until now, apparently—that hon. Members who are about to refer to, or attack, other hon. Members give them notice. It seems that in the last few years Conservative Members have dispensed with that practice. I think it worth while for us to be told if we are to be attacked, and thus to have the opportunity to be present and at least try to answer or express a view. If that is now not the practice of Conservative Members, it means that they have sunk even lower than I thought.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have the hon. Gentleman's point. If one hon. Gentleman is going to refer to another, it is normally common courtesy to inform him.
Mr. Sumberg: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) may have been referring to me. In my speech, I referred at some length to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I did not tell him that I was going to do so because I had expected him to be in the Chamber for the whole debate, which I thought was not an unreasonable assumption.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) was referring to the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), who now has the Floor.
Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to you for your reasonableness, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have no desire to attack any hon. Member who is not present; I would rather attack hon. Members—if "attack" is the word—when they are present. As I have sat through the whole debate, I was not able to notify the hon. Member for Hillsborough that I wished to quote him. I hoped that he would stay in his place.
I am sure that Opposition members of the Committee will be responsible. I note that the timetable motion allows a further sitting of the Committee on 24 January which can continue until 11 pm, so that there will be no restraint on the way in which Opposition Members debate the two extra new clauses which they have said are so important to them. Judging by past performance and speeches in this House, some of their hon. Friends are less responsible on these matters, so the timetable motion is important because it also has a bearing on Report and Third Reading. It is at that stage when, I am afraid, the normal channels to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the

727
House referred could be found to be less than reliable. If that were so, there is a grave danger that the House would not proceed in an orderly way with its business before the end of the month. In those circumstances, the Bill would fall foul of the date of 22 March, which would be outrageous.
My constituents and the constituents of my hon. Friends would justifiably feel that our right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had not acted promptly enough if he was not able to push the business through by the end of this month. For those reasons, I entirely accept that a guillotine motion is needed. It will enable the Bill to take its course by the end of this month, with sufficient time, still, for reasoned argument and—as the hon. Member for Walsall, South said was necessary—for a proper scrutiny in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading.
People in the United Kingdom do not want the police to be handicapped in fighting terrorism. They do not want terrorist organisations to be free to operate. The Government cannot afford to wait for terrorist crime to be committed before bringing in legislation. I do not think that anyone would dispute that there are controversial provisions in the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. There are many provisions which hon. Members on this side of the House would have preferred not to be introduced had they not been so necessary. We are dealing, however, with a highly charged situation.
The people in Northern Ireland and on this mainland, who would be affected, would not understand it if legislation was not in place. The risks for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would be too great if there were any signs of the sort of extremism in certain quarters of the Labour party frustrating the Bill's passage through the House. In those circumstances, I entirely support my right hon. Friend's action and I ask the House to do so tonight.
5.52 pm
Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh): In saying a few words about what is, in effect, a guillotine motion, I should observe that, if one is a Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland in this sort of debate one experiences the guillotine on a regular basis. I thought that it might be relevant in a debate on a guillotine motion if I were not to recognise the fact that littel time is left for me. I realise, however, that the Minister and the Opposition Spokesman have important points to make in reply and I shall not allow the guillotine to be enforced upon them as it so often is on Northern Ireland Members. My remarks must be even more compressed than they were in Committee, when we were accused of filibustering.
There is an air of unreality, because in this debate about a guillotine motion we cannot debate the actual Bill. The debate, however, has now lasted almost twice as long as two important pieces of Northern Ireland legislation-those which removed the freedom of the press and the right to silence. That, in effect, tells us something about this debate, although I am not sure what. What brought a sense of excitement to the Committee was wondering whether there would be a guillotine, a change of orders or just what would happen. What was remarkable was that it seemed that, when a decision was taken to put a timetable motion on the order of business, and it looked as though the Government might get through without enforcing it, there was some panic on the Government side. As one who
728
is not involved in either of the major parties, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that both sides wanted a punch-up and that extra time was being sought on the Floor of the House, for whatever reason.
One had only to listen to some of the speeches today to realise that the Government wanted this debate to make the silly, unfair and untrue point that the Opposition are soft on terrorism. I live in the midst of terrorism. I see it from all sides every day of the week. I do not believe that it is right that people who may have no experience of it should make wild and untrue accusations.
A study of the record of the Committee shows that it was not dealing with a straightforward Bill, because the Bill could only be considered in relation to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, which applies exclusively to the North of Ireland. They interlock at almost every stage, so that it was not dealing with one piece of primary legislation but with two, long, detailed and complex pieces of legislation. For that reason not only had we to spend more time on some of those issues, but we needed a change of Minister. What came through consistently was that there were times when the Home Office Minister felt that, possibly, the Northern Ireland Office Minister might be in a better position to give the information required, and vice versa. Because of the ministerial indecision and the substantial lack of information, especially about statistics which has still not been provided-it was almost impossible to make the type of crucial decisions that have to be made about this legislation.
During a radio interview this morning about the role of the Committee, the interviewer asked me, "Was it not the case that you were examining this legislation line by line?" I said, "Yes. I was under the impression that that is what a parliamentary Committee was for, which is why people like myself rise at 5 o'clock in the morning, catch a plane over here, sit through on that Committee until 3 o'clock the next morning and are prepared to do so on the subsequent day." It ill behoves people to make accusations that an irresponsible approach was brought to the Committee. It was anything but, because people do not spend such hours unnecessarily on the last day of Parliament before Christmas. We all know that most hon. Members would be going out to buy presents arid, perhaps, stopping in some other place en route. The reality is that the Committee sat through that day to the early hours of the morning and successfully considered two substantial pieces of legislation in five weeks. I sat on the emergency provisions Bill Committee, which I believe lasted about three months.
If fault there is, that fault is with the Government, who did not foresee the problems which would arise. Between 1984 and January 1988, they had sufficient time to table that Bill so that it could be dealt with in a way that would meet their timetable without this sort of pressure.
I believe that the role of such a Committee is an important and valuable one. We all learn something more about the legislation; new points arise and we gain a clear perspective of the difficulties foreseen, both by those opposing it and by those proposing it. There is something Stalinist about an approach which brings down a guillotine in such circumstances. When it became obvious that the Bill could be finished without a guillotine, near-panic broke out on the Government Benches and there was a great rush to be involved in the guillotine debate, for whatever reason.

729
I have already described the logistical problems that exist for Members representing Northern Ireland. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members appreciate that much of the work that is done for a Committee on such a Bill is carried on outside that Committee. One must obtain the necessary professional advice and be briefed on the legal aspects of the Bill. If a Member representing Northern Ireland is unable to obtain such help because of insufficient time he is at a disadvantage similar to that felt by an hon. Member who must keep looking at the clock to ensure that he does not guillotine someone else's speech.
The hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) has said that terrorism must be defeated—in fairness to him, he consistently said that in Committee. The judicial abnormality created by the Bill establishes a situation that is crucial to present and future discussions. That abnormality is exactly the type of murky waters within which the terrorist likes to swim, within which he gets his cover and his recruits and spreads his propaganda. Such abnormality suits the terrorist.
If we consider the sorry scene before and after 1974, it is clear that the highest standards of judicial practice have been knocked down like skittles. The House has not done that although it has been the witting or unwitting agent—but those standards have been knocked down by the very people against whom the law is aimed. The Provisional IRA, the Ulster Defence Association and all the other paramilitary groups have been able to seize the ball to knock down those skittles as they wanted. They realise more than anyone else that they can only exist in an abnormal situation. That is their milieu and where they thrive.
I do not believe that the Bill or any other legislation will do what the hon. Member for Bury, South wants. We have had almost 20 years of such emergency legislation. To date that legislation has not defeated terrorism; nor will it do so in the future. If all of us, some of us or other people are standing here in 10 years' time and the same conditions and problems prevail, what then? What other steps can then be taken? What other steps are possible within the realms of ordinary jurisdiction?
With the Bill and other such legislation, the Government are going further and further down the wrong road. There must come a point when someone with strength in the Government will cry halt. They are on the wrong road because the Bill is incapable of defeating terrorism—there is no known piece of legislation that is.
The only way that terrorism will be defeated will be when the people in the north of Ireland have sufficient confidence in legislation. When those people are not suffering at its hands and when they recognise that it is there to protect their rights and interests, is when terrorism will be defeated. Until then, however, the Bill and other such legislation sharply focuses the fact that such devices simply cannot deliver. In Committee, I pointed out many examples of the very activities covered by the Bill—those activities did not occur in the vague past, but happened that week—which were standing in the way of obtaining convictions in the North of Ireland.
I find it difficult to accept that anyone would believe that there was some sort of filibuster in Committee. I was present for most of the time and, if there was, I did not hear it. It ill behoves people who were not present to make
730
such accusations, especially when one appreciates the hours that Members spent deliberating the Bill in a businesslike manner. Every time such a Bill comes before the House or a Committee, it must be put on the rack or under the spotlight to be taken apart, because, in part, it deals with the most basic rights of people.
6.5 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I am hesitant to say that this has been a good, constructive debate because of the appalling things that I have heard from Conservative Members tonight. Any impartial observer of our proceedings would agree that the debate has been unlike most of the discussions in Committee. Most of the time in Committee we had workmanlike and constructive debate. As in all lengthy Committees, there were light and heavy moments, but constructive cut and thrust was the general tenor of our debate. That was certainly not so today.
The guillotine motion has been made necessary by a Government who have blended incompetence with arrogance and spiced the dish with selfish malice. The Government are incompetent because they are bent on forcing a menu of grotesque proportions through a limited parliamentary timetable. It surprises no independent observer when that menu proves to be so vast that it is incapable of digestion by our parliamentary process and democratic system.
The Government are arrogant because they are deaf to international opinion and to the views of their critics. They managed their response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in such a way that they alienated their European and international counterparts and deeply embittered all but their most slavish adherents.
It is with a sense of sadness rather than spite that I note the malice that has been apparent in today's debate. At a certain time I believe that Government business managers thought that the Government could guillotine consideration of the Bill at an early stage even if insufficient time had been given for such consideration. No doubt they thought that, by moving a guillotine, they could trumpet to the world that the Opposition are soft on terrorism. Although the Home Secretary may not have made that allegation, any independent observer would testify that there are plenty of smaller fry who could be encouraged to say that in the most disgraceful way.
Mr. Hugo Summerson rose—
Mr. Sheerman: No, I will not give way, because there is little time left.
The Opposition have a heavy responsibility regarding this Bill. As I said on Second Reading, it is not a normal Bill, but one of great constitutional significance because it deals with the traditional rights and privileges of our citizens—their rights of liberty and equal treatment under the law. I remind the House that the Bill is far more complex and longer, in terms of the main clauses and schedules attached to it, than the Bill we considered in 1983.
We have not had sufficient time for proper deliberation. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) rightly said that, as Her Majesty's Opposition, we have a duty and a responsibility to scrutinise the Bill in a manner sufficient for that purpose.

731
I can say with confidence that at many times the Committee's scrutiny improved the Government's understanding of their own Bill. On many clauses and amendments, and certainly in regard to the new clauses, we educated the Ministers responsible—and two Ministers responded on different aspects of the Bill—in terms of their understanding of the clauses. I do not say that to make the hon. Gentlemen look foolish. That was the nature of the opposition that was the spirit in which our inquiries were received. The Bill is complex and needed such scrutiny.
As has been said this afternoon, we needed only two or three hours in which to finish the Bill in Committee on Thursday evening. For some reason—either the Government did not want to he embarrassed, or they wanted to say that the Opposition are soft on terrorism—the Chairman of the Committee said that no one in the Committee on both sides wanted to make any progress. That has never occurred on any Committee of which I have been a member. The Chairman directed those remarks particularly at Government Back Benchers.
We have had an honest and full scrutiny of the Bill. We had redoubled our efforts to ensure that some of the new provisions of the Bill—those dealing with finance flowing from terrorism, or with the remission that sentenced prisoners can receive—received particular attention, but no more than was required to do justice to the arguments that were being advanced.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) mentioned the Queen of Hearts. I believe that that is where the trouble lies with the guillotine. My right hon. and learned Friend was absolutely right that the Prime Minister must have said, "We have to show that we have a tough and macho image. We have to get through a lot of legislation in this parliamentary Session, and with this first Bill we have to show that we will be tough." Therefore, the guillotine was imposed, quite unnecessarily.
Mr. Sumberg rose—
Mr.Hind rose—
Mr. Sheerman: I will not give way. There is insufficient time and both hon. Gentlemen have had plenty of time.
Mr. Hind: I spoke for only 17 minutes in 52 hours in Committee.
Mr. Sheerman: If one reads newspapers and writes one's Christmas cards in Committee, one cannot whine in the debate on the guillotine.
We believe that the guillotine motion is an attempt to show the Government's macho image and to be a warning to all those other Committees that are scrutinising Bills at present. It is a disaster that we should be asked to scrutinise a Bill that started off as a permanent piece of legislation to replace a temporary piece of legislation.
On Second Reading, the Home Secretary told us that he was sorry that he had not responded to the European Court of Human Rights before Second Reading, but he had every intention of doing so early in the Committee proceedings. However, on the Thursday before Christmas, the Home Secretary came to the Committee for the first time and said that, reluctantly, he had to move to derogation in respect of the European Court of Human Rights. However, we had the impression that it would be temporary. After the Christmas recess, the
732
Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department came to the Committee with a letter that he told us had been sent the day before, although, unfortunately, we had not received it until that morning. If one read between the lines, it was clear that the derogation would, in effect, be permanent and that it would not be effective before the Bill had received Royal Assent.
It does not seem unreasonable for Her Majesty's Opposition to say that this is a fine old how-d'ye-do, when the Government start a Bill on Second Reading and we do not know what the Bill will look like halfway through, and when, halfway through the Committee stage, we are told that the Bill will be a temporary permanent piece of legislation. Any constructive Opposition would have to say, "We can no longer guarantee co-operation on this Bill." But the Government received a reasonable amount of co-operation that was far beyond what they deserved. Last Thursday evening, there were but two hours to go and the Government could have had their business. That was clear to the Government managers, to the Opposition Whips and to every Member of the Committee.
It is an absolute scandal that the Government can push forward a guillotine motion today in the light of what happened in Committee on Thursday evening. I can only assume that that was because of the Prime Minister's view that the Government have to show a macho image, or, the other, quieter, voice that the Home Secretary is a little ashamed of—
Mr. Sumberg rose—
Mr. Sheerman: That would provide the possibility for Back Benchers such as the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) who is trying to intervene, to make scurrilous remarks that some Opposition Members are friends and sponsors of terrorists and terrorism. There was an apology for one such remark this afternoon, but at the end of his remarks the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) said that the Opposition were the tacit friends of the gun and the bullet. That is a slur on the Labour party and on Her Majesty's Opposition. It should have been retracted and I hope that it will be denounced by the Home Secretary when he replies to the debate.
Unfortunately, the guillotine motion has been a waste of the time of the House. It reveals much about the methods and the philosophy of the Government, who are determined to bludgeon all opposition and criticism into submission by any means at their disposal and to use any sledgehammer to hand. Today's debate shows that the Government will cut each and every debate because the one thing that they know about this place at the moment is that they will win the votes. But they will lose the arguments. That is why the guillotine favours those with large votes but with not much to say in favour of the case that they are making. We understand that, and we can predict it. But we do not understand a Government who will stop at nothing and cannot stoop low enough to slur and smear the Opposition, regardless of the importance of the issue and the depth of feeling about terrorism. Those who stand up to the Government are open to slur because we have an authoritarian Government.
The Opposition hate and despise terrorists and terrorism. We believe that there are far more effective ways of combating those evil men and women than throwing legislation at them. We hold the honest opinion that there are alternatives under the laws of our land that apply to all

733
citizens. The terrorists love the oxygen of legislation far more than the oxygen of publicity. We believe that the guillotine motion will do nothing except fuel the cynicism of ordinary men and women in this country who are not swayed by masses of legislation and the lack of effective action against terrorism.
6.18 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): As usual on these occasions, there have been widely differing accounts of what happened in Committee, but a certain number of facts have been established. If the Bill is to be effective, it needs to be on the statute book by 21 March. Agreement was reached in the usual way on the pace of discussion in Committee. Having reached that agreement on 10 January, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said on 12 January that the Opposition could no longer co-operate on the timetable, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman gave again today and at great length in a press statement, when he said that any question of co-operation with the Government had been rendered meaningless.
It is impossible for the hon. Gentleman to have it both ways. Either he is revelling in his indignation that we were so inadequate in our handling of the Brogan judgment, and is withholding his co-operation in order to show how indignant he is, or he has been co-operating all the time and wants the Bill to reach the statute book after proper discussion. His speech today was riddled with the same confusion as has been shown by the Opposition throughout. I understand that that confusion continued on Thursday night.
It has been said several times today that, having said that they would withhold co-operation, on Thursday night the Opposition appeared to be willing to press on. However, in other ways we have received a clear signal that the Opposition were very keen that the Committee should shut up at 10 o'clock. There was the same confusion as has illustrated the Opposition's attitude to the Committee stage throughout.
I do not entirely blame the hon. Member for Huddersfield. We have a certain amount of information about this matter. It is clear to me that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—[Hon. Members: "Where is he?"] That is the point. Like some 18th or 19th-century general, he prefers to command the battle from a distant hill. That is what happened to Lord Raglan at Balaclava. Like Lord Raglan at Balaclava, he gave the most ferocious orders, at a distance, to the troops. The right hon. Gentleman told his troops that they must tear up the agreement, charge down the valley, regardless of loss, and land themselves in this guillotine motion.
To do the hon. Member for Huddersfield credit, I am told that, unlike Lord Cardigan on that unhappy occasion, he protested against these obtuse tactics but was overruled. Far away—as again this evening—and out of range on his hill, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was adamant that—
Mr. Sumberg: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hurd: No, I had better continue with my speech because I do not have very much time.
734
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) illustrated in his speech, the Opposition openly and publicly—and taking credit for it—withdrew their co-operation on 12 January and in various statements thereafter on a Bill that is urgently needed.
The Committee stage is not complete, and the remaining stages are ahead of us. There is not a great deal of time. Given the risks of delay and the hostile, though admittedly thoroughly confused, attitude of the Opposition, who are shifting a bit from day to day, it would have been foolish for the Government to take them on trust and not introduce the guillotine motion.
Why did the Opposition withdraw their co-operation? Why did it change from a relatively co-operative Committee into one in which the Opposition decided, day by day, how hostile and disruptive they were going to be? The answer that the hon. Member for Huddersfield gave was the Government's handling of the Brogan judgment. The serious contribution on that matter today came, as one has come to expect, from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I shall deal with what I understood him to say, although I am afraid that I returned to the Chamber in the middle of his speech. [Interruption.] I hope that no comparisons will be made between me and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. My score, as regards the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, was one-love at the beginning of the day and now it is two-love. In most sports, that is considered to be a margin.
Although he is dissatisfied with the outcome, I hope that the hon. Member for Huddersfield will agree that both my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and I have been entirely open both with the House and with the Committee about the handling of the Brogan judgment. I explained both on Second Reading and in Committee just before Christmas how we might proceed: either by derogation under the convention or by introducing some form of judicial control. I said that we wished to find a judicial route, if we were able to do so. I went on to explain the difference between the continental system and ours over the concept of an examining officer.
That difference was recognised by the court at Strasbourg. There is difficulty, therefore, over devising the judicial mechanism that the court's judgment suggested to us. I explained why, if we are to continue to use this power of detention up to seven days—which I believe is essential—it is right to derogate. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham thought it right after Christmas, and I entirely agreed with him, to bring the Committee up to date and to explain that, although we were still working on the possibilities of a piece of judicial machinery, it was not realistic to expect that there would be an early conclusion to our deliberations.
In response to what was said by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, I should like to add something to what we have already said. This is not a light matter. The hon. Gentleman did not treat it as a light matter. It would be foolish for anyone to do so. We are talking about three jurisdictions within the United Kingdom0—Northern Ireland, Scotland, and England and Wales. Their ways of handling these matters are all different. We are also talking about the need to consult various people within those jurisdictions who are not Government servants and who are not to be taken for granted. They need to be consulted on a number of matters, if we are to set up a judicial machinery. They must be consulted on who should do the

735
job and what information they need to be given. We are not talking about the original detention—that would not be a matter for them—hut about the proposal that detention should be extended and what the procedure should be.
As I think the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) will agree, it is unrealistic to believe that one could discuss this matter hypothetically with such people in advance of the judgment. People outside Government whose views on these matters are important, would be unwilling to be drawn into hypothetical discussions. It would have been foolish to ask them, since the content of the judgment was different from what many people predicted.
We are still involved in uphill work, and I cannot yet say whether the outcome will be successful. However, we are working genuinely to see whether a judicial piece of machinery can be found. My hon. Friends the Members for Bury, South (Mr. Sumherg) and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and other Conservative Members who have spoken in this debate were right to bring us back to the fact that this should not be a partisan matter. There will always be discussion about details, but there should be consensus on a matter such as this. The Opposition's attitude towards our reaction to terrorism is hopelessly confused and irresponsible.
During the last month, we have had terrible reminders of the power and the wickedness of terrorism. There has been the Lockerbie disaster, after which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) appeared constantly on our television screens urging the Government to do more and to be draconian. He urged the Government to tighten up on airline security by means of one measure after another. At the same time, however, the Opposition were opposing the powers of detention and exclusion that are contained in the Bill, which demonstrates a total lack of logic.
Mr. Dobson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hurd: No.
Furthermore, during the recess the police had to deal—thanks to the discovery of the Battersea bomb factory—with another terrorist threat that could have had equally tragic and disastrous consequences had it not been discovered. During the recess I used some of the powers of detention that are still available to me, thanks to the derogation that I announced.
I do not believe that any hon. Member, faced with the problems that were put to me, would have withheld permission to use those powers, or would feel that it would have been right, because of the Brogan judgment, to remove them and not to derogate. On reflection, the Opposition surely cannot believe that it is right—while they are pressing for tighter and tighter airport security and for more and more controls on passengers—to deprive the police or me of the powers that are necessary to save those who are at risk from terrorism.
Mr. Dobson: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Hurd: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Member for Huddersfield did not give way, and I do not intend to do so.
That will not do. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). As in
736
the case of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, one would be foolish not to listen with considerable care to what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh says on these occasions.
The Government do not say that the Opposition as a whole support terrorism or sympathise with terrorists, but the problem is that they have drifted far away from the time when they had to take decisions on these matters, or had to consider the right balance to be struck. They have drifted so far that they do not come to discussions of this kind in a sensible frame of mind.
It is one of the maxims of responsible politics that those who will the end must will the means. Opposition Members have forgotten that. Everybody in this House wills the end. That is to say that everybody in this House wishes to see effective measures against terrorism. The difference on the Government side of the House is that we also will the means. Of course, that creates occasional difficult problems and the need for special powers. I do not believe that the Opposition have thought the matter through.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh thought and spoke on behalf of his supporters in the Province. [Interruption.] Yes, he lives with the problem every day. That is why his views should be listened to with respect. He does not agree that special powers are needed. I accept one of the basic points that he made, that special powers by themselves are not enough. He knows that I have never argued that they are enough. I have never argued that strengthening the security forces in Northern Ireland is enough. I agree with his point that we will not get an answer in Northern Ireland without respect by the majority and the minority in the Province for the institutions of justice and of the state in Northern Ireland. He knows the steps that have been taken by my successor as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to bring that about.
To say that, of itself, the Bill will not solve the problem of terrorism in Northern Ireland is not an argument against it. One thing we have surely learnt through the passage of the years and through all the terrible events that we have lived through is that no single measure is enough. I am absolutely sure that the main proposals embodied in the Bill are necessary as part of an effective answer to terrorism. In particular, I am thinking of the renewed proposals on detention and the power of exclusion, which has been criticized—Lord Colville would have preferred us to omit it—but on rare occasions, case by case, I find it necessary for a successful effort.
We return to the heart of the matter and the heart of motion that my right hon. Friend—
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of it, pursuant to Standing Order No. 46 (Allocation of time to Bills.)
The House Divided: Ayes 272, Noes 214.

Division No. 43]

[6.32 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Arbuthnot, James

Aitken, Jonathan

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Alexander, Richard

Ashby, David

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Atkins, Robert

Allason, Rupert

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Amess, David

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Amos, Alan

Baldry, Tony

737

Batiste, Spencer

Fry, Peter

Bellingham, Henry

Gale, Roger

Bendall, Vivian

Gardiner, George

Benyon, W.

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bevan, David Gilroy

Gill, Christopher

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Glyn, Dr Alan

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Goodlad, Alastair

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Boswell, Tim

Gorst, John

Bottomley, Peter

Gow, Ian

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Green way, Harry (Ealing N)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Bowis, John

Gregory, Conal

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Grist, Ian

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Ground, Patrick

Brazier, Julian

Grylls, Michael

Bright, Graham

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

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

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Hanley, Jeremy

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Hannam, John

Buck, Sir Antony

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

Burns, Simon

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Burt, Alistair

Harris, David

Butler, Chris

Haselhurst, Alan

Butterfill, John

Hayes, Jerry

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hayward, Robert

Carrington, Matthew

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Carttiss, Michael

Heddle, John

Cash, William

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Chapman, Sydney

Hind, Kenneth

Chope, Christopher

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Churchill, Mr

Holt, Richard

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Howard, Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

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

Colvin, Michael

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Conway, Derek

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Cormack, Patrick

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Cran, James

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Critchley, Julian

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Irvine, Michael

Curry, David

Jack, Michael

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

Janman, Tim

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Jessel, Toby

Day, Stephen

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Devlin, Tim

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Dorrell, Stephen

Key, Robert

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Kilfedder, James

Dover, Den

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Dunn, Bob

Kirkhope, Timothy

Durant, Tony

Knapman, Roger

Dykes, Hugh

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Eggar, Tim

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Emery, Sir Peter

Knowles, Michael

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Latham, Michael

Evennett, David

Lawrence, Ivan

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Fallon, Michael

Lee, John (Pendle)

Favell, Tony

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lilley, Peter

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Lord, Michael

Fookes, Dame Janet

McCrindle, Robert

Forman, Nigel

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Forth, Eric

McLoughlin, Patrick

Fox, Sir Marcus

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Franks, Cecil

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Freeman, Roger

Major, Rt Hon John

French, Douglas

Malins, Humfrey

738

Mans, Keith

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Maples, John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Marland, Paul

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Marlow, Tony

Sims, Roger

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Speller, Tony

Mellor, David

Squire, Robin

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stanbrook, Ivor

Miller, Sir Hal

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Mills, Iain

Sumberg, David

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Summerson, Hugo

Mitchell, Sir David

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Moate, Roger

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Morrison, Sir Charles

Temple-Morris, Peter

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Moss, Malcolm

Thorne, Neil

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Thornton, Malcolm

Mudd, David

Thurnham, Peter

Neale, Gerrard

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Needham, Richard

Tracey, Richard

Nelson, Anthony

Tredinnick, David

Neubert, Michael

Trotter, Neville

Nicholls, Patrick

Twinn, Dr Ian

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Oppenheim, Phillip

Waldegrave, Hon William

Page, Richard

Walden, George

Paice, James

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Patnick, Irvine

Waller, Gary

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Walters, Sir Dennis

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Ward, John

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Watts, John

Porter, David (Waveney)

Wells, Bowen

Portillo, Michael

Wheeler, John

Price, Sir David

Whitney, Ray

Raffan, Keith

Widdecombe, Ann

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Wiggin, Jerry

Rathbone, Tim

Wllshire, David

Redwood, John

Wolfson, Mark

Renton, Tim

Wood, Timothy

Rhodes James, Robert

Woodcock, Mike

Roe, Mrs Marion

Yeo, Tim

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Rost, Peter

Sackville, Hon Tom

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Mr. David Lightbown and

Scott, Nicholas

Mr. David Maclean.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Buchan, Norman

Allen, Graham

Buckley, George J.

Alton, David

Caborn, Richard

Anderson, Donald

Callaghan, Jim

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Armstrong, Hilary

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Ashton, Joe

Canavan, Dennis

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cartwright, John

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Barron, Kevin

Clay, Bob

Battle, John

Clelland, David

Beckett, Margaret

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Cohen, Harry

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

Coleman, Donald

Bermingham, Gerald

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Bidwell, Sydney

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Blair, Tony

Corbett, Robin

Blunkett, David

Corbyn, Jeremy

Boateng, Paul

Cousins, Jim

Boyes, Roland

Crowther, Stan

Bradley, Keith

Cummings, John

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Cunningham, Dr John

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Dalyell, Tam

739

Darling, Alistair

Madden, Max

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Mallon, Seamus

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

Marek, Dr John

Dewar, Donald

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Dixon, Don

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Dobson, Frank

Maxton, John

Doran, Frank

Meacher, Michael

Douglas, Dick

Meale, Alan

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Michael, Alun

Eadie, Alexander

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Fatchett, Derek

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Fearn, Ronald

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Morgan, Rhodri

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

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Flannery, Martin

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Flynn, Paul

Mowlam, Marjorie

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Mullin, Chris

Foster, Derek

Murphy, Paul

Fraser, John

Nellist, Dave

Galbraith, Sam

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

O'Brien, William

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

O'Neill, Martin

George, Bruce

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Parry, Robert

Golding, Mrs Llin

Patchett, Terry

Gordon, Mildred

Pike, Peter L.

Gould, Bryan

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Graham, Thomas

Prescott, John

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Primarolo, Dawn

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Radice, Giles

Grocott, Bruce

Randall, Stuart

Hardy, Peter

Redmond, Martin

Harman, Ms Harriet

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Reid, Dr John

Heffer, Eric S.

Richardson, Jo

Hinchliffe, David

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Robertson, George

Holland, Stuart

Robinson, Geoffrey

Home Robertson, John

Rogers, Allan

Hood, Jimmy

Rooker, Jeff

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Rowlands, Ted

Howells, Geraint

Ruddock, Joan

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Sedgemore, Brian

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Sheerman, Barry

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Short, Clare

Ingram, Adam

Skinner, Dennis

Janner, Greville

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

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

Jones, leuan (Ynys MÔn)

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

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Snape, Peter

Kennedy, Charles

Soley, Clive

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Spearing, Nigel

Lambie, David

Steel, Rt Hon David

Lamond, James

Steinberg, Gerry

Leighton, Ron

Stott, Roger

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Strang, Gavin

Lewis, Terry

Straw, Jack

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Loyden, Eddie

Turner, Dennis

McAllion, John

Vaz, Keith

McAvoy, Thomas

Wall, Pat

McCartney, Ian

Wallace, James

McFall, John

Walley, Joan

McGrady, Eddie

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Wareing, Robert N.

McKelvey, William

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

McLeish, Henry

Wigley, Dafydd

Maclennan, Robert

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

McNamara, Kevin

Wilson, Brian

McTaggart, Bob

Winnick, David

740

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Tellers for the Noes:

Worthington, Tony

Mr. Ken Eastham and

Mr. Frank Haynes.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Allocation of Time)

  Committee
  1. (1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on 24th January 1989.
  (2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 24th January may continue until Eleven p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 25th January.

  Report and Third Reading
  2. (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock; and for the purpose of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
  (2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than 27th January 1989.
  (3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in subparagraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
  (4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

  Procedure in Standing Committee
  3. (1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
  4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

  Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
  5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
  Dilatory Motions
  6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Private business
  7. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings

  693
  on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  8.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

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

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

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

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

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

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  9.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  10. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

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

  694

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

  Recommittal
  11.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  12. In this Order—
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
  "the Bill" means the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill;
  "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
  "Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

  Committee
  1.

  (1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on 24th January 1989.

  (2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 24th January may continue until Eleven p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 25th January.

  Report and Third Reading
  2.

  (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to al lot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

  (2)The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than 27th January 1989.

  (3)The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in subparagraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

  (4)The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

  Procedure in Standing Committee
  3.

  (1)At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

  (2)No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

  4.No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

  Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
  5.On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
  Dilatory Motions
  6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  Private business
  7.Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  8.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any

  741
  proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

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

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

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

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

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

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  9.—

  (1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including
  742
  anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the proceedings.

  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  10.Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall

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

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

  Recommittal
  11.—

  (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  12.In this Order—
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
  "the Bill" means the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill;
  "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
  "Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Orders of the Day

  Security Service Bill
  Order for Third Reading read.
  6.45 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  This Bill provides a firm framework for the work of the service without putting at risk the efficient and careful conduct of its task. That is our main aim in producing the legislation, and it is what the House will have achieved if it sends the Bill to another place.
  The debates on the Bill on the Floor of the House have been strongly argued, serious and sincere, and have revealed, as one would expect, some major and significant differences of view. I should like to deal once more, briefly, with the two main issues that took up most of the Committee's time: first, accountability, and secondly, the definition of the Security Services's role.
  Ministers spent many months studying both these issues when no one was expecting them to produce a reform—but we were hard at work on it. On neither were we persuaded by discussion in Committee that change was necessary, but it was natural that the House spent several hours debating them both.
  There was a difference between the two issues. On accountability, we were being urged in a direction which, in our view, was risky. On the other, the definition of the role of the Security Service, we knew and tried to explain that the Bill as drafted excluded the sort of dangers of which our critics were afraid. It is not surprising that the House spent the first day entirely—I think—on accountability. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitkin) would have been a little surprised if we had been persuaded during that day to make such a dramatic change of direction as accepting their schemes would have entailed. Our view, as I have tried to explain, was that neither of the two structures on offer as an alternative to ours was practicable or necessary.
  This is not to attack the probity or patriotism of the people who might have served on the suggested bodies. It is merely to say that we would have put them in an impossible possition. We should not create structures that force those who operate them to make impossible choices, such as judging without all the facts or, knowing all the facts, staying silent and failing to satisfy the public or Parliament. Another choice would have been to speak out and damage the nation's security. People should not be put in a position of having to do either one or the other. That has been our continued and firm view since I first expounded it to the House in December 1986.
  Differing views were fully ventilated during the first day of the Committee stage. Re-reading Hansard and recalling the debate, it is interesting to note that those who advanced the two differing structures recognised the flaws in the schemes of others. That was evident in the analysis by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook of the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook called it a halfway house and perceived one point that not
  744
  all commentators have spotted. It derived from the fact that my hon. Friend borrowed so closely from the Canadian experience, and it was that his proposal might not really be a form of parliamentary oversight. As he explained to us, persons of substance, who could be mostly, if not entirely, from outside Parliament, would be made Privy Councillors to get them inside the barrier of secrecy. There is nothing essentially parliamentary about that. Indeed, it could be regarded—although not, I think, by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldrige-Brownhills—as an extension or expansion of our proposals for a commissioner and a complaints tribunal, which are already in the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was possibly one of the most trenchant critics of the alternative of a purely parliamentary Select Committee, which was the Opposition's proposal. He described that as not entirely suitable for the supervision of the Security Service, and he described its advocacy by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook as unrealistic, because it is unrealistic to imagine a Select Committee taking the Security Service out of party political controversy—quite the reverse.
  I shall not repeat the argument that I used on that occasion except to say that I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South who, towards the end of the day, argued eloquently that he believed that that path was inevitable. It is rash to say "never" in politics but he was going considerably too far in saying that it was "inevitable". I shall add only that either of the structures that were offered as an alternative to our proposal would have carried serious risks of danger and confusion.
  It sometimes seemed that the strongest argument on which some of the critics rested was that similar structures were in operation abroad. I do not think that by training or instinct I am one of the most insular Members of the House. Indeed, from time to time I have been criticised in the opposite direction. I agree that one of the faults of our system of government—perhaps occasionally one of the faults of this House—is that we are still too slow to find out about practice and experience abroad. But, if ignorance is one fault, copying is another. It would be a strange principle of legislation—I do not know of any other area in which this argument is used—to say that our main duty is to find out what others are doing and then to do it. That is a strange principle on which to argue a case. There may be strong arguments for trying to fit the experiences of others into our system, but one of those arguments should not be simply that it happens in another country, so it should happen here.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: Surely the problem is not that people were seeking to copy other systems, but that there was no acceptance whatsoever that elected Members—as happens in other systems—should have any part in the supervision. That is the thing; it is not a copy of any system, but saying that the Government—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We are now rehearsing arguments that have already been deployed at other stages of our proceedings on the Bill. This is very much outside the scope of what would be proper on Third Reading. I hope that the Secretary of State will have regard to that also.
  Mr. Buchan: I feel very humble about raising this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that was the assertion made by the

  745
  Home Secretary. If I was replying to or asking questions about it, he must have been at fault first. As he was allowed to continue, I thought that I might have been allowed to continue with my question.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite right: I was at fault in allowing a latitude to the Secretary of State which, properly, he should not have taken or have been allowed. I very much hope that when responding to what has been said, the Secretary of State will take account of what I have said and that other Ministers will also have regard to what is proper on Third Reading.
  Mr. Hurd: I accept your rebuke entirely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It applied to me as well as to the hon. Gentleman.
  I hope that I have established my general point. I do not believe that the Canadian security intelligence service—this is a new point, which was not raised before—which has a high reputation, faces the same kind of terrorist threat which makes necessary so many of the activities for which the Bill provides.
  Our debates have shown once again the deep and damaging divisions that still exist in the House on such matters and on questions of principle, about which Opposition Members feel strongly. That would put into a difficult position anyone entrusted with the kind of task that they would have had under the Opposition's proposal.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Was not one of our difficulties in Committee, which we are now encountering on Third Reading and which is in the very proposals of the Bill, that all this is being done in a vacuum and in the absence of an authority that could look at this issue more generally? Such an authority would be a Royal Commission, which could try to weigh up the arguments, some of which are clearly behind the barrier of secrecy, and give guidance to the House on fundamental principles such as the rule of law, citizens' rights and the needs of the Security Service. The absence of a Royal Commission has caused the House difficulty when weighing the Government's contentions.
  Mr. Hurd: I understand my hon. Friend's point. However, if a Royal Commission were appointed, it would come up against exactly the same difficulties that I have been trying to analyse in reference to proposals for parliamentary oversight—even of the kind proposed by my hon. Friend, which was not necessarily or strictly parliamentary. The conclusion must be that we need to work out structures and arrangements that can grow out of and fit our own system and our own requirements, and that is what we are doing in the Bill.
  Without getting out of order again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall now turn to the question of functions. Having considered all the points that have been made, we believe that the definition of functions in the Bill needs to be one that would enable the Security Service to make any contribution to the protection of the nation's security which is clearly necessary. It would be a mistake to try to draft the Bill in a way that creates a rigidity inconsistent with the need to ensure that the Security Service can properly defend the nation's security from threats. An answer has not been produced to that argument.
  746
  I refer now to national security. It is correct to say that much turns on the phrase "national security", but the term is well recognised and well understood in our legislation. It has been used as an understood and accepted reason for entering reservations on the provisions and safeguards provided by statute. There have been some 29 separate pieces of legislation in the past 20 years which have made such references.
  The Bill follows closely the Interception of Communications Act 1985, in which Parliament agreed that an interception warrant could be issued by the Secretary of State on the grounds of national security. But under this Bill, as under the 1985 Act, the Secretary of State cannot act without fear of challenge. There is an independent judicial commissioner, able to form his own view, if he so decides, on each and every warrant issued.
  One flaw in the discussions outside the House on this matter has been the virtual ignoring of that point. It has been said that under the Bill "national security" would simply be what the Home Secretary wanted. I have read various lurid possibilities in the press about what might be open to the holder of my office as a result of that phrase. It was argued that I could authorise the burgling of my opponents' offices in Witney, and I read over the weekend that I could authorise the interception of people's telephones simply because they were opposed to the Government.
  It is for the House to judge whether I or any successor would be likely to authorise such activities, leaving aside for the moment what has been the function hitherto, or whether the Security Service would carry out such orders were a Home Secretary to give them. I am not pleading for the eternal, God-given virtue and probity of any Home Secretary—that is not the basis of the Bill. The Bill rests on the basis that in the giving of warrants, there should be an independent judicial commissioner. He is already there as regards interception, and if Parliament approves these proposals, he will soon be there as regards interference with property.
  Those are new safeguards, but one is already on the statute book and in operation. I have already spoken of its validity and reality in relation to my own work. The amount of time that I spend on these matters has rightly increased as a result of the existing legislation. The other provision is in the Bill and would be added to the safeguards, if Parliament approves the Bill.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Home Secretary recall that, in the press over Christmas, there appeared a story to the effect that he was prepared to give an undertaking that the telephones of Members of Parliament would not be intercepted save in the case of criminal matters? Is he prepared to give such an undertaking now?
  Mr. Hurd: The undertaking was originally given by Lord Wilson of Rievaulx and has been repeated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I think most recently in 1986. The assurance is there and there is no reason to add to it. The assurance stands. I was talking about national security. There are safeguards in the Bill to ensure that national security is defined in practice as it is defined in law.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: A few moments ago the Home Secretary implied that the Security Service might well refuse to carry out a warrant if in its view—this

  747
  was the implication—it did not conform to national security, such as, for example, a warrant that the Home Secretary wanted to issue in terms of political opponents. Is he suggesting that the Security Service will have its own definition and will be able to judge a warrant on its definition of national security?
  Mr. Hurd: No. It would come to me with a suggestion for a warrant, and I would judge whether to approve it in accordance with whether it complied with the law. The commissioner would be behind me, able, if he should so organise his work, to examine every case and to ensure that my definition of national security, the Security Service's application and the issuing of a warrant was in accordance with the law. These are new safeguards and, as I say, I think that they have been undervalued in debate.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hurd: I have given way to my hon. Friend once already, and I should like to proceed.
  Mr. Shepherd: My right hon. Friend ought to say where the Bill says that.
  Mr. Hurd: The commissioner has two principal jobs, and one of them is to examine the issuing of warrants by the Secretary of State. That is one of his main duties. In doing that, he will do as I know he already does in the case of the interception of communications, for which the provisions in law are very similar, and examine the point that I have been dealing with.
  I recognise that in discussing the role of the Security Service, some peple would like to include in the Bill more explanatory and declaratory material. However, the language in the Bill is as clear and as unequivocal as possible. Having listened to the debate, I think that that is the effect that most hon. Members would want to achieve.
  In arguing at some length about what has been left out and what critics of the Bill would like to see put in, I hope that we will not forget the remarkable innovations that the Bill proposes. It is amazing how familiarity breeds a certain scorn.
  The Government propose to put the Security Service on a statutory basis and are proposing a warrant procedure for any proposals for interference with property. There will be a commissioner to ensure that the warrant procedure is strictly applied by the Secretary of State in accordance with the law. We propose a grievance procedure with a tribunal and the right of the commissioner to rove inside the barrier of secrecy in matters arising out of cases directed to his attention. If anyone had said a year ago, or even six months ago, that such a Bill was proposed, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who is fair-minded man with a passionate interest in such matters and who smiles in half-acknowledgement of my point, would have said that that was grotesquely unlikely. That is the main purpose and thrust of the Bill.
  I hope that, in the legitmate argument about all the good things that hon. Members would like to see in the Bill, there will be at least a fair-minded acknowledgement that we have come a long way, substantially farther than our predecessors in government or than our critics supposed was at all likely.
  Nowadays I keep on talking about balance, and it is becoming a platitude. As my hon. Friend the Member for
  748
  Aldridge-Brownhills said, there has to be a balance between freedom and security. That is the texture of the everyday life of the Home Secretary. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) knows that perfectly well. The liberty and freedom of the individual have to be set against the freedom to protect him and the whole nation from those who threaten our security and well-being. The structures that we devise have to make it possible for such balances to be struck.
  For many years the position was ill-defined, and we feel that now is the right time to establish the Security Service in the clear language of statute, and to assign clear roles and responsibilities to the Secretary of State, the commissioner and the tribunal. This is the right time to introduce statutory arrangements for a warrant procedure, to make sure that the balance can be struck at the right level in every case.
  Many hon. Members want to move the balance further. I understand that, but equally I hope that they will understand the nature of the judgment and the balance that has to be made. I must make one final point. I am sure that most of our constituents, the public as a whole, want and expect the Security Service to protect us They understand basically what it is about. There is widespread and understandable concern if, at any time in that challenging and dangerous task, there appears to be any lapse in the quality of the job or the intelligence obtained. We appear to expect superlative effort and infallible results from those who defend us in this sphere.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) who has much experience in these matters, said on Second Reading:
  "The failures of the secret services are broadcast, but, of course, their successes are unsung, which is as it should be."—[Official Report, 21 December 1988; Vol. 144, c. 493.]
  That was absolutely right.
  I hope that, on reflection. the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will look again at what he said on Second Reading. He said:
  "In truth, since the war MI5 has been one of the worst and most ridiculed security services in the western Alliance."—[Official Report, 15 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 1124.]
  I do not know whether that was part of his text or whether it was spontaneous, but it is not true. I know that because I have increasing occasion to discuss these matters with people in other countries. I know that, day after day, the Security Service has to identify terrorist threats and arms supplies and prevent terrorist action and hostile foreign actions. The list is long. Members of the service often risk their lives in such work. In discussing such matters, comments such as that from the Opposition Front Bench are neither fair nor just.
  The Bill represents a major step forward for the Security Service and for the whole country. It represents a fundamental change in the way that we arrange for the necessary work of the service. We are moving it on to a firm statutory basis and appointing a commissioner and a tribunal to review warrants and to consider complaints. Of course there are those who would like more, or who want to propose changes. The debate about this matter will not collapse, and we have examined and discussed such changes at length. The House will recognise the depth of this reform, the responsible but radical way that I have approached the matter arid the very real advance embodied in the Bill. I invite the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: The more that the Opposition hear about the Security Service Bill the less we like it. Our opposition is in three distinct related parts, but before I describe that opposition, which was reinforced by what we heard in Committee last week, I should like to set out again the underlying cause of our concern.
  Until the Bill becomes law, as no doubt it will, the legal position of the Security Service is that which Lord Denning set out 25 years ago. That is:
  "Members of the services are, in the eye of the law, ordinary citizens with no special powers greater than anyone else. They have no special powers of arrest, such as the police have. No special powers of search are given to them. They cannot enter premises without the consent of the householder even though they may suspect a spy is there."
  The Bill is designed to change all that. If the Bill is passed, when members of the Security Service enter premises, they will, presuming that they have obtained the Home Secretary's warrant, do so with the protection of the law. The decision to give the Security Service a legal persona and legal obligations within which to work could have provided complete reassurance about its future activity, but the contents of the Bill—combined with what we have heard in Committee from the Home Secretary—has produced in many people, and certainly in the Opposition, quite the opposite results. The more we hear from the Home Secretary, the greater our concern becomes.
  Our concern can be described under three headings—first, those things that should have been in the Bill but have been omitted; secondly the interpretations of some of the Bill's provisions; and thirdly, provisions that are unacceptable in themselves. As far as is consistent with the rules of order, I shall attempt to deal with each of these objections in turn.
  I know that the rules governing the conduct of Third Reading debates prevent me from dealing in any great detail with the Bill's omissions. However, it is right, and possible, for me at least to assert that no Bill of this sort should be acceptable to the free Parliament of a democracy without the inclusion of adequate provisions for the supervision of the Security Service. The Home Secretary spent some time before he was called to order explaining why, in his view, such supervision was impossible or inappropriate. I shall not transgress to the same extent, but I shall, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, say something about what the Home Secretary suggested to the House.
  Essentially, the Bill provides supervision by Government nominees. It should have provided supervision by a body that would responsibly discharge, at least to some extent, independent oversight. On the first day of the Committee stage, when two rival schemes to provide that supervision were proposed, the Home Secretary—I suspect from his demeanour that he knows this—made no attempt seriously to meet the arguments of either the official Opposition or his hon. Friends. That was the view of the whole House. The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) accused him of ignoring the serious arguments. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said that the Home Secretary failed to understand the need to balance the needs of the security and democracy. The hon. Member for Caithness and
  750
  Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) described his speech as completely failing to address the central issue of accountability.
  I have no doubt how that failing came about. Insisting that the control of the security services is kept in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary and that the only form of inquiry and redress should be under the supervision of Government nominees is politically convenient. But it is intellectually indefensible. The Home Secretary was at the same sort of tactic this evening. He complained about the shortcomings in the proposal of the hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills and for Thanet, South and his main argument against that proposal was that I regarded it as inadequate.
  No doubt, if he had had time, the right hon. Gentleman would have said that what was wrong with his Bill was that his hon. Friends thought that it went too far. Dredging up as one of his arguments against his hon. Friends the idea that I wanted their proposal to go further is the action of a man not altogether confident in his own brief. I understand exactly why the Home Secretary should take such a peculiarly defensive line. The intellectual inadequacy of his case shone all through his speech on supervision in Committee, and we could not possibly support a Bill that did not include at least some independent supervision.
  Our second major concern—the role and duties of the Security Service—was enormously increased by the Home Secretary's speech on the second day of the Committee. The major debate on that day concerned definitions—definitions of subversion, which the Security Service is to resist, and of parliamentary democracy, which it is to protect. It also dealt, in considerable detail, with the second crucial definition of the service's role and function—its role and function abroad, as is incorporated in clause 1(3):
  "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 shall deal first with the domestic activities of the Security Service. In Committee, our concern was to ensure that the Security Service did not interfere with, or inhibit, what was described as lawful advocacy, protest and dissent. A number of ways were suggested of avoiding its intrusion into legitimate political activity.
  The Home Secretary's response to these genuine concerns was wholly inadequate. He tried to be emollient by offering windy generalisations about—I swear that these are his actual words—
  "the safety and well-being of the nation."
  He gave assurances that what divided him from those who had moved the amendments—again these are his actual words—was a
  "difference of principle, but one of flexibility, or relative flexibility."—[Official Report, 17 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 213–7.]
  Such statements have no meaning and answer none of the questions. The question that he should have answered, but has failed to answer, is why, if fears about improper political involvement of the Security Service are groundless, he is not prepared to incorporate safeguards into the Bill.
  On Second Reading, the Home Secretary told us that there was no need to be concerned about political bias because clause 2(2)(b) specifically prohibits the Security Service from acting to further the interests of any one

  751
  political party. I tell the Home Secretary again, in the hope that at last he may be able to understand, and perhaps even answer, the point, that clause 2(2)(b) does not provide a complete safeguard. Our concern is not that the Security Service might act on behalf of a political party, but that it should not act in any way that reflects a built-in bias against certain activities, certain individuals, certain ideologies and points of view, and certain procedures that are essential to our democracy but that have been frowned on by the Security Service, and in which the Security Service has interfered.
  I do not want to risk angering the Home Secretary again by referring to the established history of the Security Service, but we know, and he will readily agree, that in the past, the Security Service has interfered in matters in which every hon. Member, and I suspect the Home Secretary himself, believed that it was improper and wrong for it to interfere. All that we are asking is that the Home Secretary should say more than, "They may have done it in the past, but they won't do it in the future." We need a specific safeguard that can be written into the Bill, and the Home Secretary has not begun to give a reason why that should not be the case.
  Mr. William Cash: The right hon. Gentleman appears to be confusing the provisions of clause 1(2) with those of clause 1(3) and conveniently merging the two. The reality is that, in dealing with economic well-being, the criterion is whether the person concerned was outside the United Kingdom, which is the crucial point. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if that were being done, whether or not the Labour party were in government, the Home Secretary ought to ensure that that was not being done against the interests of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Hattersley: I know that the hon. Gentleman was making notes for his "impromptu" speech, but I said that I would come to the overseas aspect of the work in a moment. At the moment, I wish to emphasise that what we believe should be in the Bil, and what the Home Secretary has not begun to convince us need not be in the Bill, is provisions, couched either in negative or positive form, to prevent the Security Service from doing those things which it has done in the past and which it would be wrong for it to do in the future. Until the Bill, either by specifying the role of the service or by extending the definition of those things that the service should not or must not do, meets our concern about its possible use against wholly legitimate activities, the Bill will not be satisfactory.
  The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) asked about the Security Service's external role of safeguarding
  "the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands."
  On Second Reading, I attempted to find out what that meant. The debate in Committee was largely based around the question of how that power would be exercised and what that role involved.
  Before Committee stage I attempted to find out the meaning of the clause and offered the Home Secretary an example of what it might mean. I asked the Home Secretary whether my suggestion was a good example of what he had in mind. I used the example of the Sultan of Brunei who, as is well known and publicly established, was put under great pressure by the Government not to remove
  752
  his sterling balances from London. That was certainly an external force and, in the Government's view, it was related to the economic well-being of the British Isles.
  I asked the Home Secretary whether clause 2(2)(b) would allow the burgling of the Sultan's palace and the tapping of his telephone in order to protect our economic welfare by deciding whether he was likely to remove his sterling balances. The Treasury and the Chancellor could then take the necessary remedial action at the first opportunity.
  Any reasonable reading of the Bill would assume that the clause would allow that. The Home Secretary did not answer my question. Some people might say that that was reasonable, since it was unfair for me to ask for such a specific example that was potentially embarrassing for the Government.
  In Committee, the Home Secretary rashly offered his own example of how the clause might operate. He spoke of
  "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."—[Official Report, 17 January 1989, Vol 145, c. 221.]
  The Home Secretary said that a threat to our oil supplies would be a reasonable example of when clause 2(2)(b) might be put into operation.
  It is important to remember, as the hon. Member for Stafford would be the first to remind me, that the clause talks about economic well-being, not physical security, of the state—not of convoys being sunk but of supplies being cut off. Fifteen years ago, the OPEC nations were seriously considering denying supplies to some countries in the West, until those developed countries accepted what OPEC believed to be an acceptable pricing structure for oil.
  The Home Secretary offered that example and he has a duty—at least, his Minister does—to pursue it. In the Home Secretary's example, would the Security Service's power to interfere be justified? Would it be proper and right under the Bill, for the security services to "interfere"—the word in the Bill—in OPEC premises? Would it be right for the security services to tap telephones in the embassies of OPEC countries? According to the Home Secretary's example, that must be the case.
  The Home Secretary has a duty to make clear to Parliament the extent of the powers that he is proposing that we should invest legally, not covertly, in this organisation. There will be mixed feelings about whether that is a legitimate form of operation. For the House of Commons to give such a power without knowing its potentially serious applications is not an appropriate way for the Executive to treat the House.
  I referred to the word "interference" and when interference with property might be justified under the Bill. Interference is the power provided for the Security Service in the Bill. Under the Bill, "interference with property" is justified when the Home Secretary "thinks it necessary" and
  "likely to be of substantial value in assisting the Service to discharge any of its functions".
  As I have already said, those functions are defined in a way that underlines the fear that the service can involve itself in activities from which, in a democracy, it should be precluded. The definition of when the Security Service can act within the limitless parameters of its terms of reference is equally wide. The definitions of how it should act and when it should act are wide. The definition of what justifies

  753
  it acting is wider still. The width of all the definitions, the opportunities it gives for interpretations to the Government of the day, and the discretion it provides for the service and its responsible Ministers are all justifications for voting against the Bill.
  Much reliance has been placed by the defenders of the Bill on the ability of any man or woman who is aggrieved by the behaviour of the service to complain to the commission or tribunal. That is provided for under paragraph 3 of schedule 1. The Bill explicitly prohibits a dissatisfied complainant from appealing against a decision or testing it in the courts. We regard that as crucial to the Bill and I asked about it during the debate on the Loyal Address. It is a question on which the Government have hardly touched throughout the consideration of the Bill. That is an inadequacy and an omission which makes the Bill in itself inadequate.
  The explicit exclusion of the small and simple powers to appeal or test judgments in court demonstrates more than the Bill's inadequacies. It demonstrates the Government's unwillingness to compromise with any of their critics on either side of the House and even seriously to consider any of the proposals that could have helped to create bipartisan support for the work and existence of the Security Service.
  Taken in conjunction with the Official Secrets Bill—the two cannot be separated, because the Official Secrets Bill cloaks the Security Service in absolute, total and permanent secrecy—the Bill demonstrates how hollow is the Government's claim that they would like to see a common position between the parties on the security of this country. They would like to see a common position as long as they are allowed to stake out the ground in every detail and other political parties tamely occupy the area that the Government have defined and from which they are not prepared to budge even by an inch. That is not how bipartisan agreements are made. That is not how services which are essential to the national security are removed from political controversy. The Government have chosen to reject even the most constructive criticisms of what they now propose for the Security Service, and because of that we shall vote against the Bill.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Ray Whitney: Virtually every time the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has spoken on the Bill, he has changed his position. That says something for his flexibility but nothing for his consistency or understanding of the issues involved. For example, his initial reception of the Bill was one of welcome and he said that he expected to support it, subject to reading the small print. There was no mention of the problems about oversight. We have now heard yet another change of position. Early in his speech he said that he had discovered that we are changing the scope of the operation of the Security Service. He suggested that intervention in property and other activities of the service will take place now but could not take place before. Later in his speech he said that in years gone by the Security Service had been involved in improper actions.
  Mr. Hattersley: I am sorry to explode this part of the hon. Gentleman's speech but it requires a confession. The
  754
  So-called inconsistency in tonight's speech to which he has just referred was copied verbatim from my speech on Second Reading.
  Mr. Whitney: If the right hon. Gentleman considers carefully what he said in his second speech he will understand that he changed his position within the speech. When he reads his first allegation about what is now to be allowed and compares that with what was allowed in the past under the Maxwell Fyfe directive, which he deemed to be improper, he will be able to detect inconsistency in his performance.
  I must declare a degree of non-interest. I wish to make it clear, as I have done regularly in the press—I had not felt it necessary to do so in the House but it appears to be necessary—that I have never had the privilege of serving in MI5 or any other intelligence or security organisation. I hope that that is not itself a breach of the Official Secrets Act. I hope also that my statement will save me from having to write endless letters to correct false newspaper allegations or to correct the misapprehensions of Opposition Members.
  I declare, however, a deep interest in our security. I well recognise that that interest is shared entirely by all hon. Members on both sides of the House. My experience as an unglamorous and straightforward member of Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service has given me some insight into the straits to which Britain and all democracies are subjected, and when I reach my conclusions on the issues that are before us they may be positioned on a different resting point from that of many Opposition Members and from one or two of my hon. Friends.
  If I may say so—I say this with no immodesty—I have some awareness of the nature of the threats to open and democratic societies, and of the way in which they are changing and becoming much more difficult to cope with and much more subtle. In our efforts to preserve the balance between freedom, to which we are all committed, and the security of the nation, of which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke, we must take careful account of the threats to which our society is subjected. We must proceed cautiously before we change the status quo.
  Mr. David Winnick: Clause 1(2) deals with national security, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. He has said that he is aware of threats to national security and says that they have become more subtle. Did he protest in any way at the actions of Army officers in the early months of 1974? According to reports which appeared in The Times, which were written by Christopher Walker, certain officers were making remarks which were definitely subversive. That was confirmed in 1979 by Lord Carver, who deplored such remarks. Did the hon. Gentleman make any protest?
  Mr. Whitney: At the time I happened to be a civil servant. It was scarcely in my gift to protest or otherwise. I share entirely the revulsion which the hon. Gentleman clearly has for any extreme Right-wing or Left-wing coup d'etat to subvert our democracy. I think, however, that the hon. Gentleman seeks to take me far beyond the bounds of the debate.
  The balance to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has referred is an extremely difficult one to strike. We would at great risk disturb the system at which we have arrived. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government as a whole on the progress which has been

  755
  made and which is enshrined in the Bill. It is a matter for deep regret that the majority of the exchanges in the debate have focused on what is not in the Bill, what might have been in it and on what other countries have or have not done rather than on the changes—I would regard them as improvements—that are now proposed by the Government. The old adage that the appetite grows with the feeding has never been more clearly demonstrated than by the reaction of Opposition Members and of some of my right hon. Friends to what has now been achieved.
  It is important for the House to understand the change in the climate in which these affairs are now debated over the past 10 years. I draw the attention of the House to the views of Lord Wilson of Rievaulx. We are led to believe that he, as the Prime Minister of a Labour Government, had especially good reason to he aware of the activities of the security services. In his book entitled "The Governance of Britain", which he was careful to point out was written after he had left office and after the flurry over what did or did not go on during his incumbency of No. 10 involving some MI5 officers, about which the world has been informed or misinformed by the Wright book, he made it clear that he had reason to understand the issues that were involved.
  In a book of about 200 pages Lord Wilson devoted only two paragraphs to national security. The chapter in which we find the two paragraphs is entitled "The Prime Minister and National Security". Lord Wilson quotes with approval at the beginning of the first chapter a statement by the late Earl of Stockton, and it is important that the House reminds itself of it. It should be used to set where we were then in 1976 with Lord Wilson and where we are now with the proposals that are contained in the Bill. Harold Macmillan said:
  "It is dangerous and bad for our general national interest to discuss these matters. It has been a very long tradition of the House to trust the relations between the two parties to discussions between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister of the day. I ask the House now to revert to the older tradition which I think is in our real interest. Otherwise we would risk destroying services which are of the utmost value to us."
  Harold Macmillan said that in 1963. I believe that it was true then, the Labour party believed that it was true then and Harold Wilson, as he then was, repeated it in 1976. Most of the Labour party believed that it was true then. I believed that it was true then and I believe that it is still true. Lord Wilson concluded a brief paragraph by writing:
  "There is no further information that can usefully or properly be added before bringing this Chapter to an end."
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: There is another side to the story. As I understand it, these matters were always dealt with by means of private notice questions from the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister of the day. As I further understand it, the present Prime Minister—I am open to correction but I do not think that I am wrong—refused to continue with the time-hallowed way of dealing with these matters with the present Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). As I have said, there are two sides to the story.
  Mr. Whitney: I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the substance. I have no knowledge of the nature of the exchanges that take place between the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It must be asserted, however—this cannot really be
  756
  challenged—that the statements that have been made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on security matters, following her statement on the Blunt episode, have been much fuller than any of the statements made by her predecessors, Conservative or Labour. The statement which was made by Harold Macmillan, as he then was, which was endorsed so warmly by Lord Wilson, underlines that change. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been much more forthcoming with the House on security matters but far from satisfying the House, that has whetted its appetite. That is the problem with which we must deal. It behoves all hon. Members to understand just how far we have come.
  Why has there been such change? Has something fundamental happened within the security services? 'With the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) who now occupies the Government Front Bench, none of us can seriously answer that question. That applies even to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), with all his splendid researches and special sources of information.
  Throughout the consideration of the Bill we have heard generalised allegations. These have often come from the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, but not only from him. Whenever we have asked for substantiation of the assertion that something is rotten in our security system, we are taken back 15, 20 or 30 years. That must give us pause for thought.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Would I not be right in thinking that the Bettaney case, which caused grave anxiety—especially to the Security Commission—was just three years ago?
  Mr. Whitney: Absolutely. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said in Committee, the Bettaney case was an exception.
  The main body of complaint has centred on the extraordinary farrago—I do not know how much is true; it is clear that a lot of it is not true—in the Wright book and the replay of the tawdry old stories of a generation ago. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) took us back to Palme Dutt, for example. We have heard many times of the Blunt and Philby saga. It is worth remembering that the Soviet Union had its money's worth about three times over as a result of that little clique of Cambridge traitors who were recruited in the early 1930s. The effect of their recruiting those four, five or however many there were is still reverberating. Such so-called evidence is still used by critics of the status quo, and critics of the changing system as proposed in the Bill, as justification for further change.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay mentioned the Bettaney case, which I accept revealed, within the limits of what we have been able to know, a depressing state of affairs. The details of the Security Commission inquiry that were released verify that. It is clear that the Security Service is a particularly difficult service. It spends its whole time looking for spies and subversion. It is, by definition, a closed and difficult world where personnel management and the broader picture are crucial. It is, presumably, not composed entirely of saints and fellows of All Souls—there are weak links in the chain.
  We should note that we hear of only one or two failures out of the hundreds or thousands that there may be in the

  757
  service. The lessons of the Bettaney experience have been learnt. The security proposals were put into operation, a staff counsellor was appointed and Sir Antony Duff, whom I know personally from his days in the Foreign Office and who is an excellent administrator, has put things on the right track.
  Mr. Eric S. Helfer: The hon. Member is trying to prove that there has been nothing to argue about since the days of Palme Dutt or what Peter Wright referred to in his book. How does he know that people have not been burgling all over London and elsewhere? It is a secret service. They do not go around with placards saying, "I have just burgled somebody's house," or, "We have just bugged somebody's telephone." They do not do that. That is why we think that they should be under surveillance. Can the hon. Member assure me that, since those books and, perhaps, those written by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) were written, nobody has done any of those things which we know went on before?
  Mr. Whitney: I am happy to agree with about 90 per cent. of what the hon. Gentleman said. I do not know whether there are other Bettaneys in MI5. None of us does. Knowing Sir Antony Duff personally, accepting the Security Commission and accepting also the integrity and skills of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I would wager that, of all the security services in the world, our MI5 gives us reason for pride. That view was reinforced by what my right hon. Friend said earlier. Is the hon. Member for Walton suggesting that a parliamentary committee of oversight would discover a Bettaney mark 2? It is inconceivable. The idea does not stand up to a moment's investigation.
  It is suggested that, because there are from time to time rotten apples in the barrel and we find them out, that is damaging to the security services. It would be much more in the interests of the security services, as happened with Blunt initially, to hush up the failures. When the failures are exposed, everyone has an opportunity to say, "It has all failed."As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, the success of the security services can never be told.
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: May I challenge my hon. Friend's sweeping assertion that a future Bettaney could not in any circumstances be discovered by an oversight committee? Surely he accepts that such a committee's duties would include matters such as recruitment, training and supervision generally. At least the terrain would be far better monitored than it has been hitherto.
  Mr. Whitney: I ask my hon. Friend seriously to consider much easier territory—the rest of the Civil Service. We have active and energetic Select Committees for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for the Department of Health and for the Department of Social Security in respect of which we have no serious problems with official secrets. Is my hon. Friend telling me that recruitment policies and the quality of recruitment is affected by those Committees? If he believes that they are, I have to say that he is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. We
  758
  must recognise that there is a substantive difference between what we are talking about in the security services and—
  Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that the purpose of a Third Reading debate is to deal with germane and pertinent points of a Bill and those which were not raised in Committee. I do not recall recruitment policies in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other such waffle being part of the—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The opening speeches widened the Third Reading debate rather more than I would have wanted, but I am sure that the hon. Member will come back to the purpose of the debate.
  Mr. Whitney: I shall, but I hope that it is understood that what I have said is germane if we are comparing the secret services with the operations of other parts of the Government service. I submit with great respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, that such issues are central to what we are considering.
  We are considering special areas of Government which cannot be compared with any others, so we have to take account of the special characteristics. It is not enough for Opposition Members to say, "Of course we understand the needs of security but…" It is the "but" on which the debate turns. Too glibly, the caveats and conditions that should follow that "but" are ignored.
  I should like, if I may, to say something about the extent to which the Bill takes us towards what pertains in other countries and the grave expressions of disappointment that we have heard from both sides of the House that we are not going as far as other countries with parliamentary oversight. It is important to understand the crucial change that is being made. We have the commissioner, a senior member of the judiciary, and the tribunal sitting on the Home Secretary's shoulder, as it were. That is a major change.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has sometimes gone too far in suggesting that our Canadian friends have found utopia or nirvana. It is early days for the Canadian experiment, and they will probably end up, not with parliamentary oversight, but with a small group of the great and the good above the parliamentary battle—who may have been in it at one point—in a supervisory role, not distinct from the role of the Commission.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend have no views about the relationship of the Security Service to the rule of law, for example?
  Mr. Whitney: It is precisely the rule of law that we are discussing. We are taking a step forward to enshrine by statutory provision the existence of something which hitherto did not exist—MI5. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the embodiment of the security service within what he terms the rule of law. Of course I have regard to that.
  We often hear American experience cited as an example, and there is a small paradox in that. Many people on the Left of politics in Britain frequently use America either as a negative or a positive example. Our Health Service is always defended by an immediate reference to

  759
  the so-called black example of the American experience—I am glad that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is here—
  Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I asked for your guidance earlier. Many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, but time ticks on and we have had a most wide-ranging—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. These points of order are usurping the time of the House. I appreciate that several hon. Members wish to speak and I think that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) was about to reach his peroration.
  Mr. Whitney: You are entirely right, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  By contrast, those on the Left heartily welcome the American security service experience. I draw to their attention the views of the last—I mean that in every sense—Labour Prime Minister on the American experience—those of Lord Callaghan. He said:
  "I think the Americans wrecked their system by allowing covert intelligence to be discussed by Congress. It is absolute madness."
  The Bill has achieved the right balance and I have great pleasure in supporting it this evening.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Michael Foot: I must disagree immediately with the opening remarks by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) when he criticised the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). My right hon. Friend's speeches, far from becoming weaker, have grown increasingly strong on each occasion and his attack on the Government and the Bill has grown increasingly devastating. Whether that is because of the weakness of the Bill or his natural capacities, I do not know, but I think that it is a combination of the two. Nobody who has listened to these debates could say that the Opposition have not presented a consistent and persistent attack on what is being done, and we have had sound reasons for doing so.
  I speak partly as a journalist. Long before I ever heard how the House of Commons would try to settle matters of official secrecy, I had to look at these questions from the view of a journalist who was trying to print what he thought was right. If before the war, or even during it, anyone had suggested that there should be such an absolute prohibition on what should be properly printed as a defence of the existing position, most reputable journalists would have denounced the idea as a gross interference with the freedom of speech.
  When the Home Secretary introduced these measures he said that he was taking the past into account, introducing a new method of control over the security services and a novel system of operating and that he should be given the benefit of the doubt on that. If he were present I would gladly compliment him on his diligence in attending almost all our debates and listening to what we have had to say. He does not seem to have understood what we were saying, or at least he has not translated it into legislative fact, and that is the argument to which I shall return in a moment. The right hon. Gentleman has a
  760
  whole series of measures so dangerous that he is afraid to leave it to his subordinates to speak on them. 'That precaution may be wise.
  Some Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Wycombe, try to give the impression that we in the Labour party are not eager to see the Security Service properly protected and able to do its work. One of the attacks on my right hon. Friend involved taking one of his remarks out of context and using it for that purpose. Far and away the most damaging revelation—if it is a revelation; I shall come to the truth of it in a minute—about the Security Service that has been made from any quarter in recent years was not made by the Labour party. It was the charge that for many years the head of the service, Sir Roger Hollis, was a Soviet agent. If that was true, obviously it would be deeply damaging to the whole Security Service. That was not a wild charge thrown up by the Labour party. The charge came into the public forum partly thanks to the actions of other people in the secret service.
  If the Security Service is saying that we in the Labour party have not been sufficiently vigilant in trying to protect it, I repudiate the charge entirely. We want the service to be properly controlled and conducted and able to do its job. The direct responsibility for the worst and most damaging charge against our Security Service over the past 10 years was the charge that the head of the service was for a long period a Soviet agent. I do not believe that he was.
  I know that there is the Chapman Pincher theory. I do not know whether we have a Chapman Pincher clause in the Bill yet. It is not specified in those terms, but there has been one operating over the past 15 years. Although members of the Security Service are not supposed to say anything to anybody, they are entitled to go and speak to Chapman Pincher. Some of those people told Chapman Pincher that Roger Hollis was a spy and he printed it., as did Peter Wright and others. Every time that that has been investigated it has been repudiated, and I hope that it will be repudiated now.
  That is an example of how the Security Service cannot be protected by the forms of secrecy which the Home Secretary thinks can be erected to protect it. It cannot be protected in that way. A point is reached where the matter must be argued in public, and if it cannot be argued in public, the security services will be as damaged as they were when the charge was made against Sir Roger Hollis.
  When people do not believe the repudiation, that also damages the service. The Labour party, and certainly my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr Rees), who was partly responsible for the conduct of the services when he was Home Secretary, utterly repudiate the charge that we are not in favour of the security services being able to do their job properly. Of course we are.
  This has been going on since 1911, and nobody now claims that the accidental measure introduced in 1911, which has governed the proceedings since then, has worked properly. It has worked shockingly. Neither this Bill, nor the Bill to be introduced next week, deals with the problem, and we must examine the two together. In many respects the Bill will make matters worse, because the law will have been laid down in a way that makes it even more difficult to protect freedom when matters are to be settled in the courts.
  First, we object strongly to having a Bill of this nature brought to us. We were told on the first day of our debate

  761
  that there could be no proper parliamentary surveillance. I shall not go into all the arguments, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South presented them fully, but the Government have made no attempt to answer them, and it is particularly important that they should do so in the light of the most recent evidence on how Select Committees could deal with such matters. The Select Committee on the Falklands, on which my right hon. Friend served, showed that a matter of boiling, burning topicality could be examined by a Committee of the House. There was no suggestion of any leakage or of any threat to the security of the state. What would have happened if that investigation had not taken place? We can imagine the amount of rumour and tittle-tattle, and the charges of various kinds, that would have spread throughout the country.
  It was absolutely right to establish that Committee. It was a much larger Committee than the Prime Minister wanted, but, as my right hon. Friend and those associated with him proved, it was a perfectly proper way to examine the issues. It is the most recent example of the ability and versatility that the House has shown in dealing with such questions, and one that the Government should have noted when they brought the Bill forward.
  Mr. Dalyell: I should like to praise the Franks committee, on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) served. I appeared before the committee for an hour and 25 minutes, and wonder retrospectively whether it was given all the information that it should have been given. This encapsulates a real problem. How can we be sure that such a committee is given all the information to which it is entitled? I doubt whether it can be.
  Mr. Foot: I cannot say for certain whether all the information was provided; neither can my hon. Friend. Even those who were on the committee could not know for certain whether they had all the information, but I have little doubt that many of them strove to ensure that they would obtain most of it.
  What is certain is that that committee, investigating as it did so soon after the event, had much more information on the conduct of the services at the time than they would have if there had been no parliamentary surveillance. The form of surveillance set up by Parliament may not be perfect, but that is no reason not to have it at all. Once we have set out, as we do in the Bill, to establish a new form of responsibility for the security services, it is quite wrong for the Government to push aside the arguments of hon. Members from various parties for the forms of effective surveillance that the House can establish. It is an insult to the House to say that we cannot devise secret methods of governing our own Security Service, but that is what the Government have persistently told us.
  My second major charge against this inadequate Bill is contained in what the Home Secretary himself has said. He went out of his way to try to listen to what we were saying and to meet it if he could. In Committee, he read out a formula which he said should govern these matters. He said that he would not put it in the Bill, for various reasons which he did not give. He clearly wanted to believe that a statement of that character would influence the way in which we would consider the Bill, and perhaps also
  762
  influence the courts. I shall not read all his statement, although it is worth reading; nor shall I try to take one part of it out of context. He said:
  "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."
  The right hon. Gentleman says that that should set all our minds at rest. Some of us ask whether it would have excluded or prohibited the investigation into CND, or some of the other investigations operated by the Security Service. The right hon. Gentleman will not give us direct answers. In Committee, hon. Members on both sides tried to devise a legislative method to get round the difficulty, and I think that an appropriate and sensible method was devised. I say that particularly in the light of what the Home Secretary said a few minutes ago—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is such a considerable parliamentarian that I hestitate to interrupt him, but he is now dealing with matters that are not contained in the Bill. I must caution him about that.
  Mr. Foot: Let me say with the greatest deference, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I understand the problems of ruling on Third Reading debates. I have attended a number of such debates, on different sides of the House. Nevertheless, what is in the Bill is certainly a matter for Third Reading debate, and I am discussing what is in the Bill. Provisions that should be in it are not in it, and I am certainly criticising that, but I am also criticising the form in which the Home Secretary has left what is in the Bill. Let me underline that by repeating what the Home Secretary said a few minutes ago. He said that language as clear and unequivocal as possible was used to define the nub of the Bill, and that is what I dispute.
  Hon. Members from both sides of the House put it to the Home Secretary that if he wanted to win the consent of the House and create a security measure that commanded national support, the language should surely be made clear. There were two or three ways in which that could be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has one suggestion; the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) had another. Various hon. Members suggested different methods, but we all wanted a clause to define some of the activities that would not be dealt with by the Security Service.
  I shall read the right hon. Gentleman's reply, because I think that it is relevant to the Bill. I had asked him, why did the Government 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?"
  We said that time and time again. I ask hon. Members to note the Home Secretary's answer. He did not push the proposal aside and say that it was of no importance; nor did he say that it could not be done. He said:
  "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 to 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

  763
  Government can do, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that it arrives at the same conclusion."—[Official Report, 17 January 1989; Vol. 145, cc. 218–222.]
  The Bill does not arrive at the same conclusion, however. If we do not take the opportunity to insert a clause covering all the matters that will not be properly investigated by any security service, the opposite will be the outcome. These matters are bound to come before the courts, perhaps a good deal more frequently than in the past, because no one will know exactly what the law is. Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Thanet, South, have had close experience of the wretched way in which the law has operated in the past, but neither the hon. Gentleman nor anyone else in the country has any guarantee that its operation will be any better in the future.
  When matters investigated by Government security officers came before courts and judges in the past, at least there was some chance of arguing the matter, and some of these cases were won. The argument against the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was won, as were some others. However, when the question comes before the con is now, they will quote what is in the Bill but I am afraid that it does not provide the protection required. They will not quote what the Home Secretary said to me in his reply, when he said that the Bill is intended to say exactly what he has said.
  The Government will not change their mind easily—they will not do it on Third Reading—but I hope that, when a clause designed to protect proper free debate in this country is introduced in the other place, the Government will not have the insolence to come back here and throw it out.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Robert Boscawen: This debate has been rather extraordinary, because right through the proceedings at which I have been present the underlying theme has been that the Opposition are deeply concerned about the way in which the Security Service has worked, because they believe that all the time there has been a sinister plot to undermine Left-wing activists. Nobody, however, has mentioned any action taken by the Security Service against the National Front or the extremists of the Right-wing. The Opposition have an underlying fear that there is a sinister plot which has been maintained by the secrecy of the Service under Governments of different complexions. Whether it has been a Labour or Tory Prime Minister, that sinister plot has been there. Opposition Members fear that their telephones are being tapped and people have been looking into what they have been doing, which has been the purpose of the Security Service. I believe that the Opposition are not that important. The Security Service has more important things to do than to study Left-wing or Right—wing activists.
  Mr. Buchan: We agree with that.
  Mr. Boscawen: The Security Service has an important job to do, and it must do it as efficiently as it can, as hon. Members have agreed, especially the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). The question asked in this debate has been whether it will do its job more efficiently if the House has a window into that job. I do not believe that to be so.
  The security services are not perfect. They make blunders and mistakes and from time to time they are
  764
  bound to employ the wrong people. The biggest failure of the Security Service and the special branch of the police—it cannot be laid at the feet of any individual—was to allow the head of Government, most senior Ministers of that Government and the senior people in that party to be within an ace of being destroyed in the Brighton bombing a few years ago. Had that been successful, that failure of the Security Service would have destabilised whatever party had been in power for a long time. Such actions must be the most important matters into which the Security Service must look.
  Perhaps agents of a foreign power intent on invading or destroying this country by military action may be an important factor, but I do believe that it is as important for the Security Service to counter the evil intentions of terrorism and such actions that could destroy stable government and could change the policy of the Government.
  Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman is describing exactly what was happening when they did not have any supervision. We are suggesting that we should have supervision to stop such things occurring.
  Mr. Boscawen: I am not suggesting that supervision in the way proposed will stop it in any way. I do not see how it can. How will the Security Service become more efficient in carrying out its job by spreading its secrets a little bit wider and making them known to some worthy people in this place? My main criticism about the Opposition's proposal is that, if they are told all the operational secrets and the purposes of the Security Service's investigations, what good will they do? If they are told those secrets, I believe that we are spreading the knowledge of those operations and the purpose of the Security Service's investigations far too wide. I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), however experienced he may be, that It is an insult to the House not to be able to devise a system for overseeing the Security Service. I believe that it would be an insult to the House if we were not able to show a little more wisdom than that. The wisdom is that there are some things that we should not know too much about, because the more people who know about them, the less effective the Security Service will be, and the more likely it will be that the sort of outrages committed in this country in recent years will escape detection.
  The old thrust of the Opposition's argument, which is to try to spread the secrecy of the Security Service to the knowledge of a lot mere people, worries me. If I were asked to go on to a Select Committee, if it were set up, I should be worried because I am bound to learn things that I would not want to know.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Ignorance is bliss.
  Mr. Boscawen: I know that there are willing recruits to that Select Committee on the Back Benches—they are all queuing up to be on it—but my experience is that there are certain things that, if one does know, and one has to keep them to oneself, one would rather not know. I believe that that is true of the House as a whole. That would not be a good Committee to be on. One would be stuck with that information and knowledge, which one would know one could not impart—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must bring the hon. Gentleman to order. We are on Third Reading and we can debate in this House only what is actually in the Bill. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wandering on to issues which are not in the Bill.
  Mr. Boscawen: I accept that what is proposed by the Opposition is not in the Bill, and I am delighted that it is not, because it would worry me greatly. I believe that it would reduce the effectiveness of the Security Service, which is in the front line in trying to prevent the sort of actions that we have seen in the past few years.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: As I have sat here, I have realised that the point of a Third Reading is to deal with the Bill as it is and not with how it should be. Nevertheless, it still leaves many questions to ask about the way that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be carried out by the Home Secretary of the day. As I want to pursue that point, I shall not proceed with my argument that I regret that parliamentary accountability of some sort, which should have been discussed between both sides of the House, is not being followed.
  I want to make it clear that I regard bringing MI5 under the law as an important step forward.
  When I read about officers burgling their way across London I realised for the first time that MI5 should be brought under the law. I am glad that that has happened. I believe that the use of a commissioner is a step forward. I will bear your instruction in mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, and not discuss what should be in the Bill, even though my right hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) have cogently argued that there are deficiencies in the drafting of the Bill.
  There are seven clauses and a number of schedules that the Home Secretary must operate and they will be in his left or right-hand drawer when deciding whether to agree to a warrant. He and the Prime Minister must operate the measure. I repeat, however, that, sometimes, there is a great misunderstanding about the place of MI5 in the Home Office. It is not a Department, nor is it in wide commission—only the Home Secretary and one or two others have dealings with it.
  About two years ago I remember—I shall be writing books about it soon—I was at a memorial service in Jerusalem. I was standing above the city and listening to the moving service when a man came up to me and said, "Thank you for protecting my life and getting a decision in Cabinet." I said, "Don't thank me, I didn't know you existed." The man then went. I asked the special branch man who was protecting me who he was, but the man had gone. If that man thought that all such issues were discussed in Cabinet, he should think again. For that reason it is important that the Bill is drawn up correctly and cogently.
  We are not dealing with a normal political issue. On those grounds I want to consider parts of the Bill and some of the issues that have arisen as a result of reports in newspapers and wider discussion. The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) spoke about six of his fellow Members being the subject of investigation. If those people had been members of the Labour party, I too would have
  766
  raised the matter. He said that those people had been fingered, or whatever, by MI5. I must ask myself whether those people would try to subvert the constitution.
  Mr. Foot: They are old Tory trade unionists.
  Mr. Rees: I doubt that.
  I read a report in a newspaper about this matter. We have all learned to discount the complete accuracy of newspaper reports, but it raised new information. How did it happen that six Members of this House were fingered by MI5? Perhaps there was a visit to an embassy and an expansive young man or woman talked as though he or she were more important than was the case. Perhaps a young official at the embassy took up what they said and made it more important than it was. That is the way it sometimes happens. Immediately, that information was written down, signalled out or whatever, and picked up.
  If the Security Service felt it necessary to go to the leader of the Conservative party to report on six Members, and given that it has come to light only as a result of our debate, those Members should be told. They should be given the chance to explain what it is they are supposed to be guilty of. It is only as a result of public discussion that this information has come out. What usually happens—I speak with some experience of listening around—is that people visit countries on the other side of the iron curtain for business or other reasons and there are always those who will make a meal of it in some foreign security service. The moment that is done, that person's name is damned—maybe for the wrong reasons.
  The information about Members of the House has been a turn-up for the books, because it is not only the Labour party that was supposed to be involved in such things, but members of the Government Benches. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent has said, the weakest part of the Bill is how it deals with subversion. That has been the weakness of the Maxwell Fyfe directive and was apparent as long ago as 1972 when the director-general of MI5 gave evidence to the Franks committee about subversion. I have always been extremely concerned about this matter because too much subjective slandering occurs.
  In Right-wing circles it is too easy to say that someone is a Communist, but it also happens in the Left—it used to happen far more. The word "Fascist" comes to too many lips too glibly. "Communist" and "Fascist" are descriptive words that should not be used because there is no proof. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent has said, it is not good enough to have the Home Secretary's words about what subversion means. The Maxwell Fyfe directive of 1952 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"
  and so on. That did not do much good, and I suggest that the words of the Home Secretary will not do much good either.
  In the 1970s there were those—I do not have enough evidence to know, absolutely, where the information came from—who were engaged in denigrating the then Conservative Prime Minister. I remember the stories, and the bits of paper that I now collect are all on the same theme. The information denigrated some Conservative Members and, of course, Labour Members.

  767
  The Bill talks about the Security Service, but there is no doubt that, at least in the 1970s, other branches of Government were involved in the game. It is all finished now—I have checked most carefully—but there is no doubt that the Army information service and those associated with it in Lisburn in Northern Ireland, played their part. They provided lists of possible successors as Conservative Prime Minister and gave their weaknesses and strengths. The information provided was such illiterate rubbish that it makes Bulldog Drummond look as though he had obtained a first-class degree from a prominent university.
  We should remember that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) set up a DS department within the Ministry of Defence to deal with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I found that indefensible. The moment one has a DS department in MOD it can talk directly with other Government Departments. That should not have been allowed. The Bill refers to MI5 and the Security Service, but does it refer to other people in Government service? We may have to return to this matter shortly.
  It is important to consider the role of Ministers once the Bill becomes an Act. Home Secretaries come and go. We are dealing with non—political issues and it is difficult for any Home Secretary to check all the information that should be brought to his notice.
  I shall give another example. A year or two ago I was on holiday in Spain and I was sitting on the beach reading The Times. I had driven down to a nearby village to buy it. It reported a story in a Sunday newspaper that a member of MI5 used to vet applicants for jobs, or people who work, at the BBC. The Times report said that the newspaper had been in touch with the Home Office and the press officer at the Home Office and said that that was exactly what had happened in 1979 when I was in office. That was news to me, so when I got back I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary and said that I had known nothing about it. Shortly afterwards 1 received a letter saying, "That is absolutely correct. You did not know because we checked our briefing notes and you were never told." I was supposed to be responsible for broadcasting and for MI5 and I was the only bloke in the country who did not seem to know about it.
  It has all stopped now. The BBC does not use such vetting and it was certainly never used in the IBA companies. But it enables me to ask the Minister how any Home Secretary can know the full extent of what is going on when his position is so transient. There is not even a relevant department. I am against a Ministry of security or whatever it would be called, but the Bill should provide that information should be passed on to successors if they are from a different political party. It is most important that that should be done and it is not done.
  Mr. Tony Banks: My right hon. Friend regularly gives us confessions. I am beginning to think that he has learnt more out of office than in office. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the BBC senior personnel management have a military background and that that area is still a favourite recruiting ground for the BBC personnel department?
  Mr. Rees: That may or may not be the case. I am concerned that if there is a case for positive vetting in any organisation it should be for those who deal with a particular job concerning a wartime situation or
  768
  something similar and that there should not be vetting by MI5 of people's political views and the programmes that they produce.
  Mr. Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the story had not appeared in The Observer in August 1985—perhaps the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) should note that I read it while I was on holiday in Yugoslavia and not in Spain—and if there had been no disclosure then or later, it is quite likely that such vetting would have continued?
  Mr. Rees: No doubt that issue will be raised in the debate on a different Bill in a few days' time.
  I cannot comment on the new type of warrant because it did not exist in the past. It is right that there should be warrants. I am certainly not clear how they will work or how they will stand in a court of law, if for some reason they affect a decision in a court of law. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) asked the Home Secretary about tapping the telephones of Members of Parliament and received the correct answer from the Home Secretary. Are there any limitations on the use of the warrants? If there are limitations on the warrants used for interception, are there any limitations on these new warrants, for whatever purpose they are used? I believe that the next changes in legislation will be on warrants.
  This Bill has been brought about by events. The story from Wright has brought about the Bill. All Governments are driven by catastrophes about which something has to be done. Perhaps it is inevitable. I believe that the next changes will have to be made on warrants. However, I have to pull back because I do not want to discuss what ought to be done.
  We need a Security Service to fight against espionage and international terrorism. I hope that MI5 and special branch know far more than we learn in the papers about the rest of the Semtex that was not discovered at Clapham. I hope that they have a great deal more information on that, because it would benefit the country. Nobody on either side of the House should do anything but applaud when the Security Service, special branch and the ClD break through, but it was luck that produced the discoveries at Clapham.
  I am concerned about subversion. I do not really know what it means, but it is a subjective feeling in all of us. I used to believe that it had something to do with whether someone was in touch with a foreign embassy or was carrying out the orders of a foreign embassy, but I do not believe that that alone is enough. It is very important that any Home Secretary considers very carefully the matter of subversion.
  As for the security services, I found the two or three members with whom I have had close dealings to be excellent officers, who knew what they were talking about politically. They had experienced a wider career than most people and their knowledge was first class. I had trust in them, but obviously others do not see it in that way. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) once said that if one reads the Daily Mirror or The Guardian one is regarded as a subversive. That aspect has to be considered, as no piece of legislation gets it right. That was one reason why, in the 1950s, when Lord Attlee was considering the subject he smarted at what he knew about the Zinoviev letter and for that and other reasons wanted an inquiry into the security services at the time.

  769
  Subversion cannot be determined subjectively. Espionage and international terrorism can be determined subjectively, but it is too easy to make mistakes about subversion. That is one reason why I would prefer a general oversight by the House, with people appearing before Members of Parliament. We learn to appreciate each other, whatever our political views. There would be a learning process the other way when we found out what is the balance of the use of the Security Service and what changes have been made in the past year. Of course that should be for general discussion. I do not want to know the details of the missions or bandy them around.
  One reason why that man in Jerusalem was right is that I had taken a decision because it protected people's lives. We would not wish to do anything here that would put anyone's life at risk, but we have every right to find out in general what the Security Service is doing, because, if only marginally, things have gone wrong. We have every right to examine the Security Service in the way that I would suggest, but I fear that I would be incurring your wrath, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I pursued that argument. The Bill has many defects, and because of those defects and not because of the step forward that it represents, I shall vote against it.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: It is difficult for Ministers to say much on Third Reading. However, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State talked almost in terms of Home Office press releases rather than to the substance of the Bill. Tonight the Home Secretary advised us that the commissioner could tell the Home Secretary if his definition of national security under the warrant was correct. When challenged where that was to be found in the Bill, the Home Secretary would not give way. The difficulty about a number of measures is that the Home Secretary seems to be captivated by his press releases and does not use his analytical talents when he addresses the Bill.
  I do not want to be uneven-handed, and I move to the Minister of State's ability to be just the same. When we considered what the Bill did or did not contain, we discussed warrants and whether they should be judicially issued. Many hon. Members will recall that debate. A compelling argument that has been advanced by the Minister of State, based on the Bill, is that there can be no judicial issue of warrants because that would extend the circle of secrecy; people would not know on what basis the warrant had been issued because they would not have the expertise, or access to the information. Then, doing a pirouette, he told us that any Secretary of State may issue a warrant. First the Minister of State said that judges would not have the expertise to issue warrants and therefore that they were not suitable, but within seconds he announced that any Secretary of State might issue a warrant, even if he had no experience, knowledge or understanding of the matter.
  That is the intellectual thrust which informs this Third Reading debate. I am mindful that we are discussing what the Bill contains. It contains a duty, placed on the security services, to guard national security. What is national security? One would ordinarily expect, when reading a Bill,
  770
  to find a definition of such a term. From what the Home Secretary has told us, we know that national security is what the Home Secretary determines it to be. The House should be cautious of a definition that gives any successor of the current Home Secretary such overwhelming powers to determine what national security should be. During this century, other states in continental Europe have used the term "national security" to do horrific things to human nature and the soul of people. How can a democratic House of Commons accept a definition of a function that is anything that the Home Secretary determines it to be, without any redress? But that is what the Bill says.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Clause 1(2) makes it patently clear what the protection of national security means. It particularises national security. It refers to
  "protection against threats from espionage, terrorism and sabotage, from the activities of agents of foreign powers and from actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by industrial, political or violent means."
  How can my hon. Friend persist in saying, as he has before, that there is no definition of national security? What it means is patently clear from the text.
  Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful that that issue has been raised. Had my hon. and learned Friend been a Member of the Committee, he would have learnt that those are merely illustrative of some of the functions that the Security Service may address. However, those functions are not exclusive, and that is the matter which causes concern. If they are not exclusive functions, the House should consider what functions the Security Service may look into. This power may be used in a malign way. We should be cautious about accepting on Third Reading the provisions of this Bill, as unamended in Committee.
  The Home Secretary has made much of the fact that the commissioner may look over his shoulder—if I have misunderstood him, I hope that the Minister of State will draw my attention to the clauses in the Bill that deal with this matter—and identify something as not being in the interests of national security. We are giving the Home Secretary a clearly unreviewed function to determine what is national security. We are providing something along the lines of what was contained in the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The House knows that, by and large, that was a travesty.The Times called it a travesty. That measure was designed to meet the contentions that were placed in front of the European Court of Human Rights, when we were found wanting over the telephone tapping of an antiques dealer in Sussex.
  That was the purpose of the Bill. What were the commissioners able to review? They could review something only if an innocent citizen, by some form of osmosis, came to the conclusion that the security services had acted. The Home Secretary fairly said that, under the Official Secrets Bill, no one may, under penalty of imprisonment or the possibility of imprisonment, mumble a word that a crime, fraud or improper act has taken place. The idea of the innocent citizen referring something that he does not know about—and if anybody tells him about it, that renders that person liable to imprisonment—to the commissioners is an extraordinarily obtuse way of trying to bring about the protection of individual rights and a correct balance within our society.
  This is not a credible Bill for a Conservative Government to introduce. Conservative Members should be cautious about it. Our worry about the powers of the

  771
  state and our anxiety that they can be used in malign ways are respectable arguments. The Bill does not meet those arguments. I welcome—as did the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—a statutory basis for our intelligence and security services for domestic purposes. That is admirable. I have not heard one person criticise it. High Court judges believe that, to the ordinary citizen, burglary is a criminal offence. They are nervous about placing our security services in an unprotected position in front of the courts without a proper mandate or a proper warrant system.
  The constraints that are provided by the Bill are insufficient. Insufficient regard is paid to ministerial responsibility and accountability. The Bill pays no regard to the rule of law and it does not acknowledge the right of lawful dissent, a right that is fundamental to our democracy.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Like the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr.
  Shepherd), who has just spoken, and the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), I started from the position that to bring the Security Service within a statutory framework seemed, on the face of it, a step forward. However, as one has listened to the debate—and today to the Home Secretary's speech—my initial view has considerably changed.
  The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South, who speaks with great authority as a former Home Secretary, did not get it quite right when he said that he wanted to bring the Security Service under the law. The fact is that the Security Service has always been under law. The question is whether the law is enforceable. That the Security Service has always been under the law has been repeatedly stated in the courts. It was stated by Lord
  Denning in the Profumo inquiry. It was stated by Sir John Donaldson, the Master of the Rolls, in an important
  judgment in the Wright case—the Attorney-General v.The Guardian. Parliament has been considering whether we are changing the situation in a way that strengthens and enhances individual liberties by statutory means or whether we are stemming the effectiveness of the control over the operations of the Security Service.
  In many ways, the present position is safer than that which the Bill provides. In the case of a transgression by the Security Service, the citizen has the right to take his case to the courts. The position was well spelt out by Sir John Donaldson. In the case to which I have referred, he said:
  "It may be that the time has come when Parliament should regularise the position of the service. It is certainly a tenable view. The alternative view which is equally tenable is that the public interest is better served by leaving members of the service liable to prosecution for any breach of the law at the instance of a private individual or a public prosecuting authority but may expect that prosecuting authorities will exercise a wise discretion and that in an appropriate case the Attorney General would enter a nolle prosequi justifying his action to Parliament if necessary."
  He went on:
  "It is not for me to form or express any view on which is the most appropriate course to adopt in the interest of the security of the nation and the maintenance of the rule of law."
  The most troubling aspect of Ministers' interventions in our debates has been their unwillingness to address the important point about the maintenance of the rule of law. If the rule of law means anything, it must mean some
  772
  certainty in knowing the difference between what is permissible and what is impermissible. The Bill does not provide for that, because its definitions are imprecise. Above all, it does not define the function of the Security Service. In a sense, that did not matter in a common law situation. If a security officer transgressed, bugged or burgled his way around the country, he could have been taken to court. That is no longer to be the position. A complaint will now go through the new statutory procedure, which rules out appeal to the court. A security officer has a narrower defence for a wrongdoing than he had before the introduction of the Bill.
  Mr. Rees: I concede that point. It is not for me to defend the Government's position, but I thought that one reason the Government had moved was to deal with those who had burgled their way through London without a warrant—those who had broken the law.
  Mr. Maclennan: That is undoubtedly the case, but if a member of the Security Service is argued, or found by the tribunal or the commissioner. to have acted contrary to the provisions of the statute, in that the warrant was defective in some way, that is final. Under clause 5(4), there can be no appeal to any court if the matter has been considered by the tribunal or the commissioner. That is cutting the rights of the citizen.
  Far from congratulating the Home Secretary, as he invited us to do at the conclusion of his speech, we should take strong issue with the narrowing of citizens' rights in the manner which the Bill provides. It is deeply disturbing. I would not have been disturbed if the Bill had defined its terms and the functions of the service in a clear and not so all-embracing manner. Once again, when he was considering what is meant by the protection of national security, the Home Secretary said that everybody knew what it meant and that the phrase appeared in several statutes. He said that we must rely upon him or his successors. He said that the language of the Bill is as clear and as unequivocal as possible. Merely to use the term "national security" and treat it as though its meaning were pellucid is to treat hon. Members as though they were innocents abroad. The phrase is capable of being interpreted by a Home Secretary in many different ways.
  It is not correct to suggest, as did the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said in an intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), that the phrase is defined by the particularisations which appear in the clause merely as examples. The Bill gives considerable power to be exercised by the Security Service in the issuance of warrants by a Home Secretary, or by any other Secretary of State if the Home Secretary is not available, regardless of knowledge of the matter. Such great powers cut the freedoms of our citizens, and they should not exist with so little control.
  The Bill's provisions on supervision have been discussed at this and other stages of the Bill's passage. The provisions for supervision of the issuance of warrants by a commissioner, who is a man appointed by the Home Secretary and holding high judicial office, do not cover more than they purport to cover. They do not cover more than the issuance of warrants and the handling of complaints, as set out in schedule 1. They do nothing to strengthen the effectiveness of the scrutiny of the Seem-Ay Services to protect it, as many hon. Members would wish,

  773
  from the kind of outrage of which former servants such as Bettaney were guilty as recently as three years ago. We are doing nothing to strengthen the Security Service. We are doing nothing to increase the protection of the individual from abuses of power. We are not providing a proper channel of appeals.
  Some of these matters are likely to go before the European Court of Human Rights. The Bill is a response to pressure. It may be argued that there is an inadequate domestic remedy. The Bill is not an improvement on the law as it stands. For that reason, I shall vote against it.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was right to remind the House that the Bill began its parliamentary journey with a quite substantial measure of good will on both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman certainly supported it. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) seemed to make a genuflection in the direction of its support. I certainly gave it my willing vote on Second Reading. But all that good will has been disdainfully dissipated by a charade of a two-day Committee stage.
  I call it a charade because, during its proceedings, my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench systematically flouted the usual parliamentary conventions, to the extent of completely refusing to accept or even reconsider in another place a single amendment, irrespective of its merits. In blunt language, the Bill was given the bum's rush by the Government. The Home Secretary will live to regret it.
  One good reason is that, instead of removing the Security Service from the arena of political controversy—surely we all want that—the Bill leaves it in the crucible of political and parliamentary argument and debate. The desirable objective of taking the Security Service away from political controversy could have been achieved if there had emerged, as there started to, a broad cross-party consensus that the Bill was on the right lines.
  The Home Secretary's Third Reading speech mysteriously kept concentrating on what he called the deep divisions in the House that caused him to realise that there was no hope of solidarity on this Bill. In fact, any fair-minded observer who listened to the Committee would have been amazed at the genuine degree of agreement between such diverse sections of the House as my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Mr. Allason), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and myself on one side, and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), the right hon. Members for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and several others I could name, on the other, all of whom seemed to be moving broadly in the same direction. It was my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench who were left in far from splendid isolation.
  Having started with this consensus on his side, the Home Secretary steadily and inexorably lost it as the Bill progressed, because of his intransigence. It takes a remarkable parliamentary footballer to begin with the ball at his feet in the goal mouth with no goalkeeper in sight and, instead of scoring, to dribble the ball all the way back to his own goal mouth with most of the players, including
  774
  those on his own side, shouting "foul", "offside" and "Let's have a replay." The analogy of football is not wholly invalid. A replay of the Bill is exactly what is likely to happen in the not-too-distant future. I cannot predict who will force it; perhaps, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said, it will be the European Court of Human Rights picking a quarrel with the sweeping definitions of the functions of the Security Service in clause 1. Perhaps it will be the next scandal to emerge in the Security Service.
  This is a world in which Murphy's famous law—if something can go wrong, it will—seems to apply in spades, and it will not be too long before trouble boils up. Perhaps it will be a future House of Commons with a majority of one sort or another of such slenderness that the current buzz phrase, "elective dictatorship", will not be applicable. Whatever the cause, the argument about the statutory basis for the Security Service will be back on the political agenda soon, because the Bill has been left in the category of unfinished business as a result of Home Office ministers failing to accommodate any point of view other than their own.
  As far as Parliament is concerned it is, to put it mildly, unusual for a major Bill to pass all its stages without amendments of any kind, especially when amendments have been moved in a responsible and constructive fashion by major parliamentary figures such as a former Home Secretary, a former Foreign Secretary, a former Defence Secretary and others with experience in this area.
  The Bill cried out for amendments, not only in places in which policy differences prevail, such as oversight, but in quite small non-controversial areas. For example, when we came to the part of the Bill that dealt with warrants, I thought that my hon. Friend the Minister of State was left with egg all over his face. To mix my nutritional metaphors, he made a complete Horlicks of his explanation of why the Bill did not follow the much more precise and accurate rules on warrants in the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The arguments about a staff counsellor, which I was able to draft in the exact words of the Prime Minister, were rejected on the baffling ground that there was no need for such an amendment, even though the Prime Minister thought it necessary to introduce such a staff counsellor by means of a written parliamentary answer.
  As these amendments were rejected by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in that tone of unconvincing bonhomie which reminded me of a minor character in John Le Canes novels, Roddy Martindale, I asked myself what we are to make of all this in the cold light of day. Has the Home Office grown so complacent that it sticks up a notice on Queen Anne's Gate saying, "No hawkers, no gypsies, no unsolicited circulars and no parliamentary amendments"? Or has the Home Secretary suddenly moved his Department into a fairyland in which perfect legislators bring forward perfect legislation and they all live happily ever after in a silver-lined cloud of self-satisfaction with no amendments?
  Perhaps we should take a more sombre view of all this and remind ourselves of Lord Acton's famous aphorism about power tending to corrupt, and reflect that it may be coming true in a House of Commons in which there is a majority of over 100. Either way, it is bad for Parliament and for Government, and perhaps bad because, when the Official Secrets Bill comes to the Floor of the House we shall be given the same contemptuous treatment—no

  775
  amendments accepted because they are all terrified of a Report stage. That would be a disgrace to parliamentary proceedings.
  I solemnly warn my right hon. and hon. Friends that if they think that they have had trouble so far on this Bill—it has been good-natured—they will have much worse trouble if they take the same haughty line.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I did not quite catch my hon. Friend's reference to Roddy whoever-it-was, but perhaps he will give me chapter and verse from the Le Carre novel in due course so that I can seek to identify myself. May I reassure my hon. Friend—I hope to bring a smile to his face—that my right hon. Friend and myself have already tabled at least one amendment to the Official Secrets Bill, so that will ensure a Report stage on that measure.
  Mr. Aitken: I am delighted to give a smile to my hon. Friend. If we are to have a Report stage on the Official Secrets Bill, that is a great deal better than has happened on this Bill.
  I shall return now to the Security Service Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know that you wish us to stick closely to Third Reading rules. Two areas remain in which the cauldron of political controversy will continue to bubble because of the Government's short-sighted refusal to accept any amendments. The first relates to the functions of the service and to the definitions of those functions. At first glance, many of us felt that clause 1(2) implied that the Security Service would in future limit its activities to espionage, sabotage, terrorism and attempts to overthrow parliamentary democracy.
  Even my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) fell neatly into that trap, not having attended the Committee stage to any great extent, when he thought that the clause somehow defined the activities of the Security Service and limited it to those provisions. However, he was absolutely wrong, as we discovered in Committee. Of course, we wanted a hopeful sign that the Security Service would no longer engage in dubious fishing expeditions of the kind that Mr. George Wigg persuaded the service to indulge in when he was in some way in charge of the Security Service in the 1960s, with results that were at times deeply unfair to some of his colleagues in this House. In fact, it meant no such thing.
  The phrase "the protection of national security" has never been defined. It can be extended far beyond the mere illustrations given in clause 1(2). That is a grave defect in the legislation and one to which the House will undoubtedly wish to return.
  Secondly, the oversight argument will not go away. We had a full day's debate on that, so there is no need to go over old ground. However, it was illustrative of the Home Secretary's approach to the oversight case that in his reply last Monday he made no reference to the outstanding speech by the right hon. Member for Devonport. Indeed, my right hon. Friend made only glancing references of the most cursory nature to the speeches made by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South, by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, and by many other hon. Members. That was a surprising and uncharacteristic departure from the usual courtesies of a wind-up speech, especially when there was no real pressure of time.
  776
  My right hon. Friend's failure to recognise that the call for oversight will only redouble in volume and intensity when the story of the next Blunt, Bettaney or Burgess hits the fan-as it surely will-is a great mistake. A "no oversight" Home Secretary, like a "no amendment" Home Secretary, is at best short-sighted and at worst, a fundamental error of judgment.
  The Bill could have been a parliamentary success story for the Home Secretary, with congratulations from all sides for crafting a Bill that would stand the test of time and put the Security Service on a secure footing. Instead the Bill should be retitled the Security Service (Temporary Provisions) Bill. It will not last and that is why I shall vote against its Third Reading.
  9.8 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) will vote against it the Bill and I hope that he will be joined by other Conservative Members. Like my hon. Friends, I shall vote against it because there has been no improvement since Second Reading.
  As it stands, the Bill makes only cosmetic changes. It provides no effective remedy against the serious complaints made against the Security Service and we should not forget that we are so concerned because of the complaints and disclosures made by a former official of MI5, Cathy Massiter. No one has denied that she was speaking the truth. There have been no Government allegations that she was lying. As I have said before—I repeat it today—I believe that Cathy Massiter is an honourable person. By the manner in which she revealed matters which had gone on, but which should not have gone on, she has performed a public duty and a public service and we should be very pleased that we have people like her—
  Mr. Allason: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Cathy Massiter's allegations were investigated—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now straying from Third Reading. That is a result of my tolerance in allowing the hon. Member for Walsall, North (M r. Winnick) to stray so far. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would come back to the matter before us.
  Mr. Winnick: The need for a security service, whether it is MI5 or a similar organisation, was never questioned during the course of the Bill. Everyone recognises that it is necessary to have an organisation for the protection of national security. That is set out in the appropriate clause, clause 1(2). The need for national security and related matters and the need for the defence of the realm is recognised in all parts of the House. We know what goes on in dictatorships, but it is unlikely that there is any democracy that does not provide for some sort of protection and does not have some sort of security service. It is the other part of the clause that gives rise to a great deal of controversy.
  I am certainly in favour of opposing anything that would overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy. As I said repeatedly in Committee, I am keen that our democratic system should be permanent. I would be the last person to do anything or be in favour of anything that would undermine it. Equally, I am against targeting and spying on those who are active in organisations such as the

  777
  Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament or in campaigns for civil liberties and who have no wish whatever to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy.
  One of my reasons for voting against the Bill was echoed by the hon. Member for Thanet, South. Protest, advocacy and dissent are the very life blood of parliamentary democracy. That is the basic difference between a democracy such as ours and a dictatorship. In a democracy one can protest, advocate and dissent if one disagrees with the Government of the day and one will not be penalised, put away or punished in any way. Some hon. Members have spoken about the reasons for the Bill, and the name of Wright has been put forward.
  I wonder whether we would have such a Bill if it had not been for the complaint brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and Patricia Hewitt to the European Court of Human Rights. No doubt when that case is before the court the Government's answer will be that some improvements have taken place, and they will give the Bill as an illustration of the progress that has been made.
  Clause 2(2)(b) says:
  "that the Service does not take any action to further the interests of any political party."
  On the face of it we should be quite content about that, because it is obviously right that the Security Service should not further the interests of any political party. The same words, more or less, were in the Maxwell Fyfe directive of 1952. It was described at the time as a Security Service that would be completely politically impartial. How seriously can we take the claim of political impartiality when we know that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), when he was Secretary of State for Defence, decided to ask the Security Service to target CND? What kind of political impartiality existed then? Did the right hon. Member for Henley take into account the Maxwell Fyfe directive, or did he say to himself that there should not be any distinction between the Security Service—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. More than once, I have had to remind hon. Members that debate on Third Reading is very limited. I regret having to remind the hon. Member for Walsall, North yet again.
  Mr. Winnick: I defer to your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was speaking about clause 2(2)(b), which says quite clearly
  "that the service does not take any action to further the interests of any political party."
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has widened the debate too much.
  Mr. Winnick: I was trying to illustrate that that was already in the Maxwell Fyfe directive of 1952 and did not prove at the time the point that we should like to see proven.
  I said that the basic difference between a democracy such as ours and a dictatorship is that in a democracy protest, advocacy and debate are permitted and are part of everyday life. Like my hon. Friends and me, many believe that such views and actions should not be undermined by the Security Service. I believe strongly that Parliament itself should be able to scrutinise the Scrutiny Service. No
  778
  doubt, as the hon. Member for Thanet, South said, the debate about that will not be ended by the passing of the Bill.
  National security should not be a disguise for narrow political interests, or scoundrels or rogues, be they those like Wright or any similar person, to undermine the parliamentary democracy and civil liberties about which we are concerned and which we are determined to defend. The matters that have come to light must cause us the maximum amount of concern and disquiet. What a pity that, throughout the debates on the Bill, neither the Home Secretary nor the Minister could bring himself to admit that mistakes and abuses have occurred. It would have been better if they had frankly admitted that. That is yet another reason why we are so concerned about the Bill and why we do not believe that its enactment will avoid the mistakes and serious abuses that have occurred in the past.
  I am sure that the Secretary of State wishes that MI5 was not such a source of continuing political controversy. I understand the feeling in Government circles, and certainly on the part of the Home Secretary, that MI5 should not have such a high political profile. If the Bill had been amended, MI5 would have a far lower political profile in the future, and it would not be the subject of so much continuing controversy. I regret that, since the Bill's introduction, we have not been able to make the necessary changes and reforms that would have largely avoided the abuses about which I have spoken. Unfortunately, the Government were not willing to concede anything, having introduced the Bill for the reasons I have explained.
  No matter how much the Home Secretary and other Ministers hope that this matter will go away, MI5 will continue to be the subject of controversy. The Opposition will raise the matter whenever we have the opportunity because we strongly believe in democracy and civil liberties. I have already said that it is necessary to have a Security Service, but one that is accountable to Parliament. That is the essence, I believe, of a parliamentary democracy, and I regret the Government's attitude throughout the proceedings on the Bill.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Rupert Allason: In my misplaced optimism—call it inexperience or perhaps ignorance—I rather hoped and assumed that, in Committee, the Government would actively pursue many of the constructive ideas put forward by both sides of the House. Nobody has a monopoly of wisdom on this subject, and I was terribly disappointed, inexperienced though I am as a parliamentarian, by the Government's attitude.
  I have at least one contribution to make, which I hope will clear up the mystery created by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I think deliberately, when he rejected the opportunity to introduced parliamentary oversight. He chucked out the idea of a committee of Privy Councillors, rejected the idea of a detailed report from the commissioner and declined to take up the quite sensible suggestion to extend the role of the commissioner. Cogent examples and arguments were put before him. I could not understand why he was so unwilling to share the burden of his responsibility, particularly when other examples had been given—Canada was identified as a classic example. I now know why.
  The Home Secretary said that Canada had its own solutions and we should examine the problems that face

  779
  this country. There are great parallels between the two countries. Canada endured the bombing of an Air India jet and had to take appropriate measures thereafter. Canada also has considerable loyalty problems. Security Service officers in Canada say that one of their great challenges is that Canada is such a cosmopolitan community and there is no such thing as a born Canadian. People have different backgrounds and loyalties.
  What made Canada so different from the United Kingdom? What was the spike upon which the Home Secretary was determined to impale himself? It is that the Canadian intelligence community does not have a foreign intelligence gathering group. I have subsequently discovered that the advice given to him was that, if he was to give way on oversight—to allow any supervision of the Security Service—it might lead to the supervision and oversight of another organisation that successive Governments have declined to admit exists in peace time. That is the sole reason why the Home Secretary has been so obstinate. 1t is uncharacteristic of him because usually, with great courtesy, he takes—
  Mr. William Cash: My hon. Friend is making a generalised point about another service. Is he saying that there is no supervision? Under the Bill, legal duties imposed upon the Secretary of State, the commissioner and the director general would be required to be assessed and interpreted by the courts. Therefore, there is supervision by judicial review if a person wants to challenge the basis on which the functions are carried out. Surely my hon. Friend recognises that.
  Mr. Allason: I regret that my hon. Friend was not present during our two days in Committee. We outlined all the different opportunities for parliamentary oversight. The Home Secretary obstinately resisted this point all the way through. In essence, he said that everything was fine, there may have been one or two problems in the past and we were placing great trust in the Home Secretary. He said that he had wide shoulders and could bear that burden.
  When the Home Secretary talked about the past he spoke of "ill—defined" legality. The Bill—if it does nothing else—at least gives the Security Service a cloak of legality. The pressure from both sides of the House has been not just for legality but for a measure of oversight.
  Mr. Lawrence: If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary does not wish to concede anything on oversight on the secret service because he does not want to concede oversight on another branch of the security services, will my hon. Friend say why he thinks that would be a bad reason?
  Mr. Allason: My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) characterised the Home Secretary as King Canute because he opposes something that has been widely and successfully introduced around the world, in New Zealand, Australia and Canada. Sooner or later there is bound to be a measure of oversight. Those who were in their places throughout the consideration of the Bill in Committee will recall the continuing argument that there should be some improvement in the existing system.
  We know that everything has not been entirely satisfactory in the past. Mention has been made of the contribution to this continuing debate of Mr. Macmillan, and his role in the Profumo affair was one of profound ignorance. He was never aware that Stephen Ward was an
  780
  agent of the Security Service. That ignorance, which has been argued for by at least one of my hon. Friends, cannot be sustained. There have been numerous incidents where it has been shown that the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have been unable to keep their finger on the day-to-day operations of the Security Service.
  It has often been said that the lesson that is never learned from history is that people never learn things from history, and we know that history has a tendency to repeat itself. I have no doubt that we shall be debating these issues again with a view to having some parliamentary oversight or scrutiny, or to make the Bill acceptable to the European courts.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I do not know whether the Home Secretary was in his place on the Government Bench when the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) said that Home Office Ministers behaved abominably on Monday and Tuesday of last week—they treated the House with contempt and, therefore, the country as well—because they wanted to preserve MI6 from any following investigation. The Home Secretary might want to comment on that.
  I believe that that attitude of boorishness stems from the fact that they ignored the warning of Francis Pym some years ago, which was based on the size of the majority that the Tory party might gain in the then general election. He warned of what the consequences would be. We have seen this boorishness on issue after issue. The Government have treated the House with contempt. I have been a Member of this place for 20 years and never previously have I encountered the behaviour that I saw on Monday and Tuesday of last week, on an issue that to a great extent had brought both sides of the House together.
  It is our concern that we have an effective secret service. We are concerned also that it is placed under proper democratic control and supervision. Faced with that concern, the Home Secretary still resisted even the mildest of amendments which were designed to introduce some supervision. The right hon. Gentleman should be warned. The people of England have not yet spoken. Incidentally, the people of Scotland have spoken, and the Government might learn a lesson from that.
  This is not an isolated Bill. It is one of a series of measures that have limited freedom of speech in every possible way. That has applied to the BBC and the press, and it will be the effect of what will be the new Official Secrets Act. That legislation stems from the exposure of the security services' failure. It has arisen in part from the Wright case. Agitation for change stemmed from that issue and many others. The Government spent two foolish years dragging a senior civil servant through the courts, which humiliated him and the nation in the eyes of the world. Eventually the final decision was reached that the public interest should be taken into consideration, and that was right. Everybody expected that to happen. Unfortunately, the public interest is ignored in the Bill. The inadequacies of MI5, including those of the past, have not been properly denied by Peter Wright, and that is one of the inadequacies of the book. It is regrettable that the Government have not taken the opportunity to put the organisation under proper control.
  We are concerned with the failure to bring the secret service—MI5 and the other security services—under

  781
  proper democratic control. The seriousness of that failure is magnified when we consider the looseness of the definition. Opportunities were presented, not to alter the guts of the Bill, and MI5's role, as the Secretary of State defined it, by adding words such as "protest" and "dissent". The same would have been true if what the Home Secretary had said had been put in legislative form. Why in heaven's name should he come to the House, make a speech saying what the Bill is about and then flatly refuse to put what he says into legislative form? That is but another example of the Government's boorishness.
  We are witnessing the end of the sovereignty of Parliament, and we are halfway through the sovereignty of the Executive. Its sovereignty has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. We are put at enormous risk when we allow that to happen.
  We are told that the Bill is based on the Maxwell Fyfe directive, but it is infinitely weaker. I understand that he jotted his five points down on a napkin when he was away from the office for lunch for an hour. In regard to political control, he said that it was essential that the Security Service should be kept absolutely free of any political bias or influence and that nothing should be done that might lend colour to any suggestion that it is concerned with the interests of any section of the community or with any matter other than the defence of the realm. The Home Secretary claims to have incorporated that argument in the Bill, but he has not—he has weakened it significantly. Clause 2(2)(b) provides:
  "that the Service does not take any action to further the interests of any political party."
  The thrust of Maxwell Fyfe has been thrown out of the window.
  We do not believe that the security services are entirely the paid servants of the Conservative party, even though some of their actions might imply that they are. Those of us with experience at the other end of the process are in no doubt, however, about the bias of their thinking. I do not know of any example of MI5 bugging the boardrooms of directors in the City. We know of their bugging people who want more democracy in Britain, or want to change our war policy, or who want to demonstrate on the streets in support of their jobs. We do not yet know of any time when boardrooms have been bugged—
  Mr. Winnick: Or the so-called Freedom Association.
  Mr. Buchan: Indeed. We were presented with an opportunity to bring the service under control. The Home Secretary says that we cannot copy Canada because it is different, or America because it has a different political structure, or France or Germany. We are now the only western democracy which has failed to bring its Security Service under any kind of supervisory control. We are not arguing that we should copy the example of others. What we want, and what the Bill fails to provide, is some democratic supervision.
  Resisting that, when the Franks committee dealt with a much more sensitive situation, is an insult to every hon. and right hon. Member. The Home Secretary is saying that only the Home Secretary can be entrusted with the information, and that it can be reported to the Prime Minister. He is wiping off 649 other hon. Members, including you, Mr. Speaker. We cannot leave supervision
  782
  with the Executive—it has too much power. That power should be diminished. We should make a start on that later this week when we discuss the Official Secrets Bill.
  9.33 pm
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: We are witnessing, not the break-up of parliamentary democracy as we know it, but a number of hon. Members going right over the top. Apart from possibly, the hon. Members for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who appeared to complain that we are making illegal something which he shamefully says went on in the past—namely, that the Security Service concerned itself with the interests of a political party—which is an odd way to behave when we are changing the law for the better, one can conclude from the debate that there is a fair amount of common ground.
  Hon. Members on both sides agree the objectives of the Bill. They are to establish a clear framework of statute, defining in law the functions of the service and the responsibilities of Ministers, and providing for the first time a statutory remedy for members of the public who have complaints about the security services. This is a recognition of the public anxiety inside and outside Parliament and a substantial step forward in protecting society generally and the rights of citizens who are involved in the Security Service in particular.
  In general, the criticism seems to have been that much more should be done to provide an oversight which is completely independent of the Government, more accountability and a more dependable remedy for those wronged. Hon. Members have called for more definition of functions—a wider definition and more functions. Only the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) seems to think that the Bill provides too much and that we should remain as we are. He says that clause 5(4) means that there is no longer a recourse to the courts. It does not mean any such thing. It cannot. The Bill provides for new institutions—the tribunal and the commissioner—and the restriction governs only them. The provision does not mean that security matters cannot be raised in the courts as they can at present. It means that the decisions of the tribunal and commissioner alone shall not be questioned by any court. Obviously, it would be remarkable if any other provision were made.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) took me to task for not agreeing with what he said about the meaning of national security. He says that the Bill should spell out in even more detail what is meant by such understandable words as espionage, terrorism, sabotage, parliamentary democracy and political, industrial and violent means. Why should it be more specific? What more would be achieved? We could go on for ever defining ever more closely and still the courts would be asked for an interpretation of some sub-meaning of some other sub-definition of some general word used in the clause. I do not know what my hon. Friend is trying to do. Perhaps he is trying to whittle away completely the protections enshrined in the Bill, with which most people broadly agree.
  Are the calls for more and wider definition practical? In all the circumstances, are they sensible? My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has resisted all the blandishments, however persuasively and enchantingly

  783
  they have been offered, and I am sure he is right, because two problems of substance lie in the way of the bold reformers.
  First, we are talking about a secret service. Strange as it may seem, its activities must remain secret or there is no point in them. One does not have to speak evilly against one's colleagues as unreliable safeguarders of secrets, as people who can harbour malice, as people capable of political bias, or as being incompetent, or because they chatter to journalists, perhaps in the most convivial circumstances, and journalists piece together bits of information and reach conclusions. Such observations would be wholly unworthy and out of place in this House. But in reality, the more people who know a secret, the more likely it is to get out. That is the most important reason why a Select Committee with oversight, or even a Select Committee of Privy Councillors, would be inappropriate.
  The second problem is volume. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South requested that the Bill should contain more reference to what should be done in a case such as Bettaney's. There should be more consideration of recruitment, training and functions. So much goes on in the secret service, at such a rate and with such complexity, that it would be well nigh impossible for any Member of Parliament to follow such matters with the closeness that they require and not put his foot in it. Such matters are of particular importance because they often affect the very lives of the people concerned. It follows that Parliament is not the most efficient or appropriate body to supervise the Security Service, and that the Government are entirely right to resist the amendments.
  The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said that the conduct of the Franks committee on the Falklands proved that parliamentary scrutiny of a substantial nature could work, but, for a start, few Members have the integrity, good sense and reliability of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who can be entirely trusted not to open his mouth—perhaps in a bar, under pressure from his colleagues or under any other kind of pressure—and vouchsafe any of the secrets that he has learnt.
  Moreover, the Franks committee was a single inquiry into a single subject, which was under the eyes of the press for as long as it endured. That is not the same as continuing supervision by a continuing body. The eyes of Parliament and the media are not constantly on the functioning of such a body. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) even suggested that the Franks committee was not given all the information, in which case setting up such a committee would be a waste of time.
  It is obvious that no form of oversight can guarantee no errors, but there is some sense in having as much oversight as is reasonably possible consistent with the need for secrecy and for a body that is more reliable, because more constant, than any body of Members of Parliament can be. To the question, "Is there some serious deficiency in the oversight protections in the Bill?" I have to answer that I can see none.
  It is ridiculous to suppose that the additional methods of oversight in the Bill do not close the gap considerably between the free hand that it appears that the Security Service used to enjoy and an enforceable obligation to behave correctly. Not only is there the director-general, with a statutory duty to ensure that the rules are followed—and why should we assume that such people are
  784
  incompetent, malicious or unable to follow the requirements laid on them?—but there is the Secretary of State, who must authorise all the warrants. There is also the Commissioner, a senior judge who can review the Secretary of State's use of his authority. The Secretary of State must then report to the Prime Minister, and the report must be laid before Parliament.
  There is also a tribunal consisting of three to five of the most distinguished kind of people in our society—lawyers, the most dependable, reliable, important and splendid people—to receive and consider complaints about the activities of the Security Service. They will have power to order the ceasing of inquiries, to order the destruction of records and to order compensation. It is wholly unrealistic to conclude that the Government could reasonably do more than they are doing to strengthen accountability, without at the same time threatening the secrecy that is the essence of the secret service.
  Opposition Members in particular have consistently shown concern about the member of the Security Service who cannot complain about any wrongdoing that he or she sees within the service—the whistleblower. That whistleblower may be prosecuted, under the Official Secrets Act, if he complains in a way that is against the interests of his superiors. I can understand that concern, but the breach of the Official Secrets Act will involve doing something "without authority". The whistleblower can go to the staff counsellor, who is an independent body set up with the particular end in mind of helping the whistleblower by giving that authority. If he does not want to do that, he can still go to the Minister. If he does not want to do that, he can still go to the Secretary of State. If he does not want to do that, he can still go to his Member of Parliament.
  His Member of Parliament can go to the Prime Minister, and his Member of Parliament can say to the Prime Minister-I do not believe that the Prime Minister would not listen to any hon. Member who said this to her—"I have a constituent who is very concerned about something that has happened to him as a servant of the state in the Secret Service, which was grossly wrong arid improper and may be criminal. Will you give him the authority to tell you what it is?" It is unthinkable that that authority would not be given. If that authority were given, there would be no breach of the Official Secrets Act. The concern, therefore, for the whistleblower, while it may be in the past have been justified in some cases, need not be justified when one bears in mind the functions that we as Members of Parliament in this place can legitimately perform. I believe that that criticism of the vulnerability of the whistleblower is therefore unfounded.
  I continue with this thought. One's attitude towards this Bill depends upon one's attitude to the Security Service. If one believes that it is a wild animal to be caged, to be watched at every moment of the day by keepers, arid that it cannot possibly work unless Members of Parliament have something to do with it—dabbling and poking away in case this animal escapes from the cage;and devours the innocent public—of course it is an unsatisfactory Bill.
  But is this not the closer approximation to the truth? The Security Service is a body of thoroughly decent people, using their ingenuity to protect us from espionage, subversion, terrorism and threats to the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. It is not perfect, but it operates as near perfectly as any human machine dealing

  785
  in secrecy can. The public appreciate that, even if Opposition Members do not. During all the discussions, I have received no more than two letters opposing this legislation, from which I conclude that the people who sent me here do not distrust the Security Service or this Bill. Nor do they wish to see the Service opened up to the eyes of the world.
  9.48 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I found the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) acutely depressing. It is no wonder that not many of his constituents have written to him and protested because, frankly, it would have been a waste of time for them to have done so. I felt that it was depressing, because, once again, the hon. and learned Gentleman-like a number of Conservative Members this evening-has effectively sold Members of Parliament short. He said that we are not responsible enough to be exercising some form of accountable control over the Security Service.
  Mr. Whitney rose—
  Mr. Banks: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I shall be short and sharp on this point, which is a reasonably good description of myself.
  I believe that the Bill, unamended, creates as many problems as it seeks to resolve. I do not think that it has sincerely sought to resolve many of those problems. It is vague in its definition. We have heard that said in good speeches from the decent Tories that remain. I pay tribute from this vantage point to the hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) for at least speaking out for freedom, because there are not many Conservative Members who are prepared to do that.
  The Bill is vague in its definition. It is a lawyer's paradise—perhaps that is why the hon. and learned Member for Burton is so enthusiastic for it to reach the statute book. The definitions in the Bill mean precisely what the Home Secretary means them to say. Therefore, that means that this Bill could have been drafted by Lewis Carroll, because it will leave MI5 in Wonderland. It gives inadequate safeguards to our people. The Home Secretary ventured to give us a number of proposals that he said would answer our fears, but, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have recounted, when we sought to push him to include those safeguards in the Bill, which would then go some way to meet our objections, he steadfastly refused.
  We all know that what is said on Second Reading, in Committee or what appears in the Official Report, will have no bearing or influence on any judges who are subsequently called upon to interpret the Act. Therefore, the words of the Home Secretary were not worth the breath he used to utter them.
  In the end, MI5 will be left as a barely regulated state within a dangerously centralised state—that is the way the Government are leading us. There is no chance of a judicial review of the issuing of warrants. I find that totally unacceptable. The idea is that we cannot trust the Commons, we cannot trust the courts and, in the end, we
  786
  cannot trust the people. Whom can we trust—the Home Secretary of the day and no one else? A bunch of apologists behind the Home Secretary?
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Banks: No, I will not give way.
  I do not believe that the freedoms of our country are safe in the hands of Conservative Members or in the hands of the Home Secretary. I consider that this is a weasel Bill full of weasel words and, in that sense, it is appropriate that it should be passed by a weasel Government.
  9.51 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall speak for no more than five minutes, but I should like to start with a correction to my speech of 16 January at column 103. I implied that Dr. Adrian Tibbetts had been entrapped by a British National party member, Mr. Peter Maranchenko, in conjunction with the special branch. In fact Dr. Tibbetts was at home and had nothing to do with this matter. It was his mother and father, Mr. and Mrs. Tibbetts, who were entrapped. I want to make that absolutely clear.
  That correction also illustrates the value of having such things on some sort of record that can be challenged by the people about whom comments are made. If comments are made behind closed doors the consequence, just like the consequences of the Bill, is that there is no opportunity for those comments to be challenged. Such remarks can stick. If files are drawn up by members of the security services, without any democratic check by this place, which would provide some accountability, such a stigma can grow and fester without the possibility of correction.
  One reason why I shall vote against this shoddy little measure is that there is no definition as to who can issue warrants to burgle. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) repeated the name of the Home Secretary on several occasions—as have other hon. Members—but the truth of the matter is that the legislation does not give power to the Home Secretary because the power to issue warrants is given to any Secretary of State—ten, 12 or however many there might happen to be. Those warrants to carry out a serious criminal act do not have to be in writing to be undertaken.
  This is a shoddy piece of legislation that will not easily fasten round the neck of the Home Secretary. He does not even have the responsibility that is normally ascribed to Secretaries of State. That lack of responsibility was brought out only in the debate in this House. The House was mistaken to allow the Committee stage to be taken on the Floor of the House. It would have been far more effective if consideration had been undertaken in a Committee upstairs because there would have been much more time and much more analysis of the reasons for the Government putting forward the various clauses.
  People describe the security services as undertaking heroic deeds. It is possible that individuals may do so and may have their lives put at peril. If that is the case, they are heroic, but we also know that, by the very nature of their job, members of the security services must lie, cheat and deceive. To allow that to take place with the added authority of a warrant to burgle, issued by the Secretary of State without any accountability, is to put serious power into the hands of people who have the ability to lie and cheat, allowing them to burgle and even to kill, if accounts in various newspapers have been accurate in the past.

  787
  That is a heady combination. Democratic accountability is a tried, tested and practised means of ensuring that the heady mixtures which the security services can distill behind closed doors are held in check. Democracy is about checking things. The Bill does not do that and that is why I hope that hon. Members will vote against it tonight.
  9.56 pm
  Mr. Stuart Randall: One thing that became apparent during the Committee stage of the Security Service Bill was the yawning gap between the legislature and the Executive on this important issue. Quite frankly, it appears that the Government are contemptous of the House of Commons. That contempt manifested itself in the fact that the Home Secretary has ignored the will of the House on issues which are fundamental to the operation of our national democracy and the protection of the civil liberties and basic freedoms of people in this country.
  The Bill has been rushed through the House of Commons by the Government deliberately in such a way as to minimise any discussion and consultation. The rigidity of the Home Secretary in not conceding fundamental points that are important to hon. Members on both sides of the House was partly aimed at avoiding a Report stage. That was designed to stifle full and open discussion on the legislative framework in which the Security Service should operate in future.
  One important consequence of the Government's appalling attitude is that the Security Service, a very powerful and insular organisation which conducts some of its business outside the law of the land, is being allowed to continue its operations without any form of effective democratic accountability. It will continue with inadequate restrictions on it in regard to possible abuses of the civil liberties and freedoms of the British people. It is a very sad picture, and when in future we talk about Britain being a democracy, we should think about the way in which the Government have dealt with the Bill. In my view, the Government verged quite dangerously on being anti-democratic.
  Another thing that became clear in the early stages of the Bill is that the existing system of so-called parliamentary accountability is totally inadequate. The arrangement is based on the Home Secretary being inside the barrier of secrecy and the understanding that he should monitor the Security Service on behalf of Parliament. When we ask questions about the Security Service, more often than not we are told that information cannot be made available for security reasons. The upshot is that Parliament has not a clue as to what is going on.
  In reality, I believe that the Home Secretary does not always know what is going on in any depth and we all rely on the permanent secretaries and the chiefs of MI5 to operate the service without any effective external scrutiny. I believe that that arrangement has been rejected by many of our allies because they believe that external scrutiny and accountability is necessary as a safeguard against abuse, corruption and inefficiency. More positively, however, experience in these countries has shown that the security and intelligence services operate much better when there is some external oversight.
  Our debates have also shown that the Home Secretary—I should add that I am talking not just about this Home Secretary but about previous ones too—does not seem to
  788
  be interested in what is going on within the Security Service. They seem to have given up trying to counter the influence of the M15 senior management and the permanent secretaries. That is a strong statement. 1 notice that the Home Secretary commented that that was based on—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the motion relating to the Security Service Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Lightbown]
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be read the Third time.
  Mr. Randall: I was commenting on Cmnd. 8787, the Falkland Islands review.
  What is the solution? At the moment we have scales—
  with all the permanent secretaries and the MI5 chiefs on one side and the Home Secretary, almost on his own, on the other side. As we know, the Home Secretary is busy with a huge range of responsibilities and has little spare time. Also, he does not have under his control a structure that would enable him to formulate policy to counter all the influences that are weighted against him. The answer, therefore, is to put Parliament on the same side of the scales as the Home Secretary.
  If the Home Secretary were properly accountable to Parliament—the Labour party believes that a Select
  Committee is the best mechanism for achieving that accountability—the pressures from Parliament would serve to bring more balance than is possible under the existing arrangement. The Home Secretary would have more clout over the MI5 establishment than he has at the moment because both he and MI5 would feel obliged to respond to parliamentary pressures. With this approach, I believe that everyone wins—M IS, the Home Secretary and Parliament.
  As for the duration of debate, two main areas of policy were considered during the Committee stage. The first was accountability, both of the Security Service and of the Home Secretary. Essentially, it was all about the best mechanism to achieve better accountability. The second main area of debate related to protecting civil liberties, along the lines proposed when new clause 4 was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). It proposed that nothing in the Act should be done that undermined the right of protest, advocacy or dissent. Amendment No. 47 contained the same phrase but it was more specific and limited because it contained a definition of threats to national security. However, it permitted people to take part in protest, advocacy or dissent.
  To return to accountability, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) moved new clause 73, which advocated that the Security Service should come under the scrutiny of the Select Committee but that it should remain under the authority of the Secretary of State. New clause 5 was tabled by the Labour party to illustrate the scope of the Select Committee.
  When he commented on new clause 5, I believe that the Home Secretary showed a terrific lack of faith and trust in the Members of Parliament who would serve on the proposed Select Committee. He also demonstrated the Prime Minister's lack of confidence in being able to select 12 Members of Parliament—just six from either side of the House—who would be sufficiently reliable and trust

  789
  worthy to serve on the Select Committee. The Home Secretary thinks that it is impossible to select six Members of Parliament from either side of the House who could be trusted not to leak secret information. It seems also that the Home Secretary believes that it is impossible—
  Mr. Whitney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) continuing the debate that we had in Committee instead of taking part in a Third Reading debate?
  Mr. Speaker: That is correct. I was contemplating that very matter a moment ago. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) must stick to Third Reading and not go through amendments that have already been debated in Committee, but not made.
  Mr. Randall: I am commenting on what is in the Bill, not on what we would like to have in it.
  Nevertheless, the Home Secretary showed a lack of faith in hon. Members being able to be relied on to suppress the publication of information via a Select Committee that would be against the national interest. Frankly, I cannot see why hon. Members are supposed to be such a potential threat to the security and wellbeing of the country, as so many of them become Foreign Secretaries, Home Secretaries, Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, and Defence Secretaries. Added to that list are the Ministers of State in each Department. All hon. Members with office must be trusted with secret information, as part of their day-to-day responsibilities.
  According to the Government's arguments, when an hon. Member becomes a member of the Government, he or she suddenly undergoes some sort of physical or mental change that mysteriously makes them less of a security threat. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) actually agreed that a metamorphosis takes place when an hon. Member becomes a member of the Government—that he or she suddenly becomes safer and more reliable as soon as the new appointment is announced.
  That is a load of nonsense. I cannot accept that a Select Committee is unworkable on the ground that hon. Members cannot adhere to the necessary rules of secrecy under which a Select Committee would have to work. From my experience, when people are given responsibility, they rise in stature and become—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to listen to the hon. Gentleman's speech or, if they are not wishing to listen, to leave the Chamber.
  Mr. Randall: There were some long speeches in the debate. I appreciate that hon. Members want to be away. I am cutting out a lot of my speech. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) almost did a filibuster. That is why we are running late tonight.
  The Home Secretary's assertion on the point about hon. Members' reliability was not only wrong but insulting. I am convinced that I could easily select six hon. Members from both sides of the House who could do the job admirably and would have the necessary personal attributes.
  Mr. John Patten: Name them.
  Mr. Randall: The Minister of State says, "Name them." That is for another occasion.
  The Home Secretary has used the argument merely to reject amendment No. 73 and new clause 5. He was told by MI5 that it did not want any form of accountability. I am sure that the word "resist" was written in bold letters on the briefings that were provided for him.
  The Home Secretary is not his own man when it comes to decisions on these matters, partly, as I have already said, because he does not have under his control a structure which enables him to formulate policy.
  The other long debate in Committee was about civil liberties and, in particular, an individual's right of protest, advocacy or dissent. New clause 4 and amendment No. 47 were prominent in that debate—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We really must not go back to the Committee stage. We are dealing with the Third Reading.
  Mr. Randall: I consider that I am in order for the Third Reading.
  There appeared to be an overwhelming feeling in Committee that, as currently presented, the legislation does not protect the rights of individuals to protest advocacy or dissent without the Security Service regarding such people as a threat to national security and recording that information in its files and possibly using it in a way that could be detrimental to the interests of the people.
  I will not go into any detail, but I refer to Hansard of 17 January. It was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). There, the Home Secretary found it necessary to make a statement on the meaning of clause 1(3). I only wish that he had included that as part of the legislation; he would have won a great deal of good will had he done so.
  The Bill is inadequate as it stands, as it will be for the courts to interpret the definitions within it. They will accept the legislation at face value, and will not look up Hansard to see what the Minister really meant. We believe that this matter is of such importance for the protection of civil liberties and the freedom of the individual that a positive statement implying a restriction on the powers of the Security Service is vital. I hope that the House of Lords will give that careful consideration.
  What makes the Home Secretary think that the service will take any notice of a ministerial statement in Hansard on the meaning of the protection of national security, which is for the courts to interpret? If the service is to respond to anything, it must be to the contents of the Bill—that is important. The reason why we wanted the Bill changed to include a statement of what the Security Service is not allowed to do is not that we are against the service or anything silly like that. It is because we believe that the Bill is out of balance. How can we be confident that the senior management of MI5 has the slightest concern for protecting the civil liberties of the people of Britain? A number of scandals in the past have damaged MI5's reputation. That destroys the trust that some members of the public have in the service and can have a bad effect on staff within it.
  I should have liked the Home Secretary to accept amendments Nos. 4 and 47. Many of us who appealed so passionately to him on Tuesday evening think that he should have accepted those amendments there and then.

  791
  There was unquestionably a great feeling of disappointment at the stance that the Home Secretary adopted on this important issue.
  In Committee I told the House that I believed that the Security Service should adhere to three important criteria. First, it should be efficient and effective in its operations. Secondly, it should use—
  Mr. Allason: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should not the hon. Gentleman restrict his remarks to what is in the Bill rather than to what is not?
  Mr. Speaker: I have already drawn attention to that. Let us get on with the debate.
  Mr. Randall: I shall be as brief as I can.
  It is clear that the operation of the British security and intelligence services seems to be out of step with developments taking place in other countries throughout the world. The general move seems to be towards more openness and external scrutiny. In some instances that has happened in response to abuses and corruption. At present there seems to be no inclination on the part of the Security Service to promote such changes, and it would appear that the motive behind the introduction of the Bill had nothing to do with modernising the service and making it more accountable. It had to do with meeting the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights in the context of alleged abuses of civil liberties by MI5, and the alleged lack of effective remedies for those who feel that their rights have been abused.
  Reviewing the progress of the Bill, I must conclude that it is a wasted opportunity. It does little for the people of this country and little to improve the Security Service. One thing is clear, however: external scrutiny of the service is on the political agenda, and it will not go away.
  10.14 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I shall be as brief as I can be, consistent with replying fully to the debate. It is a great pity that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), who has been assiduous throughout our proceedings on the Bill, chose not to refer to this afternoon's Third Reading debate, but referred merely to the Committee Stage, when and where he got the chance.
  All hon. Members who have addressed themselves to the issues this afternoon have said that whatever criticisms they may have of the Bill, they welcome the fact that the Security Service will be put on a statutory footing. There was one exception to that, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who, pursuing the unworldly approach of the Social and Liberal Democratic party, thinks that the situation is much better left alone.
  This Third Reading debate has allowed the House to take stock of the principles upon which the legislation is founded. In my brief reply to the debate, I shall begin and end with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He addressed one particular question to me, which I must answer, about economic well-being. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave an example earlier which seems entirely reasonable. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook sought today to draw us into further precision about the operations that might become necessary under the provisions.
  I do not think that the House really expects to go into operational details of the workings of the Security Service.
  792
  Indeed, I cannot responsibly provide or appear to be providing a list of Security Service targets, actual or hypothetical, from this Dispatch Box. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook knows well that the phrase "economic well-being" is taken from the European convention on human rights. It has been approved already by Parliament in the restrictive form in which it appears in the Bill. That provision is essential for the country's well-being.
  I turn now to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) who, with my hon Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), has addressed himself to the issues although we disagree on the fundamentals of the Bill. He had made a criticism this evening of alleged pirouetting by the Minister of State at the Dispatch Box. My hon. Friend—[Interruption.]—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal again to the House to listen to the speeches. If hon. Members below the Gangway wish to carry on private conversations, they should do it outside.
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills suggested that there was a logical inconsistency in the arguments used from the Dispatch Box when the issue of whether or not there should be judicial review of the warrant procedure was to be considered. He criticised the argument that to have judicial review meant that the circle would be widened. An additional reason why I believe that judicial review and intervention is not acceptable is the need for speed, which is often the case in terrorist issues in this country.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills then related that to the need, as he saw it, for no flexibility under the rule of my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to those who could and could not sign warrants. My hon. Friend seemed to think that there was an inconsistency in that line of argument. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) also raised that issue a moment ago. It is nonsense to say that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be shopping around to find people to sign property warrants.
  The House must recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills raised an important point because the Security Service is under the authority of my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend has the commissioner at his elbow. Therefore, it is absurd to suggest that my right hon. Friend will make arrangements for the signing of property warrants at any stage that would cause the commissioner to suggest that they were being put in an incorrect framework.
  Mr. Cryer rose—
  Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman did not give way, so I do not propose to give way.
  No Home Secretary would knowingly lay himself open to findings by the commissioner that his powers had been abused in any way. It is only those Secretaries of State who are in an informed position who would take a decision of that nature and who would be approached. At an earlier stage of our proceedings, I pointed out that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Scotland have obvious responsibilities in that area.
  The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) did not seem to understand that which my right hon.

  793
  Friend the Home Secretary said earlier in the debate, that we have sought to explain fully to the House the way in which the language of legislation must operate on the work and judgments of Ministers and on the Security Service. He was stating the obvious and I should have thought, given the long parliamentary experience of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, that it would have been obvious to him.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not been offering statements of ministerial intent during the debate and then expecting a court to interpret them. We all know that courts address themselves to the language of statute and not to the language of Ministers. My right hon. Friend has offered not a statement of ministerial intent but an explanation of the consequences of the language of the Bill. There is no need to fill the Bill with a vast amount of declaratory material of one sort or another. We benefited from listening to the speech by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) who welcomed the fact that the Bill will put the Security Service on a statutory footing. In answer to his question I can confirm that the Bill refers only to the Security Service. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman in response to his anecdote about the BBC that, as always, the fullest briefing is provided to Home Secretaries. There will be full scrutiny of the warrants provision by the commissioner.
  My hon. Friends made some notable contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) showed his deep understanding of the need for the Security Service. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) put his finger on the plot mania that so often seems to run among the Members of the Left. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) clearly demonstrated the need, if we are to have a Security Service at all, to have secrets. My hon. and learned Friend was stating the obvious and I am glad that he chose to do so.
  The understanding of my hon. Friends underpins the basic principles of the Bill. It places the Security Service on a statutory basis and this is a great step forward in the history of this place. It ensures that there are now new procedures for the authorisation of warrants and that those procedures will be kept under review by an independent commissioner. These steps about authority, control and review are important. As the long title of the Bill says, it establishes the criteria for investigations by a tribunal or, in some cases, by a commissioner of complaints about the service. No one can doubt that the mechanism for redress is suitable for the general public and that it will be regarded as suitable in a wider and European context.
  The Bill is a significant reform and will increase and improve public confidence. It has to be seen in the context of the attitude of the Labour party to the security of Britain and to terrorism as a whole. Earlier in the debate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary contrasted the attitude of one Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who was asking for greater and greater preventive action against terrorism, with the attitude of Labour Front-Bench spokesmen to security overall. The Bill deals with the Security Service and that is why I want to give the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook one last
  794
  opportunity to withdraw the terrible slur that he cast upon the Security Service. That was referred to earlier in the debate.
  Taking it in context, as reported in the Official Report, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the Minister is not going back to the debate in Committee.
  Mr. Patten: This was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his opening speech. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, in what I think is one of the most shameful statements made in the House:
  "In truth, since the war MI5 has been one of the worst and most ridiculed security services in the western Alliance".—[Official Report, 15 December 1988; Vol. 143, c.1124.]
  That is disgraceful. I give the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity to take that back. It is clear that he will not withdraw that slur, which came from the deputy leader of a party that is seeking to form a Government at some future date. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman will not take that course. The speeches made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, with the exception of only three of my hon. Friends who did not like the Bill, show that Conservative Members are solidly behind this important reforming measure. I invite the House to give it a Third Reading.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 214.

  Division No. 44]

  [10.25 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Butler, Chris

  Alexander, Richard

  Butterfill, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Amess, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Amos, Alan

  Carttiss, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cash, William

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Ashby, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Churchill, Mr

  Atkins, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Baldry, Tony

  Conway, Derek

  Batiste, Spencer

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Benyon, W.

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Cran, James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Critchley, Julian

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Curry, David

  Body, Sir Richard

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

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Boswell, Tim

  Day, Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter

  Devlin, Tim

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bowis, John

  Dover, Den

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Dunn, Bob

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Durant, Tony

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brazier, Julian

  Eggar, Tim

  Bright, Graham

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

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

  Evennett, David

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Fallon, Michael

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Favell, Tony

  Burns, Simon

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Burt, Alistair

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Butcher, John

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  795

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lord, Michael

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Forman, Nigel

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Forth, Eric

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Freeman, Roger

  Maclean, David

  French, Douglas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fry, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Gale, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Gardiner, George

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gill, Christopher

  Mans, Keith

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maples, John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Marland, Paul

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gow, Ian

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

  Mellor, David

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gregory, Conal

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mills, Iain

  Grist, Ian

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Ground, Patrick

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grylls, Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Moate, Roger

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hannam, John

  Morrison, Sir Charles

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

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Harris, David

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mudd, David

  Hayes, Jerry

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Needham, Richard

  Hayward, Robert

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Heddle, John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Norris, Steve

  Holt, Richard

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howard, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Paice, James

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunter, Andrew

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Price, Sir David

  Irvine, Michael

  Raffan, Keith

  Irving, Charles

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Jack, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jackson, Robert

  Redwood, John

  Janman, Tim

  Renton, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rost, Peter

  Key, Robert

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Kilfedder, James

  Scott, Nicholas

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Shersby, Michael

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knowles, Michael

  Speller, Tony

  Latham, Michael

  Squire, Robin

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Lightbown, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Lilley, Peter

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  796

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wheeler, John

  Tracey, Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Tredinnick, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Trippier, David

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Trotter, Neville

  Wilshire, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wolfson, Mark

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wood, Timothy

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Woodcock, Mike

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Yeo, Tim

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Walden, George

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Waller, Gary

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ward, John

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Mr. Alan Howarth.

  Watts, John

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

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

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dewar, Donald

  Allason, Rupert

  Dixon, Don

  Allen, Graham

  Dobson, Frank

  Alton, David

  Doran, Frank

  Anderson, Donald

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Eadie, Alexander

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Fatchett, Derek

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Fearn, Ronald

  Ashton, Joe

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Flannery, Martin

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Flynn, Paul

  Barron, Kevin

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Battle, John

  Foster, Derek

  Beckett, Margaret

  Fraser, John

  Beith, A. J.

  Galbraith, Sam

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

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

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  George, Bruce

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Blair, Tony

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Blunkett, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Boateng, Paul

  Gordon, Mildred

  Boyes, Roland

  Gould, Bryan

  Bradley, Keith

  Graham, Thomas

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Buchan, Norman

  Hardy, Peter

  Buckley, George J.

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Caborn, Richard

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Callaghan, Jim

  Haynes, Frank

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Henderson, Doug

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Holland, Stuart

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clay, Bob

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clelland, David

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Howells, Geraint

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Corbett, Robin

  Ingram, Adam

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Janner, Greville

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys MÔn)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cummings, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Lambie, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lamond, James

  Darling, Alistair

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Leighton, Ron

  797

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Lewis, Terry

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Loyden, Eddie

  Morgan, Rhodri

  McAllion, John

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  McCartney, Ian

  Mullin, Chris

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Murphy, Paul

  McFall, John

  Nellist, Dave

  McKelvey, William

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  McLeish, Henry

  O'Brien, William

  Maclennan, Robert

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  McNamara, Kevin

  Parry, Robert

  McTaggart, Bob

  Patchett, Terry

  McWilliam, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Madden, Max

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Prescott, John

  Marek, Dr John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Radice, Giles

  Martlew, Eric

  Randall, Stuart

  Maxton, John

  Redmond, Martin

  Meacher, Michael

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Meale, Alan

  Reid, Dr John

  Michael, Alun

  Richardson, Jo

  798

  Robertson, George

  Straw, Jack

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rogers, Allan

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Turner, Dennis

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Vaz, Keith

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wallace, James

  Ruddock, Joan

  Walley, Joan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Short, Clare

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wilson, Brian

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Winnick, David

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

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

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

  Worthington, Tony

  Snape, Peter

  Spearing, Nigel

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mr. Allen McKay and

  Stott, Roger

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Strang, Gavin

  Question accordingly agreed to:
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Housing (Scotland)
  10.38 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move,
  That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 15th December, be approved.
  I know, Mr. Speaker, that a number of hon. Members hope to catch your eye this evening and I therefore propose to keep my opening remarks brief. Nevertheless, it may be helpful if I remind the House that housing support grant is a deficit subsidy that is paid to certain local authorities—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will it be for the convenience of the House to take together the two motions on the Order Paper?
  Mr. Donald Dewar: Will we have a three-hour debate if both matters are taken together, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Speaker: Yes.
  Mr. Dewar: Very well.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It would be sensible to take both together if the complete picture is fully to be understood.
  Mr. Speaker: Then we shall discuss also the following prayer:
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Housing Revenue Account General Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 2081), dated 29th November, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th December, be annulled.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Housing support grant is a subsidy that is paid to certain local authorities to help them meet their council housing costs. To be more precise, it is a subsidy paid by the Government to those authorities which, on reasonable assumptions about the income and expenditure falling on their housing revenue accounts, would otherwise have an excess of expenditure over income.
  Full details of the housing support grant settlement for 1989–90 are set out in the draft order and in the report which accompanies the draft order. The amounts of grant which will be paid to individual authorities are listed in annex C of that report. The House will wish to note that the total amounts to over £60 million. This is an increase of 11 per cent. over the £54·6 million which is being paid during the current year.
  Before discussing in detail certain aspects of the settlement, I should record my thanks to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, with whom I have had full discussions about the settlement.
  I mentioned earlier that the housing support grant calculations depend upon reasonable assumptions about local authority income and expenditure levels. These assumptions give rise to a certain amount of misunderstanding. They are crucial, however, to an understanding of how housing support grant is calculated and to the determination of the grant entitlements of individual authorities. It may therefore be helpful if I deal briefly with
  800
  each of the main items of income and expenditure associated with housing revenue accounts and describe the assumptions underlying the estimates.
  The loan charges which we estimate authorities will pay in 1989–90 are based on a projection of each authority's capital debt to mid-1989–90, taking account of the estimated amounts of new borrowing and debt redemption. To calculate interest charges, we apply to these figures of capital debt the average interest rate expected for local authority borrowing in 1989–90. At present, this is estimated to be 10·2 per cent. I appreciate, however, that interest rates may fluctuate. I can assure the House, therefore, that if in practice interest rates are significantly different from our estimate we shall bring forward an appropriate variation order. At present, however, we estimate loan charges for all authorities in 1989–90 to be just over £464 million.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: The Minister just made an important statement to the effect that the Government will bring forward a variation order if there is what he rather quaintly described as a fluctuation in interest rates. How much of an increase would there have to be for the Government to reimburse Scottish housing authorities?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is customary to bring forward a variation order if there has been a significant change in the level of interest rates applying to local authority borrowing. This year, the latest estimate of the pool interest rate for 1988–89 is the same as it was when the 1988–89 order was made in January 1988. I have no plans, therefore, to bring forward a variation order for 1988–89 but, as I said, if there are significant changes in interest rates, we shall bring forward an order for next year.
  The other major item of expenditure on housing revenue accounts concerns the cost of managing and maintaining the stock. For 1989–90, we have increased the management and maintenance assumption in the housing support grant formula by 8·5 per cent. I am pleased to tell the House that this is the third year in succession in which we have been able to adopt an increase which is higher than inflation. The per house allowance will rise from £333 during the current year to £361 in 1989–90, which should encourage further real growth in repairs expenditure.
  On the income side, we are assuming for the purposes of the settlement that rents will increase by £1·48 per house per week over the 1988–89 order levels, bringing rents to £18·93 in order terms. This increase of 8·5 per cent. matches that of the management and maintenance assumption. I invite the House to note this deliberate linkage, which reflects the fact that improved levels of service have to be paid for by increased rents.
  I should also stress that, in making these assumptions, the Government are not seeking to fetter the discretion of authorities to make their own decisions about the level of rents and about the level of management and maintenance expenditure. We are making these assumptions for the purposes of calculating housing support grant and we do so in the interest of equity—to ensure that all authorities are treated fairly in the distribution of grant. We thus avoid an authority receiving more grant because it is inefficient at carrying out repairs, so loading up its housing revenue account with maintenance expenditure. Similarly,

  801
  if an authority chooses to set a higher rent to improve the levels of service it provides to its tenants, it may do so without being penalised in grant terms.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: The Minister mentioned rent levels. Is he aware that, since the Government came to power, council house tenants in Scotland have suffered rent increases of 230 per cent.? In view of that, how can the Minister possibly justify a situation in which out of the 56 housing authorities in Scotland, 33 will not receive a single penny in housing support grant and 48 will be prohibited from taking a single penny from the general fund for the housing revenue account? How on earth can the Minister possibly justify that vicious attack on the living standards of council house tenants?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My first point in reply to the hon. Gentleman relates to the formula. Essentially, the amounts of housing support grant payable are derived from an assessment of the expenditure and the income falling on local authority housing revenue accounts in 1989–90. The means by which the various items of such expenditure and income are estimated are set out in the report accompanying the order, and the way in which the HSG is calculated is known as the HSG formula.
  Mr. Canavan: Answer the question.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to spell out the formula in greater detail and explain how it works, I would be pleased to do so.
  The Government choose an average rent level and an average level of management and maintenance expenditure which they consider reasonable for all authorities. Those reasonable levels are known as the HSG assumption, and the Scottish Office recalculates the housing revenue account of each authority using those assumptions about rent levels and management and maintenance expenditure.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) wants to know why we use assumptions rather than actual figures. I will give him an example. The average expenditure per house in 1988–89 in Aberdeen is £294, but it is £552 in Dumbarton. That does not necessarily mean that Aberdeen is more efficient than Dumbarton. Levels of expenditure depend not only on efficiency, but also on political decisions about the level of service to be provided and on technical decisions about the extent to which repair programmes should be capitalised. That is why we use the assumptions to which I referred.
  If there is still a deficit on the recalculated account, that deficit is made up by paying an equivalent of housing support grant to the authority concerned. The main factor in determining whether an authority receives a housing support grant is its level of loan charges.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, West asked why rents have increased so much and he referred to a figure of 230 per cent. Rents have indeed risen by more than the level of inflation since the Government came to power. However, that reflects the artificially low rent policies that many Scottish authorities maintain at the expense of their ratepayers.
  Mr. Canavan: Oh, come off it.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman disputes that. I will give him the figures. On average, the rents for local authority tenants in Scotland are £2·55 less than those paid on average south of the border. The estimated average rent increase for this year will be less than that for last year. We calculate that the rise last year was £1·65 and that the estimated average rent increase for 1989–90 will be about £1 ·30 to £1·34.
  Mr. Ron Brown (Edinburgh, Leith): Why is Edinburgh district council treated so disgracefully while the Scottish Development Agency, a Government body, is given finance that is essentially a subsidy for Barratt, which will benefit in a part of Edinburgh known to the Minister—West Pilton Circus? The company will make a vast profit.
  Does the Minister think that that is a good thing, or does he realise that it is one of the cynical cons repeatedly condemned by the people of Edinburgh?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am proud that, when West Pilton was in my constituency rather than that of the hon. Gentleman, I invited the SDA chairman and chief executive down. Through their intervention, considerable environmental assistance was given so that an adventure playground could be built. The SDA has continued the tradition, and I am very glad that it is assisting with urban regeneration projects in the hon. Gentleman's constituency which I believe will benefit his constituents.
  Our calculations in December suggested that an increase of about £1·73 would be sufficient to allow Edinburgh district council to make a small but real improvement in the services that it provides for its tenants. While rises in interest rates may now suggest a slightly higher increase, the figure suggested by the council's Labour group appears excessive. Tenants should be in no doubt that, if rents are increased by the threatened £4 a week, it was the council—not the Government—that imposed an increase on that scale.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should like to go on. I shall listen to the hon. Gentleman's speech and reply to him when I wind up the debate.
  I must repeat that, despite the increase in housing support grant for 1989–90, it is the Government's policy to reduce indiscriminate subsidies to council housing so that resources may be concentrated on capital investment, and to target money towards individuals who need it. This year housing benefit in Scotland is expected to reach £623·8 million. We are limiting contributions that authorities may estimate to make to their housing revenue accounts from their general funds. Hon. Members will have noted that for 1989–90 the limits on such contributions have been set at £3·5 million in aggregate. That compares with limits totalling £22 million this year and an outturn figure of £42 million in 1987–88.
  I make no apology for those figures. The progressive reduction in the amount of general fund contributions means that authorities can no longer maintain rents at unreasonably low levels by systematically subsidising their housing revenue accounts at the expense of their ratepayers. In achieving that position, I believe that we have put the finances of council housing on a much sounder basis. Housing support grant remains to help authorities that have particular difficulties in meeting their loan charges because of historically acquired debt; but

  803
  indiscriminate subsidies to tenants, regardless of their ability to pay for their housing, have been substantially eliminated. Because rents are now at a more realistic level, council tenants can look forward to a real improvement in the levels of service provided by their landlord.
  Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister briefly explain why it is so obnoxious to give some subsidy to the public sector tenant, while the bill for the Treasury contribution to mortgage interest relief continues to escalate without let or hindrance?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Housing benefit in Scotland this year is expected to be more than £623 million. That is not being obnoxious to the council tenant, but targeting subsidy to those who need it. If mortgage tax relief has continued to rise, as indeed it has, it is largely because the Government have enabled many more people to buy their own homes. We believe that that fits in with the aspirations of the Scottish people.
  I welcome the fact that local authority rents are able to make a greater contribution towards meeting housing costs—
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Minister give way?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. Many hon. Members wish to speak, and I want to develop the points that I am making.

  Let me return, however, to our proposals for general fund contributions in 1989–90. As I have said, the aggregate of the limits on contributions amounts to £3·5 million and positive limits have been allocated to eight authorities. The contribution limits have been calculated to ensure that the average rent increase in those authorities can be restricted to £2 per house per week, or that the average rent can be held to £20·50 per house per week. The calculations are based on the Scottish Development Department's estimate of the loan charges which each authority will face in 1989–90. They assume that there will be an increase of 8 ·5 per cent. in authorities' management and maintenance expenditure over the levels for which they themselves budgeted in 1988–89. Let me emphasise that we are working from authorities' own figures, as reported to CIPFA—the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. Those calculations are therefore as realistic and as accurate as we can make them.
  I should also stress that in no sense should the maximum £2 per house per week increase be regarded as a norm or standard to which authorities are expected to conform. It is not the business of this Government to set local authority rents. Authorities will be making their own decisions about the levels of management and maintenance expenditure in their area and about the rents which they will need to set in order to balance their housing revenue accounts.

  Finally, I should like to touch briefly on the combined effect of the subsidy proposals before us tonight. I calculate that the overall effect of housing support grant and general fund contributions on the housing revenue accounts of local authorities in Scotland will be to generate an overall rent increase of around £1·34 per house per week.
  Mr. Thomas Graham rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamiilton: I want to finish this point.
  Mr. Graham: Can the Minister tell the tenants of the Scottish Special Housing Association—which the Minister controls—why he is putting their rents up by an average of £1·88, when they already have some of the highest rents in Britain?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The rents of SSHA tenants will not be as high as tenants of new towns and certainly will not be as high as those of many housing association tenants. The estimated average rents of SSHA tenants for 1989–90 will be £20·82. The estimated average rents for Scottish local authority tenants will be £17·57 and for new town tenants £21·26.
  I express my conviction that the fact that there has been an increase for the SSHA tenants will mean that there will be a considerable amount to spend on management and maintenance.
  If authorities decide to increase rents by more than the figures we have calculated—
  Mr. Adam Ingram: Will the hon Gentleman give way?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall listen carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says in his speech, and I shall be happy to respond to it in my reply.
  This order relates to local authorities. If the authorities decide to increase rents by more than the figures we have calculated—for example, to meet expenditure on management and maintenance increased by more than the 8·5 per cent. we have assumed—this is their prerogative. But I emphasise that that will be the authorities' own decisions, and that high rent increases are not being imposed by the Government. An average increase of £1·34 per house per week would be rather less than the amount of the increase last year. That would bring average local authority rents in Scotland to £17·57 per week. I do not regard that as unreasonable. It is well below the current year's average council rent of £18·78 in England arid Wales. It is also substantially below current rent levels in housing association, SSHA and Scottish new town houses.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) made an interesting contribution to the debate. I was, of course, forewarned about what he would say, because much of his speech was reported in advance by last Wednesday's Evening Times. Indeed, this debate was reported as having taken place, which was no doubt attributable to the hon. Gentleman's pioneering approach in favour of exclusive journalism.
  I must tell the hon. Gentleman that a tribute was paid to him by the Leader of the House, who said:
  "The detailed speech that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) appears to have made in the House in the early hours of the morning and which is set out with such cogency and clearness by Mr. Hernon is a tribute to the hon. Gentleman's foresight rather than an indication of the hours that he keeps in the House."-[Official Report, 19 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 488.]
  Dr. John Reid: I thank the Minister for raising this matter, which is testimony to the efficiency of my press operations and the absolute incompetence of the Government in cancelling the debate in the first place. Lest the Minister is disappointed, my name is down to speak tonight and I shall ram every one of those words down his throat.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I was just about to say that I looked forward with interest to discover whether he would use the same speech, but I am grateful, at least, for the opportunity to respond tonight.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell, North complained about excessive rent increases and about the lack of housing support grant for Motherwell district council.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you could explain how the Minister will reply at the end of his speech to the interventions that hon. Members have made, if he is now to reply to a speech that has not been made?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The article appeared under the headline:
  "Rents rise hammers the Scots"
  I am glad of the opportunity to reply to the hon. Gentleman. Despite the absence of housing support grant, Motherwell district council has consistently maintained rents at a level substantially lower than the Scottish average. The management and maintenance expenditure of the council is also well below the Scottish average. In effect, the council's low-rent policies are restricting the levels of service that it provides to its tenants.
  It is, of course, within the council's discretion to take such a course of action, but I do not believe that we would be justified in providing subsidies to maintain that situation.
  Dr. Reid rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall not give way, but I look forward with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's speech, which I shall follow carefully.
  I believe that the proposals considered tonight constitute a fair and reasonable subsidy package. They set an acceptable balance between the interests of the council tenant, the community charge payer and the taxpayer. We have consulted the authorities in detail about the orders, and I commend them to the House.
  11.3 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: One of the differences between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) is that my hon. Friend writes his own scripts, which has some virtue.
  I thought, however, that the Minister organised and shuffled his many bits of paper with unusual dexterity and I enjoyed some of his remarks. It is always fascinating to know-it has never struck me before-that the way in which the housing support grant is calculated is known as the housing support grant formula. That is a gem worth preserving.
  The Minister then plunged into a remarkable farrago of nonsense about notional figures, bordering on myth, as he dealt with the way in which the formula works.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am interested in the concept of notional figures based on myth. If the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) writes his own script and delivers notional speeches that were never given, but were nevertheless published in the press, and does not admit that that is a misleading and dishonest thing to do, why are we worried about myth?
  Mr. Dewar: All I can say is that I welcome the presence of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is refreshing to see him here as he is one of the great entertainers of the place. I hope that he will contribute later.
  One of the problems that we face is that we get locked into debate on specific orders. Each of the litany of orders is taken as a whole and debated intensively. The danger is that we may lose sight of what has been happening to housing in Scotland. If we try to achieve some sense of perspective, it is clear that the situation is deeply depressing and that some of the carefully presented figures used by the Scottish Office represent no more than creative accountancy, which does not disguise the fact that housing has been harder hit than any other sector or that the prejudices of Government have directly impacted on the lives of our constituents.
  There are many myths, some of which are at the basis of the Government's approach. In Conservative circles there is still a feeling that council house tenants are heavily subsidised. All too often in ministerial minds, and certainly in the minds of Conservative Back Benchers, the word "subsidy" becomes associated with the term "lazy". We are told that the system is corrupt. I recall the Secretary of State for Scotland making a dramatic speech in which he said that local government finance was a corrupt system designed to favour people who voted Labour, in a tendentious attempt to suggest that the local government finance system is one of the ways in which the dependency culture is perpetuated. I believe that that is to misrepresent and misunderstand in a grotesque and wounding way.
  Despite the special pleading of the Minister, there is a painful contrast between the treatment of public-sector tenants and that of owner-occupiers. Tax relief on mortgages constantly escalates. It is difficult to defend a system in which the value of one's mortgage increases with one's income and in which anyone with a substantial middle-class income would receive genuine advice from his accountant that he-should plunge into the maximum debt that he can raise. We all know that that is a crazy system, and the Minister wisely did not try to defend it.
  I understand that the best estimate of the cost to the Treasury of mortgage tax relief in 1984–85 was £3·5 billion. In 1988–89 it has gone up to £5·25 billion. That is certainly an under-estimate, because it has not caught up with the recent escalation in interest rates. It is difficult to calculate a Scottish figure because the statistics changed in 1982–83 with the introduction of MIRAS. However I understand from the Library, using the family expenditure survey, that the figure is probably just under 7 per cent. of the total—an annual figure of perhaps £350 million. When we compare that with the £55 million or £60 million that will be spent on housing support grant, the point is eloquently and brutally made. I find the Minister's attempt to use housing benefit as an alibi totally unconvincing.
  Mr. Douglas: My hon. Friend has failed to remark on an additional advantage to the owner-occupier, particularly in cities such as Edinburgh where the capital value of the assets have increased in the past year. An article in the property page of last week's edition of The Scotsman shows enormous increases in capital value which cannot be available to council tenants.
  Mr. Dewar: That is a fair point. I am strongly in favour of helping people to get into home ownership if they so wish. However, I object to a system which is designed to

  807
  help those who are already prosperous, who are almost certainly already property owners and who will use the system as a tax advantage and not as a way of broadening the base of what was once called the property-owning democracy.
  For the Minister to use housing benefit as an alibi is a joke. Housing benefit provides help for the lowest income group in distress. By pushing up rents, as the Minister is determined to do, more people will be forced into the housing benefit net. No doubt he will then parade it as evidence of the Government's generosity, and the whole process will become a pathetic intellectual fraud.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of abolishing mortgage tax relief?
  Mr. Dewar: I hardly imagine that the Minister is not aware of my answer. No, I am not in favour of doing that, but I am in favour of spending money to help those in need of help to get into the home-ownership market. I should have thought that in his better moments, the Minister might have taken some interest in achieving that end.
  The Government's approach to housing is not even-handed. The public sector is being manipulated in a way that puts ever-increasing burdens on those who wish to continue to rent. The impenetrable good nature of the Minister is no consolation. I fear that he is a man who knows not what he does but who is prepared to accept it.
  Housing support grant in the coming year will be £5 million higher than it is in the current year. That will be paraded by some people as good news, but if we look back to 1980–81 we find that we spent £228 million on housing support grant, whereas next year we shall spend only £60 million. That is a measure of the Government's indifference. In 1980–81 it made up 37 per cent. of total housing costs in Scotland. Next year it will be 7 per cent. and 33 authorities will receive no grant.
  Let us take Glasgow as an example. In some ways it is the best case to take from the Minister's point of view, because it is one of the few authorities that is still receiving a significant amount of help. In 1980–81 Glasgow received £49·4 million, whereas in 1989–90 it will receive £27·8 million, in cash terms. In real terms that is a fall over that comparatively limited period of 65 per cent. For Scotland as a whole, in 1987–88 constant prices, between 1980–81 and 1989–90 the drop is from £338 million to £54 million, a fall of 84 per cent. Yet Ministers say that they are generous to the public sector and that they bring good news. We are creating a massive housing crisis. There is no way in which the Minister can hide that.
  The general fund contribution to rents has dropped this year from £22 million to £3 million. I apologise for using so many figures, but they put into sharp perspective the reality of what is happening. In 1983–84, the figure was £125 million—18 per cent. of total housing costs. In the coming year the figure will be less than 1 per cent.
  The Minister says, with almost breathtaking complacency, that he is not trying to set rents for authorities, but that does bear even the most cursory examination. It is a disgrace. It is not just an abstract entry in a municipal balance sheet. It means that rents, which have increased in nine years by over 230 per cent., as my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) mentioned, will again be substantially increased.
  The Minister does not convince anyone when he says that rents in Scotland are still below those south of the
  808
  border. I do not believe that anyone would accept as a rational argument the claim that everything south of the border has to be duplicated in Scotland. That is the whole point of having a different form of housing stock, a different form of local government finance and a different approach to the social responsibilities of providing housing. It is a puerile argument—one of which the Minister should be ashamed—merely to say that. on average, tenants in England pay £2·55 a week more. If one considered housing costs, wages and incomes per head in Scotland, one would find that the picture was very different.
  The point, as Renfrew pointed out in its representations to a number of hon. Members last week, is that many local authorities are now reaching the stage where housing is entirely self-financing. That is extraordinary, particularly when we look at the contrast with the other end of the housing market. It has been done largely in order to keep down the poll tax in its first year of operation and to make a few political points.
  Ministers are full of brave talk about choice, but choice for them has a very special definition. It is distorted and destroyed for those in the public sector who wish to exercise choice by continuing to rent. Renting has, quite deliberately, been made a very unattractive option for anyone who is above the rebate level. That cannot be defended.
  The Minister may be a nice man. [Interruption.] A lively debate has broken out in the ranks behind me. I am prepared to accept that he is a nice man, although my judgment may be distorted by my knowledge of some of his predecessors. At one time, Opposition Members thought of having the Michael Ancram memorial meeting tonight, but we decided to resist the temptation. The Minister cannot wander into politics and not be answerable for what he does.
  The structure of housing finance is now based more and more on sales and anticipated receipts. In 1989·90, the general fund contribution will be £3 million. Housing support grant will be £60 million. Borrowing in the normally accepted sense and authorised by central Government will be £125 million. On top of that, the standstill in real terms which is being allowed for this year includes £307 million from anticipated receipts of council houses. For the first time we have a redistribution of receipts. Thirteen authorities have been asked to give up £10 million of their receipts which are now being reallocated.
  I shall encapsulate the point. In 1987–88, of the total sum available for housing in the public sector, about 33 per cent. came from the sale of council houses. In 1989 –90, only two years later, that figure went up to 71 per cent. That is an unsatisfactory basis on which to fund the totally inadequate effort, without commitment, to do something about the collapse of housing stock in this country and its impact on the individual living standards of many of our constituents.
  Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend is touching on a point of enormous interest in my constituency. East Lothian local authority, a comparitively small authority, is the hardest hit by the new concept of negative capital allocation. How can it possibly make sense for a small district council to pay the Government as much as £2·8 million of the proceeds of council house sales before it is

  809
  allowed to start to spend any capital funds on the renovation or building of new houses to meet the urgent housing need in that district?
  Mr. Dewar: I accept entirely what my hon. Friend says. They are now real problems for many district authorities, and not just on the capital side. There is another important problem that I might mention, and I shall fall to that temptation. I refer to what is happening to homeless persons and to the provision of hostel accommodation. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) will return to this point 2if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  A reasonable man may think that this matter should be taken account of in the revenue support grant, but it is not. A few authorities are accommodated in the housing support grant calculation, but for many that do not have housing support grant, anything that they do for hostels and in trying to cater for the real problem of homelessness in the community must fall as a direct charge upon rent-paying tenants. I am told by the Scottish Council for Single Homeless—perhaps the Minister will deal with this point—that the figure in Edinburgh is as high as £1·27 a week for every tenant. That is an extraordinary figure. It shows the Government's absolutely deplorable failure—on occasions, I tend to under-use language; I shall settle for "deplorable"—to face up to their responsibilities in regard to homelessness.
  If we put it all together—the tragedy and the impact upon the individuals to whom I have been referring and the problems on the capital side—it means the gradual and steady deterioration that every hon. Member can see in the statistics, incomplete through they are, and in our own constituencies, week in and week out.
  In its brief report—I make no apology for quoting it—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities gives the Government's figures for 1986 and suggests that, of the 843,000 council houses in Scotland, 88,000 require major rewiring, about 234,000 suffer from dampness problems of one sort or another, and 153,000 require major renovation and repair. Of course there are arguments about whether the figures are accurate. It is difficult to know, because the Government will not carry out a house condition survey. We do not even have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to examine the evidence and come up with authoritative estimates.
  No hon. Member could in all honesty deny that the situation is deteriorating. Whatever rent level may be fixed, we are sliding towards asking people to accept housing that they should not be asked to accept and in which they cannot reasonably be expected to live. My district council, Glasgow, would be the first—it would want—to concede that even preliminary inspection of dampness problems may be put off for many months because of the pressure on limited resources and limited staff.
  Sometimes I do not know what to say to a tenant who tells me that he has reported something which, rightly or wrongly, he believes is affecting the health of his children. Such people may wait for two or three months without anyone approaching them to deal with the problem. I know that the answer is that it will be some time yet before anything happens, and even when property is inspected it will be longer before the remedial work is carried out. That
  810
  cannot be satisfactory. It is worlds removed from the—at times—almost insufferable complacency with which the Government inspect their housing record. It is the result of 10 years of neglect by the Government—sins of omission and of commission.
  Worse still, the Government seem to want to weight and distort their arguments and policies even further. Their arithmetic on housing finance is a cruel message to anyone who wants to remain in the public sector. That message is getting through, but should never have been sent out: those who live in council houses should be there only because they have nowhere else to go or cannot manage to escape. That is not choice, by any standard. It is the end product of the misconceived policies which the Minister has followed so slavishly and complacently in recent years.
  We hear about the Government's commitment. Let us examine public expenditure on housing, as shown by Government figures. At 1987–88 prices, it was £866 million in 1982–83. In 1989–90 it will be £537 million, a drop of almost 40 per cent. If a real cut of 40 per cent. measures up to the enormity of the crisis, if it shows the sort of commitment about which the Secretary of State boasts, and if he is really the sort of Member who is proud to represent public sector housing as well as owner-occupiers, he should examine these figures, and then his conscience.
  This is a tragic error. It is the wrong approach, carried out in the wrong way with the wrong social objectives. We believe in and want to create choice. We are not opposed to owner-occupation: it should be encouraged—but sensibly. On the other side of the equation, there should be genuine choice that can be exercised in decent conditions by people who do not want to buy and who want to continue to rent in the public sector.
  We oppose the orders because they directly threaten to compound the errors that have accumulated over the past decade or so. If unchallenged and continued, they will inevitably deepen the real crisis that we face in Scottish housing.
  11.23 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: It was a bit rich of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) to talk about creative accounting, given that he is a member of the party that, between 1974 and 1979, introduced massive real cuts in local government and had to go to the IMF.
  We also heard from the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), with his creative and enterprising mind. We always knew that he was one of the intellectuals of the Opposition, but even he was stretching the imagination by claiming to have participated in a phantom debate.
  Dr. Reid: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive the eccentricities of a humble Back Bencher like myself, who was quoted on a speech that he did not make, but what would he make of a Government Department, such as the Scottish Office, responding in detail in the same article to the speech that I had not made in a debate that had not taken place?
  Mr. Walker: I would say that, once more, the hon. Gentleman is indulging in fantasy and creative accounting. It is right and proper that some defence should be made to even a phantom debate because something that appears in the press does not appear to be phantom and it must

  811
  therefore be dealt with. That is why the other side of what appears in the press must be answered. It is no good just saying that the debate did not take place or "We didna ken it was on", because the fact is that the hon. Gentleman has been caught out and he must live with it.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to mortgage interest relief, which is just a continuation of what has gone on for many decades under successive Governments. If I heard the hon. Gentleman aright he was suggesting that the way in which the Government approach mortgage relief encourages people to enter into the maximum amount of debt. How can he explain the capital borrowings of local authorities, if that is not also entering into the maximum amount of debt? There is certainly a lot of creative accounting in that.
  I remind the hon. Gentleman that tax allowance is exactly what it says—it is an allowance; it allows people to keep the money that they have earned whereas, quite properly, housing benefit is taxpayers' funds being directed to individuals in need. That is the difference. To pretend that the two are the same is to distort the truth.
  It is interesting to note that housing support grant in Scotland will increase, as it has previously, from the figure of £54 ·6 million to £60.4 million-an increase of over 10 per cent. That is a real increase. It is directed towards only 23 of our district councils—33 are outside the apportionment, including my own two district councils of Perth and Kinross, and Angus, and will not receive any of the £60·4 million. Once again, taxpayers in my constituency are seeing their funds directed to councils outside Tayside.
  One should also consider the huge sums that are paid directly to individuals into the housing coffers from housing benefit. That is what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was saying. The important point is that we are talking about the vast sum of £600 million-plus going directly into the housing coffers. It is creative accounting to pretend that that is not an aid to public sector housing.
  One should recognise that at least this Government are working on both fronts. There is no question but that £600 million is a lot of money. Quite properly, that money is going to individuals in need rather than a blanket figure going to a statutory body. That is the difference between the Government and the Opposition. The Government recognise that those in council housing, local authority housing or public housing of any kind, who are in need of financial support because of their financial circumstances, quite properly, should be, and are being, assisted.
  Anyone who has made any attempt to study public sector housing, will realise that two major problems have been management and maintenance. Many of the houses built in the past 30 years have been found to be badly designed and poorly built. That is why the repairs allocation of £361 per house is welcome. It is an increase of 8·5 per cent.—again, a real terms increase—and following two years of real increases, it must mean that many more repairs will be completed during 1989–90, which is
  to be welcomed.
  I am sure that I am not alone in thinking that 73,700 houses improved in 1987, a greater number than in any of the previous 10 years, is welcome. Certainly, for people who have been living in sub-standard local authority houses, these improvements are welcome. When we add that number to the almost 332,000 local authority
  812
  dwellings, we find that almost 40 per cent. of the stock has been included in modernisation schemes at a cost of over £1,000 million.
  For the Opposition to say that the Government do not care and have not directed any funds is a distortion of the facts. We can at least produce hope in Scotland, which is the finest part of the United Kingdom in which to live. The quality of life in large areas of Scotland is far superior to that in the south-east of England. We should be pleased to know that things are being done in parts of Scotland where they need to be done.
  Many of the messages coming from the tenants say that local authorities are not always good landlords. Many dreams have been turned into nightmares by defects such as dampness and condensation, which have created health hazards and misery. Some of that was the direct result of bad management and lack of supervision by local authorities. Local authorities would not admit that dampness and condensation existed until they were proved wrong.
  The Scottish Special Housing Association, the other public sector landlord, has also had substantial resources devoted to it to meet its needs and the demand for new houses. We have seen 7,500 new homes costing £485 million, and £930 million has been spent on 32,000 new and rehabilitated houses. At the same time we have seen a drop in the number of households renting in the public sector. That is welcome, because it means that people are buying their homes, and for the first time in decades the figure fell below 50 per cent. in Scotland, until today it stands at about 48 per cent.
  Over 132,000 tenants have been able to buy their homes, and that is a direct result of the Government's legislation, which was opposed by the Opposition. The proportion of households owning their own homes has risen in Scotland from 35 per cent. to over 44 per cent. That is good news for the people who own their homes. The Opposition say that our record in office is not good. The Labour party's record in office was abysmal and ours is far superior.
  Since 1979, the resources made available for improvement and repair grants have, on average, been seven times higher per year than during the years of the last Labour Government between 1974 and 1979. The Conservative Government have spent £77 million per year compared with the Labour Government's derisory £11 million per year. Between 1982 and 1984, the maximum rate of repair grant was boosted from 50 per cent. to 90 per cent. During that time, Scotland's cities were transformed and private sector stock in the stone-built tenements was restored to its original structural magnificence. That is true of Dundee and of many of our other cities. The inside of those lovely buildings was modernised to a standard beyond the dreams of the original builders. Over 272,000 grant applications were approved, and today the private sector stock stands at about 1 million dwellings. The number of houses below tolerable standard has been more than halved to fewer than 56,000. That is still too many and there is still much to be done, but to suggest that the Government are doing nothing is a travesty of the truth.
  We are continuing our programme of improvements, new building and change. Part 11 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 came into effect on 2 January this year. All new private lettings after that date will be assured or short assured tenancies. Under both forms of tenancy, landlords and tenants will be able freely to negotiate rents

  813
  before the start of the tenancy. That is choice. Scottish Homes will work in partnership with other bodies to develop new approaches in housing that are long overdue and very necessary. Scottish Homes will have the benefit of experienced staff from both the Housing Corporation and the Scottish Special Housing Association. This background of knowledge, expertise and experience should combine with the new powers and functions to give Scottish Homes the ability to achieve the change in quality for the life of tenants that has eluded local authorities since 1945.
  The motion will continue that change. We introduced the tenants charter as part of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. It has granted public sector tenants several important new rights, such as the right to buy at generous discounts—the Opposition opposed that—security of tenure, the right to succession, the right to a written lease and the right to alter or improve one's home. To suggest that the Government have done nothing is nonsense. Now, tenants' choice and rights will be extended by the Housing (Scotland) Act, which will also allow them more responsibility.
  Tenants in Scotland will have the opportunity to seek a new landlord and new forms of tenancy, if they so wish, without moving out of the houses in which they live. There is no compulsion, so this is choice. All the Opposition can do is wring their hands. One has only to look at the results of their stewardship between 1974 and 1979 to realise just how hollow are their speeches.
  We, the Conservative Government, have improved conditions and increased choice, and have made it possible for many more people to own their homes, giving them the opportunity to pass a capital asset on to their children, an opportunity denied to them by previous Administrations. We continue to increase grants and choice, while the Opposition girn and greet and complain. Worst still, the Labour Opposition steal the clothes of the Scottish National party, and make them respectable, with the devastating results that we have seen in the recent opinion polls. That should be worrying the Labour party. Instead of shadow boxing, and making speeches in debates that do not take place, they should be working out how to become a real Opposition, one capable of alternative Government. They should be turning their minds to that rather than to the negative nonsense that we have heard this evening.
  11.38 pm
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: It is important to remind the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), and the Minister, both of whom talked about subsidies going to council houses, that council tenants are also taxpayers. They are not getting money for nothing. The hon. Member for Tayside, North spoke nonsense about mortgage interest relief, which is a blanket subsidy that goes to people who are not necessarily in need.
  It is significant to note that just before Christmas there was a by-election in Glasgow. The successful candidate, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) promised the people of Govan that he would be here to defend their interests. Glasgow district council has been forced, because of the order, to increase rents by £4 a week but the hon. Member for Govan is not present to defend
  814
  the people of Glasgow. The hon. Member for Govan can afford any council rent rise because he writes for a dirty Tory rag.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Gentleman is playing a dangerous game. Only a quarter of his hon. Friends have bothered to turn up for the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) is in Govan working for his constituents, which is what three quarters of Labour Members seem to have chosen to do. It is a silly game to play.
  Mr. Martin: If I was in Springburn tonight, which I would like to be because I am a resident there as well as its representative, many people would be asking why I was not here defending their interests. The hon. Member for Govan should get his priorities right. He had tears running down his cheeks when he told the people of Govan what he intended to do for them, but he conned those people. He is interested only in writing for a Tory rag.
  I listened with interest to what the Minister said about the standard of repairs. He was suggesting that some local authorities give too high a priority to the level of repairs and will have to cut down. The Minister knows that much of the council housing stock, particularly in Glasgow, Springburn was built after 1945 when the Government told the local authority that it would have to embark on building non-traditional houses. For example, we have the Blackburn houses and houses with hardly any timber because of those policies.
  Until the 1960s, local authorities such as those in Glasgow were forced to build houses such as those on the Easterhouse estate because the Tory Government of the day told them to do so. Also, in the early 1960s local authorities were forced to build multi-storey housing. It is one thing to leave a tenant without rewiring or double glazing but how can the Minister expect a local authority to leave multi-storey flats without a lift so that people have to walk up 22 storeys? The only thing a local authority can do is use its housing budget to ensure that repairs such as that are carried out. If the Minister takes subsidies away from local authorities, he is forcing council tenants to accept more responsibility, and some of them do not live in the non-traditional houses.
  Many of the non-traditional houses have flat roofs. With hindsight it is easy to say that no house that has to endure damp such as that in the west of Scotland should have a flat roof. We know that that leads to dampness problems. However, when they were being built, the architects—the experts—told local authorities to use flat roofs and they conned the Governments involved—usually a Tory Government—into providing subsidies for the building of such houses. As a result there were severe problems with damp. Hutchinson E type houses were an example of that, as were the Balgrayhill corridor-type houses in my constituency. The problems were so great that the Government have encouraged local authorities to put the traditional gable roofs back on.
  That type of dampness has caused bronchitis. Those with chest complaints such as asthma have been forced out of their houses. It is unfair to force local authorities to say to these tenants, "It does not matter whether your son has chronic asthma; he will have to stay in the house." That is morally wrong. The Minister's comments about the level of repairs were extremely unfair.

  815
  There has been talk about the sale of council houses. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will agree with me that some houses that were bought in Knightswood for £8,000 with discounts have since been sold for £38,000. The ex-tenants have moved to Bearsden.
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: Yes.
  Mr. Martin: But there are 8,000 unemployed in my constituency, and I am not the only Member who represents a constituency with such unemployment. Few of those who are on the dole can say, "I shall buy that house for £38,000." The hon. Member for Tayside, North need not talk to me about choice. There are many other tenants who are still sitting in council houses in Possilpark and Hamiltonhill who have been forced into that position.
  There are other ex-tenants who have bought their house, and good luck to them. They have bought because the Government have forced up rents. The only option for many is to buy. But parents are coming to local councillors, myself and other hon. Members and asking, "Why cannot my son and daughter have a council house in the area in which they were born and bred?" The answer is simple: the council houses have been bought and the Minister will not allow any more local authority houses to be built.
  The Minister had better put on his thinking cap. If he wants communities in areas such as my constituency, where there are still good, sound communities, he must ensure that if council houses are being sold at one end of the market, there is decent housing stock at the other for those who are in dire circumstances.
  I came across a tragic case a few weeks ago of three members of a family suffering from cancer. The mother of the family was one of them. It was her dream to get a part of what everyone wants, the Swedish houses. Why not? She had spent 25 years in her house. She could not fulfil her dream because there was no ground floor accommodation available for her, which was what she needed because of her disability.
  We say that we want to help the sick and the disabled and integrate them within the community, not isolate them. We should not be saying to tenants, "You are severely disabled and we are sorry, but you cannot have the house that you want in the community in which you have lived for 25 years."
  The Minister should understand what he is doing with local government. There has been talk about 1974 to 1979, the period during which I was a councillor. I enjoyed much satisfaction from being able to get things done during those five years. There is evidence of the rehabilitation that took place in Glasgow. We saw the implementation of modernisation schemes in Knightswood and Govan, for example. Unfortunately, councillors are now suffering from despair because they do not have a decent budget. It is wrong to treat the dedicated in that way. Local government is a means of ensuring that there is proper housing, to provide people with a decent quality of life. Unfortunately, the Minister is removing that opportunity from almost every generation in Glasgow.
  11.49 pm
  Mrs. Ray Michie: I have heard nothing tonight which leads me to believe that the number of letters that I receive about housing problems in my constituency will diminish.
  The order goes nowhere near to tackling the housing problem in Scotland, and the Government continue to turn a blind eye to the housing crisis by understating the need for expenditure and overstating the level of income likely to be achieved. The Minister predicted that the average rent will increase by £1·34 a week, but already some increases are higher. In my constituency, the projected increase is £2 a week.
  The Government have identified 356,725 houses which need to be modernised or improved. They are suffering from condensation, dampness, warped doors and windows and cracked fabric, inside and out. The £5 million increase in housing support grant is welcome, but it is destroyed by taking away £19 million of general fund contributions, leaving tenants to pay an extra £14 million to bridge the gap.
  The average weekly rent in 1988–89 is £16·23—an increase of 10.8 per cent. over the last year. In Argyll and Bute, the average rent last year was £18 a week, and it is projected to rise to £20—an increase of 11 per cent. Rents are rising faster than inflation and contribute to the rate of inflation. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has told us about the unbelievable 230 per cent. rent rise since 1979.
  Part of the reason for the rent rise is the rise in interest rates, which is the result of Government policy to dampen a boom in the south-east of England. Scotland can go hang. The order seems a waste of paper. There is a long list of local authorities with the word "nil" against each. It would be easier to say that only five districts and three islands councils will receive anything.
  I believe that the Government are attempting to worm out of their responsibilities by ignoring the need for investment in the public sector. Rents are rising so quickly that they are making renting unattractive. Are the Government pushing up rents just to encourage more people to buy their council houses? Many do not want to buy because their homes are in such poor condition, and the incidence of mortgage default is growing significantly. Can the Minister tell us, although perhaps not tonight, how much housing benefit is paid out in each local authority area and how much mortgage tax relief is given in the same area?
  The most important and disturbing thing of all is the plight of the homeless. According to Shelter, the number of homeless people in Scotland last year was an appalling 29,185. It is unfair that local authority tenants should have to bear the cost of a statutory service which is used equally by all sectors of the community. Such costs should be met from the revenue support grant, which would spread the load more fairly. The Government have failed singularly to tackle the problem of homelessness. In my constituency the number of homeless has risen from 180 in 1984 to 308 in 1988. To an hon. Member representing Glasgow or Edinburgh, that may not be a large rise, but in small areas and pockets of my constituency that is a large increase. That is not even the true figure. It reflects only those who go to the local authority and officially declare themselves to be homeless. The figure does not include those people

  817
  who live in overcrowded conditions, single people or childless couples who have no legal rights under the homeless persons legislation.
  Not only is the plight of those people a stain on a so-called civilised country; those people cause resentment and bitterness among local people, particularly in rural areas where everyone knows everyone else, because the people in greatest need are often allocated houses before people who have waited patiently for their turn on the housing list.
  Genuinely affordable housing for single people is in very short supply. They will continue to make up an increasing proportion of the homeless. It is now not possible for many local authorities to secure sufficient permanent accomodation or to make what is available available quickly enough. Some authorities have to rely on costly temporary accomodation for longer and longer periods. Local authorities are unable to perform their statutory duties adequately. There is a decline in new building and renovation and that is reducing the lettings available to homeless families to say nothing about those on the waiting lists.
  All that is compounded by a further problem which particularly affects rural areas. It was estimated in 1986 that there were 19,446 second homes in Scotland. There were three in Bearsden and Milngavie and 2,763 in my constituency, and that was the highest figure for any area in Scotland.
  It is very sad to see wealthy people out-pricing locals by thousands of pounds. Young couples who cannot now afford those houses must give up jobs and homes because they cannot match the inflated prices. Therefore, we lose the indigenous population and a priceless heritage and culture. House upon empty holiday house is visited perhaps once or twice a year. In this day and age where money is the god, no one in the Government cares. The order will do nothing to help the housing crisis in Scotland.
  11.58 pm
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The order does nothing for the homeless and even less for the tens of thousands of Scottish tenants living in terrible conditions. It turns the screw on people who rent and do not buy and it is yet another manifestation of the Right-wing extremism which is gripping the Tory party in Scotland. I have never seen the Minister responsible for housing in Scotland look so worried at the Dispatch Box nor the Secretary of State look so craven. The Secretary of State would sell out his own city to appease the new Right.
  Never has Edinburgh had two Conservative Members of Parliament—two members of Government—who have done so little for its people, or so much to damage the reputation of our great city. While Glasgow's housing budget is receiving nearly £28 million from the Government this year, Edinburgh is getting nothing. While Shetland receives nearly £4 million, Edinburgh is getting nothing. Are there no homeless people in Edinburgh? Do Edinburgh's tenants not deserve fair treatment? Clearly not. If only the Minister and the Secretary of State treated Edinburgh in the same way as Glasgow—and that is far from generous—Edinburgh would get at least £8 million from the Government this year to help towards its budget for the homeless.
  818
  The Government's own figures show that in Scotland more than 88,000 houses need rewiring. Over 150,000 need major structural repairs. A quarter of a million are damp or have condensation, and over a third of a million need modernising. In each and every one of those houses, hundreds of thousands of Scots and their families are suffering from the effects of unmodernised houses with draughty and leaking windows and damp. That is the reality behind the Government's figures; those are the issues that the Minister has sought to dodge from the Dispatch Box.
  Between 1986 and 1990 the Government will allow councils' spending on their capital accounts to fall from £200 million to £125 million. That will be the amount of their guaranteed borrowing. The plight of home owners who are still awaiting 90 per cent. grants is uncertain. The Minister will know from his mailbag, as I know from mine, that many of his constituents—like mine—will still not be guaranteed to receive a contribution towards "grant-aided" work. Some have been waiting for many years.
  Figures have never been the Minister's strong point. The withdrawal of grants from Edinburgh district council, the cut in rent income resulting from Government policies and the Government's failure to help the homeless should have resulted in an average rent increase of £5 a week for every tenant in Edinburgh. But, through prudent management and cost-cutting measures, the district council has managed to cut the increase by a fifth. Revenue support grant, of which the Minister gave details earlier, has meant that that Labour council is having to squeeze even more value for money from its services and receive an even smaller contribution from the Government.
  If the Government's calculations of what Edinburgh should be spending are correct, they are an insult to the people whom I represent. The figures in today's and last week's statements show that the Government are allowing Edinburgh to spend far less than other areas. The Minister thinks that Edinburgh should be spending only £214 per annum on services for each adult: £214 to keep the streets clean, stock the libraries and equip and staff the schools. Perhaps he will tell us why he is letting Dundee spend £226 and Glasgow £336, according to the Government's calculations. Those are the facts which the Minister seeks to dodge.
  The Government's contribution to the poll tax in Edinburgh is, frankly, bare-faced robbery. They are allowing only £438 per head, which is £244 less than for Glasgow. That means that Edinburgh's poll tax payers are having to pay through the nose for council services. If they received equal treatment to Glasgow, instead of having to set a poll tax of £385, Edinburgh and Lothian councils would have to set a combined figure of only £151. It is sad that the Minister is now selling out Edinburgh, but it is typical of the Government bowing to the extremism which has now gripped the Tory party in Scotland.
  The message that we have received today is that the Government care nothing for the tenants and even less for those groups who are under pressure because of Government measures. The Secretary of State's figures for the budget which deals in part with homelessness show the shameful record which he must defend, but which he is defending so inadequately. In the Labour Government's last year in office, they set a budget which at today's prices was £418 million, out of which councils were allowed to

  819
  spend money on the homeless. Under this Government, that has dropped to a grant of only £60 million, which is one seventh of its previous levels.
  The Government's record on helping the homeless reflects that trend. We can see that their contribution has dropped from £418 million—out of which the homeless could receive some contribution—to £377 million in the Government's first year of office, to £243 million in their second year, £147 million in their third year and so on, until it now stands at £60 million. What the Government are doing to help the homeless in the Minister's own city —the capital city—is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) so rightly said, nothing at all. Yet the Labour Government were able to support Edinburgh—a Conservative council at that time-to a tune of £22 million in a direct contribution to its housing support grant, out of which the council could spend money on the homeless.
  By 1983, the Government had cut that budget to zero and since 1983 they have given Edinburgh and its homeless not one penny. In fact, for seven years Edinburgh's homeless have received no help from the Government. In those years it has been left to the Labour council to show some compassion to the homeless. The Government have not even assisted the Labour council. They have stopped the Labour council taking any money from the rates and now any money from the general fund to help the homeless. That has caused Edinburgh's Labour council to look to a group of people whose incomes on average are lower than those of the population as a whole—the tenants. It is the generosity of the tenants of Edinburgh that has helped the homeless, who are less fortunate than themselves. Whether they be in the Grass Market, whether they have lost their homes because of mortgage repossessions or because of marital breakdown, those people are being supported entirely by Edinburgh, and that is a shameful record.
  What we know from recent events, from the figures and the Government's abysmal record, is that we do not have a Secretary of State or Ministers who will stand up for the capital city, never mind for Scotland. We have never had such a Secretary of State and Ministers from Scotland who have done so little for their constituents or their home towns. What is all the more lamentable is that they have not been generous to other parts of Scotland—they have been Scrooge-like in the amount of money that they have given or allowed councils to spend. Considering the low level of spending and the extreme and pressing need in all parts of Scotland, it is shameful that they can do so little to help the capital city of Edinburgh. They appear to have taken money from Edinburgh and volunteered it to the Prime Minister, the Treasury and the fanatics who care not a whit for the homeless, not a jot for people who rent their houses and who appear to care less for Edinburgh than for any other area.
  The important consequence of the debate is that the Secretary of State and the Ministers should be brought to account before the House for their mismanagement of Scottish councils' funds and for their lamentable failure to stand up for the needs of the population of Edinburgh and Scotland. They have been brought to account tonight, and the people of Edinburgh will take note.
  12.11 am
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) has a great deal of expert knowledge of housing and has outlined the problems of Edinburgh and Scotland. I hope that the Minister was listening because those issues are relevant to the living standards and environment of the Scottish people. His message was well worth hearing and I hope that the Minister took note.
  Housing support grant is what it says—it is the amount of money central Government are prepared to give to support public housing in Scotland on a national basis. It is clear that the Government are giving less and less to any national housing programme. It is also evident that the Government have no national housing programme in Scotland. Their retreat from providing finance is witness to their lack of commitment to Scotland's housing situation and housing problems.
  Since 1979–80, the housing support grant contribution to the housing revenue account has been slashed from 39 per cent. to 7 per cent. In 1989–90, only 23 out of 56 Scottish housing authorities will qualify for any form of housing support grant. By deliberate policy, the Government are withdrawing their financial commitment to any national housing programme.
  As a consequence, the burden of financing council homes has shifted on to the tenants, but, at the same time, there has been a continuous reduction in Government funding—it has fallen from £391 million to £60 million when calculated on average prices. That staggering decline in commitment worth £331 million has taken place in less than a decade.
  The Government are retreating from the problem. How else can one describe a Government who have done nothing to overcome the damp and decaying conditions prevalent in the Scottish housing stock and who have consistently refused, at the same time, to undertake a Scottish housing conditions survey? They are simply failing to measure up to the problem.
  During the past nine years tenants have seen their rents rise by 230 per cent., but capital expenditure on housing has lagged far behind. Therefore, the Scottish tenants are getting the worst of all possible worlds-high rents and reduced housing standards. As a result of the Government's housing policy, more than two thirds of Scotland's housing stock now receives no grant support at a time when thousands of homes are simply below any tolerable standard. Once again the housing support grant settlement shows no national commitment whatsoever to tackling the major problems of homelessness, dirt and overcrowding and the other problems that are endemic in Scotland's housing system. The Government's callous indifference to Scotland's housing crisis is in the order for all to see.
  The Government's housing priorities are quite clear when the vast mortgage interest relief subsidies enjoyed. by the south-east of England are compared with the sums being made available to Scottish local authorities. The Government always accuse Scottish council tenants of being sheltered from market forces, yet the £60 million provided for Scottish public sector housing pales into insignificance beside the subsidy of almost £5 billion given to English private housing through mortgage interest tax relief—by a factor of more than 80.

  821
  I wish to draw the Minister's attention specifically to homeless persons—a growing problem which the Government have singularly failed to address. The increase for the hostel portion of less than 1 per cent. of the aggregate grant is totally inadequate, but the 33 authorities which do not qualify for housing support grant are placed in an even worse position by the Government after this settlement. I hope that when the Minister has listened to my arguments, and to the points put to him earlier, he will give the House a cast-iron guarantee that he will look at the current legislation and report back with new proposals to help local authorities cope with the growing problem of homelessness.
  At present most housing authorities which do not receive housing support grant have to meet all the costs of running their homeless persons' services through the housing revenue account. Surely that is unreasonable. It is unfair that local authority tenants should bear the costs of the statutory service which is used equally by all sectors of the community. Logically those costs should be met from revenue support grant, as that would spread the financial load much more fairly.
  Funding hostels for homeless persons is a major problem for the local authorities which own and manage them. Those hostels are notoriously expensive for residents to operate, and even more so taking into account high void levels. I hope that the Minister will address that point when he replies to the debate.
  The hostel portion of housing support grant was satisfactory while virtually all authorities were eligible. But when authorities were taken out of grant no account was taken of the grant that they had lost. I understand that a number of authorities such as East Kilbride, Perth and Kinross, Edinburgh and Inverclyde have lost quite substantial financial assistance. For example I understand that the additional combined costs of the homeless persons' service in East Kilbride and the hostel deficit has meant an increase of 75p per week per tenant, given the very small district council housing stock. In Edinburgh the figure is an approximate addition of £1 per month or £12 per tenant per year as an additional burden.
  The homeless in Scotland need action, but the Government simply starve them of funds. As COSLA points out, the resources and consents available next year, excluding receipts, represent a cash reduction of £96 million for housing in Scotland.
  The Government are producing a cash standstill, assuming that the greatest input to assist housing programmes must inevitably come from council house sales. It is a crazy way to run any council housing policy to say that housing provision will not be determined by the housing needs of the population but by the number of houses that can be sold. That is exactly what the Government are doing. They are imposing another major problem on Scotland's housing.
  The proposed paltry increase of £5 million in housing support grant is nothing short of pathetic. As a direct result of Government policy, council house rents inevitably will rise. COSLA estimates that they will increase above the rate of inflation. The tenants are paying the price for the Government's policy. However, tenants in SNP-controlled Angus will benefit from a housing policy
  822
  which gave them a zero rent increase last year and a small increase this year which keeps Angus tenants well below the Scottish average.
  Mr. John Maxton: One reason why the SNP-controlled Angus council rents will be lower is that that council is prepared to accept a subsidy from Tayside region to collect the poll tax.
  Mr. Welsh: I am referring to a zero increase in rent last year. Angus was the only council to achieve no rent increase. That fits in with the SNP's record in every year of its administration of keeping rents down. Angus tenants have benefited from that policy. That has happened, despite the Government's policy.
  Mr. Tony Worthington:: Has the hon. Gentleman noted that there is no connection between what he has said and what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said? Will he now make such a connection?
  Mr. Welsh: The only connection that it is feasible to make is the contribution made by the Tayside region towards rates collection by Angus district as collection agents. Its rent record is much more important. After having one of the highest rent levels throughout Scotland under the Conservatives, Angus now enjoys under the SNP one of the lowest rent levels in Scotland. I repeat that that record has been achieved by its own management record and despite the Government's policy.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: Angus district council is collecting the poll tax and giving a subsidy to the tenants, which is a bit of a contradiction in terms. Hamilton district council, which covers part of my constituency, has refused to collect the poll tax, with the result that tenants have been penalised by 28p per week. However, we are standing by our principles. We do not speak about them; we act on them.
  Mr. Welsh: I do not know whether that intervention was helpful. However, the hon. Gentleman is on very weak ground, since fewer than a quarter of his colleagues have turned up, so perhaps we could point an accusing finger at them.
  I reiterate that the low-rent policy in Angus has been achieved by good government which has benefited the tenants. Tenants in other districts will not be so fortunate. Rent increases have been outpacing inflation. The capital allocation is about 50 per cent. short of what is required seriously to tackle Scotland's housing problems. That is due to this Government's policies, which are inadequate to meet Scotland's housing needs. The housing support grant package is typical of the Government's attitude, and it simply will not do.
  12.22 am
  Dr. John Reid: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker for having called me. I was getting worried about the lateness of the hour. I am glad that I have been called to speak in the debate, because I have issued a press release. I should not have liked to annoy Conservative Members twice in one week.
  I shall repeat a few items that some hon. Members have read, because there are visitors in the Strangers Gallery who are eager for details of Scotland. It will permit me to repeat a few points that have already been published. I did

  823
  not intend to speak in the debate, but I am doing so as a result of popular acclaim. I do not withdraw or regret one word that I did not say last Tuesday in the House. I agree with every word that I did not have the opportunity to say on that occasion, but there are two tragedies to which I wish to refer.
  First, in the seven days since I should have made that speech, there has been no change in the housing situation in Scotland. Secondly, it is rare in the history of Parliament for a Minister to be given one week's notice of the detailed case that is to be made against him and to be given the opportunity at the Dispatch Box to reply to the criticisms that are made of him and still to make such a pathetic effort of defending the Government's record.
  Another item should be mentioned at the beginning of my speech. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is laughing. I enjoyed listening to his interventions and jokes this evening. God knows the people of Scotland have little enough to laugh about. One thing in particular intrigued me℄that the Minister, the hon. Member for Tayside, North and their colleague the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) actually read the Evening Times and are affected by it. That only goes to create a new law in physics—that even paper can sometimes penetrate the thickest walls of the largest mansions and the thickest minds of the biggest bigots in Scotland.
  I am glad to note that some controversy has been caused, but the tragedy is that, for thousands of people, the Evening Times—not the debate—will bring little information or solace. Even tonight, as we debate the issue in the relative warmth of a comfortable Chamber, beneath the vaulted ceilings of the Palace of Westminster, almost 30,000 people will share neither warmth nor a roof over their heads. It has already been mentioned that 29,185 people in Scotland will draw little solace from warmth or a roof. They will not read Hansard in the morning, and they will not have read it last Wednesday. Therefore, they will know little of our debates.
  Few of those 30,000 people will hear about the debate on wireless or television. They do not have wireless or television, or access to the privacy that allows them to listen to radio or to watch television. Many of them will pick up one or two pieces from the popular press about a debate that is carried on late at night, yet those 30,000 people are the real substance of the debate. I make no apology for having tried to highlight their plight by every possible means. If that resulted in a joke, because the Government's incompetence lost us a debate that we should have had a week ago, it is not I, but Conservative Members, who should apologise.
  Those 30,000 people are the real substance of the debate. They have been mentioned by hon. Members tonight. I refer not only to the young couple who were mentioned in the Evening Times article. There are many of them. Last week they were still lying on relatives' couches, trying to keep marriages together in their early months. This week they are on the very same couches and they have not been forced to move on to others.
  Old couples have been mentioned. I refer to people who have lived for years and decades in family homes. Because of a drastic delay in repairs and damp conditions, they now find themselves either having to move out of their homes or, once again in their old age, become dependent on people who are much younger. I make no apology for having raised that matter. Tonight we can debate the
  824
  consequences of the Government's failure to provide adequate housing support in Scotland, but the people such as those whom I have mentioned must suffer the consequences of the Government's housing policy.
  For many years, it has been obvious that the overall picture of contributions for council housing in Scotland has been one of cuts and neglect, so there is nothing new in the substance of tonight's debate. The proposals for 1989–90 do nothing to halt that neglect. There has been a real cash reduction of about £96 million, which will do nothing to reverse the opinion of people in my constituency and others who suffer throughout Scotland that the Government are the real enemy when it comes to imposing rent increases upon them time and again. Nothing will be done to ease the burden of council tenants with rent arrears caused by cuts in housing benefits.
  When I listened to some of the smug jokes that were being put around tonight, I thought of a case that I have mentioned in the House before. I make no apology for raising it a second time. An 83-year-old man is suffering from pneumoconiosis. One does not get that disease in a billiard hall or a pub. It is the result of a lifetime of working in the depths of a pit and producing wealth for others. That man went to war in 1939. He did not ask then what his country could do for him, or what he could do for his country. He just went and did what he had to. Now, the Government have taken away his housing benefit, and his rent has increased from 72p to £47 a fortnight. Surely someone with that record is entitled to ask, in the last decades of his life, what his country is going to do for people such as him.
  Since the Government took office nine years ago, rents in Scotland have increased by an average 230 per cent.—
  Mr. Bill Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way with his usual courtesy. When he gives us these figures, will be carefully consider the level of housing support before the Conservatives came in in 1979? What was it in real terms? What is it today? Will he consider the fact that increased rents for those who can afford to pay them have gone into the housing coffers? Those who cannot afford to pay are—properly—given housing benefit.
  Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) has already dealt with some of those points. As others of my hon. Friends have said, many local councils and district authorities get not a penny, compared with 1979. The amount of unemployment that has been created in Scotland since 1979 is another part of the equation.
  The defence put up by the hon. Member for Tayside, North is an unusual one. The Government would usually plead that rent increases had nothing to do with them. They are all to do with supply and demand—with the laws of the economy, or the Book of Revelations. They are never anything to do with the Government. In this case they cannot claim that, because there is nothing natural about a 230 per cent. increase in rents. It is out of all proportion to increases in housing costs, as dictated by the supply and demand of the market that is so beloved of the Government in other circumstances.
  For instance, since 1981, housing costs—on the Government's usual criteria—have risen by 44 per cent. in Scotland; during the same period, the Government have compelled rents to rise by 124 per cent.—80 per cent. More

  825
  —to compensate for the loss of central grant and local contributions. That increase—from £4·92 to £16·23 a week—is of staggering proportions. It cannot be related to supply and demand.
  Yet this order means that average rent increases next year will once again immensely outstrip inflation, with some authorities being forced to consider increases of £3 a week or more, or £4 or more in the Glasgow area.
  What will we say to constituents who are already going under with rent arrears? There has been a massive increase in rent arrears in the past year. I can only tell my constituents the shameful truth about the Government's dogmatic insistence on undermining public sector housing, and the roles that rent increases and the sales of council houses have played in that. I can tell them that housing support grant is the only direct government subsidy for Scottish housing, and that this deliberate Government policy has meant more than £290 million in cuts in grants and subsidies. I can tell them that as a result of that, council rents are now more than £7 a week higher than they would otherwise have been.
  None of this compensates for the misery that has already been suffered, and which will continue to be suffered, in many parts of Scotland. Those increases might buy some hon. Members a large cigar or a couple of brandies after dinner, but over a week, they are sufficient to cripple many households in my constituency and throughout Scotland which are already crippled by debts and which will face even greater debts as a result of the poll tax.
  When, in anticipation of some of the points that my hon. Friends and I would raise, the Minister told us that rents in Scotland were lower than those in the southern half of England or across the border in England, and when he accused Motherwell district council of keeping rents artificially low in comparison with those elsewhere, for instance in the south of England, why did he also not tell us the average salary in the south of England compared with the average salary in Bellshill Shotts, Newarthill or Carfin? Why did he not tell us the average rate of unemployment in the south of England compared with that in parts of my constituency? Perhaps it is because he does not know, but it could be because he does not want to ask himself the question because once he reveals the average salaries and access to jobs in those areas, he will have to concede as a matter of moral principle and economics that rents in certain areas of the country are justifiably low because of social and economic circumstances.
  I take it as a testimony of the efforts made by my colleagues who serve on Motherwell district council that they should be criticised here for attempting to ensure that the social and economic effects of poverty and unemployment in Motherwell district are compensated for by some attempt to defend the rents of the people in the area. As my father used to say, "If the crowds boo you and you are away from home, you're playing a damn good game." When the Minister criticises the action of Motherwell district council, that is the best testimony that it could have that its efforts are being well directed for the people who elected it.
  The word "crisis" is used liberally these days, but when one considers rent increases and sees how little money is
  826
  available for capital investment or improvements in existing stock or for essential repairs to homes, using the word "crisis" in relation to Scottish housing is justified. Indeed, many would say that it is a moderate word to use.
  I am surprised that the Minister should be upset that I have released the Government's own dubious statistics because whether they have been used in a speech in the House of Commons or not, they are the Government's own statistics—and they show that, of the 843,000 council homes in Scotland, no fewer than 356,752 need modernisation, 88,044 need rewiring and, most worrying for pensioners or for people with young families, 234,000 suffer from damp and almost 154,000 need major structural repairs. It is no wonder that the Minister and his cohorts do not like figures like that plastered about in their popular press, even if they are the results of his own Department's investigations into the inadequacies of Scottish council housing at present. Those figures can only worsen as a result of the facts given tonight. Indeed, they have already become worse because the figures that I have just given described the position in 1986 and there have been two more tragic years of rundown in council housing since then.
  Once again tonight, just as in the tax cuts for the rich, just as in the social security cuts for the poor and just as in the cuts in housing benefit, the Government are cynically hammering the poorest and the most vulnerable in our communities in Scotland. Is it not significant that while central Government support for mortgage interest tax relief continues to increase, direct Government grants in support of local authority housing costs have decreased from £228 million in 1980–81 to £60 million next year?
  It is conventional in such debates to refer to one's own constituency and district council and to speak about the effect of the order under debate. Nothing could be simpler. The effect in terms of benefit to my constituency will be absolutely zero. We will receive nothing in grant. Motherwell district council's housing support grant has plummeted from £8·19 million in 1980–81, the year after the Government came to power, to £5·74 million the following year, to £3·3 million in 1982–83 and to £1·4 million in 1983–84, and there has been nothing at all since 1984.
  The Minister knows, as I know, that my constituents have paid the price of the Prime Minister's antipathy and antagonism towards them. My constituency has one of the highest proportions of council house tenants in Scotland and a high proportion of unemployment and poverty. As a result of not having voted for the Prime Minister, not coming from her small middle-class shop keeping background or not being successful capitalists, my constituents have been penalised at the rate of £1 million per year. That is £9 million over nine years. If there were anything left, the Prime Minister would take it away. She has taken it all away and my constituents receive nothing in grant.
  In the debate the Minister revealed the Government's antagonism towards council housing. I am glad that he made the admission and my hon. Friends will remember it. The Government blame local authorities for pushing up rents. The Minister confessed, probably inadvertently, that rents have been forced up, not because of floating or supply and demand, but because they were too low when the Government came to power. That gives the lie to any

  827
  accusation that rent rises have been caused by anything other than a Government who came to power bent on increasing rents.
  Motherwell has not been alone in the scale of its central Government deprivation. As we have heard in the debate, 56 authorities qualified for grant in 1980–81 and that figure has steadily fallen to 23. That has been brought about by a hostile Government on the basis of spurious assumptions. The factors used to determine an authority's eligibility for housing support grant ignores the actual position of housing authorities. The steady reduction by the Government has been brought about by ignoring the actual position of housing and substituting expenditure and income figures that they deem should be applied.
  "Deem" is a peculiar word and is constantly used in courts. It means that although it is not known whether something happens and no one has any idea whether it could happen, it will be made up. "Make it up" is translated into legal language and becomes "deem. The Government ignore what is happening on the ground, the actuality of housing problems, and deem the housing needs of an area. In other words, they make something up to suit their own restrictive dogma. Put simply, the Government understate the need for expenditure and overstate the level of income likely to be achieved by a local authority. The difference between the two represents the Government's financial obligation which is steadily and significantly reduced.
  Instead of deeming, making up and cutting by stealth, why do the Government not acknowledge the massive need for investment to halt the crisis in Scottish housing? Over £1,000 million per annum is needed to tackle the problem but only £569 million has been planned for next year. When consent to apply higher levels of investment in housing has occurred, it has largely arisen from council house sales, which further reduce the public sector stock, and are at the expense of grants and subsidies and lead to higher rents. The Government have contrived to manufacture the worst of all worlds for council house tenants. Had that arisen by accident or by incompetence it would have been a sufficient stain on the Government's record. When it arises as the predictable outcome of deliberate, contrived policy it is a matter of shame for the Government and for the House.
  I wish that last Tuesday I had had the opportunity to go into the Lobby to vote against the Government on this issue. I wish that I had that opportunity every night, because every night the Government need reminding of the misery that they are inflicting on thousands of council house tenants in Scotland. That is why, even if the opportunity comes late, I shall be proud to walk into the Lobby to vote against the Government.
  12.45 am
  Mr. John McAllion: The Government Benches have been sparsely populated for most of this debate. When they have actually shown their faces, English Tory Members have shuffled impatiently as though they were anxious for the business to be concluded so that they could get away home to their beds. The Strangers Gallery is almost empty, the Press Gallery is empty, and the clock tells us that we are well on the wrong side of midnight. All these things tell us that the mother of Parliaments, the seat of democracy, is dealing with Scottish business in the way that it usually does. It is little
  828
  wonder that there is such unhappiness in Scotland with the constitution of the United Kingdom and the way in which the Westminster Parliament deals with Scottish business, or that there is such a demand for Scottish business to be returned to Scotland and put under Scottish control. I do not ask that the House changes the way that it handles Scottish business by having it earlier in the day. I ask that the Government grant the Scottish people what they have always wanted: their own assembly, to look after their own affairs away from this place, so that housing and other matters that are specific to Scotland can be dealt with in Scotland by Scots.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I know that my hon. Friend will wish to ensure that the record is accurate, and show that the press have not gone home entirely, but were so buried with their heads down in their notebooks taking every word of his sensible comments that he did not see them from his position.
  Mr. MacAllion: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the press man who is sitting alone in the Gallery and is acting as a stringer for everyone else.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I am not sure whether hon. Members are aware that it is not in order to refer to the occupants of the Press Gallery.
  Mr. McAllion: I will accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden, (Mr. Dewar), who drew our attention to a dramatic speech made by the Secretary of State for Scotland. That speech was made not during this debate—it has been his wont to take part in only few debates on Scottish business—but in a previous Parliament, and in it he complained about the corrupt system of council housing finance in Scotland, which he believed was corrupt because it benefited Labour voters. That comment shows the true genesis of the poll tax. Far from trying to root out corruption, and get rid of a corrupt system of financing local government, the Secretary of State has introduced another corrupt system of local government that will benefit Tory voters—the poll tax.
  The Minister described housing support grant as a deficit subsidy. However, if there is no deficit in the way in which the council meets its housing costs, there can be no housing support for the council. How does one establish whether a deficit exists? The Minister said that one makes reasonable assumptions about the income and expenditure of local councils' housing revenue accounts.
  Such a system depends on those who are making the assumption, and whether that assumption is reasonable. The Minister seems to be saying that a Tory Minister who knows little about housing in Dundee can make an assumption about the income of the Dundee district council and its expenditure on its 38,000 council houses and can arrive at the conclusion that there is no deficit on the council's housing revenue account, so it should get no subsidy from central Government funds. I can tell the Minister that Dundee district council's housing revenue account for next year will have to receive an additional £6 million over what it received last year, and the Minister is saying that that money will have to be found directly from increases in rent for council house tenants in Dundee and from no other source.

  829
  People who, like me, are owner-occupiers can look forward to central Government subsidies to meet their housing costs in the coming year, but those in the 38,000 council households will get no such subsidy because the Minister says that the revenue must come from rent increases. The people of Dundee are facing rent increases not of £1·34 per week but £3·95 and many tenants will face increases as high as £5·50 a week. The Minister says that that is because the rents have traditionally been too low.
  An old couple came to see me last week in my surgery. They have suffered badly under the housing benefit changes introduced by the Government. They are receiving some transitional protection but they have not received any payment for some weeks. They were concerned about the rent increase about to be imposed upon them because they were down to the last £200 of their savings. A few months ago they had £340 but they had to eat into that to pay the rent increase as it stands now. The Minister is telling those people that they will just have to live with it and eat into their savings. After that, I do not know what will happen to them. Perhaps the Minister will explain how that old couple can stop worrying about the rent increases that he is imposing on the people of Dundee and no one else.
  If anything is more arcane or difficult to follow than the procedures of the House, it is local government finance. So many phrases have been thrown into the debate—the general fund contribution, the housing revenue account, the housing revenue account block A capital allocation, the housing revenue account block B capital allocation and so on—that it is not difficult to understand why people in Scotland sometimes find it hard to follow the debates about housing and rent that take place here.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) said that none of the 30,000 homeless in Scotland would follow the debate closely or be able to question anyone on it. I doubt whether many council tenants in Scotland will follow the debate closely, not only because it involves obscure and detailed language with which they are not familiar, but because the Government deliberately stage it at this early hour in the morning when no members of the press are present. so that it will not appear in the press tomorrow and will not be on the radio or television. No one will know why their rent has increased.
  When the people in Dundee try to find out why their rent has increased by £3·35 or £5·50 a week, we all know what they will be told by D C Thomson press in Dundee. It will say that the Labour council increased the rents as will Tory Ministers and the SNP opposition on Dundee district council. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Government and the Minister now sitting on the Front Bench are increasing rents. No matter how obscure the Minister makes that or how much he wraps it in detailed language, that is the truth and we will ensure that the people of Dundee realise that.
  That becomes obvious if one looks closely at the housing revenue account for Dundee district council. Compared to last year the council will have to find an additional £6·3 million next year. There are many reasons why it has to find that additional expenditure and most of them are caused by the Government. First, there is inflation. The Chancellor set himself the target of zero
  830
  inflation but the Morning Star on Saturday said in banner headlines that inflation was 6 per cent. plus and rising. The Morning Star has always taken a keen interest in inflation and counter-inflationary policies. It was rightly drawing attention to the way in which the Government's economic policies are failing and the way in which inflation is imposing increases upon councils—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) wishes to intervene, I will gladly give way. I would rather he intervened than continued to shout and mutter from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can remind the House when the Labour party managed to get inflation down to 6 per cent. when it was in government. I cannot remember a time.
  Mr. McAllion: When the Labour Government left office in 1979, inflation was 8 per cent. and falling. Within a year, the Tory Government had put inflation up to 20 per cent. because they gave way to inflationary pressures.
  Because of inflation under the Government, Dundee district council will have to find an additional £247,000 to be allocated under the repairs and maintenance heading of its budget. That is just to keep the work at the same level as last year.
  One can argue about how much the Government can be blamed for inflation increases, but one cannot argue about, the other Government decisions that have led directly to rent increases in Dundee. For example, they have changed the rules governing the definition of capital expenditure. Repairs and maintenance carried out to re-lets in Dundee used to be paid for out of capital expenditure and came under that heading. Since the Government changed the rules that define capital expenditure, that can no longer be done. By Government diktat, an additional £1·5 million has to be raised from the housing revenue account and so from rents. That is because the Government will not allow the district council to proceed within the definition of capital expenditure.
  In 1980–81, Dundee district council received £9·1 million in housing support grant, which enabled it to meet its housing costs. If that level of support had been maintained, a further £72 million could have been spent on the city's 38,000 council houses. If the Government had honoured their commitment to council house tenants in Dundee by continuing to fund that level of grant, rents could be £4·50 a week lower that they are now. Instead of having to face an average increase of £3·95 a week, council tenants in Dundee could be given an average rebate of 55p a week. That would have been the result if the Government had paid up what they owed in housing support grant.
  In 1985–86, Dundee district council received £4·917 million in rate fund contribution—the general fund contribution as it is now known—to help it meet its housing costs. Since then, direct Government action has caused the contribution to be cut in three huge swathes so that it is now absolutely nothing in the order that is before us. That is another massive blow to the housing revenue account and another reason why rents will have to increase in Dundee. That is the consequence of Government action. The council is not responsible for that.
  Changes have been made to the housing benefit regulations and the district council estimates that these have cost it £190,000 in lost rent. That sum will have to be found from the housing revenue account next year, and

  831
  that will mean increasing rents. It was calculated that on 31 March 1988, rent arrears in Dundee stood at £884,000. The following day saw the introduction of housing benefit and social security changes. By 30 September, arrears had increased to £1,226,000. The people of Dundee, whom the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) claims have been protected by housing benefit, could not afford to meet the increased rent levels. They were taken out of housing benefit and they had lost social security payments. They could not afford to pay their rents and the council could not get the money from them.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Some of my constituents have the good fortune to pay their taxes to the Perth and Kinross district council and some are infinitely less fortunate and have to pay their taxes to Dundee district council. As the same system of support applies to both councils, why is it that those who have the misfortune to be taxed by a rabid Labour-controlled council such as Dundee have to pay twice as much as the fortunate citizens who are taxed by Perth and Kinross?
  Mr. McAllion: That may have something to do with the fact that Dundee district council has 38,000 council houses while Perth and Kinross has only a small fraction of that number. The costs that have to be met by Perth and Kinross district council are infinitesimal compared with those that are faced by Dundee district council. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had thought about that he would not have got on his hind legs to ask the question. I am glad that one English Tory—the hon. Member for Stockton, South—has remained in the Chamber to listen to some realism instead of opting to be plonked down in the south to learn nothing about what is happening in Scotland.
  Mr. Devlin: How many tenants applied to buy their houses under the right to buy?
  Mr. McAllion: I am coming to that. There is the so-called benefit that is derived from selling council houses to sitting tenants. Dundee district council sold 1,600 council houses to sitting tenants last year, which meant a loss of rent income of £1·802 million. That sum will have to be raised from the housing revenue account, which in turn will mean increasing rents throughout the city. It would be all right if new council houses were still being built, but there are tenants who are trapped in multies, tenements or other housing which for various reasons is entirely unsuitable for them. There is a massive shortage of suitable housing in Dundee and so many are trapped in unsuitable housing and pay high rents. That is because the Government are selling the only houses which these tenants can aspire to live in by taking a place on the housing waiting list.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The logical conclusion of the hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be that councils that sell off more of their housing are worse off. Why, then, is Dundee, which has one of the worst records of selling homes, worse off than Perth and Kinross, which has one of the best?
  Mr. McAllion: The hon. Member is not comparing like with like. Dundee district council is in an entirely different league from Perth and Kinross. I do not represent Perth and Kinross. If the hon. Member for Tayside, North would like to tell us how many houses that council owns, we might be able to make a comparison.
  Dr. Reid: In view of the resounding silence on the Conservative Benches, are we to assume that the three supposedly pertinent points that have just been made about housing finance in areas represented by Conservative Members have been based on ignorance even of the number of council houses in their areas?
  Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend is right. I have given the hon. Member for Tayside, North every opportunity to tell the House how many houses Perth and Kinross district council owns, but he will not do that because he does not know the answer. Nor does the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). They must sit in embarrassed silence because neither knows the answer, although they claim to represent that local authority in the House.
  The Government's squeeze on capital expenditure in years past has contributed to rent increases. District councils, faced with a loss of houses because they have been forced to sell them and because they cannot get the capital allocation that they need to build new houses, have had to take out covenant schemes to build the houses they need. Such schemes are fine at the time, but a day of reckoning comes when repayments have to be made, and repayments are being made in a climate of climbing interest rates because of the Government's policies. That means another massive cost to the housing revenue account, and it is another reason for higher rents.
  Labour district councillors in Dundee are doing a magnificent job on behalf of tenants in the city, whom they are trying to defend in a rapidly deteriorating situation. We have heard some statistics about homelessness tonight. Conservative Members had better know that, in Dundee, during the past five years, homelessness has trebled—and that figure does not take into account factors such as recent increases in mortgage interest rates, which will lead to a great deal more people being made homeless in the city. Housing benefit and social security changes will add to the problem.
  The Government make out a good case for tackling the housing crisis in Scotland. They speak about co-operation between the Government and local councils and an attempt to deal with the many problems, especially in peripheral estates such as Whitfield.
  Mr. Devlin rose—
  Mr. McAllion: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman several times.
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Devlin: On the contrary—the hon. Gentleman started his speech by saying that English Members are not interested, and now he is trying to stop an English Member intervening. All I want to know is how many private sector houses there are in Dundee.
  Mr. McAllion: I have no idea how many private sector houses there are. At one time, Dundee had 40,000 houses, which constituted about 60 per cent. of the housing stock. It now owns about 38,000.
  In a statement about the Whitfield estate, the Government agreed that the way to tackle the housing crisis in peripheral estates is to increase expenditure on them and housing services. When the Government are asked for the money, however, nothing happens. They

  833
  have slashed housing support grant, taken away the general fund contribution and slashed the capital allocation to the council.
  Next year, Dundee's housing revenue account block A allocation is to be cut by more than 50 per cent., from £9·95 million last year to just £4·43 million this year. How is the council supposed to tackle the city's massive housing problems when the Government will not even let it borrow money to spend on housing? It is selling the housing stock as fast as possible.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden mentioned the Minister's refusal to have a house condition survey, such as is done in England and Wales, for Scotland. However, there are housing check lists. Dundee district council carried out one of those checks last year to update its five-year rolling plan for housing in the city. It found that 13,800 houses needed modernisation and 11,300 houses suffered from condensation and damp. It has calculated that it will need £25 million a year in capital allocations to deal with those problems. However, the Government have suggested that Dundee should receive only £4·03 million in capital allocation.
  We could understand that level of allocation if there was a shortage of money. However, we cannot pick up a paper today without reading that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has £15,000 million of Budget surplus that he does not know what to do with. We only want a tiny wee fraction of that £15,000 million to start to tackle the housing problems in Scotland. No one understands why the Minister will not agree to that.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman's head seems to be full of interesting statistics. If Dundee district council had £25 million to spend tomorrow, how would it find the work force to carry out the work? He knows as well as I that there is a dearth of tradesmen in Dundee to carry out that type of work.
  Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman has made an absurd allegation. He knows that the Government used to produce statistics which gave the numbers of unemployed people in different categories and from which we could tell how many building workers were unemployed. However, the Government were so embarrassed by the number of building workers on the dole in Scotland that they will not produce them. They refuse to give any figures about the number of people on the dole in Dundee. If £25 million was allocated to Dundee this year, it would spend it, but not in the way in which the Government would spend it. It would not spend it on one housing estate in the city which would be a kind of model to be publicised on the television and for which benefit could be claimed.
  The Whitfield estate in Dundee shows what can be done, but every other estate in Dundee shows what is not being done for housing in Scotland. Councillor John Henderson has assured me that Dundee would spend the £25 million if it had it. I would be very glad to hear the Minister tell us at the Despatch Box that Dundee was going to receive that money. That would suit me entirely.
  I came across an article in The Scotsman today about Mr. John Jenkison the director of housing for a new private management company set up under the Scottish housing legislation. He is director of Waverley Housing
  834
  which is targeting council houses in the Borders and taking over houses from district councils. Mr. Jenkison is quoted as saying:
  "Ultimately the district councils will not be in a position to offer choice because they will not have any stock. The Government is on course to remove that function from district councils."
  That comment comes not from a Labour Member, but from someone who supports the Government's policies and agrees with the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 and who knows what the Government are about. They are about taking the right from district councils to provide reasonable houses at reasonable rents to people on low incomes. The Government do not have any mandate for that in Scotland.
  I began my speech by saying that a Scottish Assembly was the only forum in which housing could be properly dealt with for Scotland. I end on the same basis. We shall never get justice from the Tory Benches. The people of Scotland know that. We will never give up until we get a Scottish Assembly with Scottish control over Scottish housing.
  1.7 am
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Earlier tonight my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that the Minister was one of the nice men in the Tory party. Some of my colleagues say that he is a gentleman. However, the people in Scotland in council houses do not need a gentleman; they need someone who is prepared to stand up and fight. That is sadly lacking.
  Since 1979 there has been a systematic attack on council house tenants. Since then rents have increased massively by more than 230 per cent. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is smiling. He should come and smile at my constituents—the elderly and disabled—who are forced to pay those massive rent increases. Since 1979 the rents have escalated.
  A report by COSLA shows that in 1986 the Government's limited statistics identified that, out of 843,000 council houses in Scotland, 356,725 need to be modernised and 88,000 needed to be re-wired. That is an unbelievable indictment. COSLA says that 234,000 houses suffered dampness or condensation, while 153,746 needed major or structural repairs. We need a Minister who is prepared to ensure that the housing crisis in Scotland is solved.
  I was appalled to hear the Minister boast proudly that he was not apologising for the fact that rents in Scotland were going up again. He was quite happy to see a £1·48 increase—after the trauma of the housing benefit cuts, the fear of what the poll tax would bring and the record levels of unemployment that still exist in Scotland. People are suffering more and more because of the Government's inability to improve—or rather their deliberate policy not to improve—the quality of life for people who are homeless; people who are living on state benefits, but are desperate because they are unemployed.
  The Minister is not prepared to stand up and fight. There should not be a £1·48 rent increase; there should be a decrease, and a massive housebuilding programme to give folk decent housing. We do not want the nonsense that we are hearing tonight.
  I accept that the Minister is a gentleman, but I am no gentleman. I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for

  835
  Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) is not here tonight for this important debate, but I was born and bred in Govan. I know what it was like to live under a private landlord. My mother and late father know what it was like for five of us to live in a single end. We were over the moon the day the note came through the door from the Glasgow corporation offering us a decent house—a house with a bath.
  I had never seen a bath. I thought that it was something that you put a goldfish into. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it was like that in those days. The only water that 1 had seen in a big bath was in the swimming pool. I do not have the background of a gentleman who has lived in a big fancy house. I still do not live in a big fancy house: I live in a Scottish special house, and I rent it.
  I see the poverty around me, created by the Government's cuts in social security and housing benefits. I see the fear that the Government are creating in Scotland. I plead with the Minister to stand up and fight for these people to ensure that they need not pay such a punishing rent. He has the power to do something to ensure that the people of Scotland have a decent chance.
  As I have said, my life started in Govan, and I went to a house in Pollock. When I married I could not get a house. I had to go to a private landlord. Eventually I had a bit of luck: I got what is called an "economic expansion house" because of my job. Unemployment is so massive that it is hard for anyone to get a house, let alone an economic expansion house, yet Government policy is to continue to push rents so high that ordinary men and women are forced to buy their homes.
  I said to the Chancellor the other day that mortgage default was one of the main reasons why many people were ending up homeless. They could not afford to pay their mortgages, and were having to go on to the streets. Massive pressure was being put on the local district council, because these folk were genuinely homeless. They are systematically selling off these people's only chance of a house and a decent living.
  As I have already mentioned, we have a gentleman as a Minister, and the people of Scotland are looking for leadership to ensure that they have the right to a decent house—a right to a home that they can afford. They want decent housing which is not suffering from all kinds of defaults. They are looking for leadership that gives them the right to rent—a right which this Government have denied to them.
  I see that the other Under-Secretary the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is sat there smugly smiling. I assure him that there are more than 3,500 homeless people in Renfrew district and Inverclyde who are not smiling tonight. They are weeping in overcrowded conditions. There are family bust-ups, domestic problems, divorces, separations and everything else going on, because of the level of homelessness. There are more than 30,000 people in Scotland whom the Government know are homeless. However, that is the tip of the iceberg—there are more than 30,000.
  Many people have given up the ghost. We read in the Scottish papers the other day of an old man, who is living in a tent in a park. He is desperate for a home and he has asked the local authority to provide him with one. I am sure that the local authority will find him a home, but it is time that the Government gave the 30,000 homeless a home and some young people the right to a decent future.
  836
  They do not want a castle or thousands of acres where they can shoot partridges and grouse, they want a home where they can cook and from which they can go to work. It is time that the Minister gave them that leadership.
  1.17 am
  Mr. John McFall: Local authority tenants' rents have risen by 230 per cent. in the past nine years. As a result of these orders, we see that the average rents next year will once again exceed inflation. The capital investment required to maintain and improve the housing stock is still some 50 per cent. short of what the authorities require to tackle Scotland's housing crisis. That has been debated well tonight. The acid test was that, if the Government were interested in Scottish housing they would have provided a housing condition survey. They have not done so. They have, however, given us some limited housing statistics. In 1986, their statistics identified that out of Scotland's 843,000 council houses, 360,000 needed to be modernised, 88,000 needed to be re-wired and 235,000 suffered dampness arid condensation.
  How are the Government tackling that crisis? As an example, I shall take my constituency of Dumbarton. This year Dumbarton has no subsidy for public sector housing. The last time it received a subsidy was in 1981–82, when the housing support grant was £910,000 and the rate fund contribution was £2·1 million. There was a subsidy of more than £3 million in that year, with £5 million income from rents. Since then, we have received nothing at all.
  The capital allocation last year was £7 million, with the authority being allowed to go to the private market to find £1 million. It was assumed that £6·4 million would come from council house sales, but the authority will fall short of that—which it has told the Government—for many reasons, not least because not as many people are buying houses as was estimated. That is one consequence of the Chancellor's high interest rates. The Government, however, have set their figures in stone and are paying no attention to the problem. It would seem appropriate to be flexible and for them to look at last year's allocation, so that they could help councils such as Dumbarton to help the public sector tenants.
  I would draw attention to an anomaly in Dumbarton. The public sector does not receive any subsidy towards the cost of removing lead piping. Lead piping is a problem in a considerable number of Dumbarton's council houses. I believe that the housing authority has drawn this to the Minister's attention. I ask the Minister to meet the local authority and discuss the pressing problem of lead piping in Dumbarton, so that we can get that dealt with. Strathclyde regional council has found a temporary solution, but the long term problem must be attended to. I hope that the Minister will undertake to meet and consult me about this matter.
  The housing crisis in Scotland cannot be solved until the Government realise that a substantial, real boost in housing resources is required in the next five to 10 years. Over the years, problems have been caused by the progressive withdrawal of rate support grant and other moneys to local government. The Government are out of step with the widespread Scottish view, whether that is expressed by COSLA, the Building Employers Confederation, Shelter or Church organisations who

  837
  believe that decent, modern living conditions are an essential ingredient to maintain the social fabric of the community.
  Last year the Prime Minister was up in Scotland talking to the Church of Scotland. At the end of her speech, the convener gave her a document on housing. In conjunction with the Secretary of State and Ministers, I want her to treat that document with the same urgency with which they treated the "Scottish Enterprise" document and Mr. Bill Hughes. I hope that the Prime Minister and her Ministers will consider that document over a weekend as they did the document presented by Mr. Hughes so that the problems of Scottish housing are put in their proper perspective.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In reply to the hon. Gentleman: yes, I will meet him.
  1.21 am
  Mr. John Maxton: That was the fastest intervention that I have ever heard.
  It is traditional to say that this has been an interesting debate, but this has not been a debate.
  Mr. McAllion: It has been one-sided.
  Mr. Maxton: Yes, my hon. Friend is correct.
  We have had the usual fumbling, inept performance from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and one Back-Bench contribution from the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). His only contribution to such debates is to say that, because housing benefit has gone up since 1979 and cuts have occurred in the rest of housing support, somehow the Government have been awfully generous to the poor.
  I will tell the hon. Gentleman the facts. Every time rents go up, it is inevitable that housing benefit goes up. As soon as the number of the unemployed goes up, housing benefit increases. In 1979, however, the housing benefit system was much more generous. It included 100 per cent. rent rebate and 100 per cent. rate rebate. Now, every council house tenant must pay at least 20 per cent. of his rates and he will have to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax.
  Mr. Bill Walker rose—
  Mr. Maxton: I do not have time to give way. The hon. Gentleman made a lengthy speech, when his sole contribution was to suggest that there has been a massive increase in housing benefit, which is due to the Government's economic policies and rent rises. At the same time, however, council house tenants have had to face poorer housing conditions and cuts in benefit, but the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that.
  Mr. Walker rose—
  Mr. Maxton: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman intervened on a number of occasions and I have a short time in which to reply to the debate.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) and for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) have given a
  838
  catalogue of the cuts that local council house tenants in Scotland have had to face. They have described the appalling dampness in the housing stock in their constituencies and the ill health that that causes. The debate has been so one-sided it is not true, but we are used to that in Scotland. The Scottish people have no one on the Conservative Front Bench or Back Benches to whom they can put their case.
  Mr. Devlin rose—
  Mr. Maxton: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman came into the Chamber when we were about halfway through the debate, and I do not intend to give way to someone of that nature.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde described the Minister as a "gentleman" and other hon. Friends have said that he is a nice man. My hon. Friend may not be aware that when the Minister was at Oxford university he obtained a boxing blue.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Half a blue.
  Mr. Maxton: Oh. I remember one of my hon. Friends saying that the Minister was unlike Cassius Clay—he floats like a bee and stings like a butterfly. That is certainly true when it comes to fighting for housing for the Scottish people.
  However nice a man the Minister may be, or however nice my hon. Friends may think he is—he may be a good husband, he may be nice to his children, he may even have pets and look after them well—if he is prepared to take office under this Government, he is a Thatcherite and a cutter and he is as responsible for the poverty as his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) who is sitting next to him.
  The Minister is not a nice man. If he were a nice man he would follow the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and refuse to take office under this Government. The only good thing that can be said about the Minister is that the only alternative would have been for the Government to appoint the hon. Member for Tayside, North as the Minister responsible for housing in Scotland. If it were not for the Minister, the hon. Member for Tayside, North would be a Minister, although he always said that he would turn down such an offer.
  My hon. Friends have described the misery in considerable detail and have set out the facts and figures on housing in Scotland. But what are the Government doing about housing in Scotland? Why are they doing it? At one time I was generous. I used to think that it was down to blind ideological bigotry or to political expediency. Either they hated the fact that there were council house tenants, or they thought that if they kept raising the rents and cutting the services provided for council house tenants, eventually the council house tenants would turn on the Labour party, blame Labour local authorities and vote Conservative. That has been proved wrong and we know that it will not happen. Time after time, despite the pressures put on them, council house tenants have voted Labour and refused to vote for the Government. As a result, few Scottish Conservative Members have survived.
  So why do the Government implement such a policy? I was generous in attributing it to blind ideology or political

  839
  expediency. It comes down to the Government's driving motive at all times—greed and lining the pockets of their friends. They force up rents, cut services and create a housing crisis, and then say, "There is a crisis and we had better do something about it." That is what they are doing. Now they will say to council house tenants whose rents have gone up by 230 per cent., "You do not have to stay with the local authority. You can go to another landlord. You can go to a private landlord."
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East said, there is an article in The Scotsman today about the Waverley housing trust, chaired by the Conservative constituency party candidate who was deselected over the weekend, Mr. Michael Ancram. It is a charitable trust at present. It has taken over the SSHA houses and is now offering to take over the council house tenants. At first it is only managing them, but ownership will follow. Once the management of Waverley Housing have got their hands on it, they will rook the tenants. The tenants will be put into that position. Who will profit and who will benefit? The Government's friends and financiers, Back-Bench Conservative Members and people such as the Earl of Ancram, who used to be a Housing Minister, will benefit. It is all about greed.
  Whenever the Prime Minister and her lackeys in the Cabinet talk hypocritically about moral standards and freedom of choice, it is clear that they are concerned about one freedom—the freedom of Conservative Members and their friends in the City to make profits. That is the only thing that the Government are about. That is why I refuse to call the Minister a nice man. He is a member of the Government. If he had any understanding of housing, any sympathy for council house tenants or any desire to do something about housing in Scotland he would fight from the Back Benches for his tenants and the tenants we represent and for whom we fight.
  Where is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars)? Does he represent council house tenants? What a farce. The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) said that we should not moan, because we are not here in large numbers, either. The difference between the hon. Gentleman and Labour Members of Parliament is that we have not boasted about how we would take Parliament by storm. It was the hon. Member for Govan who made that boast. He said that he intended to disrupt Parliament. As usual, when people are in misery and distress, the Secretary of State can only snigger. That is the only thing he can do when he is in trouble. Time and time again the hon. Member for Govan has not been here for Scottish debates; he has been somewhere else, writing his articles for a despicable newspaper called The Sun.
  I hope that the Minister will resign tomorrow and fight for council house tenants in Scotland.
  1.30 am
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is doing his best to make up for the fact that he paid me a strong tribute during a housing debate in the last Parliament, which I used in my general election material. It certainly did me no harm.
  The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) asked about variation orders. If interest rates fluctuate by only 0·2 per cent., the practice is to introduce them.
  840
  One of the most important points in the debate was raised by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and for Angus (Mr. Welsh). They were concerned about the hostel costs of the homeless falling on the housing revenue account. They asked why tenants should have to pay through their rents for the cost of housing the homeless. I recognise that that is a problem. I have asked the Department to write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and seek its considered views on the extent to which the cost of these and similar services should be excluded from housing revenue accounts.
  The possibility of any change being made to the present arrangements will require careful consideration, not only in the light of the financial implications for housing revenue accounts and for authorities' general funds but also in the light of the consequences for the delivery of the services. In those circumstances, it is only right to seek COSLA's views before making any decision.
  Mr. Dewar: I welcome what the Minister has said. May I take it that at least he is prepared to consider a change, since he is consulting COSLA with a view to reviewing the Government's position?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, certainly.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) suggested that, because some authorities in 1989–90 will not be allowed to retain or spend all the income that they receive from council house sales, the receipts will be reallocated to other authorities. That is not wholly correct, for this reason. For 13 authorities, the provisional gross housing revenue account allocation is lower than estimated receipts. Those authorities will receive more income from sales than their capital investment allocation, but in such circumstances the excess income will not be taken away from the authorities concerned; it will be used by those authorities to repay debts. That will benefit their tenants.
  Because those resources will not be used for capital investment by the 13 authorities, we shall be able to allow additional investment by other authorities. Allocations will be made according to relative need across Scotland as a whole.
  The provisional capital allocations for next year total £432 million. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) said that adequate resources should be made available. That figure is 11·6 per cent. more than the: equivalent allocation for last year. I appreciate that that level of investment may not be as much as some authorities would like, but I believe that they will be able to make significant progress in tackling their investment needs. When we announce the allocations at the end of March, I hope that the figures that were announced in December will be increased.
  Mr. McAllion: The Minister has just said that there is to be an 11 per cent. increase in capital allocations. He knows full well that in the case of Dundee district there has been a 50 per cent. reduction. Can he explain that discrepancy?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I intend to deal with the hon. Gentleman's constituency in a moment.
  The hon. Member for Springburn said that local authorities have been obliged to cut the number of repairs.

  841
  Obviously, it is for each authority to decide how much it should spend on management and maintenance, balancing it against the rent levels that it is prepared to set.
  On the points raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), the actual sums allocated to Dundee are much higher than he suggested. I will find the exact figures in a moment and give them to him. In any case, I will make certain that he receives them.
  In his spirited address, the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) suggested that there is nothing in the orders for Motherwell. Our policy is to see resources for housing concentrated on capital expenditure. The provisional HRA capital allocation for Motherwell, which was issued in December, is 16·9 per cent. higher than the figure for 1988–89, which was issued at the same time a year earlier. It is up from £13 million to £15·2 million. We will certainly not forget the interests of Motherwell.
  I was asked about Glasgow. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) asked why Edinburgh was getting no subsidy and Glasgow was getting £28 million. Glasgow received subsidy because it has an outstanding capital debt of £5,577 per house. Edinburgh has an average outstanding capital debt of £4,185. Therefore, Edinburgh has about £2·50 per house per week lower loan charges. The situation is not comparable, because Glasgow is the largest public sector landlord in western Europe.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I am sorry, but I shall not give way. I have only two more minutes.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the backlog of repair grants. The extra £22·5 million that we have allocated to Edinburgh for 1989–90 on the non-HRA block will allow more than half the remaining backlog a considerable amount of it in his constituency, to be dealt with in the coming year.
  I am glad to have been able to find the information for the hon. Member for Dundee, East that I could not find earlier. The Department calculates that Dundee needs to have an average rent rise of £1·03 per house per week. That excludes the effect of covenant agreements that Dundee district council took on, knowing that the cost would not be eligible for subsidy and would have to be borne by tenants. The hon. Gentleman actually used the phrase "a day of reckoning". Moreover, Dundee's provisional capital allocation of £17·4 million is 14·5 per cent. higher than the corresponding figure for last year.
  Mr. McAllion rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall not give way. I have only one more minute.
  The hon. Gentleman must compare like with like. The figure is up on the allocations for last year, and the final allocations will be made in March.
  I stress that a further 8 per cent. has been allocated to local authorities' capital allocations in 1989, making a total of £445 million available for capital expenditure on local authority housing this year. In other words, allocations are up by 95 per cent. over four years. More local authorities' dwellings were improved in 1987. Over 73,000—
  It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [20th January].
  The House divided: Ayes 148, Noes 67.

  Division No. 45]

  [1.38 am

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

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

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Amess, David

  Harris, David

  Amos, Alan

  Hayes, Jerry

  Arbuthnot, James

  Hayward, Robert

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Ashby, David

  Holt, Richard

  Aspinwall, Jack

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

  Atkins, Robert

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Benyon, W.

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Irvine, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Jack, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Janman, Tim

  Boswell, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Knapman, Roger

  Bowis, John

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Brazier, Julian

  Knowles, Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Lightbown, David

  Burns, Simon

  Lilley, Peter

  Burt, Alistair

  Lord, Michael

  Butcher, John

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Butler, Chris

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cash, William

  Mans, Keith

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Maples, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Chope, Christopher

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Conway, Derek

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Mills, Iain

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Cran, James

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Morrison, Sir Charles

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

  Moss, Malcolm

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Neubert, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Devlin, Tim

  Norris, Steve

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Page, Richard

  Dover, Den

  Paice, James

  Durant, Tony

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Fallon, Michael

  Rattan, Keith

  Favell, Tony

  Rathbone, Tim

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Redwood, John

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Forman, Nigel

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Speller, Tony

  Forth, Eric

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Franks, Cecil

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Freeman, Roger

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  French, Douglas

  Thurnham, Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Tredinnick, David

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Trotter, Neville

  Gill, Christopher

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Gow, Ian

  Walden, George

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Gregory, Conal

  Waller, Gary

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Grist, Ian

  Watts, John

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Wells, Bowen

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Wheeler, John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Whitney, Ray

  Hannam, John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  843

  Wilshire, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wood, Timothy

  Mr. David Maclean and

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  McFall, John

  Beith, A. J.

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  McKelvey, William

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  McLeish, Henry

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  McTaggart, Bob

  Buchan, Norman

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Maxton, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Meale, Alan

  Clay, Bob

  Michael, Alun

  Clelland, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Cohen, Harry

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Cryer, Bob

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Darling, Alistair

  Nellist, Dave

  Dewar, Donald

  O'Neill, Martin

  Dixon, Don

  Pike, Peter L.

  Doran, Frank

  Reid, Dr John

  Douglas, Dick

  Robertson, George

  Eadie, Alexander

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Foster, Derek

  Skinner, Dennis

  Galbraith, Sam

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Graham, Thomas

  Strang, Gavin

  Haynes, Frank

  Wallace, James

  Henderson, Doug

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Home Robertson, John

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Wilson, Brian

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Worthington, Tony

  Ingram, Adam

  Kennedy, Charles

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lamond, James

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy and

  Lewis, Terry

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths.

  McAllion, John

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 15th December, be approved.

  A1 (Northumberland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
  1.51 am
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of the A1 and the issues surrounding it, and I am grateful to the Minister for his presence at this rather late hour.
  The Al, the great north road, has been the country's principal road for so long that it has been left behind in the motorway era. In the 1960s the combined width of the two carriageways at one point in Alnwick was barely loft. The years of piecemeal improvements have not produced a safe or adequate road. Indeed, in some places inadequate improvements have made it even more dangerous.
  The problems are not confined to Northumberland. The notorious Yorkshire section of the Al will still not be up to motorway standards by the end of the century, and traffic from local communities will still be dicing with death if underpasses and proper junctions are not built to separate local traffic from fast traffic. The recent improvements at Stannington in Northumberland have cost lives because turning traffic has to wait in the middle of what motorists imagine is a motorway.
  The 50 mile or so stretch of the Al in my constituency stands out for its inadequacy as one of the two main roads between England and Scotland. Virtually none of it is dual carriageway, except for a stretch that was built 40 years ago. New bypasses at Alnwick Berwick and other places are little more than country lanes and, as a result, lives have been lost. Seventeen people have been killed on the Alnwick bypass and its approaches since it was opened in 1970. Three people died in two accidents in the first two months after the Berwick bypass was opened.
  Deaths and serious injuries continue. They may not come top of the grim league of national accident statistics, but to many local people they are particularly sickening because they would not have happened if this were a safer road. For most of the length of the Al in Northumberland, there are few opportunities for safe overtaking, yet long-distance car drivers find themselves stuck behind queues of heavy vehicles crawling up steep banks and around curves.
  I have argued for many years that an increase in the number of dual carriageway sections would reduce accidents by allowing queues to clear, and I welcome the acceptance of this by the Department of Transport. We look forward to the planned dualling of a section south of Alnwick, but we need much more and the whole road, including the bypasses, ought to be dual carriageway. It is the best, indeed the only, all-weather route to Scotland and should be treated accordingly. I was therefore particularly interested in reports of studies now going on which involve both the Department of Transport and the Scottish Office. On 10 January, The Daily Telegraph claimed that the Department
  "is seeking a new route for the Al across the English-Scottish border".
  It is difficult to imagine where that route could be, given the terrain. The Scottish Office is studying,
  "all main roads south of Edinburgh"
  and an announcement on that is expected.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that this report

  845
  from the Scottish Office about a road south of Edinburgh has been eagerly awaited for months. I have been able to obtain figures which show that 283 injuries and 25 deaths have occurred in accidents over a three-year period on the five-mile stretch of the Al in Scotland. Does he agree that the time has come to provide a dual carriageway for the missing link all the way from Musselburgh to Morpeth?
  Mr. Beith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He and I share a great deal of experience of that road on both sides of the border, and that confirms us in the view that we have expressed.
  What do these reports and studies by the Department of Transport and the Scottish Office mean to the A1 in Northumberland, which is a vital link between England and Scotland? I hope that the Minister can give some indication what is going on. The Al is not only an important communication route through Northumberland; an increasing number of people earn their living from it. The Government and local councils see service industries and tourism as vital elements in creating jobs in the north-east of England and in the borders. Why does the Department of Transport go out of its way to prevent people from doing so? It seems to be running an anti-small business policy that is in direct opposition to what everyone else is trying to do. The most obvious example is in its attitude to signs. It has taken us years of struggle to get official signposting of major local tourist attractions, such as the castles along our coast.
  It has taken even longer to get a system of approved signs for main services and major businesses along the road, for the cost of which those businesses are paying. What about the small hotels, craft shops, cafes and bed and breakfast establishments? The existing schemes for approved signs are simply not tailored to their needs or to what they can reasonably afford, especially when setting up a new business. Often, they resort to a neat, unofficial roadside sign. The reaction of the Department of Transport is to send out its agents, the county council, on a sign swoop in the middle of the tourist season, demanding that signs be removed, and even taking them away themselves. This is not a safety-conscious and helpful exercise, in which officials recommend better positioning of signs and clearer lettering. It is the Big Brother approach—"We run this road from London, and what we say goes." That is the tone that the Department conveys in its attitude to unofficial signs.
  If the business man owns the roadside land or is friendly with the farmer who does, he can bypass the Ministry of Transport by putting a sign in the field and getting planning permission from the council. The trouble is that, along a significant section of the Al in my constituency, the Government own most of the land, through the Greenwich hospital estates and the Ministry of Defence. In other cases, the farmer may not want to be involved, or may even be in competition with other businesses because he has a farm shop or does bed and breakfast himself, as he is not only entitled but encouraged to do under the Government's diversification proposals.
  I plead with the Minister to have a more tolerant approach to unofficial signs that are neat, well positioned and useful to the passing motorist. I hope that he will not try to convince us that these signs cause accidents. The signs that do so are almost invariably the Department's
  846
  metal direction signs, which are often dangerously placed, obscure sidelines and are, in many cases, ridiculously large, and, in most cases, larger than those that are required in other countries. I ask the Minister to give us a break and send the sign squad packing. There are many more useful things that those people could be doing.
  Another glaring example of the Department's destructive attitude to small businesses is the saga of the Brownieside refreshment caravan at North Charlton. Not all refreshment caravans are a good thing, and some councils need to use their planning and health plans to control them. Alnwick district council is furious over the Department's attempt to close two such caravans on either side of Alnwick. It knows that closure, because of the drivers' hours limitations, will mean more heavy vehicles in the town, and it is satisfied that the caravans are well sited. The Minister wrote to me on Friday to explain why he is so determined to put Mrs. Rhoda Ewart out of business at her caravan at the layby at North Charlton.
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's speech later, but I hope that he will withdraw, or at least internally regret, the suggestion that there is any kind of personal vendetta.
  Mr. Beith: I did not suggest that there is. I am sure that if the Minister ever met Mrs. Ewart, he would be enthusiastically supporting her cause. I am saying that if he continues to pursue his policies, they will put people out of business.
  Mrs. Ewart keeps the layby in which she has her business scrupulously clean and tidy. When I called there this morning, lorry drivers expressed amazement and disgust at the Minister's attitude. I think that he has been badly advised, and I suggest that he takes a look for himself. In his letter, he says, that visibility at the junction is "less than desirable". It is actually much better than average for the A1 and very much better for heavy vehicles than the difficult turning to the service area at North Charlton, which the Minister seems to think is safer.
  I wish that the Department's officials would stop passing the buck to the county council, which is merely its agent, and which, if questioned, will always pass the buck straight back to the Department of Transport. Nobody seems to be prepared to take the responsibility. In his letter, the Minister claims to be acting on the county council's advice, but at a recent stormy meeting with Alwick district council, the Department of Transport's official, Mr. Poulson, took the lead. He was quoted as saying that the Secretary of State believes that these caravans increase the accident problem because they attract people. If there were no people, we would not need any roads. There is no record of any accidents caused by the caravans. It is on the sections of the road the Department of Transport officials have designed to be safe that the fatal accidents have happened, not where these refreshment caravans are. Once again, bureaucracy has taken over from a proper assessment of the needs of people on the spot.
  I will give the Minister details by letter of the errors in the advice he has been given and I hope that he will look at the matter again. In doing so, I hope that he will bear out his intervention when he said that he is concerned that

  847
  there should not be an attack on any one business. If he looks at the matter again, I am sure that he will want to review the decision.
  I plead with the Minister to reconsider his instructions that all litter bins should be removed from lay-bys, except those with special facilities. Many people travelling long journeys are not willing to keep banana skins, chip papers and other rubbish in their cars and the absence of litter bins is an invitation to careless dumping. Some of it causes serious problems for farmers when small polythene bags blow into fields in which cattle are grazing. As soon as one crosses the border into Scotland different rules seems to apply and litter bins are available. Why is there a difference in policy on either side of the border on the same road?
  The once proud great north road is now out of date in relation to modern traffic speeds and modern road standards. The Department's attitude to the growth of small businesses along it is equally out of date and does not fit the climate of small business growth and tourism and certainly does not fit an enterprise culture. It is vital to both nations—England and Scotland—to the north-east and to the borders that we should have a great north road for the next century and that enterprise is given a chance to flourish alongside it. It should be a safe route and a corridor of success.
  2.1 am
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has shown what a pity it is that his party picked another person to lead it. I shall disagree with one or two of the things said by the hon. Gentleman, but he has shown that he can master his brief rather better than some of his colleagues and that he can speak in an engaging way, even though what he says is not always consistent with what he said five minutes before. He is a good constituency Member of Parliament and we would have liked to see him as the leader of his party, because he would have done it better. Good party leadership is good for the country.
  I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman's party should return to partial government, because when it formed part of the Lib-Lab pact it was part of a gang that managed to halve national road spending in the five years from 1974–79. One of the reasons why fewer roads have been built than many would have liked to see—than even the last Labour Government would have liked to see—is that the economy was in such a mess that we had to wait for a change of Government to bring about growth in the economy and the improvements—with some difficulties—that have made it possible to increase the road spending programme.
  I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about the great north road. There is a great deal to be said for getting some good names back for our roads, and the great north road is one of the best, whether it is being used by an enormous amount of traffic or by a reasonable amount of traffic. Through Northumberland, the road is generally used by a reasonable amount of traffic. I am glad that there are joint studies between the Scottish Transport Department and the Department of Transport in England. We should have a route without discontinuity at the border. That is important as we move from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed's constituency to the constituency of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr.
  848
  Home Robertson). I am sorry to see that there are no Scottish nationalist Members present to look after their constituents' interests.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I am here.
  Mr. Bottomley: I have already paid tribute to the hon. Member for East Lothian.
  We look forward to the conclusions on the joint studies. It is too early to comment now.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed talked about dangers. The first part of his speech was about cutting casualties. The second part of his speech said that perceptions of road risks are not as important as signs and in the later part of his speech he seemed to be an enthusiast for informal signs by the side of the road. Even with what I gently call the "reasonable" traffic flows on the Al in Northumberland, he should accept that our policy of having reduced signing wherever possible is one of the reasons why Britain has the safest roads in relation to population, in the motorised world. Not only do we have the safest roads, but they have been becoming safer, faster.
  I was pleased to see that the figures for the third quarter of 1988 show that the number of people killed or seriously injured has been reduced by 6 per cent. The same sort of improvement was achieved during the previous year even though traffic growth was 4 per cent. a year for each of the past two years.
  I pay tribute to many motorists, but 95 per cent. of the crashes and collisions that take place, leading to 300,000 people a year being injured and 5,000 being killed, are in substantial part the result of human error. Many new roads are intrinsically much safer than those that they replace, but they are potentially risky during their first few months of use as motorists become used to them. Someone who has driven through a village or town at a relatively slow speed, being within a built-up area, will sometimes start to use a bypass as though it is a race track. There are accidents on race tracks, and sometimes accidents take place on new roads. Whenever I am involved in cutting a tape to mark the opening of a new road, I welcome its construction but advise users to exercise care and caution while they are getting used to the road's new features.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed half alluded to the fact that, on the Al in Northumberland, the: injury rate is about two thirds of the average for that type of road. Given the bypasses that have been built and some of the improvements that are planned, the rate is better than average, but that is not good enough. The numbers of those who die, those who are seriously injured and those who are slightly injured are too high. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set a target of reducing the. number of those killed or seriously injured by one third by the year 2000.
  The House will have the opportunity of considering a Bill that is to be promoted by the hon. Member for East Lothian. Without commenting on its merits, it will be one of the few occasions during the past three years when an hon. Member has introduced a Bill that is designed to improve adult safety. A measure was introduced last year dealing with child restraints in cars, and, with the building of new roads and adapting the behaviour of drivers, we are trying to reduce the number of casualties. That is often the reason for having new roads, but we recognise also the importance of environmental improvements that can be gained by taking through traffic out of residential areas.

  849
  New roads can often lead to more jobs. If we can change the economic geography of a region by introducing better communications, either by new roads or by rail, we can serve the local people better.
  One advantage of having more than one highway authority is that there is more than one approach, which means that results can be compared. Litter bins have been removed from most trunk roads because road users do not confine the litter that they place in a bin to that which is generated during a journey. They tend to take with them boxes and plastic sacks, or beds, for example, and leave them lying around. The result is that polythene bags are to be found in many agricultural areas. They are blown by the wind and scattered over considerable distances. They are eyesores around a lay-by where litter bins are still to be found.
  The experience that we have gained from pilot studies is that the amount of litter is less when litter bins are removed. That sounds like a paradox, but that is the evidence. It may be that, as we move through the 100 km of Northumberland on the A1, we shall find that there is more of a Scottish pattern. Perhaps the people of Scotland take less waste out of their houses to take in their cars to a lay-by than the people of England. Scottish people may not open the boot and dump many other items apart from the waste that has been generated during their journey, but it is always open to local authorities in England to embark on more amenity cleaning. If the hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed or for East Lothian would like to have more information on litter bins, I shall happily send it to them.
  When I came to the Department of Transport, there needed to be a traffic flow of about 18,000 vehicles a day before consideration would be given to dualling. I am pleased that, during my time, it has been possible to start considering it where there is a flow of about 11,000 vehicles a day. That does not mean that a road with such a flow will automatically be dualled. Consideration can be given to dualling, however, where there is a flow of that sort. It would be wrong to go for dualling at Alnwick, where the traffic flow is about 6,000 vehicles a day, or at another place on the A1, where the flow is below 4,000. Where we count flows of about 15,000 vehicles a day it is possible to consider dualling—on some stretches we already have it.
  Where it is possible to have low-cost remedial measures, we take them. We are keen to find out where more local problems exist. The hon. Gentleman referred to the mis-siting of traffic signs. If we have not got it right, we shall reconsider. I ask the hon. Gentleman to let me or the regional office know about what he or the local council regards as a wrongly sited sign, such as where sight lines are obscured for no good reason. I shall ensure that such examples are looked into. That type of detailed knowledge is of value to us and it shows the merits of single-Member constituencies, as one person can take a keen interest in where signs are planted.
  The hon. Gentleman's real point is that there are further opportunities for improving the great north road up through Northumberland. He will agree that there are opportunities further south as well. He spoke about the Al through Yorkshire. Nobody can be satisfied with the rate of improvement, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join my club and say that we should get the A1 improved
  850
  before we think of building an extension of the M11 to the Humber bridge and beyond, as an alternative route to Yorkshire. The A1 is the great north road, and must take priority. Although it is now all wider than 10 ft., it has a long way to go.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) spoke about the Al today. As it was not in a Lobby, I think that I can regard what he said as not totally confidential. He is keen for the Al in that part of the world to be improved. I know that Yorkshire Members are as well. I pay tribute to the staff of the Department of Transport in many regions who are trying to tackle the problems of the A1. I hope that the whole House agrees that it is important to try to get the priorities right. That does not necessarily mean spending all the money on getting the greatest traffic flows. We must get the right balance so that we get measurable benefits in terms of time saving for people who obey the speed limits.
  We can give quantifiable relief to many people who are affected by through traffic. The growth of traffic during the past 40 years has meant that many villages and towns have been separated by a fairly constant flow of heavy traffic. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman was getting at. He spoke about saving lives. He and I are aware that, today, 14 families received a knock on the door from a policeman announcing that a father or mother, husband or wife, or son or daughter would not come home again because they had died in a road crash.
  It is no comfort to learn that in France, for example, the figure would be nearly 30, and that in Germany it would be about 20, for the same population. Even if we are about the best in the world, there are dramatic improvements to be made. They will come, partly, by having better roads which allow people to make fewer mistakes and render the mistakes that are made less damaging than when there is competition and conflict in a built-up area or a narrow road.
  I would like to put in a plea to local people when a road has been included in the roads programme. When the highway authority, whether the Department or the county, asks for public views, people should try to anticipate whether they think the road is necessary. If they think that it is, they should try to resolve—after proper consultation—which is the best route, so that the road can be built more quickly. We are trying to reduce the time between entry into the programme and public consultation by years, if at all possible. After public consultation, we can move forward to the draft order stage and get the necessary public inquiry through without undue delay. It is possible to bring forward the benefits of new roads, as the hon. Gentleman said, that is one way to save lives.
  Northumberland is not the easiest county in which to build roads. The hon. Gentleman expressed some surprise at rumours that there might be a new route across the border. I hope that, where a new road is on the margin of being built as a dual carriageway, we can find ways of making some of the structures fit for a widened road so that, when extra traffic is generated, it is possible to expand the capacity of the road instead of being prevented from doing that because the structures were only planned for the 15 or 30 years that were easily foreseeable. However, that is not a promise that every structure will be built for a dual carriageway, but we must try to take into account Northumberland's topography.
  I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he made his speech. Life is not quite as simple in

  851
  roadside trading as is sometimes suggested. It is not necessarily sensible to allow a proliferation of signs for small businesses. I hope that the Department can continue to be flexible so that the rules which apply to a motorway carrying 120,000 vehicles a day are not necessarily applied to a road carrying 10,000 a day. We need some consistency in making road safety a priority.
  If it is possible to find ways of meeting some of the needs that the hon. Gentleman has suggested should be met, either in terms of stopovers for lorry drivers or for signs for small businesses, I hope that we can play our part. In turn, I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise that a forest of signs or lay-bys providing refreshments in a slightly unplanned way, is not necessarily the best way to serve the travelling public, whether in commercial vehicles or cars. It is not necessarily the best way to get the jobs which some refreshment sites can offer. The hon. Gentleman should continue to consult the county council and local councils to see whether there are better ways to make provision instead of testing the safety of any particular site as has happened in the past.
  Mr. Beith: The Minister's confidence in the Government's ability to plan for people's refreshment requirements is politically inappropriate and not borne out by experience. Many people involved in roadside businesses who want signs, would be willing to co-operate
  852
  if the advice to them was, "Please put signs in a more sensible position and please only one sign." A strategic look at the A1, of a kind that the Minister has not referred to so far, will be necessary. Traffic flows on the A1 would increase greatly if it was of a quality to attract traffic off less suitable roads and if it stimulated the economic development which the area needs.
  Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is one of the reasons why I normally get it in the neck for saying that I do not intend to spend taxpayers' money to allow more people to give up their British Rail season tickets to commute into central London by car. It may also be one of the reasons why someone else will be answering the next Adjournment debate on transport matters. I can think of many good reasons for building roads in some very busy areas. However, to build them simply to allow more regular journeys into the centre by car is not terribly sensible.
  We are very keen to look strategically at the Al in Northumberland. We have put forward additions to the roads programme, and they are likely to come one by one. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome them.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Two o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Food Inspection (Ministerial Responsibilities)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the respective responsibilities of the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for food inspection.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) on 7 December 1988 at column 163 concerning the division of responsibility between the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Food inspection under the Food Act 1984 is a local authority responsibility. The district councils, including London boroughs, are responsible for food hygiene and safety inspections. The county councils and the London boroughs are responsible for inspections for the composition and labelling of food.

  Interviews (Transcripts)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will arrange for transcripts made by the Central Office of Information of interviews she gives to be placed in the Library after publication of the interviews.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Security Services
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Attorney-General how many of(a) his staff and (b) those in the Crown Prosecution Service are devoted to matters relating to the security services.

  The Attorney-General
  None.

  Director of Public Prosecutions
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Attorney-General when he next plans to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what will be discussed.

  The Attorney-General
  On Thursday 9 February, 1989. We plan to discuss a variety of matters of departmental interest.

  Irish Attorney-General
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Irish Attorney-General; and what subjects were discussed.

  The Attorney-General
  On Thursday 29 September 1988. We had a constructive meeting in regard to matters 368
  of concern to our respective responsibilites, in particular extradition between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

  Guildford Four
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received on the conduct of the Guildford Four case.

  The Attorney-General
  None. As the hon. Member will know, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has now decided to refer the case to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1968.

  Abortion
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions were brought in 1987 by the Crown Prosecution Service under the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions were brought by the Crown Prosecution Service under the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 in 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions were brought by the Crown Prosecution Service under the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 in 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service brought one prosecution in 1987 under the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929.

  Live Births
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions were brought in 1988 by the Crown Prosecution Service for failure to register live births; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  None.

  Director of Public Prosecutions
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what matters were discussed.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave today to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).

  Mr. Brian Clough
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will ask the Crown Prosecution Service to undertake proceedings against Mr. Brian Clough of Nottingham for common assault.

  The Attorney-General
  No. It is for the police to decide whether or not to institute criminal proceedings. If proceedings are instituted, the matter is then passed to the Crown prosecution service for independent consideration. It will employ the criteria set out in the code for Crown prosecutors.

  "The Guardian" (Prosecution)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Attorney-General pursuant to his written reply to the hon. Member for Birmingharm,
  369
  Erdington on 16 January, Official Report, column 11, whether proceedings are to be instituted against Mr. Richard Norton-Taylor of The Guardian, and its editor Mr. Peter Preston, arising from the publication on 4 January of the name and background of the new head of the Secret Intelligence Service.

  The Attorney-General
  No.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Attorney-General how many justices of the peace there are now; how many there were five, 10, 15 and 20 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The total numbers of active justices of the peace in England and Wales, in January of the years mentioned and rounded to the nearest hundred, was as follows:

  1989 — 28,200

  1984 — 25,800

  1979 — 24,000

  1974 — 21,500

  1970 — 19,300(the earliest year for the figures are avilable)

  I welcome the opportunity to record the Lord Chancellor's appreciation of the voluntary work done by increasing numbers of justices, drawn from all ages, communities and backgrounds up and down the country. They make an essential and much appreciated contribution to the administration of justice.

  Magistrates (Selection Committees)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Attorney-General how many advisory panel members for magistrates' selection committees have requested that they remain anonymous.

  The Attorney-General
  Advisory committees have until the end of 1992 to make their membership known. Whether, and if so when, they do so before that time is a matter for each advisory committee to decide.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Food and Agriculture Organisation
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met officials of the Food and Agriculture Organisation; and what issues were discussed.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I met the director-general on 13 December 1988. We discussed the locust situation in Africa and the threat to the world's tropical rain forests. I received a report on progress of the review of the Food and Agriculture Organisation's objectives and functions.

  India
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of aid given by the Government to India; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Our gross bilateral aid expenditure on India was estimated to be about £90 million in the financial year 1987–88. We are awaiting final confirmation of the figures. At that level, India remains our largest bilateral aid programme.

  Eggs
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to ship eggs to Eritrea, the Sudan and other countries with a food supply problem; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I have no such plans. Eggs and egg products are not suitable for general distribution as food aid. They can only be used under very strict control.

  Developing Countries (Debt Burden)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to reduce the debt burden of developing countries.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have made the major contribution to the interest subsidy account of the IMF's enhanced structural adjustment facility. We have converted nearly £1 billion of old aid loans into grants. The Paris Club is now implementing the special Toronto terms based on the sub-Saharan African initiative first proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1987. These are all very significant contributions towards lessening the debt burden on the poorest countries—and widely recognised as such.

  World Bank
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the president of the World bank; and what matters he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I understand that the president of the World bank plans to visit London in April, when I would expect to see him to discuss a range of policy issues of mutual interest and concern.

  "State of the World's Children"
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's response to the recent UNICEF report, "State of the World's Children".

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I welcome the publication of this report. It examines the problems faced by women and children in developing countries and is an example of the work of UNICEF in advocacy for children.

  Our contributions to UNICEF increased from £7·64 million in 1985–86 to over £15 million in the last financial year.

  Send a Cow Project
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the Send a Cow project.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The project, with support from our joint funding scheme, is progressing well. About half of the 54 cows sent to Uganda so far have already calved and the remainder are expected to calve within the next few weeks. Those chosen to receive the cows, including widows of the recent conflicts and others with large families and low incomes, both Moslem and Christian, are now starting to benefit from the extra milk yields.

  Aid (Effectiveness)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about current methods of assessing the effectiveness of overseas aid.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have developed well-tried systems both for ensuring and assessing the effectiveness of our aid. These include annual country review and objectives papers; project appraisal and monitoring; project completion reports; and the full evaluation of a sample of projects. A full account will be given in this year's public expenditure White Paper, to be published shortly.

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

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In the most recent year for which figures are available (1987), British aid disbursements to the four Caribbean dependencies in receipt of aid were £8,767,000, or £214 per head.

  I visited the Turks and Caicos Islands, the largest recipient of our aid, from 5 to 8 January and subsequently chaired in Barbados a meeting of dependent territory governors to review aid policy in the dependencies.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign arid Commonwealth Affairs what aid the United Kingdom is currently giving to Vietnam.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We do not provide bilateral aid to Vietnam. We are, however, contributing our share (about £540,000) of the cost of emergency food aid supplied through the European Community.

  India (Primary Education)
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution Britain is making to the development of primary education
  in India.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have contributed £1·3 million to a pilot project in the state of Andhra Pradesh. Two hundred classrooms have been built to improved designs which provide a better educational environment; and teachers and teacher educators have been trained in child centred learning techniques. We are now considering a proposal to extend the project throughout the state, at a cost of abou £30 million.

  Lomé Renegotiations
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to discuss the Lomé renegotiations with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Negotiations on a successor to the 3rd Lomé convention, which expires in February 1990, were opened formally in October last year.

  The first EC/ACP Ministerial negotiating meeting is in Brazzaville next month. I plan to attend this and
  372
  subsequent Ministerial negotiating meetings. I also intend to continue to raise Lomé issues on my bilateral visits to Africa, Caribbean and Pacific countries.

  Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference (Support)
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British support for the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The United Kingdom is a firm supporter of the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference (SADCC). Pledges of British bilateral assistance for SADCC projects now amount to some £60 million. I shall attend the SADCC annual conference in Angola next month.

  Armenian Earthquake
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding British aid in response to the Armenian earthquake.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I have received a great many representations from organisations, commercial companies and individuals offering donations, cost price relief supplies and personal help. It has been a magnificent and spontaneous response. The Soviet authorities have gone out of their way to express their gratitude for all the help provided from Britain.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Britain's contribution to the earthquake disaster relief operation in Armenia.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Of the £5 million emergency aid which I announced on 9 December 1988, some £1.4 million has been allocated in response to specific requests from the Soviet authorities for assistance with emergency relief and search-and-rescue measures. This phase of the relief operation is now over. The balance of our £5 million will be used for rehabilitation and reconstruction activities which are now under consideration by the Soviet authorities.

  Sudan (Debt)
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will undertake a study of the implications of the debt for development swap in Sudan with UNICEF, whereby Midland bank's debt exposure has been donated to finance development programmes for the Kordofan region, and as to what opportunities this precedent opens up for charitable work in the third world with the support of Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We warmly welcome the Midland bank's voluntary decision to reduce Sudan's debt obligations and the arrangements under which this will facilitate development work in the Sudan.

  ACP Countries
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on future aid and trade relations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of countries.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Aid and trade relations between the European Community and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries are governed by the Lomé conventions. Negotiations on a successor to the third Lomé convention, which expires in February 1990, were opened formally in October last year. We will be actively involved throughout the renegotiation.

  Nigeria
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, following the announcement of a grant of ․100 million being made available for Nigeria, he will publish the revised figures for the net aid programme including aid administration costs, for the financial years 1988–89 and 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  For the financial years 1988–89 and 1989–90, the net overseas aid budget, which includes aid administration, stands at £1,387 million and £1,430 million respectively. Assuming the conditions are met for the disbursement of the ․100 million aid grant for 1989 pledged as part of our Nigeria initiative, I would at present expect, on the basis of current exchange rates, that some £47 million would be added to the aid programme in 1989–90 for this purpose.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Staff (Pay)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the number of staff in his Department, by grade, in receipt of local pay additions outside London and the south-east economic planning region; what are the different amounts paid to staff by grade; whether this figure varies due to location; what qualifying period of scale-related criteria is used; and whether this varies by location.

  Mrs. Chalker
  All grades currently in receipt of local pay additions are employed in Central London and at Croydon. Details were contained in the answer to the hon. Member for Knowsley South (Mr. Hughes) of 20 October 1988 at column 984.

  Disarmament Policy
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the internationally monitored system of on-site inspections following a pre-emptory challenge of the nature of the work, or of materials stored, in relation to verification of chemical and biological disarmament; and what is his policy towards the formation of international inspection teams.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The concept of challenge on-site inspection currently under discussion at the conference on disarmament in Geneva in the negotiations for a374
  comprehensive convention banning chemical weapons is largely drawn from a United Kingdom proposal tabled in 1986. However, much work remains to be done to elaborate the detailed procedures which will be required to make the regime effective.

  It is agreed in the negotiations that on-site inspections will be carried out by international inspection teams drawn from the technical secretariat of the international organisation which will be established to oversee and administer the implementation of the convention.

  The development, production, stockpiling and use of biological weapons is already banned by the 1972 biological weapons convention to which over 100 states (including the United Kingdom) are party. This convention has no specific provision for on-site inspections, either routinely or on challenge.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the level of income at which the following should have a lower overall tax burden in real terms now than in 1979(a) a single man, (b) single woman, (c) married man, (d) married woman, (e) married man with wife not working and with one child, (f) married man with wife not working and with two children, (g) married man with wife not working and with three children and (h) married man with wife not working and with four children.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Available information is contained in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) on 10 January at columns 633–56.

  Foreign Investment
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on current foreign investment and capital flows into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Major
  Inflows of direct and portfolio investment into the United Kingdom are estimated to have been £6·8 billion in the first three quarters of 1988. Net capital inflows into the United Kingdom are estimated at £2·2 billion.

  Competitive Tendering
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will ensure that all public departments in determining the award of contracts under competitive tendering procedures give proper consideration to the maintenance of professional standards.

  Mr. Brooke
  The award of contracts for goods and services is primarily the responsibility of individual Departments. However, the Government's "Guidelines on Public Purchasing Policy", last issued by the Treasury in January 1987, require that such goods and services should be acquired by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. The guidelines provide that the assessment of value for money should take account of other factors as well as price, including the financial, technical and professional status of tenderers. At the same time, part of the function of the Treasury's central unit on purchasing is to increase the professionalism of
  375
  Government purchasing, by working with Departments to improve their organisation and systems and the training and professional skills of purchasing staff.

  Personal Savings
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the trend in personal savings.

  Mr. Lilley
  The personal sector saving ratio has fallen in recent years. However this has been largely offset by rises in saving by companies and the public sector, leaving total national savings broadly unchanged as a share of gross domestic product. Rises in interest rates in recent months will encourage more saving and less borrowing by households.

  Labour Costs (Manufacturing)
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest information on the growth of unit labour costs in manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Major
  In the three months to November 1988, manufacturing unit wage costs increased by 0·5 per cent. on the same period a year earlier.

  Tax Yield
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the expected yield of total taxes in 1988–89; and what were the comparable figures for 1978–79, using 1988–89 prices.

  Mr. Major
  Total taxes on income, expenditure and capital in 1988–89 are expected to yield £143·8 billion, as published in the autumn statement. The comparable figure for 1978–79 is £105·4 billion at 1988–89 prices.

  Inflation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast for the rate of inflation in 1989.

  Mr. Lilley
  The autumn statement contains the latest published forecast for RPI inflation in 1989.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outlook for general Government expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic profit.

  Mr. Major
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement to the House on 1 November 1988 set out the Government's plans for public spending. It noted that general Government expenditure (excluding privatisation proceeds) in 1988–89 is expected to be below 40 per cent. of GDP for the first time in over 20 years; and that over the next three years it is expected to fall further.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the current level of economic growth.
  376
  Mr. Major
  Gross domestic product is likely to have grown by around 4·5 per cent. in 1988. This would he the fourth consecutive year of growth in excess of three per cent., a performance unmatched since the war.

  Private Shareholders
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the number of private shareholders in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The joint Treasury and Stock Exchange survey carried out in January and February 1988 estimated that approximately 9 million people own shares, 20 per cent. of the adult population. This represents a threefold increase since 1979.

  Taxation Statistics
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the current figure would be if the £8,500 salary threshold after which tax is levied on the value of benefits such as company cars were to be raised to keep it in line with its real value when that £8,500 figure was set.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The earnings threshold at which benefits like a company car provided for private use becomes taxable was raised to £8,500 in 1979–80. If this threshold had been indexed in line with inflation according to the statutory formula for increasing personal allowances and thresholds, the threshold in 1988–89 would be £17,000.

  Taxation Changes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average individual cumulative gain to those earning £25,000 a year as a result of changes in taxation since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information for individuals with no reliefs other than the main personal allowance is as follows:

  Tax Liability in 1988–89 on earnings of £25,000

  1978–79 tax regime indexed for inflation £

  1988–89 tax regime £

  Reduction in tax liability £

  Single person

  8,012·50

  6,063·00

  1.949·50

  Married man

  7,423·75

  5,467·00

  1,957·00

  Income Tax
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are currently excluded from payment of income tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In 1988–89, it is estimated that some 11·3 million single people and married couples are not liable to income tax.

  Capital Gains Tax (Residential Property)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amounts were collected in capital gains tax on the sale of residential property in each of the last five years; and what numbers of properties were involved.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that no information is available centrally about sales by companies. For
  377
  individuals and trusts, limited information is available about assessments relating to sales in 1985–86. The capital gains tax on sales of properties identified as residential was about £100 million payable by about 40,000 taxpayers. In addition tax may have been paid on other residential property not identified as such.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what audit safeguards are currently in place to ensure that all payments of capital gains due on sales of residential property are properly made.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Most such sales are made by owner occupiers and are exempt from tax. Sales by developers and investors are picked up through the ordinary process of examining taxpayers' returns and business accounts, a proportion of which are checked against information supplied by third parties.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many prosecutions in respect of fraudulent mortgage interest relief at source claims have been instituted in each year since the inception of the scheme; and with what result.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  There were three criminal prosecutions by the police in 1987–88, all of which were successful. There have been another 10 so far this year of which eight were successful. Further prosecutions are pending.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants are currently employed in administering and calculating mortgage interest relief at source entitlements; and what were the numbers in each year since the inception of the scheme.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The estimated current number in terms of full time staff equivalents is 820. The numbers on the same basis in the earlier years were:

  Numbers

  1983–84

  1,000

  1984–85

  1,125

  1985–86

  1,000

  1986–87

  950

  1987–88

  950

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will tabulate in respect of both numbers employed and civil service grades those engaged in administering and calculating(a) mortgage interest relief at source entitlements and (b) capital gains tax on residential property.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The estimated figures in terms of full time staff equivalents are as follows:

  A: Mortgage interest relief at source

  Grade

  Numbers

  Inspector (P)

  1

  Inspector

  28

  Tax Officer (Higher Grade)

  250

  Tax Officer

  290

  Revenue Assistant

  170

  378

  Grade

  Numbers

  SEO

  1

  HEO

  12

  Executive Officer

  7

  Administrative Officer

  1

  Typists

  60

  Total

  820

  B: Capital gains tax on residential property

  Grade

  Numbers

  Senior Legal Assistant

  1

  Inspector (SP)

  1

  Inspector

  20

  Tax Officer (Higher Grade)

  11

  Tax Officer

  5

  Revenue Assistant

  19

  Principal Valuer

  12

  Senior Valuer

  30

  Valuer

  18

  Valuation Technician

  1

  Valuation Clerk

  4

  Typists

  3

  Total

  125

  Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust (Scotland)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the charitable status of the Atlantic salmon conservation trust (Scotland) in the light of evidence which was submitted to him by the hon. Member for East Lothian on 6 Septembr 1988.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The question of whether any particular body has charitable status is not one for Treasury Ministers.

  In Scotland, the Inland Revenue is responsible for deciding whether a body or trust which is claiming tax exemption as a charity is established for charitable purposes only. This is a matter of law.

  Responsibility for determining a particular taxpayer's liability lies with the Inland Revenue, subject to his rights of appeal to independent appeal commissioners and to the courts. As I explained in my letter of 26 September to the hon. Member, it is well recognised that Ministers do not seek to influence the Inland Revenue's decisions on particular cases. It would not be right therefore for me to intervene in this case.

  Local Pay Additions
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, in respect of the payment of local pay additions in the Central Computer and Telecommunication Agency, is the number of staff by grade, in respect of local pay additions outside London and the south-east economic planning region; what are the different amounts paid to staff, by grade; whether this varies due to location; what qualifying period of scale-related criteria is used; and whether this varies by location.

  Mr. Brooke
  There are no CCTA staff outside London and the south-east economic planning region in receipt of local pay additions.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of staff in Her Majesty's
  379
  Stationery Office, by grade, in receipt of local pay additions outside London and the south-east economic planning region; what are the differing amounts paid to staff, by grade; whether this figure varies due to location; what qualifying period of scale-related criteria is used; and whether this varies by location.

  Mr. Lilley
  None.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of staff of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, by grade, in receipt of local pay additions outside London and the south-east economic planning region; what are the differing amounts paid to staff by grade; whether this figure varies dues to location; what qualifying period of scale-related criteria is used; and whether this varies by location.

  Mr. Lilley
  None.

  "Using Private Enterprise in Government"
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any progress has been made in implementing the recommendation in paragraph 34(c) in "Using Private Enterprise in Government", on pooling information about contractors between Departments and inviting certain Departments to take responsibility for compiling data about the performance of contractors in certain industries.

  Mr. Brooke
  The central unit on purchasing maintains a data base of activities subjected to competitive tendering in Departments. This information is distributed annually to all Departments so that those contemplating market testing a particular activity can benefit from the experience of others who have already tested that activity. The CUP has also issued general guidance to Departments, which includes advice on contractor appraisal.

  VAT (Scotland)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the net value added tax receipts raised from Scotland in 1987–88.

  Mr. Lilley
  Information about value added tax receipts is not available on a regional basis.

  Taxpayers (Scotland)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of individual taxpayers resident in Scotland, and the approximate amount of tax raised from them in 1987–88.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The latest available information covers residents of Scotland liable to tax for 1986–87. Including married women whose earned income exceeded the wife's earned income allowance, as well as their husbands and single people, the total was about 2,070,000 individuals, with income tax liability of about £3,250 million.

  Corporation Tax (Scotland)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the corporation tax raised from taxpayers having their seat in Scotland.
  380
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that information on which to base an estimate is not available centrally.

  Personal Savings
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies his Department has carried out into the effect on personal savings of a reduction in the higher rate of capital gains tax to 25 per cent.; and if he will publish the results of such studies.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  We examine a large number of options covering the whole range of the tax system as part. of the Budget process. It is not customary to publish the results of studies into the effects of tax rate changes.

  Private Schools
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the concessions available to private educational establishments in Scotland with charitable status.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I assume that the hon. Member has in mind tax reliefs.

  Private education establishments in Scotland which have charitable status are entitled to the same direct tax reliefs as any other charity in the United Kingdom. Charities are generally exempt from income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax, provided that their income and gains are applied for charitable purposes only.

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

  Budget Statement
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the contents of his forthcoming Budget Statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend has received a large number of representations covering a variety of proposals.

  Personal Disposable Income
  Mr. Raison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage change in real personal disposable income broken down into the top 1 per cent., next 9 per cent., next 40 per cent. and bottom 50 per cent. quartiles for every year since 1959.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 10 January 1989]: I regret that information in the form requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Pensions
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the work force has opted for personal pensions or is in money purchase schemes contracted out.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply. The latest available figure (June 1988) for the work force* of the United Kingdom is 28,164,000 Over 800,000 people have opted for a personal pension since they were introduced in July 1988. Over 6,500 contracted-out money purchase (COMP) schemes have been set up: no figures are available on the number of individuals involved.
  381
  * Employment Gazette January 1989. Work force in employment plus claimant unemployed.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Student Awards
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the average award received by students from Durham local education authority in their first year at university, polytechnic or other institution of higher education.

  Mr. Jackson
  The average amounts received by students in higher education from Durham local education authority for the 1986–87 academic year were £1,451 per award holder in maintenance and £641 per award holder in fees. Data are not collected separately for first-year students.

  Fees
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any proposals for introducing changes in the administration of fees in higher education.

  Mr. Jackson
  We are considering the possibility of increasing the impact of student enrolments through some shift in the public funding of higher education from the grant to be disbursed by the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council towards students' fees met under the mandatory awards arrangements. When we have a clear proposal, we shall consult the various interests before taking a decision.

  Natural Environment Research Council
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about staff redundancies in the Natural Environment Research Council.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department has received 166 representations about staff redundancies in the NERC. Staffing levels are for the council itself to determine. I am informed that areas of high priority science have been safeguarded, and I understand that only about 41 compulsory redundancies are now expected, less than half the number originally announced. The redundancies arise from the council's planning to reflect changing scientific priorities and to keep within its projected budget following a reduction in income for commissioned research.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research is now undertaken by the Natural Environment Research Council in respect of the greenhouse effect; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Such research spans many NERC fields of activity. Major relevant projects in the marine sciences directorate include the biogeochemical ocean flux study, the fine Resolution Antarctic model, and the world ocean circulation experiment, while the terrestrial and freshwater directorate's work includes improving global climate model predictions. The British Antarctic Survey does long-term meteorological and climate studies, and the ocean drilling programme improves understanding of past 382
  global climate. NERC also administers four CEGB-funded fellowships relating to greenhouse gases, and supports the United Kingdom universities' global atmospheric modelling project and the tropical ocean and global atmosphere project.

  School of Peace Studies, Bradford University
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much grant was provided for the school of peace studies at Bradford university by the University Grants Committee for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Jackson
  The public funding of universities is not earmarked in this way. It is for each university to decide how to fund its departments from the UGC block grant and the other income at its disposal.

  Schools (Vandalism)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that all local education authorities collect statistics on the incidence of arson and vandalism in schools and colleges on a uniform basis.

  Mr. Butcher
  I am discussing with the local authority associations the best way of collecting these statistics on a uniform basis, as part of an information-gathering exercise to support the efforts of the special action squad in vandalism and arson in schools.

  Edinburgh University
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response he is making to the representations of Sir David Smith FRS, in relation to the financing of the university of Edinburgh.

  Mr. Jackson
  University lecturers' pay has increased by 24 per cent. since 1986 and negotiations for a 1989–90 settlement are in progress. Government grant to universities is to be increased by about 5 per cent. in 1989–90 and it is for them to assess what pay increase they can afford.

  School Governors
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he intends to take steps to prevent the unreasonable removal of school governors by local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is for local authorities to decide who to appoint to the places on school governing bodies reserved for them. But they must exercise their powers reasonably, and we would consider very carefully any complaint that an authority had not done so in a particular instance.

  School Libraries
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on school library provision.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is for individual institutions to decide what library and other provision to make from the total funds at their disposal. However, an additional £9 million
  383
  has been allocated to universities through the University Grants Committee for the period 1987–88 to 1989–90 specifically for the purchase of books and periodicals, together with £2 million provided in 1987–88 and 1988–89 to enable university libraries to link with computer networks to improve access.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what prior undertaking on capital expenditure he can give to city technology college promoters planning to establish city technology colleges in the premises of existing maintained schools before proposals are made for those purposes under section 12 of the Education Act 1980 or section 14 of the Education Act 1944.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  My answer of 28 July 1988 to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) at column 402 set out the factors I would take into account in deciding proposals which came to me under the provisions of section 12 of the Education Act 1980 and which had as an objective making premises available for the establishment of a city technology college. Should the governors of a voluntary school seek my leave to give notice of their intention to discontinue the school under the provisions of section 14 of the Education Act 1944, for a similar objective, I shall take the same factors into account, in addition to the other requirements laid down in that section.

  I made it clear in that statement that, in considering any such proposals, I should need to satisfy myself specifically that the sponsors' plans were sufficiently clear, considered and developed; and that, subject to my approval of the proposals, I had reached agreement in principle with the promoters on a funding agreement. A key aspect of the latter is the grant I am prepared to make available towards the capital costs involved in the establishment of all CTCs. Clearly promoters will need to have a firm indication from me of the level of that grant in order to prepare plans that are sufficiently well developed to satisfy the LEA or governors that the closure or discontinuance of the existing school is justified.

  In order to be able to give such a firm undertaking I shall need to consider what expenditure on the premises is likely to be required for a CTC established there to meet the basic requirements of the programme, but in giving any such indication I shall make clear that any capital grant is subject to a detailed feasibility study and to my decision on the statutory proposals or applications, which will be treated strictly on their merits.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give details of any revisions to cash limits on his Department's Votes in 1988–89.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, where appropriate, cash limits for the following votes will be revised as follows:384

  Class and Vote

  Current cash limit £1000s

  Increase/ reduction £1000s

  Revised cash limit £1000s

  XII. 1

  481,457

  -547

  480,910

  XII. 3

  1,849,624

  + 40

  1,849,664

  XII. 4

  67,735

  -10

  67,725

  XII. 5

  60,179

  + 979

  61,158

  An increase of £410,000 is being sought on class XII, vote 3 for expenditure originally included in provision on class XII, vote 1 in respect of outstanding liabilities for Goldsmiths' College. The increase on class XII, vote 3 reflects the inclusion of this expenditure following the college's incorporation as part of the University of London. A matching and offsetting reduction on class XII, vote 1 is also sought.

  A reduction of £370,000 to the cash limit for class XII, vote 3 is also sought to reflect the decision not to seek supplementary provision in respect of the carry forward of capital underspend under the end year flexibility scheme as previously announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 21 July 1988 at columns 725–728.

  A further reduction of £137,000 is also sought to the cash limit on class XII, vote 1 to reflect the transfer of complete responsibility for trade union education and training to the Department of Employment. A matching increase will be made to the Department of Employment's cash limit on class VII, vote 1.

  A reduction of £10,000 is sought to the cash limit on class XII, vote 4 to reflect the transfer of £4,000 to the Office of Minister for the Civil Service for the cost of recruitment under the direct entry grade 7 competition 1988, and of £6,000 to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to reflect increased costs of a commissioned survey. Matching increases will be made to the cash limits on class XX, vote 1 and class X, vote 16 respectively.

  My Department's running cost limit will also decrease by £10,000 from £66,203,000 to £66,193,000.

  The increase on class XII, vote 5 reflects two changes to the vote of the Agricultural and Food Research Council. An increase of £1,760,000 is being sought to assist the AFRC in meeting the costs of restructuring made necessary by the reductions in research commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This increase is offset by a reduction of £781,000 to reflect the reduction in grant from the AFRC to the Institute of Plant Science Research to take account of receipts from the sale of the assets of the Plant Breeding Institute.

  Any net increase in expenditure on these votes as a result of these changes will be charged to the reserve. The overall planned total of expenditure will therefore remain unchanged.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Saunond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table showing the proportion of school leavers in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Northern Ireland who continued into (i) university education and (ii) other higher education for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is as follows. The figures reflect the intended destination of school leavers.
  385

  Proportion of school leavers intending to proceed to university or other higher education

  Academic years

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  England*

  Universities

  6·1

  6·2

  6·1

  5·9

  5·5

  5·5

  5·4

  5·5

  5·5

  Other institutions2

  2·1

  2·1

  2·8

  2·9

  2·7

  2·9

  2·9

  2·8

  2·7

  Wales1

  Universities

  6·2

  6·3

  6·5

  5·4

  6·0

  5·6

  5·7

  6·1

  5·5

  Other institutions2

  2·5

  2·7

  2·7

  3·9

  3·3

  3·5

  3·7

  4·0

  3·3

  Northern Ireland3

  Universities

  —

  9·6

  —

  9·7

  —

  12·2

  —

  12·3

  12·1

  Other institutions

  —

  5·7

  —

  5·9

  —

  3·0

  —

  4·5

  4·6

  1 Based on 10 per cent, sample of pupils in each school.

  2 Including only those courses of higher education which are readily identifiable from the school leavers survey.

  3 Figures available biennially only until 1985–86.

TRANSPORT

  Airport Security
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to put into effect the 21 recommendations made in 1986 by the Select Committee on Transport, particularly the proposals in relation to air security which requested a special security fund to finance airport safety, and the introduction of banding machines for baggage in the wake of the Lockerbie disaster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The response published in November 1986 made it clear that the Government accepted most of the Select Committee's recommendations, either wholly or in part.

  The response explained what further action would be taken on each recommendation. Work has been carried forward as promised.

  The particular recommendations mentioned by the hon. Member were not amongst those accepted. Banding machines can make a limited contribution to security, because of the high proportion of soft bags, and bags with outside compartments.

  An aviation security fund has already been tried. It was abandoned because it was bureaucratic, complicated and costly to administer. It provided little incentive to efficiency.

  The current arrangements for financing aviation security do not suffer from such problems. They do not inhibit the maintenance of proper security measures.

  Railway Development
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects to announce the main findings of the central London rail study; whether any proposals from Her Majesty's Government will be announced at the same time; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend expects to make an announcement on the findings of the central London rail study shortly.

  M40 (Extensions)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether further extensions to the M40 will be to a three-lane standard.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The M40 extension north of Wendlebury is being built as a dual three-lane motorway.
  386
  Decisions following the inquiry into the final section between Wendlebury and Waterstock will be announced shortly.

  United Kingdom Decca Chain and Loran C (Options)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to issue a letter of consultation about the available options for the United Kingdom Decca chain and Loran C; if he will list the parties who will be consulted; if he will list the Decca Radio and power supply equipment transmitter sites which need replacing in the next five years; and who will be representing the United Kingdom at the relevant discussions in Dublin in February.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend intends to issue a consultation document in the spring on the options for marine radio navigation systems in United Kingdom waters. He intends to consult bodies with marine and related interests, including those representing users and the general lighthouse authorities. The question of equipment renewals for the existing Decca Navigator system is a matter for Racal Decca Marine Navigation Limited under the company's current contract with the general lighthouse authorities, which runs to 1994. At the Dublin meeting of the international Loran C policy group, which is considering the feasibility of establishing a North West European Loran C system, the United Kingdom will be represented by officials from the Department and the general lighthouse authorities.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department will commission a report on the feasibility of the construction of a Liverpool land bridge for traffic moving between north America and the continent when the Channel tunnel opens in 1993.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 16 January to the question by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) at column 81

  Motor Cycles
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the criteria for the proposal to limit newly qualified motor cycle drivers to 400 cc machines; whether high brake horsepower output machines will be included; for what period this limitation will apply; and if he will make a statement.
  387
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The EC Commission is expected to propose that, as part of its plans for further harmonisation of driver licence categories, inexperienced riders should be limited to motor bikes below a certain size or power. The limit is likely to be 400 cc or 35 kw. It remains unclear how these would relate to each other. We agree with the Commission's objective. We are still considering the details of the proposals.

  The Commission is also expected to propose a separate test before motor cyclists may ride more powerful machines. We believe that two years riding experience would be a sufficient safeguard. We shall continue to argue for this and against introducing a new special test. Unfortunately, our position has not been made clear in some press reports on this issue.

  East London River Crossing
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what value per hectare was given to land lost in Oxleas wood to the construction of the east London river crossing in his Department's cost bearing analysis of that scheme.

  Mr. Channon
  This information is not available.

  For the purpose of the cost benefit analysis, the district valuer provided an overall estimate of the cost to all land and property required for the scheme, including 8·3 hectares in Oxleas wood. The estimate also included the cost of land to be acquired and dedicated as open space in exchange for the land taken for the wood.

  Autoguide
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the introduction of Autoguide in London.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Government believe that advanced driver information systems such as autoguide can do much to ease congestion and so make better use of our roads. The Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill, now before Parliament, demonstrates our commitment to this exciting new technology.

  The Government have today invited the private sector to make proposals for installing a pilot autoguide scheme in the London area. A copy of the guidelines has been placed in the Library. Subject to a satisfactory proposal being received, and to the Road Traffic Bill becoming law, we hope that a licence can be issued this year.

  We envisage that the pilot scheme will involve around 1,000 vehicles. Its operation will be closely monitored by the Department of Transport working in collaboration with the autoguide operator. We are discussing with local authority associations and the police how they might be involved in monitoring the pilot scheme.

  Provided that the pilot scheme demonstrates the satisfactory performance of autoguide it is our intention that the operator should be authorised to upgrade the scheme to a fully commercial autoguide system, to which the public would be able to subscribe. This would mean that motorists could have autoguide equipment in their cars by the early to mid-1990s.

  London Docklands
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further steps he is taking to improve transport for London docklands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I, together with the private sector, are investing heavily to improve access to docklands.

  London Regional Transport is taking steps, in co-operation with GEC, to ensure that the docklands light railway fully meets its performance specification. The Government are supporting a major programme of upgrading and extension of the docklands light railway. The service to Bank will be open next year and will be fully operational by 1991. The carrying capacity of the railway will then be more than three times its present level. Further enhancement is planned to meet the needs of the full development at Canary wharf. A Bill to authorise extension of the railway to Beckton is currently before Parliament.

  To accommodate the rapid pace of development in docklands, the Government believe that additional rail infrastructure will be required to supplement the docklands light railway. I have therefore established an east London rail study which is examining the best options for improving rail access from central London to docklands and east Thames-side. The study will include Olympia and York's proposal for a new underground railway between Waterloo and Greenwich peninsula via the Isle of Dogs, and the options canvassed in the docklands access consultation document on which LRT and the LDDC are currently seeking views. The work is being carried out by Halcrow Fox and Associates for my Department, the Department of the Environment and LRT. It would take into account the benefits which new rail links will provide to property owners and developers and the contributions which they should be expected to provide. It will also take into account the potential for new housing development in East Thames-side. Subject to the conclusions of the east London rail study and to the negotiation of satisfactory contributions from all developers concerned, the Government would wish to see a new line built and the deposit of a Bill in November this year.

  In parallel with these improvements in the public transport network, a substantial programme of work is in hand to give docklands an effective internal road network and link it to the strategic road system. The LDDC is proceeding, subject to the statutory procedures, with its plans for Limehouse link road to be completed by 1993 and with other new schemes to serve docklands traffic. Within my own programme, I am developing the strategic road network in east London through improvement to the A 13, the Hackney/M11 link, upgrading the north circular road and extending it to the A2 via the east London river crossing.

  In order to carry forward the improvement of transport to and within docklands, I am asking my hon. Friend the Minister of State to take the lead in co-ordinating the activities of the various agencies involved and to ensure an adequate level of service while construction work is being carried out. He will be supported by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment with special responsibility for inner cities.

  Public Service Vehicles (Failures)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will publish in the Official Report the information his Department now collects on the failure rates of public service vehicles; and if he will specify the levels of disaggregation;

  (2) what information his Department now collects on the pass rates of public service vehicles at the annual Department of Transport tests; and if he will indicate the levels of disaggregation at which he will make this information available.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding replies 18 and 19 January 1989]: The Department's vehicle inspectorate executive agency collects information on the results of all public service vehicles at annual test. National and regional analyses of this information are contained in the inspectorate's annual report and accounts 1987–88, a copy of which is held in the statistical section of the House of Commons library.

  Further analysis of the information on a sub-regional basis is also available and can be sent to the hon. Member if required.

  International Maritime Organisation
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he foresees any potential adverse effects upon safety legislation in the United Kingdom if any deliberations of the International Maritime Organisation are delayed as a result of members' contribution defaults; what steps are being taken to remedy the default situation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding reply 13 January 1989]: No adverse effect on the United Kingdom's safety legislation programme is foreseen, given that the International Maritime Organisation's maritime safety committee is to meet in 1989 as originally planned. At its November meeting, the IMO council requested the secretary general to remind member states of their obligation to pay their assessments on time. This is being reinforced by direct approaches by the secretary general, and individual member states, to those governments currently in default, including Panama which has the largest accumulation of arrears. In addition, the council has established a Working Group to examine and advise on the organisation's longer-term financial solution.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  DNA Tests
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the outcome of his review of the cases of over-age applicants for entry certificates as dependent children who were refused entry before they were 18 years old and have since proved they were wrongly refused by the use of DNA tests.

  Mr. Renton
  I am not yet in a position to announce any conclusion on this matter, but I hope to be able to do so before long.

  Criminal Injuries
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for statistics on criminal injuries to include information on the number of such injuries sustained by people during their working time.

  Mr. John Patten
  Statistics on criminal injuries are held centrally by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board but only in relation to applications made for compensation. The board publishes figures relating to police officers injuries on duty (paragraph 7.1 of their latest annual report, Cm. 536) but has no plans to collect such information for other occupations.

  Race Relations
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to being about an increase in the numbers of black people applying to join the prison service.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Recent advertising campaigns have specifically highlighted the need for recruits from the ethnic minorities, and recruitment material emphasises the service's commitment to racial equality. In addition, several initiatives have been taken to improve contacts with ethnic minority groups to explain the work of the prison service, and these will continue.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that boards of visitors comment on race relations in their annual reports.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Advice on the format and content of annual reports, which specifically lists race relations as an item for comment, was reissued on 21 December to all board chairmen in anticipation of the preparation of reports for 1988.

  Football (Arrests)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 1988 on football statistics,Official Report, columns 56 to 60, he will publish similar tables for the 1987–88 English Football League season showing the number of arrests of home and away supporters on each ground plus the numbers of each team's supporters who were arrested on away grounds.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department

  (1) how many of the 6,147 arrests at Football League matches last season took place within football grounds;

  (2) how many of the 6,147 people arrested at Football League matches during the last season were convicted as a result.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information collated by the Association of Chief Police Officers on arrests at Football League matches in England and Wales does not distinguish between arrests made inside grounds and arrests directly connected with those matches made outside the grounds. Nor does the information detail the outcome of arrests and distinguish between home and away supporters.

  Viraj Mendis
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what legal expenses have been incurred by his Department in court cases pertaining to Viraj Mendis.

  Mr. Renton
  The estimated costs to date (but not including the costs incurred in the court proceedings on Thursday, 19 January) incurred by Treasury Solicitor's Department and in fees for Counsel in representing Home Office interests before the courts in the case of Viraj Mendis are about £8,000 excluding VAT. Any costs incurred within the Home Office cannot be separately identified from those incurred on other cases.

  Firearms
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional appointments are being made of(a) civilian, and (b) police staff to deal with shotgun licence and firearm certificate applications following the enactment of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Firearms (Amendment) Act received Royal Assent on 15 November 1988, but its provisions have not yet come into force. The appointment of civilian and uniformed staff to process applications for certificates is a matter for individual chief officers of police, who are responsible for the administration of the Firearms Acts. Information on the number of such appointments is not kept centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Transmitters
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish a table showing how many transmitters are sited in each ITV region.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the IBA that ITV transmitters are situated as follows:

  Main Stations

  Relays

  Anglia

  3

  18

  Border

  2

  58

  Central

  5

  58

  Channel

  1

  6

  Grampian

  7

  74

  Granada

  1

  56

  HTV (Wales)

  6

  157

  HTV (West)

  1

  52

  LWT/Thames

  1

  39

  STV

  4

  76

  TVS

  6

  59

  TSW

  5

  72

  TTT

  3

  35

  UTV

  3

  40

  YTV

  2

  52

  Transmission Costs
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish a table showing the transmission cost per head of the population for each ITV region.

  Mr. Renton
  I understand from the Independent Broadcasting Authority that this information is not at 392
  present available. I hope that information about costs of transmission in different areas will emerge from the study on privatisation of the transmission system which my right hon. Friend announced on 30 December.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for improving the accountability and financial control of the Metropolitan police and the information provided to Parliament.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Home Office and the Metropolitan police seek continually to make improvements in these areas. The steps that have been taken will be set out in a memorandum which will be put to the Committee of Public Accounts shortly.

  Rugby Match (Twickenham)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many motorists leaving a rugby match at Twickenham on 6 December 1988 were stopped by the Metropolitan police; how many were asked to take a breathalyser test; how many were subsequently re-tested at a police station; and, of those, how many were charged.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) on 12 December 1988 at column 463.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the estimated cost to police funds of the operation mounted by the Metropolitan police to check motorists leaving the rugby match at Twickenham on 6 December 1988; and how many officers of what rank were involved and for what period.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the operation involved three sergeants and 23 constables for four hours (two hours at the scene). Since the operation took place in normal police time no additional costs were incurred.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Home Affairs pursuant to his answer of 17 January to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd),Official Report, column 139, whether he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis upon when the functioning and efficiency of breath testing instruments used on motorists leaving the rugby match at Twickenham on 6 December 1988 was last tested.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am advised by the Commissioner that the breath testing instruments used at Twickenham on 6 December 1988 were tested on 30 November 1988.

  Immigration
  Mr. Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Office Department on how many occasions since the Immigration Act 1971 came into force he has used his power under section 21 of that Act, to refer matters for consideration to the appellate authorities; in how many of those instances he accepted the opinion of the adjudicator or tribunal on the matter referred; and if he will identify the cases in which he has used these powers.
  393
  Mr. Renton
  There is no record that the powers under section 21 have ever been used.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions arose in 1988 from admissions made by prisoners currently serving sentences for other crimes; how many of these were multiple admissions of guilt; and what were the comparable figures for 1978.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information is not available.

  Remand
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to reduce the number of people held on remand.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are taking steps to reduce both the number of people remanded in custody and the time taken to deal with cases. In many areas, the probation service is providing Crown prosecutors with better information on defendants through bail information schemes. This will help prosecutors to decide whether they need oppose bail. Resources are being provided over three financial years for the creation of about 500 new bail places at approved hostels.

  Magistrates and their clerks have been urged to concentrate on reducing delays. A management information system is being introduced to help magistrates' courts monitor their performance. We intend to extend further the operation of custody time limits later this year.

  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has taken steps to tackle delays in the Crown court through the provision of more resources and improved management. Additional judges have been appointed and new court rooms have been opened. The reclassification of certain offences under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 should help to ease pressure on the Crown court.

  Greater Manchester Police
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has met the Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester police authority to discuss the recruitment of extra officers to combat the increasingly high crime rate.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend is aware of the chief constable's wish to have more police officers for the Greater Manchester police and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State met the chief constable on 9 November, when police manpower was discussed. Decisions on applications for increases in force establishments from police authorities, including Greater Manchester police authority, will be announced shortly.

  Broadcasting (Council of Europe Convention)
  Mr. Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made towards a Council of Europe convention on broadcasting.

  Mr. Renton
  Substantial progress towards finalising the convention was made at a conference of Council of Europe Broadcasting Ministers in Stockholm last November, at which I led the United Kingdom delegation. The 394
  remaining work on the draft text is now being undertaken by the Ministers' deputies of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, and we hope that the convention will be opened for signature later this year.

  Dog Fights
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for reports from chief constables as to the steps they are taking to discover the sites of organised dog fights.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. It is for chief officers to decide what steps to take in their own force area.

  Charity Commissioners
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is in a position to announce the appointment of two part-time Charity Commissioners.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have today appointed Mrs. Diane Yeo and Mr. Michael Webber to act as Charity Commissioners on a part-time basis. The appointments will be for three years initially, with a possibility of extension to a maximum of five years.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will introduce on-site child care facilities for children of hon. Members and staff of the House.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee has the possible provision of child-care facilities under consideration and, pending any decision on the principle, has drawn the attention of the New Building Sub-Committee to the possible need to accommodate such a facility in phase II of the new parliamentary buildings.

ENERGY

  Unleaded Petrol
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has set the petroleum retailing companies a date by which unleaded petrol must be available on the forecourts of all filling stations either owned or serviced by them.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  No such date has been set.

  EC Directive 85/210/EEC requires member states
  "to ensure the availability and balanced distribution within their territories of unleaded petrol from 1 October 1989".

  By the end of last year, unleaded petrol was available at more than 3,000 United Kingdom petrol stations, about 15 per cent. of the total. Current conversions of petrol stations to unleaded are continuing at about 60 per week.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether his Department has investigated, or is
  395
  currently studying, the usefulness of a national identity card to his departmental responsibilities; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  As I made clear in my reply of 28 July 1988 to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) at columns 524–525, we keep this matter under review.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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.

  Mr. Tom King
  During 1988, of a total of 323 oral parliamentary questions, 241 were answered as written questions.

  Gleneyre and Burnside Children's Home (Inquiry)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the re-opened inquiry into alleged sexual assaults at the Gleneyre and Burnside children's home, referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East of 23 May,Official Report, columns 35–36, has been completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 10 January 1989]: The police investigation referred to has been completed. A file was forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland), who directed that no prosecutions should be brought.

  Police Stations (Stolen Weapons)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the written answer of 15 December to the hon. Member for Brent, East, in what form information on weapons stolen from police stations is kept.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 10 January 1989]: This is a matter for the Chief Constable. I understand, however, that centralised records do not differentiate between the actual sources of theft, but cover weapons stolen from (a) members on and off duty; (b) members' homes; (c) official and private vehicles; (d) officers injured and killed; and (e) police stations.

  Grants
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the types of financial assistance by way of grant or otherwise which may be given at the discretion of a Northern Ireland Department, where the moneys required for giving the assistance(a) are payable out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland, or (b) may be appropriated by Northern Ireland Assembly measure.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 12 January 1989]: All payments by Northern Ireland Departments of grants and other assistances are contained in the various Northern Ireland departmental votes and are funded from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. The Northern
  396
  Ireland Estimates 1988–89", a copy of which is in the Library contains detailed spending plans for Northern Ireland Departments, which include details of such grants and assistance.

  Public Authority Contracts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what circumstances a public authority invites the submission of offers before entering into a contract.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 12 January 1989]: Under normal circumstances, all public authorities invite the submission of offers before entering into a contract.

  Firearms and Explosives
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report a table to show how many finds of (a) firearms, (b) explosives and (c) ammunition were made in (i) Londonderry city, and (ii) the Royal Ulster Constabulary, N division, in each of the years from 1984 to 1988.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 17 January 1989]: The information is as follows:

  (i) Weapons, ammunition and explosives1 recovered in areas covered by Londonderry city RUC stations2 (1984–88)

  Year

  Weapons

  Ammunition (rounds)

  Explosives (lbs)

  1984

  31

  889

  1,279·2

  1985

  11

  242

  1,414·1

  1986

  26

  774

  867·2

  1987

  32

  1,868

  487·1

  1988

  29

  2,218

  2,476·5

  (ii) Weapons, ammunition and explosives1 recovered in the Royal Ulster Constabulary N division (1984–88)

  Year

  Weapons

  Ammunition (rounds)

  Explosives (lbs)

  1984

  37

  2,444

  1,499·7

  1985

  21

  2,234

  1,415·2

  1986

  38

  1,660

  1,670·6

  1987

  83

  1,894

  666·8

  1988

  41

  2,837

  3,584·9

  1 Figures for explosives do not include recoveries from neutralised devices.

  2 Londonderry city RUC stations: Strand road, Shantallow, Rosemount and Waterside—include some rural territory.

  Housing Discrimination
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date he hopes to publish the report carried out by the Policy Studies Institute on housing discrimination; and why this report has hitherto been withheld from publication.

  Mr. Tom King
  The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which is an independent body, stated in its report on fair employment (Cm. 237) that it had commissioned from the Policy Studies Institute some research on housing patterns and policies. I am advised that this research is not yet complete.

SCOTLAND

  Health Service (Grading)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many nursing and midwifery staff from each of the old grades have been assimilated to each of the new grades in the clinical grading structure by each health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) on 20 January 1989 at column 338.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether he will introduce regulations that oblige charging authorities to inform community charge payers that the extract of the community charge register containing their names and addresses can be inspected and copied by debt collectors, police, Government Departments and mail order companies;

  (2) whether any of his recent publications informing community charge payers about the new financial arrangements for Scotland tells them that the extract of the community charge register containing their names and addresses can be inspected and copied by debt-collectors, police, Government Departments and mail order companies.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 10 January to his earlier question. I do not consider that any further formal notification or other guidance to individuals of the present position as regards inspection of the register is required.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements his Department has made to allow community charge payers the option of whether they can remove their names from the extract of the community charge register available for public inspection.

  Mr. Lang
  Any registered person in respect of whom there is reasonable cause to believe that he or she is, or may be, at risk of physical violence or threats of physical violence can apply to the appropriate community charges registration officer to have his name excluded from the parts of the register open to public inspection.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will introduce regulations that bring the same arrangements for the inspection of the extract of the community charge register as outlined by his right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment,Official Report, column 493, 14 November 1988 and Official Report, column 426, 28 November 1988.

  Mr. Lang
  No.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received relating to the collection of the date of birth of every community charge payer; and whether any of those representations object to indiscriminate collection of dates of birth.

  Mr. Lang
  The requirement was included in response to representations made by local authority practitioners 398
  during the passage of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987. A number of individuals and organisations have made representations against it.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to publish a full list of the community charge figures set by each council as soon as the figures are available, setting out the district, regional or island and water community charge for each area and in equivalent terms the forecast of these figures he published on 4 November 1988 and the figures which would have resulted without safety net adjustments to the revenue support grant.

  Mr. Lang
  I intend to publish in due course a full list of personal community charges and to set alongside these details of each authority's planned expenditure increase over the present year. This will allow community charge payers to see in appropriate cases the extent to which their charges are inflated by overspending.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what land he has designated under paragraph 11 of schedule 1A to the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act 1987; and how many persons he estimates will be exempt from community charge as a result of any such designation.

  Mr. Lang
  Following discussions with the Ministry of Defence it is proposed to designate Glencorse and Milton Bridge camps near Penicuik as places where the pattern of residence of army personnel is so transient as to make individual registration for the personal community charge impracticable. A contribution equivalent to the personal community charge for the area will be required from service personnel who are solely or mainly resident in the camps in respect of each day of their residence. The Ministry of Defence will then pay the levying authority an amount equal to the total of the personal community charges. It is estimated that at any one time there will be about 100 service men resident in the camps.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will introduce regulations to specify that the date of birth of community charge payers need be collected only when there are two or more people living at the same address with the same name and initials.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 22 December 1988]: Section 13(1)(d) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, as amended by the Local Government Finance Act 1988, requires that the community charges register must specify the date of birth of each person registered in it. There is no power to remove this requirement by regulations.

  Local Authorities (Staff Increases)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report for each local authority in Scotland the staff increases they have experienced in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is contained in the joint manpower watch quarterly returns which are compiled jointly by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Office. Copies of these quarterly returns are available in the Library.

  Set-aside
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications and registrations he has received under the set-aside scheme(a) within and (b) outside, less favoured areas; and within each category how many applications he has received for (i) permanent fallow, (ii) rotational fallow, (iii) farm woodland and (iv) non agricultural use.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 19 December 1988 to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) at columns 81–82. Provisional figures indicate that about 31 per cent. of the land in Scotland proposed for set-aside has less-favoured area classification, that is, about 5,000 hectares with the total of 16,183 hectares.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications and registrations he has received under the set-aside scheme on a county by county basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Scotland programme in cash terms, constant 1988–89 prices and as a percentage of the United Kingdom planning total

  (a) Cash

  (b) Constant prices

  (c) (a) as a percentage of the United Kingdom planning total

  (d) Block services as a percentage of comparable services in England

  1979–80

  4,552

  8,492

  5·9

  14·4

  1980–81

  5,383

  8,478

  5·8

  14·4

  1981–82

  5,841

  8,375

  5·6

  14·9

  1982–83

  6,509

  8,710

  5·7

  14·7

  1983–84

  6,842

  8,757

  5·7

  14·5

  1984–85

  7,114

  8,667

  5·5

  14·0

  1985–86

  7,215

  8,340

  5·4

  14·5

  1986–87

  7,732

  8,649

  5·6

  14·7

  1987–88

  8,212

  8,725

  5·6

  14·7

  1988–89

  8,506

  8,506

  5·4

  14·7

  1989–90

  8,970

  8,540

  5·4

  14·3

  1990–91

  9,140

  8,410

  5·1

  14·2

  1991–92

  9,680

  8,650

  5·1

  —

  Higher Education
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the proportion of school leavers in Scotland who continued into(a) university education and (b) other higher education for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information for each year since 1979 is not readily available. The most recent information from the biennial Scottish young people's survey relating to the destination of school leavers was published by the Scottish Education Department in its statistical bulletin "School Leavers' Destinations (No 12/E1/1988)" published in December 1988 which is available in the Library.

  (a) on part-time contracts

  (b) re-employed after receiving PRC

  (c) those in column b re-employed after receiving redundancy compensation

  Craigie

  2

  None

  —

  Jordanhill

  5

  None

  —

  Moray House

  1

  None

  —

  400
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the two replies which I gave on 19 December 1988 to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) at columns 81–82.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing his Department's actual expenditure since 1979–80 and planned expenditure to 1991–92(a) in cash terms, (b) in constant 1988–89 prices and (c) as a percentage of the United Kingdom planning total.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is given in the table. Column(d) shows the ratio of Scottish "block" services to comparable expenditure in England, and is more meaningful than column (c) as the United Kingdom planning total includes expenditure in Scotland on services, for example defence and social security, which are not included in my right hon. and learned Friend's responsibilities. The figure for 1991–92 in column (d) is not available pending decisions on individual programmes.

  Colleges of Education
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff are employed in each of the Scottish colleges of education(a) on part-time contracts, (b) re-employed after taking premature retirement compensation under the appropriate PRC scheme and (c) those in category (b) who were granted PRC on grounds of redundancy.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  According to information provided by the colleges, the numbers of staff currently employed in each of the categories is as follows:
  401

  (a) on part-time contracts

  (b) re-employed after receiving PRC

  (c) those in column b re-employed after receiving redundancy compensation

  Northern

  12

  8

  4

  St. Andrew's

  5

  None

  —

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he proposes to make in the negotiating machinery for salaries and conditions of service of staff in centrally funded colleges of higher education; and what steps will be taken to protect the negotiating rights of staff.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) on 24 June 1988 at column 749.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff are employed by colleges of education on a freelance basis in the provision of in-service education for Scottish teachers.

  £000

  Scotland

  Borders

  Central

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Grampian

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  1977–78

  12,000

  27,258

  1

  1

  288

  654

  57

  129

  1

  1

  385

  875

  1978–79

  12,000

  24,623

  1

  1

  418

  858

  61

  125

  1

  1

  858

  1,761

  1979–80

  12,548

  22,031

  1

  1

  479

  841

  80

  140

  77

  135

  920

  1,615

  1980–81

  15,714

  23,294

  1

  1

  640

  949

  102

  151

  233

  345

  1.155

  1.712

  1981–82

  17,806

  24.028

  1

  1

  770

  1,039

  99

  134

  227

  306

  1,222

  1,649

  1982–83

  21,779

  27,430

  182

  229

  885

  1,115

  109

  137

  2,066

  2,602

  1,196

  1,506

  1983–84

  22,343

  26,915

  182

  219

  1,051

  1,266

  118

  142

  1,121

  1,350

  1,325

  1,596

  1984–85

  23,854

  27,351

  192

  220

  1,105

  1,267

  121

  139

  2,525

  2,895

  1,352

  1,550

  1985–86

  25,599

  27,849

  203

  221

  1,242

  1,351

  136

  148

  2,291

  2,492

  1,437

  1,563

  1986–87

  27,201

  28,636

  221

  233

  1,347

  1,418

  151

  159

  2,316

  2,438

  1,522

  1,602

  1987–88

  30,689

  30,689

  250

  250

  1,542

  1,542

  186

  186

  2,131

  2,131

  1,755

  1,755

  1 Not shown separately.

  £'000

  Highland

  Lothian

  Strathclyde

  Tayside

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Western Isles

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  1977–78

  53

  120

  1,860

  4,225

  6,957

  15,803

  522

  1,186

  0·3

  0·7

  1—

  1—

  39

  89

  1978–79

  91

  187

  2,237

  4,590

  5,994

  12,299

  746

  1,531

  0·5

  1

  12

  25

  41

  84

  1979–80

  157

  276

  2,640

  4,635

  7,204

  12,649

  902

  1,584

  2

  4

  34

  60

  53

  93

  1980–81

  187

  277

  3,355

  4,973

  8,831

  13,091

  1,096

  1,625

  3

  4

  45

  67

  67

  99

  1981–82

  213

  287

  3,803

  5,132

  10,105

  13,636

  1,238

  1,671

  2

  3

  43

  58

  84

  113

  1982–83

  322

  406

  4,552

  5,733

  11,046

  13,912

  1,289

  1,623

  11

  14

  47

  59

  74

  93

  1983–84

  328

  395

  4,770

  5,746

  11,839

  14,261

  1,462

  1,761

  14

  17

  45

  54

  88

  106

  1984–85

  310

  355

  4,612

  5,288

  12,133

  13,912

  1,400

  1,605

  15

  17

  45

  52

  44

  50

  1985–86

  316

  344

  4,996

  5,435

  13,371

  14,546

  1,542

  1,678

  15

  16

  50

  54

  1—

  1—

  1986–87

  334

  352

  5,411

  5,697

  14,179

  14,927

  1,650

  1,737

  18

  19

  52

  55

  1—

  1—

  1987–86

  385

  385

  5,871

  5,871

  16,603

  16,603

  1,884

  1,884

  25

  25

  57

  57

  1—

  1—

  1 Not shown separately.

  Source: local financial returns.

  Notes:

  1. Column (a) represents cash outturn, column (b) real terms calculated by applying GDP deflator, base year 1987–88.

  2. Figures cover local authority current expenditure on nursery education. Information on capital expenditure is not broken down by educational sector.

  3. Where figures are not available this is because authorities' returns have not broken down expenditure between the various sectors.

  Pupil Numbers
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of pupils attending(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in each of the years 1978–79 to 1987–88 inclusive.
  402
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department does not collect information about the colleges' use of self-employed individuals.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total expenditure on nursery education in each of the years 1977–78 to 1987–88 in cash terms and in real terms based on 1987–88 prices using the gross domestic product deflation (i) in Scotland and (ii) for each local education authority area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The following tables show the available information on nursery expenditure in cash and real terms by education authority for the period requested.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of pupils (in thousands) in education authority schools at September of each year are set out in the table.

  Primary

  Secondary

  1978

  569·1

  410·4

  1979

  545·2

  410·2

  1980

  518·5

  407·8

  403

  Primary

  Secondary

  1981

  492·6

  404·6

  1982

  468·0

  399·1

  1983

  448·0

  390·4

  1984

  437·5

  376·1

  1985

  435·5

  360·6

  1986

  433·5

  344·4

  1987

  430·9

  327·2

  Pupils aged 16

  Pupils aged 17

  Pupils aged 16 as a percentage of population aged 16

  Pupils aged 17 as a percentage of population aged 17

  1979

  47,080

  16,550

  51·5

  18·4

  1980

  49,810

  17,160

  53·9

  19·0

  1981

  51,560

  19,840

  54·3

  21·3

  1982

  51,080

  20,680

  57·0

  21·9

  1983

  50,550

  20,060

  56·3

  22·6

  1984

  49,970

  19,540

  56·6

  21·9

  1986

  48,550

  19,230

  58·8

  22·6

  1987

  48,890

  19,420

  59·5

  23·7

  Borders

  830

  370

  52·5

  23·3

  Central

  2,630

  1,000

  59·5

  22·5

  Dumfries/Galloway

  1,300

  580

  54·3

  25·0

  Fife

  2,950

  1,350

  54·2

  23·6

  Grampian

  4,920

  1,920

  61·3

  25·3

  Highland

  2,010

  900

  60·7

  28·1

  Lothian

  7,080

  3,140

  64·2

  28·3

  Strathclyde

  22,550

  8,060

  58·8

  20·8

  Tayside

  3,900

  1,770

  62·1

  28·9

  Orkney

  200

  100

  64·0

  34·3

  Shetland

  180

  80

  45·1

  23·5

  Western Isles

  350

  160

  64·2

  28·9

  The ages of the pupils are as at December and of the population as at June of each year.

  Figures for 1985 are not available due to industrial action by teachers.

  School Books
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total expenditure on text and

  Expenditure on text and library books

  £ million

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  at outturn prices

  at 1987–88 prices

  1978–79

  2·584

  3·411

  5·302

  6·999

  1979–80

  2·994

  3·944

  5·257

  6·925

  1980–81

  3·026

  3·790

  4·486

  5·618

  1981–82

  3·026

  3·953

  4·548

  5·334

  1982–83

  3·290

  4·004

  4·444

  5·043

  1983–84

  4·027

  5·214

  4·851

  6·281

  1984–85

  4·178

  5·173

  4·791

  5·931

  1985–86

  3·882

  4·857

  4·223

  5·284

  1986–87

  4·734

  5·740

  4·984

  6·043

  1987–88

  5·031

  5·975

  5·031

  5·975

  (provisional)

  Over the same period expenditure per pupil in primary and secondary schools increased in cash and in real terms.

  Pig Farming
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the information he has on the number of pig farmers that have gone into liquidation in Scotland in the past 12 months.
  404
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of pupils in S5 and S6 and as a percentage of all in the age group for each year 1979–80 to 1987–88 inclusive and for each local education authority area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The figures for pupils aged. 16 and 17 in all schools at September of each of the years for which information is available and the figures for each education authority at September 1987 are set out in the table:

  library books in (a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools at the end of each year since 1978–79 in cash terms and in real terms, using 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested, taken from local authority financial returns, is as follows:

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information is not available centrally on the number of pig farmers going into liquidation. The number of holdings with at least 500 pigs rose from 199 in June 1987 to 209 in June 1988.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of .state for Scotland if he will list the subsidies that Scottish pig farmers currently receive from the Government.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government pay no subsidies directly to pig farmers. However, there are
  405
  Community measures which assist the industry: export refunds to the USA and Canada were substantially increased in December 1987 and private storage aids were made available from February to July 1988. In addition, we secured in the course of last year's price fixing negotiations a reduction in the pigmeat monetary compensatory amount which, combined with the strengthening of sterling, has had the effect of reducing this to zero as from 1 January 1989.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the effect of the failure of the United States of America soya bean crop on the Scottish pig industry, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The price of soya bean meal rose last summer because of the drought in the United States of America and this led to feed compounders increasing their pig ration prices. However, pig prices increased significantly towards the end of the year to stand at their highest level for 30 months in December 1988. This has helped to offset the effect of the increased feed prices.

  Housing support grant payments

  1 1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  2 1988–89

  3 1989–90

  Edinburgh

  1.1 Actual payments (£ million)

  —

  11·269

  12·518

  7·869

  2·328

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1.2 Percentage increase on previous year

  —

  —

  +11·1

  -37·1

  -70·4

  -100·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.1 Percentage adjusted using GDP deflators (£ million)

  —

  22·074

  20·701

  11·847

  3·271

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2.2 Percentage increase on previous year

  —

  —

  -6·2

  -42·8

  -72·4

  -100·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  3.1 Actual payments (£ million)

  —

  213·4

  228·2

  161·9

  104·6

  72·1

  67·2

  64·2

  44·5

  41·9

  54·6

  60·4

  3.2 Percentage increase on previous year

  —

  —

  +6·9

  -29·1

  -35·4

  -31·1

  -6·8

  -4·5

  -30·7

  -5·7

  +30·3

  +10·5

  4.1 Percentage adjusted using GDP deflators (£ million)

  —

  418·0

  377·4

  243·7

  147·0

  96·9

  86·0

  77·9

  52·2

  46·8

  57·4

  60·4

  4.2 Percentage increase on previous year

  —

  —

  -9·7

  -35·4

  -39·7

  -34·1

  -11·3

  -9·4

  -32·9

  -10·5

  +22·7

  +5·3

  1 Information not readily available.

  2 Provisional.

  3 Estimated.

  Tied Housing
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many police officers are residing in tied housing at present.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As at 31 December 1987, the latest date for which information is readily available, 2,266 police officers in Scotland occupied housing owned or rented by police authorities. This represented 16·8 per cent. of the total police strength.

  Forestry Commission Land (Sales)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines have been issued(a) to the Forestry Commission and (b) from the Forestry

  Housing Support Grant
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the percentage change in equivalent housing support grant for Edinburgh for each year from 1978 to 1989–90;

  (2) what is the percentage change in equivalent housing support grant for Edinburgh for each year from 1978 to 1989–90 adjusted for inflation;

  (3) what is the percentage change in equivalent housing support grant for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1989–90;

  (4) what is the equivalent housing support grant figure for Edinburgh for each year from 1978 to 1989–90;

  (5) what is the equivalent housing support grant for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1989–90;

  (6) what is the equivalent housing support grant for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1989–90, adjusted for inflation;

  (7) what is the equivalent housing support grant for Edinburgh for each year from 1978 to 1989–90, adjusted for inflation;

  (8) what is the percentage change in equivalent housing support grant for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1989 –90, adjusted for inflation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is shown in the following table:

  Commission to each of its conservancies on procedures to be followed on the sale of Forestry Commission land and plantations.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The then Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), wrote to the chairman of the Forestry Commission on 28 May 1981 stating that the Commissioners would be responsible for selecting areas for disposal and setting out the main considerations which Forestry Ministers would wish them to take into account in the selection process; the letter was reproduced as appendix V to the commission's 1981–82 annual report. On 8 November 1984, the Secretary of State announced changes to the Forestry Commission's disposals objectives
  407
  in a written reply in the House (Official Report, columns 6–7); this announcement was reproduced in the commission's 1984–85 annual report at appendix V.

  Instructions have been given to each of the commission's conservancies which embody the above, as well as a statement on the commission's policy and practice on disposals which was published as appendix VI to its 1984–85 annual report.

  Copies of the Forestry Commission's annual reports are held in the Library of the House.

  Lennox Castle Hospital
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to allocate additional monies to the Greater Glasgow health board in order to fund improvements at Lennox Castle hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to my announcement today giving my approval to plans submitted by Greater Glasgow health board in November 1988 for the redevelopment of Lennox Castle hospital at a cost of £4·56 million. This follows the opening in May 1988 of two upgraded villas and two new 12 bed intensive care units at a cost of £4·4 million.

  US Submarines (Coolant Discharge)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what effect the discharging of radioactive primary coolant by United States' submarines has had on radioactivity levels in the Holy Loch since 1960.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Holy Loch has been monitored regularly both by the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food since the United States base was established. The results have confirmed that any radioactivity present in the environment arising from the operation of the base has been small and of low significance in radiological terms.

  Further Education
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of 16 to 18 year-olds in non-advanced further education and as a percentage of all in that age group for each year from 1979–80 to 1987–88 inclusive and for each local education authority area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not readily available in the form requested.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for regional selective assistance the total number of applications(a) received and (b) processed from 1 April 1988 to 31 December 1988; the total amount paid out in that period and the total estimated expenditure for the year 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989.

  Mr. Ian Lang
  The information requested is shown below for the period 1 April to 31 December 1988.
  408

  Regional Selective Assistance

  Totals £ million

  Number of applications received

  188·0

  Number of applications processed

  171·0

  Payment authorisations made

  23·5

  The provision of the financial year 1988–89 is £60·4 million. Expenditure under this scheme is normally concentrated in the last quarter of the financial year.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total estimated expenditure on regional development grant and regional selective assistance in each of the years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Lang
  The provision for regional development grant and regional selective assistance for the financial year 1988–89 is £60·3 million and £60·4 million respectively. Figures for 1898–90 and 1990–91 will be published in the Scottish Commentary in February 1989.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for regional development grants(a) the number of applications outstanding on 31 March 1988, (b) the number of those applications processed by 31 December 1988, (c) the number currently outstanding and (d) the total amount of money paid out since 31 March 1988 in regional development grants to those applications.

  Mr. Lang
  The figures requested for applications in Scotland under the revised regional development grant scheme are as follows:

  Totals

  Number of applications outstanding at 31 March:

  5,117

  Number of these processed by 31 December:

  3,297

  Number still outstanding at 19 January:

  1,678

  Payment authorisations made by 19 January on

  these applications:

  £13·1 million

  Glasgow District Court
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the numbers of cases reported to the procurator fiscal for possible prosecution in the Glasgow district court and the percentage which were marked "no proceedings" for the latest period for which such figures are available.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 19 January 1989]: A total of 54,819 cases were reported for possible prosecution in Glasgow district court in 1988. No proceedings were instructed in 16,213 cases (30 per cent.).

  Cumbernauld Development Corporation
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the names of the persons appointed to serve on the board of Cumbernauld development corporation, along with the date of their original appointment and the date their appointment terminates.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 20 January 1989]: The information required is as follows:

  Chairman/Deputy Chairman

  David W. Mitchell CBE

  409

  Appointed Member 1 January 1985–31 December 1986

  Appointed Chairman 1 January 1987–31 December 1990

  Tom M. Barrie JP

  Appointed Deputy Chairman 1 January 1979–31

  December 1982

  Re-Appointed Deputy Chairman 1 January 1983–31

  December 1986

  Re-Appointed Deputy Chairman 1 January 1987–31

  December 1989

  Members

  Professor John A. Dawson BSc PhD

  Appointed 1 January 1987–31 December 1989

  Gerard McElroy Esq

  Appointed 1 January 1987–31 December 1990

  Provost Rosemary McKenna

  Appointed 1 January 1985–31 December 1988

  Re-Appointed 1 January 1989–31 December 1992

  T.Eric Miller Esq MA CA JP

  Appointed 1 January 1985–31 December 1988

  Re-Appointed 1 January 1989–31 December 1990

  John S. Moreland Esq BSc MI MechE

  Appointed 1 February 1976–31 December 1978

  Re-Appointed 1 January 1979–31 December 1982

  1 January 1983–31 December 1986

  1 January 1987–31 December 1989

  Patrick Lockett Esq

  Appointed 1 January 1989–31 December 1991

  John M. Simpson FRICS FCI Arb

  Appointed 1 January 1983–31 December 1986

  Re-Appointed 1 January 1987–31 December 1990

  Development Corporation Houses
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses from development corporation stock have been sold in each of the new towns since vesting day, expressed as a percentage of the total stock.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 20 January 1989]: the information is set out in the table:

  Total slock

  Total sales

  Percentage

  sales

  East Kilbride1

  22,585

  9,794

  43·4

  Glenrothes1

  12,095

  5,216

  43·13

  Cumbernauld1

  21,063

  6,857

  32·6

  Livingston2

  12·120

  2,780

  22·9

  Irvine1

  5,264

  1,016

  19·3

  1 As at 31 December 1988.

  2 As at 30 September 1988.

HEALTH

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on food poisoning attributed to chickens and eggs in the 12 months to December.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  There were over 12,000 isolations of salmonella enteritidis, phage type 4, reported to the public health laboratory service in 1988. This was more than double the number reported in 1987. Other salmonella serotypes did not increase comparably. PT4 is associated predominantly with poultry and eggs and the number of food poisoning outbreaks linked to eggs also showed a marked increase in 1988. Provisional data now available show that up to the end of 1988 there were 60 outbreaks of salmonella food poisoning involving about 1,600 people in England and Wales attributed to the consumption of eggs. These figures probably underestimate the number of people affected.
  410
  I will reply separately on outbreaks of food poisoning associated with chickens.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about recent cases of meningitis in the area of the North Derbyshire health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  The provisional numbers of cases notified to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys for 1988 are as follows:

  Total

  Rate per 100,000

  population

  England and Wales

  1,309

  2·61

  Trent RHA

  110

  2·37

  Derbyshire County

  (nearest area available

  12

  1·31

  Notifications of meningococcal meningitis normally rise to a peak during the winter months, and the disease also appears in unexplained "clusters" of cases.

  Dental Health
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Health Education Authority has for an advertising campaign designed to improve the dental health of the nation; and if he will ensure that any campaign takes account of the recommendations shortly to be made by the COMA committee on sugars and diseases.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following publication of the White Paper "Promoting Better Health" the Government have made funds available to the Health Education Authority to run a pilot campaign to promote dental health in the north-west. It is likely that the campaign will be under way before the recommendations of the COMA panel on dietary sugars are published, but they will be taken into account in any further development of the campaign.

  Medical Physicists and Scientists
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to review policy on pay settlements for medical physicists and scientists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Pay of National Health Service scientists, including physicists, is a matter for negotiation between the management side of the scientific and professional staffs council, and the staff side representing these groups.

  Physicists
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to issue directives to health authorities on the levels of medical physicists required to meet the demands of the number of patients and the amount and type of equipment in use.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. These matters are for individual health authorities.

  Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital (Radiotherapy)
  Mr. Feam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to ensure that the disciplinary
  411
  procedures taken by the regional health authority after the incident in the radiotherapy department at the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital are adequate, and that all persons culpable have been disciplined.

  Mr. Mellor
  Responsibility for operating disciplinary procedures and determining action in individual cases is for the employing health authority.

  Cook-Chill Food
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to ensure that the non-statutory controls to which hospital cook-chill catering is subject are sufficient to ensure the proper protection of public health.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Health circular HC(86)14 sets out the requirements for hygiene that we expect health authorities to achieve on their premises. More specific guidance is given in the Health Service catering hygiene manual which requires health authorities to consult appropriate experts before a cook-chill system is introduced. I know of no cases so far reported where those requirements have not been observed and public protection not secured in National Health Service hospitals using cook-chill catering.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action he is taking to ensure there is a legal requirement for retail cook-chill food to be kept refrigerated at appropriate temperatures throughout the period of its production, distribution, storage and sale;

  (2) if he has any plans to extend the provisions of regulation 27 of the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations to cover other foodstuffs which require to be kept under strict temperature control.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The food hygiene regulations are currently under review as part of the review of the Food Act 1984. We are considering the wider application of the temperature controls in regulation 27 of the regulations as it applies only to catering premises at the moment.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has that listeria which is not eliminated by the first cooking of food can recover and multiply under refrigeration and not be destroyed by the final reheating.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Should listeria survive because of inadequate cooking, correct refrigerated storage will prevent any significant growth. Evidence clearly indicates that inadequate temperature control is one of the main contributory factors in outbreaks of food poisoning from any of the causative organisms. It is therefore important that good practice is observed at all stages of food production and distribution.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department have taken comprehensively to assess the significance of listeria in National Health Service cook-chill systems.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  An expert group recently reviewed my Department's guidelines for pre-cooked chilled food catering in use in the NHS and elsewhere. The group concluded that provided the guidelines are closely followed, the meals produced will be safe and microbiologically sound. My Department will continue to assess the results of studies into various aspects of listeriosis.
  412
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the evidence he received between publication of the 1970 guidelines on cook-freeze catering and publication of the subsequent 1980 guidelines which led him to reconsider his policy on the appropriateness of cook-chill food for community catering.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Advances in catering technology in the 1970s indicated that a cook-chill catering system could be safely operated on a large scale. An expert group considered that these technological advances in, for example, blast chilling, allowed such a system to be properly controlled in terms of the times and temperatures required to produce microbiologically sound food. The 1980 guidelines give detailed recommendations to help ensure this.

  General Managers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is normal practice for his Department to be represented on the appointment boards for district health authority general manager posts.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. Normal practice is for the district health authority to convene an appointments board consisting of its chairman, a small number of members, and two independent professional assessors, one of whom is nominated by the regional health authority.

  Post Codes
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many post code areas contain three householders or less; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not available. No record is held centrally of the number of households in each unit post code. The number of delivery points in each unit post code is held by the Post Office, but a delivery point may serve more than one household.

  Primary Health Care
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he intends to take to raise standards of primary health care and make services more responsive to the needs of the consumer.

  Mr. Mellor
  The proposals in the White Paper "Promoting Better Health" are designed to do this. For example, in the case of family doctors, changes to the terms of service and remuneration system will encourage doctors to raise standards nearer to those of the best practices and to make services more sensitive to the needs of the consumer. Training and teamwork in primary care will be developed and improved. Health promotion and the prevention of disease will be a priority. We will also strengthen family practitioner committees' management role with the aim of ensuring continued development in the provision of cost-effective family practitioner services which are responsive to patients. More information will be made available to consumers about services and practitioners in their area. The procedures for making complaints against practitioners will be simplified, and existing restrictions on changing doctor will be removed.

  Wagner Report
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action has been taken by his Department in response to the recommendations made in the Wagner report "Residential Care: a Positive Choice".

  Mr. Mellor
  The report of the committee chaired by Lady Wagner brings together a number of issues which affect the well-being and quality of life of people in residential care.

  Some of the recommendations in the report relate to the matters dealt with in Sir Roy Griffiths' report on community care and are being considered in that context. Others are clearly addressed primarily to local agencies, statutory and independent, providing care and we hope they are giving full consideration to the action they can take within the resources available. Finally, there are certain recommendations which might usefully be followed up centrally within the current statutory framework, including such matters as the registration and inspection of homes, complaints procedures, contacts between residents and local communities, the supply of information for users and standards of care. We are considering promoting activity in these fields. The report also draws attention to the importance of training for people working in homes. Those recommendations are being considered in relation to the strategy we are now developing to improve training for all personal social services staff.

  Paracetamol
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will refer to the Committee on Safety of Medicines the matter of risks to vegetarians of the use of paracetamol.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have no evidence to suggest that vegetarians using paracetamol suffer any increased risks provided that they eat a well-balanced diet. It is important that they and other paracetamol users follow the dosage instructions set out on the label.

  Mental Health Review Tribunals
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mental health review tribunals were held (i) in the five years preceding the enactment of the Mental Health Act 1983 and (ii) in all subsequent years for which he has information(a) in special hospitals and (b) in other mental hospitals and units.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is held centrally but is not readily available in the form requested. I will reply to the hon. Member shortly.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the mental health review tribunals held in special hospitals, other mental hospitals and units, arose as a result of(a) requests from patients and (b) as a consequence of statutory procedures under the Mental Health Act.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the mental health review tribunals held since 1983 were(a) under section 2 of the Mental Health Act, (b) under section 3 of the Mental Health Act and (c) under other sections of the Act.
  414
  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not available in the form requested but the table shows, for each year 1983 to 1987, the number of cases determined in respect of (i) patients detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983; (ii) other non-restricted patients and (iii) restricted patients.

  Mental health review tribunals

  Cases determined (all hospitals)

  Section 2 patients

  Unrestricted patients

  Restricted patients

  1983

  125

  914

  773

  1984

  711

  635

  787

  1985

  890

  800

  713

  1986

  918

  1,178

  733

  1987

  1,061

  1,108

  759

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in Nottingham are(a) financially better off and (b) worse off after the social security changes in April.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that statistically reliable estimates for Nottingham cannot be provided.

  Income Growth
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state the average growth in incomes in each of the last 10 years of(a) households in the bottom decile group and (b) pensioner households in the bottom decile group of pensioner households.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that figures are not available on the requested basis.

  Benefit Claimants (Living Standards)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research his Department has commissioned or carried out on or related to the living standards of claimants or the adequacy of the scale rates of supplementary benefit or income support in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There have been two major surveys on living standards during the period. "The Survey of Living Standards During Unemployment" was commissioned in 1983 and is to be supplemented by a case study, "The Living Standards of Thirty (Unemployed) Families", commissioned in 1987. "The Financial Circumstances of Disabled Households—Report Two of the OPCS Disability Survey" was commissioned in 1985.

  A number of related studies have also been carried out during the period. These are, by date of commissioning: 1978, "For Richer for Poorer", a DHSS cohort study of unemployed men; 1979 (publication date) "Social Security Research—The Definition and Measurement of Poverty", the report of a seminar; 1981, "Study of the 1980 Reform of Supplementary Benefit"; 1986, "Elderly Claimants in Residential Care and Nursing Homes"; 1986, DSS in-house study of the incomes and expenditure of disabled people using data from the family expenditure survey.
  415
  In addition, the Department has had the benefit of several studies on these subjects, commissioned by other organisations.

  Availability for Work Test
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time taken by an appeal from a claimant denied benefit because of the availability for work test; and what proportion of these appeals is successful.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  For the quarter ended 31 March 1988, the average length of time was 22½ weeks. A total of 36·6 per cent. of appeals were found in the appellants' favour.

  Benefits (Lothian Region)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the number of claimants in(a) the Edinburgh Leith local office and (b) at each of the other local offices in Lothian region (i) who received a transitional addition at April 1988, (ii) who have lost this since due to a change in circumstances, giving the average amount lost, (iii) who will lose protection at April 1989, and (iv) who will at that stage still be receiving some element of protection, giving average payments, showing in each case those required to register, those not required to register, and pensioners;

  (2) what is the number of 16 and 17-year olds at (a) the Edinburgh, Leith local office and (b) each of the local offices in Lothian region who (i) lost benefit on 12 September 1988 and (ii) had at that time been on benefit since prior to April 1988, broken down by those who had

  Number of claimants in receipt of supplementary benefit or income support

  Year

  Great Britain

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  1979

  2,855,000

  2,396,000

  172,000

  286,000

  1980

  3,118,000

  2,627,000

  186,000

  304,000

  1981

  3,723,000

  3,131,000

  221,000

  371,000

  1982

  4,267,000

  3,590,000

  253,000

  423,000

  1983

  4,349,000

  3,649,000

  260,000

  440,000

  1984

  4,609,000

  3,866,000

  275,000

  468,000

  1986

  4,938,000

  4,141,000

  291,000

  506,000

  1987

  4,896,000

  4,073,000

  287,000

  535,000

  1988

  4,354,000

  3,596,000

  259,000

  499,000

  Percentage increase between 1979 and 1988

  52·50

  50·08

  50·58

  74·48

  Note: All figures are rounded to the nearest thousand and may not therefore sum.

  Total number of persons dependent upon supplementary benefit or income support since 1979 as a proportion of the total population1

  Year

  Great Britain

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  1979

  00·8

  00·8

  01·0

  00·9

  1080

  00·9

  00·9

  01·0

  00·9

  1981

  01·l

  01·l

  01·3

  01·2

  1982

  01·3

  01·3

  01·5

  01·4

  1983

  01·3

  01·3

  01·6

  01·4

  1984

  01·4

  01·4

  01·7

  01·5

  1986

  01·5

  01·5

  01·8

  01·6

  1987

  01·5

  01·5

  01·7

  01·7

  1988

  01·3

  01·3

  01·6

  01·6

  1 Includes claimants, their partners and dependent children.

  Source for both tables:

  1979–1987 Annual Statistical Inquiry.

  1988 May Quarterly Statistical Inquiry.
  416
  been classed as (1) householders and (2) non-householders; and how many of these people have (x) not so far been placed on YTS, or (y) have been refused a place on a YTS scheme due to their or its unsuitability.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Local Pay Additions
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of staff, by grade, in receipt of local pay additions outside London and the south-east economic planning region; what were the different amounts paid to staff by grade; whether this sum varies due to location; what qualifying period of scale-related criteria is used; and whether this varies by location.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are no Department of Social Security staff in receipt of local pay additions outside London and the south-east economic planning region.

  Income Support
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people are claiming income support in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) England; what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979; and what was the actual percentage increase between the figures for 1979 and the latest figures;

  (2) what proportion of people living in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) England is dependent upon income support; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  The information for Great Britain is as follows:
  417
  Information for Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases income support has been paid under regulation 8(3) of the Income Support (General) Regulations to persons not treated as available for employment.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the changes since 1979 and the dates when they occurred (i) in the conditions of entitlement to supplementary benefit and income support of persons aged 19 years in non-advanced education and (ii) in the circumstances in which extra-statutory payments in lieu of benefit can be made to such persons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 13 January 1989]: The supplementary benefit regulations were amended from 18 October 1982 to extend entitlement to benefit to persons aged 19 years in relevant education who were single parents, severely handicapped, orphans or estranged from their parents.

  In 1985 that amendment was found to be defective and a circular was issued in November 1985 authorising extra-statutory payments to be made until the regulations were amended.

  Amendment regulations corrected the defect from 6 April 1987 and also extended entitlement to certain young people aged 16 to 19 inclusive who were not estranged from their parents but could not be supported by them because their parents were chronically sick, or in prison, or could not enter the country.

  From 11 April 1988 an upper limit of 19 years was set in all the income-related benefits for the payment of benefit to young people in full-time non-advanced education.

  There have been no changes in the circumstances in which extra-statutory payments in lieu of benefit can be paid to 19 year olds in relevant education. Extra-statutory payments can be made only where claimants are deprived of all or part of their entitlement in a way not foreseen or intended when the law was drawn up.

  Barlow Clowes International
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the criteria applied by his Department in dealing with applications from Barlow Clowes International investors for social security on hardship grounds.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: Investments in Barlow Clowes International are treated in the same way as other investments for income support purposes. Where the current market value, less 10 per cent. if there are expenses of sale, together with any other capital exceeds £6,000, no benefit is payable. A crisis loan may be available where the investment cannot be realised immediately and there is serious risk to the health and safety of the applicant or his family.

  Mr. N. Quinn
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when his Department expects to settle the claim 418
  by Mr.N Quinn of Birmingham, in respect of the motor accident of 20 September 1988, when the uninsured Ford Sierra registration number D378 JML belonging to his Department hit Mr. Quinn's car.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: The Department's solicitor has been in correspondence with Mr. Quinn and his insurers since 6 October 1988, following the accident when Mr. Quinn's car collided with a Crown vehicle. The Department does not subscribe to the normal third party cover afforded by insurance companies, because section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 does not apply to the Crown. The Department, therefore, in common with most other Departments of State, carries its own risks and has its own insurance arrangements. I am sure that all concerned want to see the matter resolved as soon as possible.

  Special Needs Hostels
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the organisations(a) which submitted evidence urging the Government to allow special needs hostels to continue being funded on a board and lodgings basis and (b) who proposed different funding arrangements.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 19 December 1988]: A list of the 346 organisations which made individual submissions considered following the issue of the consultative paper "Help With Hostel Charges" has been placed in the Library. Details of individual organisations' submissions are not normally published, but the responses varied between those who agreed that there was a need for change, those who favoured keeping the present system, those who put forward proposals of their own and those who did not have a preferred solution.

EMPLOYMENT

  New Earnings Survey
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what categories of people are likely to be excluded from the coverage of the new earnings survey; and what estimate can be given about the total number of people involved.

  Mr. Lee
  The new earnings survey is a sample survey covering 1 per cent. of employees in Great Britain who are members of pay-as-you-earn schemes.

  The main categories of the work force in employment excluded from its coverage are self-employed persons, Her Majesty's forces, those on work-related Government training programmes, without a contract of employment and those employees, mainly part-time women and young people, who earn below the income tax threshold and are not in a PAYE scheme. Exempted categories include private domestic servants, husband/wife working for spouse, company directors who do not receive a salary and those working abroad. A full description of the survey and its coverage is contained in part B of the annual new earnings survey report.

  It is estimated that 5·4 million of the work force in employment in Great Britain were not covered at the time of the latest survey in April 1988.

  Ethylene Dibromide
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take action to reduce the occupational exposure limit for ethylene dibromide in the light of the recently published British Journal of Industrial Medicine article "Semen quality in papaya workers with long term exposure to ethylene dibromide".

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Commission recently reduced the occupational exposure limit for ethylene dibromide in air from 1 part per million to 0·5 ppm to measured as an eight-hour time-weighted average. That limit came into effect on 1 January 1989.

  The HSC's advisory committee on toxic substances will shortly be considering proposals for translating that limit into a maximum exposure limit under the new Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations. I will ensure that the article referred to by the hon. Member is brought to the attention of the committee.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employmemt if he will publish a table showing employment in manufacturing industry by county and region for each year since 1979 and for each quarter month in 1988.

  Mr. Lee
  Figures for the standard economic regions can be provided but employment statistics for smaller areas are available only for dates when censuses of employment are taken.

  The available information for counties and the Scottish region and island areas, taken from the September 1981 and September 1984 censuses of employment, is given in table 1.

  The information for standard economic regions is given in table 2.

  TABLE 1

  Employees in employment1 in manufacturing industries (Divisions 2 to 4 of the Standard Industrial Classification 1980)

  Counties2

  September 1981 Thousand

  September 1984 Thousand

  South East

  Bedfordshire

  71·5

  67·8

  Berkshire

  85·4

  76·5

  Buckinghamshire

  65·7

  66·8

  East Sussex

  36·4

  32·7

  Essex

  140·4

  119·5

  Hampshire

  153·3

  146·7

  Hertfordshire

  132·4

  118·1

  Isle of Wight

  9·0

  8·8

  Kent

  118·3

  103·5

  Oxfordshire

  47·6

  43·8

  Surrey

  77·4

  74·5

  West Sussex

  61·1

  58·3

  Greater London

  684·6

  569·0

  East Anglia

  Cambridgeshire

  60·7

  68·2

  Norfolk

  63·3

  63·2

  Suffolk

  61·9

  58·3

  420

  Counties2

  September 1981 Thousand

  September 1984 Thousand

  South West

  Avon

  94·9

  89·2

  Cornwall

  23·6

  22·3

  Devon

  68·9

  69·1

  Dorset

  44·3

  41·2

  Gloucestershire

  65·2

  57·6

  Somerset

  46·0

  45·6

  Wiltshire

  52·6

  51·2

  West Midlands

  Hereford and Worcester

  67·9

  64·3

  Shropshire

  32·0

  33·0

  Staffordshire

  144·3

  141·9

  Warwickshire

  61·6

  56·3

  West Midlands

  494·8

  413·7

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  133·2

  122·2

  Leicestershire

  150·5

  140·9

  Lincolnshire

  44·3

  40·7

  Northamptonshire

  73·7

  69·5

  Nottinghamshire

  131·5

  115·1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Humberside

  92·1

  81·9

  North Yorkshire

  53·5

  49·7

  South Yorkshire

  158·6

  122·4

  West Yorkshire

  274·6

  230·8

  North West

  Cheshire

  116·7

  105·9

  Lancashire

  182·5

  153·6

  Greater Manchester

  345·8

  291·3

  Merseyside

  154·7

  119·8

  North

  Cleveland

  74·9

  53·3

  Cumbria

  56·9

  49·6

  Durham

  62·1

  54·7

  Northumberland

  19·5

  19·3

  Tyne and Wear

  126·0

  99·0

  Wales

  Clwyd

  33·7

  32·5

  Dyfed

  17·1

  15·9

  Gwent

  52·8

  46·1

  Gwynedd

  11·5

  9·3

  Mid-Glamorgan

  52·5

  44·7

  Powys

  7·0

  6·9

  South Glamorgan

  26·6

  25·2

  West Glamorgan

  36·9

  28·8

  Scotland (Region and Islands Areas)

  Borders

  12·9

  12·6

  Central

  31·1

  22·8

  Dumfries and Galloway

  12·2

  11·3

  Fife

  40·0

  35·8

  Grampian

  36·8

  35·2

  Highland

  12·4

  10·2

  Lothian

  66·2

  55·3

  Strathclyde

  249·8

  215·4

  Tayside

  37·1

  32·1

  Orkney Islands

  0·7

  0·5

  Shetland Islands

  1·1

  1·2

  Western Isles

  1·5

  1·2

  1 The figures exclude the self-employed.

  2 The areas are defined in terms of ward boundaries as at 1981.

  421

  Table 2

  Employees in employment1 in Manufacturing Industries (Divisions 2–4 of the Standard Industrial Classification 1980) by region

  Thousand

  Standard Region

  September

  March

  June

  2 September

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1988

  1988

  South East

  1,880

  1,796

  1,677

  1,589

  1,522

  1,486

  1,463

  1,408

  1,374

  1,353

  1,321

  1,328

  Greater London (included in South East)

  n.a.

  n.a.

  681

  637

  598

  569

  556

  526

  514

  506

  477

  487

  East Anglia

  209

  197

  185

  181

  181

  190

  199

  205

  211

  213

  218

  220

  South West

  440

  421

  398

  381

  367

  376

  377

  371

  367

  362

  364

  367

  West Midlands

  983

  901

  800

  747

  714

  709

  709

  698

  696

  689

  697

  702

  East Midlands

  611

  573

  533

  509

  489

  488

  496

  493

  494

  487

  493

  493

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  708

  649

  580

  536

  502

  485

  484

  461

  453

  443

  443

  448

  North West

  970

  894

  803

  740

  692

  671

  655

  628

  609

  600

  600

  601

  North

  411

  374

  340

  314

  287

  276

  279

  266

  262

  261

  261

  262

  Wales

  317

  278

  239

  223

  214

  212

  211

  205

  211

  210

  213

  218

  Scotland

  602

  550

  502

  471

  442

  434

  430

  409

  392

  386

  385

  387

  Great Britain

  7,123

  6,629

  6,058

  5,691

  5,411

  5,327

  5,302

  5,142

  5,069

  5,004

  4,995

  5,025

  1 Excludes the self-employed.

  2 Latest available.

  n.a. = Not available.

  Young Employees (Overtime)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements have been made to permit or discourage excessive overtime working by younger employees(a) on employment training schemes and (b) elsewhere; and what steps he has taken to ensure that employees are given adequate advice in regard to this matter.

  Mr. Cope
  Trainees in employment training who are receiving practical experience with an employer are not expected to attend for any period which could normally attract over-time or premium payments in the case of employees. The hours of attendance for the youth training scheme are limited to 40 per week, taking one week with another. In employment generally hours of work are a matter for negotiation between employer and employees or their representatives. Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, etc. 1974 requires every employer to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the health, safety and welfare of all his employees at work. This does not permit excessive hours likely to lead to fatigue induced accidents or ill health.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what was the level of unemployment, expressed as(a) a percentage and (b) in numbers of claimants for (i) the Hexham constituency, (ii) the
  Newcastle upon Tyne travel to work area, (iii) the Greater London travel to work area and (iv) England and Wales for the most recent month for which figures are available and for February 1985;

  (2) if he will estimate the number of unfilled vacancies expressed as (a) a percentage and (b) in numbers of claimants for (i) the Hexham constituency, (ii) the

  Table B

  Unemployment claimants for December 1988 and February 1985

  February

  1985

  December

  1988

  level

  lrate

  level

  lrate

  Newcastle TTWA

  65,551

  17·5

  45,293

  120

  Greater London TTWA

  370,377

  10·7

  232,323

  6·7

  Hexham TTWA

  1,537

  9·8

  987

  6·0

  Hexham PCA

  2,479

  n/a

  1,562

  n/a

  England and Wales

  2,843,546

  13·0

  1,675,587

  7·7

  1 Unemployed claimants expressed as a percentage of claimants plus employees in employment only.

  The figures are affected by the change in the compilation of the count in March 1986 to reduce
  422
  Newcastle upon Tyne travel to work area, (iii) the Greater London travel to work area and (iv) England and Wales for the most recent month for which figures are available and for February 1985;.

  Mr. Lee
  The following is the available information. Table A gives the total unfilled vacancies notified to jobcentres at December 1988 and February 1985. Table B shows unemployment level and percentage rates for December 1988 and February 1985. It is not meaningful to calculate a ratio of unemployed claimants to unfilled vacancies at jobcentres, since only about a third of all vacancies in the economy are notified to jobcentres.

  Table A

  Unfilled vacancies at jobcentres for December 1988 and February

  1985

  February 1985

  December 1988

  level

  level

  Newcastle TTWA

  1,851

  3,134

  Greater London TTWA

  19,726

  23,712

  Hexham TTWA

  79

  125

  England and Wales

  122,877

  202,614

  over-recording and by the change in the coverage from September 1988 due to the introduction of new benefit regulations for young people aged under 18.

  Qualifications
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give, based on the labour force survey(a) the total number of people of working age and (b) the percentage with (i) A level or equivalent or higher, (ii) o level or equivalent, (iii) below o level and (iv) no

  Regional variations in highest qualification held be persons of working age1-Great Britain, Spring estimates

  Thousands and per cent

  Standard Region

  Total

  of which:percentage possessing highest qualification

  (000's)

  'A' level or

  'O' level or

  Below 'O' level2

  No vocational

  equivalent or

  equivalent

  or educational

  higher

  qualificilion

  1983

  Northern

  1,876

  27

  13

  11

  49

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,939

  29

  13

  9

  49

  East Midlands

  2,329

  28

  13

  10

  49

  East Anglia

  1,137

  29

  14

  12

  46

  South East (except Greater London)

  6,143

  35

  17

  11

  37

  Greater London

  4,145

  34

  16

  9

  42

  South West

  2,564

  32

  17

  10

  41

  West Midlands

  3,143

  26

  13

  10

  51

  North West

  3,825

  30

  14

  9

  46

  Wales

  1,659

  25

  15

  10

  50

  Scotland

  3,102

  37

  13

  4

  46

  Great Britain

  32,861

  31

  15

  9

  45

  1984

  Northern

  1,879

  32

  14

  8

  46

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,956

  31

  14

  9

  46

  East Midlands

  2,355

  33

  15

  9

  43

  East Anglia

  1,151

  32

  16

  10

  43

  South East (except Greater London)

  6,228

  37

  18

  11

  34

  Greater London

  4,166

  37

  17

  9

  38

  South West

  2,594

  37

  18

  10

  35

  West Midlands

  3,162

  30

  14

  10

  46

  North West

  3,849

  34

  15

  19

  42

  Wales

  1,665

  31

  16

  8

  46

  Scotland

  3,119

  41

  13

  3

  43

  Great Britain

  33,125

  35

  16

  9

  41

  1985

  Northern

  1,879

  32

  13

  10

  45

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,964

  33

  15

  10

  42

  East Midlands

  2,377

  34

  15

  10

  42

  East Anglia

  1,170

  32

  16

  11

  40

  South East (except Greater London)

  6,292

  38

  19

  10

  33

  Greater London

  4,170

  39

  17

  10

  35

  South West

  2,629

  37

  18

  11

  35

  West Midlands

  3,175

  30

  14

  9

  46

  North West

  3,846

  35

  16

  9

  40

  Wales

  1,673

  32

  16

  8

  44

  Scotland

  3,127

  41

  14

  3

  42

  Great Britain

  33,301

  36

  16

  9

  39

  1986

  Northern

  1,877

  34

  15

  10

  41

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,969

  33

  16

  10

  40

  East Midlands

  2,398

  34

  15

  11

  40

  East Anglia

  1,185

  33

  16

  13

  37

  South East (except Greater London)

  6,344

  38

  20

  12

  31

  Greater London

  4,180

  38

  16

  11

  35

  South West

  2,660

  36

  18

  12

  33

  West Midlands

  3,179

  31

  15

  11

  42

  North West

  3,850

  33

  16

  11

  40

  Wales

  1,681

  32

  17

  9

  42

  Scotland

  3,102

  41

  14

  3

  42

  Great Britain

  33,425

  35

  17

  10

  38

  1987

  Northern

  1,878

  35

  16

  12

  38

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,977

  34

  17

  11

  39

  East Midlands

  2,418

  32

  16

  12

  40

  East Anglia

  1,201

  35

  18

  13

  35

  South East (except Greater London)

  6,391

  39

  20

  12

  29

  Greater London

  4,179

  38

  18

  11

  34

  South West

  2,697

  37

  18

  12

  32

  424
  vocational or educational qualification for each standard English region, Wales and Scotland for 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 19 January 1989]: Estimates from labour force surveys, as requested, are shown in the following table:
  425

  Standard Region

  Total

  of which:percentage possessing highest qualification

  Total (000's)

  'A' level or equivalent or higher

  'O' level or equivalent

  Below 'O' level1

  No vocational or educational

  West Midlands

  3,194

  31

  16

  11

  42

  North West

  3,858

  35

  16

  10

  38

  Wales

  1,694

  31

  17

  10

  42

  Scotland

  3,133

  42

  14

  4

  40

  Great Britain

  33,620

  36

  17

  11

  36

  1 Men aged 16–64, women aged 16–59.

  2 includes those with CSE (below grade 11) or "other" qualifications.

  Graduates
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will give, based on the labour force survey the total number of graduates in employment as a percentage of all in employment in each of the standard English regions, Scotland and Wales and for each of the years 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Regional variations in graduate employment of persons of working Age l Great Britain, Spring estimates.

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Graduates of working in employment (000)'s

  Graduate share 2

  Graduates of working age in employment (000)'s

  Graduate share 2 per cent.

  Graduates of working age in employment (000)'s

  Graduate share 2 per cent.

  Graduates of working age in employment (000)'s

  Graduate share 2 per cent.

  Graduates of working age in employment (000)'s

  Graduate share 2 per cent.

  Region

  South East

  671

  9·2

  682

  9

  743

  9·7

  777

  10·1

  774

  9·8

  of which

  London

  326

  11·3

  331

  11·2

  379

  12·7

  367

  12·5

  387

  13·0

  Rest of South East

  345

  7·8

  352

  7·6

  363

  7·8

  409

  8·6

  386

  7·9

  East Anglia

  43

  5·3

  45

  5·4

  47

  5·7

  54

  6·3

  59

  6·7

  South West

  95

  5·3

  115

  6·3

  114

  5·9

  116

  6 1

  125

  6·3

  West Midlands

  94

  4·6

  104

  5·0

  106

  5·0

  115

  5·3

  122

  5·6

  East Midlands

  76

  4·7

  86

  5·2

  91

  5·5

  98

  5·7

  90

  5·3

  Yorkshire and Humberstde

  99

  5·0

  96

  4·8

  90

  4·5

  111

  5·5

  116

  5·7

  North West

  147

  5·9

  132

  5·2

  145

  5·6

  137

  5·3

  174

  6·6

  Northern

  57

  4·8

  58

  4·9

  49

  4·2

  63

  5·3

  73

  5·8

  Wales

  50

  5·0

  5·6

  5·4

  55

  5·3

  73

  7·0

  60

  5·6

  Scotland

  144

  7·1

  124

  6·2

  136

  6·6

  132

  6·6

  120

  5·9

  Great Britain

  1,474

  6·6

  1,498

  6·6

  1,576

  68

  1,675

  7·2

  1,711

  7·3

  1 Men aged 16·64. Women aged 16·59.

  2 Graduates as a percentage of all persons of all working age in employment.

  Source: Labour Force Surveys.

  High Moor Colliery (Accident)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give details of the last section 123, and other inspections of 91s heading at High Moor colliery prior to the 30 m fall of roof on 13 January.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 19 January 1989]: The last report of an inspection under section 123 on 91s heading at High Moor colliery was made on 9 January 1989. A copy of this report would have been required to be displayed at the mine.

  The details of other statutory inspections made at the heading are still being gathered in the process of the investigation of the incident.

  YTS Training Centre, Cyprus
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the cost of the YTS training centre in Cyprus; who is eligible to attend the centre; and how many trainees have made use of the centre for the most recent period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have been asked to reply by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The current staff cost of running the centre is £32·5K per annum, and all dependants of armed forces and Civil
  426
  (2) if he will give based on the labour force survey, the total number of graduates in employment in each of the standard English regions, Wales and Scotland and for each of the years 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 19 January 1989]: Estimates from labour force surveys as requested, are shown in following table:

  Service personnel in Cyprus between the ages of 16 and 19½ years of age are eligible to attend. Since February 1987, 150 trainees have used the centre.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Set-aside
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many applications and registrations he has received under the set-aside scheme on a county-by-county basis; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many applications and registrations he has received under the set-aside scheme (a) within and (b) outside, less-favoured areas; and within each category how many applications he has received for (i) permanent fallow, (ii) rotational fallow, (iii) farm woodland and (iv) non agricultural use;

  (3) how many set-aside agreements his Department has finalised by county in England and Wales; what is the total hectareage for each county taken out of production by such means; and what is his estimate by county of the total cost of this scheme.

  Mr. Ryder
  I shall shortly be announcing further details of the first year's uptake of the scheme.

  Departmental Committees
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all his departmental committees onto which he appoints outside representatives.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Public bodies, including advisory committees, sponsored by my Department, are listed in "Public Bodies 1988" of which a copy is in the Library. l also appoint representatives from outside the Government service to the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service and regional management board.

  Pigmeat Imports
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the effect of the monetary compensatory amounts system on Dutch and Danish pigmeat imports into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  United Kingdom, Dutch and Danish pigmeat monetary compensatory amounts are currently all zero; so that their effect on Dutch and Danish pigmeat imports into the United Kingdom is neutral.

  Fish Foods
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends the code of practice on the production of animal feeding stuffs containing processed animal products to apply to the production of fish foods.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  It is my intention that the code of practice on the production of animal feedingstuffs will apply to feedingstuffs and their ingredients, including animal protein, intended for feeding to food animals and poultry but not to fish.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the locations of reports of salmonella under the Zoonoses Order 1975 during 1988; and if he will indicate in each case who reported it and what was the method by which it was identified.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The reporting of isolations of salmonella in food producing animals is required under the Zoonoses Order 1975. 2,167 reports have been submitted so far for 1988 for Great Britain. As there is a delay between finding an isolate and submitting a report, this figure must be regarded as provisional. Of these reported isolations, 1,559 were in England, 269 in Scotland and 339 in Wales.

  Under the Zoonoses Order, any person who knows or has reason to believe that an animal or bird is or was a carrier of a salmonella organism is required to make a report. Those making reports include owners of animals, private veterinary surgeons; or reports can be made as a result of the isolation of a salmonella organism in a laboratory. It is not possible to give details of who reported the incidents, the methods by which they were identified or precise locations except at disproportionate cost.
  428
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures exist for the monitoring of the code of practice for poultry health scheme members for the control of salmonella.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Since the poultry health scheme code was introduced, veterinary officers of my Department have been assessing compliance with it in the course of visits which they make to the premises. Further checks are carried out if visits are made following the reporting of isolations under the Zoonoses Order 1975.

  As part of the recently announced further measures the majority of the requirements at present in the code of practice will be made statutory.

  Chicken Food
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly of 13 January,Official Report, column 795, (1) how many (a) feed processing plants and (b) feed processing plants producing chicken food there were in each of the years from 1984 to 1988;

  (2) if he will give (a) the number of inspections per feed processing plant and (b) the number of cases, by plant and by sample, where resampling revealed salmonella contamination in each of the years from 1984 to 1988.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The number of plants in Great Britain can vary from year to year as new ones opened and others closed down. Furthermore, not all operate on a continual basis.

  The total numbers of protein processing plants producing animal protein for incorporation into animal feedingstuffs, known to have been operational in each year from 1984 to 1988 were:

  Number

  1984

  109

  1985

  112

  1986

  102

  1987

  86

  11988

  85

  1 Provisional.

  The numbers visited and sampled during the year, and the numbers of batches inspected each year were:

  Number of plants visited

  Number of batches inspected

  1984

  107

  251

  1985

  106

  224

  1986

  99

  212

  1987

  84

  185

  11988

  74

  157

  1 Provisional.

  The number of cases where re-sampling revealed salmonella contamination in each of the years from 1984 to 1988 were:

  1st sample

  2nd sample

  1984

  10

  2

  1985

  13

  3

  1986

  13

  5

  1987

  6

  1

  11988

  4

  0

  1 Provisional.

  429
  Notes:

  1. 1988 figures are provisional and may understate the final level because there is a delay between inspection and the final recording of results.

  2. In continuous production plants a batch comprises a series of samples collected over a five days production. The number of samples taken each day is proportional to the output.

  Sub-standard Beef
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department was first notified of imports of sub-standard beef arriving at Mid Cornwall Meatpackers.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  On 24 November, Carrick district council's environmental health service sent a report to the Ministry's office at Truro. As soon as this was received, further details were requested in order that the matter could be raised with the authorities of the Republic of Ireland. These details were received on 19 December 1988.

  Contaminated Meat
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any evidence that recent consignments of meat originating from Ireland which have been condemned in this country as unfit for human consumption had previously been the subject of cross-border trading between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland for the purpose of fraudulently obtaining EEC export subsidies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  This is a matter for the Irish authorities, and we have asked them to investigate it.

  Deer (Tuberculosis)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are taken by his Department when an outbreak of tuberculosis is confirmed in farmed deer herds.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  When an outbreak of tuberculosis is confirmed in farmed deer herds a notice is served under article 15 of the Tuberculosis (England and Wales) Order 1984 or the Tuberculosis (Scotland) Order 1984 preventing movement of deer on or off the premises. These restrictions are maintained until the herd has undergone two consecutive comparative tuberculin tests, at least 120 days apart, with negative results at severe interpretation. The first of these tests is carried out at least 120 days after removal of reactors or infected animals.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to the introduction of a tuberculocis eradication scheme for farmed deer; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I announced my proposals for the control of tuberculosis in farmed deer on 15 december 1988 at columns 674–75. A consultation letter on the proposals was sent to interested organisations on 21 December 1988. Consideration is now being given to the comments they have made.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of tuberculosis have been confirmed in deer herds in the past 12 months in England and Wales, and in each of the preceding three years.
  430
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The numbers of deer herds in which tuberculosis has been confirmed are as follows:

  Number

  1985

  3

  1986

  —

  1987

  —

  1988

  6

WALES

  Hospital Waiting lists
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of(a) in-patient and (b) out-patient waiting lists in the Mid-Glamorgan health authority area and in Wales as a whole; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  At 31 March 1988, the number of people waiting for in-patient treatment was 7,112 in Mid Glamorgan and 41,648 in Wales as a whole. The numbers waiting for a first out-patient appointment were 16,842 and 82,319 respectively.

  Translation Costs
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the income and expenditure involved for the commemoration of the translation of the Bible into Welsh and the "Travels of Gerald of Wales"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh Office contributed £25,000, over a three-year period, to support the work of the committee which co-ordinated arrangements for the numerous events to mark the 400th anniversary of the Welsh translation of the Bible. Celebration of the 800th anniversary of the travels of Gerald of Wales involved a number of events, including a major exhibition at the national museum of Wales. The final income and expenditure figures will take some time to establish.

  M4
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in which month tenders will be invited for the four sections of the unfinished part of the M4; and when a decision on the successful tenderers will be announced.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I hope shortly to be in a position to advertise my intention to invite tenders for the first phase of the Baglan-Lonlas section of the M4. Work on this is planned to start towards the end of 1989–90.

  Gresford to Pulford Bypass
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of the Gresford to Pulford bypass.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The total cost of this joint Welsh Office-Department of Transport scheme, including all works and land costs, is estimated to be £25 million. The Welsh Office share will be about £20 million.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the implications for the travel costs for officials to be borne by his Department of the location of the inquiry into the proposed increase in tolls on the Severn bridge.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Varying the location of the inquiry would have only marginal implications for such travel costs.

  Eggs
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had from farming unions in Wales on the recent statement on compensation for egg producers.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  None.

  Sir Raymond Gower
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest information regarding the level of egg production in Wales; and what variations have occurred in the past two months.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  315 million eggs were produced in Wales for human consumption in 1987. Prior to the recent disruption of the market, it was expected that 1988 production would be about 339 million. No information is yet available concerning recent fluctuations.

  Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to increase the headquarters grant to Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin to a level sufficient to enable it to purchase an appropriate headquarters building.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  A core grant is made to Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin each year, under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 as a contribution to its headquarters expenditure. Careful consideration will be given to the application which Mudiad Ysgolian Meithrin has submitted for grant aid next year in the light of its needs, including its need for a new headquarters, the resources available and the demands from other organisations for grant assistance.

  Phurnacite Plant, Cynon Valley
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a further statement on the proposed mild heat treatment process at the phurnacite plant in the Cynon Valley.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Lady on this matter in the House on 5 December.

  Welsh Language Teaching
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in recent months on the compulsory teaching of Welsh as a foundation subject in the national curriculum.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Since the Education Reform Act received Royal Assent last July, I have received a small number of letters about the teaching of Welsh. The 432
  majority have been supportive of the place of Welsh in the national curriculum, although several have had reservations about resource implications or about the impact on the teaching of other subjects, particularly in the later years of secondary school.

  Economic Prospects
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give an assessment on the prospects for the Welsh economy for 1989.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  There is every reason to suppose that the current year, like 1988, will be extremely successful for Wales and the Welsh economy.

  NHS Land
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the total proceeds from the sale of National Health Service land and property in(a) Wales and (b) West Glamorgan since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  Proceeds from the sale of surplus NHS land and property in Wales from 1979–80 to 1987–88 have amounted to £10.722 million, of which £0·722 million arose from sales by West Glamorgan Health Authority.

  Government policy encourages district health authorities in Wales to dispose of surplus land and property; I he receipts from which may be reinvested to the benefit of patient care.

  Housing Need
  Mr. Foot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of present housing need in Blaenau Gwent and in Wales as a whole; and what impact the valleys initiative will have in meeting those needs.

  Mr. Grist
  Local authorities have the statutory responsibility for assessing the housing needs of their area. Blaenau Gwent will benefit substantially from the Programme for the Valleys which in total ought to provide 10,000 new homes with a further 32,000 homes improved.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the establishment of the proposed training and enterprise councils in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Government will shortly be inviting local groups, led by employers, to submit proposals for the establishment of training and enterprise councils in England and Wales. A national training task force will advise on the establishment of TECs in England and Wales, and my right hon. Friend will be appointing a separate body to advise him on training and related enterprise and education matters, including the establishment of TECs, in the Principality.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the likely effect on Welsh industry of the recent rises in interest rates.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The impact of high interest rates in other parts of the United Kingdom may well make firms
  433
  carefully consider their overhead costs and take advantage of the very positive regional policies that are being pursued in Wales. I am much encouraged that the regional assistance offers made in 1988 provide the promise of 31,500 new jobs, and inward investment in 1988 has been at an all-time high, promising 13,600 jobs.

  Potato Marketing Board
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the operations of the Potato Marketing Board in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Government are considering the industry's response to the recent consultation paper about the future of the Potato Marketing Board. Welsh interests will be fully taken into account.

  Water Privatisation
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he has made for the privatisation of water so as to ensure the protection of the environment of Wales and the interests of Welsh consumers.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), earlier today.

  Hormone Replacement Therapy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to make available hormone replacement therapy on a Wales-wide basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Hormone replacement therapy is already prescribable through the NHS by registered medical practitioners in circumstances which in the exercise of clinical judgment they consider appropriate.

  Cervical Cancer Screening
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to extend facilities for screening for cervical cancer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Computerised call and recall for cervical screening is now operational in all parts of Wales. The Welsh Office has allocated over £800,000 a year of recurring funds to district health authorities in support of the screening programme. Subject to parliamentary approval, we shall be announcing the allocation of further significant funding later this year.

  Lamb
  Sir Raymond Gower
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what success has attended the measures taken to improve the marketing of Welsh lamb; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In an expanding United Kingdom market for lamb over recent years, Welsh lamb has increased its market share and quality Welsh lamb continues to command a price premium.
  434
  Welsh lamb producers are also taking advantage of the export opportunities which have arisen through improved marketing.

  Set-aside
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications and registrations he has received under the set-aside scheme(a) within and (b) outside, less favoured areas; and within each category how many applications he has received for (i) permanent fallow, (ii) rotational fallow, (iii) farm woodland and (iv) non agricultural use.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The number of applications and registrations received under the set-aside scheme in Wales are as follows:

  Within LFA

  Outside the LFA

  Total

  Number of applications

  9

  26

  135

  Number of registrations

  132

  201

  333

  For each category the number of applications received is:

  (i) Permanent Fallow

  8

  17

  25

  (ii) Rotational Fallow

  2

  7

  9

  (iii) Woodland

  —

  1

  1

  (iv) Non-agricultural use

  —

  6

  6

  141

  1 Some applications include more than 1 category.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications and registrations he has received under the set-aside scheme on a county by county basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The number of applications and registrations received under the set-aside scheme in Wales on a county by county basis is as follows:

  Applications

  Registrations

  Clwyd

  1

  14

  Dyfed

  l8

  111

  Gwynedd

  6

  46

  Powys

  2

  51

  South Glamorgan

  1

  12

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  12

  West Glamorgan

  1

  7

  Gwent

  6

  50

  Agriculture (Divisional Offices)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to reduce the number of Welsh Office Agriculture Department and the Agricultural Development Advisory Service divisional offices in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No.

  Regional Grants
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of applications(a) received and (b) approved for innovation grants from 1 April 1988 to 31 December 1988 and the total estimated expenditure planned for that period.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Under the regional enterprise grant scheme, 84 applications for innovation projects were received by my Department and 21 offers of grant made in the period 1 April 1988 to 31 December 1988. The total provision for the 1988–89 financial year is £600,000.
  435
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of applications(a) received and (b) approved for investment grants from 1 April 1988 and 31 December 1988 and the total estimated expenditure planned for that period.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Under the regional enterprise grant scheme 186 applications for investment projects were received by my Department and 78 offers of grant made in the period 1 April 1988 to 31 December 1988. The total provision for the 1988–89 financial year is £1·8 million.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total estimated expenditure on regional development grant and regional selective assistance in each of the years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Total provision in 1988–89 for expenditure on regional development grants and regional selective assistance in Wales is £109·4 million. Expenditure plans for 1989–90 and 1990–91 will be shown in the 1989 public expenditure White Paper and details of the regional selective assistance and regional development grants provision for 1989–90 in the Supply Estimates published in March.

  Note:

  (1) The figures given for 1988–89 are net of recoveries and domestic receipts, but gross of EC receipts.

  (2) RSA includes industrial and training grants, and expenditure under the business improvement services and exchange risk guarantee scheme.

  (a) Rate Support Grants in cash terms (£000s)

  Local authority

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Counties:

  Clwyd

  76,600

  84,833

  84,772

  85,581

  89,887

  92,747

  99,993

  106,781

  Dyfed

  67,940

  75,714

  79,272

  79,625

  81,719

  88,529

  97,665

  106,385

  Gwent

  87,682

  99,536

  101,052

  102,740

  102,098

  111,319

  116,782

  123,768

  Gwynedd

  49,040

  53,398

  55,662

  54,334

  54,557

  59,546

  62,731

  68,580

  Mid Glamorgan

  131,173

  141,148

  142,405

  144,489

  152,107

  159,068

  173,220

  188,728

  Powys

  30,790

  35,945

  36,700

  35,966

  36,587

  38,390

  41,389

  43,773

  South Glamorgan

  61,364

  71,332

  70,776

  69,536

  69,354

  71,153

  76,781

  81,281

  West Glamorgan

  68,467

  79,659

  78,868

  81,220

  85,767

  88,647

  94.437

  98,416

  Districts:

  Alyn and Deeside

  3,621

  3,222

  3,220

  3,297

  3,217

  3,404

  3,464

  3,460

  Colwyn

  3,062

  2,724

  2,765

  2,604

  2,549

  2,611

  2.525

  2,839

  Delyn

  4,491

  3,915

  3,930

  4,010

  3,933

  4,156

  4,285

  4,384

  Glyndwr

  2,340

  2,010

  2,149

  2,000

  2,013

  2,187

  2,165

  2,185

  Rhuddlan

  3,469

  2,944

  3,310

  3,246

  3,239

  3,342

  3,806

  4,270

  Wrexham Maelor

  6,664

  5,397

  5,671

  5,751

  6,080

  6,182

  6,044

  6,f13

  Carmarthen

  3,106

  2,569

  2,769

  2,700

  2,820

  3,049

  3,221

  3,268

  Ceredigion

  3,381

  3,035

  3,154

  3,020

  3,193

  3,401

  3,710

  3,747

  Dinefwr

  1,922

  1,840

  1,767

  1,781

  1,801

  1,852

  1,979

  1,987

  Llanelli

  5,053

  4,429

  4,724

  4,686

  4,814

  4,932

  4,984

  5,018

  Preseli

  3,157

  2,809

  3,184

  3,194

  3,268

  3,492

  3,821

  4,045

  South Pembrokeshire

  1,398

  1,361

  1,305

  1,040

  1,446

  1,478

  1,936

  1,742

  Blaenau Gwent

  6,098

  6,012

  6,240

  6,359

  7,271

  7,193

  7,304

  7,591

  Islwyn

  4,443

  3,929

  4,294

  4,238

  4,495

  5,293

  5,457

  5,734

  Monmouth

  3,739

  3,236

  3,375

  3,226

  3,123

  3,251

  3,129

  3,038

  Newport

  7,125

  6,237

  6,755

  7,017

  6,435

  7,473

  6,999

  7,073

  Torfaen

  5,841

  4,875

  5,015

  5,325

  5,250

  5,230

  4,692

  4,970

  Aberconwy

  3,459

  2,841

  2,990

  2,963

  2,849

  2,779

  2,723

  2,767

  Arfon

  3,545

  3,406

  3,436

  3,016

  2,781

  2,966

  2,810

  2,617

  Dwyfor

  1,674

  1,681

  1,859

  1,789

  1,847

  1,933

  2,006

  2,184

  Meirionydd

  1,691

  1,754

  1,956

  1,780

  1,907

  2,027

  2,062

  2,094

  Ynys Mon

  3,797

  3,399

  3,820

  3,528

  3,447

  3,487

  3,629

  3,746

  Cynon Valley

  4,861

  4,853

  4,743

  4,696

  4,837

  5,127

  5,345

  5,839

  Merthyr Tydfil

  4,967

  4,710

  4,665

  5,014

  5,197

  5,397

  5,440

  5,564

  Ogwr

  8,152

  7,312

  6,779

  7,590

  7,559

  7,574

  7,983

  8,158

  Rhondda

  6,664

  7,596

  7,939

  7,352

  8,231

  8,703

  9,028

  9,045

  Rhymney Valley

  7,991

  6,967

  6,810

  7,306

  6,866

  6,971

  7,096

  7,425

  Taff Ely

  5,446

  5,234

  4,989

  4,823

  4,580

  4,699

  4,522

  4,835

  Brecknock

  2,324

  1,881

  1,935

  1,983

  1,965

  2,099

  2,085

  2,258

  Montgomeryshire

  2,377

  2,197

  2,517

  2,384

  2,325

  2,535

  2,590

  2,525

  Radnor

  1,158

  1,008

  1,062

  999

  966

  992

  1,172

  1,078

  Rate Support Grant
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will show for each local authority in Wales the rate support grant paid in each year since 1978–79, expressed in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms at 1988–89 prices; and what percentage of each council's total expenditure in each year this represented.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested is given in the following tables for all years from 1981–82 to 1988–89. It is not possible to provide meaningful figures for 1978–79 to 1980–81 on a comparable basis as the arrangements for paying rate support grant to each tier of local authorities in Wales were different and these grants were not directly linked to the expenditure of individual councils. Rate support grant comprises a block grant paid to individual county and district councils, and domestic rate relief grant, which is a direct subsidy to ratepayers, paid to district councils in order to reduce total domestic rate poundages, including county precepts, by 36p in 1981–82 and 18·5p from 1982–83 onwards. Domestic rate relief grant cannot sensibly be compared with districts' total expenditure. Block grant entitlements are compared with individual district expenditure figures in table(c) and rate support grant entitlements are compared with expenditure for county areas in table (d).
  437

  Local authority

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Cardiff

  16,903

  15,677

  16,702

  16,356

  16,545

  17,982

  18,916

  19,453

  Vale of Glamorgan

  5,745

  4,889

  4,778

  4,464

  4,357

  5,036

  5,778

  6,154

  Port Talbot

  2,360

  2,391

  2,173

  2,922

  2,572

  2,782

  2,863

  3,257

  Lliw Valley

  3,274

  3,187

  3,316

  3,274

  3,309

  3,451

  3,508

  3,697

  Neath

  3,652

  3,145

  3,210

  3,131

  3,076

  2,874

  3,403

  4,125

  Swansea

  12,814

  11,076

  12,755

  12,905

  14,128

  14,184

  14,525

  14,918

  Wales

  744,820

  797,313

  811,568

  814,360

  836,369

  881,524

  940,004

  1,000,915

  (b) Rate Support Grants in real terms at 1988–89 prices (£000s)

  Local authority

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Counties:

  Clwyd

  109,829

  113,524

  108,500

  104,263

  103,900

  103,747

  106,242

  106,781

  Dyfed

  97,412

  101,320

  101,460

  97,007

  94,459

  99,028

  103,769

  106,385

  Gwent

  125,718

  133,199

  129,336

  125,168

  118,015

  124,521

  124,081

  123,768

  Gwynedd

  70,314

  71,457

  71,142

  66,196

  63,036

  66,609

  66,652

  68,580

  Md Glamorgan

  188,076

  188,884

  182,264

  176,031

  175,821

  177,933

  184,047

  188,728

  Powys

  44,147

  48,102

  46,972

  43,817

  42,291

  42,943

  43,976

  43,773

  South Glamorgan

  87,984

  95,456

  90,586

  84,716

  80,166

  79,592

  81,580

  81,281

  West Glamorgan

  98,168

  106,600

  100,943

  98,950

  99,138

  99,160

  100,339

  98,416

  Districts:

  Alyn and Deeside

  5,192

  4,312

  4,122

  4,017

  3,719

  3,808

  3,681

  3,460

  Colwyn

  4,390

  3,645

  3,539

  3,173

  2,946

  2,920

  2,682

  2,839

  Delyn

  6,439

  5,239

  5,030

  4,885

  4,546

  4,649

  4,553

  4,384

  Glyndwr

  3,355

  2,690

  2,750

  2,437

  2,327

  2,447

  2,300

  2,185

  Rhuddlan

  4,974

  3,940

  4,236

  3,954

  3,744

  3,738

  4.044

  4,270

  Wrexham Maelor

  9,555

  7,222

  7,258

  7,006

  7,027

  6,915

  6,421

  6,113

  Carmarthen

  4,453

  3,438

  3,544

  3,290

  3,260

  3,410

  3,423

  3,268

  Ceredigion

  4,848

  4,061

  4,037

  3,679

  3,691

  3,804

  3,942

  3,747

  Dinefwr

  2,756

  2,462

  2,262

  2,169

  2,082

  2,072

  2,103

  1,987

  Llanelli

  7,245

  5,972

  6,047

  5,710

  5,565

  5,517

  5,295

  5,018

  Preseli

  4,527

  3,759

  4,075

  3,891

  3,778

  3,907

  4,059

  4,045

  South Pembrokeshire

  2,004

  1,821

  1,670

  1,267

  1,671

  1,654

  2,057

  1,742

  Blaenau Gwent

  8,743

  8045

  7,987

  7,748

  8,404

  8,046

  7,761

  7,591

  Islwyn

  6,370

  5,258

  5,496

  5,163

  5,196

  5,921

  5,799

  5,734

  Monmouth

  5,361

  4,330

  4,320

  3,930

  3,610

  3,636

  3,324

  3,038

  Newport

  10,216

  8,346

  8,646

  8,549

  7,438

  8,359

  7,437

  7,073

  Torfaen

  8,375

  6,524

  6,418

  6,487

  6,069

  5,850

  4,986

  4,970

  Aberconwy

  4,960

  3,802

  3,826

  3,609

  3,293

  3,109

  2,893

  2,767

  Arfon

  5,083

  4,558

  4,397

  3,674

  3,214

  3,318

  2,986

  2,617

  Dwyfor

  2,400

  2,250

  2,379

  2179

  2,135

  2,162

  2,132

  2,184

  Meirionydd

  2,425

  2,347

  2,503

  2,169

  2,204

  2,268

  2,191

  2,094

  Ynys Mon

  5,444

  4,549

  4,889

  4,298

  3,984

  3,901

  3,856

  3,746

  Cynon Valley

  6,970

  6,494

  6,070

  5,721

  5,591

  5,735

  5,679

  5,839

  Merthyr Tydfil

  7,122

  6,303

  5,971

  6,109

  6,007

  6,037

  5,780

  5,564

  Ogwr

  11,688

  9,785

  8,677

  9,247

  8,738

  8,472

  8,482

  8,158

  Rhondda

  9,555

  10,165

  10,161

  8,957

  9,514

  9,735

  9,592

  9,045

  Rhymney Valley

  11,457

  9,323

  8,716

  8,536

  7,936

  7,798

  7,540

  7,425

  Taff Ely

  7,808

  7,004

  6,386

  5,876

  5,294

  5,256

  4,805

  4,835

  Becknock

  3,332

  2,517

  2,477

  2,416

  2,271

  2,348

  2,215

  2,258

  Montgomeryshire

  3,408

  2,940

  3,221

  2,905

  2,688

  2,835

  2,752

  2,525

  Radnor

  1,660

  1,349

  1,359

  1,217

  1,116

  1,109

  1,245

  1,078

  Cardiff

  24,236

  20,979

  21,377

  19,926

  19,124

  20,115

  20,098

  19453

  Vale of Glamorgan

  8,237

  6,542

  6,115

  5,438

  5,037

  5,634

  6,139

  6,154

  Port Talbot

  3,384

  3,200

  2,782

  3,560

  2,973

  3,112

  3,042

  3,257

  Lliw Valley

  4,694

  4,265

  4,244

  3,989

  3,825

  3,860

  3,727

  3,697

  Neath

  5,236

  4,209

  4,108

  3,815

  3,555

  3,215

  3,616

  4,125

  Swansea

  18,373

  14,822

  16,325

  15,722

  16,331

  15,866

  15,433

  14,918

  Wales

  1,067,923

  1,066,964

  1,038,726

  992,865

  966,759

  986,072

  998,754

  1,000,915

  (c) Block Grant expressed as a percentage of total expenditure1

  Local authority

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Counties:

  Clwyd

  59

  61

  58

  57

  57

  55

  56

  55

  Dyfed

  63

  67

  66

  63

  63

  60

  61

  60

  Gwent

  59

  65

  63

  62

  59

  60

  58

  56

  Gwynedd

  64

  65

  64

  60

  58

  59

  57

  57

  Mid Glamorgan

  72

  72

  69

  66

  70

  67

  67

  67

  Powys

  74

  77

  74

  70

  69

  68

  70

  67

  South Glamorgan

  51

  55

  51

  49

  47

  44

  44

  42

  West Glamorgan

  54

  58

  56

  56

  57

  54

  54

  51

  438 439

  Local authority

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Districts:

  Alyn and Deeside

  55

  58

  61

  58

  52

  53

  50

  47

  Colwyn

  57

  60

  56

  54

  51

  49

  43

  47

  Delyn

  63

  65

  63

  67

  64

  64

  63

  60

  Glyndwr

  61

  66

  67

  62

  61

  65

  61

  56

  Rhuddlan

  57

  55

  61

  60

  56

  56

  60

  62

  Wrexham Maelor

  59

  57

  58

  60

  62

  57

  50

  47

  Carmarthen

  70

  67

  75

  70

  68

  70

  70

  66

  Ceredigion

  70

  75

  76

  70

  68

  69

  75

  66

  Dinefwr

  75

  74

  84

  80

  78

  73

  75

  69

  Llanelli

  66

  70

  69

  67

  63

  64

  61

  58

  Preseti

  58

  63

  66

  63

  62

  64

  68

  69

  South Pembrokeshire

  29

  43

  37

  28

  39

  36

  47

  39

  Blaenau Gwent

  69

  68

  68

  73

  70

  73

  75

  73

  Islwyn

  72

  76

  77

  77

  75

  73

  74

  70

  Monmouth

  60

  61

  59

  57

  48

  49

  44

  38

  Newport

  42

  49

  50

  52

  40

  53

  44

  41

  Torfaen

  60

  48

  55

  61

  60

  58

  46

  47

  Aberconwy

  57

  57

  60

  58

  53

  49

  46

  43

  Arfon

  66

  71

  68

  59

  52

  56

  49

  40

  Dwyfor

  63

  66

  70

  65

  63

  61

  60

  61

  Meirionydd

  47

  58

  62

  54

  56

  54

  51

  48

  Ynys Mon

  60

  58

  62

  59

  54

  48

  48

  47

  Cynon Valley

  75

  74

  79

  78

  77

  76

  76

  76

  Merthyr Tydfil

  72

  75

  73

  76

  73

  70

  67

  68

  Ogwr

  65

  69

  58

  68

  65

  60

  61

  58

  Rhondda

  83

  84

  85

  80

  84

  84

  84

  84

  Rhymney Valley

  72

  66

  75

  74

  72

  71

  65

  64

  Taff Ely

  60

  59

  57

  57

  53

  55

  48

  49

  Brecknock

  72

  69

  78

  64

  65

  62

  56

  56

  Montgomeryshire

  78

  75

  76

  69

  64

  78

  71

  62

  Radnor

  59

  67

  65

  59

  54

  58

  72

  57

  Cardiff

  56

  63

  63

  61

  60

  66

  65

  64

  Vale of Glamorgan

  48

  55

  52

  46

  43

  49

  56

  57

  Port Talbot

  29

  38

  32

  46

  38

  44

  43

  49

  Lliw Valley

  70

  63

  68

  67

  66

  67

  65

  65

  Neath

  59

  68

  69

  67

  65

  47

  62

  79

  Swansea

  58

  52

  62

  64

  64

  60

  60

  59

  Wales

  61

  64

  62

  61

  60

  58

  58

  57

  1 Total expenditure figures for 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89 are calculated in accordance with the rules set out in schedule 1 to the Rate Support Grants Act 1988.

  (d) Rate Support Grants as a percentage of Total Expenditure by county area1

  County area

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Clwyd

  64

  63

  61

  60

  60

  57

  57

  57

  Dyfed

  67

  69

  68

  65

  64

  62

  63

  62

  Gwent

  63

  66

  64

  64

  60

  62

  59

  57

  Gwynedd

  67

  67

  66

  61

  59

  60

  57

  57

  Mid Glamorgan

  75

  74

  70

  69

  71

  68

  69

  68

  Powys

  77

  78

  76

  72

  70

  70

  71

  68

  South Glamorgan

  57

  59

  55

  53

  51

  49

  49

  48

  West Glamorgan

  58

  59

  58

  59

  59

  56

  56

  54

  Wales

  65

  66

  64

  62

  62

  60

  60

  59

  1 Percentages are based on totals for the county council and all district councils within the relevant county boundaries.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Justices of die Peace
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the number of justices of the peace in Stockport and Tameside by electoral ward and sex.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his answer, 22 December 1988 c. 390–91]: Following is the information for Tameside:

  Male

  Female

  South Tameside PSD

  Dukinfield

  2

  2

  Dukinfield Stalybridge

  4

  1

  Hyde Godley

  —

  1

  Hyde Newton

  4

  1

  Hyde Werneth

  7

  1

  Longdendale

  11

  6

  440

  Male

  Female

  Stalybridge North

  2

  1

  Stalybridge South

  2

  7

  Within North Tameside PSD

  Aston Hurst

  —

  2

  Denton West

  1

  -

  Mossley

  —

  2

  Outside both PSDs

  9

  9

  42

  33

  North Tameside (Ashton-Under-Lyne PSD)

  Ashton St. Michael's

  4

  1

  Ashton St. Peter's

  4

  I

  Ashton Waterloo

  2

  2

  Ashton Hurst

  7

  7

  Audenshaw

  3

  —

  Denton South

  ]

  2

  Denton West

  4

  3

  441

  Male

  Female

  Denton West

  4

  3

  Denton North East

  4

  1

  Droylsden West

  5

  1

  Droylsden East

  1

  1

  Mossley

  4

  2

  Within South Tameside PSD

  Dukinfield

  1

  1

  Dukinfield Stalybridge

  —

  1

  Hyde Werneth

  —

  1

  Longdendale

  2

  2

  Stalybridge South

  7

  7

  Outside both PSDs

  11

  10

  60

  43

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  GATT
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will set out details of the agreement on tropical agricultural products reached at the recent GATT mid-term review in Montreal; and if he will specify decisions taken about the treatment of processed agricultural products from less-developed countries.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Provisional agreement was reached among 32 developed and developing countries* to contribute to an initial package of measures liberalising trade in tropical products. This, like the other provisional agreements reached in Montreal, is subject to confirmation by the trade negotiations committee of the GATT meeting in Geneva early in April. In the meantime some importing countries are implementing parts of the tropical products package unilaterally.

  The European Communities' contribution to the package covers the reduction of elimination of duty in 153 product categories including cut flowers, tropical fruits and nuts, tea, coffee, spices, vegetable oils for industrial purposes, fruit juices, essential oils, tropical woods, ropes and cordage and jute products. Elimination of import duties is proposed for certain raw materials, and reductions of up to 50 per cent. are proposed for others and for processed and semi-processed products. Import quotas will also be ended for woven fabrics of jute and other bast fibres. These concessions will apply equally to all GATT member countries. The EC offer also included reductions in import duty on tobacco products from developing countries. Those reductions, together with reductions in duty on fresh pineapples and mixtures of tropical fruits and nuts from the least developed countries, were implemented on 1 January 1989 through the Community's generalised scheme of preferences for developing countries.
  * Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, the Central American Countries (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua), Colombia, the members of the European Communities, Finland, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand.

  Malta
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on current trading relations with Malta.
  442
  Mr. Alan Clark
  United Kingdom-Malta trade relations are very good. Provisional trade figures for January-November 1988 show United Kingdom exports of £110 million and imports of just over £37 million.

  Takeovers
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will set out in the form of a table for the most recent available 12-month period, the information he has on the value and number of companies acquired(a) in the United Kingdom by European companies, (b) in Europe by United Kingdom companies, (c) in the United States of America by United Kingdom companies and (d) in the United Kingdom by United States companies.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information required in respect of United Kingdom cross-border acquisitions and mergers for the latest available 12 month period is as follows:

  Quarter 4 1987 Value £ million

  Quarter 3 1988 Number

  (a) European acquisitions in the United Kingdom

  4,111

  30

  (b) United Kingdom acquisitions in Europe

  1,587

  184

  (c) United Kingdom acquisitions in the United States

  9,046

  260

  (d) United States acquisitions in the United Kingdom

  649

  17

  An article on cross-border acquisitions and mergers in the third quarter of 1988 was published in British Business on 9 December 198.

  Motor Vehicles
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish a table showing the number and value of motor vehicles imported into the United Kingdom by country of origin and manufacturing company in respect of manufacturers importing over 1,000 motor cars into the United Kingdom for each of the last 15 years' and the overall total for all those manufacturers importing fewer than 1,000 motor cars.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is not available.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his estimate of (i) the proportion of United Kingdom imports, (ii) the trade deficit represented by such imports, and (iii) the deficit in the trade, of motor vehicles and accessories in the current year; and what are the comparable figures for the previous 15 years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The required information is given in the following tables:

  United Kingdom imports of motor vehicles and accessories 1973 to November 1988

  Table 1

  Division 78 as percentage of total imports

  per cent.

  1973

  4·2

  1974

  2·9

  1975

  3·8

  1976

  4·6

  443

  per cent.

  1977

  5·9

  1978

  7·1

  1979

  8·4

  1980

  6·7

  1981

  6·7

  1982

  7·9

  1983

  8·7

  Table 2

  Value in £ millions

  Exports

  Imports

  Total trade

  Division 78

  Total trade

  Division 78

  Crude balance of trade

  Crude balance of trade for division 78

  1973

  12,087·0

  1,168·7

  15,723·6

  668·1

  -3,636·6

  +500·6

  1974

  16,309·2

  1,397·6

  23,138·9

  668·7

  -6,829·7

  +728·9

  1975

  19,606·9

  1,854·0

  24,046·4

  909·8

  -4,439·5

  +944·2

  1976

  25,276·6

  2,376·9

  31,084·1

  1,43·16

  -5,807·5

  +945·3

  1977

  31,990·1

  2,871·9

  36,219·1

  2,133·5

  -4,229·0

  +7384

  1978

  35,380·3

  3,070·3

  39,533·0

  2,796·9

  -4,152·7

  +2734

  1979

  40,637·0

  3,148·1

  46,924·9

  3,943·2

  -6,287·9

  -795·1

  1980

  47,357·1

  3,158·0

  49,772·9

  3,351·6

  -2,415·8

  -193·6

  1981

  50,998·1

  3,170·5

  51,168·6

  3,408·1

  -170·5

  -237·6

  1982

  55,557·8

  3,109·0

  56,978·2

  4,489·6

  -1,420·4

  -1,380·6

  1983

  60,684·3

  3,092·2

  66,101·1

  5,753·8

  -5,416·8

  -2,661·6

  1984

  70,488·3

  3,318·8

  78,967·4

  5,957·6

  -8,479·1

  -2,638·8

  1985

  78,391·8

  3,910·6

  85,027·0

  6,800·6

  -6,635·2

  -2,890·0

  1986

  72,987·7

  3,953·5

  86,175·5

  7,938·8

  -13,187·8

  -3,985·3

  1987

  79,851·4

  4,876·8

  94,015·7

  8,807·2

  -14,164·3

  -3,930·4

  19881

  74,029·1

  4,457·1

  97,874·4

  10,328·0

  -23,845·3

  -5,870·9

  1 January to November.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Notes:

  (1) Motor vehicles and accessories defined as Division 78 of the Standard International Trade Statistics.

  (2) Imports cif, exports fob.

  (3) 1987 and 1988 data are provisional.

  Sarin (Sales to Iraq)
  Mr. Peter Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many kilos of Sarin methyl phosphonyl difluoride were sold(a) to Iran and (b) to Iraq; whether this substance is known to be a nerve gas of lethal character; and what controls there are on such sales.

  Mr. Atkins
  Methyl phosphonyl difluoride is not itself a nerve gas of lethal character: it can however be used in the preparation of the nerve gas Sarin.

  Following the first confirmation in March 1984 of the use of chemical weapons in the Gulf conflict, controls were imposed on exports of methyl phosphonyl difluoride from the United Kingdom to all destinations under the Export of Goods (Control) Order. No licences have been issued for the export of this substance to Iran or Iraq since the imposition of controls in 1984.

  Betting
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, in the light of the recent takeover in the off-course betting market, the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading will look again at the monopoly position of the big three bookmakers.

  Mr. Maude
  I understand that the Director General of Fair Trading is continuing to monitor developments in the off-course bookmaking market under the competition legislation for which he is responsible.
  444

  per cent.

  1984

  7·5

  1985

  8·0

  1986

  9·2

  1987

  9·4

  1 1988

  10·6

  1 January to November.

  Libya
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the value of British goods and services exported to Libya in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  For the 11 months January to November 1988 the United Kingdom exported goods to the value of £209·3 million. Information on the value of services is not available.

  House of Fraser plc
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he now expects to hear from the serious fraud office about the inquiries which it has initiated into the implications of the report on the acquisition of House of Fraser plc; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I cannot say.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the last day on which he can refer the House of Fraser acquisition report to the Monopolies and Merger Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Sunday 22 January 1989.

  Innovation and Investment Grants
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what is the total estimated expenditure on(a) innovation grants and (b) investment grants for each of the years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91;
  445
  (2) if he will give for innovation grants and investment grants the total number of applications (a) received and (b) approved from 1 April 1988 to 31 December 1988, and the total estimated expenditure for that period.

  Mr. Atkins
  Between 1 April 1988 and 31 December 1988 my Department received 1,054 applications, and made 509 offers of regional enterprise grants. The offers are valued at £4·1 million, and payments of £331,217 have been made.

  Current Estimates provision for regional enterprise grants is £12·3 million in 1988–89. This figure is gross of any receipts, or expected receipts, from the European regional development fund. Information about planned expenditure on regional assistance in 1989–90 and 1990–91 will shortly be published in the Public Expenditure White Paper.

  Business Development Consultancy Initiative
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total estimated expenditure on the business development consultancy initiative in each of the years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–1991 for England, Scotland and Wales.

  DTI Region1/Country

  (a) No. of applications received

  (b) No. of applications approved for consultancy

  (c) DTI Expenditure on completed consultancies (£ '000)

  (d) Estimated expenditure on outstanding consultancies (£ '000)

  North East

  659

  529

  282

  1,125

  North West

  2,093

  1,783

  1,159

  4,115

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,351

  990

  671

  2,234

  West Midlands

  1,399

  993

  672

  2,497

  East Midlands

  785

  657

  400

  1,594

  South West

  1,337

  852

  353

  1,498

  South East:

  Cambridge

  943

  688

  247

  1,147

  London

  1,432

  1,124

  582

  1,918

  Reading

  772

  631

  224

  1,322

  Reigate

  724

  580

  282

  983

  Scotland

  1,105

  903

  724

  1,770

  Wales

  861

  622

  288

  1,110

  TOTAL

  13,461

  10,352

  5,884

  21,313

  1 Data is collected for DTI regions and for Scotland and Wales. DTI regions are similar to standard economic regions except that DTI north west includes Cumbria and the High Peak district which are in the north and east midlands standard economic regions respectively, and DTI south east includes the East Anglia standard economic region.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total estimated expenditure on regional development grant and regional selective assistance in England for each of the years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Atkins
  Department of Trade and Industry current Supply Estimates provision for expenditure on regional development grant (RDG) and regional selective assistance (RSA) in England in 1988–89 is £157·9 million and £154·2 million, respectively. The RDG figure covers both the original and revised schemes. The RSA figure incorporates expenditure on industrial and training grants, as well as assistance under the business improvement services and exchange risk guarantee schemes. Both figures are net of domestic receipts but gross of expected receipts from the European regional development fund.
  446
  Mr. Newton
  The current Estimates provision for 1988–89 for the consultancy initiatives in England, Scotland and Wales is £74 million. Details of estimated expenditure for 1989–90 and 1990–91 will shortly be published in the Public Expenditure White Paper.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total number of applications(a) received and (b) approved for business development consultancy initiatives from 1 April 1988 to 31 December 1988, the total amount of expenditure involved and the total estimated expenditure for that period for Scotland, Wales and and each of the standard regions.

  Mr. Newton
  In the period from 1 April to 31 December 1988 a total of 13,461 applications was received for the six business development consultancy initiatives. In the same period 10,352 applications were approved for consultancy. The Department's contribution to the cost of completed consultancies totalled £5·9 million. It is estimated that those consultancies not completed by 31 December 1988 will cost the Department £21·3 million. A breakdown of numbers and cost for each DTI region* and for Scotland and Wales is as follows:

  Information about planned expenditure on regional assistance in 1989–90 and 1990–91 will shortly be published in the Public Expenditure White Paper.

  Asian Community Radio
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action has been taken by his Department over the last 12 months against the radio station broadcasting in south London called Asian Community Radio.

  Mr. Atkins
  No action has been taken by my Department's radio investigation services (RIS) in the last 12 months against an unlicensed broadcasting station in south London calling itself Asian Community Radio. However, on 16 January a station of that name broadcasting in north London was raided and the transmitter seized.

DEFENCE

  Emergencies (Food Distribution)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what circumstances military personnel are used to distribute food to the civil population during disasters or emergencies.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Under the military aid to the community scheme, the use of military personnel to distribute food to the civil population during a disaster or civil emergency would be considered where there is a danger to life and no alternative means of food distribution are available. An example might be the use of service helicopters to reach a community cut off by flooding or a heavy snowfall.

  Emergencies (Liaison)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what liaison is undertaken by military personnel with the police, fire service, health authorities and local government in the event of civil emergencies.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The precise form of liaison would depend on the circumstances, but when service assistance is provided, a liaison officer from the operational headquarters which is co-ordinating the service response would be sent as soon as possible to the incident centre set up by the civil emergency services. Advice on the initial point of contact for any request for service assistance is contained in a pamphlet issued for the guidance of civil authorities; I shall place a copy of this pamphlet in the Library of the House.

  Lockerbie Air Disaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost to date of the use of military personnel in the Pan Am Lockerbie air disaster.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are not yet able to calculate the additional costs of providing military assistance to the police and the air accident investigation branch in the Lockerbie air disaster as returns from many participating units and establishments are not yet complete.

  Disaster and Emergency Training
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of training for service men is devoted to training for disasters or emergencies.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Apart from specialist search and rescue units, service men do not train specifically for civil disaster relief or non-military emergencies, as responsibility for dealing with these lies with the civil authorities. On occasions, however, the particular skills and equipment which the services possess can be of assistance, and established procedures exist for the civil authorities to call upon such assistance in certain circumstances.

  Quality Assurance
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he received the results of the investment appraisal on the future location of the directorate general of defence quality assurance; and when he expects to be able to announce a decision.
  448
  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend received the results of the investment appraisal on the future location of the directorate general of defence quality assurance in October last year, and we are continuing to have discussions with interested parties.

  Procurement Expenditure
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will indicate for each year since 1974 the annual expenditure on defence procurement at(a) cash and (b) constant 1988–89 prices; and if he will express these figures as a proportion of the total defence budget for each year since 1974.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Defence equipment expenditure is shown each year in volume 2 (table 2.2) of the "Statement of Defence Estimates" and, since 1981, it has also been shown as a percentage of total defence expenditure. Figures are not yet available at 1988–89 prices and the figures in column(c) of the table are given at Estimates 1988–89 prices. These figures have been calculated using a measure of inflation based on movements in the price of defence equipment.

  (a) Financial year

  (b) Equipment expenditure at cash £ million

  (c) Column at Estimates 1988–89 prices £ million

  (d) Column as a percentage of defence expenditure

  1974–75

  1,030

  5,754

  31·3

  1975–76

  1,792

  6,418

  33·5

  1976–77

  2,138

  6,306

  34·7

  1977–78

  2,565

  6,448

  37·8

  1978–79

  2,984

  6,695

  40·0

  1979–80

  3,640

  7,003

  39·7

  1980–81

  4,885

  7,924

  43·7

  1981–82

  5,638

  8,078

  44·7

  1982–83

  6,297

  8,575

  43·7

  1983–84

  6,939

  8,901

  44·8

  1984–85

  7,838

  9,441

  45·8

  1985–86

  8,193

  9,336

  45·7

  1986–87

  7,885

  8,474

  43·4

  1987–88

  8,270

  8,555

  43·9

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his policy on authorising foreign air force units to fly at less than 250 ft over the United Kingdom;

  (2) if any foreign air forces have been authorised to fly at less than 250 ft over the United Kingdom at any time since 1979.

  Mr. Neubert
  There are no records of foreign military aircraft having been authorised to carry out low-flying training in the United Kingdom at less than 250 ft. Any such requests to operate in a tactical training area would be considered on a case-by-case basis on their merits.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what types of flying at less than 250 ft other than work-up training for Flag exercises in the United States of America and Canada take place in the Borders tactical training area.

  Mr. Neubert
  Training in the Borders tactical training area consists mainly of work-up training for operational low-flying exercises in the United States and Canada. Occasional continuation training may also be carried out to maintain aircrew skills between such exercises, thereby reducing the quantity of work-up training required.
  449
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the proportions of flying at less than 250 ft over the United Kingdom since 1979 which have taken place(a) between 7 am and 7 pm, (b) between 7 pm and 11 pm and (c) between 11 pm and 7 am; and what plans exist to increase the amount of such flying in the evenings and at night;

  (2) if he will ban low flying at less than 250 ft between the hours of 7 pm and 7 am.

  Mr. Neubert
  Activity within the three tactical training areas has been confined to the hours between 7 am and 7 pm although the vast majority takes place from mid-morning to mid-afternoon. We do not at present envisage any change in this practice or any significant increase in the requirement for low-flying training below 250 ft as a whole.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on what date sorties at less than 250 ft took place for the first time in low flying area 20 (T) west;

  (2) on what date the ministerial decision was made to extend the Borders tactical training area by the creation of low flying area 20 (T) west;

  (3) on what date the westward extension of the Borders tactical training area, known as low flying area 20 (T) west, was first marked on the low flying chart covering southern Scotland.

  Mr. Neubert
  Ministerial approval to extend the Borders tactical training area was given in March 1988. Following that, the extension was first marked on the low flying chart which became current on 27 May 1988, and the first sorties at less than 250 ft in the new extended area took place on 29 June 1988.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the military low flying management group first discussed proposals to create a new 100 ft low flying area in south-west Scotland.

  Mr. Neubert
  The records currently available indicate that such proposals were first discussed on 27 September 1985.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the locational requirements for the training of fighter pilots in terms of the ground facilities needed and the terrain necessary for low-flying practice.

  Mr. Neubert
  I will write to the hon. and learned Member.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the occasions on which flights at less than 250 ft took place over the western portion of the Borders tactical training area in 1988, giving the dates, number of sorties on each date, and types of aircraft and units involved.

  Mr. Neubert
  The information requested cannot be provided without disproportionate effort.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research is being conducted by his Department on the medical effects of exposure to the noise levels from military jet aircraft flying at 100 ft above ground level.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my predecessor on 27 July 1988 at column 350. The NATO working group on noise is expected to report on its proposals toward the end of 1989.

  Artillery
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the numbers of artillery, mortars and multiple rocket launchers currently possessed by the British Army and the number of these that are currently held in storage.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  On 1 January 1988, a total of 394 pieces of equipment of these types were in use, excluding mortars of a calibre less than 100 mm. Since the number held in storage is directly related to reserve stocks, it is not our practice to disclose this figure.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many anti-aircraft artillery and fixed and mobile surface-to-air missile launchers are currently possessed by Her Majesty's Forces; how many are presently in storage; and what percentage are currently located in Great Britain.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  On 1 January 1988, a total of 350 pieces of equipment of these types were in use. Since the number of equipments held in storage is directly related to reserve stocks, it is not our practice to disclose this figure. I refer the hon. Member to Annexes B and C of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988" (Cm 344-I) for the proportion of our air defence forces which are located in Great Britain.

  Military Carriers
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the numbers of(a) armoured personnel carriers and (b) military support carriers presently in use by the British Army.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The term "military support carriers" is not a term used within the British Army, but on 1 January 1988 the Army had a total of 5,048 armoured vehicles in service which were not main battle tanks, armoured vehicle bridge layers, armoured infantry fighting vehicles, artillery pieces or air defence launchers.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many search and rescue operations were carried out during the hours of darkness and from which defence establishments in the last five years for which information is available.

  Mr. Neubert
  Central records are held in a form which distinguishes between search and rescue missions which begin in daylight and those which begin in darkness. For the latter, the figures are:

  Number of callouts commencing in darkness

  Station

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  RAF Helicopters1

  Boulmer

  6

  7

  12

  4

  6

  Brawdy

  12

  5

  12

  9

  14

  Chivenor

  3

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Coltishall

  7

  —

  6

  5

  6

  Leconfield

  5

  4

  —

  —

  5

  Leuchars

  12

  7

  4

  6

  9

  Lossiemouth

  12

  11

  12

  11

  17

  Manston

  8

  2

  5

  6

  2

  Valley

  11

  7

  6

  5

  11

  451

  Number of callouts commencing in darkness

  Station

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  RN Helicopters

  Culdrose

  5

  2

  8

  5

  9

  Lee on Solent2

  1

  2

  1

  2

  —

  Portland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Prestwick

  1

  3

  1

  —

  1

  Fixed Wing Aircraft

  St. Mawgan

  6

  8

  6

  14

  7

  Kinloss

  7

  6

  5

  3

  12

  Mountain Rescue Teams

  Leuchars

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Kinloss

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Valley

  4

  3

  —

  1

  —

  St. Atan

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Stafford

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  Linton on Ouse

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1 The figures exclude a small number of callouts undertaken by units which are not assigned to the search and rescue (SAR) role.

  2 The statistics for Lee on Solent cover the period up to 15 May 1988, when the military SAR service was withdrawn. A temporary RAF flight operated from Lee between 31 March (when the RN flight was withdrawn) and 15 May.

  Armoured Vehicles
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to purchasing armoured infantry fighting vehicles for the British Army; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The new warrior vehicle currently being purchased is an armoured infantry fighting vehicle, sometimes also known as a mechanised infantry combat vehicle. The first battalion's worth of vehicles entered service in 1988 and, on current plans, a total of 13 battalions will eventually be equipped with Warrior.

  Defence Communications Centre
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to move the defence communications centre from its present position under his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are no plans to move the defence communications centre from its present position.

  Monetary Rewards
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the maximum monetary reward currently allowed as a payment to soldiers for actions beyond the normal call of duty; and when this amount was last reviewed;

  (2) what regulations officers in the British Army must follow in order to obtain a monetary reward for their men in return for actions beyond the normal call of duty; and when these regulations were last reviewed.

  Type

  Grade 1

  Grade 2

  Grade 3

  Grade 4

  Married Quarters

  Other ranks

  A

  810

  (243)

  730

  (219)

  558

  (168)

  369

  (111)

  B

  1,212

  (442)

  1,085

  (401)

  840

  (307)

  551

  (202)

  C

  1,354

  (513)

  1,226

  (464)

  945

  (358)

  621

  (235)

  D

  1,518

  (591)

  1,372

  (534)

  1,066

  (415)

  690

  (268)

  Officers

  452
  Mr. Neubert
  My reply to the hon. and learned Member on 16 January 1989 at column 28 explained the justification for paying the x factor to service men. Articles 228 and 485 of the Army pay warrant provide for officers and soldiers to receive an extra 90p a day whilst engaged in work of an objectionable nature. Under the regulations, Ministry of Defence approval has to be sought before payment is made. This payment is reviewed annually by the armed forces pay review body, and was last increased from 1 April 1988. In addition the armed forces pay review body reviews the case for this type of payment periodically—normally every five years. The last such review was in 1986.

  United States Submarines (Discharges)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has regarding the discharging of radioactive primary coolant by United States submarines into Scottish waters since 1960.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that any releases of radioactivity have not breached established national and international standards.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when United States Polaris submarines were ordered not to discharge radioactive primary coolant into Scottish waters; and on whose initiative this action was taken.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I cannot comment about specific orders given to United States Navy Polaris submarines, which are a matter for the United States Government.

  Accommodation Charges
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will publish in the Official Report the annual charges for married and single quarters made to service men and women in respect of quarters in (a) Scotland in 1988–89 and 1989–90 and (b) England, in 1988–89 and 1989–90;

  (2) what amount of charges made for married and single quarters for service men and women reflects the Treasury calculations in lieu of rates on Crown property.

  Mr. Neubert
  Accommodation charges for 1988–89 in Scotland and England are as in the table; the figures in brackets are a composite element within these charges, covering rates and water rates. Charges for 1989–90 will be set in the light of recommendations from the armed forces pay review body, and have yet to be determined. In Scotland they will not include elements for rates.

  The rates and water rates elements of married and single accommodation charges are recommended by the armed forces pay review body on the basis of the total amounts payable as contributions in lieu of rates and the estimated cost of water supplies. No further breakdown i.s available.
  453

  Type

  Grade 1

  Grade 2

  Grade 3

  Grade 4

  V

  1,924

  (751)

  1,745

  (681)

  1,329

  (519)

  891

  (348)

  IV

  2,219

  (867)

  2,008

  (784)

  1,555

  (608)

  1,011

  (395)

  III

  2,566

  (1,039)

  2,321

  (940)

  1,778

  (720)

  1,172

  (474)

  II

  2,894

  (1,138)

  2,613

  (1,028)

  2,000

  (786)

  1,318

  (518)

  I

  3,223

  (1,267)

  2,916

  (1,147)

  2,230

  (877)

  1,471

  (578)

  Single Accommodation

  Rank

  Young servicemen

  299

  (96)

  266

  (85)

  204

  (67)

  139

  (44)

  Cpl and below

  398

  (128)

  361

  (116)

  274

  (90)

  183

  (58)

  WO/SNCO

  745

  (256)

  675

  (232)

  515

  (179)

  339

  (117)

  Capt and below

  1,040

  (376)

  938

  (342)

  719

  (259)

  485

  (174)

  Major and above

  1,256

  (434)

  1,135

  (392)

  869

  (304)

  573

  (198)

  (Annual charges rounded to the nearest £)

  Rating Reform
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance has been issued in respect of liability for community charge as to whether a service men has his sole or main residence in Scotland if he is stationed in Scotland but has married quarters in England.

  Mr. Neubert
  Decisions on sole or main residence in Scotland will be made by community charge registration officers, and subject to the right of appeal to the sheriff. Service personnel who have a married quarter in England but are stationed in Scotland for more than six months are expected to be regarded as solely or mainly resident in Scotland for that time, and guidance has been issued to this effect.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions he has issued to commanding officers in relation to registering service personnel, their dependants and others living in military accommodation for community charges in(a) Scotland and (b) England and Wales.

  Mr. Neubert
  Commanding officers in Scotland have been instructed to nominate a responsible person or persons to provide community charge registration officers with the information required by the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, to enable them to compile and maintain the community charges register. Similar instructions will be issued in due course for England and Wales.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has made arrangements in Scotland for the liability for community charge for service personnel and their dependants to be paid by way of direct deductions from service pay.

  Mr. Neubert
  Army personnel who so elect to pay their personal community charge, and that of their dependants by direct deduction from service pay under standard allotment procedures. Because Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel are normally paid by direct credit transfer to their bank or other accounts, they will be expected to make their own arrangements for paying their personal community charge direct to the relevant local authority.

  Challenger Tank
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place the demonstration phase contract with Vickers Defence Systems for the Challenger II mark 2 tank.
  454
  Mr. Sainsbury
  Contractual negotiations have been successfully concluded between MOD and Vickers Defence Systems and a contract for the demonstration phase of the Challenger II mark 2 tank was placed on Friday 20 January, in accordance with the procurement strategy set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in his statement on 20 December 1988 columns 283–84 and with the precise criteria as set out in the answer given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member on 20 December at column 259.

  Grooms
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the rate charged for military personnel employed as grooms when tending privately owned horses.

  Mr. Neubert
  Since service men are not permitted to tend privately owned horses as part of their military duties, any reimbursement which they may receive for doing so in their own time is by private arrangement.

ENVIRONMENT

  Heritage (Protection)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what legislation he intends to introduce to protect Britain's archaeological sites from destruction by developers in the light of forthcoming directives from the EEC; if he will be providing for archaeological surveys to be made before developers commence work; and what further protection he will give to save Britain's heritage.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The regulations which brought the EC directive on environmental assessment on 15 July 1988, require environmental statements to be prepared.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he will take against water authorities which do not meet the legal requirements he has set out by the year 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I understand that the question relates to consents for discharges from sewage treatment works. The Water Bill proposes that the National Rivers Authority will have the responsibility for ensuring compliance with
  455
  these and other discharge consents. It will be for the authority to set out its policy on enforcement of consent conditions when it is established.

  Rivers (Classification)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by rivers the classification grades of rivers in Yorkshire; what are the comparable grades for rivers(a) in southern England and (b) nationally; what the classifications represent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The 1985 river quality survey for England and Wales reported the water quality classification of river lengths in each water authority area. The classification of river lengths in the Yorkshire, Southern and Thames water authority areas, together with overall results, are as follows:

  Percentage

  Class 1 Good

  Class 2 Fair quality

  Class 3 Poor quality

  Class 4 Bad quality

  Yorkshire Water Authority

  77

  12

  8

  3

  Southern Water Authority

  75

  22

  2

  0·2

  Thames Water Authority

  65

  28

  7

  0·1

  England and Wales

  68

  22

  9

  2

  The classifications of different rivers are best illustrated in the map which formed part of the report on the 1985 survey and I am sending the hon. Member a copy of this, together with details of the river classification scheme on which the 1985 survey was based. Further details are contained in the survey report, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Radon Radiation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment ( 1 ) in what form records are kept of public buildings in England and Wales that are affected by radon radiation; and if he will state their locations;

  (2) in what form records are kept of the action readings of public buildings affected by radon radiation; and if he will state the action readings and the location of buildings so affected.

  Mr. Chope
  Occupational exposure to Radon in public buildings, in common with other workplaces, is subject to the provisions of the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985, which are administered by the Health and Safety Executive. The obligation to measure Radon levels in public buildings and maintain records rests with employers, including Government Departments. There is no centrally held records of public buildings affected by Radon radiation.

  Water Act 1973
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions his Department has made any orders under section 23 of the Water Act 1945 or section 67 of the Water Resources Act 1963 in connection with the construction or operation of a reservoir in England, giving the date of any such order and the location to which it applied.
  456
  Mr. Moynihan
  A large number of orders have been made under both provisions. The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Football Clubs (Membership Scheme)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received to date about Government proposals for a scheme of identification cards for football supporters.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have received over 1,800 representations relating to the idea of a scheme. In addition I have received a large number of proposals to implement the scheme from computer companies and others.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide details of the membership scheme operated by Torquay United and give details of hi s Department's contacts with the club to examine the operation of its scheme.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I am aware that Torquay United introduced a 100 per cent. home only membership scheme in November 1986 and that the club considers that this has played an effective part in curbing hooliganism. I congratulate the club on introducing the scheme.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment with which football authorities in other countries the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for sport has discussed his proposals for a national membership scheme for attendance at football matches; what their response has been; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 19 January 1989]: The British Government is a member of the Council of Europe standing committee on spectator violence. Through this committee, we have kept other European Governments in close touch with developments on a national membership scheme in England and Wales. A number of other Governments have expressed an interest in our proposals.

  We have also kept the European Union of Football Associations (UEFA) informed of developments.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the computer firms with whom the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Minister for Sport, has discussed his proposals for the introduction of a national membership scheme for attendance at football league matches.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 19 January 1989]: I have received proposals from a number of computer and other companies concerning the implementation of a national membership scheme. I have discussed the proposals with some of them. It would not be appropriate for me to list individual companies by name without their consent.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received from Halifax about Government proposals for a scheme of identification cards for football supporters.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 19 January 1989]: The hon. Member wrote to me on 16 November about the

  457
  proposed membership scheme for football supporters. I have also received a letter from the chairman of Halifax Town football club and one from a resident of Halifax about the idea of a scheme.

  County Hall
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in deciding the distribution of the proceeds from the sale of County hall, he will make it his policy to take into account the fact that Inner London ratepayers have met the full debt charges and running costs of that part of the building used for educational administration.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. The Greater London council's general debt liabilities were distributed pro rata to population at abolition.

  The Department is at present consulting all London authorities about London residuary capital money matters including the distribution of the County hall receipt. I am sending a copy of the consultation letter to the hon. Member.

  Local Authorities (Wages)
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discretion is allowed to local authorities in determining wage rates for local authority employees.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Subject to certain statutory exceptions, a local authority is free to employ staff on such reasonable terms and conditions as the authority thinks fit. In practice the pay rates of approximately 75 per cent. of local authority employees are determined in national negotiations between the local government employers and the appropriate unions. The Government will continue to urge individual local authorities to take greater control of their own payroll costs by moving away from national agreements and adopting local pay bargaining.

  Docklands
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many firms or businesses have moved out of the London Docklands Development Corporation area since 1981; and how many firms or businesses operating in the urban development area in 1981 have subsequently ceased to trade.

  Mr. Trippier
  Information on firms which move out of the urban development area is not collected (other than for firms which relocate with LDDC assistance). A total of 41 firms employing 10 or more people closed between 1981 and 31 March 1988.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will give an estimate of the proportion of construction jobs in the London Docklands Development Corporation area in 1988 that are held by residents of Tower Hamlets, Southwark, Newham, Lewisham and Greenwich;

  (2) how many of the newly created jobs in the London Docklands Development Corporation area since 1981 have been taken by (i) women, (ii) people from ethnic minority groups and (iii) people who were previously unemployed; and how many are part-time jobs;
  458
  (3) how many of the jobs lost in Docklands since 1981 were held by residents of Tower Hamlets, Southwark, Newham, Lewisham and Greenwich.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the business establishments in the London Docklands urban development area that have been relocated by the London Docklands Development Corporation; and for each of these establishments what is(a) the date of relocation, (b) the employment level at relocation, (c) the location prior to relocation, (d) the reason for relocation, (e) the predicted costs to the London Docklands Development Corporation of relocation, (f) the actual costs to the London Docklands Development Corporation of relocation,(g) the level of compensation paid, (h) the location after relocation and (j) the current level of employment if still operating.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information is not collected, or could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) from which economic sectors jobs have been lost in the London Docklands Development Corporation area since 1981;

  (2) how many of the jobs newly created in the London Docklands Development Corporation area since 1981 have been taken by the residents of Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Lewisham and Greenwich;

  (3) what is the breakdown of newly created jobs in the London Docklands Development Corporation area since 1981, by economic sector;

  (4) what is the breakdown of transferred jobs in the London Docklands Development Corporation area since 1981, by economic sector;

  (5) if he will give a breakdown by type of industry of new jobs in London Docklands since 1981;

  (6) how many new jobs in London Docklands since 1981 have been in the construction sector;

  (7) how many of the jobs created in Docklands since 1981 are located in the Isle of Dogs enterprise zone.

  Mr. Trippier
  Most of this information will be available shortly, when the corporation completes work on a survey of employment in docklands. I shall write to the hon. Member when details are available.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many jobs have been lost in the London Docklands Development Corporation area since 1981;

  (2) what is the latest estimate of net job creation in the London Docklands Development Corporation area since 1981;

  (3) how many jobs have been created in the London Docklands Development Corporation area since 1981; how many are transfers from outside the urban development area; and how many are newly created.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information requested is as follows:

  London Docklands Urban Development Area

  1981–87

  Number

  Jobs lost to the area

  11,145

  Jobs created and attracted

  20,315

  Net increase in jobs

  9,172

  Details of the breakdown between jobs created and those transferred will be available shortly. I shall write to the hon. Member.
  459
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many business establishments, with what levels of employment, the London Docklands Development Corporation is currently attempting to relocate; and how many it proposes to relocate by the end of 1992.

  Mr. Trippier
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Isle of Dogs
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total amount of rate allowance claimed so far in the Isle of Dogs enterprise zone.

  Mr. Trippier
  Schedule 32 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 provides that my right hon. Friend shall make grants to rating authorities who lose revenue from properties within enterprise zones that are exempt from the payment of rates. To date, the rating authorities affected by the Isle of Dogs enterprise zone have claimed £37,764,136.

  Amusement Arcades
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with London borough councils as to granting such local authorities greater control over the operation of amusement arcades in their borough; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I have not discussed this subject with any London borough council. Powers to regulate the operation of amusement arcades are primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to when the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive will publish its report on sites for the storage of radioactive waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to receive a report from Nirex shortly. No decision has yet been taken on publication.

  Rating Reform
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what indications he has to date of local authorities increasing or decreasing the number of staff they employ to collect community charge as compared with the number they employed to collect rates;

  (2) how he intends to monitor the progress of implementation by local authorities of their arrangements for the collection of community charge; and if the timetable and checklists to be sent to all authorities following receipt of part II of the Price Waterhouse report on this matter are the basis for this monitoring.

  Mr. Gummer
  We are monitoring progress through visits and other contacts with charging authorities, and have asked for a short summary of progress so far from each community charges registration officer. This will be followed up with a more detailed questionnaire in the spring. The timetable and checklist in the Price 460
  Waterhouse report will be of assistance in the monitoring process. It is hoped that the summaries of progress which have been requested will give a preliminary indication of charging authorities' proposals for the use of staff in comparison with the numbers of staff now working on rating.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what a typical ward sister would pay(a) in rates, (b) in community charge and (c) in a system of capital value rates plus local income tax paid in the proportions of 80–20, respectively, if she lived in a typical one bedroom flat in Streatham.

  Mr. Gummer
  A ward sister earning £15,000, living in a flat in Streatham worth £60,000 with a rateable value of £250, would pay a rates bill of £648, a community charge of£490 (disregarding the transitional safety net), and £1,325 under a system of capital value rates plus local income tax.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has had to his Department's letter of December 1988 to chief finance officers of metropolitan and non-metropolitan districts and London boroughs asking for a progress report on the implementation of the community charge; and whether he will(a) publish the results of his survey and (b) place copies of the individual responses in the Library.

  Mr. Ridley
  We have so far received responses from around half of the 366 charging authorities. When a more complete set of responses has been analysed, I shall place a summary in the Library. Authorities were not informed that the responses themselves would be made public and it will be necessary to ask them, at the next suitable opportunity, whether they are content for them to be placed in the Library.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he took into account from Scotland's poll tax registration process undertaken during April-May 1988 when deciding to defer the commencement date of the community charges regulations to 22 May 1989.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 20 January 1989]: The equivalent Scottish regulations came into force on 1 April 1988, and Scottish registers had to be compiled by 1 October, a period of exactly six months. Registers in England and Wales have to be compiled by 1 December 1989. Bringing the regulations into force on 22 May will therefore allow a slightly longer period for registration than in Scotland. I have no doubt that the registration process can be carried out as successfully in England and Wales as it has been in Scotland.

  Housing
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by year for the last 15 years for which figures are available the annual number of completions, within North East Derbyshire district council area of(a) private sector houses and flats, (b) council houses and flats and (c) housing association housing and flats.

  Mr. Trippier
  Housebuilding completions, as reported by North East Derbyshire district council, for years as
  461
  from 1980 appear in table 1 of "Housebuilding in England by Local Authority Areas: 1980 to 1987". For earlier years figures appear in the following issues of "Local Housing Statistics":

  Issue number

  Table

  1974

  33

  5

  1975

  37

  5

  1976

  41

  5

  1977

  45

  5

  1978

  49

  5

  1979

  59

  4(a)

  Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

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

  Planning Permission
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to seek to make it an offence to start building works prior to obtaining planning permission.

  Mr. Chope
  This is one of the issues being considered by Mr. Robert Carnwath QC in his current review of local planning authorities' planning enforcement powers. My right hon. Friend will consider whether any amendment should be made in the light of Mr. Carnwath's recommendation on this issue.

  Caravan Sites Act 1968
  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about the Caravan Sites Act 1968; and if he has any plans to seek to repeal the Act.

  Mr. Trippier
  I receive occasional correspondence on the subject. I have no plans to repeal the Act. A review of policy was completed only two years ago and the conclusions were announced by my right hon. Friend in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) on 6 February 1987.

  Nuclear Waste (Liverpool Bay)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive proposal to site a dump for nuclear waste in Liverpool bay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is not aware of any proposal by Nirex to site a radioactive waste repository in Liverpool bay. Until Nirex's proposals have been received and a decision is made, no part of the country can be ruled out.

  Dogs
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals to achieve a reduction in the numbers of dogs that are at present destroyed annually in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans to do so.
  462
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to exercise the powers granted to him under the Local Government Act 1988 to introduce a national dog registration scheme.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have no plans to do so.

  "Deadline"
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received a copy of the RSPCA film entitled, "Deadline"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No copy has been received.

  Football Spectators Bill
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to exempt Wales from the Football Spectators Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on 17 January to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) at column 146.

  Spectator Control
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has made any study examining methods used for spectator control at large sporting events in the United States of America, or any other foreign country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No. We have studied the final
  report of the committee of inquiry into crowd safety and control at sports grounds, chaired by Mr. Justice Popplewell. I commend it to the hon. Member.

  Water
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the cost and proportion of annual expenditure spent on advertising and publicity by each water authority for the last five years.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 19 January 1989]: This information is not held centrally. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman writes to each water authority.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in the light of his policy for comparative competition within the water industry, if he will indicate the main financial indicators of cost comparison he has already applied to regional water authorities, and if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing their respective performance for the latest convenient financial year, in pence per thousand gallons.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 19 January 1989]: The Government have set performance aims for the water authorities' real terms operating costs for three consecutive three year periods, the last ending in 1989–90. Performance against the aims is reported in the authorities' annual reports and accounts which are laid before Parliament. In setting the Performance aims the Government make use of a series of performance indicators which standardise operating cost measures in terms of equivalent population in each water authority.
  463
  The performance indicators are published as a five-year rolling series in the water authorities' annual reports and in Waterfacts which is also available in the Library. Performance indicators in terms of pence per thousand gallons are not available.

  Ms. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he intends to take to reduce the aluminium content in the water supplied to consumers in Halifax.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 19 January 1989]: Last year three of the water supplies to Halifax exceeded the aluminium standard in the EC drinking water directive. One of these supplies now complies and the other two should comply by 1990. Current aluminium concentrations are not considered to be a health risk.

  Housing (London)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the relative efficiency in terms of price and build time of the private sector and direct labour organisations building houses in inner London.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 19 January 1989]: This information is not available in the form requested. Under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 direct labour organisations are required to make a rate of return of 5 per cent. on capital employed, my right hon. Friend has given directions to Lambeth and Hackney borough councils to cease from undertaking works of new construction in the light of their failure to achieve this rate of return.

  Protection of Birds
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 10 January,Official Report, column 510, if he will report on the progress made by the RSPCA and RSPB in rescuing birds affected by the recent oil pollution in the Channel; and what is his latest estimate of damage caused to seabird populations.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 19 January 1989]: I understand that so far this month the RSPCA, assisted by local volunteer members of the RSPB, have in the course of sea and beach patrols responded to five separate incidents involving a total of about 500 birds affected by oil. Many of the affected birds have been taken for cleaning at RSPCA and private centres. It is estimated that while up to 1,000 birds may have died, a further 1,000 affected birds will survive.

  Domestic (Water Supplies Disconnections)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will meet the chairmen of the water authorities to discuss improvements to a code of conduct relating to the disconnection of domestic water supplies.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 17 January 1989]: My right hon. Friend regularly meets the chairmen of the water authorities to discuss a number of issues. His officials are at present discussing with the water industry additional customer safeguards that might be inserted into the code of practice relating to the disconnection of domestic water supplies.

  Football Statistics
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer on football statistics,Official Report, 19 December 1988, columns 55 to 60, he will show in similar tables the average arrests per match by division in conjunction with the average arrest figures for football clubs in the Professional Footballers Association community programme scheme.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 13 January 1989]: The following information relates to Football League matches played in the 1987–88 season. The clubs listed are those which operated the PFA community programme scheme throughout that season.

  Average arrests per match

  Division 1

  Everton

  1·20

  Liverpool

  1·65

  For Division

  5·3

  Division 2

  Blackburn Rovers

  3·6

  Manchester City

  1·59

  Oldham Athletic

  0·86

  For Division

  4·2

  Division 3

  Blackpool

  1·6

  Bury

  0·2

  Chester City

  0·96

  Preston North End

  0·9

  Wigan Athletic

  0·17

  For Division

  1·5

  Division 4

  Bolton Wanderers

  0·9

  Burnley

  3·9

  Crewe Alexandra

  1·9

  Rochdale

  1·4

  For Division

  1·7

  Football Matches (Arrests)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will obtain details from the Association of Chief Police Officers of the categories of offences under which people were arrested at football league matches in England during the 1987–88 season, and the numbers in each category.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 10 January 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not collected from individual police forces by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Pollution
  Mr. Malcohn Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what figures he has for the volume of waste deposits dumped in internal waters behind the Oslo convention baselines in each of the last five years in the North sea.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The amount of material dumped in internal waters behind the Oslo convention baselines in the North sea by the United Kingdom in the last five years for which figures are available, are as follows:

  465

  000 's tonnes

  Dredged spoil

  Colliery minestone

  1983

  7,391

  3,830

  1984

  10,371

  564

  1985

  16,791

  2,262

  1986

  12,429

  2,264

  1987

  13,029

  2,037

  466
  Comparable figures are not available for other North sea states as the Oslo convention does not yet include dumping in internal waters and there is therefore no common control and reporting procedure for such dumpings.

  The United Kingdom has been actively supporting proposals to extend the coverage of the Oslo convention to include internal waters and we hope that agreement on this will be reached soon.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.

Homelessness
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further measures they are contemplating to deal with the deteriorating situation regarding homelessness highlighted in the recent report of the Institute of Housing.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Institute of Housing's report on homelessness is one of a number that have recently been or are about to be published. We wish to assess the findings of all these studies before finalising our review of the homelessness legislation.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that since this report there has also been a report issued by the organisation Shelter which shows a similar trend? Is the Minister aware that it is calculated that there are now over 120,000 households homeless? In terms of numbers of people this is over 200,000. It should be borne in mind that the legislation came into force only recently, since when a representative of small landlords has said that they expect rents to double in the near future. That means that wherever they have the opportunity they will double rents. How does the Minister expect the homeless to be able to obtain rented property in order to leave the homeless queue?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dean, is right to say that there are about 120,000 households which have been classified as homeless and which have been found accommodation by the local authorities. As the noble Lord will know, there is a substantial programme of money devoted to the housing associations. They have had an increase of 80 per cent. over the next three years in the moneys that they are to receive from the taxpayer. That, combined with the continued resources to local authorities and the improvement in local authority efficiency and the private sector, should make a great dent in the homelessness figure.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the problem of homelessness would be reduced if councils were allowed to retain for new building more than 20 per cent. of the receipts from the right to buy?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not think I agree with my noble friend. It is important that this matter is the responsibility of the local authorities and, if they brought back into use a proportion of the
452
100,000 empty properties that they possess, it would make a great difference.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is primarily a London problem?
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I repeat, it is primarily a London problem. It is like talking to yourself, with some of these people. It is primarily a London problem and relates to only about four London boroughs. May I appeal to the Minister to consider this as a matter of national urgency, to set up a statutory authority whose problem it will be to deal with homelessness and to give it the money and power to solve the problem? It should have the power, for example, to take away from some of the local authorities the empty properties that they possess.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord has come up with an interesting idea which I should like to study with care. However, before one takes powers away from local authorities, one should give them one more chance to put their own house in order.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Earl explain a little further his answer to his noble friend? The noble Lord asked about the use of moneys from selling council houses. It is not at all clear to me why the noble Earl thinks that placing more money at the disposal of local authorities for them to spend would not be a means of increasing the stock of housing. On the face of it, that seems self-evident.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if the money were used precisely for the homeless and targeted in that way, it might help. However, as the noble Baroness knows, it is up to local authorities how they spend their money. I can tell her that from December 1987 until just recently we had given the local authorities a further £74 million specifically targeted towards helping the homeless.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister has said that the cost of housing homeless people in bed and breakfast accommodation is far greater than the cost to a council of housing them in normal housing. What is the Minister doing to reduce the use of bed and breakfast accommodation and to encourage an extension of council house occupation? The Minister has referred to the percentage of housing owned by councils which is unoccupied. Will he confirm that the amount of housing in the ownership and gift of the Government is far greater than the unoccupied housing belonging, to councils?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asks what the Minister is doing. The question is what are the local authorities doing about empty housing? One sees vast differences between certain London local authorities which use a lot of bed and breakfast accommodation and others with virtually identical problems but which use no bed and breakfast accommodation.

453
As for the difference between the empty local authority housing and the empty government properties, the local authorities have something over 100,000 empty properties and central government have about 16,000.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the figure of 120,000 to which both my noble friend and others have referred relates to families which are in principle eligible for support by the local authorities? Does he further accept that beyond that, there are scores of thousands of single homeless people, many of them in great need, who are not covered by this Act? Will the Minister take into account in his further deliberations upon how to tackle this national problem the needs of single homeless, both in London and elsewhere?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very important point about the definition of homelessness. Of course the single parent or single person, particularly the young single person, does not tend to qualify under the definition in the 1985 Act. That is the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. I know that there are special hostels, and he is looking at the matter.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, during the passage of the Bill, when the Minister was questioned he placed great emphasis on the fact that when the Bill became an Act it would help with the rehousing of homeless people? If rents double as the representatives of the landlords predict, will the Minister give an undertaking that if people who are registered as homeless are able to negotiate a tenancy with one of these private landlords, irrespective of the doubling of the rent, the prospective tenant will be funded by housing benefit? Or is the whole thing "kidology" and a hoax? If so it is most unfair on the people concerned.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord is fully aware, Part I of the Act relating to assured tenancies only came into effect on 15th January, a week ago yesterday. There is a lot of interest in the ability of the private sector to provide an increasing part of the market which it has been forced out of since the introduction of the Rent Acts. I confirm that housing benefit is available.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that part of the reason bed and breakfast is used extensively by some local authorities and also the reason there are unused properties is the problem of finding capital, as opposed to the day-to-day expenditure, to produce the new buildings that are required?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is indeed one of the problems. The other is the need for more efficient management of those properties and a proper housing policy. I am sure the noble Viscount would wish to support that. He will be aware that there has been no restriction on the use of accumulated receipts for capital repairs. If some local
454
authorities had used that route, we might have got a lot further.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, will the Minister give us some idea at what speed the Government are reducing their admitted figure of 16,000 empty houses? The Minister mentioned that figure earlier.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord a detailed answer. All I know is that there is a big drive within central government to ensure that when properties become available they are disposed of.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, according to the latest figures from the DoE, since this Government took control the number of homeless people has doubled. Does the Minister agree that one cannot put all the blame on the shoulders of local authorities? If one looks at the statistics of local authority spending on housing, one sees that every year the figures have gone down and down because of the lack of government subsidies on new build.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that the HIP allocation for next year is up 12 per cent. It is not just local authorities that provide housing. The private sector and the housing associations also provide housing, and they are being heavily funded.

London Transport: Studies
2.45 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is their intention to carry out an urgent review of the problems of London's transport as a whole.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we do not believe such a general review is required. However, a number of specific studies are under way or on the point of publication. Meanwhile, significant extra capacity is being provided, mainly by the public sector but with important contributions from the private sector.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that London's traffic is becoming increasingly congested and that public transport facilities in particular are proving unequal to the increased demands being put on them? Bearing in mind that all forms of urban transport are interdependent, are the Government right in pursuing this policy of reacting to particular situations as they arise? Has not the time come to look at London's transport as a whole?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree that traffic in London is becoming congested. That is why we are looking at a number of ways of tackling the problem. However, we do not believe that a strategic body needs to be set up. We want action, not bureaucracy. Past attempts at master plans have failed. They have taken too long to prepare and they have been too inflexible.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, will the studies that the department is undertaking include one about the long-distance coaches in London which at the moment have to be served by one coach station in Victoria? The number of coaches passing through the residential parts of that neighbourhood is becoming increasingly intolerable.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, London Regional Transport has been asked by the Government to examine the current and future terminal requirements for express coach services in London. It is considering alternative options to Paddington and possible short-term improvements to Victoria coach station. It is also talking about alternative arrangements to the Battersea wharf site.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend consider whether it is not also a question of doing what so many other nations with similar problems have done; namely, setting up a special traffic side to our police force which is solely concerned with the flow of traffic and the discouragement of transgressors who wilfully block traffic for their own convenience, to the great inconvenience of masses of users in London? Should not this matter be now reconsidered in the light of what every other nation has discovered on this issue?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall certainly take away my noble friend's suggestion on a specialist traffic police force. Illegal parking is one of the main problems in central London. We have made significant progress on that problem with the introduction of clamps, but it is a fact that illegally parked vehicles cause a disproportionate amount of delay.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in addition to the proposals suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, is it not possible to have more special lanes for London's buses? Is is not also possible to put on more Underground trains at the rush hours? That is the main problem that people appear to face. I believe many more Underground trains should be running during the rush hours and that there should be full enforcement of the bus lanes as well as additional bus lanes. All those things, together with special assistance from the police, might ease the problem.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, bus lanes are kept under review. They are brought in when they can be justified. As regards investment on the Underground, I believe the largest ever programme of investment will take place over the next few years. That should bring relief for some of the congestion on that system.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that his original reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was extremely disappointing? Is he not aware that to carry out separate London rail and road assessment studies without any correlation is sheer nonsense? Does he agree that there must be an all-inclusive discussion of London's traffic problems rather than such piecemeal inquiries? The Minister
456
referred to bureaucracy. On 16th January his ministerial colleague referred to an invitation to London boroughs to send an elected member and an official to an annual advisory consultative meeting on London's traffic. Does the noble Lord realise that that is not the way to achieve an all-embracing discussion of the problems of London's traffic?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should have hoped that that would be a helpful suggestion on the part of my noble friend. I said that we did not want too much bureaucracy and that we wanted action. I remind your Lordships that had the GLC—which has been gone for only three years—been able to solve the problems of London's traffic we should no doubt be enjoying the results now, and we are not.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the heads of London's transport have ever got together to discuss the problem and to consider whether collective action can overcome it? If they have not, will the Minister consider calling them together for that purpose?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, a central London rail study is currently being undertaken and the results will be reported shortly. The study group consists of representatives from London Regional Transport and the British Rail network, so that there is a body such as the noble Lord described.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord said that congestion in London was getting worse. Is he aware that it is now appalling and will shortly be chaotic? Is he aware that there exists a major problem which he does not appear to be taking seriously? Will he say when a government statement will be made about steps to be taken to ameliorate the position in the interests of the metropolis and of the country generally?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Shortly, my Lords.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I raised the question of travel problems, particularly on British Rail, in 1946 in another place? At that time people travelled not so much by car but by train; today more people travel by road and more people travel by train. Does the Minister agree that something has to be done about a chaotic situation which, for many of us who do not use road transport, is becoming unbearable?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, so far as concerns the rail system, both the Underground, about which I have already spoken, and British Rail Network SouthEast, there are plans to invest £1 billion over the next five years to improve the situation in the area.
Lord Blyth: My Lords, does the Minister have any plans to protect Battersea Bridge from attacks by water?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I recognise that the noble Lord asked me a question on that subject a short while ago when the bridge was closed as a

457
result of being hit by a barge. I am deeply disappointed that that has happened again and that further repairs will be necessary.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, is it true that it was the same company which owned the first barge that attacked the bridge a second time?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot give the answer to that question. I shall look into the matter.
Eggs: Price Increases
2.54 p.m.
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell asked Her Majesty's Government:
By how much the retail price in supermarkets of eggs has risen in the past compared with rises in the retail prices in supermarkets of sugar, butter, potatoes and olive oil, and whether they consider this increase to be justified in terms of fairness to the consumer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, information from the retail prices index, in which supermarket sales are not separately identified, shows that the price of eggs has risen by 6·9 per cent. between December 1986 and December 1988. Over the same period sugar prices have increased by 13 per cent., butter prices by 10·4 per cent. and vegetable oil prices (olive oil prices are not separately monitored) by 0·9 per cent. Potato prices have fallen by 1·5 per cent. The price of food in the United Kingdom has risen by less than the rate of inflation for each of the last four years, to the considerable benefit of British consumers.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer, but is she aware that in my local supermarket a dozen eggs which cost about £1 a year ago now cost between £1·30 and £1·35, representing an increase of about one-third? Is she further aware that that compares with an increase in the price of butter of only one penny from 52 pence to 53 pence for 250 grammes? Does she not feel that egg producers should try not to increase the price of their product by so much in one calendar year, and that it would help to solve the economic problems which they have faced in recent weeks if they were to keep their prices down?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, care has to be taken in making comparisons regarding retail egg prices. Prices differ according to the grade of the egg. For example, size 4 eggs are currently between 10 pence and 15 pence a dozen cheaper than size 2 eggs. Prices also differ between outlets reflecting the type of eggs sold and the services offered—for example, by local corner shops. As with many foods, prices will reflect any promotional offers, which can result in enormous variations in shop prices at any point in time.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, is there not a free market in eggs and do the Government not believe that that is the way to achieve fairness to customers?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, support arrangements, trade barriers and many other factors influence food prices. The Government believe that the determination of prices by market forces results in the most efficient allocation of resources and brings the best deal for the consumer. In recent years significant progress has been made in that direction.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I share my noble friend's concern or indeed apparent affection for a good potato salad, but does the question compare like with like?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, surely my noble friend would agree that an egg is an egg and that an increase of one-third in the price over one year is quite extraordinary, bearing in mind the general level of inflation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I presume that the noble Lord who spoke previously assumed that a potato was like an egg since potatoes were included on my noble friend's shopping list. This Government's policy of fostering free and fair competition in the High Street, and our policies in relation to the common agricultural policy, have made a significant contribution towards containing food price increases, bringing considerable benefits to the consumer who has a wider variety of food available than ever before.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in view of recent events is the Minister not somewhat relieved and perhaps surprised that the price of eggs has gone up?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am delighted to say that sales of eggs are rapidly returning to normal, thanks to the measures taken by my ministry.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that three of the four commodities with which comparison is invited by the noble Lord are subject to commodity regimes under the European common agricultural policy? Will she further agree that the effect of that policy is to turn the laws of supply and demand on their heads? Does she agree that an enlightened revision of the common agricultural policy would be to the advantage of consumers and taxpayers alike, and that that ought to be the object of government policy at the present time?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the prices of many foods are very little higher than a year ago and some foods are cheaper. Prices of lamb are 2 per cent. lower than a year ago, processed fruit is cheaper and fresh vegetables are an average of 3·4 per cent. lower in price than a year ago. The list is long but on average food prices are over 15 per cent. lower in real terms than they were 10 years ago.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that the happiest state in relation to the price of eggs is when, as is now occurring where I live, two large supermarkets fight each other over prices?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that is a matter for them.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the market is subject to supply and demand? Because the demand for eggs has fallen as a result of the recent scare would it not be better for egg producers to reduce the price in line with the suggestion of the noble Lord who put down the Question?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in point of fact egg prices are now lower than they were before Christmas and, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, many retailers are actively promoting the sale of eggs. Retail egg prices did not fall immediately following the salmonella scare because retailers have to take account of lower turnover and the need to reduce the levels of stocks held. During this period it was not price that was restricting the sales of eggs but rather confusion in the public's mind owing to media reporting.
Building Societies: Investor Protection Limit
3 p.m.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore Lord Constantine of Stanmore asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider raising the ceiling on guaranteed refunds on money deposited with approved building societies from £20,000 to a level nearer to the accumulated sums on deposit.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the latest available figures show that over 93 per cent. of all share and deposit account balances held by individuals in building societies stand at £10,000 or less. The existing statutory limit of £20,000 therefore already provides generous protection for the vast majority of investors.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but can he give some assurance to the many elderly people who have more than the amount that he has named in a building society and who are covered only by a ceiling of 90 per cent. of £20,000? Will they be more generously treated in view of the rise in inflation which is now foreseeable?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the figure of £20,000 can be reviewed from time to time to take account of inflation. I do not know whether there are any plans at present to undertake such a review as that figure was, I think, only set when the Act was passed in 1986. However, as I said in my original Answer, the vast majority of people have less than £20,000 on deposit with a building society. If people have more they are able to spread their deposits around more than one building society.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, would the noble Lord indicate what arrangements would be made if building societies convert themselves into banks, and also say whether these are better or worse than those at the moment pertaining under the Building Societies Act? In order to obtain conversion, would the Government agree that the present arrangement proposed by the Abbey National, namely, to dish out fairly free shares to their depositors, is an arrangement of which the Government approve wholeheartedly?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if a building society converts to a bank it comes under the banking level of protection for depositors, which is 75 per cent. of up to £20,000. I emphasise that when putting the idea of conversion to its members, a building society would have to point out that fact. As far as Abbey National's conversion is concerned, that is a matter between the building society and its members. The Government remain neutral as to whether building societies should or should not convert.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore: My Lords, is the Minister aware that any sum exceeding £20,000 is not guaranteed but is dependent upon the sums of residual money in the building society, the society's legal obligations and its present policy in the event of such loss exceeding £20,000?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: That is right, my Lords. The statutory deposit scheme is applicable only to sums of £20,000 and under.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, will the Minister say whether there have been any consultations between the Government and the Building Societies Association as to whether or not the Building Societies Association wishes to change that arrangement?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not aware of any consultations that have taken place with the Building Societies Association. Obviously, if the Building Societies Association wishes to approach the Government with a view to changing that situation, we should be happy to hear from it.

London Regional Transport Bill
3.4 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

London Regional Transport Bill

  European Financial Area: ECC Report
  3.5 p.m.
  Lord Kearton Lord Kearton rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on a European financial area [21st Report, 1987-88, HL Paper 109].
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce this debate on the report of the Select Committee on the European Communities, the

  461
  subject of which is the European financial area. The investigation was carried out by Sub-Committee A of the Select Committee. I should like to express my thanks to the hardworking members of the Select Committee, to its specialist adviser, Professor Begg of Birkbeck College, and to the sub-committee's indefatigable clerk, Mr. William Sleath. I should particularly like to thank also the eminent witnesses who were uniformly helpful.
  It is an unusual but most welcome development that one of our witnesses, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, will be taking part in today's debate. The noble Lord has just concluded a distinguished and most successful term as a commissioner and vice-president of the European Commission. His energy, extraordinary abilities and advocacy as well as the reports that he has sponsored have been decisive in the second half of this decade in getting Europe moving briskly forward—movement after a long period of comparative stagnation.
  The Single European Act was the political decision which ended that stagnation and set the stage. The follow-up was the remarkable Brussels White Paper of three-and-a-half years ago which listed some 300 specific proposals for action and set up a timetable in which those actions should be achieved. It was a timetable with completion set for the end of 1992, a date which now dominates Europe. The White Paper, the wide range of specific proposals, the timetable and the very considerable progress to date all result from the commissionership of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. His manifold services to this country in the Civil Service, industry and commerce, the chairing of commissions and finally in government had already established him as a great Englishman. His four years in Europe have established him as a great European too and a key figure in building up a Europe in which he sees Britain as a pillar of strength in every sense with the opportunity to play a major part in Europe's development and destiny.
  The basis of the committee's inquiry was the Commission's proposed directive and regulation of November 1987 in line with the White Paper to complete the liberalisation of capital movements within the Community and to move towards the liberalisation of capital transactions between the Community and third countries. After consultation with the European Parliament the Council adopted the proposals in June 1988. Most member states are to implement the directive by 30th June 1990. The exceptions are Spain, Greece, Ireland and Portugal, where compliance may be delayed until 1992.
  The directive is not absolute. It provides for exceptional circumstances. With the authorisation of the Commission, reimposition of capital controls (under certain conditions) is allowed for a period of no longer than six months. The regulation accompanying the directive consolidates existing Community instruments for medium-term balance of payments support and sets up a permanent facility with considerably increased resources.
  The European financial area which is in the making requires a free internal market in financial services. That is an objective which goes back to the Treaty of Rome itself. Following the White Paper of
  462
  the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, that freedom is now being established by a series of proposals and directives. For instance, the "own funds" directive harmonises the definition of bank capital to be used in banking supervision; the solvency ratios directive sets out the formula to determine capital adequacy for credit institutions; and the second banking co-ordination directive establishes the principle of a single banking licence, which would allow firms to create a Europe-wide banking system with consequent Europe-wide competition. There has been the adoption of the 1987 directive on mutual recognition of prospectuses. After many years of deadlock, there is movement in the insurance market; large risk services to major corporations are now expected to be fully integrated in an open market by next year. There are also the recent proposals on the control of mergers, and so on. The impetus to a free internal market in financial services is now unstoppable.
  In all this activity the freedom from capital controls is a more fundamental step than the others. It raises important questions to which at this time no certain answers can be given. It was to air these questions that the committee carried out the inquiry.
  In the introduction to the committee's report the post-1945 developments in the international monetary system are set out, the keystone being the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944, which initiated the various post-war international financial institutions. There were four key objectives at Bretton Woods: free trade in goods and services; free international capital movements; exchange rate stability; and national automony over domestic economic policy. However, it was recognised that those four goals could not all be reconciled. Fixed exchange rates was the chosen option with free trade in goods and services the target, with retention of national autonomy in ecomic policy. Free movement of capital was the goal which was sacrificed.
  The Bretton Woods systems provided a framework for the worldwide dramatic post-war increase in production and trade. The fixed exchange rate regime lasted until the 1970s. Events since then are another story. But one might remark in passing that today's G7 meetings are in the spirit of Bretton Woods. The architects of the Treaty of Rome in 1957 had the same dilemma as was evident at Bretton Woods and there was no immediate liberalisation of capital movements within the Community of Six, although it was an objective. Some modest but abortive attempts at liberalisation in the 1960s were removed in the 1970s after the oil price shock and exchange rates between member states were themselves highly volatile. Such volatility was a hindrance to the development of the Common Market, fast though its economic growth proved. Various attempts were made to reduce the volatility, including the short-lived so-called "snake" of currency parities which followed the accession of the United Kingdom to the Common Market in 1973.
  The successful attempt to stabilise exchange rates within the Community was launched in 1979 with the founding of the European monetary system. The European monetary system depended on the twin pillars of a European currency unit, the ecu, and an

  463
  exchange rate mechanism. The ecu was to be used as a unit of account in settling transactions between European governments and between their central banks, but with the hope that in parallel a private ecu market would develop. The value of the ecu has derived from the weighted average of the value of the individual countries of the Common Market, including the pound sterling. The exchange rate mechanism sets a central value for a country's currency against the ecu with fluctuations allowed within a narrow and defined band for each currency. A European monetary co-operation fund provides credit facilities between member governments. Changes in a country's exchange rate outside the band can be made but only with the consent of all the members.
  The United Kingdom is a member of the European monetary system but not of the exchange rate mechanism. The United Kingdom Government have said at various times that they will join the exchange rate mechanism when the time is right. That pledge was repeated by Mr. Peter Lilley, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in his evidence to the committee. It must be stressed that the absence of the UK from the exchange rate mechanism is regretted by other members of the Community.
  The exchange rate mechanism is regarded by those participating as having constituted a major success. Since 1983 exchange rates between the respective currencies have been remarkably stable. Adjustments have indeed been made but they have been small and managed in an orderly fashion. The anchor currency of the system has been the deutschemark and over the years the inflation rates of the participating countries have converged to the very low inflation rate of Germany. That convergence also owes much to the growing co-ordination in the monetary policies of the participating countries.
  For most of the period of the exchange rate mechanism only Germany, with its strong export performance and export surplus, has had freedom from exchange controls. It lifted them in 1981. The Netherlands followed suit in 1986. France recently introduced partial liberalisation and with Italy hopes to accomplish complete liberalisation by 1990. However, meanwhile France is pressing for harmonisation of Community rules to protect savers and depositors and for measures to prevent tax evasion when all controls have been lifted. With Italy, it would like such arrangements to be introduced and in place before 1990. The Commission has considered whether harmonisation of company taxes should also be encouraged.
  The position of Italy is interesting. A considerable budget deficit is at present largely financed by internal savings which currently cannot be deposited outside the country. Freedom of capital movements will almost certainly have to be matched in Italy by considerable fiscal changes.
  Retention of capital controls enabled the weaker countries of the original Community of Six to adjust their policies to preserve exchange equilibrium and to help move towards economic convergence. It is that success which now permits capital liberalisation. For
  464
  the poorer countries of the enlarged Community, being locked into fixed exchange rates, with no control over capital movements, implies a considerable degree of risk for the development of their economies. That is the reason why such countries have been so insistent on support by way of grants from Brussels to develop their infrastructures especially in transport and provision of energy. Whether the increased flows agreed by the Council last year, and which it is intended will be co-ordinated with increased investment by the European Investment Bank, will be sufficient is a moot point. Certainly future regional aid will have to be more carefully thought through and more closely monitored. In my view these transfers will have to be considerably increased—far beyond anything at present envisaged.
  The United Kingdom has so far stayed outside the exchange rate mechanism. Has that caused any economic harm? Until two years ago I think the answer could be unequivocally "no". The United Kingdom's economic performance since 1979 was initially a sharp recession followed from 1981 by vigorous and sustained growth—faster than in the rest of the Community. Many reasons have been attributed: the benefits of North Sea oil; the reduced power of the unions; the encouragement of an entrepreneurial climate; the removal of many restrictions from business; and the reduction of government activities and government intervention in industrial affairs. It must be remembered that this growth was a catching-up process with the rest of the EC. After the oil price reduction of 1985 our country also had the advantages of a modest exchange rate and low import commodity prices. There were considerable increases in the money supply, plentiful credit, and significant reductions in taxation. Not surprisingly, the UK has had three boom years.
  The UK lifted exchange controls in 1979, when the prospect of large external oil revenues was immediate. The freedom helped the City of London in its role as a world financial centre, and in the 1980s it has permitted a large capital outflow and a major build up of private overseas assets. However, in 1988, again not surprisingly, the boom has meant that the country has experienced a large deficit on the balance of payments. The high interest rates for short-term money have provided the incentive for capital inflows compensating for the trade imbalance. The high interest rates have pushed up the exchange rate of the pound and there has been a sharp rise in inflation in 1988. The United Kingdom now has one of the highest inflation levels in both the Common Market and the OECD countries.
  As I have said, there is no evidence that United Kingdom membership of the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system would have improved the UK economy or UK growth prospects, at least until 1985. Whether the disciplines of the exchange rate mechanism would have helped prevent the post-1985 system is a question which may give a guide to the UK's future course of action.
  The evidence that the committee received on the implications of all the recent steps to provide a European financial area and freedom of financial services is summarised in Part 3 of the report. The

  465
  verbatim accounts of the interviews with witnesses are in the report and make interesting reading, so diverse were the views expressed. At one extreme were those who saw the resultant pressures on the European monetary system being such that the adjustment bands in the exchange rate mechanism would have to be so widened as to lead to a breakdown of the system. The hard won gains of greater financial freedom would be in peril.
  In the centre were those who thought that the pragmatism of the European Community nations and their habit and experience of working ever more closely together in monetary affairs would bring a new equilibrium. A framework would be established, capable of withstanding jolts, tensions and temporary mismatches between economic growth and fiscal management.
  At the other extreme were those who thought that the inevitable and logical conclusion of the present package of liberalising financial measures and the intimate welding together of the economic and financial apparatus of the individual nations must be a common currency, managed by a European central bank. Even on this flank there was no agreement on timetable or on the powers, constitution or independence of such a central bank. But it was maintained with fervour that a common currency, with the common concomitant of a central bank, was necessary to achieve the full economic potential of the European Economic Community, and that the pooling—a favourite word—of national sovereignty in such financial and in due course fiscal matters was a fair price to pay. The prize was worth the price.
  It is highly significant that the Commission, with the agreement of the Council, has set up a special exploratory committee under the presidency of Monsieur Delors to look into the whole situation, with a remit to give a provisional report to the European Finance Ministers by April this year. The views of your Lordships' House as expressed in this debate will be timely.
  The sub-committee, in summarising the evidence, used a series of headings to aid consideration. These headings included, "The benefits of liberalisation"; "The effect on taxation and regulation"; "The ecu and a common European currency"; "A European Central Bank"; and "The drawbacks of monetary union". The contributors to the debate will, I am sure, develop these themes.
  The committee's opinions are given in Part 4 of the report and a summary of conclusions is in Part 5, paragraphs 93 to 105. In brief, the committee welcomed the liberalisation of capital movements and all the steps being taken to create a European financial area. It considered that considerable benefits could accrue—I stress the word "could"—to the United Kingdom, and wanted the United Kingdom to be in a strong position to exercise leadership in the Brussels debates. The committee favoured a pragmatic step-by-step approach to the development of the European monetary system. It felt that the United Kingdom should now take any early opportunity to join the exchange rate mechanism, although recognising that that is not an
  466
  immediate prospect. It was against any promotion of "fortress Europe" in financial matters.
  The committee considered that it would be some time before the Community and not just Britain was ready either economically and, even more important, politically for full monetary union with a common currency. Nevertheless the committee emphasises that the Community—all the nations of the Community—by ratifying the Single European Act has accepted closer monetary co-operation as an agreed policy and notes that the Act provides that if institutional changes are necessary then treaty amendment can he considered.
  The full implementations of the momentous developments which the Single European Act and the White Paper that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, put in train, are worthy of the closest attention from your Lordships' House. I am sure that the present debate will be both informative and constructive. My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on a European financial area [21st Report, 1987–88, HL Paper 109].—[Lord Kearton.]
  3.25 p.m.
  Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the House, the country and indeed the Community as a whole owe a debt of gratitude to your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities for the very clear, penetrating and impartial reports which it produces on matters of Community interest and policy. The present report is very much in that honourable tradition. I greatly welcome the report's support for the European financial area. This is an integral part of the White Paper programme for the completion of the internal market by 1992 to which the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, referred.
  It is of immense importance to our country because of the stake that we have in financial services. It is wise to bear in mind also that it is important not just from the point of view of the prosperity of the financial sectors, but also because of its impact upon the prosperity of trade and industry as a whole. This was one of the major areas studied in the Ceccini Report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, referred, which indicates considerable benefits flowing from completion of the European financial area.
  There has been some criticism of the figures that were given in the Ceccini Report, but it is important to make the point that those figures were, if anything, extremely conservative and the benefits likely to flow will be considerable. I welcome also the support that the report gives to full membership of the United Kingdom in the EMS. I prefer frankly to refer to "full membership" rather than to deal in acronyms like the "ERM" because full membership is what is really involved. The argument for our full membership of the EMS goes much further than simply the industrial and commercial arguments. All experience shows that without an external discipline, sooner or later finance Ministers—I am talking not just in terms of this country but generally—will depart from the path of prudence.

  467
  This is amply borne out by history. For many years the external discipline was provided by the gold standard. After the end of the last war this was replaced by the Bretton Woods system, which remained in being for some 25 years. Perhaps it is relevant to mention that during that period of 25 years the pound sterling was devalued in terms of the dollar only on two occasions—a feat which has not been matched since, I may say—and indeed it was the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s which ushered in the great inflation.
  I know that it is customary for people to ascribe the great inflation to the oil price increases. But in fact the oil price increases accounted for but a minor part of the ensuing price increases. The major part was due to the failure of governments to react in a proper and prudent manner to those oil price increases.
  The only effective external discipline which exists at present is the EMS and that is the reason why we should join. I know that at present it is said on behalf of our Government that we need no such external discipline. I entirely accept that statement, but the day may well come when our present Government are replaced by another government. That government may well require external discipline, as past events have proved. The time to introduce that external discipline is when it is not needed.
  There is one point on which I dissent somewhat from what has been stated by the Select Committee. Page 23, paragraph 105, of the Summary of Conclusions reads as follows:
  "The Committee note that the Community, by adopting the Single European Act, has accepted closer monetary cooperation as an agreed policy".
  In fact, the commitment goes very much further than that. The Single European Act states:
  "the Heads of State … approved the objective of the progressive realization of Economic and Monetary Union".
  The same point appears in the conclusions of the meeting of the Heads of Government at Hanover in June of last year. On that occasion they stated:
  "The European Council recalls that, in adopting the Single Act, the Member States confirmed the objective of progressive realization of Economic and Monetary Union".
  I shall deal with the implications of that statement in a moment but I should like to make an immediate point. I make it not with any criticism of the Select Committee but as a general point.
  There is a tendency on the part of government—not just the present Government but all governments—to use emollient language in order to gloss over what they believe may be inconvenient or controversial facts. Unfortunately, this is such an example. The difficulty with such an approach is that while it may avoid immediate trouble and embarrassment it stores up a great deal of trouble for the future. Many of the problems which have arisen in the Community have occurred as a result of a failure to realise the extent of the commitments which have been undertaken. The commitment that has been undertaken in the present case is a commitment to monetary union; not simply a commitment to monetary cooperation. Unfortunately, when the unvarnished truth finally emerges it tends to lead to a considerable reaction. That reaction we have seen on a number of occasions.
  468
  That brings me to the question of the European currency. I have not the slightest doubt that before the end of this century we shall have a single European currency. The path in that direction is already clearly staked out. There is the EMS; the creation of the single banking market; the declaration by the Heads of Government at Hanover; and the appointment of the committee under President Jacques Delors to study and propose (it is most important that we look at the language used):
  "concrete stages leading towards this Union".
  That is where Europe is going and it is where a great majority of the member states intend going.
  The real point at issue is not whether that will happen but whether our own country will be part of that movement. The problem that we face at present is that, because of a refusal to face the commitments which have already been entered into, the debate is taking place on the wrong issue. In other words, people are discussing whether there will be a single currency; while the real issue is whether this country comes into a system of a single currency or whether it does what it did in the case of the EMS. It was to allow the other member states to go ahead and for us to remain outside. It is crucially important that the issue should be faced because it has great implications for this country, for the City of London and our financial services generally.
  I should like to end with two comments. First, I sincerely thank the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, for the kind remarks that he made about myself. Secondly, I repeat what I said at the beginning: that I regard this as a very helpful, constructive and well-balanced report.
  3.36 p.m.
  Lord Banks: My Lords, the House is once again indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, and to Sub-Committee A for producing another thorough report on the financial future of the European Community. It has also had the benefit of hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, fresh from his four years as a commissioner in Brussels. We are delighted to see him in the House, once again taking part in our debates.
  The report deals with the liberalisation of capital within the Community and the establishment of a European banking system. Both of those are to take place by 1992. It is natural that, in that context, the report should discuss the United Kingdom and the exchange rate mechanism to which the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, referred.
  I am glad that the committee has decided to stick to its previous policy. In the Summary of Conclusions, paragraph 103 states:
  "The United Kingdom should take an early opportunity to join the ERM, and so he in a stronger position to exercise leadership in debates on monetary policy".
  Paragraph 83 states the committee's belief that the exchange rate mechanism has been successful in reducing exchange rate volatility. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, said in evidence to the committee that the European monetary system had been of immense value to the participants.

  469
  Ben Patterson, a United Kingdom MEP, explained the difficulty which he had in defending to his colleagues from other countries in the European Parliament the current British position on the exchange rate mechanism. I hope that the Government will take the advice of the committee on that important issue.
  The report discusses wider issues. It appears that there are two intertwined themes running through the report from the beginning to the end. The first is the old argument between the visionaries and the pragmatists. The visionaries are there proclaiming the brave new world, perhaps even setting out target dates for the different stages which must be reached if we are to see it established. The pragmatists are also there, singing the words to the hymn, "'I do not ask to see the distant scene; one step is enough for me".
  The second issue, very much intertwined with the first, is whether the establishment of one European currency and the central bank is a relevant issue for contemporary discussion. Some pragmatists believe that weshall eventually come to one currency and a central bank but they believe that it is a long way off and would prefer not to speak about it now. They would rather leave it to come about by stealth. The noble Lord, Lord Roll of Ipsden, whom we are looking forward to hearing later in the debate, put a question to Professor Goodhart, of the London School of Economics. He asked:
  "do we really need to commit ourselves, knowing the resistances, political and otherwise, however unreasonable they may be, to accepting here and now a need for a single currency and Central Bank? Do we really need to go through the agony of using these words and committing ourselves to these now, much as I personally think that these are inevitable end stations?"
  I suppose we might call that the voice of enlightened pragmatism, but the reply of Professor Goodhart was not encouraging. He foresaw speculative flows caused by the liberation of capital which might blow the EMS apart, to use his phrase. He thought that in that situation the Community would either have to proceed to close monetary union or slip back to something of a looser system, perhaps something akin to the crawling peg concept. However, if economic and monetary union is the aim of the Community in such a situation, he did not believe that that could be done by stages. He thought that we should have to take,
  "A fairly major jump literally all the way to a single currency".
  He also thought that to do that would be a major political act, therefore not something that could be done by stealth. I believe that he is probably right in saying that we shall have to take a fairly major jump and I think he is certainly right in saying that it will be a major political act.
  If that choice between monetary union or slipping back were forced upon us, I should hope that the Community would move to monetary union with all its difficulties and implications and with no resort to a two-tier Community. The point I wish to make is that we may face that choice before the end of the century and that is why we should face up to the possibility now and discuss it now; and it seemed to me that that was also the view of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. I certainly await with great interest
  470
  the results of the deliberations of the Delors Committee.
  Liberalisation, though to be desired, clearly brings its problems. We have seen that speculation may be one. Others covered in the report include reciprocity, company taxation, tax evasion and the establishment of safeguards. However, monetary union also brings its problems and in the pages of the report we again meet our old friend convergence. We have discussed that in this House in the past. I believe we agree that there has been some convergence, but running 12 separate economies with 12 currencies means that there are limits on convergence and we may wait for ever until we come to a moment which seems to be particularly propitious to make the move.
  I suggested once before to this House that what the Community does immediately after one currency is established is important. I am sure that that has to be planned most carefully. Therefore, we should need to take Professor Goodhart's fairly major jump and then follow an agreed course. The completion of the internal market and the establishment of monetary union would tend no doubt to increase the existing disparities within the Community and therefore it would be necessary for the Community to be prepared to provide funds in excess even of the present doubling of the structural fund which is to be achieved by 1992.
  I also believe that it would be necessary for our Government to take a more welcoming attitude to the concept of a social Europe than they appear to have done so far. It is obviously desirable to secure the maximum agreement in this country as to our future course but it would be sad indeed if the price to be paid for that were that we should be always lagging back and always deciding to sail on the most sluggish stream. A clear decision is needed on where the Community should aim to reach on monetary union and then some vigorous and positive leadership to ensure that we reach that point.
  3.46 p.m.
  Lord Seebohm: My Lords, first, I should like to express my admiration of the way in which our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, conducted our examination and inquiry. He sometimes went at a great speed, which left us somewhat breathless, but I am sure that all members of the committee are most grateful for the way he conducted the meeting and for the report he produced.
  The chairman has already explained that the decision about the single European currency area was taken last June except for the four weaker territories. I was very pleased that the committee decided to examine that agreement, as there would not only be repercussions which had not been fully thought through but it could be a precursor of further moves towards the completion of the internal market.
  The abolition of exchange controls no doubt puts some strains on the EMS although one cannot tell how great they will be. Mr. Lilley, in his evidence, played down the potential strains and pointed out that many capital barriers are already brought down and those nations with free capital flows have not experienced wild exchange rate fluctuations. It was

  471
  suggested that bands within which exchange rates fluctuate may have to be widened and that the powers now given to the Commission to borrow up to 16 billion ecu from capital markets in order to counteract speculative attacks on a member's currency should be of considerable help.
  I should be utterly dismayed if the EMS were to collapse as I am convinced that it has been genuinely effective in stabilising exchange rates. Also the ecu is now beginning to have an expanding commercial role and, although it will not be a common currency, it brings many of the advantages that monetary union would bring. It is also my view that the UK should join the ERM as soon as practicable as that would strengthen the EMS generally and avoid the danger of the deutschemark taking its place, which is on the cards and which would diminish the standing of London as the centre for world financial markets. It could also bring about a two-tier Europe, which would be a disaster for this country.
  As regards monetary union, that is clearly a long way off but its value for international trade when it comes, will be very great. I remember with considerable nostalgia, at a time when I was in charge of what might be called a Commonwealth bank, what a great advantage it was to operate in the sterling area. keeping the reserves in London and moving them around our colonial territories to meet the large seasonal, fluctuating demands for financing crops and raw materials without needing to have any regard to exchange rates or, for most of the time, to the balance of payments. Of course that ceased with a bang in 1967 when the United Kingdom devalued and floated the pound.
  A recent survey of a thousand leading EC businessmen shows that 80 per cent. want a common currency. There is now a clear conflict between the commercial world and politicians. Politicians do not want to give up what they call sovereignty and would retain it at the expense of some prosperity; the commercial world wants prosperity and would not in the least mind giving up a certain amount of sovereignty.
  The single financial area means that it would no longer be necessary to operate through a mass of local companies. One will be able to return to employing local branches, if that is thought to be more advantageous. As the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, said in giving evidence, the role of the Commission must be the provision of a framework of minimum standards for financial institutions: it should not legislate on matters which are better done by national legislators, leaving market forces to determine the details.
  If financial barriers are removed, the question of other barriers will clearly have to he given serious consideration. Mrs. Thatcher has said that national frontiers must remain because of the dangers of terrorism and other problems; but we have signed the Single European Act, which clearly lays down the goal of completion of the internal market by 31st December 1992 and that the market is to be an area without internal frontiers in which goods, persons, services and capital moves are free. That is contained in Article 13 of the Treaty.
  472
  I cannot reconcile the Prime Minister's statements with the signature to the Single European Act. If the fear of terrorism is to make a substantial reduction in the standard of living of the whole Community the terrorists will have obtained a substantial victory. I cannot see that being accepted as a reason for maintaining barriers.
  Much more difficult is the question of indirect taxation. Here it is a question of bargaining and of deciding how much to leave to market forces. The Select Committee has already studied this problem and reported in 1986 (its 11th report of that session). The Select Committee did not underestimate the difficulties and said, in paragraph 114:
  "Despite the manifest advantages for all member states in completing the internal market, despite the commitment of the Commission and the European Parliament to achieve this aim, and despite the declaration of the European Council, the Committee expect the Commission's proposals in the area of indirect taxation to be resisted at every stage by member states concerned for their fiscal sovereignty, their taxation policies, their tax revenue and the undeniable difficulty of finding solutions to the many problems explored by the Report."
  Nevertheless, the committee looked forward to the day when frontier controls are abolished altogether. It also received evidence that the benefit to traders was estimated at anything up to 10 per cent. according to the type of merchandise concerned. Since the report was issued, the Single European Act has been completed and some progress in ironing out differences has already been achieved. I look forward to comments from the Government Benches on this subject.
  Finally, I wish to make some comments on monetary union. It is clearly a long way off but it is firmly on the agenda, whatever the Prime Minister may say. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, said in evidence:
  "If you are going to reap the full advantages of European integration, then you have to go through the route of a common currency."
  I fully concur with that.
  UNICE (the Union of Industrial and Employers Federations of Europe) and ICI, in evidence, predict a common currency. Mr. Lilley criticised the "teleological" approach (as he called it) and preferred the practical, piecemeal, step-by-step approach. That, of course, begs the question: approach to what? The point I wish to make is that the subject cannot be left to drift but must be studied and preparations made for implementation.
  We have been told over and over again that the main advantages that America and Japan have over Europe are: first, a common language; secondly, no internal barriers; thirdly, a common currency; fourthly, common fiscal policies. Are the Government going to rule out all those points? If so, the Single European Act makes no sense and the prosperity of Europe will never catch up the high standard of living that those countries enjoy. Let us hope that the single financial area will show the way to further progress towards a meaningful internal market.
  3.55 p.m.
  Lord Reay: My Lords, we are much indebted to the Select Committee on the European Communities and

  473
  in particular to Sub-Committee A, which is so brilliantly led and the proceedings of which have been so dominated by the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, for this opportunity to debate the report.
  It is also a great pleasure to welcome back my noble friend Lord Cockfield who is returning after what gives all the appearance of being a triumphant success in his turn at the Commission. My noble friend was the commissioner responsible for launching the campaign to complete the internal market in 1985 and it is remarkable the degree of success it has had in galvanising both official and private effort into making this aim a reality. Indeed, the whole world has had to react and if the internal market is achieved it will be a milestone of enormous significance in the Community's development.
  The single market in services, goods and capital will undoubtedly be hindered by the existence of multiple currencies. They add to transaction costs and so inhibit trade within the area. So, of course, do multiple languages; but as regards languages English, not in all respects to our advantage, seems to be becoming the common language—the Latin of our time.
  Is there any sign of a desire for a common currency? It is fair to point out, as the noble Lord, Lord Kearton said, that alignments within the EMS in recent years have occurred less frequently and have been contained within narrower bands than previously. This reflects a degree of convergence in economic policy, particularly in so far as the containment of inflation is concerned, between member states which may be supposed to have had exchange rate stability as one of its aims.
  The call of business for greater exchange rate stability, which is already quite considerable, is likely to intensify after the completion of the internal market as currency instability will then stand out more as a surviving impediment to trade within the Community. I suggest that in the short and medium term all this is, and will remain, far short of the conditions which are necessary for a common currency. A common currency requires a common monetary policy and a co-ordinated fiscal policy. The Community is some distance from having those at the present time. Incidentally, it also requires a substantial and well-developed regional aid policy, which the Community has, and the unrestricted flow of capital, which the Community is about to have. Therefore, while the Community can be said to be moving towards the conditions necessary for monetary union, it is far from being about to arrive there.
  Whatever happens I am sure that the commercial use of the ecu will grow. In some member countries it has made more progress than here. In Italy and France ecu invoicing accounts for 1 per cent. of foreign trade. Ecu invoicing is replacing dollar invoicing in the oil trade to parts of the Community. It is also evolving in the travel trade: IATA is to offer the ecu alongside dollar and sterling as a method of clearing payments between airlines. The use of the ecu will grow as the market educates itself into its possibilities. Her Majesty's Government have given a
  474
  welcome boost to these developments by the recent issue of ecu denominated Treasury bills.
  However, this increased use of ecus, however far it is developed, will not amount to a common currency. A common currency needs a central bank to issue and manage it. The ecu is merely an alternative denomination for existing currencies against each of which it necessarily fluctuates.
  It follows from what I have been saying that there is no immediate need for a central bank. I am sure that it would be a mistake to create such a bank before it has such a role to play. I go along with my noble friend Lord Cockfield in that we certainly should not refuse to enter into discussions about it. We must be there from the start. We are entitled to enter discussions with a sceptical attitude, but what would be inexcusable would be for us to put in jeopardy London's position as Europe's principal financial centre by absenting ourselves from the first discussions on the grounds that these were premature. We have too often already allowed events in Europe to overtake us. If anyone doubts the importance of this issue let him look at the example of New York whose pre-eminence as a financial centre has quite a lot to do with the fact that it is the Federal Reserve Bank of New York that undertakes all currency intervention in the United States.
  But I strongly doubt if we shall be the only member country wanting to resist the premature establishment of a central bank. When it comes to creating new Community institutions or adding to the powers of existing ones, there are other member states just as jealous of unnecessarily giving away their national sovereignty. I believe that the Community will move inexorably towards a greater degree of economic integration or, as the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, reminded us, of commitment to economic and monetary union. I hope that the Delors Committee will recommend concrete steps in that direction.
  I suggest that it is a process that will happen in little steps and often invisibly. It is something that must be allowed to develop naturally. I believe that new institutions should be introduced to make existing practices more efficient, not to anticipate the requirements of tomorrow's conditions. I am sure that this country will continue to play a constructive part in this process and that once we have joined the exchange rate mechanism, which I am sure we eventually shall, we will then be able to play a leading part.
  This country has been one of the first to issue ecu-denominated Treasury bills and it is now 10 years since the decision was taken here to abolish exchange controls. Europe needs economic integration if it is to be able to meet the United States and Japan as an equal. It needs economic integration also to underpin political co-operation. Political co-operation needs to be reasserted in the face of the crisis in Eastern Europe. As an excellent article in today's Independent by Patricia Clough sets out, members of the German public are starting to entertain all sorts of romantic and fanciful notions that are uncorrected by their leaders and yet which need contradiction. Events in the East will bring untold trouble to us, as they have

  475
  done before, unless we hurry on with the construction of the European house.
  4.3 p.m.
  Lord Roll of Ipsden: My Lords, we must be grateful to my noble friend Lord Kearton for the manner in which he has introduced this important debate. Those of us who had the privilege of serving under him on the sub-committee that produced this report have had many occasions upon which to admire the masterly way in which he has steered us through this jungle of highly contentious and very perplexing issues.
  The newspapers have referred to this report as having very balanced conclusions. When one considers the contentious nature of the matters with which it deals and the great differences of opinion not only among economists but among many practical men and women who have responsibility for decisions in government and business, it is indeed a highly balanced document. It is a complement to an earlier report produced by my noble friend Lord O'Brien of Lothbury which dealt more particularly with the European monetary system and with the position of Britain in that system. Noble Lords may recall that it reached a positive conclusion. It also complements the recent report of the Select Committee on the structural funds, which is highly relevant because, in a system of a single market and free exchanges, there will obviously be a greater demand for the support of the structural funds.
  The work of the Community in this whole area I believe can be conveniently divided into two parts. One deals with those aspects which directly and immediately affect the activities of the financial services industry—that is to say, the regulatory provisions for entry into the different markets such as banking, insurance and so forth and the rules concerning conduct within those markets. I shall have a few words to say about that in addition to what is in the report. I must declare an interest because I myself am engaged in certain aspects of the financial services industry. In this area the work of the Community covers a very wide range of matters. It is designed to ensure free competition and financial services side by side with the creation of a single market in goods. On all these matters progress has been made, and my noble friend Lord Kearton has given a number of examples.
  I believe it is important to stress that recent developments in this area as regards the Community show a considerable desire to be guided by the principle of the mutual adoption of standards rather than by the often frustrating search for an immediate adoption of single uniform standards for all member countries. I believe that the work of the Community thus offers considerable promise that sensible solutions will be found for those matters that are still outstanding, such as takeovers. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, has recently published his own views on the matter. He is the chairman of our own Takeover Panel and I believe that his analysis shows that the rules now being drafted in the Community are very similar to, and may be inspired by, the operations of the Takeover Panel, which has been extremely successful in this matter. Further
  476
  work and consultation lie ahead and there may be difficulties in enabling an efficiently working non-statutory sytem like our own to continue to operate side by side with statutory systems, though those systems themselves are inspired by the same objectives and purposes and work to the same rules.
  Another related problem is the principle of competition and the question of preserving the public interest in that matter as regards mergers and acquisitions. That goes much wider than the financial services industry but it does affect its operations to a considerable extent. The resolution of these matters will no doubt give rise to many problems.
  However, what I believe to be important to recognise is that from the experience so far it would be very wrong to assume, as it is sometimes done in some quarters, that those concerned with these matters in Brussels are motivated by a malign urge to bludgeon the members of the Community into an artificial and premature uniformity. That is certainly not the case. All the experience to date shows exactly the opposite. Any bureaucracy has to be constantly watched for signs of exuberance and excessive growth. But even if such tendencies did exist in the Community, the checks and balances in the system are such that if anything is to be feared it is the lack of progress rather than a headlong rush into artificial and compulsory uniformity.
  The evolution of a single European financial area raises a question that has been pointed to by a number of noble Lords; namely, the future of the financial services industry of this country and the future of London as an important financial centre. There are perhaps dangers in the fact that the rules of business conduct will not be uniform to start with and will probably remain so for quite some time. As regards the fact that this may lead to undesirable practices seeking a haven in whatever environment is the most lax in this respect, that is not a new problem. We have it now and unfortunately there have quite recently been some cases of that kind, quite apart from the development of the single financial area. I suppose that the development of a single European financial area should make for improvement as regards the Community. It is reasonable to expect that the evolution of standards will be to the higher rather than to the lower level.
  The single area for financial services will lead to increased competition. That is what it is designed to do and that is what it will do. This need not affect the position of London, which has been to a much larger extent than Continental centres an open house for foreign enterprises. The City, which contains several hundred foreign banks, has long been used to a high degree of competition from all comers. The open door policy has served London well and the opening of other markets must be beneficial to the position of the City.
  One important point is the attitude of the Community towards non-members. The creation of the single market has already aroused a certain amount of concern in the United States, in Japan, in the developing world and among the European non-member countries. The Commission has so far taken great care to make very reassuring noises in that regard. However, now and again the word

  477
  "reciprocity" is still mentioned rather prominently, particularly in regard to financial services. While I sympathise, as we all must, with the desire of the Commission to have bargaining counters, I support strongly the conclusion of the Select Committee that insistence on reciprocity can be self-defeating. Liberal policy in these matters, like mercy, is twice blessed—it blesseth him who gives and him who takes.
  The second part of the committee's report deals with monetary unification. This has been a major theme in our debate so far. This is a concomitant of the Community's commitment to a single market by 1992 and the abolition by 1990 of exchange controls with only a few exceptions. The European Council has decided that a committee under M. Delors should study this matter, one on which economists differ greatly and which also arouses considerable concern among politicians.
  The first question to ask is surely this: does anything need to be done in the monetary sphere at the Community level if the single market is to function effectively? The fact that the Delors Committee has been set up suggests that the heads of government believe that there is at least a prima facie case to be examined. I would certainly go much further, as would many others, and say that a single market will not work unless there is—I put this as a minimum—a high degree of stability of exchange rates within the Community. For 10 years now, even before the commitment to a single European market, the objective of stable exchange rates has had its practical expression in the European Monetary System, albeit without the membership of the pound sterling in the exchange rate mechanism. It follows therefore that for the existing members of the exchange rate mechanism, the need for greater exchange rate stability must—with 1992 in view—have even higher importance than hitherto. Indeed, such stability seems essential if the single market, let alone any further economic integration of the Community, is to have any real meaning. To my knowledge the British Government have never questioned the desirablity of a high degree of stability of exchange rates, not only within the Community but on the world scale.
  Differences arise on how this stability is to be achieved and maintained and what priority it is to have over other economic objectives with which it may conflict. It may surprise some of my noble friends to know that I regret that the public debate on future developments has been so much in terms of a single European currency and a European central bank. These are perfectly proper terms for an academic discussion. They are by no means ignoble objectives—in fact they are ones which I thoroughly support—but they have a highly emotive effect in international negotiations since they touch on sensitive symbols of national sovereignty or autonomy, or at any rate perceived autonomy. The thought of Britannia on our 50p coin being replaced by Europa—presumably with the bull—would make many throw up their hands in horror.
  A long period of great stability of exchange rates is needed. We may then have to consider a single
  478
  currency. As for talking of a European central bank rather than asking which, if any, functions of a national central bank must now be put upon a Community basis—for example, within a strengthened European monetary committee—this raises questions of how the governor is to he appointed, where the bank is to be located and to what political authority it should be responsible. Much as I believe in the eventual need for a single currency and a European central bank, I do not think that these questions are of such urgency that they must be tackled now. If pressure for them now increases, however irrational is resistance to Britain's entry into the exchange rate mechanism, I would rather leave them over for a while.
  The entry of the pound into the exchange rate mechanism is probably the single most important immediate step that should be taken. The entry of the pound into the ERM is a long way from the more lofty objectives which I have just mentioned. It may be regarded by some as a first step which would inevitably drag one along this road which leads eventually to a single currency and a single central bank. Noble Lords may remember what the Marquise du Deffand said about the legend that Saint Denis had walked two miles after his head had been cut off. She said:
  "The distance does not matter, it is only the first step that is difficult".
  I fully share and strongly support the committee's view that we should take an early opportunity to join the exchange rate mechanism. I regret that we have not long since done so. It would have been good for us and good for Europe. Noble Lords may remember that I likened the attitude of the British Government to Saint Augustine's prayer. He prayed to the Lord:
  "Oh Lord give me chastity and continency—but not yet".
  Saint Augustine was, however, shrewd enough not to add the words, "but when the time is right", thereby saving himself the embarrassment of constantly being asked to define the right time. As the report points out, many of the earlier arguments against our membership of the exchange rate mechanism have lost their validity.
  The argument which is heard most nowadays is that exchange rate stability cannot be attained if there are substantial divergences in economic policy leading to substantial differences in such matters as growth and, above all, inflation rates. These indicators are of course influenced by many other factors, but they are—particularly inflation rates—especially under the influence of monetary policy. Monetary policy is one of the most important instruments for affecting exchange rates. It has been argued that further steps towards greater monetary unification via relative exchange rate fixity would restrict the efficacy of an important instrument of national economic policy. It would follow, therefore, that one cannot move on the exchange front until there has been considerable convergence—somebody called it "our old friend convergence"—of national economic policies.
  I have two comments on this view. It seems to me inconsistent to cling to an absolute automony of national economic policy, which many of us would in any event regard as increasingly illusory, while urging

  479
  convergence as a precondition for exchange rate stability. On this basis, exchange rate stability will be postponed to the Greek Calends. The other point is that this view also ignores the fact that maintenance of stable exchange rates is a powerful factor for directing national policies towards greater convergence. The history of the EMS, as indeed the older history of the gold standard and the history of Bretton Woods, demonstrate that, as the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, pointed out, although I shall have a word to say about a further point he made in that regard.
  They have shown how great is the importance of this commitment to exchange rate stability in actually furthering convergence of national economic policies. Of course, convergence produced by an obligation to maintain stable exchange rates is not always welcome. France and Italy may complain that, given the position of the deutschemark in the EMS and the rigour of the monetary policy of the Bundesbank, the effect of the system has been unduly deflationary. We have heard an echo of that argument in this country when it has been said that if the pound were in the ERM it would be tied to a deflationary deutschemark. It seems rather odd that this argument should be used side by side with an insistence on the fight against inflation having priority over all other economic objectives.
  The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has spoken about discipline in that regard. He has drawn a distinction between the necessity for discipline according to different governments of different political colour. Sitting where I am, I shall not follow him in that. In fact, I would go further than he, because I would say that a truly liberal trading and financial policy, whether within the Community or on the world scale, cannot be had without a degree of discipline; that is to say, without some restraint on national economic policy, whether that is explicitly recognised and institutionalised or not. It inevitably brings about a restraint on monetary policy.
  As for Europe's money system in the longer term, I hope that whatever one's aspirations—I share some of them—the question could be discussed in practical terms of what the next step should be. I put that point to the Treasury Minister who was good enough to give evidence to the sub-committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Kearton. He agreed that that was entirely in accord with the Government's philosophy and approach. When I went on to suggest that if that were so it would be highly appropriate for the government of a country which over 150 years ago was the cradle of monetary economics, and which has the oldest central bank, to say what those practical steps might be, I was told that that would mean "leap-frogging" the Delors Committee. I find that hard to understand as there has already been a certain amount of "leapfrogging"; indeed some powerful pre-emptive strikes have already been delivered.
  I would therefore respectfully suggest to the Secretary of State that in those matters a touch of glasnost might be appropriate. I also note that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be speaking on the subject of this debate later this week at the Royal
  480
  Institute of International Affairs. I hope that he will be less coy than his Treasury colleague and that he will indulge in a certain amount of "leap-frogging".
  4.22 p.m.
  Lord Butterworth: My Lords, I should like to pay a tribute to the skill and industry of the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, in bringing the report to the House this afternoon and to thank him for his chairmanship of the sub-committee.
  A number of noble Lords this afternoon have drawn attention to the fact that the European financial area is an important stage in achieving one of the aims of the Treaty of Rome—economic integration—and much of the debate has turned on that point. Economic integration is an aim which was repeated in the Single European Act and it is therefore neither new nor revolutionary; but it has been accepted as Community policy from the beginning.
  Since the war, a disproportionate share of wealth and influence has tended to cohere around the superpowers—the United States, Russia, Japan and, probably before long, China. The question behind the report is: can Europe become so militarily organised and achieve sufficient economic integration to become the equivalent of a superpower? Its potential is enormous. It has a population of 320 million. Together EC countries have 22 per cent. of world GNP and 37 per cent. of world trade. Can the EC therefore get its act together in time and, by economic integration, seize the rewards which crude statistics of population, economic activity and military strength suggest are within its grasp?
  It has been suggested that economic integration demands that the European states should surrender sovereignty and that the internal market is one stage towards some form of political union. There is no authority for that proposal in the Single European Act. My noble friend Lord Cockfield pointed out that the Single European Act refers to European unity; but it resolves to implement it:
  "on the basis, firstly, of the Communities operating in accordance with their own rules and, secondly, of European Co-operation among the Signatory States in the sphere of foreign policy".
  That clearly foresees a relationship between sovereign states—a confederation rather than a federal constitution—with only the minimal loss of sovereignty. The Single European Act is an attempt to reinvigorate the European economy by a complete change of principle. The original approach of the EC was harmonisation—a crippling notion that a single European norm or set of norms must be found for each area. The White Paper on The Completion of the Internal Market does something new. It builds upon the crucial decision of the European Court of Justice in the Cassis-de-Dijon case. It proposes the mutual recognition of norms. The norm of any member state would he recognised by all the other states. In short, the Community is released from centralisation, and instead of the enormous dinosaur in Brussels, to which the Prime Minister quite rightly objects, whatever is legitimated by any member state, within European guidelines, will be recognised throughout Europe.

  481
  At a stroke, the wind of competition will, unless thwarted by bureaucratic action, be allowed to blow into every part of the economy; and if it is allowed to do its work, will raise efficiency and liberate growth. In his evidence to the sub-committee, my noble friend Lord Cockfield stressed the importance of the move from harmonisation to frameworks; from the futile attempt to impose identical rules on all member states to frameworks which lay down guidelines for each area, leaving it to member states to draw up their own rules within the frameworks.
  That approach will give to the consumer the widest possible choice of goods and services; and far from threatening sovereignty, if properly exercised, will draw the minimum necessary into the legislation at the centre—that is to say, to Brussels—and will allow national governments freedom to legislate within the overall frameworks.
  Much of the debate this afternoon has assumed the existence of the internal market and has spent time looking forward to what are the next stages. We have as yet no guarantee that the internal market will work or that it will not be thwarted. In 1992 the single market will of course be far from perfect. Let us remember, it took the United States 200 years of amending legislation to improve its market; 1992 is only the beginning, not the end, of a process.
  The big question is: shall we be tough enough to allow the market to work or will interventionist groups be constantly interfering with the market. through Brussels, to preserve this or that industry; to save a particular group of jobs? The Poitiers incident is still fresh in our minds. If governments meddle to protect some particular national interest, if trade unions cry "social dumping" whenever jobs are threatened, if their pressure raises wages in countries such as Spain, Portugal or Greece to the point where any competitive advantage in intensive production is lost, the internal market will buckle under the strain. We cannot assume the success of the internal market unless we ourselves make it successful. Economic rationalisation is bound to be painful and the social and political tensions will he difficult to contain. The new approach, if rigorously followed through, may provide solutions for many of the problems that we have been talking about this afternoon.
  In our evidence it seemed almost as though two major views emerged, one the "teleological" view that we are embarked upon a journey towards certain fixed, final and ultimate objectives and that all future moves should be judged by the extent to which those ends are achieved. The other view involves a practical step by step approach to the market, accepting change when we can foresee that its benefits will exceed its costs. However, whichever view one takes, what has already happened in the Community has brought about a much greater approximation of monetary policy than existed a few years ago.
  Perhaps I may return for a moment to the question of joining the EMS. It is my submission that it would be imprudent for Britain to join until Europe has successfully achieved free movement of capital and then sustained it for some time, for we cannot be sure that the EMS itself will survive the pressures which
  482
  the market will impose by the free movement of capital and the scrapping of exchange controls. Professor Curzon-Price described the EMS as,
  "a cartel of central banks attempting to anchor their currencies on the wing of a butterfly. It works fairly well on a fine summer's day".
  I admit that a more difficult question is whether full economic integration can be achieved without the introduction of a common currency and a European bank. The balance of the views before us suggested that monetary union would not be possible until member states achieved a much greater degree of convergence in economic policy and a much closer co-ordination of fiscal policies. Member states still need to agree what those policies should be. Moreover, as we saw in the debate on the structural funds, it will also be necessary to acquiesce in substantial transfer of wealth, on suitable occasions, between rich and poor regions of the Community.
  I submit that there is no economic reason to regard monetary union as essential for the completion of the common market and our first overriding priority should be to see the completion of that market. Monetary union would necessarily involve a loss of sovereignty over economic and monetary policy and it would seem to imply some close political integration and institutional changes the ramifications of which have not yet been contemplated.
  In the meantime, with the internal market, if it is successful, the unified capital market will put currencies in competition with each other, causing national inflation rates to converge. In such a situation, is it entirely fanciful to suggest that, if Europeans really become free to bank in any European currency which they choose, a single European currency may not spontaneously begin to emerge from the market?
  The creation of the internal market will require an enormous effort of collective will. Economic integration will require a sufficiently strong body of European opinion in its favour, a deep conviction to bring it about, and once that is present the necessary legal and administrative changes will cease to be difficulties.
  4.36 p.m.
  Lord Benson: My Lords, I do not think anybody will dispute the principle that the economic and financial barriers of the common market should be removed as soon as possible. I do not doubt the principle; I have grave doubts about the timing. I gravely doubt whether the administration of the Community is strong enough to make it possible or practicable to achieve this for a great many years.
  Let us look at the facts. The structural organisation of the Community comprising, as it does, six separate layers of authority is complex and not conducive to efficiency. There is no single line of responsibility or authority from the decision-making body at the top down through the various levels to the member states where the bulk of the revenue and expenditure takes place.
  Secondly, fraud and irregularity in the Community is acknowledged to he rife, which is a sure sign of weak administration. Political will to stop it, to prevent these corrupt practices, is absent. Thirdly, the

  483
  financial controls operating in the member states are weak or non-existent. Fourthly, we watched with alarm the mismanagement of the common agricultural policy, which absorbs 70 per cent. of the budget and has accumulated huge stocks of unsaleable goods which are carried at figures far above their realisable value.
  Virtually every report by the Court of Auditors which has been made in recent years has drawn attention to mismanagement or inefficiency or both. Year after year, the Court of Auditors has drawn attention to grave defects in the administration and they have not been corrected adequately or at all. The report of the Court of Auditors on the accounts of the Community for 1987 implies—and I use a moderate word—that the accounts are not true and fair. I think that if any one of your Lordships cared to glance at the first chapter of that report you would be gravely shocked. Added to all that, the Community is labouring under the enormous burden of overhead expenditure in attempting to carry out the administration with translation of everything into nine separate languages.
  Unless these defects are corrected now, what can we look forward to in 1992 is an even more ragged and inefficient administration in which there will he gaping holes and wide inconsistencies. Fraud and irregularity will no longer he rife; it will be rampant.
  I turn now to my second point. There has been much talk of a single currency and a central bank. The strength and weakness of any currency depends on the strength and weakness of the economy in which that currency circulates. I do not believe that the nations outside the Community will have any faith in a currency which can be eroded by any one of the 12 member-states at any one time.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has pointed out, finance ministers sometimes depart from prudence. For those reasons I do not think it is possible to contemplate a single currency until there is some form of federal government which can control the economy of the Community as a whole. I do not believe that that is politically possible until deep into the 21st century.
  If your Lordships would care to glance at page 82 of the report before this House, Question 289, it will be seen that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury did not see a single currency arising within this century. It follows that it will be deep into the 21st century, if then, before we can look forward to a single, efficient Community market. The removal of cross-border barriers, the necessary harmonisation of legislation and of taxation, the free movement of people, services, goods and capital, and the establishment of a single currency and a central bank are a long way off. In short, I believe that the objectives proclaimed for 1992 are not attainable. We have been hypnotised for too long by gazing at pie in the sky.
  4.40 p.m.
  Lord Geddes: My Lords, I hope that today of all days is not a poor one to start with a cricketing analogy. I am batting at No. 9 and frequently that position is occupied by a quickish bowler, so I intend to be pretty quick this afternoon.
  484
  I should like to thank our captain, the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, for his very able stewardship of Sub-Committee A. As the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, said, he left us breathless on a number of occasions, but I think we just managed to keep up with him. He did a masterful job in chairing the committee.
  The committee heard evidence, as has been heard from many witnesses, and found a great diversity of opinions on almost every subject covered. On most matters it was hard to find a consensus. least of all on the question of Britain's participation in the exchange rate mechanism (ERM) and thence, I submit, a common currency.
  London is the financial centre of Europe. Should not every effort be made to retain that prime position? As my noble friend Lord Cockfield pointed out both in his evidence and in his speech this afternoon, the importance of the financial services lies not only in the industry itself but also in the fact that those services are the "essential underpinning" of manufacturing industry. It is surely of vital importance to the whole economy that the financial services sector is in flourishing health.
  Concern has already been expressed in some quarters of the City that our relatively new stringent controls could make London less attractive than other European member states in an internal market. No opportunity of reinforcing the City's continued pre-eminence should be lost.
  The committee drew the conclusion that Europe will gain substantial benefit from the internal market in financial services and the liberalisation of capital movements. Some witnesses felt that London in particular would benefit.
  Again I unashamedly quote my noble friend Lord Cockfield. He said:
  "The United Kingdom has more to gain than anybody else in this field simply because we have a strong, active, enterprising financial services sector".
  Mr. Anthony Loehnis of the Bank of England agreed that the consequences of the creation of an internal market as far as concerned London should be "positive".
  The committee went on to conclude that the gains of the internal market and liberalisation would be even greater if those achievements were followed by more stable exchange rates, which in turn would reduce the exchange rate risk which businesses now suffer and would mean that resources would be released for new development.
  Many have asked both this afternoon and outside this House how more stable exchange rates are to be achieved. We think that the machinery is there in the ERM, and I strongly endorse that. Members of the ERM have found that it has been successful in reducing exchange rate volatility and in combating inflation.
  It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government—at least until my noble friend the Secretary of State speaks this afternoon—that Britain should join the ERM when the time is ripe (I think the word is "ripe", though some say "right"). The committee heard from Mr. Patterson, the MEP, that the other member states feel very strongly that Britain should join the ERM without further delay. It is considered

  485
  that the old arguments for Britain's non-participation are no longer applicable. In my submission, my noble friend Lord Cockfield was right when he said, "the time is now getting very ripe indeed".
  I said at the beginning of my comments that we found it hard to find a consensus from witnesses on most matters. However, nearly all, whether they welcomed it or not, saw a common European currency as the inevitable and logical final step to full financial integration. The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, has already quoted the comment of my noble friend Lord Cockfield—and I wholeheartedly endorse it—that:
  "I have no doubt at all that if you are going to reap the full advantages of European integration, then you have to go through the route of a common currency".
  As recently as last week first Mr. Delors and then Mr. Van der Klugt, president of Philips. added their considerable voices in support.
  Given that Europe is committed to economic integration, half measures are surely to be avoided. Proposals such as the abolition of exchange controls are to be welcomed, but these half measures should not be seen as an end in themselves. While they may facilitate internal movements within the EC, they may also make us more vulnerable to the rest of the world.
  I quote from one witness, Mr. Costa of the European Commission, who asked:
  "What is the point of harmonising this and standardising that, when eventually the ultimate barrier is still there and commodities cannot move because one country has an exchange parity too low?"
  He for one felt that a single market without a single currency would be "highly unstable".
  Surely the essential stepping stone to a common currency is that every member state should be a member of the ERM. Discussions as to whether or not Britain should join the regulatory system of the EMS have been going on for long enough. It is time to dispense with political rhetoric and join the ERM before Britain's standing as a Community member and that of London as the financial centre of Europe are thrown into jeopardy.
  Finally, on a much wider note, it might help the overall climate in this and other contexts if we in this country gave overt recognition by saying so to the fact that we are in Europe. Not just the media but most individuals are prone to refer to the Continent as Europe and to these islands as the United Kingdom. Both are part of Europe, and the sooner we British realise that and—more important—say so, the better.
  4.50 p.m.
  Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, on this side of the House we wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, for having presided over Sub-Committee A and, to use a term which has already been aired in this House, steered it towards its report. We are also grateful for the very comprehensive way in which he has presented the report to your Lordships' House this afternoon.
  I wish to join the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, in welcoming back to this House the noble Lord, Lord
  486
  Cockfield. His party and mine are in frequent and violent disagreement and the noble Lord himself, with considerable ability, is occasionally able to give a non-partisan gloss to an intensely partisan speech. Nevertheless, we welcome him back. I welcome him hack because of the clarity with which he expresses his ideas and the honesty with which he presents his case. I do not know who was the author of the term, and although he may have "gone native" we are very glad to see him repatriated here.
  The debate this afternoon on the completion of the internal market with particular reference to the European financial area is part of the process of what has been termed, somewhat quaintly I think, "the completion of the internal market". It is common ground, as has been expressed in many official documents, that most of the internal market has already been established. What is now required is a few finishing touches on the side of our visible trade and a fairly considerable extension of the freedom to establish financial services and to liberate capital movement.
  I say that because I was under the impression that we entered the Common Market in 1972 and that we had been operating it ever since. Some 95 per cent. of the Common Market has already been in existence, as regards Great Britain, for some 17 years. There has been a very free flow of goods across the frontiers, not least—as the noble Lord well knows—into the United Kingdom, amounting almost to a flood. So the Common Market has already been with us for some time. What we are concerned with is putting the finishing touches to it.
  It is sometimes the practice, and it grows more and more into a habit in political and academic gatherings, to discuss such questions in almost abstract terms. Thus the term "internal market" acquires a life of its own. The single market becomes almost a physical concept. But the Community does not only consist of bankers, heads of great financial institutions, politicians of eminent rank, captains of conglomerates all over the world. It is not only confined to the perhaps quarter of a million people in Western Europe and in the Western world who control the masses of capital either in its corporate or in its individual form which have such a profound influence on the economies of the world and the individual nation states.
  If we talk of the Community and Community countries, we are talking not merely of people in very august places, many of them in your Lordships' House; we are talking about millions of individual people in Europe—not all of them rich, some of them very poor. We are talking not merely of people but also of communities of people. When we congratulate ourselves on the progress that we have made and when we make known ideas that we seek to pursue in order to achieve further progress on the lines that we have ourselves considered very beneficial, perhaps it is wise to examine just what has happened so far. Otherwise we tend to have our minds diverted from what can be factually and historically established to yet another star in the future. We must not allow our fixation upon a new Holy Grail to divert us from the facts that unfortunately lie under our noses.

  487
  It is regrettably a fact that under the Common Market rules so far and with the progress that has been made, unemployment has now risen to 15 million in the Community from about 5 million in 1972. I know that there have been differences in the number of members, but it should also be remembered that that can be compensated for by the fact that alien workers from Portugal and Turkey, at any rate in Germany, who have now been sent hack were not counted in the original unemployment figures.
  According to a report concerning poverty, which was recently published as a European parliamentary document, the poor now number 45 million in the Community. Moreover, there are still vast regional differences. In spite of the existence of the social fund and the regional fund, regional disparities have become progressively worse.
  In ordinary economic terms, growth in the Community, according to its own economic reports, is still substantially below the growth rates which obtain in the United States and Japan. Moreover, the whole balance of trade as between the individual countries of the EC has turned and has become greatly unbalanced. I only need to mention as regards the United Kingdom that from the position of a current balance of trade on a balance of payments basis in 1980 and 1981 we now have a position where our trade deficit on visible accounts with the European Community has reached some £13 billion in the 11 months to the end of November. It is likely to reach £15 billion by the end of the year.
  Our entire adverse balance on current account in the United Kingdom is accounted for by our adverse balance of visible trade with the remainder of the Community. These facts can be checked and I mention them because, are we to assume that the completion of the process which we have already undergone over the last 17 years is likely to produce any different results?
  These are the matters which we ought to be discussing or thinking about. It may be all very well for the very rich and powerful throughout the Community and in the world that this should be done, but what will happen to ordinary people? It is against those five considerations that I venture to lay before your Lordships that we now consider the financial services a part of the process. Let me say straight away that in our view there should be an increase, and a benefit to the United Kingdom in particular, of the right to establish insurance other than life assurance services throughout Europe.
  The noble Lord, Lord Reay, will perhaps recall that I took a leading part when I was in the European Parliament in urging just that in order that there could be a freedom of establishment. I have no doubt that as regards employment opportunities and the general facilities of commerce, the right of each member state to establish financial services over a whole range, including insurance in various member states, will facilitate matters.
  As regards the freedom of movement of capital, once again I can conceive of advantages to corporate
  488
  bodies, vast institutions, financial institutions and banks. I can see that. I can see that freedom of movement of capital will greatly facilitate mergers and acquisitions across a far wider area than is the case at present. But we need not be so intoxicated to think that in all circumstances this drive for mergers and acquisitions will necessarily be to the benefit of the people in the member states involved. In our own country—this is not a matter of great controversy, in fact the CBI tends to agree with me—this massive devotion of capital and of leverage by banks and operations of this kind lead to the adoption of shorttermism within manufacturing industry. We are faced with the necessity of producing short-term solutions to problems rather than long-term plans for the benefit not only of companies and their employees but also for the benefit of the nation as a whole.
  We have to face the fact that in many instances the financial world itself, and the limited number of people who comprise it, are more powerful than governments. That may be considered advantageous by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham. His position obliges him not to determine any kind of a national economic policy, but to allow the free play of ordinary market forces. As I say, that fact may be agreeable to a comparatively small minority of rich and powerful people in the world. But I suggest to your Lordships that on the basis of what has happened so far it has not been a very conspicuous success among that vast number of people who are in a less fortunate position than ourselves.
  There are among us those, including the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who welcome external discipline, provided of course that his own party's policies have been established before the external disciplines are exercised against any government of a different political complexion. The drive towards the establishment of a financial area has, as has been accurately pointed out, evoked different opinions among members of the committee. Indeed there were many differing views among those who gave evidence before the committee. I was present at most of the committee sittings and I am still unable to discern just how all these plans, and the capital rationalisation, which the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, admitted would be painful, will affect the fortunes of the ordinary man and woman in the street. I ask for whom it will be painful. I am not talking just of the ordinary people in our own country but of those in Germany, Spain. Portugal, France, Italy and the other EC countries.
  If we are genuinely convinced that these provisions are to the benefit of the mass of people, then we should support them. But in the meantime many of us will regard—I do not want to get too involved in any argument that may arise between the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Cockfield—the maintenance of the nation state with its own democratically elected government, subject to the will of the people, as being the ultimate determinant of the destinies of the people in whose political system they function, rather than the imposition upon them of an external discipline which is impersonally applied by nonelected people with no responsibility whatever to the body politic at large.

  489
  We hope that the co-operation between the member states of the Community and the cooperation between sovereign states will progressively increase. We hope that it will become ever more harmonious and will result in agreed common objectives to which political assent has been obtained. We value ever increasing co-operation within the European Community. But for our part we prefer and indeed insist that in the final analysis it is the people through their elected representatives who determine policy and not those who are in the fortuitous and perhaps pleasant possession of great financial power and who occupy positions of great financial responsiblity.
  5.7 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, and his committee for producing this comprehensive report on an important and wide-ranging subject. It is not only a useful contribution to public debate, but it has also been the focal point for our debate this afternoon. I understood clearly why so many compliments were paid to the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, for the way in which he chaired the committee when I heard the way in which he introduced his report today. His speech was an admirable model for us to follow. It expressed the very essence of a report which, I believe, will be a great contribution to our thinking.
  The European financial area is an essential element of the single market. It will enhance competition in the provision of financial services and it will give more choice to individuals and businesses. It will offer a major challenge for the United Kingdom financial sector. I am sure we will seize this as an opportunity to build on our traditional strength.
  I am pleased that the committee has emphasised releasing rather than constraining market forces and that it sees liberalisation and deregulation, rather than bureaucratic harmonisation, as the way forward for Europe. It is not up to governments to create a successful European economy. The role of government is to encourage individual initiative and enterprise, which is the key to the future prosperity of Europe as a whole. Surely the British experience in the 1960s and 1970s showed how an increasing burden of government doomed enterprise. Only in the 1980s, when we reduced the burden of government, did Britain become the fastest growing major European economy.
  Lord Molloy: My Lords, it was also the country with the most unemployment.
  Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I shall certainly come to the matter of unemployment where our record is as good as that of any other state in the Community.
  The Community's commitment to the free movement of capital in Europe is an important element of a free market in financial services. In Britain we abolished exchange controls in 1979. I
  490
  hope that member states that have not already done so will liberalise all capital movements, as they are already committed to doing.
  I know that some member states fear that as a result capital will flow out on a large scale. Our experience was the opposite. When we removed exchange controls the financial markets saw it as a sign of the economy's strength and money flowed into the United Kingdom at an almost embarrassingly fast rate. Other members states have argued that dismantling exchange controls will lead to widespread tax evasion. I am sure that those fears are overstated: there was certainly no evidence of massive tax losses as a result of our own removal of exchange controls.
  Much more needs to be done to create a truly integrated financial market which will enable the European financial services industry to develop in competition with Japan and the United States. For example, progress needs to be made to secure common standards of banking supervision and capital adequacy. That is an issue about which my department is concerned. Banking and financial services were identified at the Hanover Council as one of the four priority areas for the internal market.
  Your Lordships' committee has concluded that the ambitious goals of full monetary union, with a common currency and a European central bank, are neither economically nor politically practical in the foreseeable future. I welcome their common sense approach. Equally the committee recognises that there are practical steps on which early progress can be made. The Government firmly share that view. Action speaks louder than words. It was the United Kingdom which first abolished all exchange controls, well ahead of most of the rest of the Community. It was the UK which last October first issued Treasury bills denominated and payable in ecus. So, contrary to the widespread perception, we are in the forefront when it comes to making practical contributions to monetary developments in Europe.
  The report focuses on the creation of a European financial area. That is a development that the Government support wholeheartedly. But we want to see a European financal area open to third countries: the so-called "fortress Europe" is no more appropriate in the financial sector than in any other. That is why the United Kingdom has the same freedom of capital movements with third countries as within the Community and why we have urged others to follow our lead. That is also why we consider the Commission's proposals for reciprocity in financial services to be undesirable in principle and unworkable in practice.
  The noble Lord, Lord Kearton, in introducing the debate, gave a history from Bretton Woods to G7, from the snake to the exchange rate mechanism. He drew attention to the lifting of exchange controls, which is one of the more important if not the greatest of the hurdles that have been overcome in the drive towards a single market. He said that he felt that we should be a member of the exchange rate mechanism although until 1985 it had been in our favour to be outside the mechanism. He thought that since then it would have been in our favour to join. The Government's position is very clear; no one can say

  491
  it is not. It is, "when the time is right". The determination of when that time comes is less clear, but I hope that as I continue my speech I shall make the position a little clearer.
  The balance of payments deficit to which a number of noble Lords have referred is something that we do not want. However, it is only one side of a coin. The other side is our substantial investment overseas which even last year was considerably in the favour of the United Kingdom. What the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, said was in line with our approach to this subject and our general approach to the European Community as a whole, which was the theme of the Prime Minister's speech at Bruges last year. It is a step by step approach. It is only by progressing step by step and looking at the practical consequences of what we do that Europe will become a real working body.
  I am delighted to be able to welcome back my noble friend Lord Cockfield. I hope that he will not mind too much if I describe his speech as his second maiden speech in your Lordships' House. He has been absent—in word if not occasionally in presence—for the past four years. He returns with a greater claim than any to be father of the single market. It was his White Paper which gave it its impetus and thrust; it was his intellectual vision which drove it forward. He left the Commission at a time when he could feel great satisfaction that of the 300 or so measures that are necessary not only had the majority gone through but most of the difficult ones are already agreed.
  On the other hand, the noble Lord seemed to feel that we require some kind of collective discipline in financial matters. The effective discipline is the market. It is the effective discipline of exchange rates—fluctuations in exchange rates are perhaps as unwelcome to governments as they are to industrialists—which imposes some discipline on the actions of governments. The noble Lord seemed to feel that the great advantage of fixed exchange rates is demonstrated by the fact that we had only two changes in the many years after the war until the late 1960s. Those who were engaged in industry in those days saw the over-priced pound contribute to the erosion of our industrial advantages around the world. It may well be that had we had floating or more flexible exchange rates in those days we should not have seen many of our competitors rise to a preeminent position by the end of the 1960s.
  All that has been said today relates to a single European currency. My noble friend Lord Cockfield said that he could foresee a single European currency within 11 years—by the end of this century. I find it difficult to understand—and the point has been made by others during the debate—how one can have a single European currency without a single European economic policy. The two should go together. However, let us consider the latest OECD figures for fiscal budgets. As indicated in the Autumn Statement the United Kingdom will show a fiscal surplus of 0.5 per cent. of GDP, and I read in the newspapers that that may well be higher. France shows a deficit of 1.6 per cent. of GDP, which is three times as great, and Germany a 2 per cent. deficit which is four times as
  492
  great. Italy shows a deficit of 10 per cent. which is 20 times as great. Those are matters on which there must be some convergence of the economies.
  There are other areas of concern. For example the German chamber of trade here reported that German industrial production is emigrating; it is leaving Germany and coming to the United Kingdom. The VDI (the German CBI) told me not many months ago that it was losing many members to the United Kingdom. I asked the reason: it is that German payroll tax is over 100 per cent. and its corporation tax 50 per cent. I hope that that issue will be dealt with. I believe we can live in a competitive Europe in which good taxes, I venture to hope, will in the end drive out bad.
  The noble Lord, Lord Banks, also thought that there would be need for monetary union by the year 2000 but characterised it as a leap in the dark. A leap in the dark is something that none of us would wish to take. We should have to be absolutely certain of where we were going.
  The noble Lord said that we should not forget "social Europe". That is a matter which a number of noble Lords have mentioned. Looking at what has happened in Europe over the past few years one can see that in terms of "social Europe" it is the United Kingdom which is leading the way. It is the United Kingdom which today has the fastest falling rate of unemployment in the Community. It is the United Kingdom which of the major countries in the Community can boast of having more people in paid employment than at any time in our history, disregarding those on YTS and other schemes. It is the United Kingdom that has shown during the 1980s the greatest growth in productivity of any nation in the world, including Japan. If it is a social Europe that is sought, by far the best protection that can be given to any employee is a job. It is not simply a matter of providing statutory protection of work, because companies do go into liquidation.
  The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, said that the commercial world wants a single curency. That is not quite the message that I receive when I travel around the country. Many industrialists who are exporters press me for a lower pound. At almost every level they are prepared to have a lower pound. Importers, who are people whom I do not encourage too much for reasons which are self-evident, feel quite happy, I am afraid, with the thought of a pound that goes higher and higher. In all these matters we must find a balance of opinion. As a whole the CBI wants stability; it sees a low rate of inflation as the most important matter.
  Over the next few years I hope that we shall see an increase in growth in the use of the ecu. There are ways in which we could start to use the ecu as a trading currency. We could perhaps have contracts denominated in the ecu; certainly there could be more Treasury bills made out in ecu and perhaps more private loans also. That is one way in which we may see the growth of a single currency in Europe.
  The noble Lord made a point that concerns me greatly. He said that Article 13 means that we must have a Europe that is open to both goods and people. We will do our level best to streamline the movement

  493
  of both, and we shall succeed. However, the single market is not intended to provide a haven for those who push drugs or practise terror. All of us in Europe must work together to find ways of eliminating both those modern scourges of our time. It is the growth in the use of drugs which is today causing increasing concern throughout the Community, to Ministries of the Interior and to our own Government. Terrorism is a concern that needs no further words.
  My noble friend Lord Reay said that there was no immediate need for a central bank and reinforced his point that a single currency would entail a single financial policy. He drew attention to the growth in the use of the ecu, which is something that I should hope would not merely be discussed but practised. I should like to consider the comment that we are not prepared to enter into discussions about a central bank. The Governor of the Bank of England is a member of the Delors Committee which is looking at the question of the creation of a central bank. Your Lordships' Committee also felt that that would not be appropriate at the present time. My noble friend also endorsed a step by step approach.
  The noble Lord, Lord Roll of Ipsden, drew attention to dual standards in financial markets. I hope that the dual standards that exist will gradually go and that home standards will be practised abroad and extended all over the world. He expressed concern—a concern that has also been voiced to me during my travels overseas in the United States and Japan—about the single market representing some kind of shield for Europe. I think that we must take great care in the use of reciprocity. If we are not careful reciprocity itself will become a shield that prevents us from entering markets overseas.
  The noble Lord drew attention to the need for long periods of stability in exchange rates. That would have to continue for some considerable period before one could see the evolution of a single currency and a single bank; in other words, one comes back to the step by step approach.
  Finally the noble Lord made an appeal for more glasnost. I believe that one cannot perhaps have glasnost without more perestroika. We are talking about devolution of responsibility and not about putting everything together into a central body.
  My noble friend Lord Butterworth was the first speaker in this debate to mention those whom I consider to be the principal beneficiaries of the European Community; namely, the consumers. There are over 320 million consumers within the European Community. They are the ones who will benefit from a competitive economy. It is only by having a competitive economy in which the benefit to the consumer is put first at all times that the economy of Europe will grow and flourish, our exports will sell and our standard of living will rise.
  My noble friend also laid great stress on the working of the market. He said that there were some influences that we should ignore, such as trade unions and social dumping. I shall offer him another issue: what about European industrial strategy? That is something which is mentioned to me from time to time and it sends a shudder of fear down my back. He
  494
  said that it is imprudent to join until the Community achieves free movement of capital for some time. That is a definition of when the time is right. I do not say today that that is necessarily the Government's definition. We have a number of hurdles still to overcome and we must see what happens then. The noble Lord spoke about the spontaneous evolution of a common currency. I believe that that concept is more and more coming through in our discussions.
  The noble Lord, Lord Benson, drew attention to the fact that collective agreement is not the same as collective wisdom and took as his example the common agricultural policy. At one time when he referred to the qualified accounts of the European Community I thought that he was about to make a request that I send in my department's inspectors. Happily, the noble Lord did not go that far. However, he certainly made the point again that a single currency would need a single market. I believe that we can achieve a single market without having a single currency and indeed do it in our present position, because the single market is about the removal of non-tariff barriers. That is what we must achieve in order to have the free movement of goods and services.
  How do we pay for them? We have already received testimony from the great increase in trade between us that it can be achieved by present practices. My noble friend Lord Geddes was an advocate of the theory that the time is right today. Membership of the ERM is not the same as having a common currency. It does not mean that once we are members of the ERM there will not be future variations in exchange rates.
  I turn to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I hope he does not mind my saying that when he approached this matter he gave me the impression of being a firm non-believer in the Community. He reminded me irresistibly of a vegetarian extolling the virtues of a fillet steak. That is because I believe that he did not understand the great advantages of being part of a single community in Europe. He seemed to be under the impression that we entered the Common Market in 1972 and thought that we had been in it all along. It may well he that we thought we were doing just that in the early 1970s, but it quickly became apparent that the non-tariff barriers were far more important indeed than the tariff barriers that we did manage to eliminate.
  The whole thrust of the work of my noble friend Lord Cockfield in the last four years, which I believe will come to fruition in the next four years, shows how much the single market will mean for the living standards of the Community as a whole. I could not follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, when he said that freedom of movement of capital gave advantages to great corporations. No, it does not; it gives advantages to ordinary people—to the consumer.
  I have already made the point that it also acts as a discipline on governments. I am happy to confirm to the noble Lord that my job, and that of the Government, is not to determine a national industrial policy. That is not the role of this Government. It is only in the last 10 years, when governments have

  495
  avoided trying to create such a national industrial policy, that we have seen the enormous outpouring of wealth creation and growth.
  Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will permit me to correct him. I did not say "national industrial policy". I said "national economic policy". The two are slightly different.
  Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very happy to say economic policy has been in the hands of two Chancellors of the Exchequer since 1979 and we have seen the enormous benefits that have occurred as a result of that. If the noble Lord is in any doubt, I suggest that he leaves your Lordships' Chamber at the conclusion of this debate and wanders around the United Kingdom. He will then see the enormous differences that have taken place over the last 10 years.
  However, all these matters are not the point of today's debate, which is simply this. Your Lordships' committee has had a thoughtful and I believe a thought-provoking report which has been commented on by many in your Lordships' House. We are very glad to welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. We can see that the time is coming when there will be a convergence of economic policies in Europe, hopefully through negotiations to a single market, in the way that we look on industrial and commercial behaviour. Step by step we have to work closer together to achieve the working of the single market, closer economic union, and all those matters which the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, pointed out quite correctly were matters which we had agreed to do when we signed the Treaty of Rome. Indeed Article 102A talks about the need for co-operation in economic and monetary policies. However, it does not impose an obligation on member states to introduce the economic and monetary union as such. Indeed, the Article 236 procedure makes it abundantly clear that we must have unanimity in this and that we have to call intergovernmental conferences and ratification by national parliaments.
  We must work towards the completion of the internal market. We have to work closer together step by step so that we can all achieve a Europe which will bring about the one endeavor that Europe can and should achieve: that of great wealth creation and better living standards for all 320 million members.
  5.33 p.m.
  Lord Kearton: My Lords, I should like to thank all those who contributed to the debate. At the beginning I expressed the hope that the debate would be both informative and instructive. It has indeed proved to be just that. We have had a remarkable range of speeches of great depth. All aspects covered in the report have been touched upon by the different speakers. We had from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, a contribution which, if I may say so, we have come to expect—but we are none the worse for that. I should like to thank in particular the Secretary of State for his thoughtful, constructive and positive reply to the points made in the report. He left me, and I am sure the whole committee, satisfied that he—representing the Government—is moving in the
  496
  direction that the committee recommends. I beg to move that the House takes note of the report.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Children Bill [H.L.]
  5.34 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 PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (BARONESS SEROTA) in the Chair.]
  Clause 50 [Registration and regulation of voluntary homes]:
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 205A:
  On Page 45, line 40, at end insert ("; or
  (e) any home which is exempted by regulations made for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State.").
  The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment will enable the Secretary of State to exempt certain homes from having to register as voluntary homes under this clause. This is necessary as there are a number of establishments which would otherwise be required inappropriately to register as voluntary homes. These include some establishments which are essentially day nurseries and homes which would need to register simply for the purpose of their use for holiday play schemes.
  An equivalent power has already been provided for in Clause 54(4)(b) in respect of registered children's homes and this amendment would align the powers in respect of each type of home. I beg to move.
  Lord Elwyn-Jones: Here we have an early example of government by regulation. We shall be discussing the significance of that at a later stage in consideration of the Bill.
  Lord Renton: I do not dissent from the amendment moved by my noble and learned friend. However, it is a little difficult to fit it into subsection (3). It defines voluntary homes and then states that the expression does not include—and it lists a number of exclusions. The first one is described as a
  "nursing home, mental nursing home or residential care home".
  That exclusion is so wide that it makes one wonder whether there will be much in my noble and learned friend's regulation. I had it mind to raise this matter on the Question, that the clause stand part. However, this is a more convenient moment to do so.
  For example, in a home where mentally handicapped people of various ages are cared for for life—they are residents, they are called residents generally—presumably they are in a residential care

  497
  home. It could be said that some of them require mental nursing. Therefore it is a mental nursing home also. It would be very helpful at this stage if my noble and learned friend explains why we have such a wide exclusion in subsection (3)(a), and how that will affect the content of his regulations.
  The Lord Chancellor: On my noble friend's question, "voluntary home" means,
  "any home or other institution providing care and accommodation for children which is supported wholly or partly",
  and so on. It therefore cannot include a mental home for people who are to be in for life in the manner that he has suggested.
  Nursing home, mental nursing home or residential care home, and so on, are defined in Clause 77. However, the concept is that homes which have a primary medical content in them would not be regarded as coming within "voluntary home" for this purpose. The need for the regulations that I have mentioned is to deal with some rather special situations that can arise. These are best dealt with by regulation because one cannot envisage every possible type of voluntary home. Matters change. After all, this Bill is designed to last for a considerable time. Social conditions and social customs will vary. One has to have some degree of flexibility in the regulatory structure which is used to control them.
  Lord Renton: I am very much obliged to my noble and learned friend, especially for drawing my attention to the definitions in Clause 77. He is attempting to dovetail his new definition which affects children, as he says, with what is already in the Registered Homes Act 1984. That makes the position perfectly clear. I am most grateful.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 51 [Duties of voluntary organisations]: [Amendment No. 206 not moved.]
  Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 206A:
  Page 46, line 25, at end insert—
  ("(4) Where a child is—

  (a) accommodated by or on behalf of a voluntary organisation, and

  (b) is not being looked after by the local authority by virtue of section 18(1),

  the voluntary organisation shall be under a duty to review the case of the child.
  (5) In carrying out its duty under subsection (4) of this section the voluntary organisation shall comply with any regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection.").
  The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall be speaking also to Amendment No. 206F. The aim of the amendment is to place voluntary organisations under a duty to review the case of any child not in care. I hope that this will be an uncontentious amendment, since few voluntary organisations now look after children who are not in care to local authorities. Most voluntary organisations ensure that all children in their homes have their cases reviewed regularly.
  However, there are still a few voluntary organisations which look after children directly
  498
  referred to them by their parents. Obviously these children should be protected by a regular case review secured by a statutory duty. My Amendment No. 206F is similar, but deals with private children's homes. That amendment seeks to place private children's homes under a duty to review the cases of children who are not in care. The reasons are the same as those for Amemdment No. 206A. I hope that that is sufficient explanation. I beg to move.
  The Lord Chancellor: The point that the noble Baroness makes in relation to this amendment is a point well taken. We shall certainly consider how best this shall be done. The precise form of review may be a little different from the one provided for the local authority which we have discussed already, but we shall consider this matter further. I hope that in the light of that assurance the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness David: Yes, I shall. May I ask whether the noble and learned Lord was speaking also to Amendment No. 206F?
  The Lord Chancellor: It is particularly this amendment that we have in mind.
  Baroness David: With that, and knowing that the matter will be considered, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 51 agreed to.
  Clause 52 [Duties of local authorities]:
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 206B:
  Page 47, line 32, leave out ("that power") and insert ("any power conferred by subsection (5) or (7)").
  The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment serves to clarify the offence which is provided for in Clause 52(8). As currently drafted, it could be interpreted that it will be an offence under subsection (8) to intentionally obstruct others only in the exercise of their power to inspect records as referred to in subsection (7) of that clause. What is actually sought is that the offence should apply in respect of the intentional obstruction of a person exercising any of the powers under subsection (5). I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 53 agreed to.
  5.45 p.m.
  Schedule 5 [Voluntary Homes and Voluntary Organisations]:
  Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 260C:
  Page 100, line 4, at end insert ("and in particular prohibiting the use of secure accommodation").
  The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 206D and 207A. The aim of these amendments is to prevent voluntary organisations from maintaining secure accommodation. At present

  499
  voluntary homes—homes not run for profit by voluntary organisations such as Barnardo's or the Church of England Children's Society—do not maintain secure accommodation. The regulations governing these homes, the Administration of Children's Homes Regulations 1951, do not mention restricting children's liberty and theoretically at least voluntary homes could lock up children in care. The Government intend to revise these regulations as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent and have told the Children's Legal Centre unequivocally on a number of occasions that the new regulations will specifically prohibit the locking up of children in such homes.
  As long ago as 1983, the relevant Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health and Social Security wrote to the centre:
  "We share your view that the liberty of children in care should be restricted only within accommodation specifically approved as secure accommodation by the Secretary of State, and that such accommodation should be approved only where it is provided in a Community Home".
  Paragraph 7(2)(f) of Schedule 5, which provides for the approval of secure accommodation in voluntary homes, has therefore come as a shock. The centre has been assured that the Government have no present intention of approving secure accommodation in voluntary homes, but this provision has been inserted in the Bill in case the Government at some future date change their mind on this matter.
  Both the law and social work practice are agreed that children's liberty should be taken away only as a last resort when children are a danger to themselves or to others and cannot be accommodated in open provision. Research shows that locking up children is not a very effective way of helping them. It also shows that where lock-ups are available, they are used.
  Department of Health officials have quoted statistics showing that local authorities which maintain secure units lock up proportionately more children in care than those that do not. Where there are beds, they will be filled. At present there is a regional shortage of secure unit places. There is also great pressure on the two voluntary organisations to take over the youth treatment centres and the London borough of Lambeth would like a voluntary organisation to take over Cumberlow Lodge, which is a secure unit for girls.
  Locking up young people is an inappropriate and improper role for the voluntary sector. It is inappropriate because the voluntary sector should be trail-blazing in progressive constructive provision for difficult young people. For example, it should be creating alternatives to locking them up, such as residential care with well-trained intensive staffing or specialist foster-care. It should not be making up the deficiencies of the statutory sector. It is improper because secure units are, when all is said and done, a form of imprisonment which should be the responsibility of the state alone. This part of the Bill looks like the privatisation of prisons by the back door.
  Given the current absence of lock-ups in voluntary homes, despite their theoretical right to provide
  500
  them, it is clear that voluntary organisations do not want to run them. If the Government have no intention of approving secure units in voluntary homes, they could pin their colours to that mast and specifically prohibit it in the Bill.
  Amendment No. 207A seeks to prevent private chidren's homes from maintaining secure accommodation. Schedule 6 relates to the regulation of private children's homes; that is, homes run for profit. No one knows how many such homes there are or whether any lock up children, since at the moment they are entirely unregulated. This amendment seeks to delete the possibility of such homes maintaining approved secure units and specifically to prohibit them from locking up children. In speaking to the previous amendment I explained how the Government had changed their position on this point by inserting paragraph (f) in Schedule 3.
  As I have said, Schedule 5 sets out the Government's apparent volte face on this issue. It is obviously even more important that profit should not be made out of locking up children in private homes. Given the ease with which secure beds are filled with troublesome teenagers, the number of private lock-ups could proliferate. Even if the Government will not agree to a specific ban on voluntary homes running secure units, I hope they will accept that it would be quite improper for private children's homes to do so. I beg to move.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I shall be brief in my support of Amendments Nos. 206C and 207A. These amendments are related to Amendment No. 208, which seeks to leave out paragraph 10(2)(i) of Schedule 6. Amendment No. 208, which is related to these amendments though not grouped with them, was referred to in the course of the debate but has not already been debated, as stated in the list of groupings. Amendment No. 208 proposes the deletion of paragraph 10(2)(i) of Schedule 6. "Such homes" include any registered homes. They include voluntary homes, dealt with in Schedule 5 (hence the nexus) and children's homes.
  It is an important problem. When speaking to Amendment No. 208 during the debate on Amendment No. 52, I maintained that the novel provision as to the use of secure locked accommodation for children was neither justifiable nor acceptable. At col. 1278 of the Official Report, my noble friend Lady Faithfull expressed a serious concern and a hope that voluntary homes would not be used for secure accommodation. She also sought elucidation.
  My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor dealt fully with the arguments on the merits of Amendment No. 52 for which I sincerely thank him. He expressed sympathy. Therefore, with the constraints of time, it is hardly surprising that he did not provide the elucidation sought in connection with Amendment No. 208. No doubt that has been deferred until either later today or now when my noble and learned friend may be pleased to deal with it.
  Irrespective of a redraft of Amendment No. 52 being produced by the Government or the amendment proving acceptable to them—and the

  501
  matter is under active and serious consideration—or whether Clause 21 shall stand part on the assurance given to look into the question of secure accommodation, the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, coupled with Amendment No. 208 dealing with the same point, raise a related question to Amendment No. 52 on secure accommodation. However, it is a wholly distinct question upon which the advice and assistance of my noble and learned friend is most respectfully sought.
  Clarification is sought at this stage hut, because I have spoken to Amendment No. 208 by leave I shall say that it is a probing amendment tabled in order to seek elucidation. My support for the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, although wholehearted, is given at this stage—and I emphasise the words "at this stage"—in order that the position may be elucidated and a measure of assurance given.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I should like to raise two points in connection with this and the related amendments. First, it is extremely inconvenient to discuss at the same time a number of amendments which are not directly dependent on each other.
  Earlier in Committee there was an example of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, moving an amendment and being satisfied that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had effectively answered it. I ventured to agree. However, the noble Baroness and my noble friends Lord Henderson of Brompton and Lord Seebohm had concentrated on another amendment which was not directly related. Three-quarters of the debate was given to dealing with that matter.
  When the Question was put it was understandable that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, should seek to withdraw his amendment, being satisfied that it had been effectively answered. However, the noble Baroness, Lady David, was not satisfied that her point had been met and therefore objected to withdrawal of the amendment.
  The result was that the amendment put to the House was that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. There was then the somewhat bizarre position where the noble Lord, obviously satisfied that the noble Baroness had been effectively answered, voted against his amendment. The amendment was defeated by only four votes.
  I venture to deprecate what the Committee has again done today. I doubt whether a vote will be taken on this occasion. In other words, we are discussing a number of amendments which are not directly and effectively related one to the other.
  The second point that I should like to make relates to Amendment No. 206C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady David. It is the amendment that has been directly moved and the one we are now discussing. The structure of this part of the schedule raises a matter which I have already pointed out to Members during Committee. Paragraph 7 provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations and gives him a general regulating power. It then states:
  "The regulations may, in particular".
  502
  They are particular examples of the general regulating power. Both are permissive. Paragraph 7(2) adds nothing to what has gone before. Although the noble Baroness made her point most effectively, if the amendment was carried it would have no effect because it is merely a permissive particularity of a generality, also permissive, which has gone before.
  At a later stage I shall seek to raise the point by way of formal amendment. However, I now venture to suggest that, even if it were accepted, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness would have no practical effect owing to the structure of the paragraph.
  Lord Mottistone: I should like to intervene in order to clarify one matter because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, mentioned my earlier amendment. I do not believe that he has the position correct. On that occasion I tabled Amendment No. 102 and the noble Baroness, Lady David, tabled Amendment No. 101. She moved her amendment because it was the first in the grouping. At col. 137 of the Official Report I explained that I preferred her Amendment No. 101 and that we should forget about Amendment No. 102. However, at a later stage my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to my mind made such a very good argument that I thought he had answered all the points which we had discussed. I said that at col. 145, and I was then referring to my Amendment No. 102 which I should not have moved if I had not already killed it—if Members of the Committee see what I mean. I said that it was not as good as Amendment No. 101, but I was trying to dissuade Members of the Committee opposite from pushing the matter to a Division because I thought that my noble and learned friend had answered the situation very well and that if they felt it right, it would be proper to come back to the matter at a later stage of the Bill.
  In the event, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asked her, the noble Baroness rightly said that the Division would take place on Amendment No. 101 which was nothing to do with me. I wanted to clarify that because I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord quite understood the point. I do not believe that it was wrong and I believe that everybody did the right thing.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I never for a moment suggested that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, did the wrong thing. In fact, I believe that I said the opposite. In any event, even if I thought he had done the wrong thing, I should not say so to Members of the Committee.
  6 p.m.
  The Lord Chancellor: I believe that the question of which amendments one takes together is largely a matter of discretion. Sometimes one takes a larger group than one otherwise might have done in the hope of making particular progress because there are many important issues to be discussed. I believe that in this Committee we have sought to discuss issues and I have not troubled with the precise result in terms of drafting. I believe that the same is true of nearly all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debates.

  503
  Therefore, while I entirely appreciate that there can be difficulty in taking groups which are not absolutely dependent on each other but raise the same principle, I believe that in this Committee it has been possible to do that without too much difficulty.
  As regards the second point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I agree with the view that the headings which we assign to regulation-making powers may not be strictly necessary. However, knowing the particular desire of the Members of the Committee to have an idea of what the Secretary of State has in mind for regulations and in order to keep the headings in question, we have put them in. I believe that they are useful in indicating the matters which are likely to be an issue in the view of the Committee at present. I agree that, strictly speaking, Amendment No. 206C of the noble Baroness would not be particularly effective, but if I were to accept it then I would do so in principle—and I hasten to add that I am not proposing to do that—with the view that it could be given effect to in some way, because we should not be in the business of accepting amendments which have no effect, although that could be forced on us by voting. However, I should not agree to that as a matter of deliberation.
  I propose to deal with the question of principle raised by Amendments Nos. 206C, 206D, 207A and 208. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 and Paragraph 10 of Schedule 6 deal with the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the conduct of voluntary homes and registered children's homes. Sub-paragraphs (2)(f) and (2)(i) provide him with a particular power to make regulations requiring his approval for the provision and use of accommodation for the purpose of restricting the liberty of children in such homes, and enables him to impose other requirements regarding such placements. It follows that once the regulations are made, unless and until the Secretary of State gave his approval for such provision and use to be made, it would be unlawful to restrict the liberty of any child in a voluntary home or registered children's home.
  As the noble Baroness said, the Secretary of State has no present intention of granting his approval to the use of secure accommodation in voluntary homes or registered children's homes and thus the restriction of liberty of children in such homes will not be permitted on the basis of the Secretary of State's present intention. However, it was thought prudent in the Bill, for the reasons which I mentioned earlier; namely, that the Bill is intended to last a long time, to regulate the provision and use of such accommodation should circumstances change at some stage in the future.
  The effect of these amendments now before the Committee would be to remove this particular regulatory power and to replace it with a regulatory power to prohibit the use of secure accommodation completely. In other words, the Secretary of State would not have the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances if circumstances dictated that this was necessary and appropriate.
  The underlying suggestion is that it would be inappropriate for the voluntary sector or even the private homes sector to provide secure
  504
  accommodation. I believe that we should recognise—and I am sure Members of the Committee will agree—that a number of the national voluntary organisations have a long and proven track record of dealing with difficult and disturbed young people. I very clearly wish to dissociate myself from the idea that secure accommodation for children is in any sense a prison or has any connotation of that sort. The whole emphasis of the secure accommodation provision is to protect the child against injury.
  I entirely agree that the Secretary of State has no present intention of granting the power to add secure accommodation to any of these groups; namely, voluntary homes or registered children's homes. However, in principle I cannot see why, subject to the proper safeguards, in this manner a voluntary organisation should not be able to protect a child against himself. I cannot see why the mere fact that the organisation is voluntary makes it impossible for the organisation satisfactorily to provide that help to the child if it should be necessary. As I say, we have no present intention of doing so, but as a matter of principle I cannot see why it can be said that in no circumstances whatever that anyone can foresee would it ever be right to allow a national voluntary organisation, however long and distinguished its record, which saw the need for it, to make that provision.
  Lord Elwyn-Jones: Can the noble and learned Lord give an indication as to what sort of change of circumstances he contemplates will justify a departure from the basic view that these voluntary homes should not be used to deprive children of their liberty and otherwise submit them to a form, at any rate, of imprisonment?
  The Lord Chancellor: I cannot see any reason why a voluntary organisation with great standing would not be at least as good as other organisations in looking after disturbed children who needed that form of protection against themselves. I cannot see why the mere fact that the organisation is non-voluntary should make it better in that respect.
  These amendments hinge on what I recognise is an important point of principle; namely, whether or not voluntary homes or registered children's homes should have the ability to restrict the liberty of residents under any circumstances. To the extent that the Secretary of State has no present intention to exercise his power of approval under sub-paragraphs (2)(f) and (2)(i), I do not think there is anything between us. The Government do, however, take the view that it would be sensible not to close the door completely on this possibility.
  Members of the Committee know the characteristics which are required to be taken into account and satisfied in imposing that particular form of help for a young person. I cannot see any reason to be certain that in no circumstances whatever would that reason arise in respect of the child who happens to be looked after by a voluntary organisation. This would impose in all circumstances a duty to move the child out of that place altogether for what might be only a short time, perhaps until its condition is resolved, into

  505
  another place simply for the purpose of restricting its liberty for its own protection.
  Paragraphs (2)(f) and 2(i) therefore give the Secretary of State the ability to exercise his power, if he thought it appropriate and necessary, at some stage in the future to give approval for use of such accommodation, applying—this is important—the same strict standards that he currently sets for the provision and use of secure accommodation provided by local authorities. Amendment No. 52 of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is, as I understand it, designed to provide a regime that would apply to any form of secure accommodation, wherever it was. That is the purpose behind the amendment.
  With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before my noble and learned friend sits down, perhaps I may thank him for that clarification and for accepting the rectitude of speaking to Amendment No. 208 in this context.
  However, I ask whether it does not come to this. The Government are seeking reserve powers in order not to close the doors on a possible situation, there being no present intention to implement those powers. For my part, I do not see the justification for conferring wide powers of this nature in relation to secure accommodation. If the Secretary of State wishes to use powers on some future occasion, in circumstances which no one has been able to explain or envisage, is it not right—I speak on a question of principle—that the Secretary of State should then return to Parliament to explain the circumstances, justify his use of the powers, and then no doubt have the consent of Parliament? Surely it is wrong that it should be pre-empted by the grant of reserve powers which there is no present intention to use.
  Baroness Faithfull: We are in some difficulty here. My noble and learned friend said that it is the intention that voluntary homes should not be used for secure accommodation. However, there is justification when a child perhaps becomes seriously epileptic or is in similar great difficulty and one does not want to move the child away from the home but it is necessary to put him in secure accommodation. That may be necessary for only a short time; perhaps a week, three weeks or a month.
  It is a question of time. If one can never use secure accommodation in a voluntary home one might damage a child by moving him. Therefore, it is also a question of whether the secure accommodation is registered or whether it is possible, on certain occasions in difficult circumstances, to use a room for the purpose. I give an example. I know of a voluntary home where a child had gone home for the weekend and returned having murdered his mother. It was felt that the child should be in secure accommodation. That home allocated a single room as secure accommodation for the child for the difficult time that the child was going through. The child slept in that room accompanied by a member of the staff.
  The whole matter comes down to the definition of secure accommodation and whether in certain circumstances it would be possible to use a voluntary
  506
  children's home as secure accommodation in the interests of the child.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Before the noble Baroness deals with the substance of the matter, perhaps I may deal with the argument put forward by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. On the point I made he said that he agreed in principle that sub-paragraph (2), being connected with sub-paragraph (1) and both being in permissive terms, is strictly speaking unnecessary. However, my noble and learned friend said that he thinks it may be advantageous for Parliament to know what the Secretary of State intended to do in the regulations.
  Two points must be made on that. First, the argument would be valid only if the Secretary of State's regulating power were to be made mandatory. Members of the Committee might then want to know what sort of regulations he intended to make. But the argument simply will not wash when the powers are permissive. Secondly, this formula—a permissive, general regulatory-making power followed by particulars of what he might do—occurs at least three times in the Bill. The equivalent of sub-paragraph (2), which takes up over half a page of the statute book, occurs at equal length in the other instances.
  My noble and learned friend Lord. Hailsham referred at an earlier sitting to the inflation of the statute book and I ventured to second that exposition at a later sitting. The fact is that in the 10 years after the Renton Committee reported the statute book ran to six volumes—double what it was in the year after the Renton Committee reported, though there were fewer general and public Acts. We had simply become, adapting Disraeli's words, inebriated with the exuberance of our own verbosity. If we can—we can easily do it—strike out one and a half pages without making a pennyworth of difference to what is enacted, surely that is what we should do.
  The Lord Chancellor: Strictly speaking, that proposal is not the subject of any of these amendments. I know that the noble and learned Lord is well aware of that because he spoke of tabling an amendment at a later stage. I do not go along with the view that this makes no difference at all. It is important in its context. However, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to leave that matter until he puts it forward by way of an amendment.
  My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway suggested that this is a reserve power and that parliamentary time could be taken up, if the circumstances arise, to ask for it to be granted. My noble friend Lady Faithfull, with her great experience in these matters, gave an example of the type which I was seeking to describe in general terms where a child who is in the care of a voluntary home requires secure accommodation for his own protection.
  I can see that in some situations to move the child away from the home and put him in a local authority home would be an additional and unnecessary trauma. One hopes that the time for which he would require it would not be very long and that matters might return to normal. As long as the regulations are adequate and the controls sufficiently precise, I

  507
  cannot see that the mere fact that the home is a voluntary one or a registered children's home, makes it inappropriate for granting secure accommodation. I do not understand that as a matter of principle. Therefore I believe it is right that the Secretary of State should have this power. As my noble friend said, it may he that at the moment that is possible and that the Secretary of State would require power to regulate it in order to prevent such a situation. That is what he proposes to do, as the noble Baroness knows from what the officials of the Secretary of State have told those who were giving her information.
  On the basic principle of the matter I do not see that it is right to make this fundamental distinction. For that reason I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Faithful] for giving a particular example that I am sure all of us will reflect upon in considering the matter.
  Baroness David: This amendment has certainly provoked considerable discussion. I believe that it is an important matter. The Government have had a change of heart about it. They were not intending to allow these homes, and I know that they are not actually saying that they intend to do so now. They are keeping that possibility. However, they did say fairly firmly that they were going to prohibit the locking up of children in voluntary homes. That seems to be a situation that has changed. We have not had a good reason for the change of heart.
  The noble and learned Lord was speaking about protecting children from themselves and that it was for their own sakes that they needed to be in secure accommodation. Many of the people who have to deal with children in such homes believe that if there is secure accommodation there it is likely to be used. As regards the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, quite clearly a voluntary home did manage to look after the child in a secure way though the home did not have approved secure accommodation. It may be that that can be done.
  I cannot say that I have been satisfied with the answers I have received. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has raised the point about this matter being permissive anyway. I must take back this amendment and look at it again. I certainly believe that I shall have to return. I had the support of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for which I am very grateful. I believe it is a matter upon which many of us feel quite strongly. I shall probably come back with perhaps a slightly different amendment, possibly at a different stage of the Bill, or to amend the main part, namely, that "the Secretary of State may". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 206D not moved.]
  Schedule 5 agreed to.
  Clause 54 [Children not to he cared for and accommodated in unregistered children's homes]:
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 206E:
  Page 48, line 19, leave out ("provided under section 44").
  The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment I also speak to Amendment No. 253A. These amendments are designed to improve the drafting of the Bill. Clause 54(6)(a) currently refers to a
  "community home provided under Section 44"
  because the interpretation clause does not contain a definition of a "community home". We are seeking to insert a definition at Clause 77(1) and to delete the words "provided under Section 44" in Clause 54(6). To do so is consistent with the general approach taken throughout the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 55 [Welfare of children in children's homes]:
  [Amendment No. 206F not moved.]
  Clause 55 agreed to.
  Clause 56 [Persons disqualified from carrying on, or being employed in, registered homes]:
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 206G:
  Page 50, line 12, at end insert—
  ("(2A) Where an authority refuse to give their consent under this section, they shall inform the applicant by a written notice which states—

  (a) the reason for the refusal;

  (b) the applicant's right to appeal against the refusal to a Registered Homes Tribunal under paragraph 8 of Schedule 6; and

  (c) the time within which he may do so.").

  The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is put forward in pursuance of an attempt to replace with various amendments the currently unimplemented Children's Homes Act 1982. At the same time we are seeking to align various aspects of this Bill. In Clause 56 we are aligning new provisions on the disqualification of persons from carrying on a registered children's home with disqualifications in respect of private fostering. These are relatively severe restrictions and it is appropriate therefore that, whenever a person is refused consent by the local authority, he should be able to appeal against that decision just as a prospective private foster parent is able to appeal against such refusal under paragraph 8 of Schedule 7. In the case of a registered children's home the appeal will lie to a registered homes tribunal, which has a general power to hear appeals from local authority decisions regarding registration and imposition of conditions on the running of children's homes.
  This amendment completes the picture by requiring that where a local authority refuses to give its consent it must notify the applicant of the refusal and of his rights in respect of an appeal to the tribunal. Again this corresponds with the local

  509
  authority's responsibility in respect of persons disqualified from private fostering in Clause 59(4).
  The drafting follows Clause 59(4) almost exactly. We merely wish to ensure that the applicant is made aware of those decisions and rights of appeal that affect him. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 6 [Registered Children's Homes]:
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 207:
  Page 104, line 32, leave out ("placement") and insert ("placing").
  The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment brings the drafting of the regulation-making powers in respect of registered children's homes into line with those for community homes and voluntary homes by substituting the word "placing" for "placement". I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 207A not moved.]
  Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 208:
  Page 105, leave out lines 3 to 8.
  The noble Lord said: My noble and learned friend has been good enough to acknowledge the relationship between this amendment and Amendment No. 52 which is under active consideration by my noble and learned friend with his advisers. In those circumstances I do not move the amendment.
  [Amendment No. 208 not moved.]
  Schedule 6 agreed to.
  Clause 57 [Privately, fostered children]:
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 208A:
  Page 50, line 29, at end insert ("and").
  The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 208A and 208B and the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, Amendment No. 254, have the same objective; that is, to avoid the duplication of definitions within the Bill. This is a feature of the Bill that we have attempted to maintain. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, clearly approves of our efforts in this regard. The only difference between these amendments is that the first couple would leave the definition of "relative" in the interpretation clause, that is Clause 77, whereas Amendment No. 254 would have the definition located in Clause 57. I prefer to see the definition in the interpretation clause. I therefore invite the Committee to approve Amendments No. 208A and 208B.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Cullen of Ashbourne): I should point out that if Amendment No. 208B is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 209.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 208B:
  Page 50, line 32, leave out from ("section") to end of line 35.
  The noble and learned Lord said: I have already explained the amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 209AZA:
  Page 50, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert ("does not intend to do so for more than 28 days from the start of the child being placed.").
  The noble Lord said: I should like to speak in a little detail about the background to this amendment and also to the amendments grouped with it. The amendments are supported by the Save the Children Fund and are based on the experience and advice tendered by the African Family Advisory Service which is closely linked to the Save the Children Fund and is concerned with issues affecting West African families and their children in the United Kingdom. The Committee may wonder why I rely so much on the African Family Advisory Service. It advises that 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the children who are placed in private foster care in England and Wales are of West African parents. I was truly amazed when given this figure but I have double-checked that my information is correct.
  It is estimated that there are about 2,300 West African children in foster homes in England and Wales. The figure is almost certainly a significant under-estimate as it is based on notification to the local authorities. The notification is very imperfect indeed. It is interesting that a magazine which contains a regular "homes wanted" column advertised for homes for 497 West African children in 1985–86. The number had increased to 614 in 1986–87 and reached 819 in 1987–88. The number is increasing at a substantial rate. The figures provide a significant guide to the trend.
  Last October and November the African Family Advisory Service conducted a survey into the practice of known private fostering in three local authorities in England. They have not been named; we cannot identify the children involved. However, the information is in the knowledge of the Department of Social Security. Six main findings emerge from the survey.
  First, the number of arrangements of which the local authorities were notified under-estimate the true position. This means that the figures I gave earlier are an under-estimate. Secondly, agents were operating in the areas of the three local authorities to recruit local families as foster parents and to privately foster West African children for a fee. I understand that the payment to the foster parents is about £10 to £20 a week.
  Thirdly, these placements, rapidly made, are terminated with equal rapidity, with little regard to the children's needs either before placement or at the termination of placement. Fourthly, foster parents have scant details of either the children's or the parents' background, medical histories or where the parents live. It is often the case that the parents have returned to West Africa.
  Fifthly, foster parents do not give adequate notice of their intention to receive children into care. The authorities have little or no control over the flow of private foster children into their areas and are faced—these are the words used by the African Family Advisory Service—with "an uphill struggle" to maintain tabs on the children. I shall return to the words "an uphill struggle" later. Finally, all three authorities have received West African children into care as a direct result of inappropriate private fostering arrangements. What emerges is worrying. It is certainly a very grey area.
  Against that background and drawing on their experience the African Family Advisory Service and the Save the Children Fund consider that Part IX of the Bill should be amended along the lines proposed in the amendments. We do not say that the wording of the amendments is perfect but we believe that the Bill should be amended along the lines set out. Advantage should be taken of the Bill to tighten up the legal requirements.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 209AZA is clearly to distinguish between potentially long-term private fostering placements and those arranged for short-term periods by parents who have to make emergency placements for their children. However, as Clause 57(2) stands, the duties imposed by the Bill, including the important duty set out in Clause 58, do not come into play until a child has been maintained and cared for by a foster parent for a period of 28 days. Why should there be a gap of 28 days before the duties come into play?
  One appreciates that paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 confers certain rights on the local authorities in relation to a proposal. The snag is that the local authority may not be aware of the proposal. Where the parties intend and have agreed that the fostering is to be long term, the duty under Clause 58 should apply on the first day of the fostering and not as and from the 28th day. This means that a notification of intention to foster should precede the first day of fostering. It would give the social services department an opportunity to undertake inquiries which could reveal that the placement might be inappropriate.
  Amendment No. 209BZA recognises the crucial importance of prior notification of the proposal to the local authority by both the parents and the person proposing to foster the child. It is submitted that notification should be seen as a crucial stage in the private fostering procedure. Under the Bill, notification may be specified in the regulations which may be made under paragraph 7 of Schedule 7. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has already complained about this formula relied upon in the Bill.
  Notification is so vital that the Bill should be specific and clear about it. The Bill is less satisfactory than Section 7 of the Foster Children Act 1980 on the issue of notification. I mentioned earlier that the authorities have said that they face an uphill struggle when keeping tabs on foster children coming into their care. They need assistance. We believe, and so do the two organisations which is more important, that they can probably best be helped by placing in the Bill an effective notification machinery. We hope that the Government will reconsider that position.
  Amendment No. 209BZA places two new duties on local authorities. First, there is a duty on a local authority to make inquiries of the local authority of the child's home area. Secondly, there is a duty to obtain a medical report from the child's doctor. The first duty should help authorities to seek greater control over the movement of prospective foster children into their own area so that they can prohibit the placement where they are satisfied that it is inappropriate. I accept that the need for a medical report is touched upon, by implication, in paragraph 6(1)(c) of Schedule 7. However, bearing in mind that a small number of West African children in private foster care are known to have died in 1988 due to their medical records not being transferred, local authorities should have the right, and be under a duty, to call for medical reports from the child's doctor.
  Amendment No. 211AZA specifies the information which should be contained in the notice to the local authority. The list is obviously not exhaustive. It is the minimum information required by authorities if they are effectively to discharge their duty to the children. The regulations should be specific on the need for that data.
  The reason for Amendment No. 209CZA is that it enables a local authority to have a statutory obligation towards children placed in long-term foster care. It will facilitate the duty of every local authority, as outlined in Clause 58(2)(a).
  I appreciate that I have taken a substantial part of the Committee's time in introducing the amendments, but in the light of the information that we have received we believe that this is a grey area. It reveals a problem and the Bill as drawn does not address itself to that problem. I beg to move.
  Baroness Faithfull: The amendment so well described by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, illustrates a tremendous problem. Perhaps I may ask him two questions. First, if relatives take a child for money, does he presume that those relatives are foster parents? Secondly, what happens in an emergency? For example, a woman may be rushed into hospital and the father may place the child with someone until the next morning. Does he believe that his amendment covers those two point?
  Lord Prys-Davies: Will the noble Baroness please repeat the first point?
  Baroness Faithfull: If the parents, or a parent, place a child with relatives and pay them, does the noble Lord presume that they are foster parents?
  Lord Prys-Davies: I was under the impression that as regards the first question, the relatives would be exempt by virtue of the provisions of the Bill. As regards the second question, I meant to make it clear that emergency fostering, such as the noble Baroness had in mind, would be excluded from the provisions of the amendment.
  6.45 p.m.
  The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord has explained a complicated amendment in an amazingly

  513
  short time. I shall do my best to emulate his good example. Perhaps I may take Amendment No 209AZA first. I believe that it is the first in the series. There may be some misunderstanding here because I believe that the noble Lord's amendment will reduce the protection instead of increase it, because the definition in Clause 57(2) provides:
  "A child is not a privately fostered child if the person caring for and accommodating him—

  (a) has done so for a period of less than 28 days; and

  (b) does not intend to do so for any longer period".

  It is an exclusion. A child is a privately fostered child unless those two conditions are satisfied. I shall give an example of where it might be different. Let us suppose that the child is kept for 30 days, but the intention was to keep it for 20 days. Under the noble Lord's amendment it would not be privately fostered, but it would under our provision. If the intention is not borne out; in other words, if the child is kept longer than the 28-day period, the child becomes privately fostered under our definition but not under the noble Lord's. The noble Lord might like to look at this matter again. There is not much between us on principle, but the drafting of his amendment does not result in protection if the child is there for longer than 28 days. We have said that if that happens it does not matter what the intention was, the child is taken to be privately fostered. I shall not take more time on that point.
  Amendments Nos. 209BZA, 209CZA and 211 relate to a complicated subject. The circumstances must be taken into account. As the noble Lord has explained, he relies on his illustration of West African children. I agree that the situation he described must he catered for. The target is to some extent a moving one, and so we believe that the most appropriate and effective way to regulate the matter is by regulations made under the powers contained in Clause 58 and paragraph 7 of Schedule 7. As regards notification, those powers go beyond the requirements which the amendments would insert on to the face of the Bill. For example, notification should be required not only from parents and prospective foster parents but from any third parties who may be involved in arranging a private placement.
  As to the form of the notice, I have no doubt that all the items of information set out in the amendment will be required by the local authority. When we come to draft regulations, we may find other matters which should also be considered. What is required in the notification may, as a result of changing practices, need to he developed. Similarly, I believe that the regulations under Clause 58, taken together with the provisions of Clause 60, offer a more appropriate and flexible vehicle for the most comprehensive and effective safeguards for children that we are seeking to achieve. The requirements and safeguards which have been set out in the amendment are among those we shall consider when makng the regulations under Clause 58 and Schedule 7, as we intend to do as part of the overall implementation of the Bill.
  I am not sure whether the noble Lord intended to cover Amendment No. 211BZA. I think perhaps he did. It is consequential upon Amendment 209BZA. It may be unnecessary given that there is provision in Clause 60 for a local authority to prohibit a person
  514
  from fostering and there is a right of appeal in paragraph 8 of Schedule 7 against such a prohibition. So I think that the noble Lord may take it that we have very much the same objectives in view, and that the regulation-making powers will have the effect of allowing regulations to be made which would cover the concerns which he has so clearly expressed.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful for the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and for its tenor. Basically we seek a common objective and I think it is now for those who have consulted us to consider very carefully the points made by the noble and learned Lord. We shall then decide whether we should come back on this amendment or a variation of it. I am particularly grateful that the Lord Chancellor has in mind that the regulations to be made under the Bill will cover most of the matters which we have mentioned on these Amendments. As I said, on the face of it this could be a common area so we shall consult and possibly come back to your Lordships at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 209BZA not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 209CZA not moved.]
  Clause 58 [Welfare of privately fostered children]:
  Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 209ZA:
  Page 51, leave out line 12.
  The noble Lord said: This is a small amendment which seeks to reduce the amount of verbiage in the Bill. It seeks to leave out sub-paragraph (a)(i) of subsection (2), because it is believed that subsection (2)(a)(ii) and (2)(b) make sufficient provision to ensure that visits by a local authority officer are made on specified occasions and that the Secretary of State can regulate the functions in this area. In those circumstances, there appears to be no need to include provision for prescribed services as set out in subsection (2)(a)(i). The need to maintain privacy and to ensure that the family is not inconvenienced also seems to be amply covered. After all that, the clause as it stands appears to be too restrictive. I hope my noble and learned friend will feel that in this case he can agree to this rather small amendment. I beg to move.
  The Lord Chancellor: The idea of this amendment is to provide for the regulations to deal with, for example, something happening which would require a visit within the prescribed time limits and the normal provisions would operate to require regular visiting. But something might happen. For example, a complaint might be made from some independent source or there might be an accident to the child which would make it desirable that a visit should take place. So the idea is to give power in regulations to require a visit determined not by time but by circumstances of which those are illustrations. There might be better illustrations, but those occur to me. So we are anxious to keep this provision. It is an important matter. It is important that we should have the opportunity to visit as a result of something happening, such as an accident.
  Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble and learned friend for that explanation. I think that I am convinced, but in the event that we are not collectively convinced on my side we might come back at a later stage. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 209A:
  Page 51, line 18, leave out from ("that") to ("and") in line 21 and insert—
  ("—

  (a) any privately fostered child is being accommodated in premises within the authority's area; or

  (b) it is proposed to accommodate any such child in any such premises,

  he may at any reasonable time inspect those premises").
  The noble and learned Lord said: I should like to move Amendment No. 209A and speak to Amendment No. 209B. The first of these amendments redrafts the power of a person authorised by the local authority under Clause 58 to inspect premises in which a private foster child is, or is proposed to be, accommodated. The power is drafted in the amendment to reflect more appropriately the requirement under paragraph 7 of Schedule 7 that persons keeping, or proposing to keep, a private foster child should inform the local authority. The references in Clause 58 to premises where a child "is likely to be" kept are therefore replaced with premises where "it is proposed to accommodate" such a child. Further references to the inspection of any part of the premises are removed by this amendment, as they are thought misleading and are not incorporated into other inspection powers in the Bill.
  The second amendment redefines the offence in Clause 61(1) which relates to obstruction of a person exercising power under Clause 58(3) in line with the other offences of obstruction of powers of entry laid down in the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 59 and 60 agreed to.
  Clause 61 [Offences]:
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 209B:
  Page 53, line 35, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 36 and insert—
  ("—
  (bb) he intentionally obstructs another in the exercise of the power conferrerd by section 58(3);".
  The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 7 [Privately Fostered Children]:
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 210:
  Page 105, line 33, leave out ("or paragraph 4").
  The noble and learned Lord said: This is merely a drafting amendment which I am prepared to explain more fully if necessary. In the meantime, I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 211:
  Page 106, line 5, leave out from ("child") to end of line 6.
  The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment removes from paragraph 5 of Schedule 7 the definition of "protected child". It is unnecessary to define this as the interpretation provision in Clause 77 already provides a meaning for the word. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 211AZA and 211BZA not moved.]
  Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Cullen of Ashbourne): The next amendment is Amendment No. 211ZA.
  The Lord Chancellor: I think that this amendment will probably take some time, because it is an important one. So it may be that this is an appropriate time to see whether we can gain some refreshment before we embark on it.
  The Earl of Dundee: In view of that very encouraging advice by my noble and learned friend, I beg to move that the Committee stage be adjourned and we shall begin again at 8 o'clock.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  [The Sitting was suspended from 6.58 to 8 p.m.]
  Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 211ZA:
  Before Clause 62, insert the following new clause:
  ("Review and annual report.
  .—(1) The Secretary of State shall, in consultation with the local authority associations, the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work and such other bodies or persons as may appear to him to he appropriate, maintain under review the sufficiency of the number of social workers appropriate for the due discharge of their statutory duties affecting the welfare of children and families and all aspects of recruitment and training of social workers concerned with such duties.
  (2) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament an annual report as to the state of the review referred to in subsection (1) above.").
  The noble Lord said: Since this amendment was tabled it has gathered support from the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lords, Lord Seebohm and Lord Henderson of Brompton, whose names appear on the Marshalled List. It also has the support of my noble friend Lady Faithfull. If it were acceptable to the Committee, it would stand in the stead of Amendment No. 213, which it is understood may not be acceptable to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in its present form.
  On Second Reading it was common ground that adequate training of social workers in their duties affecting the welfare of children and

  517
  families—aspects of this Bill—could not work satisfactorily according to the intendment of the Bill without adequate provision for training. The amendment is self-explanatory. As time is short, perhaps I may take it as read.
  The hope must be that the common concern as reflected, in the amendment is acceptable to the Committee and also that it will be acceptable to my noble and learned friend. I think my noble and learned friend would agree with me that in this area the question is not whether something should be done but whether the means proposed are available; in other words, what should be done; and whether, as proposed by this amendment, the Secretary of State should be enjoined to discharge a mandatory duty of constant review and to make an annual report to Parliament.
  This amendment differs in material respects from Amendment No. 213. First, it is not in conflict with any provision of the Bill but is in implementation of it. Secondly, its incidence is limited to the discharge of statutory duties by social workers to implement the Bill, though some such duties may derive from other statutes. Thirdly, it does not impinge upon any financial privilege of another place as requiring any general or specific allocation of funds. This is left to the subsequent dispensation of Parliament in the light of recommendations made in the annual report.
  Furthermore, it leaves the conduct of the review within the statutory requirements proposed to the unfettered discretion of the Secretary of State. In addition, it excludes the many duties of social workers which do not affect the welfare of children and families. Those are excluded because, first, the discharge of such duties is beyond the scope of the Bill; and, secondly, their discharge has given no occasion for public concern. It is only the discharge of the duties affecting children and families which has given rise to public concern. Lastly, it provides a system of control; and I stress the need for a regime which has within it the element of control apart from the question of public concern.
  The legal framework of the Bill cannot work satisfactorily unless there is a sufficiency of numbers and recruitment and training of social workers in their duties affecting the welfare of children and families are kept under constant review and an annual report is made to Parliament.
  If those steps as proposed are not acceptable, what other steps should be taken to control, to ensure that our own regime operates satisfactorily? The continuing review proposed enjoins consultation on a very broad base. It is suggested that this is absolutely essential as many of the problems interact. To give but one example, sufficiency of numbers is related to pay, careers structures and terms of employment as affecting recruitment. Length of training is related to content and quality of instruction and the aptitude, intelligence and experience of the trainee. That is why consultation, constant review and a measure of control are requisite.
  Representations may be made to the Secretary of State, and recommendations by the Secretary of
  518
  State—which may well have financial implications if acted upon—may be made by him in his annual report to Parliament.
  In conclusion, it is accepted in Part X of the Bill—Clauses 62 to 65—that the Secretary of State has certain supervisory functions and responsibilities which he may discharge as a matter of discretion should the occasion arise to exercise those functions. But there is no reference whatever to the subject matter of this crucial amendment. The occasion to exercise such functions arose a long time ago, is extant today, and will continue to arise: hence the justification for a mandatory provision as distinct from a discretionary provision so as to ensure that a matter of public concern, of fundamental consequence to the practical implementation of aspects of this Bill, is brought into control in the public domain, no more and no less, by publication of an annual report and by parliamentary scrutiny.
  I move this amendment as a matter of principle. I await noble Lords' contributions with considerable interest. I beg to move.
  Lord Seebohm: I shall not speak for long—I never do—but I think I have the authority to speak on this matter. In 1961, nearly 28 years ago, I was a founder member of the National Institute for Social Work, concerned with training. This was formed as a result of the Younghusband Report. There was a massive report on social work training showing the inadequacies of the work at the time.
  For the first two or three years we spent our entire facilities on retraining experience for completely unqualified social workers. It sounds as if the major task was completed in three years. We did not quite complete it, but the numbers in those days were very small. In 1968 a report bearing my name was produced which also had quite a long chapter on training, deploring the state of training that still existed at that period after 1961. In those days there were under 10,000 social workers in the field. I think the number was something like 8,700, if hospital workers were included. Today there are approximately 30,000 to 32,000 social workers in the field. The situation is very difficult to quantify for the simple reason that one cannot define what a social worker is nowadays; there are all sorts of grades with different duties. But the number is something like three to four times what it was in 1968. More training is necessary. I doubt whether it has progressed very far since 1968.
  One of the recommendations of the Seebohm Report was that there should be a central council, which in due course became the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, to oversee and promote the training of social workers. To my mind it has been deplorably ineffective, until recently, when a new director, Mr. Tony Hall, was appointed. He produced a vigorous report recommending a third year over the small basic two-year training which exists at the present time. This recommendation was turned down by the Government and we have yet to see an adequate answer to his report.
  I do not believe that three consecutive years was the answer. I personally have talked to a number of

  519
  social workers and to directors of social services on this point in recent months. The general conclusion that I make is that there should probably be up to a year of in-service, on the job training under careful supervision so that one becomes quite acquainted with the normal work of the social worker; but training after that is badly needed in a number of specialities. The most important one is that of children. I have no doubt about that in my mind at all. Quite apart from child abuse and sexual abuse which we hear so much about now and the Butler-Sloss Report, there are battered children—not only babies—and all sorts of problems with children who are mentally ill and mentally handicapped.
  These are all specialisms which must be taught in a quite sophisticated and proper manner. I do not know whether any plans for this could be made yet but I think it is absolutely essential if we are to meet the requirements of this Bill. That is my point. We are loading social workers with yet other responsibilities under the Bill, which is a very important Bill. There are already over 90 statutes about which social workers have to know in order to perform their duties now, and then there is the Bill. So we cannot leave the situation vague and say that we must have more training. Something specific must be done. I think that if this is not the right amendment then it shows the right way to see that this takes place. That is all I wish to say; it is an urgent and very important matter.
  8.15 p.m.
  Baroness Faithfull: Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, I do not propose to be brief. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I speak at some great length. If I may, I shall speak to my Amendment No. 213 which concerns the training of personnel in the social services and probation departments. The amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is wider than Amendment No. 213 but the spirit and intentions behind both our amendments are the same.
  Lord Justice Butler-Sloss said:
  "The weight given to the training of social workers is of central importance to this Bill. Indeed, when this Bill becomes law it will only be as good as the people who carry it out.".
  That is a solemn thought. I submit that the training of those working in the social services, as the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, has said, has been inadequate to the task. I refer to those who work in a residential and day care setting as well as in the field social work setting. Further, I should say that there are not enough personnel in the social services to meet the statutory duties which Parliament has laid upon them. Winston Churchill once said, "Learn from history". Perhaps I may briefly give some facts concerning the background. Before 1970—and the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, will know about this—those seeking to carry out field social work usually obtained a two-year training in basic social work. This was followed either immediately or after some practical experience by a post-qualifying course. The training programme for child care was organised from the Home Office, as was the training for probation officers.
  520
  The training for the welfare needs of the elderly, handicapped and the mentally ill was organised from the Ministry of Health and various universities ran psychiatric social worker courses, as did the Tavistock Clinic. Later this separate post-qualifying training came under the aegis of the newly appointed Council for Education and Training in Social Work. For some reason which I never quite understood—but I have an uncomfortable feeling that it was financial—the basic separate post-qualifying courses were telescoped into one year, whereas before there had been a basic training of two years and then a post-qualifying course.
  Some years ago in your Lordships' House I moved an amendment to the effect that training for social work should be mandatory. This had overwhelming support in your Lordships' House but, alas! our decision was reversed in the other place. In the light of Cleveland and of the tragic cases of Jasmine Beckford, Kimberly Carlile, Tyra Henry and now the Southwark case, we were conscious of the fact—and it was stated in all these reports—that the training of social workers was inadequate. Have not we at Westminster been penny-wise and pound-foolish in more ways than one?
  Judges have told me of the lack of knowledge of court procedure shown by some social workers. This is not surprising, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, said that there were 90 relevant Acts of Parliament. I counted up—obviously my count cannot be very good—and I made it 88 Acts of Parliament relating to social work and court work. Fifty-nine of these Acts directly involve the responsibility of the social services and those 59 Acts of Parliament have been passed since 1972.
  Members of the Magistrates' Association have paid tribute to the work of social workers but consider that to carry out their duties they have a right to a better training which will suit them to the work they have to do.
  If, as is recommended in the Cleveland report, there is to be closer collaboration between those working in the area of child protection, then the social workers must be skilled in their own spheres in order to work with colleagues from the other relevant professions, particularly as the social worker is often the key worker in child protection cases and the one who is usually responsible for taking a case to court.
  The Council for Education and Training of Social Workers, as has been stated by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, recommended a three-year course which would have had the advantage of the social workers starting one year older than after two years. It must be remembered that 24 per cent. of newly-qualified staff are at the moment dealing with child protection cases. Furthermore, that provision would be less costly to local government, but it did not receive the approval of Her Majesty's Government.
  However, Her Majesty's Government, the Social Work Inspectorate and the administration in the Department of Health, are to be congratulated. First, they recommended a basic two-year course for all social workers. Secondly, they have set up a working party to look into and make recommendations on post-qualifying training. Thirdly, there has been

  521
  recognition of the need for training officers in social work departments to organise the practical training of social workers within the departments. Such workers would keep in close touch with the academic world—that is, the universities and the polytechnics.
  Already £8 million has been given for this purpose, but I suggest that between all the authorities in England and Wales that is not enough. We congratulate the Department of Health for these three positive contributions towards better training, but there is a worrying "but": I am given to understand that the post-qualifying course will not be available to all those social workers opting for child care. It is further a matter for concern that the course is likely to he only a short one. One hopes that the working party will look at the Goldsmith's College course which combined academic training on the emotional and psychological health and educational needs of children with sound practical training.
  I have questioned whether £8 million is enough to set up training units for practical work. In the probation service there are 19 training units in 16 areas. If training units cannot be set up, well-trained senior social workers should be placed in social services departments. In the past this has been left to local authorities. Those authorities have not provided the resources for practical training. They maintained that they had been rate-capped and did not have the available resources. I think that my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady David, will have something to say about that. It is a very serious and worrying factor.
  The release of social workers who have received basic training is costly to local government. It is costly to local authorities because the student on secondment must be paid and the replacement must he paid. I understand that local authorities consider they do not have adequate resources for that. Finally, courses for older men and women have been closed down. In my experience such courses were invaluable to the married woman of 35 to 40 whose children had grown up and to older men, some of whom were coming out of the forces.
  I know that it is not for this Chamber to make recommendations concerning finance, but I have tried to outline some of the very real difficulties with training courses that local authorities will meet. This country gives a less adequate training to social workers than any of its EC neighbours.
  I end as I began by stating that this Bill will not be the positive reform that we all hope and wish it to be, unless it is properly administered. It cannot be properly administered without qualified social workers.
  Lord Henderson of Brompton: I want to take up a phrase which has just fallen from the noble Baroness and challenge her statement that it is not for this Chamber to propose anything to do with finance. It is indeed a part of the duty of this Chamber, if it so wishes, to make such proposals. We may propose but it is for the Commons to dispose. I do not think that we should limit ourselves in that regard. I feel sure that, having said that, the noble Baroness will agree that we are not in any way trespassing on the
  522
  preserves of the House of Commons by suggesting that training in social services, or anything else which may be the cause of financial expenditure, should be freely aired in this Chamber.
  I am very glad that that matter has been aired by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to whom we are indebted for this amendment. I believe it is an improvement on the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, if only because it is wider. I do not know whether it is in the right place in the Bill, but that is a matter of very little importance. However, I feel that something of this nature must be incorporated in the Bill.
  The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, when introducing the amendment spoke eloquently about the element of control it contained. I feel sure that he is right to draw attention to that. It is a matter of very great importance, and of such importance that Parliament should pay annual attention to it. The noble Lord was then followed by two extremely authoritative speeches, one slightly shorter than the other. They were delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who both have unequalled expertise in social services. They made a great and unanswerable case for the development of education and the general deployment of social services in the public interest.
  This is a matter with which Parliament should concern itself, partly because it is a matter of such emotional concern in the public domain. There is no question that the public is emotionally concerned with the treatment of children who have in one way or another been brought into the courts, into care or indeed custody, but care particularly, because of their own misfortunes which are not of their own making. We have a special duty in Parliament to ensure that the public interest is informed.
  We cannot possibly ensure that the public interest is properly informed unless a requirement is made for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament annually a report which Parliament can then take into consideration if it so wishes. I have observed over 40 years or so the effect of parliamentary reports by government departments on matters of public concern. It is one of the essentially civilising roles of Parliament that it can get the Executive to report to it and then feed into the Executive the concern of the public in the particular area which has been covered by the report.
  In this particular area of the care of children a large number of departments is involved. There is the Department of Health which has been divorced from the Department of Social Security. The Department of the Environment is involved because of local government. It goes without saying, because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is the Government spokesman, that the Lord Chancellor's department is involved. The Department of Education is also involved because of the implications of the extra training, which has been so forcibly advocated this evening, for those who work in social services. Therefore, half a dozen departments will be concerned when the Secretary of State produces the report for Parliament. That in

  523
  itself is a compelling reason for this amendment or something like it to be agreed by the Government.
  The public are aroused, and quite rightly aroused, about the problems of children, and not merely because of the current concern shown over the abuse of children. That is only part of an ongoing concern that children should be properly looked after and that the Government are responsible for those services, for which they may give the local authorities and voluntary services detailed responsibility. The Government are ultimately responsible to Parliament.
  For those reasons I should have thought that the amendment should secure the unanimous support of all sides of the House. I hope that the Government will respond to the anxiety and pressure that has already been very effectively demonstrated this evening.
  8.30 p.m.
  Baroness David: I feel rather humble, speaking after so many expert speakers. However, I have put my name to the amendment and therefore I think that I must say a few words. Indeed, there are two aspects of the amendment on which I should like to comment. We have heard from two experts in the social services field—the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, who produced his report nearly 20 years ago, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who is a former director of social services and chairman of a very successful and effective all-party children's group. Then we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, with his experience of Parliament and what this House can and cannot do.
  In relation to that last point, when the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said to me that she thought that we could not press for more resources I told her that I thought it was perfectly right for us to say that we must have more resources if the Bill is to be effective because so much depends upon it. I was therefore very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, say that it is up to us to propose that those resources should be available if the Bill is to be any use at all. I believe that my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg said at Second Reading that there must be the resources if the Bill is to be at all effective.
  Turning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, I should like to speak about the sufficiency of the number of social workers. It is quite clear from responses to an earlier amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, concerning the desirability of having a named social worker for every child in care that more social workers are needed. The response from several directors of social services has been that it is hopeless; they do not have enough social workers to do so. I think that we must increase the number of social workers. That will be essential if the Bill is to work.
  If the number of social workers is to be increased, resources are required to do so. In order for that to happen local authorities have to be given a little more money. When local authorities are rate-capped and their resources are restricted they do not have the money to employ the number of social workers that they should. If there is not to be a third year of
  524
  training, local authorities will not have the money to send social workers for post-qualification training on secondment. That seems to me to be a very important point and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will address himself to it because if the Bill is to be successful we need more and better trained social workers. Whether the training is undertaken in a third year or post-qualification courses is a matter for consideration. I think that I am slightly more in favour of post-qualification training so long as there are the resources to provide it.
  I have now moved on to the training sphere, which is the other point which I wish to raise. I think that people who enter social work very young, perhaps at the age of 20, 21 or 22, are often faced with very difficult cases of child abuse and so on. It is very hard for them to cope when they have had such a short training. There ought to be older, more qualified social workers to help them.
  There are, therefore, three aspects to be considered—sufficiency, training and resources—and which I should like to press upon the Committee. I am very sorry that this very important amendment is being considered at this time of night when attendance is sparse. However, I think that it will be a useful discussion and I hope that a great many people will read it. I should like to give my strong support to the amendment.
  Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I should like briefly to join in the debate because I feel very strongly about the subject. I agree entirely with every word that has been said on both sides of the Committee. I have had long experience of the problem going back to the days when I was at the London School of Economics in the 1920s. We have been fighting for years and years for proper training for social workers. I cannot think why the general opinion of so many of our governors and local authorities is that social workers do not play an important part. They play a vital part.
  Today, when every day one sees in the press reports of child abuse or sexual abuse, the blame is placed on the social worker. How can the social workers cope with such problems if they do not have proper training? No-one would expect a nurse to make an efficient and important contribution to the work of a hospital without training. People underestimate the difficulties and the importance of the work. This is a matter which has been, so to speak, on the tapis for years.
  I think that it is a great pity that no government has tackled the issue properly. They talk about it being expensive to train social workers. It is far more expensive for children to be had up, brought before the courts, go to prison or be placed in protective custody than to prevent that happening by having the right people to advise and to train. I should call that an investment and certainly not expenditure. I hope that the noble Lord, who understands these things very well, will take this opportunity to do something that will help the whole community.
  Lady Kinloss: I should like to support in particular Amendment No. 213 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. The social work profession is, I understand, still smarting from the Government's

  525
  decision last year not to introduce a three-year training. The Cleveland Report and other reports emphasise the need for better training of social workers relating to children and also their need to know more about the child care role.
  At Second Reading on 6th December I said:
  "the Bill's provision can be successfully implemented only if good quality systematic training is provided to all those who will be responsible for carrying it out".—[Official Report, 6/12/88; col. 520.]
  The Association of County Councils is very concerned about the need for adequate training.
  Lord Meston: We on these Benches would wish to support the amendment. The arguments have already been thoroughly canvassed. The need for adequate training is self-evident. The inadequacies of the present position are, as has just been said, set out in one of the shortest and most compelling chapters of the Cleveland Report. We therefore support the amendment.
  The Lord Chancellor: I should like, first, to say a word or two about the question of resources. As I understand the position, estimates for the public service are to be laid before the House of Commons. If there is a suggestion that for a particular function inadequate provision has been made I would suggest that that is a matter for the other place. That does not mean that matters which affect resources may not be raised in this Chamber, but I suggest that the question of whether the resources provided are adequate or inadequate is a matter for the other place.
  It is of course highly desirable that there should be reviews with sufficient frequency to permit judgments to he made about whether there are adequate numbers of social workers to carry out the very important work of promoting the welfare of children and families. Plainly recruitment and training issues bear very heavily on the matter of the adequacy of staffing numbers. But Amendment No. 211ZA moved by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway raises two important considerations: whether such a review in these terms is possible and where the responsibility should lie for carrying out the review activities.
  The organisation of social work staff by local authorities is not generally such as to enable account to be made of those workers concerned mainly or wholly with assisting children and families. In many authorities social workers carry responsibilies for a full range of cases, including children and families. The Department of Health collects through an annual staffing return the numbers of social workers and their team leaders but, for the reasons I have given, this cannot be disaggregated to identify what might be called child care social workers.
  As the body responsible for reviewing the number of social workers in post and considering recruitment and training issues, the local authority employers have already demonstrated that they see this as appropriately their task. The local authority Conditions of Service Advisory Board published in 1987 a report Recruitment and Retention, which examined generally labour market problems affecting
  526
  the recruitment and retention of local government staff in London and elsewhere. It recommended selective action as the most appropriate way to deal with labour market difficulties, particularly in a limited number of occupations in local government, of which social work is one, where there are significant recruitment problems.
  That board sees its role as providing information to all authorities on the experience of some in using selective measures. More recently, in early 1988, the London branch of the Association of Directors of Social Services, assisted by the Department of Health and Social Services' inspectorate carried out a study on recruitment and retention problems across all London boroughs. In its report, which makes recommendations on how to ameliorate those problems, it stresses its willingness to re-run this exercise annually. It also draws attention to important work being undertaken by the local government training board to create a national data base on the social services' workforce.
  The local government training board's workforce analysis exercise, which has been proceeding through 1988, is concerned to establish the possibility of introducing a permanent workforce data gathering process for local authority social services departments. A feasibility study has been carried out dealing with how social services occupations and tasks could be classified and on the best process for gathering data. This work is steered through a group on which are represented the local authority associations, the board, the local authority trade unions and the central council for education and training in social work. The work is continuing and the system proposed requires only a small capital outlay by local authorities to acquire computer hardware and software. Such a system will take a little while longer to put into place.
  Meanwhile the board has decided to mount on a national basis a specific study of recruitment and retention issues facing social services departments. To that end a questionnaire has been distributed to all local authorities with comments on its content having been made by officials of the Department of Health.
  As to numbers of social workers requiring professional training, this is a responsibility of the central council. It provides regular estimates of the number of training places required on courses leading to the certificate of qualification in social work and the certificate in social work. The council estimates that about 5,000 qualified social workers is the desirable annual output from these courses. For the future the product of the board's workforce study will be available to the board, and of course available to the central council. The local authorities themselves will be able to take from that the necessary firmer information for a range of review purposes.
  In the light of the activity that local government has undertaken so far and the prospect of the creation of a national workforce database to aid local government and the training body, those responsibilities can and should rest where they are. It is my suggestion to the Committee that these arrangements that the local authorities have made

  527
  are good arrangements toward the aim which the committee has been discussing.
  I turn in a little more detail to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Faithfull, which has been supported this evening in particular by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, thought that the new amendment was better, but for some Members of the Committee the old one is perhaps best.
  In connection with that amendment, the Government agree that child care training should be kept under review but, as I have just said, this is primarily a matter for the employers of social workers, mainly the local authorities. The Government, of course, have a role to play in encouraging and assisting local authorities, and we have already taken two significant initiatives in this area.
  The training support programme for child care, administered by the Department of Health, will provide each local authority with grant under a £10 million programme from April 1989. Initially this is for training in child protection work but in future years the focus could change. Whether or not it should change can be considered by the Secretary of State following the receipt of plans which local authorities receiving grant are required to submit. These plans will give such details as the numbers of staff to be trained, how training relates to service developments and the expected benefits in the quality and quantity of services arising from the increase in numbers of trained staff. In considering their training plans it is entirely appropriate for the local authorities to have regard to the length and content of the training they arrange in the social services departments or obtain for their staff from colleges and other training bodies. The development of the training support programme has and will continue to be the subject of discussions between officials of the department and representatives of the local authority associations and the central council.
  Another recent development, reflecting the Government's commitment to a balanced programme of training developments for staff in the personal social services, was the decision, announced by the Minister for Health last October, to begin an examination of opportunities for post-qualifying study for social services staff. I rather think that the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, with all his experience, was moving somewhat towards that solution rather than a third year of, as it were, pre-qualifying study. A working group is being formed, again with the local authority associations and other interests represented, and its first meeting will be held on 31st January. A survey is planned on the use made by local authorities of current post-qualifying level training.
  Within the work on gaps and priorities in post-qualifying training, it is likely that attention will be given to further training requirements in child care, to which the training support programme that I have mentioned gives further impetus. The council is also reviewing the competencies required of social workers completing two years of professional training. This is likely to lead to new guidance to
  528
  courses of academic content and practice placements. Taking these various measures together there is in prospect the assembly of better and more relevant training for social workers at qualifying level and beyond.
  In the light of those considerations, I believe that so far as numbers of social workers and so on are concerned the responsibility is properly with the local authorities. They have shown in recent times a number of very useful initiatives for dealing with the situation. However, in my noble friend's proposal in Amendment No. 213 I see merit in the suggestion that the Secretary of State should keep under review the need for child care training, for which he will have specific grant-making powers in Clause 64(3). Such a view would complement the requirement laid on social services departments to develop strategic plans for the training of staff concerned with child protection under the provisions of the child care training support programme.
  Accordingly, I am very willing to consider bringing forward a government amendment for the Secretary of State to conduct a review on that matter. In relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, about information to Parliament, the Committee will of course keep in mind that in Clause 65 of the Bill there is already a quite comprehensive provision for returns of information with respect to the performance by the local authority of all or any of their functions under the enactments listed there, including of course this Act, and under Clause 65(3) the Secretary of State is put under an obligation in each year to lay before Parliament a consolidated and classified abstract of the information transmitted to him under these subsections. So the basic information that is referrred to in that clause will be laid before Parliament.
  I am sure that Members of the Committee would prefer money that is available to be used in services for helping children rather than in an unnecessary duplication of reporting to Parliament. That is a time-consuming and resource-consuming operation. The more departments it covers, the more resources are required. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, pointed out, there are quite a number of departments involved. I believe that the basic, really useful information, is covered under Clause 65.
  In the light of the response that I have been able to give, in particular with regard to Amendment No. 213, I hope that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wish to thank all noble Lords for their support for my amendment and the constructive contributions they have made to this debate. Assuredly, I am not prepared to withdraw my amendment on the basis of the arguments advanced by my noble and learned friend because, with the greatest possible respect to him, I do not find them convincing.
  There is a very important point of principle—the element of control—which arises on this amendment and on which the opinion of the Committee ought to be taken, but not at this hour, or on this occasion, when most noble Lords who would vote would not have heard the arguments. I am very disappointed

  529
  that my noble and learned friend cannot look with favour on the amendment, which commands wide support. I hope that reconsideration may be given before the Report stage.
  The objection that the child care element in training cannot be isolated is not understood. It is a departmental objection. Sufficiency in numbers is surely not solely a question for the local authority. My noble and learned friend suggested that he would introduce a government amendment on review. For those who have spoken, it would be wholly devoid of control.
  In these circumstances, at this hour, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment on the basis that I shall return to it on Report when I have had an opportunity to study the arguments of my noble and learned friend. At the moment I find them wholly unconvincing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 62 [Inspection of children's homes etc. by persons authorised by Secretary of State]:
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 211A:
  Page 54, line 37, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 63 [Inquiries]:
  Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 212:
  Page 56, line 12, at end insert—
  ("(a) the care of an individual child;").
  The noble Lord said: It is fair to say that the whole Bill is about the care of an individual child. It seems to me that where appropriate that subject deserves an inquiry to relate to that basic function just a much as the inquiries into various means of effecting it are currently specified in Clause 63(1).
  A child may feel that the treatment she or he has received has been detrimental to her or his interests. If that child has sought to have a problem resolved—for example, he may have sought redress under Clause 22—or has sought redress through all other channels and has found that no remedy is available, with my amendment the Secretary of State can order an inquiry to be held into the care of the individual child as such. This would provide an additional safety net for the child or for another person who is concerned to protect the child.
  It is consistent with the role that the Secretary of State already has in child abuse inquiries and I believe that it may be thought to be a useful addition to this Bill. I beg to move.
  Lady Kinloss: We have debated previously the right of the child and other family members to appeal against the making of an order or the variation of orders. Thererfore it would seem consistent, where the child or another person has exhausted all other
  530
  avenues of complaint, to ensure that the Secretary of State can cause inquiries to be made into the welfare of an individual child. This would fit with the present role of the Secretary of State in initiating child abuse inquiries.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has already said, this amendment provides an ultimate safety net for the child, or, in circumstances where things have gone very wrong, at least ensures that lessons are learnt to avoid mistakes being made in the future.
  The Lord Chancellor: It is clearly important that the Secretary of State should be able to cause an inquiry to be held into matters connected with an individual child. Local authotities have powers and responsibilities not only towards children generally but also towards individual children in the circumstances covered by the Bill.
  However, I believe that this amendment is not necessary, because Clause 63 refers to the power of the Secretary of State to cause an inquiry to be held into any matter connected with the functions of the social services commmittee of a local authority so far as these functions relate to children. It also refers to the functions of an adoption agency, and the functions of a voluntary organisation so far as those functions relate to children. Clause 63 then goes on to refer to various types of homes and premises where children may be accommodated for which the Secretary of State has responsibility under the Bill. The wording of Clause 63 provides for the Secretary of State accordingly to inquire into any matter concerning an individual child.
  I hope the noble Lord may feel that the point he desires to cover is covered by that reference. The Interpretation Act means that where the word "children" is used it includes a child in appropriate circumstances.
  Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble and learned friend for his reply. I shall examine carefully what he has said. I believe there may still be a loophole which is not fully covered by discussing the technical details of what is currently in Clause 63. Therefore I may return at a later stage with another attempt, with a better argument. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 63 agreed to.
  9 p.m.
  Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 212A:
  After Clause 63, insert the following new clause:
  ("Unreasonable exercise of power by local authority.
  .—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, if the Secretary of State is satisfied, either on complaint by any person or otherwise, that the local authority have acted or propose to act unreasonably with respect to the exercise of any power conferred or the performance of any duty imposed by or under this Act in relation to an individual child, he may give such directions as to the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty as appear to him to be expedient.
  (2) The Secretary of State may only give a direction under subsection (1) of this section if satisfied that if he does not the welfare of the child is likely to be seriously prejudiced.").
  The noble Lord said: We have already indicated in Committee, when discussing the representations procedure, that in our view there are reasons to suppose that the procedure will not work as well as is hoped for by the Government. It may not be taking sufficient account of a tendency on the part of an authority to resist complaints that are made against it. Experience may show that the independent element will not be truly or sufficiently independent and that the authority will become, or seem to become, a judge in its own cause. There is also the risk, pointed out in Committee, that the conclusions of those conducting the investigation may fall far short of what is necessary from the point of view of the complainants, or that their recommendations may not be acted upon by the authority.
  In those circumstances, we believe that if there is to be full confidence that complaints which arise against the authority will be properly handled, the Bill should provide that there is in the last resort a truly independent body with power to investigate a complaint and to give directions. We believe that those powers should be given to the Secretary of State.
  We may be told that we should rely on the wide powers given to the Secretary of State under Part X. However, the weakness with that argument is the fundamental one that the individual is not entitled under the Bill as of right to go to the Secretary of State with his complaint to seek adequate redress. It could also be argued in support of the amendment that although the Part X powers—we accept that they are very wide powers—are available to the Secretary of State, experience may yet show that they are not wide enough and that they may not cover an unusual situation which may emerge. The amendment would therefore be of assistance to the Secretary of State because it would constitute an additional power. It would ensure that where a complaint emerges from the client, from the parent or from the child, his powers to investigate that complaint are not fettered.
  I accept that there must be some filtering mechanism to prevent the Secretary of State being swamped by trivial complaints. We believe that subsection (2) of the amendment achieves that. For those very good reasons and relying on the filtering mechanism in subsection (2), I very much hope that the amendment will find favour with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I beg to move.
  The Lord Chancellor: Without going into the matter in too much detail, perhaps I could say that in considering the situation that the amendment has raised we may well need to consider some further powers for the Secretary of State to give directions, possibly in relation to classes of children. It may be wise to think of it in that light. But, certainly, I am prepared to consider further what we can do in this direction. Obviously we should like to proceed in conjunction with the local authority associations. That may take a little time to come to fruition. But if the noble Lord is prepared to leave it on that basis, I certainly undertake that we shall give this very careful consideration. In the light of the
  532
  general provisions that we are making, there may be a point here which requires to be covered.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I am very conscious that I have not obtained the smallest concession from the noble and learned Lord on the complaints procedure up to now, so I am particularly grateful for that assurance In the circumstances it gives me great pleasure to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 64 [Financial support by Secretary of State]:
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 212B:
  Page 56, line 40, after ("1984") insert—
  ("(iiia) the Mental Health Act 1983, in relation to children looked after by local authorities;").
  The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 212B, perhaps I can also mention Amendments Nos. 212C, 212D, 212F, 213B, 214A and 214B. The purpose of these several amendments is to make minor adjustments to Clauses 64 and 65. They are largely matters of drafting. I am ready to provide a more detailed account of them if any noble Lord should so desire that, but in the hope that the Committee will not, I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 212C and 212D:
  Page 56, line 41, after ("1984") insert (",in relation to children for whom local authorities have responsibility,").
  Page 57, line 3, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
  ("(a) mentioned in subsection (1)(a);")
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 212E:
  Page 57, line 18, at end insert—
  ("( ) The Secretary of State may make grants to local authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by them in providing accommodation or services for children whose liberty would be deprived under the provisions of section 21 of this Act if such accommodation or services were not available.").
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment is in connection with secure accommodation once more, but it seeks to allow for grants to authorities to provide alternatives to secure accommodation. Under the existing Section 81 of the Child Care Act 1980, continued under Clause 64(4) of the Bill, the Secretary of State may make grants towards local authorities' expenditure on secure accommodation in community homes. The section also provides for the money to be repaid if it is not used or if the accommodation ceases to be secure. By 1987 the Government had paid out over £10 million and had clawed back about a quarter of a million pounds. Although there is much pressure on secure unit places at present, the Department of Health does not consider that more secure units should be built, although a large number should be refurbished. A departmental working party on future strategies for secure accommodation is understood to be

  533
  considering the possibility of reducing numbers in secure units by better gatekeeping on the admissions.
  It is clear not only from the experience of the Children's Legal Centre but also from the as yet unpublished research sponsored by the Department of Health at Leicester University into the use of secure accommodation that young people are being locked up unnecessarily. On the bright side, some authorities are successfully keeping down by a variety of strategies the numbers in secure units without a consequent rise in numbers in young offender institutions. For example, Essex County Council now maintains an open residential home called Bowles Court which has well-trained staff and as high a staff/resident ratio as a secure unit. The home takes only young people who meet the legal criteria for locking them in a secure unit; that is, that they are absconders at risk or are a danger to themselves or others. By this method the authority appears to have succeeded in nearly halving the number of young people who are locked up. Another example is Kent County Council which trains—and pays at four times the usual rate—specialist foster parents to look after troublesome adolescents.
  The Government are committed to limiting the numbers of young people locked up within the care system, just as they are committed to limiting those locked up for criminal offences. Although millions of pounds have been paid out towards intermediate treatment for young offenders, little has been done to establish alternatives to secure accommodation for those in care. The power to give grants to build and maintain secure units should be balanced by a power to give grants towards alternatives to secure accommodation. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. I beg to move.
  The Lord Chancellor: Clause 64(4) and (5) re-enact the Secretary of State's existing power, first introduced in 1975 and now in Section 81 of the 1980 Child Care Act, to make grants to local authorities for the provision of secure accommodation for children in community homes, and to require such grants to be repaid if the secure accommodation ceases to be used as such. As the noble Baroness has explained, the purpose of her proposed amendment is to give the Secretary of State an additional power to make grants to local authorities to defray the costs incurred by them of providing accommodation and services for children who might otherwise have been placed in secure accommodation. In other words, to place equal emphasis on the need to encourage local authorities to provide and develop a range of specific accommodation and services which would reduce or obviate the need for placement in security. The noble Baroness has given illustrations of how that may be done.
  The Government totally share the view of the noble Baroness that secure accommodation should be seen as very much a last resort, to be used only when all else has been tried and failed. We also take the firm view that a child's placement in secure accommodation should be only for so long as it is necessary and unavoidable. It follows from what I
  534
  have said that we would also share the view of the noble Baroness that local authorities should make available a range of facilities and services to meet these twin objectives.
  The question, therefore, hinges on whether it is both necessary and appropriate to give the Secretary of State an additional grant-making power to encourage the further development of alternatives to secure accommodation.
  It may be helpful if we reflect for a moment on why specific provision was made in 1975 to enable the Secretary of State to make grant aid available to local authorities to defray the capital cost of providing secure accommodation. I would remind noble Lords that the grant does not cover, and never has covered, the revenue costs associated with operating a secure unit. That is because accommodation is an expensive resource, and relatively few children need to be placed in such accommodation. Therefore it is generally not practicable or viable for each local authority to provide its own secure unit. The way forward was, therefore, for local authorities to act co-operatively, with one authority undertaking to provide a secure facility on behalf of surrounding authorities or within a particular region.
  It was because the Government sensed that local authorities were reluctant to commit themselves to making that kind of expensive capital provision, unless they had some kind of security, that they were anxious that the matter should be dealt with. They therefore provided a grant-making power to the Secretary of State for that purpose. Since 1975 the stock of secure accommodation available nationally has gradually increased. The result is that the existing stock is about right in order to cope with potential demand.
  In our view, it is neither necessary or appropriate in the circumstances to go along the line proposed in the amendment. It is undoubtedly the case that there are many children in care who could be said to meet, in principle, the statutory criteria for restriction of liberty, but who are already well catered for within the existing range of non-secure facilities and services. What separates the children who need to be placed in secure accommodation from the generality of such children is the degree of disturbance or concern about the consequence of their behaviour. For the generality, there are numerous existing examples of local authority good practice in making provision for this particular group of young people. What is important, and here I share the view of the noble Baroness, is that such facilities should be more widespread.
  As the noble Basroness has said, there is within the Department of Health a working group which has been addressing these very issues. The group hopes to complete its work shortly, and this will undoubtedly lead to further advice and guidance being given to local authorities on this issue. In our view, this is the preferred approach.
  The need for an additional grant-making power does not exist in this situation because the conditions which require it, the provision of secure accommodation, do not exist in relation to these other facilities. The situations which the noble

  535
  Baroness has envisaged would be covered by revenue production. So far as I am aware, there has never been any grant provision to cover the revenue aspects of secure accommodation. The capital aspect was covered for the reason that I have explained.
  In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness David: The Government's attitude is all right: I am pleased with their sympathetic approach because it is what we should all wish to achieve. I believe that we are back to the question of resources. The kind of provision which Essex County Council makes in Bowles Court, where there is almost a one-for-one relationship with staff and young people, and the expensive foster care provisions made by Kent County Council, cost money. Of course they cost revenue money. If the Government really want to improve the situation, I believe that they will have to provide more resources for local government to secure that. Of course I shall not press this matter at this time of night but I shall look at it again. I believe that this is an issue of money and I may come back to it at another stage. However, I am glad that the principle at least seems to be accepted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 212F:
  Page 58, line 2, leave out ("enactments") and insert ("functions").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
  Baroness Faithfullhad given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 213:
  After Clause 64, insert the following new clause:
  ("Training in child care.
  .—(1) The Secretary of State shall keep under review the need for child care training as defined in section 64(8) of this Act, the number of persons who should receive such training and its duration.
  (2) In carrying out the review specified in subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall—

  (a) consult the local authority Associations whose members have responsibility for child care, the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work and such other bodies and persons as appear to him to be concerned; and

  (b) have regard to—

  (i) the effect which child care training requirements may have on the overall content and length of training in social work; and

  (ii) the need to ensure that social work training is reasonably comparable in content and length with the training received by other professions responsible for child care.").

  The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment at some length under Amendment No. 211ZA. In his reply my noble and learned friend responded both to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and myself. I thank my noble and learned friend for the statements which he made. I was particularly glad to hear that the Secretary of State will be conducting a review. I should like to read what my noble and learned friend said because I should
  536
  like to see whether that review will be made available to those working in the social services and whether the review will touch on both the number and training of social workers. However, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his response.
  [Amendment No. 213 not moved.)
  9.15 p.m.
  Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 213ZA:
  After Clause 64, insert the following new clause:
  ("Use of Social Fund to help families stay together

  (1) The Secretary of State for Social Securities shall, under sections 32 (2) (b), 33 (10) and 34 (8)(a) and (b) of the Social Security Act 1986, issue directions and provide guidance for social fund payments to be directed at helping families remain together and averting the need for the reception of children in local authority care.

  (2) These directions shall provide that a non-repayable social fund payment be made to meet the prescribed needs of the family provided that—

  (a) the need cannot otherwise be met from the existing parts of the Social Fund, and

  (b) the family is in receipt of Income Support or Family Credit, and,

  (c) the total capital resources of the applicant and his partner, including any sum to which either or both are beneficially entitled, do not exceed £500.").

  The noble Lord said: The purpose of this proposed new clause is to enhance the role of the social security system in preventing the need for the reception of children into care and to clarify the boundaries between the role of local authorities and that of central government in the task of prevention. Therefore, I hope that it will not be argued that that is improperly placed in this Bill. In my submission, it is of very real relevance to the Bill.
  In response to a suggested amendment to Clause 15 which sought to broaden the powers of local authorities in the giving of cash assistance in the exercise of their preventive duties to families in need, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:
  "A broader power could push local authorities into an income maintenance role which is the function of the social security system".—[Official Report, 20/12/88; col. 1297.]
  We agree entirely that the main function of local authorities should be the provision of services to families, and that helping with cash in the first instance should be provided through the social security system.
  It is widely recognised that the task of preventing the unnecessary reception of children into the care system involves not only the social services but also the social security systems. In its 1984 report on children in care the Social Services Committee of another place, at paragraphs 36 and 37, wrote:
  "There is a well established link between deprivation and children coming into care…poor families are more at risk. Social work intervention alone cannot be expected to combat the cycle of poverty, bad housing and indebtedness. The social security system plays a central role in the lives of children coming into care".
  At present it is often unclear who has primary responsibility for providing cash assistance for families where there is a risk that the child may otherwise have to be placed into the care of the local authority. In theory, the social fund should fulfil that function and the Social Fund Manual which provides

  537
  guidance to social fund officers (SFOs) at paragraphs 6452 and 6453 states:
  "When dealing with families under stress, close links with the LA social services are very important and SFOs should know how their LA carries out its responsibility under Section 1 of the Child Care Act 1980 … The financial contribution of LAs varies considerably and SFOs should not expect families under stress who apply for CCGs to look to the LAs in the first instance, unless there is a local agreement on the type of circumstances in which the LA provides help".
  However, in the guidance applicable to the category "Families in Distress" it is emphasised in the manual:
  "All families, especially those on low income, face stress at various times so that it cannot in itself be a reason to give a CCG (Community Care Grant). SFOs may award community care grants to ease exceptional pressures on a family arising from one or more of the following:

  (a) the breakdown of established family relationships, or

  (b) a deterioration in the applicant's home which makes it unfit or unsuitable for the applicant and his family to live there, or,

  (c) the beginning or continuing existence of persistent disability or chronic sickness."

  That comes from paragraph 6451 of the manual.
  The assumption that families would only ever be in need of help in one of the above three circumstances places an unreasonable restriction, I submit, on the use of the social fund to prevent the need for children to be taken into care as a result of extreme financial pressure. The preventive scope of the fund is further restricted by the express exclusion of help for certain items. These include fuel bills, housing costs (including deposits to secure accommodation), mortgage payments, rates, water rates, service charges, rent and analogous charges for accommodation, work related expenses, legal expenses and school meals, among other things.
  Therefore, the social fund could not be used, for example, to pay a deposit to enable a family to secure accommodation or to help a family pay a large fuel debt in order to avoid disconnection. However, the impending privatisation of electricity may well create additional problems for families in such circumstances as private boards are likely to show less restraint in regard to disconnection of supply when a family is in difficulty with the bill.
  Some local authorities may decide to use their powers under Section 1 of the Child Care Act or, in future, under Clause 15 of this Bill when it is enacted to provide this form of cash assistance; but, as acknowledged in the social fund manual itself, local authority practice varies from one authority to the next, so such help is not guaranteed. If help is not forthcoming from either source the family could be made homeless or the souce of light and heat cut off. Both situations may lead ultimately to the reception of the child or children into care.
  I am sure that the whole Committee will agree that the removal of children from their natural parents under such circumstances is both unnecessary and undesirable. In my submission the social fund should be adapted to include within its scope the function of helping families to remain together, through grant assistance, thereby complementing the parallel service provision function of local authorities without, I should make clear, overstepping the fund's
  538
  cash limits. That is not the purpose of this amendment.
  The Government have expressed concern about under-utilisation of the social fund, in particular of the community grant element. At the end of September last year the take-up of community care grants was just 52 per cent. of projected expenditure. This was revealed in a Written Answer, at col. 223 of the House of Commons Hansard for 9th November last year. In that Answer, Mr. Peter Lloyd referred specifically to, among other things, the role of the fund in reducing the risk of people in vulnerable groups going into institutional or residential care. Logically, this must include the children of such families.
  It is also one of the primary purposes of the Child Care Act 1980 to,
  "promote the welfare of children by diminishing the need to receive children into or keep them in care".
  Those words are taken from Section 1(1) of that Act. The additional function we propose in the amendment would ensure that the community care grant element of the social fund is put to the best possible use in this regard. We want to ensure that it is used in a more pro-active and creative way in relation to child care than appears to be the case at present, but always, I repeat, within the constraints of the available resources. It would also—as I suggested at the outset, and I want to repeat this strongly—help to clarify the local authorities' sphere of responsibility under Clause 15 of this Bill and avoid the very real danger of a game of ping-pong developing in certain cases between the social services and social security. I beg to move.
  The Lord Chancellor: While I appreciate the noble Lord's concern about this issue, I do not consider it appropriate in this Bill to be introducing legislation which affects 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 in another place.
  As the noble Lord has demonstrated, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has, under Section 32(2)(b), issued directions and guidance to social fund officers to ease exceptional pressures on families with the specific aim of helping to keep members of the family together. It is a question of relating that to the situation and the circumstances of the area. I feel that that direction has taken account of the noble Lord's concerns in an appropriate way. My right honourable friend has also given assurances in another place that the social security reforms introduced last April will be monitored. That is now taking place so we shall be able to see a little more clearly how the process is working. The particular concern that the noble Lord has expressed, as he himself pointed out, has been addressed in general. In those circumstances I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press the amendment.
  Lord Kilmarnock: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said about the monitoring of the social fund. I wish to put it on record that the community grant element in that fund is restricted in the first place to people moving out of institutions or residential care. Secondly, it is restricted to vulnerable groups such as the disabled, the elderly, the mentally ill, the handicapped and the chronically sick. Thirdly, it is restricted to families under stress—the category, I believe, that will probably most apply in the case of children being taken into care.
  I have demonstrated my feeling that the circumstances in which families under stress can benefit from the grant element are unduly restricted. Before I withdraw the amendment I hope very much that the noble and learned Lord will undertake to see that the proposals I have put forward are brought to the attention of his right honourable friend. I do not believe that they are quite so disconnected with this Bill as the noble and learned Lord has suggested. He will remember the debate upon Clause 15.
  The circumstances under which a local authority can make a grant arise only in very exceptional cases. Local authorities are obviously constrained by cash problems. I hope very much that the noble and learned Lord at least agrees in principle that it would be a good thing to make the social fund rather more active in this respect with a view to taking some of the burden of demands off local authorities as regards cash payments under this Bill. If the noble and learned Lord can give me a few words of comfort in that direction I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.
  The Lord Chancellor: I hope that Members of the Committee will take it for granted that I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to the noble Lord's remarks.
  Lord Kilmarnock: In view of those remarks I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Clause 65 [Returns of information to Parliament]:
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 213A:
  Page 58, line 19, leave out ("below").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 213B:
  Page 58, line 20, leave out ("the adoption of children or with").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  9.30 p.m.
  Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 214:
  Page 58, line 31, at end insert—
  ("( ) The Secretary of State shall in each year prepare and lay before Parliament a report indicating the manner and extent to which the provisions contained in Parts III and IV of this Act have
  540
  been carried out in the year under review, the resources which are expended on the performance of those provisions and the resources which he proposes to make available in the ensuing year for the performance of those provisions.").
  The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment. In trying to implement the provisions of the Bill, to prevent the break up of families and to help positively children in trouble, resources will be needed. Over the past few years the resources of local authorities have been severely cut. A number of children's homes and family centres have been closed. Family centres run by voluntary organisations have looked to the Government for grants and have failed to get them.
  We are worried that the resources needed to meet the recommendations of the Bill will not be available. I therefore wish to bring this matter to the notice of the Secretary of State. As was stated in regard to earlier amendments, instead of bringing the case before Parliament, perhaps there should be a report once a year as with the training so that we can see whether or not we have adequate resources. I beg to move.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I should like to support the amendment. We have a good Bill but the conflict over the use of scarce resources will continue. Priorities will have to be established between conflicting claims. We may find that there will be relative neglect of some facilities. It is therefore right that a duty should be placed on the Secretary of State to produce a report. I am not so concerned that it should be an annual report. We want to see a periodic and frequent report. Such a report by the centre would be inductive and the lack of such attention to what is happening at ground level would be worrying. It gives me great pleasure to support the amendment.
  Lord Henderson of Brompton: I should like to support the amendment on two grounds; first, on the ground of accountability of the Executive to Parliament; and secondly, to reinforce what I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that we should not be frightened by the pretext, if I may put it in that way, of the Government that we should not concern ourselves with money matters. In this case we can do so, because the matter is only incidental to the purposes of the Bill.
  The purposes of the Bill are set out in the Long Title. A Bill of this kind costs money. The Government state that quite frankly, as they are required by Parliament to do, in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill. It states that the full annual cost of the Bill will be between £4 million and £11 million and that there may also be one-off training costs for local authority staff training. We are concerning ourselves with finance in this amendment. That is another incidental financial provision of the Bill but it is not the main purpose of the Bill. When the Bill goes to another place we move the privilege amendment which makes it technically correct in relation to the financial privilege of another place. This is an example of parliamentary accountability which I think we should press on the noble and

  541
  learned Lord. I hope that he will respond sympathetically to the amendment.
  The Lord Chancellor: In a sense I have already anticipated what I should like to say about this amendment in what I said earlier. There is a certain amount of common material between the two. It is important that Parliament is kept informed about the operation of children's services and reports to Parliament are one of the ways in which that can be done.
  As I have already pointed out, the Bill provides in Clause 65(3) for an annual report to Parliament in the form of a consolidated and classified abstract of information obtained from local authorities about the performance of their functions and from courts about proceedings in relation to children. This replaces a provision in current legislation. I know that this annual abstract is thought to be a valuable source of data. In that sense it is perhaps distinguished from some provisions about reports which are in current legislation. I have, however, a number of reservations about this amendment which would require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament about the operation of the provisions of Part III and Part IV of the Act and resources expended on those activities; that is local authority provision of services for children and care and supervision proceedings. It would be a major task to obtain and summarise such returns of information every year, not only for the Secretary of State but for local authorities and courts.
  It would be necessary to isolate these provisions and not deal with associated provisions in other parts. An abstract is more general in the sense that it does not require that kind of particularisation. For example, the functions of local authorities in providing services in Part III would have to be separated from duties in respect of the emergency protection of children and privately fostered children. It would also be difficult to differentiate expenditure on particular social services and court business from others provided for in the Bill. That is not the practice in the Government's expenditure plans for personal social services where the established approach is that local authorities must be responsible for allocating available resources according to their view of local priorities.
  There are at present requirements in the Child Care Act 1980 and the Children Act 1975 for triennial and quinquennial reports to Parliament on certain aspects of local authority responsibilities. Those are time-consuming for all concerned in their preparation, and we have never felt that they have been found to be particularly useful. I do not know whether anyone can indicate a time when they were found to be useful.
  After careful consideration we decided that those provisions were unnecessary and should not be replaced. The annual abstract of information obtained from local authorities and courts which seems to be found useful appears to us to be the best
  542
  way to keep Parliament informed with the minimum of special work.
  It will of course be open to the Secretary of State under Clause 65(1) and (2) to decide what information he requires and therefore what information appears in the annual abstract to be provided under Clause 65(3).
  I hope that I have said enough to convince my noble friend that the basic information she seeks will be provided under Clause 65 and that it would not be wise to pursue the amendment.
  Baroness Faithfull: I thank my noble and learned friend for his reply. I put forward the amendment so as to put up a marker that the matter must be kept under review; that there will be difficulties and that there are difficulties now. I am sure that my noble and learned friend knows that full well. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 214A and 214B:
  Page 58, line 39, leave out from ("1983") to end of line 41 and insert ("(so far as it relates to chidren looked after by the authority").
  Page 58, line 42, leave out from "(1984") to end of line 44 and insert ("(so far as it relates to children for whom the authority have responsibility)").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
  Baroness Elliot of Harwood Baroness Elliot of Harwood moved Amendment No. 214C:
  Before Clause 66, insert the following new clause:
  ("Cruelty to persons under 16.
  Children under 16
  .Section 1(7) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (which provides that that section shall not affect the right of parents and others to administer punishment) is hereby repealed.").
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 214C I shall speak also to Amendment No. 259. We refer to the Children and Young Persons Act which was passed in 1933. That was 59 years ago. Since when, I am sure the Committee will agree, the world in which we live has changed enormously. The responsibility of local authorities, through children's committees, probation committees and social services committees, has developed and plays an enormous part in the lives of all children and their families. It is in the light of modern experience, techniques and research that I move the amendment.
  Corporal punishment in schools in this country has been abolished. That is done. The amendments do not interfere with parents but they discourage the use of that kind of punishment which in many cases can harm children who are growing up, especially if they are handicapped or mentally abnormal. Moderate and reasonable punishment is not affected, so the common law remains as it is.
  In many European countries, corporal punishment for children is not allowed. It is strange that in Britain legislation preventing cruelty to animals was passed 63 years before the first Act of Parliament forbidding

  543
  cruelty to children was passed. It is a remarkable fact that I discovered today. I was talking to a man who recently made inquiries of a prison governor dealing with young people. He learnt in his experience that every young man or woman in that prison had earlier been the subject of corporal punishment and subsequently committed further offences, finally being sent to prison. That demonstrates what I have always said—that violence breeds violence. This account is a good example.
  There are so many other ways of dealing with offences. This may mean the heads of schools studying alternatives with psychiatric experts or people working with difficult children, gaining confidence and trust from the children they are handling. So many of the children's organisations we all know are deeply concerned to change people's attitudes towards corporal punishment and to learn and use alternative methods. This very important Bill, which I support wholeheartedly, is an opportunity to start again in the right direction on this subject which I strongly believe we should take. I beg to move.
  Lord Seebohm: This amendment has caused the most extraordinary interest—rather surprisingly so—in the media. I thought that perhaps we would have the television cameras on, but they seem to have been switched off just in time. I have had private correspondence, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, and no doubt other Members of this Committee, and I describe some of the letters as coming from enthusiastic "whackers". There is clearly a misunderstanding of the interpretation, but they show what a strong belief still exists in the beneficial results of corporal punishment.
  Therefore it is important to say straight away, as has already been pointed out, that this amendment means no change whatever in the common law right of parents to use reasonable force in bringing up their children. Nor would the repeal of the relevant subsection criminalise physical punishment, apart from laws that already exist. The amendment can almost be said to be cosmetic.
  The Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which we are now discussing, was enacted 56 years ago—I think that my mathematics are slightly better than the noble Baroness's—and both public opinion and the laws have changed considerably since then. The wording of the subsection is:
  "Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the right of any parent"—
  that is OK—
  "teacher"—
  that of course is wrong, because the 1987 Act has abolished corporal punishment already for schools—
  "or any other person having the lawful control or charge of a child or young person to administer punishment to him".
  Already there have been regulations, and I believe more are coming out to stop the corporal punishment of children in local authority care; so that also is probably quite out of date. Clearly this subsection is no longer correct anyway.
  544
  The real point that those of us who support this amendment wish to make is that giving a legal blessing to physical punishment is no longer acceptable. The increasing discovery of child battering and abuse shows the necessity of doing everything one can to make parents and others think twice before relying heavily on corporal punishment as a normal element of child training.
  The most disturbing evidence has been produced by Nottingham University child development research unit, which concludes that regular corporal punishment in the home, including the use of implements, is extraordinarly prevalent. It states that by the age of seven, 8 per cent. of children are being hit once a day; 33 per cent. not less than once a week; and 32 per cent. of seven year-olds receive punishment with an implement. One cannot be complacent about that. The amendment will not legally change anything. I hope that it may make people think, and will gradually change public opinion. I strongly support it.
  9.45 p.m.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, accepts as do I that parents have the right to administer immediate corrective punishment. I seek help from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor as to whether that right would be truly assured in common law if the amendment in its present form were to be carried into legislation.
  I also seek guidance as to the marginal gloss to this amendment: cruelty to persons under 16. I would never in any sense support cruelty; nor would I support punishment of the order of cruelty. I am only concerned that the amendment would not derogate from the right which I understand that the noble Lord and I—and I am grateful to the noble Lord—think it is right to preserve; namely, the right of parents to administer reasonable immediate corrective punishment if so advised.
  Lord Meston: I, too, should like to express sympathy with the amendment. I share the astonishment of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, particularly at the Nottingham University figures which reveal among other things an extraordinary amount of violence inflicted on babies of under one year of age. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I question what, if anything, an amendment in this particular form would achieve.
  Section 1 of the 1933 Act created an offence of cruelty to children. It specified various forms of cruelty which had to be found to have taken place in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering to the child. As I understand it, Section 1(7) of the 1933 Act was put in to avoid doubt. It preserved the right of parents and others with parental control to administer normal chastisement. It was not limited solely to physical chastisement; in other words, it would allow me to send my children to bed early or to stop them watching television without being charged with having been cruel to them, however much my children might protest in the circumstances.

  545
  If the amendment removes Section 1(7) but does not alter the common law rights of normal chastisement, it seems that the amendment adds nothing except possibly an element of doubt where none existed. In fact, it may take away a quite valuable provision in Section 1 of the 1933 Act which was inserted for the avoidance of doubt.
  The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, frankly admitted that in a sense this was a cosmetic amendment designed to send out a signal. To that effect it would be valuable, but one wonders whether the signal which would be transmitted would be blurred if the amendment or something like it were agreed to. Perhaps a great deal more thought is needed and something more precise should be formulated before we attempt further to legislate on the matter.
  Lord Henderson of Brompton: As my name is also down to this amendment, I should like to add that I am in some doubt as to its effect. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether the effect of this would extend to foster parents. I believe that the amendment would allow the common law right of parents to use reasonable force on their children to remain.
  The noble Lord, Lord Meston, has just said that this amendment concerned the removal of doubt. I wonder whether it would remove from foster parents the right to hit their children reasonably, if that can be done, which I doubt, but it would retain a right for parents. I must declare my own belief that it would only be right and proper for that right to be abolished completely, both in common law and in statute law, for parents and everyone else. I find it difficult to draw a line, I must say, between what I regard as the harmless and occasional cuff, the corrective cuff so to speak, by parents and the clearly brutal extremes to which other parents go. There is undoubted sadism; the Nottingham studies show that, and they have been referred to in sufficient detail by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm. The mere detail as to the implement which is used by parents on their children shows that there is an unpleasant fetishism about it which ought to he controlled or abolished. I think the balance goes in favour of abolition. Meanwhile this amendment goes halfway and I commend it to the consideration of the Committee.
  I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, who eloquently and shortly introduced the amendment, that violence breeds violence. I do not believe it is the right way to bring up children. If we look at nature, animals do not hit their young, they educate their young. One does not see them carrying out the equivalent of corporal punishment on their children; that is not the way of nature. They educate them. They have got it in their genes to be like their parents, their parents nurture them, as do the effects of nature, to become grown up animals. We have our genes, we have our nurture. We should be as wise as the animals. I think it is an insult to the animals that if a parent has behaved abominably, we say that he has behaved like an animal. He has not, he has behaved like a human being, and the unfortunate tendency of human beings towards sadism needs to be restrained.
  546
  The amendment would not do much more than act as a pointer in the right direction, especially in this Bill which deals with children in care and in foster homes. For reasons which are by no means clear but are certainly felt fervently, I support the amendment. I ask the noble Baroness not to press it necessarily to a Division tonight but, in the light of the reply of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor perhaps she could come back on Report. I think that enough has been said this evening to show that there is some doubt as to how far the amendment goes. Perhaps in the light of the explanation of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor we ought to consider the matter further and, after consideration, come hack at a later stage. Meanwhile, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for having introduced the amendment, which I think is of great importance to the Bill. It bears also on an earlier amendment which we discussed. I am sure that we eagerly await the reply of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
  Baroness David: As my name is also down to the amendment, I must say one or two words. I think the aim is to discourage the physical punishment of children and to reduce child abuse. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I believe that the amendment certainly does not stop the common law right of parents to administer reasonable and moderate punishment, however one defines "reasonable and moderate". The meaning has probably changed a good deal over the years and will go on changing.
  The aim of the amendment is to introduce a little more education to try to change the attitudes of people. Quite a lot of us should perhaps have wished to go rather further than the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, but thought it would be unwise and jumping too far ahead of the public. As I said when we talked about the other corporal punishment amendment, that is a matter for the legislators of this country. I am thinking particularly of Members of this Chamber who do not have to worry about what their constituents feel. We should try to be a jump ahead of public opinion and see the way things are going. As I have said, when there is so much violence in our society and so much evidence, which I shall not go into now, to show that corporal punishment does much more harm than good, I think this Chamber should try to take a lead. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to give some support to this very moderate amendment.
  The Lord Chancellor: We discussed this general question in relation to an earlier amendment. I set out fairly fully the position as regards regulations regulating the use of corporal punishment in an institutional setting. I explained what I believed to be the situation for foster parents and suggested that the matter should he agreed with them arid a local authority at the time the foster parent arrangements were made.
  On this amendment the situation is that Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 makes it an offence for any person who has attained the age of 16 and has the custody, care or charge of a child

  547
  wilfully to assault, ill-treat, neglect, abandon or expose the child,
  "in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury".
  This is a serious offence which regrettably is not uncommon. The maximum penalty was increased from two years to 10 years' imprisonment in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Therefore, it is highly desirable that this offence should be made clear and that people should understand exactly what is meant by it.
  Members of the Committee will see that the provision contains reference to assault, to ill-treatment, to neglect and to other offences. Other words are used but those are perhaps the key words. It would occur to anyone reading that against the background of common law to question the position if a parent assaults his child as a way of administering reasonable correction. That is the nature of corporal punishment; it is intended to cause some degree of feeling on the part of the child as a consequence of the action of the parent to show that what the child did was not approved of. Anyone would have to say that in law that may amount to an assault.
  Section 1(7) was included to make it clear that in this statutory offence the exercise of reasonable chastisement was not to be construed as creating an offence. That was the purpose of subsection (7). It provided that nothing in Section 1 was to be construed as affecting the right of any parent, teacher or other person in loco parentis to administer punishment on a child. If, otherwise, the right of a parent to administer punishment is removed, it does not affect that because subsection (7) is only modifying the effect of Section 1 of the 1933 Act. Therefore there is nothing wrong or out of date in Section 1(7) in its present form.
  But if Section 1(7) is abolished, as far as I can see, there is no question of the common law right remaining as regards cruelty to children. It might be that if one was prosecuted for assault at common law, if there is such an offence in England, that right
  548
  would apply. But it would not work in the case of an offence of cruelty.
  If one is facing a charge that carries a penalty of up to 10 years, it is highly desirable in the interests of precision to have the matter clear. I fear that the only effect of this particular signal would be to create serious ambiguity where none exists at the moment. I do not believe that to be a step forward. There may be other steps forward, but I cannot advise the Committee that what is proposed would be a step forward. It would be a step in altogether the wrong direction as regards the clarity of the law.
  I have already explained the Government's view about corporal punishment in relation to care and care establishments. However, the effect of the amendment as constructed would be to create complete obscurity. The provision was put into the Bill for the sake of clarity and its removal would have the opposite effect. I fully appreciate the strength of the noble Baroness's views on such matters and the strength of views that other speakers have expressed, but I hope that she will accept that that would not be a wise move.
  Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I thank the noble and learned Lord very much for his reply. My advice came from the Children's Legal Centre, where they have a number of lawyers, but lawyers do not always agree with each other, as we know.
  I was impressed by what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said and I have no intention of pressing the amendment at this moment. However, I should like to find some way of ensuring that people are prevented from applying corporal punishment in the public sphere. Abuse in the private sphere would probably be found out by the probation officer, the children's officer or the police, in which case the person concerned would be prosecuted. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 66 to 68 agreed to.
  10 p.m.
  Baroness David: I should like to make clear to the Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, cannot be present tonight and that therefore most of the amendments in his name will not be moved. That may give a certain amount of pleasure to some Members of the Committee. Amendment No. 215 will not be moved, but I shall have something to say about Amendment No. 216.
  Clause 69 [Courts having jurisdiction under this Act]:
  [Amendment No. 215 not moved.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before calling Amendment No. 216 I should remind the Committee that, if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 217 to 222.
  Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 216:
  Page 60, line 33, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  ("(2) Party to any family proceedings (save those brought under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to children) may initiate such proceedings in the High Court, a County Court or a Magistrates' Court").
  The noble Baroness said: I wish to move Amendment No. 216, standing in the name of my noble friend. The argument for the amendment has been anticipated in the arguments that my noble friend advanced in favour of Amendments Nos. 144, 163 and 165. The noble and learned Lord, in reply to Amendment No. 144, said that he looked forward to Amendment No. 216, when he would give a full account of the structure of the procedure that he envisaged. I move Amendment No. 216 just to give him the opportunity to speak to it as he promised to do at that earlier stage. I beg to move.
  The Lord Chancellor: The situation is that Clause 69 has been put into the Bill as a clause which requires refinement but which enables us to set out in principle what we have in mind. The Committee will remember that late in the summer, after Lord Justice Butler-Sloss's report came out, the Lord Chancellor's Department issued a consultation paper. We had to make the time for consultation quite short because I did not wish to do anything which would lose the place of the Bill in the parliamentary process. I believe that it is very important that the Bill should go forward.
  The details of the jurisdictional process are necessarily rather short, therefore. We shall try to refine them as fully as we can, but I cannot promise that because the structure into which those details are to be inserted is rather complicated. I cannot promise that we shall succeed in doing that in time for the later stages of the Bill in this House, although, as I said in answer to a question put to me earlier, we shall do our best.
  We have in mind that jurisdiction in the proceedings with which this Bill deals should generally be at three levels: first, the magistrates' court—I indicated that we are proposing that that
  550
  would be in the domestic panel and I hope that we shall be able to improve the arrangements in that respect; secondly, in the county court; and thirdly in the High Court; and that these courts should be available for proceedings. I also indicated that the purpose of the powers that we take would be to give criteria under which particular care cases would go to the appropriate level of court. We should also expect the courts to have power to transfer cases from one court to another at a certain level. I believe that it would be wise and desirable that some degree of expertise should be available in particular courts. Allowing transfer along the level would assist in that matter. At the top level one has in the High Court the special expertise of the Family Division, which would be the part of the High Court in which one would expect to operate.
  That is the general scheme that we have in mind. I believe that it will be wise to keep the procedures and powers for making arrangements fairly flexible to take account of the experience that we gain in this situation. The truth is that there is very little information available about the details of the caseload that exists at present in the child care jurisdiction. As some Members of the Committee will know better than others, at the moment there are some cases which appear in the wardship jurisdiction that might much more properly be dealt with as what they are; namely, care jurisdiction cases. They arrive in the wardship jurisdiction as a way of securing the jurisdiction and expertise of the High Court. I hope that we shall be able to achieve that end without the rather awkward system of trying to use wardship.
  Those are the general indications that we have in mind. As I said, the context into which this matter has to be placed is quite a complicated one. However, I hope that I have given a reasonably clear picture of what the Government wish to achieve in this situation.
  Lord Meston: Speaking for myself, I am a little disappointed that even at this stage the noble and learned Lord is not able to speak with a little more precision, appreciating that we are about to travel into fairly uncharted waters. Clause 69 contains the potential for much good. It means that care proceedings are no longer confined to the magistrates' court and the general object, as expressed by the Government, is to ensure that the right case starts—or at least finishes—in the right court.
  Frankly, the difficulty is that it is not possible to be confident about how Clause 69 will work, because it is simply an enabling provision. Although the noble and learned Lord has given some indication of what is to come, the outline of the rules is unknown. I certainly had hoped that he would lift the veil a little higher to enable us to see further ahead. There are a considerable number of questions that I wanted to ask if he did not answer them in the course of his remarks this evening. He has not answered them but frankly at this stage the time is too late to ask those questions.
  However, the noble and learned Lord indicated that the criteria will be forthcoming. At some

  551
  stage—I hope before the Bill leaves this House the first time round—we should like to know what they are to be, in particular to ensure that they will be based on questions of complexity and not simply questions of convenience. Therefore, with all due respect to the noble and learned Lord and those who assist him, I hope that special efforts will be made to give us some reassurance that these grey areas will he illuminated as soon as possible.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I read with interest what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in the discussion on Amendment No. 144 put forward by my noble friend Lord Irvine. However, I found myself in difficulty with reconciling two sentences. They are recorded at col. 223 in Hansard of 17th January. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor stated in the third paragraph:
  "The purposes of the starting rules will be to ensure that cases start in the court where they are most likely to he heard".
  However, in the next paragraph the Lord Chancellor states that, apart from cases where there are family proceedings already pending,
  "we intend to provide by order that, at first at least, applications for care or supervision orders shall be made to magistrates".
  It seems that in the second sentence we are saying that cases will enter into the system at the magistrates' court whereas in the first sentence the Lord Chancellor is saying that the case will start in the court that is most appropriate for it. Will the noble and learned Lord reconcile the two statements, or is there no apparent inconsistency?
  The Lord Chancellor: No doubt the difficulty is partly the result of the language that I used. I was not reading anything. I was trying to explain directly to Members of the Committee what I had in mind. The information that we have suggests to me that most care cases would appropriately be dealt with in the magistrates' court. The process has to start somewhere. Somebody has to decide where the case is to allocated. If the truth is that most cases ought to be tried in the magistrates' court then that is the appropriate place to start the case, because it means that one will minimise the amount of movement. It is very difficult to provide criteria that would not be operated by someone within the system. We have in mind that the cases would start there. If they satisfy criteria for being moved up, they will then immediately be moved up to the court to which they ought to go. They will then proceed from there.
  The reason that we choose the magistrates' court as the court from which to start is because the magistrates' court is the court where the majority of the hearings are likely to occur. That is the reason I put it in that way.
  I entirely agree with the noble Lord. As he read it to me, the matter required elaboration. However, that is what I have in mind. I hope that I have made the position clear now. It does not mean that in relation to a particular case I can make such detailed arrangements as that, because somebody has to operate these criteria. They will not be self evident. If we were able to identify the cases—for example, if it
  552
  were every third case—that would be easy. But it has to be done by reference to complexity. We shall try to give as much guidance detail as we can, but it will have to be applied by some authority. Most cases would appear to be suitable to be heard in the magistrates' court. Then, by reference to criteria, the cases which are suitable for a hearing in a higher court will be sent up. I hope that that is sufficient an explanation.
  Lord Prys-Davies: Is the position that every case will automatically enter the system at magistrates' court level? Then a decision will be taken by an authority—perhaps the clerk to the magistrates, or the magistrates' court itself—whether or not that case is to be transferred upwards?
  10.15 p.m.
  The Lord Chancellor: That is so. It is by reference to criteria that we shall lay down as fully and in as much detail as seems practicable. We may have to modify these criteria in the light of experience. This is a new departure but it is one which I believe is welcome. Not all care cases are to be heard before the magistrates although some are at present. That is one of the difficulties about the present system. This is an advance on the present system which we hope we shall be able to improve as time goes on. We are making a start, the very best we can, but it may still require to be improved. The noble Lord has described accurately what I have in mind.
  Baroness David: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his further explanation which I am quite sure that my noble friend will be pleased to read. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that it is a pity that we do not have the government amendments to this clause. Indeed I read in the Notes on Clauses to Clauses 70 and 71 that there are to be further amendments. We may not even have those at Report stage or Third Reading here. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord can tell us whether we shall have those amendments by the next stage. We very much hope that we shall do so.
  The Lord Chancellor: All I can say is that I shall do my best, but as a practical matter the alternative is to lose the Bill altogether, until we gather everything together that came from that consultation. Much of that work has followed. We had to find out what Lord Justice Butler-Sloss had to say before we could issue that consultation paper. This is our opportunity. We could have left out the jurisdictional questions altogether, which is what I originally said when I was asked about this a long while ago. I suggested that we should try to get the substantive law right and then make the jurisdictional improvements. I now see an opportunity to do both. I hope that the Committee will have sympathy with that aim. We cannot create it immediately because it is a difficult structure, but the noble Baroness may take it that I shall do my best to get as much forward to the Committee as I can, but I cannot promise, because of the detailed work involved, to get it right. We must consult many people about it, but I hope that we shall be able to have it all ready in time for the final stages in this Chamber.
  Baroness David: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his further reply.
  Lord Prys-Davies: Will the Lord Chancellor confirm what he had in mind when he said in col. 223 that it is the intention to provide by order that at least at first applications for care should be made to the magistrates? Does that mean that when the new procedure comes into existence, that is the way in which it will be seen at first, but that in the light of experience it may be subject to modification?
  The Lord Chancellor: That is precisely right. I believe from information that I have that most cases will be appropriately dealt with in the magistrates' court at that level—the domestic panel level. But we do not have an analysis, in as much detail as I should like, which would enable us to say that with absolute confidence. Once the system is in operation it will be seen perhaps that 60 per cent. of the cases will be taken in the county court. If that is right that is the place where they should start and then make allocations out. We need to minimise the number of transfers and to do that we need to start them at the place where most of them are heard. That is the principle we are working on.
  Baroness David Baroness David: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 217 not moved.]
  Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 218:
  Page 60, line 33, after ("by") insert ("regulation make").
  The noble Lord said: By leave, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 219 and 225. The connection between Clauses 69 and 71 is frankly acknowledged at Page x of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum under the heading "Financial Effects of the Bill" and it is avowedly financial, pure and simple:
  "Increased court and legal aid costs will … be partly offset by … limiting access to wardship (clause 71)".
  That is what it is all about. Rules of court under Clause 69 will allocate cases with financial considerations in mind. Let us remember that that is the name of this game.
  There is considerable concern within the profession that the rules under Clause 69 will unduly restrict access to the High Court. There is also concern that the rules under Clause 69 will allocate cases to the magistrates' court. I heard the exchange between my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. The concern is that such cases ought more properly be heard in the county court or the High Court.
  Defining the criteria by which a case should be moved up is a far more difficult task than leaving it to the discretion of an experienced registrar. In the magistrates' court, where the process will start—perhaps subject to criteria which are difficult to define—there are no affidavits, no statements of witnesses and no means of knowing what are the issues and the evidence that will be called.
  554
  To meet those matters of concern to which I have referred, there are three proposals. First, there is the proposal in Amendments Nos. 218 and 219 to ensure that the rules of court shall be made by resolution so that in accordance with Clause 76(2) they shall be subject to a negative resolution of Parliament. Separate from that is the desire or intention to which I referred on Second Reading. It is to remove the provision under Clause 69(4) that the rules may be made only with the agreement of the Secretary of State. At that stage my noble and learned friend expressed sympathy for a concession.
  Thirdly, there is the proposal under Amendment No. 225 to substitute in place of Clause 69(4) a provision which would enable an application for transfer to be made which would be subject to the limited appeal applicable to any mere exercise of judicial discretion.
  As regards the removal or excision of Clause 69(4) as it stands, my noble and learned friend has already expressed sympathy with a view to clarification. On Amendment No. 225. I canvass his understanding and sympathy in view of the fact that, as a rule, the applications are intended to start in the magistrates' court (which is a matter of concern) and that it is experimental. It would therefore considerably allay the concern if proper machinery were devised to enable applications for transfer to be made to the specified court.
  The subject of the rules is a technical issue and I do not wish to detain Members of the Committee further at this hour. In general, the problem is that, as regards financial grants, the profession is concerned that resort will be had to the magistrates' court where more properly in the interests of the due administration of justice resort should be had to the county court or the High Court. I ask my noble and learned friend to meet that problem. I beg to move.
  Lord Mottistone: As a non-lawyer, and a total ignoramus in this sphere, I find in this clause and in many others reference to the rules of court which will establish facts which one would normally expect to find established by regulation. Is there any machinery by which Parliament has a hand in the rules of court being agreed to or not agreed to, or does it just happen? I believe that my noble friend is trying to turn this matter into a regulation. This is not the only part in this Bill in which my noble and learned friend. whom I trust implicitly—but I would not necessarily trust his successors nearly so well—will produce rules which would not necessarily be agreed to by Parliament at any stage. It seems to me that we are rather throwing matters away if we agree to this. I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend could clarify that issue for me.
  Lord Meston: I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in this respect, and join in hoping that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can do something to allay his fears, even at this hour. If the magistrates' court is to be the point of entry—and that in itself is a matter of concern—will there be provision for the advance disclosure of documentation to enable those who have to make the decision about the appropriate forum for the case to make it properly and to

  555
  crystallise and identify the issues? That does not happen at present in those cases. Will there be a mechanism for an appeal from the person in the magistrates' court who has to make the decision as to the appropriate forum for the ultimate disposal of the case? Those are matters of considerable concern.
  The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I can deal with all of those matters generally without referring to particular amendments. First, as regards Clause 69(4) I have explained the reason for that being in the Bill and I am happy to agree that it should be taken out by an appropriate amendment. I believe that an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, achieves that, and I should be content with that. That disposes of that matter.
  As regards the point about rules of court and regulations, I believe that that is a question of how matters are carried out. Statutory instruments are under the control of Parliament. I consider that at least in part, the provision in Clause 69 should be dealt with by regulations and, therefore, I go along with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway to some extent. Purely procedural matters are best dealt with by rules of court and, for example, the concerns which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has about procedures in the magistrates' court would be encompassed by rule. For example, the Bill already provides that a statement of what are the proposals for the child and so on must accompany the application. We intend to build on that.
  The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, spoke of experiment. I believe that we need to try to build on to the existing structures something which will work and which will give a good system for dealing with this sort of case. I explained to Members of the Committee earlier that I believe that we have the capacity within the framework of this Bill to develop those procedures and, if they work well, to extend them in due course.
  The other matter that I believe has been mentioned concerns notification and appeal. The point that I must make is that the transfer arrangements would certainly provide scope for those interested in the case to make their views known, and we intend to provide an appeal provision against the decision on the level of court at which the case is to be heard. Therefore, all these matters about which concern has been expressed will be addressed.
  To summarise, as regards regulation at least some of what is dealt with by rules of court under Clause 69 as it stands might more appropriately be dealt with by regulation and I propose to address that point. As regards Clause 69(4), I am happy that it should disappear from the scene. As regards developing procedures to enable the views of the parties to be obtained and appeal rights to be provided, that work is in hand. I think I have answered the main matters that have been raised.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend, first, for taking the point on Clause 69(4) that I raised at Second Reading and the excision of that clause by an amendment
  556
  which was tabled subsequently by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. Secondly, as regards the regulations, I am wholly content that my noble and learned friend, having taken the substance of the point, should deal with it as he thinks fit on the basis of such advice as he receives.
  On the question of transfer, again I am more than content that, having taken the substance of the point, my noble and learned friend, on advice, should deal with that. After all, it is experimental and provisions must be fairly elastic.
  I can only again thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for taking all three points. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 219 to 223 not moved.]
  Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 224:
  Page 60, line 44, leave out subsection (4).
  The noble Baroness said: I understand that the noble and learned Lord is willing to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
  The Lord Chancellor: I explained why subsection (4) was included in Clause 69. I have been able to consider the matter with others who are interested and am happy to omit the subsection. Therefore, I accept the amendment.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I cannot call Amendments Nos. 225 and 226.
  [Amendments Nos. 225 and 226 not moved.]
  Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 70 [Procedure]:
  [Amendment No. 227 not moved.]
  Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 227A:
  Page 61, line 1. leave out subsection (1) and insert—
  ("(1) Anyone whose legal position could be affected by the proceedings and anyone who is permitted to seek and is seeking legal responsibility for the child in the proceedings shall be able to be a party to the proceedings.
  (1A) In relation to a child under 16 years of age the court shall be able to seek the advice of a welfare officer or guardian ad litem as to whether it would be in the child's interests to be made a party to the proceedings.
  (1B) Rules of Court may make provision as to the persons to be given the opportunity to make representations to the court hearing the proceedings.").
  The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 70(1) relating to procedure provides that:
  "Rules of court may make provision as to the persons entitled to participate in proceedings under this Act, whether as parties to the proceedings or by being given the opportunity to make representations to the court hearing the proceedings."
  The intention of Amendment No. 227A is to ensure that party status is specified in the Bill rather than be left to be dealt with by rules of court as Clause 70 currently provides. In our submission party status is too important a matter to be dealt with in secondary legislation so the amendment goes rather wider and to a more significant level than the earlier discussion.
  The amendment follows the recommendation of the Government's White Paper on the law on child care and family services, which I need not quote. It is the case that it is equally applicable to the whole of family proceedings as to care proceedings. That is the purpose of subsection (1) in my amendment. Subsection (1A) seeks to give the court some assistance when deciding if a child should be made a party to proceedings. A welfare officer or a guardian ad litem would be able to assist a child's capacity to understand the proceedings and the extent to which the child's interests, wishes and feelings require separate representation.
  In those circumstances we provide in the amendment that as regards a child under the age of 16,
  "the court shall be able to seek the advice of a welfare officer or guardian ad litem as to whether it would be in the child's interests to be made a party to the proceedings."
  Subsection (1B) of the amendment states:
  "Rules of Court may make provision as to the persons to be given the opportunity to make representations to the court hearing the proceedings.")"
  The most important part of the amendment is clearly subsection (1).
  Lord Meston: I support the underlying intention of this amendment and speak to it in connection with our Amendments Nos. 228 and 229 which, I believe, have effectively the same purpose. We feel some concern at the fact that yet again Clause 70 is a rule-making provision and one in which it is difficult to have confidence when what is to come is unknown.
  We seek to ensure not only that the child should be properly represented in all proceedings, but also that the status of other parties and in particular that so hard-won through the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act 1986 should not be lost by the manner in which the rules are to be brought forward. I hope that the noble and learned Lord can give us the reassurance that we require.
  The Lord Chancellor: I believe that the detail of this matter should be left to the rules of court. The first branch of the amendment is in a sense expressing a general principle which one would give effect to in the rules. The phrase,
  "whose legal position could be affected by the proceedings"
  is not, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord recognises, a very precise phrase. Even if it were there would need to be some power in rules of court to specify how it was to work. As regards the proposed subsection (1A) I believe that power to be already covered by Clause 6 of the Bill which gives a general power to use welfare reports and to ask for them. As regards subsection (1B), Clause 70 as it stands appears to provide for the matter.
  Again, in the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Meston—Amendments Nos. 228 and 229—the general provisions are of importance. There is considerable scope for substance in subparagraph (e). In the ultimate result I am not sure that much is added. I hope I have already made it plain that in care proceedings we would provide that the child would be a party in every case. Persons having parental responsibility for the child would
  558
  normally be parties in the proceedings. In care proceedings we have required that, generally speaking, the application would be one by the local authority, though my noble friend's correspondent would hate to say "his client". But at least those whose interests he has advocated in this Chamber are authorised in that connection.
  Subparagraph (e) says:
  "the applicant in the proceedings, where he is not the child nor a person having parental responsibility for the child nor the local authority".
  It would seem queer to have proceedings that did not have the applicant as a party. I should have thought that it was hardly necessary to say that. These are matters for consideration in detail. We would certainly expect to give effect to the general spirit of the amendments in the rules to provide for party status. In the light of those considerations, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel able not to press the amendment.
  Lord Elwyn-Jones: The language used in the amendment—
  "Anyone whose legal position could be affected by the proceedings"—
  is taken from the Government's White Paper Law and Child Care and Family Services. Paragraph 55 provides:
  "The Government recognise the advantages of involving in the proceedings anyone who has a proper interest in the child's future and his welfare. Some movement will be made in that direction by the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act 1986 under which a parent or grandparent can in certain circumstances he made a party to the proceedings in addition to the child and the applicant. That change in the law removed the more obvious shortcomings of the present arrangements. For the future, the position will be further improved. Anyone whose legal position could be affected by the proceedings will be entitled to party status".
  It was to that statement in the White Paper that my amendment was partly directed. This matter clearly needs to be looked at again. It is one of some importance because the right to party status is crucial in these proceedings. However, in the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 228 to 230 not moved.]
  Clause 70 agreed to.
  10.45 p.m.
  Clause 71 [Transfers between England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man]:
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox): I should point out that if Amendment No. 231 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 235.
  Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 231:
  Page 61, line 9, leave out subsection (1).
  The noble Lord said: The name of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, appears at the head of the amendment. I was somewhat relieved to think that he might move it and the other amendments which concern Clause 71. That relief gave way to dismay when I realised that he would not be here this

  559
  evening. My dismay increased when I realised that this series of amendments relating to Clause 71 which has caused considerable concern to family law practitioners would be debated so late at night.
  The clause has caused great concern to all who have tried to think through its implications. Clause 71 proceeds on the hypothesis that local authorities need not resort to wardship jurisdiction as the new statutory code for care proceedings to be introduced is precise and comprehensive. No doubt the draftsman has tried to be both, but it is wishful thinking—I was going to use a less polite phrase—to believe that the statutory code will ensure either situation, even if Clause 26 were faultless, and I suggest that Clause 26 (the statutory code for care proceedings to be introduced) is not faultless. The Bill repeals grounds for care proceedings which were introduced in the 1969 Act, and they in their time were no doubt considered to be impeccably drafted by those responsible. The ensuing 20 years have shown how wrong one can be.
  The point to be mentioned in relation to Clause 71 is perhaps the wider point of concern. The value of the wardship jurisdiction is something that is hard to describe, but it is readily appreciated by all those who practise in that jurisdiction. It allows a thorough and sensitive hearing, usually by a High Court judge, with advocates of specialised expertise who all treat their task as one of great seriousness and importance for the child or children concerned. It is a jurisdiction which is valued by local authorities not only for the expertise of the forum but for the authoritative decision which is produced and the guidance which the courts can provide in individual cases.
  The best indication of the value of the wardship jurisdiction is shown in the Cleveland report, which of course advocated the retention of the wardship jurisdiction. There is no evidence that local authorities under the present regime unnecessarily invoke the wardship jurisdiction. It is flexible. It is therefore a jurisdiction which should not be discarded unless we are absolutely sure that it serves no useful purpose. It has developed over the years to cover events which were not envisaged. For example, it has developed in recent years to deal with cases in which there is grave concern for the child, in circumstances which do not fit easily into the existing statutory code; for example, cases in which sexual abuse cannot be proved to a suitable standard and yet a court has sufficient concern for the child to feel that there is an unacceptable risk that sexual abuse will occur in the future.
  It is a misapprehension to think of the wardship jurisdiction as something of a fifth wheel to the wagon. If the Government are right in the hypothesis on which the clause is based, then the wardship jurisdiction will diminish naturally and there is no need for the severely restrictive provisions of the clause.
  The courts would not allow the wardship jurisdiction to be exercised improperly, but we should be careful before we allow the children to come before the courts to be deprived of the traditional protective role of the High Court in its wardship
  560
  jurisdiction, a role which enables the court not only to make a decision as to what has happened, factually in the past, but to give directions for the future, long term and short term, and to provide a measure of oversight for the child or children concerned.
  There are a number of points of detail in relation to Clause 71 which I had intended to invite the noble and learned Lord to deal with, but I do not think it is appropriate at this hour to go into further detail. I hope he will have read, or will have the opportunity to read, some of the serious representations which I know have been made to him on this point and also, for example, to read the article in last week's New Law Journal, which raised a number of detailed points which involve questions of how appropriate it is to restrict this extremely valuable traditional jurisdiction of the High Court in these cases. As I say, it is not appropriate to develop the argument further on this point. Nevertheless, I beg to move.
  Lord Mottistone: I agree with a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has said. There has been—if I may talk a little generally—a good deal of criticism about the increasing number of wardship proceedings used by local authorities. In some cases, it is probably true to state that the cases could have been resolved elsewhere and that the use of wardship has been inappropriate. However, wardship proceedings provide a valuable safety net for children and the expertise and experience of High Court judges has proven to be very useful in resolving difficult cases.
  As Clause 71 is currently drafted, it is difficult to imagine in what circumstances wardship proceedings could be used. Even if a local authority or other interested parties were granted leave to apply, the jurisdiction is to be so restricted that it appears the court would be unable to determine a remedy. It is questionable whether the statutory codes are flexible enough to compensate for the restriction of the jurisdictions proposed in the Bill, and in this clause in particular.
  I should like to say a little about Amendment No. 236 which is linked with this first group of amendments in my name. The amendment seeks to remove subsection (2) from the clause. That subsection severely restricts the exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction with respect to children. If this subsection were to remain, the High Court would find it difficult to resolve issues brought before the court, particularly issues arising in connection with the aspects of parental responsibility for the child.
  There seems to be little point in retaining the inherent jurisdiction if the court is unable to direct that a child be placed in local authority care or be accommodated by the local authority. Perhaps this subsection would still allow for such matters as deciding upon, for example, sterilisation. However, the application should remain much wider.
  Social workers dealing with the day-to-day problems of abused children are most concerned that the High Court's jurisdiction is not so curtailed as it would be in this subsection (2). Experience has shown that the powers available to the High Court are most

  561
  useful in the sensitive resolution of complicated cases which is, in part, what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said. Indeed, I hope that my noble and learned friend will find a way of either reducing the effect of Clause 71 or possibly even of getting rid of it altogether.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: This is not really the time to go into too much technical detail, but subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 71—I merely say this for the sake of the record—raise totally disparate problems which perhaps my noble friend Lord Mottistone could reconsider between now and Report.
  Clause 71, as such, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has already observed, interacts on other clauses of the Bill. In particular, it has an effect on Clause 22 as regards the establishment of a satisfactory complaints procedure to which I spoke on Amendment No. 113. At the outset—and I support the amendment—it is accepted that the practice of resort to wardship, to which my noble friend Lord Mottistone correctly referred, in lieu of the complaints procedure as an indirect method of challenging certain decisions of the local authority, is unacceptable.
  It is also accepted that forum shopping as between the magistrates' court and the High Court is unacceptable and an abuse of the process of the court, but it achieves the result by overkill. There is no case whatever for the removal of wardship as proposed by Clause 71(1) save on financial grounds, again referred to at page 10 of the financial memorandum, where it is expressly and avowedly financial. The Committee can see it stated with a reference to Clause 71.
  What are the effects? First, the High Court would no longer have power to place a ward of court in care or under supervision of a local authority in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Secondly, a local authority could not apply for a residence order or a contact order—that is, the care and control and access orders. A local authority would be permitted to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the court only for a care order as provided by Clause 26, and then only if the local authority can satisfy the court that the child will suffer significant harm. A significant risk of abuse or harm would not appear to suffice.
  In the result—let us be practical—to give but one example, if a parent of a child who has been in voluntary care for some time threatens to remove the child, the local authority will no longer be able to issue a wardship summons to contain the sitution. As has been said by other noble Lords, there are always novel, distressing, urgent and exceptional cases in which the flexible and adaptable process of wardship may be the only means to provide an appropriate and immediate provisional resolution in the interests of the welfare of the child.
  The recommendations of the Butler-Sloss report, to which I referred at column 507 on Second Reading, are that wardship should be retained, if not extended. The only apparent justification for rejecting the Butler-Sloss recommendation would appear to be financial and administrative in context with the rules of court to be issued under Clause 69
  562
  or regulations, as the case may be. If the interests of children are truly at stake, that is no justification at all to support this amendment.
  The Lord Chancellor: There appears to be a certain amount of misunderstanding about Clause 71. Clause 71 does not proceed on the basis that the code in the Bill is complete. Rather, Clause 71 provides that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be used as an alternative to a care or supervision order. That is what it says. It does not say that it cannot be used at all, but it cannot be used as an alternative procedure for a care or supervision order. The situation is that if one wants a care or supervision order one has to satisfy the statutory criteria. In my submission, that is perfectly right.
  Clause 26 of the Bill provides protection for the integrity and independence of families from unwarranted intervention by the state in the guise of local authorities by specifying detailed conditions which must be fulfilled before a care or supervision order may be made. Similarly, in Part V of the Bill the conditions and procedures for the making of emergency protection orders have been carefully designed to enable children to be effectively protected but to prevent the lives of children and their families being interfered with and disrupted unnecessarily.
  There is nothing in that that restricts the wardship jurisdiction of the High Court, except to provide that it cannot be used as an alternative to these procedures. We looked at the basic arrangements for this in detail when we went through the clauses. It is quite wrong to suggest that we are destroying the wardship jurisdiction of the High Court altogether. We are saying that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, with the leave of the court, in situations which are not covered by care and supervision will be available, subject to what subsection (5) says.
  11 p.m.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: Will my noble and learned friend permit me to intervene? I am most grateful. I wonder whether he will take on board that the construction which I advocated is held quite widely in the profession. Of course I accept the view of my noble and learned friend when he says that the intention is as he has stated. Would it be possible to clarify the drafting so as to ensure that there is no room for misapprehension and that it is only to ensure that it is not an alternative to care?
  The Lord Chancellor: Obviously there may be something which could be improved upon, but Clause 71(1) says:
  "Section 7 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969 (which gives the High Court power to place a ward of court in the care, or under the supervision, of a local authority) shall cease to have effect".
  In other words, it is provided there that putting a child in care shall not be a power available in wardship proceedings. It is a power which will have to be exercised in accordance with the statutory requirements for care or supervision, as set out in the Bill.
  The effect of subsection (2) is in line with the same point. It may he that some people have

  563
  misunderstood, but if they look at it again in that light they may see that that is what the Bill requires. It cannot be right that local authorities should be able to circumvent these carefully thought out and carefully enacted provisions by simply making a child a ward of court. Once a child is warded, the High Court would have a wide discretion to make whatever order it thought fit, including an order placing the child in the care of or under the supervision of the local authority, subject only to the very general provisions in Clause 1(1) of the Bill that,
  "the child's welfare shall be the court's paramount consideration".
  in determining any question with respect to the child's upbringing. We clearly want to make sure that that point is covered.
  To take the example given by my noble friend—or perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Meston—if a parent threatened to remove a child who had been in long-term foster care, that would certainly give grounds for a care order if it were likely to result in significant harm and the removal would not be a reasonable exercise of parental care.
  Members of the Committee will see that subsection (5) of Clause 71 says that the subsection applies to any order,
  "made otherwise than in the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction; and … which the local authority is entitled to apply for (assuming, in the case of any application which may only be made with leave, that leave is granted)".
  The purpose of that is to ensure that where the statute has provided a way of doing it, that way must be used. That is all. I venture to think that perhaps some of the difficulty which is anticipated in the profession is not justified by the language of the clause. In the light of those considerations, I hope that the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Meston: I am very grateful for the support I have received both from the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, for supplementing what I inadequately sought to express, and in particular for giving examples which I had not given of some of the situations which are giving cause for concern. It was never suggested by me that this clause seeks to destroy the wardship jurisdiction.
  It is suggested by me, however, that it is a clause which undervalues the wardship jurisdiction. It is unnecessarily restrictive. To use the expression of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, it is "overkill". Particularly restrictive is the combination of this clause and Clauses 81 and 84.
  This is a Bill the provisions of which, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated earlier today, should last for a long time. It is therefore particularly important that we get it absolutely right in so far as we are able. This is a matter to which I wish to return at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 232 to 234 not moved.]
  Lord Campbellof Alloway had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 235:
  Page 61, line 11, at end insert ("but without derogation from the right of any interested person to apply to the President of the Family Division for leave to issue wardship proceedings").
  The noble Lord said: In effect I have spoken to the principle behind this, to save time, on Amendment No. 231. I only ask respectfully that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor should take this on board as a possible alternative way of avoiding the overkill. It is not as draconian as removing Clause 1. I spoke to the whole merits on Amendment No. 231 and, therefore, in the hope that my noble and learned friend may consider the position, I shall not move the Amendment.
  [Amendment No. 235 not moved.]
  [Amendments Nos. 236 to 240 not moved.]
  Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 240A:
  Page 61, line 21, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
  ("(3) Upon the application of any interested party, the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction with respect to children.").
  The noble Lord said: I shall speak briefly to this amendment, which is in the next group of amendments starting with Amendment No. 240. This amendment seeks to ensure that any interested parties are able to apply for wardship proceedings. This should be explicit within the legislation.
  In 1986 local authorities issued 1,845 of the 3,399 originating summonses. This leaves over 1,500 applications by other parties. Children, grandparents, parents and others felt the need to use wardship and obviously will continue to do so. It would be sensible to recognise this within the Act, although this really refers to common law rights.
  I make that point only against what my noble and learned friend said earlier, to ask that in looking at this again, which I trust he will, he makes sure that other people apart from local authorities are in his mind. I also ask that he should consider a different title for the clause, which has unduly alarmed people when really he is trying to adjust the use of wardship jurisdiction in view of the nature of the Bill. I suggest to my noble and learned friend that that may help. I do not propose to proceed with my other amendments to this part at this stage because, to a certain extent, part of the reason for asking my noble and learned friend to look again at the precise wording of the Bill is to ensure that people understand clearly what it is about. I beg to move.
  The Lord Chancellor: I am not absolutely clear what is intended by the amendment. If the idea is that anyone could apply and be heard without the leave of the court that would appear to be a rather wide provision. I find it difficult to see precisely what the effect would be. I am grateful for the remark about the side note. That is not part of the Bill but is perhaps a point that needs thought.
  I think that it ought to be clear that there is nothing in the Bill to restrict the use of wardship by private individuals. Apart from limiting the use of wardship by local authorities we have postponed reviewing wardship itself until we see how the Act works. To

  565
  some extent that deals with the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. The purpose of the provision is to make sure that wardship is not used as an alternative to the statutory jurisdiction. I hope that in the light of those remarks the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble and learned friend for that reply. We shall think about all the amendments in the group before the next stage of the Bill, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 241 to 245 not moved.]
  11.15 p.m.
  Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 245A:
  Page 61, line 36, at end insert
  ("(6) The court may grant leave—

  (a) for a ward of court to be appointed a full party to the proceedings and

  (b) for a ward of court to represent his own interests and choose his own solicitor, without a guardian ad litem being appointed on his behalf.

  (7) The court may only grant leave under subsection (6) of this section if satisfied that the child has sufficient understanding to instruct a solicitor and wishes to do so.").
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment would allow wards who are competent to be parties in their own right with legal representation of their own choosing. It seeks to end the present unfair position in wardship whereby wards are never parties in their own right but, when they are joined as defendants, are represented through a guardian ad litem—usually the Official Solicitor—who does not act on their instructions.
  The Children's Legal Centre has received a number of complaints about that system from wards and those concerned about their welfare. The centre has also been aware of a high level of dissatisfaction among the legal profession with the role of the Official Solicitor. However, lawyers undertaking High Court case work oppose the Official Solicitor at their peril. Any questioning of his department's work is always rejected and the critic rebuked. It is therefore not in clients' interests to attack, or even cross-examine, the Official Solicitor.
  The court has the ability to make a ward a party to proceedings. However, because of rising numbers of wardship cases—over 500 children are now made wards in a year—a practice direction in 1982 provided that that should be done only in exceptional circumstances; the norm should be that the child's interests be considered simply through a court welfare officer's report. If the child is made a party—for example, where he or she is the sole defendant or where there is some very complicated aspect to the case—the High Court ruled (Re JD, 1984) that the Official Solicitor should normally be appointed as guardian ad litem. If someone else wished to act as guardian ad litem the matter should be considered by a judge, not a registrar.
  The duties of the Official Solicitor are summed up in a letter sent by him to a client of the Children's Legal Centre:
  566
  "My duties as your guardian ad litem are to represent you in wardship proceedings and to endeavour to safeguard your best interests, taking account of your expressed wishes. This does not, however, impose on me the same obligation as a normal solicitor taking instructions from a client, as I am sure you will be able to imagine circumstances in which a child on whose behalf I am acting expresses views which it will be impossible for me to act upon".
  Although the Official Solicitor acts in terms of the child's best interests, not the child's instructions, he is not professionally qualified to assess those interests. The Official Solicitor is himself a solicitor but he employs a staff of—in his own words—"career civil servants". In an interview given in 1982 he goes on to say:
  "While I try to choose 'horses for courses' in assigning them to their duties, I cannot claim they are, nor would I wish them to be, hand picked for dealing with children's cases. I emphasise this as I feel that the courts already have available a vast fund of professional expertise in wardship and my staff can sometimes bring the unfettered approach of the man or woman in the street to the problems of these cases".
  The recommendation of the Official Solicitor has a powerful influence with the wardship judge. However, the standard of his reports is often weak and compares badly with the work of guardians ad litem in care proceedings, who are professionally qualified social workers. Lawyers, including those on the Law Society Child Care Panel, are often frustrated by lack of judgment or failure to consider important factors in the Official Solicitor's report. However, it is a rule of practice in the wardship court that the writer of the Official Solicitor's report is never subjected to cross-examination.
  In other words, the Official Solicitor tries to do two jobs simultaneously—the job of a solicitor and the job of a court welfare reporter—and does neither of them well. He has two conflicting roles: the role of the inquisitor investigating the "best interests" issues of the case, and that of the advocate. The impossible contradictions between those two roles may have disastrous consequences for the child.
  The children's centre knows of examples of cases where the Official Solicitor felt unable to act on the instructions of the ward. For example, there was a case where a young person was locked up in secure accommodation and wished her placement to be opposed. Unfortunately, because she was a ward she did not have an advocate as the Oflicial Solicitor supported the professional view that she should be locked up. Had she had any other legal status in care she would have been able to instruct a solicitor to represent her wishes.
  In another case a 13 year-old ward wished to live with her mother who had muscular sclerosis but she was placed with her father. She appealed to the Official Solicitor. He sought advice from a psychiatrist who, although observing that the "current situation was fraught", recommended that it was important for the girl's,
  "adolescent development that the adults stand firm in terms of the arrangements that have been made and help the children with the inevitable painful feelings that follow".
  The Official Solicitor followed that advice—not the girl's instructions—and did not recommend a change in placement to the court. Only after the girl ran away and sought assistance from private solicitors was she able to live with her mother.

  567
  Where momentous decisions are being made about an older child's life, such as deprivation of liberty or separation from a preferred parent, it is obviously unfair that they do not have a right to legal representation of their own choosing. It is also in breach of Articles 6 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 6 provides that in determination of civil rights:
  "everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law".
  Cases on this point have ruled that this should include access to a solicitor of choice. Article 14 provides that:
  "the enjoyment of rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race … etc… birth or other status".
  Should children's legal status as wards deprive them of rights to a fair hearing?
  It may be that the wording of this amendment is technically faulty in that in the eyes of the law a ward of court who is represented through the medium of a guardian ad litem may be a full party; but by "full party" we mean a party in his own right, that is, without a guardian. I beg to move.
  Lord Meston: I had not intended to speak but feel in relation to this amendment that I must do so. I do not know the nature of the complaints that have been received about the Official Solicitor's operation in these cases but from my own experience I do not agree with the criticisms of the Official Solicitor, his staff or the reports that are produced. The Official Solicitor and his staff seem to me to serve children extremely well and their reports serve the courts extremely well. The fact that the Official Solicitor does not act simply as a mouthpiece for the child enhances rather than diminishes the role of the Official Solicitor as a guardian ad litem. It does not prevent the Official Solicitor acting as a medium by which the voice of the child is heard by the court in these cases. If that is a matter which is to be removed by this amendment, it is an amendment which I could not possibly support in this form.
  The Lord Chancellor: I explained in answer to an earlier amendment that we are not seeking to review the wardship situation in this Bill because the Law Commission recommended that the Bill should be put in place, the wardship jurisdiction should be retained, and then considered in the light of the position when the Bill is in place.
  On the detailed matters, the remarks of the noble Baroness are along the line that we discussed when we spoke about secure accommodation. I understood what she said then. The Official Solicitor is an official under the direction of the Lord Chancellor. Therefore I would find it very difficult to accept criticism of him which was not vouched for in a very detailed way. He is obliged to act under the directions of the Lord Chancellor. I therefore have responsibility for his activities. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, who practises to a considerable extent in this area, speaks on this matter with personal experience. However, I do not think it would be appropriate to go into the detail of the general wardship jurisdiction
  568
  and the procedures under which it operates in this Bill.
  The role of the Official Solicitor in care proceedings—which will be in the High Court now for the first time—is under consideration. Members of the Committee will remember that there was a question—I think by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway—about whether at each stage a different guardian ad litem should be used and so on. That is under consideration. In family proceedings generally it would be right to look at that.
  This Bill does not attempt to do anything about the wardship situation generally. I doubt very much whether it would be wise to attempt partial incursions into that rather recondite subject.
  Baroness David: Clause 71 deals with wardship. It therefore did not seem totally wrong to bring this matter forward. On the point put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I understand that the Official Solicitor is not always the voice of the child, as he suggested he was. However, I shall once again read what the noble and learned Lord has said. In the meantime, I withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 71 agreed to.
  Clauses 72 and 73 agreed to.
  Clause 74 [Reporting officers and guardians ad litem for purposes of Adoption Act 1976]:
  Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 246:
  Page 63, line 25, leave out paragraph (b).
  The noble Lord said: Although Amendments Nos. 247 to 251 are different amendments concerned with different aspects of Clause 74, perhaps I may speak to them together on moving Amendment No. 246, to abbreviate matters at this hour of the evening. These amendments ensure that the regulations are seen to provide for the financial independence of guardians ad litem to prevent the possibility of any conflict in the position of the guardian ad litem who—although meant to be representative of the child whose future is being considered by the local authority—is also a person who is directly or indirectly an employee of the local authority.
  It has struck a good number of organisations that that is an undesirable position. It is therefore the purpose of this body of amendments to endeavour to remove the dependence of guardians ad litem on the local authority in financial matters. I am conscious of the fact in the way these amendments are framed that the power to make regulations is simply permissive. The objective of the amendments may be achieved by some more convenient method, other than by trying to alter or modify the regulation-making power. I hope that the point of this group of amendments is sufficiently clear to enable the noble and learned Lord to respond to them. I beg to move.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I should like briefly to support these amendments. The criticisms we hear of the guardian ad litem panel and arrangements point to the need to strengthen the independent status of the

  569
  guardians ad litem. It seems to us that the Bill does not really face up to the issue. The question is: how can the independence of the guardians ad litem be enhanced? How can they become independent of local authorities? The amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Banks, seek to achieve this by severing the connections with the local authorities specifically provided for in four of the paragraphs and by introducing the need for co-ordination and the establishment of national professional standards which are mentioned in the last paragraph. For those reasons we wish to support the amendment.
  The Lord Chancellor: These amendments are practically identical with Amendments Nos. 183 to 188 which were proposed for Clause 36 in relation to guardians ad litem in care and related proceedings. Clause 74 with guardians ad litem and reporting officers in adoption proceedings and the points which I made in reply to Amendments Nos. 183 to 188 apply here too.
  The problem is that we have an existing system set up comparatively recently upon which we must build. The method by which we are seeking to secure even greater independence than exists at present is to give the Secretary of State power to allow associations of local authorities to provide panels. In that way one will be able to take out of the panel dealing with a case in local authority a person who is not provided by that local authority but by one of the other local authorities in the association. This goes a good distance towards achieving the independence which is required. I made a number of other detailed points in answer to the earlier amendments which I believe are equally applicable here. Perhaps I might, for brevity's sake, be allowed to hold them as incorporated here.
  Lord Meston: Like the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, we are concerned that the problem of guardians ad litem being seen to be independent has not been addressed. In an ideal world such guardians would operate independently whoever was financially responsible for them. It is not an ideal world. Now is not the time to develop the argument in answer to the noble and learned Lord. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 247 to 251 not moved.]
  Clause 74 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 252 not moved.]
  Clause 75 agreed to.
  11.30 p.m.
  Clause 76 [Regulations and orders]:
  Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 252A:
  Page 64, leave out line 11 and 12 and insert—
  ("(2) Any statutory instrument exercising powers conferred by sections 10, 27, 29(8), 36(9) and (10), 38(8), 43 and 69 must be laid in draft before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
  570
  (2A) Any statutory instrument exercising any other power conferred by the Act shall be subject to annulment in persuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (2B) Any such statutory instrument may—").
  The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment seeks to ensure that the key regulations—which I venture to be the correct description of what is set out—are provisions for which there should be a necessity for inclusion in the Bill, instead of dealing with the relevant proposals as being merely statutory instruments subject to annulment.
  Members of the Committee will see that they are important provisions relating to Clause 10 dealing with the powers of the court to control the timetable of children's cases; Clause 27(3) directed to avoiding delay in disposing of applications; Clause 29(8) dealing with parental contact with children in care; Clause 36(10) dealing with guardians ad litem; Clause 38(8) dealing with emergency protection orders; Clause 43(1) dealing with rules of court and regulations with respect to the emergency protection of children; and, finally, Clause 69 which gives the courts jurisdiction under this Bill.
  The amendment proposes that any statutory instrument exercising the powers conferred by those clauses should be laid in draft before, and be approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament and not dealt with by the summary procedure which is proposed. They are far too important. I beg to move.
  The Lord Chancellor: This matter is always one of judgment. Where duties are set out in the Bill and only procedural matters remain to be disposed of, I believe that the negative procedure is the proper means of regulation. It is an effective means. Any objection to the matter can be raised; whereas if there is nothing contentious it can be dealt with without involving parliamentary time.
  That is the structure we have attempted to follow in the Bill. I am amenable to looking at particular provisions but this appears to be a reasonable general principle. I hope that in the light of the explanation of the way in which we work the noble and learned Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
  There are one or two areas in the Bill where the matter may require further consideration but, generally speaking, that has been our approach and we have endeavoured to give effect to it.
  Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. At an earlier stage we considered the substitution of a more satisfactory procedure than the annulment procedure. Perhaps he will reconsider these provisions, which are of great importance, and we can return to the matter at a later stage. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 76 agreed to.
  Clause 77 [Interpretation]:
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 253:
  Page 64, line 25, at end insert ("and any reference to a child who is in the care of an authority is a reference to a child who is in their care by virtue of a care order").
  The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment would add to the definition of "care order" in the interpretation clause to make clear the fact that "child in care" means a child in local authority care by virtue of a care order. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 253A:
  Page 64, line 33, at end insert—
  (" "community home" has the meaning given by section 44;").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 253B:
  Page 64, line 44, at end insert ("and the question of whether harm is significant shall be determined in accordance with section 26(9)").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 253C:
  Page 65, line 4, leave out ("had") and insert ("has").
  The noble and learned Lord said: This is a minor amendment to change the tense to the appropriate one. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 254:
  Page 65, line 36, leave out from ("child") to end of line 38 and insert ("has the meaning given by section 57(1);").
  The noble Lord said: I believe it is admirable that there should be listed in this clause for easy reference all the definitions which have already appeared in this Bill. However, I noticed that in the case of "relative" at line 36 the definition which had already appeared in Clause 57(1)(c) was repeated verbatim and I could not see why such an exception was made.
  However, in my absence, the noble and learned Lord moved Amendments Nos. 208A and 208B, which deleted Clause 57(1)(c). Perhaps to ensure that it is not repeated, he has done it that way round. Therefore, it is essential that the definition of "relative" should remain where it is and I do not have to move this amendment.
  [Amendment No. 254 not moved.]
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 254A:
  Page 65, line 38, after ("affinity)") insert (",cousin").
  The noble Lady said: This is a probing amendment. I am rather concerned at the very narrow definition of "relative" in this Bill. The word "relative" appears in Clause 52(4)(a)(iii), Clause 57(1)(a)(iii) and Clause 58(5)(a)(iii). It is the concept of what I believe is called the nuclear family as opposed to the wider family. I fear that that is a concept which is rather prevalent among social
  572
  workers. It is the result of the loss of contact with relatives in the past by people who moved from their ancestral areas to pursue their fortunes elsewhere at a time when communications were far less good than they are today.
  A child may not have grandparents or they may not be able to take him in or to help very much. If neither of his parents has brothers or sisters he will have no uncles or aunts. However, people with no brothers or sisters are often very close to their first cousins, who would be the first cousins once removed of the child. In such a case, they would probably be very familiar to him and the best people to care for him or do whatever may be required.
  I am conscious that "cousin" may be too loose a definition but I am concerned at the exclusion of cousins such as I have described from this Bill. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could explain the thinking behind that and consider the desirability of widening the definition to include at least the first cousin once removed, for the reasons I have explained. I beg to move.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor: This point arose originally in relation to Amendment No. 209. That was an intimation provision. This perhaps depends on the particular context in which these matters arise. However, the problem is, as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, mentioned, that the word "cousin" is rather imprecise because it would include cousins of a great variety of degrees.
  The other point is that the definition of "relative" under child care law has excluded cousins and more distant relatives for over 100 years. We have no evidence to suggest that this has caused any difficulty. It does not mean, of course, that cousins—first cousins in certain circumstances—would not be appropriate people to look after children; I understand that. The problem is that one must draw a line which is on the safe side. In other words, one wants to be sure that what is included as "the family" will necesarily be close to the child in question. That is the thinking behind the provision. To fully examine the problem that the noble Lady has raised one must look at the context in which "relative" is used in every place. I mention the first context to show that it would not make a lot of difference but would require additional information to make sure that the local authority appreciated what was happening.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. It is only in connection with fostering and the placing of children in temporary homes that this question arises.
  I should have thought it possible to define "cousins" as first cousins once removed or first cousins. I am still concerned that nowadays the social workers' concept of a relative may be narrower than in the past. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord would perhaps bear in mind what I have said. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 225:
  Page 65, line 41, at end insert—
  (" "service", in relation to any provision made under Part III, includes any facility,").
  The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 255A and 255B:
  Page 66, line 5, leave out ("placed (or to be placed)") and insert ("who is (or is to be)").
  Page 66, hoe 6, leave out ("placed (or to be placed) by" and insert ("(or is to be) by virtue of").
  The noble and learned Lord said: These are drafting amendments which do no more than offer a more natural phraseology in the definitions of "supervised child" and "supervisor". With the Committee's leave, I move the two amendments together. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 256:
  Page 66, line 13, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble Lord said: This amendment proposes the deletion of subsection (2) from Clause 77. This is not because I do not think it is important that we should be told exactly what is meant by,
  "a child whose father and mother were, or … were not, married to each other at the time of his birth"
  because it is extremely important in this Bill, as in the Family Law Reform Act, that the usual meaning of such references is greatly extended.
  This precise language has already appeared in Clause 2(3) and it is important that the substance of that subsection should have appeared at the start of the Bill so that we know a special language is being used. However, I do not see how it can be necessary to repeat, absolutely verbatim, in this subsection what has appeared in an earlier subsection. Therefore, I believe that the subsection should be removed from this clause. I beg to move.
  11.45 p.m.
  The Lord Chancellor: This is a very important provision. The noble Lord and myself had a discussion in which the importance of this particular concept arose in another connection. He may remember it. I believe it is very necessary to have this explanation at the beginning of the Bill in Clause 2(3) because there the matter is being elucidated. The interpretation clause normally carries all the special interpretations that exist. That is the reason why I prefer to have the deletion in the earlier provision in the similar situation that we were speaking about.
  In this case we are in a fairly important and a rather new field as regards the Family Law Reform Act 1987. It still requires to sink in, as it were, as part of the statutory framework. Though this is a duplication, I believe that in the context of the Bill it is quite important and I would rather hold on to it. I hope that the noble Lord feels, in the light of the explanation, that it is not wise to press the amendment.
  Lord Kilbracken: I remember the discussions that I had with the noble and learned Lord on this subject when we were dealing with the Family Law Reform Bill, and even more the discussions that I had with his noble and learned predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. Nonetheless, I find it remarkable that it is necessary in the same Bill to have two subsections that say exactly the same thing. If something is important does that mean that we have to say it twice or perhaps three times?
  I shall not take the matter any further. I feel that when three or four lines can be deleted from a Bill they should be. After all, lawyers are accustomed to seeing what effect one subsection will have all the way through the Bill and ahead of it. There may also be a subsection at the end of the Bill which affects everything that has been read until then. I do not know why an exception is made in this case. Certainly at this hour I will not press the amendment further and I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 256A:
  Page 66, line 34, after first ("or") insert ("an order under section 7(7)(b) of").
  The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting amendment and reflects the fact that if the Bill is passed as drafted courts will still be able to make supervision orders under Section 77(b) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 but not under Section 1 of that Act. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 78 agreed to.
  Clause 79 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
  Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 256B:
  Page 67, line 15, at end insert ("but before making any order bringing section 71 of this Act into force the Secretary of State shall consult with the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary such other bodies as he thinks fit and shall then lay before Parliament a report stating what resources have been made available for the transfer of the wardship jurisdiction of the High Court.")
  The noble Lord said: I shall not detain the Committee for long over this amendment. We have listened carefully tonight to the noble and learned Lord's explanation of the Government's approach to Clause 69 that contains details of the new jurisdiction. We are grateful for the guidance that the noble and learned Lord has given to the Committee.
  Clearly, the magistrates' court at least at first will play a critical role within the new system. But there are strong objections in some quarters among the voluntary bodies who have an interest in this field to the role that is proposed for the magistrates' court. It is feared that the magistrates may wish to hang on to a case in their domain or they may not have the breadth of vision, if I may put it like that, to identify a problem when they see it and to acknowledge its existence.
  Concern has been expressed that the skills that will be necessary at the magistrates' court and at the county court are not currently available and that the

  575
  skills will have to be recruited. Moreover, the noble and learned Lord told the Committee a few days ago that court resources are finite. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that at least Clause 71 will not be implemented until the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that all the resources are available. This springs from unease that the system may not work as well as is hoped. I beg to move.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor: A good number of changes not only to jurisdiction but also to the substantive law are proposed in the Bill. It would be misleading in so major a rearrangement to isolate and identify the resource implications of one change without taking account of all the many other changes and the resource implications for the various courts involved. The Committee will have in mind that we have devoted a good deal of work to trying to get a good definition of the basis on which care orders can be made so that the magistrates will be able more easily to apply them. In the financial memorandum attached to the Bill we have given a description of the Bill's consequences. It is right to look at the matter as a whole.
  The amendment refers to a "transfer of the wardship jurisdiction". No actual transfer is proposed but I understand the noble Lord's point. My basic answer is that trying to take out one part would be a mistake. We want to look at the matter as a whole. That we have done in the financial memorandum which shows that the matter is difficult to estimate in an accurate manner.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I am content that I have brought to the Committee's attention the concern that has been voiced by voluntary organisations active in this field. I am also content to leave the matter there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 257 and 258 not moved.]
  Clause 79 agreed to.
  Schedule 8 [Minor Amendments]:
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 258A:
  Page 108, line 36, after ("the") insert ("legal").
  The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting correction. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 259 not moved.]
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 259ZA, 259ZB and 259ZC:
  Page 109, line 15, leave out from ("sixteen)") to end of line 19 and insert ("for subsections (3) and (4) there shall be substituted—
  "(3) The persons who are to be treated for the purposes of this section as responsible for a girl are (subject to subsection (4) of this section)—

  (a) her parents;

  (b) any person who is not a parent of hers but who has parental responsibility for her; and

  (c) any other person who has care of her.

  576
  (4) An individual falling within subsection (3)(a) or (b) of this section is not to be treated as responsible for a girl if—

  (a) a residence order under the Children Act 1989 is in force with respect to her and he is not named in the order as the person with whom she is to live; or

  (b) care order under that Act is in force with respect to her,"").

  Page 109, line 24, after ("responsibility") insert ("for").
  Page 109, line 27, at end insert—
  (" .After section 46 of that Act there shall be inserted—

  "Meaning of 'parental responsibility'.

  46A. In this Act 'parental responsibility' has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989."").

  The noble and learned Lord said: The amendments relate to paragraphs 9 and 11 of Schedule 8, which themselves amend the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The first amendment would affect the definition of a person who is treated as responsible for a girl and who therefore may be convicted of causing or encouraging her prostitution. It would insert reference to the girl's parent. This would reflect the policy of the current law and correct an omission in paragraph 9. It would also insert into Section 28 a new subsection (4) to the effect that an individual is not to be treated as responsible for a girl if there is a residence order in force with respect to her and he is not named in the order as the person with whom she is to live, or the girl is subject to a care order. At present subsection (4) is to similar effect but only as regards parents who have been deprived of the custody of a girl by a court order. The second amendment inserts the missing word "for" into paragraph 11(1). The third clarifies that the phrase "parental responsibility", when used in the 1956 Act, has the meaning given by the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 259ZD:
  Page 109, line 36, leave out from beginning to ("there") in line 40 and insert ("After section 7(7) of that Act (alteration in treatment of young offenders, etc.)").
  The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment removes paragraph 14(1) of the schedule, which would have substituted the phrase,
  "person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him"
  for the word "guardian" in Section 7(7)(c). That would have changed the category of persons who may he ordered to enter into a recognisance in respect of a young person who is convicted of an offence. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 259ZE:
  Page 109, line 46, leave out ("child or").
  The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 259A:
  Page 110, line 42, at end insert—
  ("(1EE) A court shall not impose a requirement under subsection (1A) of this section in respect of a child or young person unless it is of opinion—
  (a) that such requirement is appropriate because of the seriousness of the offence; and

  577
  (b) that the child or young person is in need of care or control which he is unlikely to receive unless the court imposes such a requirement.").
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment restricts the circumstances in which courts can make a residential requirement as part of a supervision order. It spells out that such a requirement can only be imposed if, first, it is appropriate because of the seriousness of the offence, and, secondly, the young person needs care or control, which he would not otherwise receive.
  Those conditions were laid down in Section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. As a result, the introduction of the conditions in the 1982 Act, which was implemented in May 1983, was followed by a sharp drop in the number of care orders made in criminal proceedings. If the amendment is put in the Bill, I hope that it will have a similar effect. I beg to move.
  Lord Henderson of Brompton: I support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would very much have liked to be here because he is interested in intermediate treatment rather than institutional treatment for children. The amendment which has been so briefly but effectively moved by the noble Baroness would make the courts think because they would have to satisfy the two criteria contained in the amendment before they could make an order for residential care.
  There is a real danger, as the Bill stands, that the new residential requirement could be used by courts inappropriately to send young people into residential care when more appropriate intermediate treatment could be used. I thank the Government for Clause 66 and Schedule 7, which provide a new power for young offenders to spend time in residential care rather than be subject to care orders in criminal proceedings. That is a great advance. I should like the noble and learned Lord to consider the improvement which would give courts a strong incentive in suitable cases not to send young people into institutional care.
  Baroness David: Perhaps I may add my support as my name is on the amendment, which has been so admirably spoken to by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. The amendment would be a great improvement and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept it.
  The Lord Chancellor: This new power can be used only in closely defined circumstances as set out in subsection (1A), paragraphs (a) and (d).
  It may be useful if I describe the circumstances under which this power can be exercised. By virtue of sub-paragraph (d), the offender must, at the time the offence was committed, already be the subject of a supervision order requiring him to comply with the directions of the court and by definition, therefore, is already likely to have a history of offending. The court can then exercise its new power only if, under the provision of sub-paragraph (b), the offence for which the juvenile is again before the court is one which,
  "in the case of an offender over the age of twenty-one, would be punishable with imprisonment".
  578
  We are, therefore, talking about a group of young people who have a history of offending; who have already been required to participate in community-based intermediate treatment activities, and despite this have been found guilty of committing another imprisonable offence.
  But that is not all. In addition to the young person's history and the offending test which I have just described, the court has also to he satisfied by virtue of sub-paragraph (c) that,
  "the behaviour which constituted the offence is due, to a significant extent, to the circumstances in which the child has been living".
  In other words, the court has to take into account the offender's home circumstances and be satisfied that they have contributed to his offending behaviour.
  I do not see how the proposed amendment could sit alongside this provision. To have the two provisions together would suggest that there are some situations in which, despite the juvenile's domestic circumstances having contributed to the offence, he either does not need "care or control" or needs them but can receive them without any enforced change in his living arrangements.
  So, really, the need for change in the living arrangements is focused by the necessity that his domestic circumstances have contributed to the particular offence in question. I hope the noble Baroness will accept that there is nothing between us about our desire to avoid the unnecessary removal of young people from their homes. On the other hand, it is necessary that the new power, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has said—and I am grateful for his remarks—is a new power, should be clear. To put the two alongside would introduce an element of possible confusion. I hope that the noble Baroness, in the light of that explanation, may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Faithfull: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I should like to think about this matter and read carefully what has been said. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  12 midnight
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 259B:
  Page 111, line 21, at end insert—
  (" .In section 34(1) of that Act (transitional modifications of Part I for persons of specified ages) for the words "13(2) or 28(4) or (5)" there shall be substituted "or 13(2)".").
  The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 259B I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 262. These are drafting amendments with no other effect. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 9 [Consequential Amendments]:
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 259C.
  Page 112, line 28, after ("4(l)") insert ("and (2)").
  The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment would insert subsection 4(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 into paragraph 3. This would complete the list of references to "custody, charge or care" of a child in the 1933 Act which are to be replaced by "responsibility for" him. This change is consequential to replacement of the old terminology such as "custody" in the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 259D:
  Page 112, line 33, at end insert—
  (".In section 10(1A) of that Act (vagrants preventing children from receiving education), for the words from "to bring the child" to the end there shall be substituted "to make an application in respect of the child or young person for an education supervision order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989".").
  The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment would replace the local education authority's duty in Section 10(1)(a) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to consider whether to bring care proceedings in respect of a child by a duty to consider bringing proceedings for an education supervision order under Clause 31. This duty arises before the authority institutes proceedings against a person for habitually wandering from place to place, thereby preventing the child from receiving full-time education. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 259E, 259F and 259G:
  Page 112, line 43, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 44.
  Page 112, line 45, leave out ("actual").
  Page 113, line 4, leave out ("actual").
  The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 259E, 259F and 259G and speak at the same time, to Amendment No. 259L. These are, in effect, drafting amendments. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 259H:
  Page 113, line 9, leave out ("(6)") and insert ("(7)").
  The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 259H and will speak at the same time to Amendment No. 259K. The first corrects the reference in paragraph 5(2) of Section 34 of the 1933 Act by inserting subsection (7) in place of subsection (6). The second clarifies the reference to Section 107 in paragraph 6 by inserting subsection (1). I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 259J:
  Page 113, line 13, after ("by") insert ("or on behalf of").
  The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment has the effect that the duty to inform the local authority of the arrest of a child or young person is extended to where accommodation is being provided on behalf of the local authority as well as by that authority. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 259K:
  Page 113, line 17, after ("107") insert ("(1)").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 259L:
  Page 113, line 19, leave out ("actual").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 259M and 259N:
  Page 114, line 12, after ("to") insert ("first").
  Page 114, line 18, after ("to") insert ("first").
  The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 259M and 259N en bloc. These are purely drafting matters to correct similar amendments to the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and the Factories Act 1961. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 259P and 259Q:
  Page 114, line 25, leave out ("(xx)") and insert ("(xix)" inserted by paragraph 19 of Schedule 5 to the Child Care Act 1980").
  Page 114, line 32, leave out ("(xxi)") and insert ("(xx) inserted by paragraph 20 of Schedule 5 to the Child Care Act 1980").
  The noble and learned Lord said: I should like to move Amendments Nos. 259P and 259Q en bloc. These correct errors in the numbering of paragraph 12. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 259R:
  Page 116, line 8, at end insert—
  ("The Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 (c.62)
  .In Schedule 3 to the powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 (the probation and after-care service and its functions), in paragraph 3(2A) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
  "and
  (c) directions given under paragraph 2 or 3 of Schedule 3 to the Children Act 1978".
  The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (c.53)
  .In section 7(2) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (limitations on rehabilitation under the Act) for paragraph (d) there shall be substituted—
  "(d) in any proceedings relating to the variation or discharge of a supervision order under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, or on appeal from any such proceedings;
  (dd) in any proceedings relating to the making, variation or discharge of a care order or a supervision order under the Chidren Act 1989, or on appeal from any such proceedings".").
  The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 259R is an amendment which empowers each probation committee to provide facilities for enabling directions given by a supervisor under paragraphs 2 or 3 of Schedule 3 to the Bill to be carried out effectively. The second part would retain for proceedings relating to care and supervision orders under the Bill the benefit of Section 7(2) of the 1974 Act, which currently applies to care proceedings under the 1969 Act. This subsection allows evidence relating to previous convictions to be given in those

  581
  proceedings even though for other purposes the Act treats those convictions as spent. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 259S:
  Page 116, line 24, at end insert ("(within the meaning of the Children Act 1989).").
  The noble and learned Lord said: This is a purely technical amendment, made with the aim of clarifying that the phrase "parental responsibility", which has been inserted into Section 131(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 by Schedule 9, has the meaning ascribed by this Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 259T to 259X:
  Page 116, line 36, leave out ("(b)").
  Page 116, line 38, after ("persons)") insert—
  ("(a) in paragraph (a), for the words "parent or guardian of a disabled person under the age of sixteen" there shall be substituted—
  "(i) the parent of a disabled person under the age of sixteen, or
  (ii) any other person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him"; and
  (b) in paragraph (b)").
  Page 116, line 40, leave out ("(5)").
  Page 116, line 41, at end insert—
  ("( ) In subsection (3)(a) for the words from second "the" to "by"" there shall be substituted "for the words 'if so requested by the disabled person' there shall be substituted 'if so requested by any person mentioned in section 1(3)(a)(i) or (ii)'."").
  Page 116, line 42, at beginning insert ("In subsection (5)").
  The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 259T to 259X and to speak to Amendments Nos. 259Y to 259CC and 267. The first two amendments extend the power to make regulations for the appointment of authorised representatives of disabled persons under the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. These regulations may in future provide for a parent or a non-parent who has parental responsibility to appoint an authorised representative. At present this power is limited to parents and guardians. The change will cover persons who are not parents but who have the benefit of a residence order.
  The remaining amendments, except for the last two, have the same effect as regards Section 2(3) of the 1986 Act. They will mean that a parent and any person who is not a parent but who has parental responsibility for the child may require the local authority to permit the authorised representative to take part in the provision of local authority services as set out in Section 2(1) and (2). Amendment No. 259AA makes the same substitution of the word "guardian" in Section 5(7)(b) so that the relevant persons may request that a child under the age of 16 is not assessed for the provision of services, as would otherwise be required. Amendment No. 259CC removes the definition of "guardian" from this schedule, since it has now become unnecessary, and defines "parental responsibility" by reference to the meaning in the Bill. Amendment No. 267 to Schedule
  582
  11 will remove the existing definition of the word "guardian" from the 1986 Act. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 259Y:
  Page 116, line 43, after ("by") insert ("or on behalf of").
  The noble and learned Lord said: If I may, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 259DD. The first amendment updates the reference to children who are accommodated by local authorities in paragraph 26(2) by adding reference to those who are accommodated "on behalf of" an authority. This ensures that children who are, for example, fostered by the authority are covered in the same way as those accommodated on local authority premises. The second amendment ensures that reference to a child who is "looked after" by a local authority in the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 has the meaning ascribed by the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already spoken to Amendments Nos. 259Z and 259AA.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 259Z and 259AA:
  Page 116, line 45, after ("(c)") insert ("of subsection (5)").
  Page 116, line 48, at end insert—
  (".In section 5(7)(b) of that Act (disabled persons leaving special education) for the word "guardian" there shall be substituted "other person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him".").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 259BB:
  Page 117, line 3, after ("substituted") insert (" "means—").
  The noble and learned Lord said: This corrects a drafting error. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already spoken to Amendment Nos. 259CC and 259DD.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 259CC and 259DD.
  Page 117, line 9, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
  ("(2) After the definition of "parent" in that section there shall be inserted—
  " 'parental responsibility' has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989." ").
  Page 117, line 18, at end insert—
  ("( ) At the end of that section there shall be added—
  "(2) In this Act any reference to a child who is looked after by a local authority has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989." ").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 10 agreed to.
  Schedule 11 [Repeals]:
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 259EE:
  Page 117, line 44, column 3, leave out ("Section 34(2)") and insert—

  ("In section 34(8), "(a)" and the words from "and (b)" to the end.")

  The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment corrects the repeal of words in Section 34 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 which have been made obsolete by the Bill. Section 34(8)(b) requires that where parental rights and duties are vested in a voluntary organisation by a local authority resolution, that organisation rather than the child's parent or guardian should be informed of the child's arrest. Such resolutions are repealed by the Bill, so that Section 34(8)(b) itself may be repealed. Section 34(2) should remain unamended. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 260 not moved.]
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 261:
  Page 118, line 35, column 3, leave out (" "as") and insert (" "and as").
  The noble and learned Lord said: This is purely a drafting change. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor has already spoken to Amendment No. 262.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 262:
  Page 119, line 26, column 3, leave out from ("34") to ("(2)") in line 30.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 263:
  Page 120, line 31, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In Schedule 3, in paragraph 3(2A), the word "and" immediately preceding paragraph (b).").

  The noble and learned Lord said: This is purely a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 264:
  Page 120, line 36, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In section 5, in subsection (5)(e) the words "a care order or"; and in subsection (10) the words "care order or".").

  The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment removes the references in Section 5 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 to care orders made in criminal proceedings. It follows from the repeal of the power to make such orders by Clause 66 of the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 265:
  Page 120, line 58, at end insert—

  ("1978 c. 30. The Interpretation Act 1978

  In Schedule 1, the entry with respect to the construction of certain expressions relating to children.").

  The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment would delete from the Interpretation Act 1978 three definitions of terms used in states, namely "the parental rights and duties"; "legal custody" and any reference to the person with whom a child has his home. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 266:
  Page 121, line 35, column 3, at beginning insert—

  ("In Schedule 2, the entry relating to section 16 of the Child Care Act 1980.").

  The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, in effect. It would repeal the reference to the power in Section 16 of the Child Care Act 1980 to arrest a child in care who has been abducted or has absconded. In future the recovery of such children will be covered by powers which the Government intend to introduce by way of amendment in due course. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 267:
  Page 121, line 43, at end insert—

  ("1986 c. 33.

  The Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act1986.

  In section 16, in the definition of "guardian", paragraph (a).").

  The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment removes the definition of "guardian" as regards England and Wales from the 1986 Act. This definition is no longer needed following the amendments to the Act made in Schedule 9. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments:
  House adjourned at sixteen minutes past midnight.

  CHARITY COMMISSION: PART-TIME APPOINTMENTS
  CHARITY COMMISSION: PART-TIME APPOINTMENTS
  GREENHOUSE EFFECT: ELECTRICITY FROM COAL
  GREENHOUSE EFFECT: ELECTRICITY FROM COAL
  NUCLEAR FUSION: RESEARCH PROSPECTS
  NUCLEAR FUSION: RESEARCH PROSPECTS
  NUCLEAR FUSION: RESEARCH EXPENDITURE
  NUCLEAR FUSION: RESEARCH EXPENDITURE
  TRANSPORT SUBSIDIES: REGIONAL COMPARISONS
  TRANSPORT SUBSIDIES: REGIONAL COMPARISONS