Sitting of 25 January 1989

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

    Public Sector Housing
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses were built to be rented in the public sector in each successive year since 1975.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick).
    Mr. Flannery: Is it not clear that the Government's continuing attack on public sector housing is resulting in increasing homelessness, which is getting worse and worse, in increasingly long waiting lists for repairs because the public sector does not have the necessary money due to the cuts, and massive unemployment in the building industry? [Hon. Members: "What?"] Yes, there is. Never mind what the Government say. [Interruption.] Instead of referring me to yesterday's answer, the Minister should have answered today's question, but he is afraid to give the answer. Are we to assume that the sustained attack on public sector housing will continue, so that the poor, the sick, the homeless and the old will continue to be endangered under this Government as they have been for so long?
    Mr. Trippier: If the hon. Gentleman will check the facts, he will find that there is a massive skills mismatch and a shortage of workers in the construction industry. In the twilight years of the Labour Government—some would call them dark years—there was a 60 per cent. decrease in investment in public sector housing development.
    Mr. Flannery: We did not have North sea oil.
    Mr. Trippier: I expected that sort of question from the hon. Gentleman. He is concerned only about public sector housing whereas we are concerned about all housing, in which there has been a substantial increase since 1979.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: While sympathising with my hon. Friend the Minister for having to endure that embarrassing outburst, does he agree that the prime reason for homelessness, where it exists, is the Rent Acts which have prevented private landlords from letting their properties profitably? Does he further agree that once the reforms in the law that we have introduced are brought into full effect any shortfall is bound to be remedied?
    Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Labour Governments concentrated only on the expansion of public sector housing, which resulted in a dramatic decline—to just 8 per cent.—in the private rented sector. We are trying to remedy that with the Housing Act 1988. It is interesting to note that the 8 per cent. for the private rented sector contrasts starkly with a level of 30 per cent. in France and 40 per cent. in Germany.
    Mr. Soley: The Minister has just added to his already bad reputation as a Minister who gives misleading information, and creative statistics will not get him out of the trap. There are 1·2 million fewer homes available for rent, of which more than half have gone from the private rented sector and the rest from the public sector. The Minister's recent answer to his hon. Friend showed the catastrophic decline in the public rented sector. What does he intend to do to ensure a decent supply of good quality, low-cost accommodation for rent or sale? Will Torbay council be compensated for the £250,000 wasted on the rigged vote, and will the Government abandon their attempt to get councils such as Torbay to hand over their council housing to the private sector now that that system has fallen flat on its face?
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman completely missed the point of my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). There has been a substantial increase in house building—1·8 million since 1979. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that as a result of the 1988 Act we are providing through the Housing Corporation—and through it to housing associations—low-cost homes which will be affordable to people on low wages. As for repairs, on which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) touched, the dramatic increase in housing improvement grants since the Government came to power—a 60 per cent. increase since 1979—is in stark contrast with the Labour Government's deplorable record.
    Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real problem is not how many public sector houses are being built—there is an overall housing boom at present—but how many public sector houses, whether being built or already in existence, are rented by councils? Do not a large number of Labour councils have many empty houses?
    Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a considerable number of voids in many authorities controlled by the Labour party. The Audit Commission has said time and again that if empty homes are turned around within three weeks about 20,000 empty properties will be brought back on to the market, which would immediately help the homeless.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The first question has taken more than five minutes. I appeal for short supplementary questions and shorter answers.

    Waste Disposal
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations his Department has received on the waste disposal law amendments follow-up consultation paper.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): We received 20 representations by the end of the consultation period, from local authorities and from the waste industry.
    Mrs. Clywd: Why have the Government allowed a massive increase in imported hazardous waste, from 5,000 tonnes in 1984 to an estimated 80,000 tonnes in 1987? If the Government are serious about protecting the environment, why do they allow this country to be used by other countries as a massive rubbish dump? Why do they not ban the import of hazardous waste?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Why do Labour Members always resort to such hypocrisy? What kind of befriending of the environment is it to ban imported toxic waste when we have facilities and technology to deal with difficult and dangerous waste? Imports have risen, but they represent a modest 5 per cent. of the special wastes that we treat. We must ensure that that treatment is carried out effectively and safely.
    Mr. Key: I thank my hon. Friend and the Government for the care that they have taken in waste disposal consultations over the past two years. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is now a growing chorus to the effect that existing penalties are inadequate to cope with infringements, both of planning regulations and of waste disposal regulations? Does she further agree that any proposals for criminalisation ought to include consideration of compensation relating to the value of the projects and developments in question?
    Mrs. Bottomley: It is important that waste disposal regulations are properly enforced and regulated. Recently there was a case in my hon. Friend's constituency, which he raised and which caused a great outcry. When we introduce a duty of care on waste producers we shall ensure that it is possible to take action against those who irresponsibly dump their waste in inappropriate places.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that the Government have given in to the waste disposal industry, recognising that if they take away business the industry may lose profits? The people who suffer are those living in the areas where waste is dumped. Why do not the Government tell the countries that are exporting their waste here to keep their own filth? We do not want it in Britain.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Only a modest amount—5 per cent.—of waste is imported. We have announced plans to ensure that only waste to be specially treated or incinerated will be imported. We are ensuring the highest standards of control over waste disposal. Waste is an inevitable product of modern life. It will not go away, so we must deal with it properly and responsibly.
    Mr. Squire: Is my hon. Friend aware that those who have studied the issues will broadly welcome the Government's approach, and in particular the current Green Paper? Provided that legislation is in place to prevent the import of domestic refuse, with all the implications that that would have, the Government's line is broadly correct.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. A good deal of thought and care has gone into the proposals and we hope to legislate at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister confirm the implication of the statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment yesterday, in which he announced that competitive tendering procedures would be introduced into the waste disposal activities of local authorities and other organizations—something that the right hon. Gentleman flatly rejected, as being dangerous to the environment, when the Local Government Bill was going through its stages in the last Parliament?
    Is not the key to safe and successful disposal of toxins and hazardous waste the adequate funding of waste disposal authorities—many of which are local authorities whose budgets are being cut by the Government—and a change in policy to end the imports of toxic waste which are encouraged by the Government, at great danger to the environment, to mask our balance of payments deficit in manufactured goods? Once again the Minister is supporting policies for the poisoning of our environment.
    Mrs. Bottomley: What matters is that waste disposal is regulated and monitored properly and that the powers are properly enforced. We believe that there are strong arguments in favour of separating regulatory and operational functions. We believe that introducing the possibility of charging for licensing would help those in charge to do their job. We believe in trying to separate the gamekeeper and the poacher. Opposition Members seem to think that we can control only what we own, but that is not the Government's belief.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Carrington: 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 Fulham.
    Mr. Fishburn: 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 Kensington.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley)A ward sister earning £15,000, living in a flat in Fulham worth £70,000 with a rateable value of £300, would pay a rates bill of £684, a community charge of £473—disregarding the transitional safety net—and £1,470 under a system of capital value rates plus local income tax. A ward sister living in Kensington in similar circumstances would pay a rates bill of £297, a community charge of £340 and £1,060 under a system of capital value rates plus local income tax.
    Mr. Carrington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures show the unfairness of the capital value rating system and the hardship that it would cause to people with average or below average earnings in Fulham—particularly if we take into account that it would apply

    1013
    to those in rented homes as well as to owner-occupiers? Does he agree that the community charge provides by far the best hope for inner-city regenerating and is a much fairer system?
    Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend. I should be delighted to exemplify for every right hon. and hon. Member the figures under a system of capital value rates plus local income tax that would apply in any local authority in their constituencies. I offer that as a free service for the information of the public at large.
    Mr. Fishburn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures that he has given really show the huge overspending by ILEA, and that once my borough of Kensington has its own educational fate in its hands we shall have not only better education but dramatic savings in that overspend which will quickly show up in a lower community charge?
    Mr. Ridley: I agree. The figures for both boroughs about which I was asked show far too high a community charge because of the effects of heavy overspending by ILEA. There is, however, a difference between them. Hammersmith and Fulham is a high-spending, high rate, high community charge borough while Kensington is not. I leave hon. Members to guess why that might be so.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Why has the Secretary of State provided a detailed answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) when other hon. Members who have asked him questions about potential poll tax levels in their areas—I asked him about the charge in Derbyshire, for instance—have received no answer but have been told that the charge will be worked out by councils in due course?
    Mr. Ridley: I shall be delighted to give the hon. Gentleman detailed figures for any authorities, including his own district and county councils. I will write to him with the figures for the community charge and for local income tax plus capital value rates payable in his constituency. I shall he happy to send the figures to any
    Mr. Wilson: Leaving aside the nonsensical statistics that the Minister quoted, will nursing sisters in Kensington and Chelsea be interested in the welfare, under the poll tax, of sick people in those areas? Does he intend to follow the lead of his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland by imposing the poll tax on people suffering from Alzheimer's disease and other forms of degenerative dementia who are cared for in their own homes?
    Mr. Ridley: I confirm that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have made careful provision to ensure that generous rebates are available for up to 9 million people who are not in a financial position to pay the community charge.
    Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Such applications should come from the Member who asked the question.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Bearing in mind what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), will he point out in his letter that Derbyshire has gone from being the 30th
    1014
    highest rated council to being the highest rated council? Most people in Derbyshire cannot wait for the new system to come in so that there can be local accountability. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the information that he sends to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East is also supplied to all other Derbyshire Members?
    Mr. Ridley: With pleasure. I suggest that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) should urge those on the Opposition Front Bench to choose this subject for a Supply day debate. That may be helpful to the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
    Dr. Cunningham rose—
    Hon. Members: Now we shall get the truth.
    Dr. Cunningham: For a change. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are making very slow progress.
    Dr. Cunningham: If the Secretary of State is so confident about public support for the poll tax, why has he postponed his poll tax propaganda campaign until after the county council elections? Is he not aware that his deliberately rigged and exaggerated figures have no basis in fact and no credibility? They are dishonest and a deliberate distortion. How could a typical ward sister in Fulham, who would earn £12,000 on average and not £15,000 as the Secretary of State suggested, afford a £100,000 house, which is nearer the average? How could she afford a mortgage for that amount? Is he aware that the Opposition are not prepared to take any lessons about local government finance from a Secretary of State who appoints as Minister for Local Government the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) whose own local council has the worst record on rates increases of any Tory authority in England? There have been rates increases of 218 per cent. under the Tories.
    Mr. Ridley: I must say that that is very unjust. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 28 October asking him for details of the scheme for capital value rates and local income tax and the assumptions upon which to base the figures. I have not yet had an answer. If the hon. Gentleman had written to me and I had not replied for such a long time I would be in real trouble. The hon. Gentleman does not even answer his letters because he knows that he does not want these matters exposed. 'We shall expose his little wheeze on capital value rates and local income tax. I invite my hon. Friends to put down questions on those matters because there is much good material there. The hon. Gentleman made two small mistakes. First, he does not seem to realise that we put up nurses' pay by a large amount. Secondly, I did not say £100,000—I said £70,000.

    Local Authority Representatives
    Mr. Heifer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many categories of statutory authorities local authority representatives normally are deputed to sit.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Between seven and 19, under public general Acts, depending on the definitions used.
    Mr. Heffer: As we have now heard, through all the leaks about the future of the NHS, that it is suggested that people from local authorities who are on district health

    1015
    authorities may be removed to take politics out of the NHS, would the Minister ask her right hon. Friend to resist such a suggestion—although I doubt whether he will—if it were made by the Department of Health? This is a vital matter. As local authorities have representatives on district health authorities, there is a real input from ordinary people in—[HON. MEMBERS: "Social services."' Exactly. It is vital that that should continue. Will the Minister give that assurance, or has she in mind the case of Anne Mallison, the new chair of Tower Hamlets health authority, who is also a Conservative city councillor in Westminster? We can give example after example. The Government want politics taken out only when it is Labour politics, not Conservative politics.
    Mrs. Bottomley: These are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the supplementary question that we have just heard shows once again that the Labour party does not understand the difference between being a member of an authority and being an officer of that authority? Does she agree that that is not surprising when so many Labour councillors are also officers of other nearby authorities?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is quite right. In our forthcoming legislation on housing and local government we hope to clarify some of those matters, which will make life much better and raise standards both among local government officers and among members.
    Mr. Blunkett: When the hon. Lady talks to her right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health, perhaps she will draw his attention to the cost benefits of having elected members rather than appointed members running things—for example, in water authorities with chairs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Chairmen".] Yes, they are men, who are paid between £31,000 and £39,000 a year for an average three-day week, or the residuary body chairs whose salaries vary between £17,000 and £50,000 for replacing elected members, or the chairmen of health authorities who are paid £11,709 a year for an average three-day week. On the basis of those statistics, will the Minister recommend to her right hon. and learned Friend that elected members accountable to their public and paid a daily attendance allowance are damned good value for money?
    Mrs. Bottomley: When I speak to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health I will tell him that I, like others, appreciate the 39 per cent. increase in health spending during the period of this Government and that we want effective and efficient provision of services at the lowest possible cost to the chargepayer and the taxpayer.

    Telford Development Corporation
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to meet the chairman of the Telford development corporation to discuss the board's housing policy.
    Mr. Trippier: I last met the chairman of the Telford development corporation during the course of a visit to Telford on Thursday 19 January.
    Mr. Grocott: Is the Minister aware that hundreds of Telford development corporation tenants are deeply anxious about the future of their homes because of constant U-turns in Government policy and the Government's constant failure to honour commitments to hold ballots? Will he end the uncertainty by instructing Telford development corporation to hold a ballot of tenants now, or is he afraid that a ballot would result in an overwhelming majority in favour of the transfer of those houses to Wrekin district council?
    Mr. Trippier: If anyone has caused anxiety in the minds of tenants in Telford, it has been Wrekin district council and the support that it has been given by the hon. Gentleman, particularly with regard to the court proceedings taken by the council which have sabotaged the likelihood of a housing management agreement with the housing association. The hon. Gentleman has supported Wrekin district council throughout. I strongly suggest that he gets a little more in touch with the tenants—they are, after all, his constituents in a hypermarginal seat—and remember that only 10 per cent. of those tenants opposed the management agreement.
    Mr. Conway: When my hon. Friend has the time to do so, will he congratulate the chairman of the Telford development corporation on its success in providing manufacturing and service jobs in Telford new town and on providing the amount of land that is necessary to stimulate the growth of private home ownership, which will probably result in this Parliament being the last one for the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott)?
    Mr. Trippier: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's last comment. I am happy to join him in congratulating the chairman and board of the Telford development corporation. I had an opportunity to see for myself the enormous success that has been achieved and I was fortunate enough to open the new chamber of commerce premises. I also had an opportunity to see the successful development of the local enterprise agency. The area is now strong and vigorous once again as a result of the corporation's activities—certainly not as a result of the district council's activities.

    Ozone Layer
    Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will report on progress in steps he is taking to encourage effective international action to protect the ozone layer.
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a further statement on the Government's response to international efforts to ban the use of chlorofluorocarbons in aerosol containers.
    Mr. Ridley: As the House is aware, we have called for worldwide emissions of chlorofluorocarbons to be reduced by at least 85 per cent. by the turn of the century, and for the Montreal protocol to be strengthened accordingly. To underline the importance of further worldwide reductions and to show how they can be achieved, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I are calling a major international conference in early March to bring together Governments of all countries as well as world industry. We

    1017
    shall also host the second meeting of the Montreal protocol parties in 1990, at which we hope the reductions for which we are calling will be agreed.
    Mr. Yeo: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the United Kingdom aerosol industry intends to ban the non-essential use of CFCs in aerosols before the end of this year? Will he tell the House what impact that will have on demand in this country?
    Mr. Ridley: The United Kingdom aerosol industry has agreed to ban or to phase out the use of CFCs in British aerosols by the end of this year. As those aerosols currently constitute 60 per cent. of the CFCs used in the United Kingdom, by that means alone we shall have achieved our Montreal protocol objectives by the end of this year. However, we hope to do very much better than that in the longer term.
    Mr. Janner: What do the Government propose to do to dispose of the 10,000 tonnes of CFC-containing refrigerant under their control and at their disposal in places such as hospital blood banks, mortuaries and munition stores? In the meantime, will the Minister at least give an instruction to his own Department that the aerosols used there must be ozone-friendly?
    Mr. Ridley: On the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, it is absolutely vital that those who have CFCs trapped into materials and machines should release the minimum amount of those materials. One of the biggest problems is CFCs in fire-fighting equipment, which certainly should not be used for practice. However, until a substitute is found it is difficult to deny the use of that equipment in fire fighting. Certain technical problems are involved. As for the Government's consumption of aerosols, we take care over their use, but I think that our use of aerosols is minimal and I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that they will be phased out by the end of this year.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in reducing the use of CFCs that are harmful to the ozone layer it is important to make certain that we have replacements for them, because otherwise all that we shall be doing effectively is transferring the production of those harmful CFCs to other countries that do not impose the same restrictions as we do?
    Mr. Ridley: That is absolutely correct. I am satisfied that substitutes are now available or that they will soon be available for the vast majority of the curent usage of CFC 11 and 12. The great need is to persuade the rest of the world that those substitutes can be just as effective and that they can be procured. That is the main purpose of the conference.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Government raise their sights and follow Sweden's example of undertaking to phase out the use of all CFCs by 1994? Does the Secretary of State agree that the priority in this country is to replace CFCs in refrigerators and to find mechanisms for the safe disposal of those CFCs? Do the Government intend to find time to allow the passage of the Bill on the control of CFCs that I am to introduce today?
    Mr. Ridley: We will do very much better than the Swedes. I have no doubt about that. I must not commit myself about the hon. Gentleman's Bill because I believe
    1018
    that the right approach is to persuade the major nations with large populations that they should go along at the same pace as us. We are only 1 per cent. of the world's population. It would not help much if we phased CFCs out and nobody else did. This is an international problem.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that it was British scientists who discovered the gap in the ozone layer? Besides discouraging the use of CFCs in aerosols, what other measures is my right hon. Friend taking to persuade high street stores and supermarkets to stock environmentally safe products?
    Mr. Ridley: It is true that, as my hon. Friend said, the British Antarctic scientific expedition was the first to identify the hole in the ozone layer. I have already said that we will see the end of the use of CFCs in aerosols by the end of the year; that is by far the biggest contribution we could make. Any other action would be insignificant compared to a declaration of that importance.
    Ms. Walley: Has not the Secretary of State just shown us in his replies, particularly to the question by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), that, despite what the Prime Minister says, he is completely ignorant of the real issues? Will he take time to read the report prepared by the Heating and Ventilating Contractors' Association? Will he not agree with the association that if the Governemnt wish genuinely to encourage effective international action to protect the ozone layer, they must be prepared to match their words with deeds? Will the Minister say why he will not ban the use of CFCs in aerosol sprays as soon as practically possible? Does he agree that the Government should be setting an example by taking responsibility for the safe disposal—(Interruption]—of CFC refrigerant when the cooling systems in Government establishments are serviced and replaced?
    Mr. Ridley: What I heard of that—[Interruption]—I did not agree with.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I repeat that we are making very slow progress today.
    Mr. Ridley: I do not believe that the right way forward is to ban the use of CFCs in one product or another. The right way is to restrict the total production of CFCs by very severe amounts. We have already gone to 85 per cent. We will leave the market to discover how best to deliver that reduction rather than banning the use of CFCs. When the use of CFCs was banned in America, production increased because the CFCs went into other uses. The other point is that many of the CFCs in a refrigerator are not in the motor but in the plastic foam insulation in the case of the refrigerator and it is almost impossible to extract them. I do not believe that banning would be the right policy to pursue.
    Mr Andy Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend give a practical demonstration to the world by designating Sherwood forest as the new enhanced national forest in this country?
    Mr. Ridley: I am not sure that I have had an application to do such a thing. I do not know whether that would contribute to a reduction in CFCs.

    East Thames-side (Housing)
    Mr. Leadbitter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing for those on low and medium incomes on the sites included in the east Thames-side study.
    Mr. Ridley: I am still considering the findings of the east Thames-side housing study, including how best to facilitate the provision of subsidised housing in the study areas.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Does the Secretary of State realise the significance of the press release from his Department last Monday, indicating a house build achieving 25 per cent. of houses available for rent and 75 per cent. for sale—a complete reversal of what was planned a few years ago? Does he recognise the need, therefore, for a subsidy on land costs and on housebuilding costs on sites in the east Thames-side study areas so that affordable houses may be made available to meet the housing needs of the people in those areas, particularly as two thirds of those affected cannot even afford fair rents?
    Mr. Ridley: I have always said of the London Docklands development corporation and in the case of the five east London sites, which are not part of the LDDC area, that the Government would like to see a fair proportion of low-cost housing. In many cases, that can be provided from the profits than can be made on market-price housing, but it is open to local authorities, of course, to negotiate section 52 agreements, and the Housing Corporation is equipped with resources with which to subsidise housing associations that might be involved in these developments and to provide low-cost housing.
    Mr. Adley: As affordable housing will often mean one or two-bedroomed flats and terraced houses, will my right hon. Friend look into the present position, under which planning authorities cannot give enforceable planning permission for a minimum number of houses per acre, which would be one way of tackling the problem? Will my right hon. Friend see whether he can find a way of introducing suitable legislation, which would have a significant effect in dealing with the problem?
    Mr. Ridley: Local authorities are entitled to draw up development plan density strategies and, of course, they can decide whether planning permission is given according to the extent to which applications comply with their strategies. I do not accept that they have no power over such matters.

    Privatisation (Middlesbrough)
    Mr. Holt: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the implementation of the Government's privatisation policy by Middlesbrough council.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: My hon. Friend has written to us about the subject. We are investigating the question and I shall write to him as soon as possible.
    Mr. Holt: I am grateful for that answer, but I hope for a longer answer when my hon Friend writes to me. Will she bear in mind when she replies the generous attitude of the
    1020
    Government towards Middlesbrough council in the grants that they hand out, particularly compared with the grants to neighbouring Langbaurgh, and will she look at the tendering processes in the two authorities? Middlesbrough refuses to carry out Government policy and is entering into long-term contracts, thereby making it almost impossible, as identified by the Northern Federation of Master Builders, to tender against the direct labour organisation. Langbaurgh has followed the spirit of Government policy and has made mammoth savings as a result. Is it not time that the Government rewarded such Conservative-controlled authorities which implement Government policy and did not reward authorities such as Middlesbrough?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right in saying that we have treated Middlesbrough generously, with an increase of more than 8 per cent. in block grant this year. The Local Government Act 1988 provides the powers for the Secretary of State to take when local authorities have been involved in anti-competitive practices. Contracting out can result in major savings for ratepayers and, in future, charge payers. It is up to local authorities to take full advantage of that legislation. In cases where local authorities have abused their position and have behaved in an anti-competitive fashion, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not hesitate to take the powers at his disposal.
    Ms. Mowlam: Does the Minister agree that what is important for the people of Middlesbrough is that the roads are clean, the bins are emptied and the gulleys are cleared? By integrating its services, Middlesbrough city council offers an efficient service and it is working within the Local Government Act 1988. Will the Minister now clarify that that is the case, rather than implying through slurs that Middlesbrough city council is working outside that Act?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I hope that the hon. Lady will advise Middlesbrough council to read the recent Audit Commission report, which made it clear that savings of almost 20 per cent. can be achieved by competitive tendering. What is important is that a high standard of services is achieved efficiently and effectively. Once I have looked into the situation in Middlesbrough, I shall ensure that the hon. Lady has a copy of the reply that I shall give to my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt).
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the savings from competitive tendering give local authorities an opportunity to provide a higher quality service without any extra cost to the ratepayer?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I agree. It will not only be at no greater cost to the ratepayer but, as the Audit Commission report made clear only last week, it will be at considerable savings for the ratepayer.
    Dr. Cunningham: Is the Minister not aware that Middlesbrough council has acted properly, within the law and with the support of the minority Conservative group to produce a tender specification in respect of street cleaning and related functions? As it has acted perfectly properly, why should it be criticised other than for reasons of political spite? Having checked the matter today, which the Minister clearly has not, with the leader of the council,

    1021
    councillor Carr, I am advised that he has received no complaint or opposition from Tory councillors about the procedures followed by the council.
    Mrs. Bottomley: What matters is that the council carries out its contracting-out processes fairly, and not in an anti-competitive fashion. That will result in not only a high standard of services, but savings to the ratepayer. Once we have completed our inquiries, which were started by my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh, we shall be able to comment more fully. At this moment it would be quite improper for me to make any further comments.

    River Pollution (Yorkshire)
    .Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Yorkshire water authority to discuss river pollution.
    The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): I regularly meet the chairman of the Yorkshire water authority, both in that capacity and as chairman of the Water Authorities Association, to discuss a wide range of issues, including river pollution.
    Mr. Cran: Despite considerable improvements in water quality in the Humber in recent years, I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will understand that my constituents would like further improvements. Is he satisfied with the reduction in industrial effluents, especially arsenic and aluminium, that are coming into the upper reaches of the Humber? Is he also satisfied that the £70 million that was committed for capital works to improve sewage works will allow the Humber estuary committee to meet its targets for water policy?
    Mr. Howard: As my hon. Friend rightly says, considerable progress has been made in achieving reductions in industrial discharges in recent years, including arsenic. We have asked the water authorities concerned to prepare plans for achieving further reductions as part of our response to the second North sea conference and we expect to receive them shortly.
    Mr. Madden: When the Minister next meets the chairman of the Yorkshire water authority, will he seek an assurance from him that the authority has abandoned the procedure of deliberately sending huge demand notices to people for water debts for which it knows that they are not liable? Is the Minister aware that one of my constituents, a 76-year-old widow, was recently greatly distressed when she received a bill for more than £500, which had been deliberately sent to her by the Yorkshire water authority, which knew that the debt was that of the Bradford Tory council which, for one reason or another, had been unwilling or unable to pay the debt? Does the Minister agree that that is a monstrous action for any public authority to take? I hope that he will call an end to it.
    Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has drawn that matter to the attention of the Yorkshire water authority and that he has received or will receive a full reply to the point that he has raised.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the scandal of many water authorities polluting riverways will be altered by the privatisation of the water
    1022
    supply industry because at long last the National Rivers Authority will police the worst polluted rivers, which tend to be those of the water authorities?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are determined to achieve higher standards for the waiter environment, as was made clear in a document that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) leaked as last week's stunt, although it was not a secret document.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: When the Minister meets the chairman of Yorkshire Water will he discuss why the City or the small investor should buy shares in Yorkshire Water on privatisation, as it is currently breaking the law with 63 illegal sewage treatment works that are polluting Yorkshire rivers and causing an overall reduction in river quality in Yorkshire? Or will the Minister persist in relaxing the legal standards on sewage treatment works simply to remove another barrier to privatisation?
    Mr. Howard: We are exploring with the Yorkshire water authority an accelerated investment plan, beyond even the £120 million programme which was in its corporate plan for 1988, to bring its sewage works into compliance by March 1992. That is the safeguard for higher standards for the water environment for water consumers in Yorkshire.

    Rent Assessment Officers
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the powers of rent assessment officers.
    Mr. Trippier: From 1 April 1989, rent officers will have the additional power to assess the rents paid by, and the accommodation occupied by, tenants with deregulated tenancies who claim housing benefit. Those assessments will be used in calculating housing benefit subsidy payments to local authorities.
    Mr. Cox: It is interesting to hear those comments from the Minister. Nevertheless, is he aware of the growing dissatisfaction over the action of rent officers and the increases that they allow to take place? Many landlords do virtually no repairs and show little interest in their property but when they seek a rent increase they not only receive it but it is a substantial one. Is the Minister further aware that the people who listen to the cases on rent assessment appeal committees are totally unrepresentative of the people who go there to complain about their rent assessments? When will this issue be realistically examined so that people have confidence in the actions of rent officers and rent assessment appeal committees?
    Mr. Trippier: I have certainly not received a mailbag on this issue. I have received representations about the deregulated rent policy as outlined in the 1988 Act. If the hon. Gentleman would care to give me some examples—or better still, see me at the Department of Environment—I should be delighted to discuss the matter further.
    Mr. Dickens: Would it not be sensible to widen the powers of rent assessment officers to include rent arrears which are a vexing, national and scandalous problem? It is particularly prevalent in Labour-controlled councils, including the Rochdale and Oldham borough councils. Does the Minister agree that if an estate agent fell behind

    1023
    in collecting his rents—like some local councils—he would go out of business in a fortnight? Some local council officers ought to be out of business.
    Mr. Trippier: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend said. I am reluctant to suggest to the House that we should give that power to rent officers, who already carry an incredible responsibility. The responsibility should be placed fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the local authority. I agree with my hon. Friend that Rochdale borough council has a deplorable record in that respect, and, dare I say it, that is in stark contrast to the time when I was fortunate enough to lead the council.
    Mr. George Howarth: Will the Minister accept that, to some extent, rent arrears have risen as a result of DSS changes? Will he confirm that the early signs are that, as a result of the Housing Act 1988, rents will rise by about 20 per cent? It looks as if rents will become distinctly more unaffordable rather than affordable, as they were supposed to do.
    Mr. Trippier: I know that the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Housing Bill. He may accept the principal point that the housing benefit system, which is the responsibility of the DSS, means that the poorest tenants will have all their rent paid. Every person receiving housing benefit receives 100 per cent. protection against rent increases, provided that the rent remains at, or below, the market rent level.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister take serious note of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), because it is a problem? Under the 1988 Act, there are to be changes in the duty of rent assessment officers who, in the future, will not assess fair rents but market rents. Rents will rise sky-high and landlords will have the right to determine tenancy agreements—usually six months—which means that people will be prevented from applying to the rent officer. Is the Minister saying that the interests of tenants, as regards rent levels, is of no interest to him or his Department? Or will he act to secure the rights of tenants to ensure that they are charged rents that they can afford and are not pressganged into accepting tenancies with sky-high rents?
    Mr. Trippier: I completely reject the hon. Gentleman's allegation that rents will go sky-high. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was enshrined in the 1988 legislation and we have given reassurances time and again on the Floor of the House that the principal purpose of the 1988 legislation was not only to encourage the private rented sector but to make homes available within it at affordable rents. I have the utmost confidence in the rent officers and it is absolutely right that, although we are responsible for appointing them, we have no direct influence over their assessments. It is right that they should come to their decisions on what market rents should be wholly independently.

    Peak Park
    Mr. McLoughlin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to visit the area covered by the Peak park planning board.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley; I shall be visiting the Peak district national park on 12 April.
    Mr. McLoughlin: We look forward to my hon. Friend's visit to the area covered by the national park. May I draw her attention to the way in which people are appointed to the national parks? Is she satisfied that, of the county council representatives appointed to the national park, the vast majority have no connection with it? Derbyshire county council appoints eight people, seven of whom live outside the national park. People are beginning to say that is is time that was changed. Would it not be better to give greater representation to the district councils?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am not satisfied with that state of affairs. We have said on several occasions that, whenever possible, authorities should draw their national park appointments from the electoral wards within the national parks' boundaries. I hope that my hon. Friend will find some gratification in the fact that of the 11 appointments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, eight live within the national park area.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that many Nottinghamshire people including myself visit the beautiful county of Derbyshire? I want to be there to welcome her when she comes, but may I suggest that she keeps the Secretary of State for the Environment away from Derbyshire, because whatever he gets his grubby hands on, something goes wrong.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am very much looking forward to visiting the national park. I am not entirely sure how his comments tie in with the fact that the national parks had a large increase in their supplementary grant last year. They will be celebrating their 40th birthday this year and to mark it, after 10 years of this Government, their grant will have increased by about 20 per cent. in real terms. I regard that as a testimony of confidence in the parks.

    Football Clubs (Membership Scheme)
    Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to compensate Football League clubs experiencing financial difficulties following the introduction of the proposed identity card scheme.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): No, Sir. With appropriate technology and proper marketing, the national membership scheme can provide an income stream, not a cost to football.
    Mr. Smith: Will the Minister understand that his refusal to provide or offer assistance in the unfortunate event of his scheme coming into practice will be greeted with dismay by all who truly care for football in this country? Many clubs are struggling on the bread line—including some, like my club, Oxford United, which are higher up—so how does the Minister imagine that they will sustain the anticipated 20 per cent. loss in gates? Why does he not put back into football some of the £293 million that the Government take out in tax on ticket receipts and football pools?
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman would do well to listen to some of the companies with experience of partial memberships schemes. Such companies have come forward and said that the whole operation could be

    1025
    installed free of charge to clubs and supporters because of the substantial commercial opportunities that exist for the implementation of such a scheme.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity of seeing the check-in scheme that has been sent to a number of us from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames)? The company, Check Technology, says that it is possible for it to do exactly what my hon. Friend's Bill is intended to do but much more cheaply. Could he discuss its ideas with the company?
    Mr. Moynihan: I have received representations on behalf of that firm. I have looked carefully at the proposition. It would be for the Football Membership Authority to determine the technology that it wishes to use and I shall make sure that the company's representations are put before the FMA in due course.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Why does the Minister persist in his support for the scheme in the teeth of opposition from the Police Federation? Why does he rely on bogus statistics which do not distinguish between those arrested inside and those arrested outside football grounds and, in particular, do not distinguish between the number of arrests and the number of convictions that follow?
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. and learned Member will be aware that the chief superintendents have written a supporting letter, that the Association of Chief Police Officers welcomed the scheme last summer and that the Police Federation, following a meeting with me, has recognised that a number of its concerns have been allayed and, quite rightly, wants to wait and see the details of the scheme that the football authorities will bring forward in order to assist in its implementation and make it as effective as possible.
    Mr. Marlow: Would my hon. Friend confirm that this is enabling legislation which need not be enforced and that, if it is enforced, it need not be enforced on every single team in the Football League?
    Mr. Moynihan: It is the Government's intention that this legislation, when passed. will enable the FMA to have a scheme in place at all league grounds on the same day.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Will the Minister tell us what consultations he is having and what conclusions he has drawn from two deplorable difficulties, one this week at Manchester United's ground when 18,000 supporters had not been admitted to the ground at the time of kick-off and one last November at Highbury when 6,000 people could not get in at all? Has he consulted the chief officers of police and the club officials, all of whom say that if his membership scheme had been in operation it would have seriously aggravated an already difficult situation? Should not the Minister consult the people dealing with these problems on the ground when large numbers of spectators are arriving, and will he listen to the police officers concerning those cases rather than carry on with his scheme which is nothing more than a piece of crass stupidity?
    Mr. Moynihan: The right hon. Member knows that I have looked into that incident. I can inform the House that the difficulties arose once the fans had entered the ground. I quote the secretary, Ken Merrett:
    "The late arrival of many spectators, together with severe traffic congestion, caused the initial problems. The vast numbers who gained entry from 7 pm onwards caused gangways to become blocked."
    That has nothing whatever to do with the national membership scheme but rather with good management practice and effective stewarding.
    Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I will take it after the statement.
    Mr. Flannery: It has to do with Question Time, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: No.

Agriculture Council
3.33 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): With permission, I will make a statement about the meeting of the Council of Agricultural Ministers of the European Community on 23 and 24 January, which I attended along with my right hon. Friend the Minister.
The main decision was the adoption by the Council, subject to the opinion of the European Parliament, of a package of six measures, most of which had been under discussion for some considerable time. These measures were: first, further changes in the beef support arrangements, building on the temporary measures agreed in December 1986; secondly, a scheme to give effect to the judgment of the European Court that certain farmers who had gone out of milk production under Community incentive schemes before milk quotas were introduced in 1984 were entitled to a quota; thirdly, a scheme permitting member states to grant direct income aids to less prosperous farmers, with partial financing from the Community; fourthly, a degree of financial assistance to producers of nuts, mainly of interest to the southern member states; fifthly, a change in the arrangements for compensating small cereals producers for the effects of the co-responsibility levy; sixthly, changes to green rates for certain member states, mainly in the beef sector.
This package of measures was adopted by majority vote. The United Kingdom was one of three member states voting against, mainly because of reservations about certain aspects of the outcome on beef. There are nevertheless a number of attractive features of the package and a number of improvements were made in the course of negotiation. For example, we had serious doubts as to whether it was appropriate for the Community to finance direct aids to low income farmers; but the scheme finally adopted by the Council was considerably more restricted in its scope than that originally proposed by the Commission.
The most important aim on the milk quota part of the package was that the extra quota now to be made available should not be at the expense of existing producers' quotas. This was fully achieved.
The aim of the new beef arrangements is to restrict intervention buying further, and to harmonise the premium payments to producers. The intention is that the new system should come into force on 3 April.
We have always believed that heavy intervention buying is an expensive and inefficient way of supporting beef producers. Although somewhat less constrained than the Commission originally proposed, intervention will in future be much more restricted than at present.
For the reasons explained by my right hon. Friend in last week's debate, it was not realistic to negotiate any further extension of the United Kingdom's variable premium. It will be replaced by the so-called "special premium" on male animals, already operated by most other Community states since 1987.
The rate of special premium will be 40 ecu per animal compared with 25 ecu at present. It will be limited to 90 animals per producer per year compared with 50 at present and 75 proposed by the Commission. Although we did not secure the complete removal of the limit, the increase to 90 is obviously a considerable improvement.
1028
There will also be an increase from 25 to 40 ecu in the Community-funded element of the suckler cow premium, and part-time farmers will in future be eligible for the premium
I thought it right to vote against the package because of our strong objections to the concessions on beef intervention and to the continued provision of a headage limit on the special premium. Even so, the outcome represents a considerable improvement in existing arrangements. There should be no difficulty in absorbing the costs of the package within the provision for agricultural market support in the 1989 Community budget and within the financial guideline limits set by the European Council for future years. Community consumers will benefit from reduced intervention for beef; United Kingdom producers will compete on level terms with producers in other member states in terms of intervention support and the premium regimes; and the budgetary cost of the regime will be under much better control.
Dr. David Clark: I thank the Minister for his statement, although in a sense it raises as many questions as it answers. We are bitterly disappointed at his news on the beef support system. In last week's debate, the Minister had the unanimous support of the House to resist a new discriminatory beef regime because the exclusion of the special premium of heifers will hit United Kingdom farmers particularly hard. Having carried the House with him, it is regrettable that he was not able to carry the Community with him as well.
Was there any discussion of extensification? If not, why did he not press that issue, as the package is a serious setback for the specialist beef sector in the United Kingdom and is important to the marginal and hill areas?
As the financial support of the new beef regime switches from the national Governments to the EC, presumably there will be some savings to the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Has the Minister made an estimate of the sum by which the Ministry will benefit, and has he any intention of diverting that money towards essential research and development work on meat health and safety, which would be a positive move?
On the SLOM milk matter, will the Minister assure the House, which he has not been able to do previously, that he now has the necessary machinery and information to ensure that those British farmers entitled to the new benefit will receive it? That is important.
The Ministry, and especially the Minister, have made no secret in the past of their opposition to income aids. Indeed, I gleaned from his statement today that the Minister was not especially enthusiastic about the new scheme. I understood, too, that the new scheme was likely to be permissive. If that is the case, do the Government intend to adopt the scheme? If they do, when will they adopt it, and will they seriously consider Opposition support for some direct income aid to those farmers in upland areas who are especially hard hit?
Will the Minister give us some idea of the effect that the new beef regime will have on the consumer, because it is difficult to ascertain whether beef prices will go up or down?
I noticed that agri-money was on the agenda for discussion. During that discussion, did the Minister raise the serious issue of fraud in European agriculture? Did he draw to his colleagues' attention the remarks of the

1029
director of the Government's serious fraud squad, John Wood, who revealed yesterday that he was close to completing inquiries into two significant cases of agriculture fraud in Britain, involving EC moneys amounting to millions of pounds? He said on that occasion:
"Our own domestic experience is that the money obtained by fraud is being used to finance the traffic in narcotics and is also being used to finance trade in arms and terrorism."
What was the reaction of the other European Ministers to those serious allegations by a senior British Government official?
Mr. Thompson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. The headage limits system is not more discriminatory. It is less discriminatory across Europe than were the four different schemes which various countries had for paying support to their farmers.
There was no discussion of extensification, but that comes into the income aids question. We believe in extensification, set-aside and measures that will reduce production. We would rely on the social security system throughout the Community rather than on special income aids, however rigged by the Community.
As the SLOM package emerged, it appeared that British farmers, who were entitled under this narrow band, would receive their entitlements along with other European farmers.
The hon. Gentleman asked how the beef regime would help the consumer. Of course, the variable premium did not help the consumer when prices were high. The special premium enables beef farmers and farmers with a 90 head limit on dairy herds who want to raise beef as well to be certain about the amount of money that they will collect. Therefore, there will be a firmer beef regime and a steadier amount of beef available to the housewife, which eventually should knock on into consumer prices.
The agri-monetary debate was short and concerned two small points. Fraud was not mentioned. I know that fraud is always at the forefront of my Minister's mind when he is in Agriculture Councils, as it is in mine when I am in Fisheries Councils. The United Kingdom has a good record on this matter and it enjoys the support of the entire House.
Mr. Robert Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be a general welcome for a scheme which allows those milk producers who went out of milk prior to the introduction of milk quotas now to be eligible for a quota over and above the existing national level? There will be certain anxieties about beef, although we shall welcome the increase in the number to 90.
Can my hon. Friend say more about the suckler premium, which we hope will in some way compensate for the new beef arrangements which will apply only to male animals? As more than 75 per cent. of our beef production comes from the dairy herd, the question of heifers will cause concern.
Mr. Thompson: Both those questions are related to the dairy sector. I agree with my hon. Friend that those people who will now receive a quota will find it restricted. They will have to produce 80 per cent. of the quota within two years, and they will be entitled to only 60 per cent. of the quota initially, so it will be restricted. Those who are worried about it need not do anything immediately. The application process will start and will run for three months
1030
once the regulations have been laid. The cow suckler premium has increased from 25 to 40 ecu and there is scope for national Governments to increase it. We shall consider the rate to apply in 1989–90 and make a further announcement in due course.
Mr. Richard Livsey: Will the Parliamentary Secretary wish his colleague the Minister well and a rapid recovery? Does he agree that we should regret the passing of variable premiums, although I recognise the circumstances under which they have been lost? What can we do as Members of Parliament to assist the Minister in persuading the Europeans that heifers should be eligible for special premiums? There is a considerable loss to British beef farmers. How many farmers in the United Kingdom will qualify for low income support? If the Under-Secretary of State can give us the figures, does he think that perhaps that method should be considered as a possible way of assisting farmers in the poorer parts of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Thompson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about my right hon. Friend the Minister; and I thank the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who made similar remarks privately to me before the statement. The Minister is improving. He is in hospital in Brussels, being well looked after, and he hopes to be back in business soon.
The heifer question is difficult for British farmers. As the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) expressed it so well the other night, 34 per cent. of our beef comes from heifers. It would be horrendous to monitor the heifer system by on-farm inspections throughout Europe to see that none got into the dairy system, and it would be impossible to receive a derogation just for the United Kingdom.
The low income scheme is tentative, although some guidelines were set down, such as the 300 million ecu total, the period of five years and the maximum of 2,500 ecu. It is not appropriate for the United Kingdom. We have other better ways of preserving our farming community.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: May we on this side of the House join in sending good wishes to our right hon. Friend the Minister? We respect the efforts of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of State at what must have been a difficult meeting, which he joined late. We are grateful to him for standing up for British interests as he has done.
Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that the beef matter will be discouraging for many farmers where our structure for beef production is different from the rest of Europe, particularly in Scotland? Many farmers have diversified into other areas, such as from milk or cereals into beef, and they will find themselves restricted. Can my hon. Friend say whether consideration has been or could be given to relating the restrictions on headage numbers and steers only to labour units per farm rather than to the farm itself? That would recognise the different structure in Britain, particularly in Scotland, compared with the rest of Europe.
Mr. Thompson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his good wishes to my right hon. Friend, which will be conveyed.
The United Kingdom structure is different, which is why we voted against the package. We tried hard to do

1031
away with a headage limit altogether, believing that the package will not restrain Europe's total beef production but only that in units. Ultimately, that will make no difference to the total restriction of beef production throughout Europe. We did not discuss farm labour units. Obviously it is a continuing debate, and we must wait to see how the 90 headage limit affects British farmers. At present, it seems that it will include the majority of specialist breeders and those to whom my right hon. Friend referred who have diversified into beef, and to those who have a milk unit. We shall bear in mind the farm unit labour system of counting.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Recognising the problems that this development will cause for the specialist beef sector, and particularly for small producers in difficult farming lands, and the fact that the Minister does not believe that direct income aid is the course to take, what is the Minister's message to farmers? Is it that Labour will give the farmer a better deal than he gets from the present Government?
Mr. Thompson: When the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will start saying it. We intend that the small farmer of any sort will not fall to the level where income aid is necessary, which is why we believe that the cow suckler premium and its increase will help. Although the headage limit is not high enough at 90 animals, it will also help.
Mr. David Curry: There is no use pretending that this is an ideal package, and my hon. Friend was right to vote against it. What proportion of British beef herds will have all their animals covered by the premium? Does he agree that we must be particularly careful in discussions on sheepmeat about limitations on headage payments? Will he take to heart the message of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) in last week's debate—in which, as I recall, no Labour Back Bencher participated—that the United Kingdom must use its discretion to include a suckler premium, because that is most important for the uplands?
Mr. Thompson: My hon. Friend makes several good points. We went to great lengths to emphasise to the Commission, and to the commissioners, that the beef variable premium scheme is coming to an end but that the variable premium for sheep is continuing, and that there is no connection between the two.
Mr. William Ross: I express on behalf of the Official Unionist party and of other right hon. and hon. Members the good wishes of the House to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in the hope that he will speedily be back on his feet and able to resume his good work—especially as he is evidently much needed.
Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how much extra milk quota there is, what the proportion of that will be for the United Kingdom, and how much of the United Kingdom's quota will go to Northern Ireland? What is the precise machinery for deciding which farmers will receive the quota? People need to know that information quickly. How will the farmers be selected?
Can the Minister explain to the House, and to the farming community, how one is to define less prosperous
1032
farmers? Various definitions could be used. What will be the net effect of the various changes in the beef regime on that sector's profitability?
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that this is the first time that United Kingdom farming interests have been overruled by a majority vote, that that is a sign of things to come, and that, more and more, United Kingdom interests will be overruled?
Mr. Thompson: As the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) have said, this was not an ideal package or an ideal negotiation. Although I was there for the whole time, in the end we could only vote against the package as a whole.
As for the milk farmers who are coming back into the scheme, we have no idea yet how many will apply. The Community has set a limit of 600,000 tonnes and thinks that that will be adequate. It is new milk, and therefore will not impinge on those who are already producing milk. The instructions, when they arrive, will be clearly set out, and people will have three months in which to apply and our assistance and that of others to do so.
Each national Government will define their less prosperous farmers within guidelines set out by the Community's incomes aid scheme. We hope not to define our less prosperous farmers in that way. Profitability and costs for both the Community and the farming industry have not yet been worked out, which is another reason why we voted against the package. Part of the cost will be due to implementation of the various schemes, and we could get no clear indication of that.
I do not know whether this is the first time that we have voted in accordance with our interests —[Interruption.] I am told that it is the second time. Whether that is a sign of things to come I cannot say, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister and I fight hard for British interests in the Community, and that we fought long and hard on this occasion.
Dame Elaine Kellet-Bowman: May I say how pleased I am that my right hon. Friend the Minister's condition is improving.
I greatly regret the passing of the beef variable premium, and I am very glad that my hon. Friend was tough enough to vote against it. I also do not like the limit on beef headage, and I do not see why it cannot be paid on clean heifers at the time of slaughter. I appreciate that my hon. Friend managed to get the limit up to 90 animals, but will he please press ahead with improvements in the beef suckler premium, which is vital to my marginal farmers, and continue the fight against fraud which brings the Community into disrepute?
Mr. Thompson: Reading the reports of our debate the other night just before coming into the Chamber, I noticed my hon. Friend's telling intervention on both variable premiums and headage limits. The difficulty with paying on clean heifers at slaughter is that not all Community Governments will use that system of payment, which leads us directly to the fraud question that my hon. Friend mentioned.
Ms. Joyce Quin: Is the Parliamentary Secretary in favour of any extension of direct income aid beyond the rather narrow range already agreed? In view of the concern expressed in the House yesterday about agriculture and its effects on the

1033
environment, was any consideration give in the EEC towards helping small farmers who practise in an environmentally friendly fashion?
Mr. Thompson: The environment that people see from their cars and love so much is the environment created by farmers. We have other ways of helping farmers and of restraining production. We have the less-favoured areas scheme, which sustains farmers throughout the United Kingdom, especially in Wales, the spine of England and Scotland. We have set-aside, environmentally sensitive areas and various grants for environmental measures. I do not think that the direct income aid proposed by the Europeans is relevant to the United Kingdom.
Mr. Christopher Gill: In considering the level of national top-up on the suckler cow premium, will my hon. Friend bear in mind its importance in encouraging the economies in the upland areas? Will he also bear in mind that that support goes directly to the primary producer, and that any encouragement to suckler beef producers is a direct encouragement of quality beef, which is important to the consumer?
Mr. Thompson: I agree entirely that quality is of direct importance to the consumer. I know that, before he became a Member, my hon. Friend was directly involved with these matters. I have heard what he and the whole House have said about the level of top-up. As I have said, a statement will be made at another time.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): Did the Minister say that as yet there has been no estimate of the net effect on farm income of the changes to the beef regime? If so, and if an estimate is prepared that shows a severe effect on specialist beef producers, will the Government consider giving assistance to people who are hard hit by these changes? Is it not ironic that the changes in the beef regime have been pursued to restrict intervention buying which at present is not a major factor in the Scottish beef market?
Mr. Thompson: Did the hon. Gentleman say that it was not a significant factor?
Mr. Salmond indicated assent
Mr. Thompson: Intervention buying has not been a significant factor throughout the United Kingdom. We wanted to make sure that intervention buying became a safety net rather than just another too-ready market for the producers or end users of beef. We think that these regulations which have been brought up to date and altered and have an intervention ceiling of 220,000 tonnes and a safety net at 80 per cent. together with other measures, will help.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend aware of the appreciation in the farming industry, and especially in the beef sector, that he and his right hon. Friend were playing with a weak hand? Can he confirm that the cessation of the variable premium scheme should eliminate distortion in the market caused by the Irish element of beef production? Does he agree that the industry will be looking for a sum at least equal to the funds that come free from the Treasury input to the beef variable premium scheme to be put to the suckler cow premium as a national top-up so as to sustain their confidence and the vital industry of the upland areas?
Mr. Thompson: Again, my hon. Friend asks about the suckler cow premium and again I say that there will be a further statement in due course. I am sure that my hon. Friends in the Treasury will read Hansard tomorrow as keenly as my hon. Friend and I will read what we have said. The beef sector debate was hard and long and we did not finish it until 5 o'clock in the morning. The variable premium scheme has always had clawback factors and money always had to be paid back when beef went into intervention. Given the surges and recessions in payment, it is difficult to work out its exact cost. We shall lose clawback when we lose the variable premium, and that will help in many ways and will especially help our exports. We also hope to lose many of the Irish difficulties with variable premium across the border. That should simplify the system. Much will depend on how efficiently Ireland., Northern Ireland and ourselves can introduce and maintain the new headage limits.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Is there nothing in this package about intensification? In view of the problems about pollution and food quality associated with intensive farming, why are not the Government pursuing a vigorous policy of extensification that will lead to healthier food and cleaner environment?
Mr. Thompson: The Government are pursuing an environmentally sensitive areas policy. That is being examined throughout Europe as a way of looking after the countryside in the manner that the hon. Gentleman recommends. He shakes his head. Extensification would do much of what he said, but so will set-aside, because less land will be farmed and need not be fertilised.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: How does it make sense to adopt a package that will force up prices for the housewife in the United Kingdom but not for the housewife on the continent? That will be the result of abolishing the variable premium. The consumption of beef in Britain is already below the amount consumed on the continent. Is this not a grim warning to the United Kingdom of what happens with the extensification of majority voting? Could the Minister say whether he was successful on behalf of the United Kingdom in eliminating the exceptional circumstances clause which has wrecked previous cost controls and which will wreck this one if it is still in place?
Mr. Thompson: My hon. Friend alludes to fraud. That is always in the forefront of our minds when we introduce any system. Whatever disadvantages the demise of the variable premium will have, I cannot see any disadvantage in having a common system throughout Europe, nor can I see how that advantages or disadvantages consumers in the United Kingdom or in the rest of Europe. I think that., for the first time for many years, the consumption of beef has increased this year. Perhaps we can get the consumption of good British beef back to what it was in the past.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I should like to join in the expressions of good wishes to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I have two simple questions. Are there savings in the package that has been announced? If the Minister had secured what he set out to secure, would there have been greater savings?
Mr. Thompson: If we had secured what we intended to secure, there would have been greater savings on intervention. If there were no headage limit, it would make little difference to the amount of money going into the beef regime because, as I said, I do not think that this will curtail the total amount of beef being consumed. Generally, it will be possible to absorb the package in the budgetary limits that have been set down for the future.
The hon. Gentleman knows a fair bit about being ill, and I thank him for his good wishes to my right hon. Friend.
Sir Peter Hordern: What is the position of tenant dairy farmers? Am I right in thinking that the Government are not to take advantage of income support that has been voted by the European Community? What are the other methods of assisting farmers on low incomes? If there is evidence of fraud and malpractice, will my hon. Friend send the papers to the Comptroller and Auditor General so that we may all know about it?
Mr. Thompson: I fully understand the House's concern about fraud. I said specifically in answer to a question that fraud was not discussed at this Council meeting. We are pursuing the question of fraud in every possible way because we do not want to bring the Government or the EC into disrepute by any further extension of fraud. I understand the present difficulties of tenant farmers, especially with regard to milk quotas. I do not think that the income support envisaged in the package would be of assistance to the people that my hon. Friend has in mind.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The Minister must agree that many hours of discussion and debate in the Common Market that cause a Minister to fall ill are hardly the best way to deal with problems about the production and marketing of food. The Minister has been good enough to tell the House that the six parts of the package are unsatisfactory. I assume from that that the components of each part do not add up to much in terms of advantage for the United Kingdom. That will be evident from the impact that this will have on prices. I understand why the Minister was not able to discuss with his colleagues in the Department how best to come back to the House to explain the nature, extent and cost of the dissatisfactions and what the housewife will pay, because once again the Common Market would not listen to the United Kingdom.
Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman knows that this statement hangs together with the debate that we had last week and those people who participated in the debate knew exactly our hopes and expectations for this package when we set off and our disappointment when we returned. That is why we voted against the package.
We all regret the fact that these negotiations go through the night, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as a distinguished Committee Chairman in this House, well understands the complexities and difficulties of pushing through legislation. He has sat for many more hours than he would like to number listening to debates in Committee when he would rather have been elsewhere. It is the same in Europe, where we have 11 other colleagues to deal with individually. We did not like this package as a whole, but, like the curate's egg—if I dare mention that—it is good in parts.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Milk producers in west Wales will be particularly pleased to discover that the outgoers scheme will not mean a reduction in their own quotas but an additional quota. Can my hon. Friend give any estimate of the total number of producers who might be eligible for that scheme and can he say whether the Commission will be prepared to increase the level from 600,000 tonnes if that proves to be inadequate?
Mr. Thompson: The answer to the first question is no, I cannot, and the answer to the second question is yes.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Minister give an assurance that he fully understands the retrograde and damaging impact of the loss of the variable beef premium in upland areas? Does he agree that that makes it even more crucial that he fights to the last ditch for the sheepmeat regime to maintain that source of income? Will he also make clear his view of the discretionary increase that is available to him as a national aid in terms of the suckler cow headage premium? Will he give us an assurance that he will fight the Treasury to make that necessary increase? Will he also tell us what proportion of our less-favoured dairy farmers will qualify for income support under the low-income scheme?
Mr. Thompson: I do not think that that aid is suitable for the United Kingdom, and it would be unfair to offer that as a help. I fully understand that the variable premium will be missed, not only in the upland areas, but throughout the United Kingdom. We cannot, and should not, as we emphasised to the Commissioners, connect this package on beef with any future discussions on the changing of the sheepmeat regime, which is not yet due for change. I fully understand the importance of the suckler cow scheme. There will be a further statement in due course.
Mr. John Greenway: My hon. Friend's toughness in the negotiations is, thankfully, not reflected in the quality of British beef which, if properly cooked, is extremely tender. As we have now lost the variable beef premium, farmers will feel that the future is very uncertain. May I add my voice to those emphasising the need for the national optional top-up to the suckler cow premium to be incorporated in full because, without that, we will not have the level playing field to which my hon. Friend referred.
With regard to income aid for less-favoured areas, will my hon. Friend take note of the scheme adopted by the North Yorkshire national park committee and discuss with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment how such a scheme could be adopted in other national parks?
Mr. Thompson: As that scheme has been adopted in the North Yorkshire national park, the adoption of this European scheme is unnecessary. Tender beef and the suckler cow herd go together because, to have tender beef on a suckler herd, we need steers and not bulls, which would run wild in the fields. It is important that we have a throughput of steers into the shops and supermarkets. There will be a further statement on the suckler cow premium in due course and I shall add my views to those that have already been expressed.
Mr. Tony Banks: I am delighted to hear that the Minister of Agriculture,

1037
Fisheries and Food is well on his way to recovery because he has many curates' eggs as well as boiled eggs yet to eat on our behalf.
What implications will there be as a result of this announcement for the size of the intervention stores? Will he deal particularly with the ever-deepening wine lake? Are there any proposals to turn that wine into fuel, or will my pensioners in Newham have the opportunity of getting the odd bottle?
Mr. Thompson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about my right hon. Friend.
The intervention store to which he referred is now at a limit of 220,000 tonnes and the amount of beef taken into intervention last year was almost twice that amount. Provided there is no collapse in the price of beef, as there was in pigmeat last year, that intervention limit should help.
We did not discuss wine at this meeting, but wine, cereals and the use of agricultural surpluses for other purposes are important matters and are being pursued by the Government and the European Commission at all times. I should not wish to take a drop from the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but, if we can find another use for the wine, it might make that drop cheaper.
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde): Does my hon. Friend agree that the enhanced suckler cow premium will make a significant contribution to the maintenance of quality beef production in the United Kingdom and that that maintenance of high quality is important in boosting the consumption of beef from home resources?
Mr. Thompson: Yes. We now have scope to increase the suckler cow premium and will be considering the rate to apply for the 1989–90 scheme. As I have said, there will be a full and further statement in due course. Of course, the animals from the suckler herds are the most tender and of the best quality. In addition, suckler cow herds help to keep the country as green, pleasant and environmentally sweet as we all like to see. We therefore place great emphasis on suckler cow herds.
Mr. Ian Bruce: How will milk quotas be allocated? I am thinking particularly of a case in my constituency where a farmer, because of disease in the herd, was advised to slaughter the herd, keep cows away from the farm for about five years and then come back. Of course, quotas were introduced during that time, so the farmer has not had a quota since. Will such a farmer be able to apply under this scheme and have a chance of obtaining a quota?
Mr. Thompson: No. We regret that many people who are genuine hardship cases, like my hon. Friend's constituent, will still be left out of the quota scheme while, on the other hand, through the implementation of the European Court ruling, other people will be let back into the scheme. However, it would be wrong of me to give my hon. Friend any encouragement for his constituent.

Unemployment Benefit Office, Ossett
4.18 pm
Mr. William O'Brien: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the sudden announcement by the Department of Employment of the closure of the unemployment benefit office at Ossett in west Yorkshire and the hardship and trouble that that will cause to the unemployed in the Ossett area, particularly the disabled."
This is a specific issue dealing with the unemployment benefit office in the Ossett area, which has a population of over 20,000. The office is a significant facility that must be retained. It is an important issue because I received a notice last night advising me that the office will be closed with some haste.
Ossett township was a former borough and there are a number of young families and elderly people there. People in that area were recently directed to the Dewsbury office because a computer service had been installed there. When I challenged the Department of Employment on that matter, I was assured that the office would be retained, and I am most disappointed that that assurance is now being withdrawn. My constituents have no affinity with the Dewsbury area. It is not in the constituency. It is not even in the district council area of which Ossett is a part.
Public transport is also a problem. I am discussing the matter with the transport authorities. It is a cruel blow, particularly to the disabled and the chronically sick in my area. There is no jobcentre. I ask that leave be given to adjourn the House so that we can discuss fully the problems in my constituency.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the sudden announcement by the Department of Employment of the closure of the unemployment benefit office at Ossett in west Yorkshire and the hardship and trouble that that will cause to the unemployed in the Ossett area, particularly the disabled."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20, I have to take into account the requirements of the order and announce my decision without giving reasons to the House. I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said, but he knows that my sole duty in considering this application is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business set clown for this evening or for tomorrow. I regret that the matter he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
4.21 pm
Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which arises from Question Time. It is strange that we have to raise points of order about Question Time when Ministers about whom points of order are raised have left the Chamber. My point of order deals with much wider issues than my question No.1 on the Order Paper:
"To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses were built to be rented in the public sector in each successive year since 1975."
The Minister referred me to the answer that was given yesterday to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), who was not here at Question Time. Having complained about that to the Minister and to you, I left the Chamber, obtained a copy of Hansard and went through it to find the answer to the question.
Hon. Members put down oral questions for specific reasons. They are quite different from written questions. The answers to written questions are not necessarily seen by all hon. Members. When we ask oral questions, the journalists, as well as hon. Members, hear the answers. My question depends to an extent on the answer that we should have been given and that therefore we should have heard. I found that there was no answer to the question in Hansard. I did not know what to do about it.
That leaves a great gap, and a serious question of principle is involved. If a Minister does not want to give an answer to a question because the answer would stimulate many other questions—as, in my opinion, the oral answer to my question would have done—he can easily ask one of his hon. Friends to ask a question and then refer to the answer to that question, which we should then have to find. We do not have the opportunity to put down the question again because we have not seen the answer to the other question.
The question to the hon. Member for Hallam has all the signs of having been prompted, because it has not yet been answered. Therefore, the answer to which the Minister referred me and on which my supplementary question depended, according to the Minister, has not yet been given because it has not yet been printed. That, together with the fact that the Minister has now left the Chamber and has not taken it into account, leads me to think that there has been sharp practice in order to avoid answering the question.
Mr. Speaker: I have allowed the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) to raise this point of order because it is a matter of considerable interest to the House, but it is not a point of order for me; it is a matter for the Minister. However, I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, particularly as I understood the Minister to say that he had answered that question yesterday. I anticipated, therefore, that it would have been printed in Hansard. If it has not been printed, I think that the hon. Gentleman should take up the matter with the Minister.
Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for what you have said, but it is a matter for you in another sense. The form of reply that was given by the Minister constitutes a block on further questions, in that he has nothing to add to the reply that he has already given. The Minister has
1040
done two things, the first of which, I accept, is not your responsibility. He has denied my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) the opportunity to ask an informed supplementary question. He has also possibly prevented any hon. Member from tabling further follow-up questions if the Table Office treats the "nothing to add" as a blocking reply. How do we deal with that?
Mr. Speaker: The answer that was given to the hon. Member for Hillsborough did not prevent a supplementary question from being asked. That kind of answer to a question does not mean that a block is imposed. Refusal to answer a question might constitute a block, but an answer referring to a previous reply does not constitute a block.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that, if hon. Members hand in questions to the Table Office and an identical question has been answered, we cannot pursue the matter. This is not quite like that. On 10 January, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) put his question into the raffle and was fortunate to come top of the list. The Table Office accepted on either Thursday or Monday—I have been unable to ascertain which day it was—a question for written answer which was in identical terms, and that was not treated as having priority for answer yesterday. It could have been answered on any day this week. However, the Department chose to answer it yesterday, but unfortunately the answer has not appeared in Hansard.
It seems to me to be an abuse of the House that an hon. Member can pick out another hon. Member's question, table it for a written answer and receive a written answer before the hon. Member who tabled an oral question receives a reply. The Minister did not check that my hon Friend the Member for Hillsborough had received an answer. He referred him simply to a written answer that can be found in the Library but not in Hansard. That seems to me to be sharp practice. Will you look into the matter and report back to the House, and certainly make it clear that this should not become common practice?
Mr. Flannery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not sufficient to say to me that I should write to the Minister concerned. It is as clear as daylight that the Minister concerned did something that was totally wrong. He gave the impression that an answer to the question was available to me. He knew that I needed that answer in order to rephrase my question. He prevented every other hon. Member from asking supplementary questions about it. It has all the hallmarks of being very wrong. If it can be done to me, it can be done to any hon. Member.
Mr Speaker: I say again that I sympathise with the hon. Member for Hillsborough, but he must understand that I have no responsibility—sometimes I wish I did—for the answers that are given. I shall certainly look into the matter and satisfy myself, in so far as my responsibilities in the Table Office are concerned, that nothing untoward has happened. As I say, I have sympathy for the hon. Member and I shall do what I can.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise it, having established that it is a matter for you after consulting widely among my colleagues. Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister a

1041
question about a statement that had been made by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) in which he said that the Security Service had fingered six Conservative Members of Parliament and questioned their reliability and suitability for office. When the Security Service took the decision to examine the backgrounds of those Conservative Members, they were taking into consideration questions of national security and they must have reached the conclusion that they should not see classified documents, or documents supplied to Ministers marked "Secret"
Those hon. Members may have applied for selection as members of Select Committees of the House of Commons. The Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on Defence receive, periodically, classified documents, as I have done as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. Occasionally we have had to return them to the Clerk at the end of the meeting. If those Conservative Members are not to be allowed to gain ministerial office because they may be classified as a security risk, I put it to you that, equally—if it were to be true—they should not be given access to classified documents as members of Select Committees.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you would take on board my suggestion that the material which the Prime Minister saw in relation to the six Members of Parliament be given to the members of the Committee of Selection so that they can establish whether they believe that those Members are fit to see classified documents as members of the Public Accounts Committee or the Select Committee on Defence.
This is not a light request. It is an important matter. We cannot have an inconsistency. If a Member of the House of Commons is not fit to be a Minister because he should not have access to classified material, I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that he is not fit to be a member of a Select Committee which sees classified material. The only Committee which can decide upon that is the Committee of Selection. Perhaps you will consider the matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should raise that matter with the Leader of the House. It is not a matter for me what answer the Prime Minister gives to questions. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have consulted widely and have come up with absolutely nothing. It is a legitimate question for the hon. Gentleman to put to the Leader of the House tomorrow.

London Government
4.30 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very sorry, but because of the points of order I failed to call for the presentation of Bills. The hon. Members responsible for them are waiting. Will the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) forgive me?

London Government
  BILLS PRESENTED
    CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS (CONTROL)
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce, supported by Mr. James Wallace, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Richard Livsey and Mrs. Ray Michie, presented a Bill to protect the environment through greater control on the use of chlorofluorocarbons and to require Her Majesty's Government to carry out an audit of the use of chlorofluorocarbons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 March and to be printed. [Bill 48.]
    TROPICAL HARDWOODS (CONTROL)
    Mr. James Wallace, supported by Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Richard Livsey and Mrs. Ray Michie, presented a Bill to promote the preservation of tropical rainforests by controlling the importation of hardwoods, reducing the use of hardwoods by Her Majesty's Government; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 March and to be printed. [Bill 49.]
    SCARCE RESOURCES (CONSERVATION)
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood, supported by Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. James Wallace, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Richard Livsey and Mrs. Ray Michie, presented a Bill to reduce consumption of scarce resources by encouraging the practice of recycling, reducing the packaging on goods and introducing deposits on certain containers; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 March and to be printed. [Bill 50.]
    PLANNING PERMISSION (DEMOLITION OF HOUSES)
    Mr. Hugh Dykes, supported by Mr. John Wilkinson, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Robert Adley, Sir Rhodes Boyson, Mr. Cyril D. Townsend, Mr. Jeremy Hanley, Mr. John Gorst and Mr. Robert G. Hughes, presented a Bill to make it obligatory to apply for planning permission before demolishing a dwelling house: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 February and to be printed. [Bill 46.]

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Ordered,
  That the draft proposals by the Commission of the European Communities on machine safety described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the: Department of Trade and Industry on 30th November 1988

  1043
  and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of I 1 th January 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

London Government
Speaker: May I tell the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that he has had an extra minute free.
4.32 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I am deeply grateful, Mr. Speaker. What we have just witnessed is the lazy person's approach to legislation. This is the more difficult approach.
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restore to the people of London the legal right and duty to elect a London Council so that the needs of London may be met and its administration secured on a basis that is fully accountable to the people, through the ballot box; and for purposes connected therewith.
Nineteen eighty-nine will mark two significant anniversaries in the history of London local government. The first is the 100th anniversary of London county council; the second is the 800th anniversary of the City of London. While the city, that most anachronistic of all local government institutions, is busily celebrating its anniversary with a surfeit of food and wine, the great mass of Londoners will only be able to pay tribute to the past work of the LCC on behalf of millions of capital citizens, past and present.
The work of the LCC from 1889 until it was absorbed into the newly created Greater London council in 1964 would take far too long for me to record today. Suffice it to say that the monuments to the LCC are all around us to this day. On London's streets and below London's streets the good works of the LCC and the GLC exist in superabundance. Thanks to the LCC, millions of Londoners were able to escape from the slums into decent homes for the first time. Millions were educated in LCC schools and colleges and attended LCC evening classes. LCC parks and open spaces, together with hospitals and specialised medical services, provided for the health of London's citizens. LCC transport services on road, rail and water served the capital's transport needs. LCC fire, ambulance and other emergency services guarded London in peace and war. LCC arts and crafts schools produced the musicians, painters, dancers and sculptors who subsequently graced the LCC's Royal Festival hall and its museums, art galleries and concert halls.
The LCC built for the future and protected the past. London's needs were met with skill and dedication by generations of professional council officers, many of whom were acknowledged throughout the world as the finest in their disciplines. Many LCC politicians subsequently achieved high political office in Government, and in both Houses today there are many who owe an enormous debt of gratitude to London county council.
The LCC was created as an acknowledgement that London was more than simply the sum of all its parishes and boroughs. London as the capital city needs a citywide government able to plan and co-ordinate the capital's strategic services. That was the judgment of 100 years ago, as it is today.
Political arguments about the structure of London government have raged around this place for more than 150 years, but always the underlying process has been a movement towards a single strategic authority. It was true when the Metropolitan Board of Works gave way to the

1045
LCC, which in turn gave way to the GLC. That was the historic development of London government which will inevitably be resumed at some later date. However, for the moment we are in a period of hiatus. There is no strategic authority for London and the disastrous consequences are there for all who choose to see.
London is the only capital city in Europe without citywide government. The abolition of the GLC in 1986 remains the single most destructive legislative decision of the Government. It was based on the politically malign and vindictive motives of the Prime Minister, who is far more influenced by the example of Attila the Hun than St. Francis of Assisi. Abolition is now history and my Bill looks to the future. There is no doubt in my mind that the welcome departure of the Prime Minister will presage the welcome renaissance of citywide government in London.
If leave is given to introduce my Bill, the new London council, operating from county hall, will be charged with the responsibility for providing, safeguarding, maintaining, developing and improving employment and training, housing, transport, planning, information services, fire services, police, ambulance services, arts and recreation, pollution control, waste disposal, flood prevention, support for groups of Londoners, and such other goods and services as the council wishes to provide for the people.
In most of those service areas today London is descending into a chaos created by a lack of coherent and co-ordinated planning. Numerous Government Departments, local authorities, public bodies and quangos are struggling to make sense of a Heath Robinson system of administration in London which defies history, good sense, efficiency and public interest.
My Bill, if enacted, would not only restore administrative sanity and civic pride to London but would
1046
also address the historically outstanding task of democratising the ancient city of London. The Royal Commission report on London government in 1960 stated:
"If we were to be strictly logical we should recommend the amalgamation of the City and Westminster. But logic has its limits and the position of the City lies outside them."
Such sentiments are wholly unacceptable today. My B1111 would deal with the City by making it the basis of a new London council, firmly established upon Londonwide democracy and accountability. The lord mayor of London would truly become the lord mayor of all our citizens and not, as at present, lord mayor of the mere handful within the square mile.
I have but one modest wish in respect of the city: to succeed where Mr. Gladstone failed. With those sentiments, and with the support in spirit, I believe, of Mr. W. E. Gladstone, I beg leave of the House to introduce the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Tony Benn, Ms. Joan Ruddock, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms. Dianne Abbott, Mr. Harry Cohen, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Paul Boateng, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Ms. Harriet Harman, Mr. Bernie Grant and Mr. Tom Cox.

London Government
  LONDON GOVERNMENT
  Mr. Tony Banks accordingly presented a Bill to restore to the people of London the legal right and duty to elect a London Council so that the needs of London may be met and its administration secured on a basis that is fully accountable to the people, through the ballot box; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 February and to be printed. [Bill 51]
Orders of the Day

  Official Secrets Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. Harold Walker in the Chair]
  4.40 pm
  Mr. Robin Corbett: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. When Bills are considered in Standing Committee, we expect—and normally receive —a Hansard of the proceedings the following day. There are times when, because of the pressures of many Committees, that does not happen, but it is important especially when Ministers give undertakings at the end of a sitting which will follow on into the next sitting. You will know, Mr. Walker, that Hansard normally switches off—if I may put it like that—at about 10 pm or 10.30 pm. Are there any special arrangements that might be made with Hansard to publish the proceedings of the Committee on this Bill the next day, so that we can keep abreast of the undertakings that will, I hope, be given by Ministers? There is no immediate rush about this because this is the only day on which we are considering the Bill this week. However, we do not know whether, in coming weeks, the Committee will meet on one day a week or on consecutive days. That is where the problem arises. Is there anything that you can do, Mr. Walker, to seek to make arrangements with the Official Report to help us in this matter?
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire, West): Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. Is not the point of order that the hon. Gentleman has raised fairly bogus? Anything that takes place in the Chamber after Hansard stops is available in the Library for hon. Members to inspect.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): I shall deal with the point of order first. I cannot anticipate what may happen at 10 pm this evening or on any other evening, nor can I anticipate or seek to pre-empt what may happen next week. No doubt the hon. Gentleman's words have been listened to.

  Official Secrets Bill
    Clause 1

      SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE
      Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook): I beg to move amendment No. 71, in page I, line 5, leave out 'or has been'.
      The Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 14, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'discloses' and insert
      `makes a damaging disclosure of'.
      No. 69, in page 1, line 19, leave out 'or has been'.
      No. 70, in page 1, line 22, leave out 'or has been'.
      No. 16, in page 1, line 25, leave out 'subsection (3)
      above' and insert 'this section'.
      No. 67, in clause 7, page 7, line 7, at end insert
      `or it has been authorised by the Publications Review Board set up under this Act'.
      New clause 6—Publications Review Board—
      1048
      '(1) There shall be a body, called the Publications Review Body, which shall authorise the public disclosure of information by former members of the security and intelligence services.
      (2) No information shall be disclosed, whether in books, articles or other media, by former members of the security and intelligence services without the approval of the Board.
      (3) The Board shall consist of a Chairman and three members appointed by the Secretary of State.
      (4) The Board shall notify its decision as to the granting of permission for disclosure to applicants within six months of application being made to it.'
      Mr. Hattersley: No doubt the first debate in Committee of the Official Secrets Bill will demonstrate the way in which the Committee intends to do its work. I hope that it will demonstrate that although the Committee is divided on the need to change the Bill's contents, it is unanimous in its belief that the Bill must be debated in great detail and, therefore, at great length. It is not the Opposition's intention to be either fractious or obstructive, but I hope that the Government will understand that we expect sufficient time for every clause to be given the scrutiny it deserves. There are many long days and nights ahead of us and we had better acknowledge that at the start.
      This first debate concerns the absolute obligation to secrecy that the Bill places on members of the security and intelligence services and on other persons associated with those services and nominated by the Secretary of State about every aspect and detail of their work for their entire lifetime. Amendment No. 71 was intended to probe that concept and to provide an opportunity for the Secretary of State to justify the notion that total and permanent secrecy —save only for those occasions when he lifts the interdict
      —is a reasonable obligation to place on members of the Security Service and those associated with them. We do not propose to press the amendment to a vote, but I suspect that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whose amendments are grouped with amendment No. 71 will wish the Committee to divide and we shall support him in that case.
      The amendments that the hon. Member has tabled, to which he will, no doubt, speak, limit action under clause 1 to disclosures that do damage, and the principle inherent in the limitation of prosecutions —or successful prosecutions—to the publication of items that do damage to the interests of the country lies at the heart of most of our objections to the Bill. We believe that information should be suppressed only when suppression is necessary. That is clearly not the intention of clause 1 in the particulars that relate to the security services, those who work in them and those associated with them because they make the ban on publication absolute and for ever.
      4.45 pm
      Amendment No. 67 and new clause 6 deal with the concept of absolute and permanent secrecy in a rather different way. They propose a publications review board, which will decide whether information that an ex-member of the security services wishes to publish is appropriate for publication. At this stage, I shall say no more on those amendments except that they are an improvement. However, as such a review board would consist of Government nominees, it would not be much of an improvement.
      Before we debate the principle that I have described, it is important to recall some of the background to the Bill. Some cynics suggest that one reason why the Prime Minister allowed the Bill to be introduced at all was her

      1049
      obsessive determination to vindicate her paranoid behaviour in the case of Mr. Peter Wright and "Spycatcher". It is important to remember specifically in the context of the "Spycatcher" case that other relevations that in any normal and reasonable judgment were at least as damaging to the interests of the state appeared in a book by Mr. Chapman Pincher, which the Government either approved or took no steps to prohibit.
      To avoid future misinterpretation—or at least, as it is the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) who is to reply later to the debate, to ensure that he has to misinterpret me intentionally rather than by mistake—let me say again that I have no time at all for Mr. Peter Wright. What is more, if one considers the way in which he was prepared to profane the dead, I do not have much time for Mr. Chapman Pincher either, but personal opinions of those two gentlemen are neither here nor there. The question to which the amendments relate is whether it is reasonable for all memoirs of the secret service to be prohibited unless—the word "unless" is important—they are published with Government approval—that is, with the lawful authority of the Government, as stipulated in clause 1.
      If clause 1 is agreed unamended, the Government will have the right to prohibit any secret service revelations of which they disapprove, no matter how ancient, trivial or important to democratic debate. On the other hand, the Government will have the right to authorise any revelations that they find convenient. In future, as in the past, a group of Ministers will be able to agree that one memoir may be published because its contents support their interests but suppress another that they find politically embarrassing. That seems an arbitrary power that should not be allowed to the Government of a democracy.
      As the debate continues, it will revolve increasingly around two concepts. One is the belief that it should be possible to mount a defence against the disclosure of classified information with a claim that its publication was justified in the public interest. We shall debate that concept specifically in the third group of amendments.
      The second argument around which all the other propositions will be built is the contention that before a prosecution can succeed, it must be demonstrated that publication harmed the interests of the state. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary made great play of the test of damage that would be inserted into prosecutions, and the right of juries to decide whether damage had been done. Indeed, a Home Office press release referred to "a public interest defence" although neither the concept nor the words appear in the Bill.
      In the terms of this, our first debate, it is essential to remember that none of the protections of which the Home Secretary made such play on Second Reading—irrespective of whether they are regarded as adequate or inadequate—apply to the clause that we are debating or to the revelations by members of the security services or those designated by the Government as being associated with the security services.
      Clause 1 is comprehensive and arbitrary in the area that it covers. There is no need to demonstrate damage to the national interest. In fact, the fact of disclosure—and the fact alone—is all that is necessary for conviction, no matter how inconsequential the published information.
      1050
      The White Paper, with which this exercise began, demonstrates in paragraph 42 exactly how arbitrary arid unreasonable such a ban would be, boldly stating that it
      "should not be necessary for the prosecution to adduce evidence of the likely damage to the operation of the security or intelligence service when information relating to security or intelligence has been disclosed by a member or former member of one of the services."
      That is the simple assertion that the Government and Home Secretary seem to believe is enough to carry the argument.
      On the other hand, the Franks committee recommendations of 1972, which the Home Secretary is always saying have been improved upon by the Bill were absolutely explicit on that point. The Franks committee recommended that the harm test should be applied to the security service as to any other category of official secrets.
      It cannot be necessary or right to make every item connected with security—no matter how loosely connected, no matter how unimportant—subject to that restriction. It is intolerable in a free society that the Government alone should be the sole arbiter of what is covered by this ban and of the occasions when the ban should be lifted.
      Amendments Nos. 14 and 60 do no more than limit the ban to the publication of information which would be positively damaging. By resisting the amendments, if the Government do so—I have no doubt—that they will—the Minister of State will be asserting that he wishes the ban to apply to information that can be published without damage. That is the only logical conclusion that could be drawn from the recommendation to vote against the two amendments.
      On Second Reading, the Home Secretary made no attempt to justify a blanket prohibition. He merely asserted its necessity. He then went on to list examples of secret service activities which nobody in their right minds would want to see revealed. When cornered, the Home Secretary always argues in that way—taking absurd examples of what might be revealed and implying that those who want a more acceptable system want to reveal everything.
      The question that must be addressed in this amendment is not whether or not everything the secret service does should be made public, it is whether nothing that the secret service does should ever become public but should remain secret—important or trivial, damaging to the national interest or of help to the national interest, legal or illegal.
      I shall conclude on that point about illegality. The fact that the ban on secret service information covers illegal as well as legal activities is perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the blanket prohibition. On Monday, the Home Secretary told us once again that he had brought the security services into a legal framework. If it operates outside the boundaries which the Home Secretary is so proud to have drawn, it will still be an offence under this Bill for a member of the service to reveal the illegality, and it will still be an offence for a newspaper to print the revelation.
      When we debated the Security Service Bill—which cannot be separated from what we now debate—the Home Secretary conceded, after some wriggling, that under the provisions of this Bill were I to be told by a member of the Security Service that my telephone was being tapped or that my premises had been burgled, it would be an offence for me to make that information public. I hope that the

      1051
      Minister of State will confirm today that, were Ito be told by a member of the security services that my telephone had been tapped or my property burgled without proper warrant—that is to say, illegally—it would still be illegal for me to make that information public.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): Under those circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman should take his complaint directly to the tribunal that is to be set up under the Security Service Bill.
      Mr. Hattersley: I am always grateful for the Minister of State's advice, but having given it me, perhaps he will now answer my question. I shall put it to him again. If a member of the security services tells me that my telephone is being tapped without warrant and therefore illegally, or that my house has been burgled without warrant and therefore illegally, is it or is it not a criminal offence for me to make that information public?
      Mr. Patten: It would be a criminal offence for the right hon. Gentleman to make that public, and quite rightly so because he has an avenue of redress. He can go to the tribunal set up under the Security Service Bill.
      Mr. Hattersley: I do not want to begin the Committee stage on an acrimonious note, but that reply reveals something not only about the Government, but about the Minister of State. He can apparently say with conviction that if I have been told that I have been the subject of illegal Government action, it is a criminal offence for me to reveal that and that he approves of it being a criminal offence for me to reveal it.
      Sir Ian Gilmour (Cheshunt and Amersham): Surely, in those circumstances, it would be the right hon. Gentleman's positive duty to reveal such information?
      Mr. Hattersley: I certainly believe that, but as I also believe that it is my positive duty to remain within the rules of order, the case that the right hon. Gentleman tempts me to develop is one which I propose to develop in the discussions on the third group of amendments when the public interest criteria is the crucial issue.
      The idea that the Government might suggest—the Minister of State did suggest—that it is supportable to argue that a man or woman who has been subject to an illegal act by the Government should be sent to prison for making that public, is a view that is inconsistent with the traditions of this country. As I do not want to overstate the case, I shall not tell the Committee those countries in eastern Europe and south America with which it is consistent.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My right hon. Friend obviously knows the legislation, but what about the ordinary citizen who does not know the legislation and who needs to seek advice, as my hon. Friend did on this point from the Minister of State? What is the position if such a person goes around saying that he has discovered that that has happened and asking what he should do about it? Presumably every time that he asks for advice he is committing an offence. That means that every citizen must know that the way to proceed if he hears such information is to go to the tribunal, and surely that is an utter farce.
      Mr. Hattersley: Yes, and the case gets worse. I shall pursue my hon. Friend's example of an ordinary citizen being told by a member of the security services that his house has been burgled illegally. As I understand it, the Minister of State who has not been tardy in confirming my judgments on the Bill, will say that, if that individual goes to the citizens advice bureau saying, "My house has been burgled illegally, what shall I do about it?", he is committing a criminal offence by telling the person in the citizens advice bureau what has happened. If the individual goes to a solicitor there is, as I understand it, no legal protection and no rule that says that the matter is so privileged that he may discuss it with a solicitor. So if a person goes to his solicitor and says, "I am assured that I have been illegally burgled," or "I have had my telephone tapped illegally, oh solicitor, what am I to do?", that person is committing a criminal offence, and the Minister is defending that proposition.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister of state's extraordinary intervention shows that he has failed to recognise that the commission of an offence is not something between the person who commits the offence and the victim of that offence alone, which may or may not be remedied by appeal to a tribunal, but something that touches society at large, for which the tribunal offers no remedy at all?
      Mr. Hattersley: As the debate progresses, not only today but in the future, for the sake of clarity and intellectual accuracy it will be important to comment, not on the Minister, but on the Bill. The Minister's answers have revealed that the Government misunderstand two matters. First, they do not realise the relationship between the state and the citizen, described by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). Secondly, the Government believe that the state and the Government cannot be distinguished. What the Government believe is right, is right for the state. What is in the public interest is what the Government think is in the public interest and a test of harm is what the Government think is harmful. I shall repeat—I hope not pompously or pretentiously—that those views are not consistent with a free society.
      5 pm
      Mr. John Gorst: As a newcomer to the subject, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will answer a point that has puzzled me about his recent exchange with his hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Let us suppose that a member of the Security Service approaches the right hon. Gentleman in his capacity as a Member of Parliament and informs him about a case of telephone tapping. If the right hon. Gentleman revealed the matter on the Floor of the House would he, according to his investigations, be subject to prosecution? What would his position be as a Member of Parliament?
      Mr. Hattersley: I am not sure whether I, as a Member of Parliament, revealing the information in the House, would be guilty and subject to criminal prosecution. I know that my constituent, in telling me, in order that I might reveal the information on the Floor of the House, would certainly be subject to criminal prosecution.
      Having tried valiantly, but failed, to find anyone other than the Minister who supports the authoritarian

      1053
      nonsense he is about to defend, I shall conclude. It is not inappropriate for me to repeat the point, even though it has been made time and time again. One has only to describe the circumstances in which an innocent person is prosecuted for revealing that the state has operated unlawfully against him or her, to realise how unacceptable the proposition is.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: Is it not right that if any Security Service officer were to approach a Member of Parliament, that would be a criminal offence under the Bill? That is what many of us find offensive. Has not the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) heard that many Conservative Members have maintained that it is possible for former or present members of the Security Service to raise such matters with their Members of Parliament? Can the right hon. Gentleman identify anywhere in the Bill where that possibility arises in law?
      Mr. Hattersley: The answer, as the hon. Gentleman knows better than me, is that it does not appear. I look forward to supporting his positive and detailed amendments as one way that this arbitrary absurdity can be overcome. I shall certainly support his amendments as will my right hon. and hon. Friends.
      All we ask—and we are grateful that the hon, Gentleman asks for it—is that a system be provided which avoids the arbitrary nature of the prohibition and enables the state and the courts, which represent the national interest, to distinguish between those matters which it is possible and safe to reveal, and those which it is wrong and dangerous to reveal. I have no strong feelings about how that proper division is obtained. It may be—I suspect that we shall hear this time after time in Committee—that the amendments are inadequate in some detail to achieve that purpose. That is not the issue. The issue is the principle and the test of principle. If the Government believe that the principle is right but the application of it is wrong, we shall gladly accept that, in some future debate, the Government will provide a better mechanism of their own. That is the nature of the Committee stage of a Bill.
      We seek to establish in this first debate that it is wholly unacceptable for the Government of the day to be the sole arbiter of what security information should or should not be published and what security information should or should not lead to prosecution.
      Mr. Rupert Allason: I beg to draw the House's attention to new clause 6 and amendment No. 67. The issue of the duty of confidentiality is central to the Bill. I shall take the Committee back to the history of the duty of confidentiality.
      An important judgment was given in the House of Lords some time ago which knocked a major hole in the Government's interpretation of the duty of confidentiality. As I understand it, the duty of confidentiality is straightforward in civil law—it is the duty of a servant to an employer to protect trade secrets. An example would be where an employee of the Coca—Cola company moved to Pepsi—Cola and took the magic formula with him or her. Under those circumstances, there is a remedy in law for the employer to protect his secrets. The key word in the duty of confidentiality issue is "confidentiality". It assumes that the magic formula is a secret.
      1054
      Up to the time of the House of Lords judgment, the Government interpreted the duty of confidentiality as a duty of lifelong secrecy. That was rightly rejected by their Lordships.
      Mr. Robin Corbett: The hon. Gentleman gave us an analogy involving Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola—both of which are best avoided in my experience—but surely in that case the secret formula would be guarded by patent law.
      Mr. Allason: Indeed, but that is also civil law. It would not be a criminal offence if somebody tried to trade a secret that they had acquired from a former employer. In the case of Peter Wright, it did not matter whether he worked for the Security Service or for British Rail. The principle over which the Government prosecuted him was whether a breach of confidentiality had occurred. The case was defeated because, to be frank, there were no secrets in the Wright book. In Australia the book was examined line by line and no great disclosures were found, although there was a certain amount of new material. However, the plank on which the defence rested was that there was nothing new in the book and that most of the information had been published elsewhere.
      My amendment and new clause seek to introduce yet another check and balance. When the Security Service Bill was in Committee the Government rejected all the checks and balances proposed—including judicial review, Committees of Privy Councillors and parliamentary oversight. I seek to persuade the Committee today that my amendment and new clause would provide a check or balance.
      At the heart of this matter is the sanguine attitude of the Secretary of State and the Minister. In the other place, the Benches have edges so that bishops who have enjoyed heavy lunches are prevented from falling off. I nearly fell off my Bench when I heard the Secretary of State wax lyrical about the post-war record of the Security Service. I wonder who advised him on that. Did the advice come from Home Office officials or from the Security Service?
      I shall give one or two straightforward facts to illustrate the post-war record of the Security Service. The Committee may be surprised to learn that between 1945 and 1972—the period the Secretary of State was talking about—not one Soviet spy was arrested in this country on the initiative of the Security Service. During that period, all the famous spies—including Fuchs, Nunn May, Vassall, the Portland spy, Harry Houghton, Ethel Gee and Gordon Lonsdale—were identified by defectors who arrived not in this country but in the United States and pinpointed those leaks of security in the British establishment.
      There was, however, one case between 1945 and 1972, and it is trotted out by the Security Service as the classic example of its counter-intelligence prowess. It is the case of William Martin Marshall, who was arrested for passing secrets to a Soviet intelligence officer. How was he caught? The Committee will be interested to know that a Security Service watcher got off a bus at Kingston when going home for lunch one day and saw a Soviet intelligence officer lurking in a doorway. Interested to know why this individual, on whom he had been targeted for surveillance six months earlier, was in Kingston, he hung around. He waited and saw Sergei Kuznetsov meet William Martin Marshall, who was a member of the diplomatic wireless

      1055
      service and who was subsequently convicted. So between 1945 and 1972, the period about which the Secretary of State waxed so lyrical, the splendid record of the Security Service was that of having caught just one Soviet spy—and that by mistake.
      Mr. Gorst: Does my hon. Friend agree that what he has just recounted is presumably the reason why memoirs that reveal that sort of fact would be regarded as harmful to the nation because they would reveal the extent of the inadequacy of our Security Service?
      Mr. Allason: That is an interesting route to follow—that if we have a useless Security Service we should keep that a secret because it may well be damaging. I agree entirely, but I want an efficient service.
      If the Secretary of State takes advice on this matter, he may like to turn his attention to the undeniable fact—
      Mr. Hattersley: May I put to the hon. Gentleman the opposite, or perhaps complementary, argument to that which he has offered us? Some of us believe that if a draught of exposure of information were to blow through the Security Service and it became accountable, it might become more efficient. Instead of wasting its time tapping trade unionists' telephones, it might catch some spies—another argument in favour of what the hon. Gentleman proposes.
      Mr. Allason: The record in Australia, Canada and the United States shows that in spite of the worst fears about oversight the intelligence communities there accept and live with the new mechanisms, and in Canada the system has been used to the advantage of the Security Service. The report that I mentioned in Committee during discussion of the Security Service Bill is illuminating and instructive to the public and shows the importance of the work of the security service. Some of the details are deleted from the case histories, but three or four case histories from the various branches of the Canadian security service are there, and the report has done a tremendous public relations job for the organisation. That is one of the reasons why I tabled an amendment to that Bill.
      I come now to the idea of greater efficiency on the part of the Security Service. It is not widely known that there are not just one or two establishments in London but that, at any given time, between eight and 11 large buildings are being used by the service. Is it not extraordinary that a counter-espionage and counter-intelligence organisation should locate its establishment in the only geographical region in the United Kingdom that is freely available to Soviet intelligence officers working under diplomatic cover? I am not recommending privatisation of the Security Service, but I certainly recommend moving it out of London—perhaps even to Torbay. If the Security Service remains in London it will be within a couple of miles of Soviet diplomatic missions and therefore a target. Perhaps that aspect of efficiency should also be considered.
      5.15 pm
      The real substance of my amendment and new clause is to allow Security Service officers and intelligence officers of all sorts to write their memoirs. There is nothing staggering about that—the practice has been going on for years. I shall give a few examples from the Security Service. No fewer than two directors-general of the Security
      1056
      Service have written their memoirs. Sir Percy Sillitoe's memoirs, "Cloak Without Dagger", were written in office time, ghosted by his personal assistant, and published with the consent of the Home Office. Sir Percy Sillitoe retired from the Security Service and went to run a sweet shop in Eastbourne. The book supplemented his income from selling fruit bonbons.
      Sir Vernon Kell, the first director-general of the Security Service, left a large memoir which his wife subsequently passed to the author, John Bullock, and which was the basis of a book published in 1963 and entitled "MI5". Since then there have been several other books, two of which were written by the Security Service. In the wake of the Klaus Fuchs, Nunn May and Bruno Pontecorvo cases the Security Service decided that it was time to do a little public relations exercise. One of my constituents was authorised to talk to an author, Alan Moorehead who subsequently wrote a book called "The Traitors". It came directly from the files of the Security Service. Another book, "Handbook for Spies" by Alexander Foote, was ghosted by a Security Service officer, so there is nothing new about the Security Service sponsoring or writing books.
      Memoirs are interesting. Two wartime officers, Derek Tangye and Stephen Watts, wrote memoirs of their work in the Security Service. Neither of them, and certainly not Derek Tangye, sought permission to do so and nothing was done about them. In the postwar period three wartime double agents wrote their memoirs. Lily Sergueir wrote her account of being a double agent during the war, as did Dusko Popov. Neither sought permission and the Government took no action against them.
      Eddie Chapman, on the other hand, who has had a colourful career as a safe cracker and who parachuted twice into this country, was prosecuted immediately after the war for selling his story to a newspaper. The newspaper, the journalist who received his information and Eddie Chapman himself were prosecuted at the Old Bailey. When the judge had heard the evidence of Eddie Chapman's MI5 case officer, he said that although he had to find Chapman guilty he regarded him as the bravest man that he was ever likely to meet, and fined him a nominal sum.
      In more recent years there have been two other major contributions to literature on the Security Service. One was authorized—the memoirs of Lord Rothschild. The other was not, initially, authorised and was an important precedent for my amendment and new clause. It was the case of J. C. Masterman in 1972. He had retained a copy of the wartime history of his XX committee, on which he had served from January 1941 through to the end of the war. At the end of the war, he was commissioned by the director-general of the Security Service to write a detailed account of the work of the XX committee and the double agents that it had run.
      J. C. Masterman attempted fairly continuously from the 1950s to 1972 to have the book published. In his dotage, and having taught a large proportion of the Cabinet of that time, including the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, he announced that he was definitely going to publish because he had made an agreement with the Yale University Press and, come hell or high water, he intended to go ahead with it. On that basis, the Government caved in and came to an arrangement with him which is well worth looking at because it is a fascinating precedent in the matter of copyright. Because

      1057
      of the bust-up between Masterman and the British Government, the Government imposed Crown copyright 1972 on the book and shared the royalties, as they do to this day, with J. C. Masterman.
      As for the Peter Wright book, whatever one says about books of this kind, they will continue to be written in future. The only question is whether this country and the security authorities will have any influence over their contents. Peter Wright exempted himself from the strictures of the Official Secrets Acts, not merely by moving abroad but by taking Australian citizenship. So the British taxpayer had to endure the spectacle of the Cabinet Secretary going to Australia—club class—with a team of lawyers and had to watch every day what was or was not in the British national interest being fought out in an Australian court before an Australian judge with an Australian defendant. There were no surprises about the outcome of that particular issue.
      I do not seek to defend what Peter Wright did, but I draw the attention of the Committee to the effort that he made in offering to delete any material that the authorities regarded as sensitive. Individuals who have served their country well for many years can be trusted in very large measure not to spill the beans and give away secrets that jeopardise current operations and put people's lives at risk. That really does not happen.
      I speak for one or two other Back Benchers when I say that when hon. Members have tried to acquaint themselves with the details of the work of the Security Service—not operational details, but the policy and principles behind the work—to he stopped dead in their tracks when told that a person of enormous experience, having served in the Security Service, should not be allowed to come to the House to explain and to answer questions is profoundly offensive not only to hon. Members but to the former member of the Security Service involved.
      I have described some of the precedents relating to the Security Service. I seek the indulgence of the Committee to turn to a few of the precedents set by the secret intelligence service because that, too, has a rich literary history.
      Mr. Gorst: Does my hon. Friend agree that another consequence of what is now happening is that the more one restricts the availability of something, whether it be alcohol or information, the more one increases its price? If it is necessary to sell information or alcohol to people abroad because it is impossible to sell it at home, I suspect that in both cases the price will go up rather than down and although the supply is restricted it will remain available.
      Mr. Allason: I recognise what my hon. Friend says. This is no new phenomenon—it is steeped in time. Nor is it actually a matter of price. Going back to the principle of the duty of confidentiality and its role in the civil law, my hon. Friend will be aware of the case of Anthony Cavendish, who was threatened with civil proceedings under the duty of confidentiality and who, to circumvent that, decided to give away copies of his book because the Treasury Solicitor could take absolutely no action against that unless there were to be an Official Secrets prosecution—which, as we all know, is somewhat unlikely.
      The literary background of the secret intelligence service is worth going into. The first major books written on the secret intelligence service immediately after the first world war were written by Henry Landau. They were
      1058
      published in America, only one volume being published in this country. Henry Landau was a South African living in America and he started the ball rolling. There was very little after his revelations of the Secret Intelligence Service's operations in the first world war until shortly before the second world war, when Sir Compton Mackenzie was prosecuted for revealing various desperately secret details such as the fact that the chief of the secret intelligence service was known by the letter "C".
      As was pointed out in Committee when the Security Service Bill was being debated, the judge observed that if it was so deadly secret that the chief of the secret intelligence service was known as "C", why had he not changed it to "D" or "E" and had there not been some 20 years for him to do that?
      The key to the Compton Mackenzie prosecution, however, is the little-known fact that the deputy director-general of the Security Service at that time not only authorised publication of the book—he was a great friend of Compton Mackenzie—but was himself a somewhat vain individual and was terribly flattered by the references to himself. This was part of the reason, I suspect, why the prosecution did not press the case very hard and why Compton Mackenzie, although convicted, was given a very small fine.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman but I hope that he was not calling Compton Mackenzie a vain individual. I knew him very well and he was not vain.
      Mr. Allason: No, I was not suggesting that. The then deputy director-general of the Security Service was a very vain individual and he was terribly flattered by what Compton Mackenzie had written, hence his motive in authorising this particular disclosure and hence the appalling mess that the Government got themselves into at the time.
      Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman must be a little careful in going into this particular example because Compton Mackenzie used to hold court in his house in Drummond place in Edinburgh and told, at some length, all who would listen that he felt that he was being got at on personal grounds, and that much of the case was connected with issues of personality rather than with the prosecution of the law.
      Mr. Allason: That may be so. The fact remains that he was convicted and fined.
      Since the second world war there has been a rich history of literary endeavour by former secret intelligence service officers. I mention in passing Hugh Trevor Roper, Professor A. J. Ayer, Graham Greene and Malcolm Muggeridge. I do not believe that any of those people ever sought permission to write about their experience in the secret intelligence service.
      Two others wrote about their experiences—Philip Johns and Professor R. V. Jones. Professor Jones was given clearance to write his contribution. Perhaps the most remarkable one—and this has echoes of Peter Wright—is the experience of Leslie Nicholson. He applied to his chief, when he discovered that his wife was dying of cancer, for financial support in order to hospitalise her in America. The chief at that time declined his application and said, in effect, "The best that we can do is to commute your pension"—a remark which will have a familiar ring to hon.

      1059
      Members—so his pension was commuted and the book was published under the pseudonym John Whitwell. That book was not prosecuted in 1967 because the Government had advance warning that another senior British secret intelligence service officer—the former head of station in Washington, H. A. R. Philby—was about to put pen to paper with "My Silent War". That is part of MI6's experience. In short, there is nothing new about intelligence officers writing their memoirs, and I believe I am right in saying that at the launch party of "The Ultra-Secret" by Fred Winterbotham, almost the entire membership of the D-Notice committee was there. They may have looked glum, but they were there.
      5.30 pm
      The issue of intelligence officers writing books will not go away. It will be with us for a long time and if the Secretary of State believes that people can be deterred from writing legitimately about their experiences by threats of prosecution, I do not believe that to be the case. Indeed, my understanding of the vibes in the publishing business is that publishers are anxious to get their authors prosecuted because that seems to be one way to assure a world-wide best seller.
      In America, a body known as the publications review board has worked extremely well. Most former directors of the Central Intelligence Agency have written their memoirs. The sky has not fallen in on north America in consequence. Recently, the Comte de Marenches, who was the head of the French secret intelligence service, wrote his book and, so far as I know, the sky has not fallen in on Paris. It is a legitimate exercise.
      I would take the argument a step further. Is it not worth while, as we have public servants who develop considerable talents in their subjects and gain great experience, for the taxpayer and the public to gain some of that experience? After all, they have subsidised those people for many years. The best example of that must be the recent book "Lust for Knowledge" written by Mr. Roosevelt, who spent about 30 years in the middle east as a CIA officer, who has gained a great wealth of experience and who has a particular perception of events in the Lebanon. The world is a richer place for his book. There are no damaging disclosures in it. Apart from the integrity of the individual, he had a publications review board to which to submit his manuscript. There are a few minor interesting details, such as the fact that he is the third CIA chief of station in London successfully to write his memoirs. But apart from those details, there is nothing of operational significance and nothing to put lives at risk. In my view, the United States was wise to take advantage of that system.
      When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed the background to the post-war history of the Security Service, there was one case on everybody's lips. We resisted going into that case because of the passage of time. But it is a key to what is before us today because only one document has ever been written officially and placed on the public record by the Security Service. It is a document which can be used as a sort of acid test for the integrity of the Security Service.
      I refer to the White Paper on the Burgess and Maclean defections. I will not go into the details of the problems that were involved in that case, but the official version said
      1060
      basically that Burgess and Maclean disappeared and were not noticed missing until a Monday morning. The reality is that Burgess was spotted on a Saturday night leaving this country and that an immigration officer, having seen Burgess get on the SS Falaise, telephoned Leconfield House, the headquarters of the Security Service, where a conference was then under way on the fifth floor at which the case officers involved were discussing how they would develop the interrogation of Maclean on the Monday morning.
      When the telephone call was received, a senior officer was dispatched to go home, collect his passport, go to the airport and fly to France, and intercept Burgess as he got off the ship. The ship was not due to dock until midday, so there was every opportunity to stop Burgess in his tracks. The senior officer went home, got his passport went to the airport, realised that his passport was out of date and went back to Security Service headquarters. Frantic telephone calls were made to try to revalidate the passport—and we know what happened to Burgess and Maclean.
      I relate that story not to pour scorn on the Security Service. Many of us have had small problems with our passports and with validating documents and so on. The significance of the story is that the Burgess and Maclean White Paper is one of the most disgraceful documents ever to have been put on the public record, and it was penned from start to finish by the Security Service. It contains no fewer than 17 direct errors of fact. Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that the officer who went home and whose passport was in a mess was subsequently made the head of MI5, went on to head another organisation and later received a knighthood.
      Mr. Eric S. Heifer: The hon. Gentleman has a great deal of information which he could not have come by out of the blue. God did not send a message to him. He obviously spoke to certain people. So detailed is his information that the people with whom he spoke must have been near to or in, or surrounded by people involved in, the Security Service. That is fine. But is he aware that each one of those people—because the information might be considered damaging, certainly to the Security Service—could find themselves under the Bill being prosecuted and then perhaps in prison? Indeed, I am not certain that the hon. Gentleman is not in that position himself. I fear that under the Bill, by disclosing such matters in this Chamber, he could find himself in real difficulty. I am fascinated by his speech. It is marvellous stuff. I have read his books and I have always thought that he had close connections with certain people. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that.
      Mr. Allason: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman does not think anything is wrong and I do not want to feed his paranoia. An enormous amount of information is available from public sources. I find it somewhat distressing, as an amateur historian who has spent some years researching these matters—much of it from open sources and a lot of it abroad—that the hon. Gentleman should have made that sort of intervention. The fact that one has taken trouble to research a subject should not be interpreted as sinister. I shall not make the argument for ignorance, but—
      Mr. Heffer: It is the hon. Gentleman who is suffering from paranoia.
      Mr. Allason: I am not paranoid. I believe that there is too much secrecy in this country. Only last week I received a letter from the Ministry of Defence informing me of the fact—as yet undisclosed—that two members of the armed services had defected from this country. The letter said that further details of the cases of Major Richard Squires and Robert Patchett could not be disclosed for reasons of confidentiality, although they are now listed as defectors. I despair of the attitude of secrecy in this country.
      There is one acid test of the integrity of a security or intelligence service which I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear. From 1945 to 1972 the United Kingdom did not receive any defectors. The acid test of the integrity of a security service is that if we do not receive Soviet defectors there is something wrong with the system. Thereafter we received Oleg Lyalin. Members of this Committee, I am sure, will be reassured to know that the ability to run a successful case, such as the defection of Oleg Gordievsky, is an indication that all is well—it could be a lot better—within the security and intelligence community.
      My amendment and new clause will end the practice of the D notice committee of restricting the rights of authors, which in my experience is long overdue. For anyone who says that the D notice committee protects security, I will end with the following anecdote. Peter Laurie, who wrote a book entitled "Beneath the City Streets", submitted his book to the D notice committee in the hope that material that jeopardised security would be deleted. The manuscript, however was returned to him without any changes. When he asked why no changes had been recommended, it was explained to him that to point out to a journalist where the breaches of security lay would itself be a breach of security. Peter Laurie is no off-the-wall hack or reptile. He is a distinguished journalist who became an editor of several magazines, including a computer magazine. That surely makes the case for a publications review board. Such a system works everywhere else in the world and it is high time that we had one in this country.
      Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) has made an important contribution to our discussions. He has generally illustrated how hopeless it is to try to deal with this problem by the Government's proposed methods. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) at the beginning of the debate posed some direct questions to the Minister about what may happen if this clause goes through in the form presented, to which he received no satisfactory answers. We shall, therefore, be waiting to hear what the Minister says in reply.
      I believe, too, that questions going back over the past 10 or 20 years or more and covering the entire question of the publication of information about the Security Service are important ones, which the Government are attempting to deal with by an absolute blanket suppression. The hon. Member for Torbay, if he has done nothing else, has illustrated what a far-reaching departure that would be from the present operations. The Government may say that it is a good thing to depart from the way in which the Government have been dealing with these matters in the past few years. Of course, there is something to be said for that, because no one in their right senses could possibly say that the Government—especially under the direction of the Prime Minister and the Law Officers—have dealt with
      1062
      those questions in a sensible, sane and intelligent way. The Government have cost the taxpayer huge sums. They have reached the end of the proceedings and some eminent judges have come out against them on the main way in which they were operating the security services.
      The way in which the Security Service has been operated over recent years has been completely unsatisfactory and, naturally, if the Government intend to introduce a new Official Secrets Act, they should think of some reasonable way of dealing with it. They should carefully consider the recommendation of the Franks committee and others. I know that it is outrageous to suggest this to the Committee, but the Government could even have listened to the debate that we had on the White Paper. If they had incorporated into this Bill some of the major criticisms that came from both sides of the House, they would not be confronting the Committee with such a hopelessly unworkable clause.
      5.45 pm
      The hon. Member for Torbay has shown that the way in which the Security Services have dealt with this question during the past 10 or 20 years—possibly ever since 1911—is by way of a number of charges and counter-charges. When members of the Security Service have broken their undertaking or done something that the Government did not like, other sections of the Security Service have been incited to answer them in one form or another. During a considerable period, we had, for instance, what was known as the Chapman Pincher method of dealing with those problems. Sections of the secret service were using such journalists as Chapman Pincher, who were prepared to be used in this way, to deal with these problems, which is entirely unsatisfactory. The Government, however, were prepared to do that for a number of years. I believe, so unworkable is this clause, that if the Government attempt to push it through in this form, all they will get is a recrudescence of such attacks and counter-attacks by members, or past members, of the secret service, and the new situation would be no more satisfactory than the previous one.
      The hon. Member for Torbay has proved conclusively that the Government are seeking to place a blanket suppression over an entire sector where previously no such suppression was even considered and where, indeed, they had discovered quite different ways of dealing with it. I believe that on that ground, too, this clause is unworkable.Even if it were applied to the present situation, it would soon break down, because different sections of the Security Service would have an interest, as they have in the past 10 or 20 years, in getting their story into the public domain and thereby breaking down the protections.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook put it most forcibly and I do not wish in any way to depart from his direct questions to the Minister. It must be asked, however, what will happen to the Member of Parliament who was approached by someone who, under this provision, would be breaking his confidentiality undertaking. That is an important aspect of the matter. On Second Reading Duncan Sandys was referred to in that regard, because, I suppose, that was the classic case. As I understand it—if I am wrong, no doubt I will be put right—the Government are now making illegal what happened in the Duncan Sandys case—that is to say that somebody in the secret service or associated with it, who gave evidence or information to a Member of Parliament, who

      1063
      in turn wrote to the Minister—as Duncan Sandys did—or raised the matter in the House, would be committing a prohibited or illegal act. If that is so, as I believe it is, it is an extremely serious development. It is associated with the idea that there is no public interest defence. If a public interest defence were written into the Bill, there might be the protection for the Member of Parliament, for Duncan Sandys to say, as he did, that the matter was in the public interest.
      I remember those days well because I was working in Fleet street. Although the claim did not get to a court of law, in the end the matter subsided after it had gone to the Committee of Privileges and had been generally discussed here. The reason why Duncan Sandys, Winston Churchill and the others associated with them could sustain their case was mainly because overwhelmingly people could see for themselves that it was in the public interest that such a matter should be aired.
      All the attempts of Hore-Belisha, the Minister for War at the time, to prevent the matter from being brought into the public domain injured nobody but himself. Undoubtedly one reason why he was excluded from Churchill's Government during the war—there may have been other good reasons—was because Churchill remembered how he behaved in that case.
      It is extremely important to discover whether the Government are attempting to intervene with the sort of safety valve which operated in the Duncan Sandys case. I should like an absolutely clear statement from the Minister, who is nodding his head, that just as the Sandys case could be aired in 1938, so it could be under this legislation. That is of great importance to us.
      I have been reading the background material to the Duncan Sandys case. Churchill had much to do with it and was extremely interested in whether his sources would be protected and what action might be taken against him. Over the preceding four years Churchill had received a host of information similar to that which Duncan Sandys brought out into the public domain. Some of it was the very information which enabled Churchill to make a more authoritative case about what was happening in Europe than most members of the Government of the day.
      If anyone looks at the Martin Gilbert book which discusses this period, they will find the fascinating footnote on page 953 about what Churchill did after the Duncan Sandys case. Churchill did not take the frontal position in fighting the Government of the day because he wanted to preserve his position and have followers among the few Conservatives who were voting against the Chamberlain policy. I have discovered only recently that at the conclusion of the whole Sandys case—people have never noted this before—Churchill wrote on 1 September an anonymous paragraph in the Londoner's Diary of the Evening Standard, the paper on which I happened to be working at the time.
      What he published is extremely applicable to the whole operation of the Official Secrets Act. No doubt he had it inserted in association with Lord Beaverbrook, the owner of the Evening Standard. Despite all their differences on many other matters, Beaverbrook was naturally eager that Churchill should have his say in conclusion on this matter, although he did not want to put his name to it. Churchill wrote:
      1064
      "Although the report of the Sandys' case is long delayed and the issues are over-clouded by larger matters, it is well to repeat and inculcate the definite principle upon which Parliament, the Press and the Public will unite, namely, that the Official Secrets Act was intended for spies, crooks, traitors and traffickers in official information, and should never be invoked unless there is a prima facie case on these lines against anyone, be he journalist, Member of Parliament, or merely man-in-the-street."
      That was Churchill's definition in 1938—a dangerous moment in our history—of how the Official Secrets Act should be properly limited in its operation.
      If the Government had any respect for those traditions, they would have incorporated that principle into the Bill which would have separated absolutely what could be done properly under the Act and what was forbidden. If the Government acted on Churchill's recommendation, the Bill would be different. So clear is the contrast between what happened then and what happens today that the Bill might be called the Winston Churchill (Retrospective Criminal Conviction) Bill. In other words, if the Bill is passed, it will prove how shocking, unwise and outrageous the action of Churchill and Sandys was at that critical moment in our history.
      It may be said that the Government and circumstances were different in those days. In those days in the House of Commons the Government had a large majority. Churchill was in a tiny minority and could hardly say what he wanted, although he sat on the same Benches as hon. Gentlemen who will move amendments shortly. In those days the Prime Minister would not listen to any representations made from any quarter, and had eased or thrown out of the Cabinet a whole list of his eminent contemporaries. In those days the Prime Minister had a House that was absolutely subordinate to his will, and the House of Commons was prepared to pass any measure he liked to present, even one as absurd as the Bill today. That was the Parliament of 1931-1939—the most wretched, evil, shameful Parliament in British history.
      Sir John Stokes: What did the Labour party do?
      Mr. Foot: The Labour party opposed from these Benches. It was from these Benches that Arthur Greenwood spoke for England and that the vote on the Adjournment was put on the Order Paper in the Norway debate which led to the destruction of the Chamberlain Government and placed in power Churchill, who abided by these principles.
      I ask the Government to take the Bill away and re-draft it in conformity with the traditions of real civil liberties, not only as they are presented, as they have been so forcefully, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook and others from this side of the Committee, but by the whole Churchillian tradition on the Government side of the Committee. Every true supporter of that tradition will vote with us in the Lobby tonight.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I propose to speak to amendments Nos. 14 and 16.
      In clause 1(1) the Government seek to strike back at the courts, common sense and common law. They are trying to justify and remedy the independent judgments of most of the world. It states clearly that a person who is or has been a security or intelligence services officer
      "is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he discloses any information."
      That is not a new proposition to the Committee, because

      1065
      it was the subject of the "Spycatcher" case. Indeed, we could almost call this the "Spycatcher" clause. It is the principle that the disclosure of any piece of information, no matter what it is, is an absolute offence. My amendment and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and the right hon. Member for Morly and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) are an appropriate way for a democratic House to approach the contentions of Government. The Government have made this proposition in almost every court anywhere—in Australia, our High Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords—and no one has accepted it.
      It is true that our former colleague, the present European Community Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, echoed the view of the courts when he said that the duty of confidentiality is unexceptional and correct. I feel sure that no right hon. or hon. Member dissents from the proposition that confidentiality and the duty to observe it is unexceptionable and correct. Our interest is in how one tests that duty. Are there extraordinary cases or circumstances in which that duty is superseded? I am certain that every one of us, and the courts, by and large, recognise the exception of triviality. Therefore, the Security Service officer who confides to a friend that he has been given a gold watch for 25 years' service commits no great crime. He has revealed information without authorisation, but it is so trivial that prosecution is not justified.
      6 pm
      In clause 1(1), the Government assert that making such a disclosure is a heinous offence and that the entire edifice of Government confidentiality will collapse if the confidence that a gold watch has been received is revealed. The Government go beyond not wishing to prove in the courts that damage has been done. The very suggestion that a gold watch has been received is deemed an absolute crime, for which there can be no defence—not the defence of triviality.
      I do not believe that triviality really concerns the Committee, so I turn to serious matters and to the possibility that a crime of iniquity has been committed. In trying to give relief from the Government's contention, we have tabled the third group of amendments, but in examining clause 1(1) we are scrutinising the Government's proposition that they have trailed and trawled in the past. I call it the "Spycatcher" contention, but perhaps I should name it the Armstrong contention.
      Having wrecked Robert Armstrong's career and public esteem in Australia, the Government immediately gave him a peerage and elevated him to the House of Lords. In his maiden speech on the Bill's Second Reading there, Lord Armstrong retrailed the Government's tired, worn and very contentious arguments, saying that no servant within the security services may ever reveal anything. He tried to advance that proposition in Australia, and again in the House of Lords. The Government tried doing so in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. The High Court said no, the Court of Appeal said no, and the House of Lords also said no.
      The Government said that they would listen to any arguments made following publication of the White Paper. Now they say that the House of Commons does not really matter in all of this. For 300 years, we have entrusted to the High Court and to the other courts the duty of weighing up what is right and what is not. We are talking
      1066
      about the common law of England. Can one enjoin anyone to an absolute duty of confidentiality in connection with crime, fraud, or the destruction of parliamentary democracy?
      What do the Government say? They say that one can demand such confidentiality. Clause 1(1) uses the words
      "is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he discloses any information."
      In amendment No. 14, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South and I introduce the concept that the Government must prove that damage has followed from disclosure. I commend to the Committee an examination of that concept and a rejection of the Government's nonsense that it is not a matter in which right hon. and hon. Members ought to intervene.
      Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman say what he means by "damage"? Damaging to whom? Does he mean damaging to the Government, or to the security of the nation? I can imagine a Government making out that any statement is damaging to them. However, if one can equate damage with the interests of the nation, the individual has a right to make such a disclosure.
      Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. What concerns the Committee in evaluating the propositions of the Executive or of the state is to whom such damage is done. Clearly the damage must be to the interests of the nation. The Government have determined, rightly, that it is a jury that must determine that. Therefore, we are considering damage to the interests of the nation. Using my example of the gift of a gold watch, clearly no jury will accept that a former or serving security officer disclosing that he received a gold watch merits a possible two years' imprisonment. Similarly, a jury considering whether divulging certain information is necessary to our functioning as a liberal democracy—one cites the example of Peter Wright—may be of many conclude that there is no merit to the defence.
      If officers try to undermine a lawful and legitimate Government, it is clearly in the interests of the nation's citizens to know about it. No judge has said otherwise. Even Lord Griffiths said that, however remarkable or remote they may be, he cannot conceive that, in circumstances in which an employee of the state is in possession of such information, and tries following through all the lines of authority but can find no remedy, that citizen is not relieved of the duty of observing absolute confidentiality and of alerting the general public of the danger confronting society.
      In clause 1(1), the Government say, "That is all nonsense. We do not like the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords. We do not like anything—and, anyway, the House of Commons is too dumb to understand our contentions." I would not speak so vehemently if we had not been over this ground before. On 15 January 1988, we were presented with a ridiculous White Paper that is a caricature of decency and liberal democracy. We must tolerate also the arguments of the Home Office, which is informed only by its own press releases. The Home Office no longer reads its own Bills.
      The Home Office imagines that right hon. and hon. Members are dumb enough not to read the substance of the legislation that courts interpret. The courts are interested not in the dialogue we may exchange in Committee, but only in the legislation that appears before

      1067
      them. The most skilled barristers and articulators of a case will argue over the words contained in legislation enacted by the House. That is the danger. The Government no longer appreciate that there is a distinction to be drawn between Home Office press releases, which caricature the meaning of an amendment, and the words of the Bill.
      Clause 1(1) asserts that a public servant may never release any information without authorisation, even if to do so will reveal criminality, fraud, the deception of the House, or the abuse or undermining of our democratic principles—that never in any circumstances may that be done. We have been arguing against that course, not just over the three weeks since the Bill's Second Reading, but for the past year. However, the Home Office asserts that it is nonsense, and the Government—through the Attorney-General and through every other office that appears before the courts—maintain that their arguments are respectable.
      The Government also say that, in the last analysis, the courts will judge. But there have been court judgments, and still the Government say, "We do not like the courts' judgments, and we shall legislate accordingly. After all, the judges say that in issues of national security, it is the duty and responsibility of the House of Commons to legislate and to give guidance."
      However, when it comes to matters that touch on the common law of the United Kingdom, the duty of confidentiality, while correct and lifelong, cannot be absolute in the particular. In some circumstances, such confidentiality will be against the public interest and the public good. The Committee should be mindful of that, and I hope that it will accept the amendments in the names of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South and of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South and myself.
      Dr. David Owen: I presume that I ought to declare an interest, as I suppose that I am covered by the words, in clause 1(1)(b):
      "a person notified that he is subject to the provisions of this subsection."
      I have not yet been notified, but imagine that I will be, when the Bill becomes law.
      The importance of clause 1 is that it deals not just with the Security Service but with the security and intelligence services. That is extremely important. For the first time, we are dealing with a new category of people. The Government have decided not to declare those people in the way that has been done in the past. I believe that that is the right decision. It nevertheless means that we must be mindful that we are legislating for a different group of people. We are also legislating, for the first time ever, in a way that could jeopardise those people's freedoms in a very basic fashion. The clause asks us to accept that those who work in the security and intelligence services should be treated entirely differently from other servants of the Crown, and it deserves, at the very least, careful scrutiny.
      I think that it would have been more in keeping with the spirit of the legislation if either the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary had attended the debate. I mean no rudeness to the Minister, but the fact is that Ministers of State do not deal with these matters in either the Home Office or the Foreign Office. They are dealt with by the Secretary of State, and rightly so. The Secretary of State
      1068
      should be answerable to the Committee for these extraordinary powers, and should explain to us why he considers them necessary.
      I may not carry every hon. Member with me when I say that there is, in my view, a strong case for treating people in the security and intelligence services differently. People who enter those services are indeed in a different category, and I would be prepared to accept clause 1 as drafted if it included four essential safeguards.
      The first is, of course, a public interest defence. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), in an important intervention, reminded the Committee of what had been done in the past, referring to the pre-war years. I do not think that passing this measure would make much difference: if people thought that the nation's security was under threat, I believe that they would conduct themselves as they had in the past, regardless of the legislation. It is worth remembering that when Ralph Wigram, head of the central department in the Foreign Office, made the decision—agreed, incidentally, by his superiors in the Foreign Office—to begin the systematic briefing of Churchill, he would have made the same decision even if this ludicrous piece of legislation had been on the statute book, so dire were the circumstances.
      The Prime Minister—who, undoubtedly, has personally rejected a public interest defence—should ask herself, believing as she does that that period showed Churchill's greatness, whether it was right to introduce legislation that would have given those public-spirited men no defence in law for their actions. What they gave Churchill was not minor information, but the deepest intelligence known to the Government of the day. Having made their decision on 26 October 1934, they sent Churchill the first significant report, describing how the Nazis were aiming to have 1,000 war planes in two years' time. They went on to give him the transcript of a long conversation between Hitler and Admiral Erich Raeder, dated June of that year, in which the Fũhrer demanded complete secrecy about the construction of U-boats.
      Those were not just reports from the ambassador in Berlin—a fat lot of use a report from him would have been at that time. They were intelligence reports, which over the years were systematically diverted towards Churchill. We only really knew about it when another member of the central department, Michael Creswell, revealed—nine years after Churchill's death—the extent of the information. In a wonderful description, he said that, sitting in the Box under the Gallery, he could not understand why the Ministers at the Dispatch Box did not realise the basis on which Churchill had obtained all the information. He concluded that the only reason was that people like Hoare and others simply had not read their own briefs. Every now and again Churchill had to make a deliberate factual mistake to cover up the fact that at that time he was probably the best-informed Member in the House, better informed than any member of the Cabinet.
      If the legislation goes through, if those circumstances ever returned people who gave such information would never be able to claim in court that they had acted in the public interest. That is ludicrous and not a single Tory Member should vote for it, but not a single Cabinet Minister is here to listen to the arguments.
      What is happening to the House? What is wrong with it? Why are we allowed to pass such legislation with hardly any serious scrutiny? I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), whom we

      1069
      welcome back to the House. I said a few rude things to him during the by-election campaign, but judging by the noises that have come from him it seems that he also objects to the legislation, in which case I must take it all back. It that is so, in the first few weeks of his return to the House he will have exhibited a healthy independence, as befits the Member of Parliament for his constituency.
      6.15 pm
      The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent also mentioned the outrageous conduct of a former Member of Parliament for Plymouth, Devonport. There is some sympathy between the right hon. Gentleman and me in this regard. Hore-Belisha's conduct in the Duncan Sandys case was indeed outrageous, and was undoubtedly the reason why Churchill never forgave him.
      If the Government ask us to pass the clause, they must concede the case for a public interest defence. We cannot place a blanket ban on those who work for the security or intelligence services, and provide no redress through the courts when those people believe that they have acted in the public interest. Such a defence is particularly pertinent to that category of people, and to clause 1.
      Secondly, as suggested in new clause 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), there is no doubt that the House must be satisfied that an independent mechanism exists to vet the memoirs of members of the security and intelligence services. It is not enough for that to be left to the Government of the day, because they will be making judgments about the disclosure of information that affect other Governments and decisions made by other Ministers. It is possible, for instance, that a Conservative Government would not have wished for a full disclosure of what did or did not happen in the Crabbe affair. If memoirs and biographies, which will undoubtedly continue to be written, are to be properly vetted they must be vetted by a body with a measure of independence, and the House is the only authority that can be satisfied that it has that measure of independence.
      That could be done formally, as suggested in new clause 6, or there could be an understanding—which has usually applied in such cases—that the Prime Minister would appoint a group of people, subject to discussions with the Leader of the Opposition. There was a time when that convention was sufficient for most Members of Parliament; I doubt whether that is still the case, and I think that we should know who will sit on such vetting bodies. It should be clear to those who write material of this kind that they are entitled to do so, subject only to an independent vetting procedure. That arrangement governs those who work in the FBI and the CIA, and we have a right to know that it would apply to those who work in our security and intelligence services.
      Thirdly, such employees must have a contract of employment, which must make clear the terms on which they undertake the onerous obligation under no circumstances to reveal any information. The contract should assure them that a public interest defence is available to them, and that they have the right to go through a vetting procedure relating to the disclosure of information in memoirs.
      Although provision has been made for those in the security services, those in the other category that is not covered by statute or by the Security Service Bill also need an internal procedure to allow them to bring anxieties or apprehensions, perhaps about malpractice, to an
      1070
      independent ombudsman or arbitrator. We have heard nothing about that. A Bill that lays a new statutory obligation on the security and intelligence services must give some satisfaction on those grounds.
      In the absence of any such provisions, clause 1 deserves to be rejected.
      Mr. Steve Norris: It is a pleasure to follow the speech by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). He said some rude things about me during the recent by-election, but entirely redeemed himself tonight if only because he was kind enough to notice that I am here. When I asked the previous occupant of the Chair if I might be permitted to say a few words about my distinguished predecessor, he confessed to me that he did not notice that I had been away.
      Happily, my absence from the House ended in December, but it is a matter of some sadness to me that the event which precipitated my return to the House was the death of our old friend Sir John Biggs-Davison, who served in the House and sat in or near the place from which I am speaking for 33 years. The hallmark of Sir John was that, however one regarded his views, one understood him to be a man of tremendous integrity, absolute honesty and loyalty to his principles. Sir John was universally well regarded, and if he were here he would listen very intently to hon. Members' observations.
      I should like to speak about that extraordinary phenomenon, a second maidenhood, although I am not sure how gynaecologically, medically or politically that is possible. My successor in Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) said some kind things about me in his maiden speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) was of great assistance to me during the years when I represented Oxford, East. The hon. Member who now sits for that constituency and I fought each other in 1983 and he shadowed me for the next four years. Because of the pathetic collapse of the Alliance in 1987, he managed to take the seat from me. He and I debated matters of policy long into the night and very hard, and in all the time that I was the Member of Parliament he never descended to the level of personal abuse. I hope that it can be said that I did not do that either. I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman, and from the safety of a seat which I was advised by one of my local committee members not even a chimpanzee could lose for the Conservatives I wish him every limited success in his new seat.
      I shall disappoint some of my hon. Friends who suggested to me that the glittering prizes in life are withheld from those who discomfit the Government, especially if they manage to do so in a maiden speech. In this matter I have some sympathy for my hon. Friend the Minister because the position that he is bound to defend Is simply untenable.
      The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) was characterised by the integrity and courage that we have come to recognise as his hallmark in these matters. The fundamental rationale of the Bill is to rid us of one of the most discredited pieces of legislation on the statute book—section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. We all know that section 2 does not work, because it is so ludicrously widely drawn that it is plainly unenforcible. In the Ponting case, as hon. Members will know, a jury was invited in the clearest possible terms to convict and simply said, "This is

      1071
      nonsense and we will not do so." Because it is so draconian and so widely drawn, the clause is now utterly unusable and it is perceived only as a device for the convenience of the Executive.
      Clause 1 seriously implies that no person who has ever been covered by section 2—no matter how old he or she may be and how many years have passed since the events about which that person is speaking—may say anything at all. That person may not reveal even a trivial matter, and that prohibition seems to be outside the bounds of any serious attempt at legislation. He may not reveal anything serious, even if it exposes an illegality of the kind spoken about by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Both sorts of information are automatically proscribed, and if a person should make such information known to us he will be the subject of a criminal prosecution. That is nonsense.
      Some of my hon. Friends asked me when I intended to speak in the Chamber. Not surprisingly I said that I proposed to speak on the Bill. They said, "Ah, yes. It's nonsense, isn't it?" They are right. Clause 1 is dangerous nonsense, and the only excuse for it is that it provides a convenient tool for the Executive. The only circumstances in which it can be used, abused, are those in which the Executive simply do not want the public at large to know. That is dangerous. We have heard about the information fed to Churchill before the last war. The right hon. Member for Devonport spoke about that, and he will forgive me when I say that many of us know about that.
      Sir John Stokes: Some of us.
      Mr. Norris: I defer to my hon. Friend. I noted his intervention when he asked what Labour was doing at the time. I hope that I can carry my hon. Friend with me when I say that, with hindsight, there is no doubt that the information supplied at that time was vital in the ensuing conflict and in preparing the nation for that conflict. It provided Winston Churchill with the tools that were needed to enter the fray when he was called upon to do so.
      I urge my hon. Friend to listen carefully to this important debate. Few debates are more important and the House should consider this not as a partial issue because, however incredible it may seem, the Conservative party will not be in power for ever. Since returning to the House I have been tempted to the view that for ever may be a long time away. This issue is about the public and the Executive.
      The characteristic of conservatism, certainly the kind with which I am in sympathy, is the belief that individual freedoms are paramount and that the duty of the state is not to suppress those freedoms but to protect them. The only legitimate grounds on which individual freedoms should be proscribed are those on which there is a definable greater interest, such as national security. No hon. Member speaking in favour of the amendment has seriously denied that.
      I do not in any sense deny the concept of the right to confidentiality in certain circumstances, and it is clear that for the sake of the national interest the Bill should contain such a provision. This is an important amendment, and I invite my hon. Friends to see this not as a contest between Government and Opposition or between Conservative and
      1072
      Labour, but as the individual against the Executive. In that context, Conservative Members will lose their credibility if they do not support the amendment.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Heffer: I agree very much with the hon. Members for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whose amendment No. 14 goes to the heart of the matter. Let us suppose that a member of the security services or a civil servant found out that things were going wrong and, in the public interest, decided that he had to make a statement and take a stand on an issue that would affect the entire nation. Under the provisions of the Bill, that person would find himself in real trouble and in prison as a result of action taken against him.
      We are talking about what may be "damaging". Let me refer to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) about Churchill. I am glad that he got round to that point because, when I first read that Churchill had been fed with information by high-level civil servants, who were responsible for the interests of the nation, I thought how right they were to do so. If he had not been fed with all that information and those matters had not been raised in the House of Commons, alerting the nation about what was going on, the country, and particularly people of my age, would have been in an even worse situation.
      I now understand precisely what is meant by the word "damaging". We must consider to whom the disclosure of information would be damaging. The Government will argue that anything that can be interpreted against their interests is damaging. That is precisely how all authoritarian Governments—indeed, most Governments —tend to argue because they do not like people saying things that are damaging to them. However, the disclosure of information may not be damaging to the nation; in fact, the opposite might be true. The nation might benefit as a result of the arguments put forward by those people. Clive Ponting was absolutely right in what he did. That is why I support the amendment. Under the terms of the amendment, a civil servant can say, "I've had enough. What I'm hearing is not good enough. I'll resign and go to the people in the country and explain what has happened." However, under the Official Secrets Act, that may be considered as damaging to the Government and that person will be in real trouble. That is the heart of the argument.
      The provision for a member of the security services to go to a tribunal sounds all right. The Government will say that, if such a person goes to a tribunal, he may well be given clearance, but so what? We cannot guarantee a person's right to do this and that is an infringement of people's freedom. We do not have liberty in this country simply because the Government decided to give us our liberty. No one gave us those liberties; they were achieved over the generations. We help to keep them going now, but our forefathers fought for all the liberties and rights that we now have. They did not achieve them without a tremendous struggle. We have been arguing to get rid of certain parts of the Official Secrets Act, but, in one sense, this Bill makes the position worse than it was before and that is surely not good enough. We cannot accept it because it is an infringement of our liberties.

      1073
      I do not intend to make a long speech. Some excellent arguments have been put forward, so those hon. Members who still wish to speak need only say where they stand on the issue. The Opposition's case is unanswerable. If I were on the Government Benches, I would do what I used to do regularly when I sat on that side and vote against my Government if I thought that they were wrong and that the nation's interests demanded that I do so. The nation's interests demand that the amendments are carried tonight.
      Unfortunately, nowadays, relatively few hon. Members attend debates. That is sad. When I first came here and such issues were debated, the House would be almost full. Nowadays there is scarcely anyone here, so we cannot hear all the arguments. That is worrying. Hon. Members are like lap dogs; they trot in, vote and do not hear all the arguments. They have probably not even read the Bill. This is a sad day for democracy and it is about time that those of us who regularly attend debates, particularly debates of this kind, explain to our hon. Friends that it is their right and duty to be here, not only to express their opinions, but to hear the arguments, make up their minds and vote accordingly.
      This is one of the most important Bills laid before us for a long time, apart from the rubbish that the Government have brought forward regarding privatisation which nearly gives me apoplexy when I read it. This is a fundamental issue concerning the rights of people and the interests of the nation and whether we allow secrecy to be extended even further under this Government. This Bill does not do what we had hoped; it does the very opposite.
      I think that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) misunderstood me. I was not attacking him. I do not think that what he said was sinister. I do not believe that he is an MI5 or MI6 agent. I am simply suggesting that he must have friends who can give him information. His research is brilliant. It is important that he said what he did because it enables us to obtain information that we would not otherwise have. His contributions to our debates are important, and I hope that he will support the amendments.
      Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I join the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) in wishing that more hon. Members were present to hear the arguments. I suspect that many of our absent colleagues have the general impression that the clause, as unamended, will be effective in stopping a future Peter Wright. Many hon. Members would support such a clause, if drafted correctly, provided that it limited its objective to doing just that. Patriotic Members of Parliament do not object to the imposition of the duty of confidentiality and secrecy on members of the security services—M15 and some of the other ones that serve our country. However, the clause does not limit itself to that admirable horizon. It goes much further. The clause deals with an absolute, lifelong doctrine of eternal confidentiality at all times and under all circumstances.
      That is a new-fangled doctrine. It is certainly new to our country, which traces the continuity of civil liberties from the days of Magna Carta to the days of the Churchillian tradition, amplified by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) who quoted from page 973 of the Churchill biography by Martin Gilbert. A different theme has run through our history of civil liberties from the one that suggests that there should be an eternal, lifelong duty of confidentiality. That doctrine is new to the secret
      1074
      service. Mr. George Young, a vice-chief of the secret intelligence service in former years, gave an interview to Mr. Richard Norton-Taylor of The Guardian some months ago, in which he said that during his years of service he had never known of an absolute doctrine of lifelong confidentiality and that it was new.
      Who invented it? Almost certainly the Prime Minister invented it in the heat of the strong feelings that were generated by the Wright affair. One understands and sympathises with the Prime Minister's point of view. The trouble is that the moral point of view was legal nonsense when it came in front of court after court in jurisdiction after jurisdiction. It was not just. The Australians threw it out on its ear. Our own courts, at every level, disagreed with the notion that there is a doctrine of absolute, lifelong, permanent confidentiality.
      There must be circumstances in which there are exceptions to that basic rule. There are at least three areas where such exceptions ought to exist. One of those areas relates to public policy. I refer to nothing that relates to operational secrets, past or present, of the security services but to public issues of debate that relate to the overall concept, supervision, management, accountability and so on, of the security services.
      How wrong the Government have been is illustrated by looking at the saga of the BBC radio programme "My Country Right or Wrong". A totally responsible group of BBC producers looked at how our security services might be improved by certain changes in public policy. They invited to appear and take part in those programmes a number of former members of the security services. The programmes that were recorded were so anodyne that the director-general of the Security Service pinned on the notice boards a memorandum for his staff that gave the time of broadcast of the programmes and said that the security services had nothing to fear from them. The director-general of the Security Services was briefed by some of his former colleagues on what they had said to the BBC.
      That was the attitude of the security services. They did not believe in the absolute doctrine of lifelong confidentiality extending to a prohibition on the right of former members of the security services to talk about how accountable Ministers should be, and whether there should be better oversight and management of the security services. They appeared to recognise that there were limits to the doctrine of confidentiality and that there should be sensible extensions to the right of freedom of speech.
      That was not the Government's attitude. Who will forget the extraordinary scene when the Attorney-General rushed to the Dispatch Box on a Friday morning to announce that he had banned the programmes and had issued writs? He caused mayhem in the BBC by placing a total ban on the programmes, in observance of the absolute doctrine of confidentiality that he named several times in this statement. What happened when the dust had settled and the plethora of writs subsided? After dialogue and a good measure of common sense it was found that not a single comma or word of those radio programmes had been deleted. The only interesting fact is that almost nobody listened to the programmes or commented on them. Except to a few specialists, the programmes were very dull.

      1075
      6.45 pm
      It is clearly a civil right of former Crown servants to use their common sense and to comment from time to time on public policy issues. The more general area of civil rights for Crown servants was superbly highlighted by the intervention of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), during the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). If it had been scripted by a television producer to illustrate perfectly how seriously we are trampling on the civil right of Crown servants in this matter, he could not have done better. Talk about people rushing in where angels fear to tread.
      The Minister of State demonstrated clearly that a Crown servant who briefed the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook on the fact that his telephone was being illegally tapped and that his house was being illegally burgled would be guilty of a criminal offence, even though he might be able to put it right later by going to a tribunal. That is a pretty serious limitation. We are not talking about a complete fantasy. The French secret service got up to some totally illegal bombing activities when it bombed Greenpeace and others. If civil servants are not to have the right under any circumstances to talk to a Member of Parliament or a Privy Councillor about their worries, we are being unreasonable in placing these limitations on Crown servants' common sense, loyalty and civil liberties.
      Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely interesting point, but let me put another case to him. A civil servant might get to know of a private security firm that is under contract to the Government and that, without the statutory constraints that are laid on MI5, is operating in just such a manner. Even under those circumstances the civil servant could not bring that matter to the attention of the Member of Parliament concerned.
      Mr. Aitken: The leader of the Social and Liberal Democrats is right. The clause that we are discussing refers to any information that is ever come across as a result of a person's employment in the security services.
      Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to remind the Committee of a question that I asked the Minister of State, who is the focal point of, and who will become the star of, this debate when it is discussed in years to come. The hon. Gentleman said that the concession had been made that if my telephone was being illegally tapped and my house illegally burgled, it would be a criminal offence for a member of the security services to tell me and that it would be an offence for me, having found out that fact, to tell anybody else—certainly a solicitor. It is now put to me by those who understand the law—and I ask this question during the hon. Gentleman's speech so that the Minister of State can contemplate the matter—that were I to discover from a member of the security services that my house was being illegally burgled and that my telephone was being illegally tapped, it would be an offence for me even to tell a policeman. I think that the Minister of State ought to consider whether that would be the case.
      Mr. Aitken: I think that I am going to go out and buy shares in companies that make handcuffs. It is becoming clearer and clearer that the special branch will be arresting
      1076
      a whole chain of people who have no business to be charged with criminal offences because, in one capacity or another, they are receiving information quite properly and handling it quite appropriately.
      I hope that the Minister of State will not try to escape from this argument by referring to the staff counsellor. The tenure of the staff counsellor is very transient. Nobody has made that clearer than the Minister of State, who refused to write his responsibilities and role, even in the words of the Prime Minister, into the Security Service Bill. That staff counsellor can be blown away in one puff of a written answer just as he was appointed in a puff of a written answer. I have considerable doubts about whether he is in any way a safeguard to the civil liberties that we are discussing.
      The argument about memoirs was ably dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) when speaking to new clause 6. He did his best this afternoon to turn Hansard into an illegal bestseller. I think tomorrow at the Vote Office we will need a notice saying, "Burn before reading". My hon. Friend's idea of a publications board is good. Such a system operates effectively in the United States. We should not miss the effective sanction by which the Central Intelligence Agency can, with the most punitive legal weapons, go after those who try to break the rules in definance of the publications board or whatever it is called.
      We cannot allow the Government alone, without any independent involvement, to be the sole arbiter of whether memoirs are authorised. We cannot have Mr. Chapman Pincher's version, as Mr. Wright told him, being the authorised version and being allowed to be printed when Mr. Peter Wright's version is pursued in courts all over the world.
      The position on memoirs is unsatisfactory. The Minister of State got into trouble on Second Reading when he was threatened with withdrawal of support by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). The Minister of State tried to buy him off by involving the staff counsellor; he said that somehow the staff counsellor would be helpful to authors. When Mr. Anthony Cavendish approached the staff counsellor on his book he was refused an appointment, so the staff counsellor was a fat lot of good. After my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion wrote to the Home Secretary to make that point. lo and behold, suddenly Mr. Cavendish was given an appointment with the staff counsellor. I understand that he met him this morning. I am not aware of what went on. I think it was a case of tea and sympathy and not much more.
      The fact remains that the sudden intervention of the staff counsellor is a cosmetic device and of no relevance to the theme put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay. We have had many memoirs in the past. There is no reason why there should not be responsible ministerial or other memoirs provided they are properly vetted by an independent element. A publications board is a good idea.
      Mr . Dalyell: I fear that Brighton, Pavilion, must be more effective than Linlithgow. I wrote asking Ministers to allow Anthony Cavendish, with whom I was much involved, to see Sir Philip Woodfield, I thought responsibly, at an early stage. That request was denied. What else has Sir Philip Woodfield done as a staff

      1077
      counsellor? He was a distinguished civil servant and private secretary to Ministers. What else has he done since becoming staff counsellor?
      Mr. Aitken: When we put down parliamentary questions to find out what Sir Philip Woodfield has done and is doing it will be interesting to see the answers. Perhaps we will be told that these are security matters which we cannot discuss. I suspect that will be the answer.
      The more one considers these problems the more one realises that they cannot be dealt with by the all-singing, all-dancing, all-embracing doctrine of lifelong confidentiality. That is what the clause seeks to impose artificially in a manner contrary to our parliamentary, historical and judicial traditions. We must remind ourselves that we are sent to the House not just to pass laws but to preserve liberty. We could easily adjust the clause by a couple of good amendments such as amendment No. 14 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), the Opposition amendment or new clause 6.
      Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a great difference between the Bill and the introduction of an all-embracing contract for present and perhaps future employees of the Security Service and all other Crown employees which they could opt in or out of? The problem is that the Bill is retrospective. It will cover people with even the most vague connection with intelligence from the first world war.
      Mr. Aitken: If there are such people, no doubt my hon. Friend will trace them and get a good story out of them. However, he makes a serious point about contracts. We were told repeatedly by the Attorney-General that the basis of the case against Mr. Wright was that he had a contract which he had violated. When I suggested that that was wrong, I was told that I was being ridiculous and that it was an outrageous suggestion. Of course, the courts ended up finding that there was no contract and no legal relationship. We have to do better than the present laws.
      The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) asked a good question. He asked what had happened to the House of Commons which, apart from a minority of Members, does not listen properly to argument. The Committee does not seem to worry about the preservation of liberties; it is not interested in amendments. The Government have encouraged that philosophy by refusing to accept any amendments to legislation on the great issue of security. They seem to suggest that it is perfect legislation brought forward by perfect legislators—a ridiculous proposition.
      Something is wrong with the House of Commons. There is a strong note of unanimity in the speeches from all parts of the Committee. I hope that the message will get across to those who are listening that there is something rotten in the Government's state of Denmark in regard to the clause.
      Ms. Diane Abbott: The major point on the group of amendments relates to the doctrine of lifelong confidentiality. A minor point is touched on in new clause 6, which was ably moved by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason). New clause 6, which suggests the setting up of a publications review board, could be described as a job creation scheme but it is none the worse for that. Even at
      1078
      this late stage I urge Ministers to consider the sensible and practical suggestion for job creation in the new clause and to support it.
      It is not often that we contemplate personal human tragedy, but I want to draw attention to the sad case of Sir Robert Armstrong who destroyed his standing in public esteem and his reputation for future generations by chasing off to Australia and other points west in defence of the doctrine of lifelong confidentiality. I need only quote his words from the book on the "Spycatcher" case by Malcolm Turnbull. At one point in the trial poor Sir Robert Armstrong turned to Malcolm Turnbull and said, "Don't worry about me, Mr. Turnbull, I am just a fall guy." And a fall guy is what he was—pursuing through the courts the nonsensical notion of absolute confidentiality.
      In putting forward the proposal in the Bill the Government are being fundamentally dishonest because they know that the practice will continue as before and that the secrets about the Security Service that they want to be made known will get out through what can best be described as the Chapman Pincher route. Mr. Chapman Pincher has been used for years by the Government and by the security services to bring into the public domain information which cannot be brought out any other way. He was described by a leading historian as a conduit for leaks from Government Ministers. To quote:
      "The columns of "The Express" may be seen as a kind of official urinal in which, side by side, high officials of MI5, MI6, sea lords, permanent under-secretaries, Lord George Brown, chiefs of the air staff, nuclear scientists, Lord Wigg and others stand patiently leaking in the public interest."
      It is dishonest of the Government to bring before us the notion of permanent confidentiality when they know perfectly well that it has been breached and will continue to be breached by what we might call the Chapman Pincher or public urinal method.
      It is not clear to hon. Members what the Government's rooted objection is to the practical vetting of the memoirs of spies or members of the security services such as exists in the United States of America. It is particularly important to look at the matter seriously in the light of last week's debate, when the Government refused to take on board the idea of serious political or administrative oversight of the security services. In the group of amendments, and especially in new clause 6, we ask the Government, even at this late stage, in the interests of practicality and common sense that a few retired gentlemen who have served their country well should be able to turn an honest penny. In the interests of showing what the House thinks of the Chapman Pincher public urinal method of journalism, I ask the Government to reconsider their attitude to the amendments and to new clause 6.
      7 pm
      Sir Ian Gilmour: I want to speak briefly at the end of a remarkable debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that it is a pity that more people have not heard it. It used to be thought that to have the Committee stage of Bills on the Floor of the House was a constitutional safeguard—and this is a constitutional Bill —but that is no longer true. Few people hear the arguments and then the block vote is trooped in—or bussed in—and that is that. In an ordinary Standing Committee, one or two hardened sinners are allowed to infiltrate and the others have to listen to the arguments.

      1079
      That is more likely to produce an acceptable result than a Committee of the whole House. I am not suggesting that the Government had realised that—they clearly thought that they were doing the right thing—but there is a defect in the current procedures.
      There is a defect in the Bill, too, as this debate has clearly shown. The Bill is, after all, supposed to be a liberalising measure, but anybody listening to the debate would find it difficult to see anything liberal in clause 1. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, the absolute blanket stipulation that members of the secret service or anybody who has ever been connected with them are automatically not allowed to say anything should not appear in a parliamentary democracy. The hon. Mr. Justice Scott said that the life-long duty of confidentiality was not attainable this side of the iron curtain. He was right, and the Bill should not be this side of the iron curtain either, in a number of respects.
      Several hon. Members have suggested the safeguards that are needed. In his winding-up speech, my hon. Friend the Minister may not be the only boy on the burning deck because he may have one lone supporter, but he must be aware that anybody who pays attention to the Bill knows that the overwhelming opinion is that the Bill requires serious amendment. I hope that the Committee will not face a series of blanket noes to avoid a Report stage, as has happened on other Bills. The idea that no amendment will be accepted by the Government is unacceptable to the House. I am sure that that is not my hon. Friend's view.
      Mr. John Patten: I can reassure my right hon. Friend. The Government have tabled one amendment, so there will be a Report stage as he wishes.
      Sir Ian Gilmour: That deals with one of my concerns, but not the other. I hope that my hon. Friend does not mean that the Government will reject automatically all the other amendments.
      Mr. Corbett: The right hon. Gentleman should not be entrapped by the Minister. If he looks at the Government amendment, he will see that it is playing with Parliament.
      Sir Ian Gilmour: Nevertheless, the mere fact that a Government amendment has been tabled means that the Bill must have a Report stage, albeit a fairly truncated one. That does not alter the point that I am trying to make. I hope that when the Government hear the arguments which, with one solitary, but no doubt important exception, they will have a duty to pay some attention to what has been said in Committee.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Government have chosen to have the Bill discussed by a Committee of the whole House because it is a matter of constitutional importance. However much it may convenience the Government's management of business, it none the less gives a stamp of seriousness to the debate, which is not usual. But if the Bill is a matter of constitutional importance, the Government are treating it in an unusually unserious way. I add my voice to those that have already been raised in criticism of the fact that no Minister with responsibilities for these issues has been in the House for the whole debate, which has now run for
      1080
      almost three hours. That is treating the Committee with less than appropriate attention in a matter of constitutional seriousness.
      There is a second important issue in introducing constitutional change. Bills that effect constitutional change—and they are supposed to last—should not be introduced in a partisan fashion, without a broad degree of support or change. The Official Secrets Act 1911 has been very much criticised—and rightly so—for many years, but it must be recollected that at the time when it was introduced it had broad-based support in the House. The Government, in bringing forward this Bill, have no such support. Not one speech has been made so far in the debate in support of the provisions in clause 1 which seek to introduce an absolute offence that will apply to members of the security and intelligence services throughout their lives. The fact that there have been no speeches in support of that suggests that the Government have got it wrong.
      The Government should do as they did on an earlier occasion when seeking to tamper with a fundamental right —the right of those charged with criminal offences to enjoy the privilege of being tried before a jury. They put forward the proposition that there should be no jury trial for those accused of serious fraud. Eleven out of the 12 speeches in the debate attacked the idea and the Government properly scrapped it. I suggest that that would be an appropriate action for clause 1. If there had been a great inquest into section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 that came up with a proposal that enjoyed broad-based, cross-party support and support in the country at large, the Government's course might have been understandable, but that is not the case.
      The committee set up to examine the provisions of the Bill, under Lord Franks, addressed the issues that we debated earlier. It addressed specifically the question whether members of the security services should be absolutely responsible for information and it concluded that they should not be. In paragraph 124 of its report, the committee included specifically information relating to the intelligence and security services, information obtained by them and information about internal defence and security as being proper for the test of serious injury. Some test of harm is surely appropriate in this case, and surely the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is right in seeking to point to the ridiculous position that the Bill creates when, under the disclosure of the most innocent information about the conduct of the Security Service, an individual is capable of being subject to prosecution.
      I do not think it right that the criminal law of this country should stray so far from reflecting the moral perception of people in this country that it makes those in public service—the Security Service is an important arm of public service—guilty of offences of that kind.
      In a trenchant leader—one of many attacking the proposal—the Financial Times stated:
      "It cannot be criminally wrong to point the finger at iniquity."
      But that is what the clause would achieve or seek to achieve because there is no prospect whatever that public-spirited members of the security services will be deterred from pointing a finger at iniquity because of this clause.
      What the Government are now doing will be done in vain. This is simply a foolish response to defeats sustained in courts in this country, first on appeal before the House

      1081
      of Lords and in other jurisdictions around the world. It does not reflect the Government's considered judgment of how to strengthen the Security Service—it reflects the petulant response of the Prime Minister, made in the heat of the embarrassment about the Wright affair. There are lessons to be drawn from the Wright affair and we shall turn to some of them in our discussions on later amendments.
      Mr. Dalyell: On the question of iniquity—the hon. Member is a lawyer and I am not—does this not overturn or at least damage the case of Gartside v. Outram, in which there was a judgment that in no circumstances can there be confidence in iniquity. I should like a legal opinion from the Minister or from Home Office civil servants on the effect of the classic 19th century case of Gartside v. Outram in relation to iniquity.
      Mr. Maclennan: I wish that I could help the hon. Gentleman, but I am not sure that my legal knowledge extends as far as that with which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) credits me. Perhaps we should invite the Government to bring the Attorney-General to the House to answer that question because then we would at least have someone who is involved in such matters to advise the House.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman reflects for a moment he will remember that the judgment was that one could not enjoin a citizen to confidentiality where a crime is involved. It was rich language, but it struck true and that is what the Government are trying to strike against.
      Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for refreshing my memory.
      As I have said, the criminal law of this land should seek to reflect the moral perceptions of society and this clause plainly does not do so. It does not reflect the moral perceptions of this House and it will be a constitutional outrage if the Government press ahead without accepting the amendments which have been so cogently deployed by members of their own party.
      The other amendments are meritorious and I suspect that there is much agreement in the House, especially among those who are present, regardless of party, that this occasion is very much an illustration of the way in which the House of Commons can operate effectively—that is, if the Government do not simply roll in their absent Members.
      The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is assuredly right in seeking to amend, in amendment No. 71, the provision that the clause should apply not only to those who are in the service, but also to those who have been in the service. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) is also right to seek to provide a means of scrutinising effectively and fairly the publication of memoirs by those who wish to give information and advice in the public interest about their experiences in the Security Service.
      Those amendments are needed and if they are accepted they will not invalidate the purpose of the Bill. They will strengthen the Bill and make it a more generally acceptable means of modifying the more unenforceable sections of the Official Secrets Act 1911.
      7.15 pm
      Sir Richard Body: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is poised and ready with a powerful speech, but before he replies I should like to take a minute in which to ask him a question because I do not want to become a criminal—still less to be guilty of a crime relating to the safety and security of our country.
      In the 1970s I was an officer in an organisation that was campaigning against our membership of the European Community. I had a telephone call and subsequently a meeting with someone who was in the security services. He said that he did not doubt my good intentions but he warned me that my telephone was being intercepted. The reason for that was the fact that I was serving on a committee and seeing a great deal of someone whom the older Members of the House will remember, Anne Kerr, then the hon. Member for Rochester, who was then married to Russell Kerr, then the hon. Member for Feltham. I was warned to be careful of what I said on the telephone whenever I spoke to anyone.
      I suppose that my informant, who was a good friend —obviously I must not reveal his identity now—was guilty of a crime. Having heard what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, I am beginning to wonder whether, if the Bill were on the statute book now, I would be guilty of a crime in telling the Committee that 15 or 16 years ago I received that information.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) spoke of all sorts of dire things happening and said that policemen would frequently be in and out of the House with handcuffs. Surely that is going a bit too far. Does my hon. Friend agree?
      Mr. John Patten: I shall comment on that in my reply.
      Sir Richard Body: Perhaps my hon. Friend will assure me that I am not a criminal and that he will not make me a criminal—I hope so.
      Mr. Norman Buchan: I feel that I should cap that story. I have already spoken about my experiences in relation to MI5 and the security services. However, on one occasion I received two letters on the same day. They had been put into the wrong envelopes. One came from the south of England and one from Glasgow. Each had arrived in the wrong envelope because they had been opened and incorrectly replaced.
      At least one Opposition Member has welcomed the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) to this debate. I should like to do so, too. He has made a trenchant arrival, but I must warn him that things have got a lot worse since he was a Member. One reason why the Chamber is bare for such a debate is that his hon. Friends are terrified that, once more, they will be convinced that the Government are wrong. It is simpler to come in just to vote for the Government than to listen to the arguments. The hon. Gentleman will find that out for himself in due course.
      The Bill was heralded as a reform of the portmanteau provisions of section 2 of the discredited Official Secrets Act 1911. The reform was initiated when we were full of discussions about the nonsense—for this country, the humiliating nonsense—of the "Spycatcher" affair and its revelations. It was supposed to have, and was thought to have, picked up some of the conclusions that their

      1083
      Lordships had reached during the past few years, including the last one that was in favour of a public interest defence. That has been totally ignored. In the same way, the Government ignored the other matter that was expected to be included—that there should be some democratic supervision over MI5.
      The problem with clause 1 is that it ignores both those matters. By placing MI5 under completely secret supervision instead of some form of democratic scrutiny, the Government have made the provisions of this Bill an even more serious issue. If MI5 was open to some supervision, with reports, however minute, made to this House, the absoluteness of the Bill would not be so serious. The matter cannot therefore be considered in isolation. The Security Service Bill and this Bill must be taken together.
      The Home Secretary disappeared from the Committee on the Security Service Bill and has not been present in this one. Perhaps he was afraid that he too might be convinced by our arguments and find himself in the wrong Lobby. It is disgraceful that the Home Secretary is missing from the debate on this issue, which is at the heart of the freedoms and liberties of this country. This issue is associated with other matters, including, for example, Government interference in the programme "Death on the Rock" in broadcasting and the monopoly of the press. We are being surrounded by an apparatus of secrecy which is the more difficult to penetrate. The Government have now produced a definition to make that form of secrecy absolute.
      It is no use the Government saying that such secrecy is limited to those in the security and intelligence services. It goes further than that. In the past, people in my case have been opening my mail and replacing letters in the wrong envelopes. There have been other much worse cases, including those of Ponting and Tisdall.
      In the case of Ponting, the sensible jury rejected the nonsense of guilt. That was an interesting case, and I do not know why the Government are afraid to appoint half a dozen honest men and true from among right hon. and hon. Members. They saw how intelligently the jury cut through the nonsense of the judge's direction and said, "This is nonsense. Yes, you have proved that legally this man may be guilty but he cannot be guilty of disclosing an iniquity." A similar view was taken by the judge in the Gartside case in the last century.
      Previous laws have failed, and it is nonsense to call this Bill a reform. The Government were compelled to introduce a change because they failed to achieve a conviction and Ponting was found innocent. They had to find other methods. They used confidentiality until this Bill was produced. That was meant to be used in commercial issues. They misused that provision in the case of the Swiss chemical firm of La Roche. When they realised that they were coming unstuck, they used injunctions to prevent any examination or publication.
      The Government have now introduced this so-called reform of the secrecy Act. First, we are told that the guilty person is one
      "who is or has been"
      a member of the security and intelligence services. The retrospective nature of the legislation has been raised. If such conditions did not exist when a person took office, it would be disgraceful for them to be imposed later. I cannot
      1084
      understand why the Government are not taking that point on board. The Home Secretary should be here to listen to the arguments.
      The "Spycatcher" judgment was based on two factors. The first was that the information was already publicly known. Under the Bill, however widely publicised it was, anyone revealing it would be found guilty. If Peter Wright were here, he would be found guilty even though the judges have already decided that "Spycatcher" is publishable. It is dangerous nonsense.
      I said on Tuesday that we have seen the subversion of parliamentary democracy. The sovereignty of Parliament is being replaced by the sovereignty of the Executive. The Bill says that an offence is committed if security information is disclosed "without lawful authority". What are we coming to? Until now, offences have been committed only when there has been proof of wrongdoing. The Executive are put in conflict with the people because the people are entitled to know if iniquity is taking place. I should have broadcast more powerfully the incidence involving the two envelopes and the phone tapping.
      The Executive are also put in conflict with Parliament. We have seen difficulties in attempting to get at the truth in matters other than those involving security. For example, there were problems over the Westland case and the Belgrano. The Select Committees, established to obtain the truth for Parliament and, therefore, for the people of this country, are confronted by an Executive who tell their civil servants and former Ministers, such as Leon Brittan, "Thou shalt not tell the truth." My right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) put a series of questions to Leon Brittan in the Select Committee in order to show what he was not prepared to answer. For about five columns of the report of the proceedings, Leon Brittan—we can now mention him by name as he has taken whatever manor he is supposed to have for his new job—refused to answer. Also, civil servants were instructed not to answer. We have permanent secrecy and people are bound by that secrecy indefinitely. We have no instruments in Parliament with which to rectify that.
      I do not approve of a Bill of Rights or Charter 88 and so on, but we must legislate to introduce certain rights. One of those rights must be the right of a Select Committee to put civil servants and others under oath if the House gives the Select Committee that right. There is no other way of obtaining the truth, given an Executive of this sort.
      Mr. Dalyell: Mr. Powell and Mr. Ingham were instructed not to appear.
      Dr. John Gilbert: Select Committees have the right to put people under oath. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry, of which I am a member, did that recently in the petrol retailing inquiry. There are plenty of precedents for that. The difference is that, when a witness is put on oath before a Select Committee, all the penalties that attach to perjury apply to any false evidence.
      Mr. Buchan: That is valuable and helpful, but clearly that right must be strengthened.
      I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I missed his point as I was involved in a hurried discussion with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert).
      Mr. Dalyell: I said that Mr. Powell and Mr. Ingham were instructed not to appear.
      Mr. Buchan: That is a powerful absolute silence. We must have the right to put people under oath, and we must understand it and be prepared to use it. If we are to fight back against the sovereignty of the Executive, both sides of the House must combine to fight for freedom.
      Mr. Maclennan: I was slightly disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he is opposed to Bills of Rights. He will recognise that article 10 of the European convention on human rights guarantees the freedom of communication which clause 1 is seeking to deny. Article 10 would undoubtedly be the subject of an appeal if the matter came to our domestic courts. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is much to be said for not having to go to Strasbourg but being able to invoke that right here.
      Mr. Buchan: I am not taking an anti-EEC attitude on this. If we cannot achieve freedoms in the House, and if article 10 could achieve that I would be prepared to use it. However, we want that power in our domestic legislation.
      I am concerned about the constitution, and unhappy about a written constitution being handed over to the judiciary alone. That is not the right way forward. Many legislative measures must be introduced to guarantee rights, but I am not advocating an entire constitution or Bill of Rights to govern our business. But what we have relied on in the past to protect our democracy and rights —the sovereignty of Parliament—has fast disappeared. We all know it no longer exists. We now have the sovereignty of the Executive. That has been due not only to the behaviour of the Executive but to the cowardice of Parliament. We need some courage, and let us hope that we see some on this occasion. We cannot allow the Bill to go through in this form.
      I have nothing against the Minister of State, but it is a disgrace that he is replying to this debate instead of the Home Secretary, whom we entrust with these matters. The right hon. Gentleman should have been here to listen to the debate. We do not accept that the Minister has surrendered to the arguments of last Monday and Tuesday by bringing us a little tiddler of an amendment. There will be a Report stage, and I hope that the Minister's hon. Friends who are on the side of goodness and justice will take advantage of that, as I intend to do.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Anthony Coombs: Given that my voice is just about to become an official secret I shall be extremely brief.
      An objective observer would find curious the apparent enthusiasm for a public interest defence for members of the Security Service. It has taken eight years, and innumerable White Papers and abortive private Members' Bills to arrive at this significant improvement to the Official Secrets Act 1911. It is equally curious to hear the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and other Opposition Members arguing so strongly for these reforms since, when in office, they did nothing to promulgate them.
      The furthest that the Opposition got was the 1978 White Paper. It effectively gave absolute protection against disclosures by the intelligence services. It proposed
      1086
      a system of ministerial certificates which would be issued by the Ministers concerned and the Attorney-General and would determine that there was a potential for
      "serious injury to the interests of the nation".
      If the Ministers involved decided that, the prohibition on members of the intelligence services saying anything, before, at the time, or afterwards, would have been every bit as comprehensive as that in clause 1—
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friend has misunderstood that White Paper, which also derived from Franks. There was an injury test; that was absolutely understood by Franks, and the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) will confirm that.
      The difficulty that this and previous Governments have faced is that of how to produce the evidence in court. Franks suggested doing that by ministerial certificates, but there was no question but that a test had to be met. The problem with clause 1 is that no tests must be met. I hope my hon. Friend appreciates the difference.
      Mr. Coombs: I do. However, the effect of those ministerial certificates, if they claimed serious injury to the interests of the nation, would be conclusively to prohibit revelations by members of the security services. What is more, the Labour Government made no legislative proposals as a result of the White Paper—they just sat on it—and they did not even give unequivocal support to Clement Freud's Official Information Bill, which made the same sort of proposals as the Labour party now so warmly supports.
      It is not unreasonable to recognise that there are some areas of policy, Government activity and secret service activity which are so crucial to the interests of the nation that they should never be released. That is accepted as a contractual obligation by people entering the service. These matters cannot be released in the courts. That was implicitly recognised in the failure of the Labour Government to reform the Official Secrets Act 1911. At least this Government have brought in additional significant safeguards to allow people who are disaffected and aggrieved in the security services to complain. Under the Labour Government there was no staff counsellor to deal with these complaints. There is now also a direct appeal to the Home Secretary, then to the Attorney-General and then to the Prime Minister. There are at least six people who may take a different or the same view as that of the aggrieved member of the service. That would provide a strong defence against any sort of conspiracy, and would throw an effective cloak of secrecy around the Security Service.
      Mr. Corbett: The hon. Gentleman's speech should be marked at this moment. The debate has been in progress for three hours; he will not know, because he has not been able to be with us, that his is the first speech in favour of the Bill all afternoon.
      Secondly, I offer the hon. Gentleman a piece of advice: he should keep out of the Members' Lobby, because he will be lassooed to make speeches without having heard those that have gone before.
      Mr. Coombs: That remark was unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. Having spent an admirable weekend with him in Nicosia I may say that it was uncharacteristic of him —[Laughter.] I should have said "with the hon. Gentleman and others". He should realise that I spent five

      1087
      hours sitting in the debate on the Security Service Bill without speaking, and another five likewise during an Official Secrets Bill debate, and my interest in these matters is well known. Sadly I was not called in those debates.
      Edmund Burke said in the 18th century:
      "It is a general popular error to imagine the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare."
      This debate has been significant evidence of that. If we do not operate a regime like that offered by clause 1, we shall allow a selective, pick-and-choose regime of secrecy in the security services, which will undermine their effectiveness. That will be bad for the services℄
      Mr. Norris: I understand my hon. Friend's strictures, but he should not imagine that we who have pointed out the value of the amendments to the clause do not believe that there should be a strong and effective mechanism to ensure that that which should be held secure is so held. What is more, we believe that those who breach such proper regulations should be properly dealt with and punished. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) have argued that the clause as drafted imposes such an obligation in terms of time and in terms of the omnivorous nature of the subject matter, that it is rendered effectively unworkable. Surely that is what my hon. Friend should deal with.
      Mr. Coombs: Any other clause would shoot the security services and their hold on secrets full of holes. It would amount to telling aggrieved members of the Security Service that, provided they went through the procedure and happened to disagree with the staff counsellor, the Security Service commissioner and the Prime Minister—and the Home Secretary—however sensitive and damaging their information might be, they could go ahead and disclose it to their hearts' content. That is a "pick-and-choose" way of operating a security service. It would be immensely damaging not only to the effectiveness of the Security Service but to its unity and morale which are so important to its efficient work.
      Mr. John McWilliam (Blaydon): Clause 1 does not refer just to the security services. Clause 1 (b) refers to other people who may come to have information which is by its nature a matter of national security but who have not, because of their occupation, taken the kind of Trappist vows that the hon. Gentleman seems to imply should be taken by members of the security services.
      Mr. Dalyell: Right hon. and hon. Members and personal friends of the late Russ Kerr would be more than curious at the Minister's reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body). It is the clear memory of some Opposition Members that at least Russ Kerr believed that he had been mistreated by the security services. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) nods in agreement. What the hon. Member for Holland with Boston has said must surely be answered. It is a most serious matter. Our departed, deceased colleagues have rights. Some of us want to pursue this matter and to learn what the Government think about it. I speak as one who happens to have a different view of the European Community from that of Russ Kerr.
      1088
      I wish to put six reasonably succinct questions on the amendment. There is a great deal that we need to learn. One of them is a repeat of a question that I asked on 21 December 1988 on Second Reading.
      Mr. Heffer: Before my hon. Friend goes on, I wish to raise a very important matter in relation to Russ Kerr. I want to make it quite clear that Russ Kerr was a bomber pilot in the Royal Australian Air Force and spent four years in that service. I want to know the answer precisely because of that and because he was my friend.
      Mr. Dalyell: I endorse that with some feeling. Russ Kerr's war record is second to no one's in the House.
      On Second Reading I said:
      "I asked a former Prime Minister"—
      the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—
      "a question about someone acting like Desmond Morton acted for Churchill. The former Prime Minister said that the Home Secretary would have to answer. The Home Secretary shook his head, and I believed that he thought that anyone in Desmond Morton's position would not be prosecuted."
      I then asked:
      "May we have some reflections on that? I believe that some people think that someone like Desmond Morton would find himself in prison."—[Official Report, 21 December 1988; Vol.144, c. 528–29.]
      I admit straight away that retrospective cases are always difficult—I can see the Minister's difficulty—but could we have some reflections on that?
      My second question goes back to the remarkable exchange between the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) earlier today. Have some of us understood it properly? The Minister seemed to say that if something illegal happens there can be no revelations about the illegality. If I have misunderstood, I ought to be told. If that was not the purport of his response to my right hon. Friend, what exactly did his intervention mean? I hope that he will explain.
      Mr. Hattersley: I was contemplating whether to clear the question up now or when the Minister of State answers, particularly if he continues to shake his head as though my allegation were untrue. If I may refer my hon. Friend to the Official Report, I said:
      "The Home Secretary says that I have got it wrong. I will read the passage from Hansard if he wishes … According to my reading of the Bill, if I am told by a member of the security services that my telephone is being tapped it is an offence for me to reveal it. Is that so, or is it not so?"
      The Home Secretary said:
      "That is correct".—[Official Report, 16 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 42.]
      None of the qualifications that the Minister of State may attempt to insert will alter that.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Dalyell: I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee. The point has been made and we await the answer.
      My third question can be illustrated personally and I hope that the Committee will bear with me. In 1982–83 I was tipped off by someone who was informed, someone in a position to know—I do not know whether he was a member of the security services or not—that the couple of rooms where I stay when I am in London had been visited. I am quite sure that the visitors were not interested in me as such, as a Member of Parliament, but I have reason to

      1089
      suppose that they were deeply interested in the source of my information about a ship. I make no bones about it—the information had come through the diaries of Lieutenant Sethia, the supplies officer on HMS Conqueror. At that time there was great curiosity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs which looked into these events on 1 and 2 May—will know. There was nothing of value to take—it was very sparse—but having been tipped off, I left my squash racket, my gym shoes and my clothes in particular positions. On three occasions when I came back after the weekend they were not in the same position as I had left them. One can draw one's own conclusions from that.
      Under this legislation, surely I would then have been obliged to keep completely quiet about it. I repeat in another form the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook asked in an intervention. I see the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) nodding. It is a valid question. What would the position be if I told the police about this? At least that must be answered, because when my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook asked the question the Minister was shaking his head in disagreement. I am afraid that he will have to spell out precisely the basis of that because there is a difficulty. If we make public unsubstantiated suspicions we are in the clear, but if we make public firm information we are gagged. That is a logical absurdity. If one is not sure about something, one is in the clear, but if one is sure, one is in deep trouble.
      Mr. Gorst: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has said that if one tells the truth one will be in the clear, and that the way to find out whether something is happening is to tell a lie—that one will be prosecuted only if it is the truth?
      Mr. Dalyell: If one knows it is the truth, one is in the clear if one says, "But I am uncertain," which is untrue and is therefore a lie. In other words, pleading uncertainty and not knowing puts one at an advantage.
      Fourthly, I unashamedly read a paragraph from Maurice Frankel's excellent brief, which he has given to a number of hon. Members. He says:
      "A civil servant or journalist may reveal information about behaviour so unacceptable that no minister will dare stand up and defend it. Everyone in a position to intervene may have failed to act. Yet the person who finally exposes the matter risks imprisonment under this Bill—while denied the chance to justify the disclosure."
      Are Mr. Frankel and others right? The answer is highly germane to our discussion. They must be either right or wrong.
      In asking my fifth question I must refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) because I return to the important classic case of Gartside v. Outram in the 19th century. In that case the courts upheld the right of an employee to reveal that his employer was defrauding his customers and to reveal it to those customers. The judgment referred to having no confidence in iniquity. One might say that we in Parliament are here concerned with confidentiality and with no confidentiality in wrongdoing. This raises a fundamental issue. Is wrongdoing to be protected by what amounts to a law of confidentiality?
      My sixth question is about one heck of a letter in The Times today. It was headed, "Civil servants and official secrets" and signed by Douglas Allen, Frank Cooper,
      1090
      Patrick Nairne—who, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) will know, was a member of the Franks committee on the Falklands and, like the others, he is a Cabinet Office civil servant—and Douglas Wass, the permanent secretary to the Treasury. When people of that calibre write such a letter to The Times, it must warrant an answer from the Government.
      The four signatories make two important points. First, they write:
      "But it does not seem to be wholly unimaginable that a government might perpetrate some serious impropriety in circumstances in which the Head of the Civil Service might be unable to respond effectively to representations about it from within the service."
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) nods in agreement. If that letter had come from an hon. Member or from a commentator in the press, it might have been serious enough, but when it comes from four of the heaviestweight permanent secretaries that there have been in this country since the war their words need answering.
      The second point that they make also needs answering:
      "Such a right of reference to an independent authority of an active impropriety by ministers would not be new. It already exists in the financial field where the permanent secretary, as accounting officer, is obliged to draw the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General to expenditure on which his or her minister has insisted, but which the permanent secretary considered to be improper or illegal."
      What remedy do Ministers suggest for dealing with problems which these experienced heavyweight permanent secretaries say could not be dealt with by going to the head of the Civil Service? How can such abuse be prevented if the head of the Civil Service is unable to prevent it and disclosure is an offence?
      Perhaps the Minister will answer those six questions.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has posed important questions. It has been a privilege to listen to my colleagues expressing their views in this debate, which is about to reach its climax. It has been one of the best debates in full parliamentary tradition that I have heard for some time.
      It may be asked why more hon. Members are not present. I suggest that security, the subject of this debate, is now perhaps not so much the security of the realm that it was in 1914 or in 1938 or when the official secrets legislation had its origin. We in this Chamber are particularly concerned with the security of parliamentary democracy, and this debate has been a contribution to that.
      It was said that there would be opportunity to discuss this as a Committee of the whole House. I have noticed with interest the absence from the Committee of responsible Cabinet Ministers. Is it not customary, when a Bill is in Committee, for a senior Member of the Government to be present for at least some of the time and to give frequent replies to questions?
      I do not accuse the Minister of State who is in attendance tonight of discourtesy. But does not the absence from the Committee of senior Ministers—indeed, of Members of the Privy Council and of the Government—deny them the moral authority to introduce legislation of this kind, when they are not present to hear the

      1091
      arguments and to reply to them? That must be some condemnation of the lack of regard for parliamentary democracy which some of us feel is now under pressure.
      That pressure comes not only from Opposition and some Conservative Members. When I show parties round the House, especially parties of young people, I start at the Norman Tower. I point across to the Treasury and say, "There is the Government in Whitehall, the Queen's Government. This is Parliament. The Government can do certain things on their own, but they must come to Parliament for permission to do other things" and I spell them out.
      I also explain that because they are the Queen's Government, there is line management, there is hierarchy; it is like a company or an army with ranks and discipline. Here in Parliament I, like the Prime Minister, have one vote. It is a different basis of relationship.
      I see seated on the Opposition Benches right hon. Friends who were Members of the last Labour Government when I opposed some of the actions they were taking. In any Government, including a future Labour Government, there will be personalities, private office wars and differences of opinion. Are they to be covered by the sort of blanket provision that is before us today? And should they take actions which, if they became public, would perhaps not be to their credit—I am not referring to anybody from any party but to human nature—the chances of some form of sanction or publicity would not exist if the clause went through unamended. That might encourage a future Government to act in a way wholly contrary to the traditions of parliamentary democracy and accountability.
      I say to the Minister and those hon. Members who are here that, if this thesis is correct, the clause, far from providing some sort of sanction or reminder of those things that happen in all Governments, and may happen in the future—but which we want to reduce, if not to eliminate—might itself be accused of being anti-parliamentary and against the interests of parliamentary democracy and accountable government, as we have developed it on this very spot over the centuries.
      8 pm
      Mr. Kenneth Hind: I support this clause, but I have one or two points to put to the Minister, which I am sure he will attempt to answer. Every civil servant or member of the security services who deals with security or defence matters knows—they have known always—that they have a lifelong duty of confidentiality. That is essential if we are to preserve the security of this country. Many of them in the past have made the request through the normal channels in the Ministry of Defence to publish books on their work, and some of them have been published, subject to deletions. That is a principle which is enshrined in the Bill, and it is essential.
      My concern is that there is for the member of the secret service a clear line of process to follow if he has any reservations about what is happening. He may go to the staff counsellor who has access to the Home Secretary, who in turn has access to the Prime Minister. There is, therefore, a clear line for the member to follow if there are wrongful activities which are clearly undermining the status and the security of this country.
      1092
      At the root of what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has said, and what enshrines the point in the letter to The Times, is that, if we have a Home Secretary who wishes to conceal something that is not in the interests of the public, what does that member of the secret service do? That is something we must consider during this debate.
      If a member of the secret service comes to my surgery or to the surgery of any hon. Member, by listening to what that member of the secret service says to us, we do not commit an offence. Receipt of a disclosure is not an offence, and there is an obvious line to pursue in our case. We obviously have the House, which is covered by privilege, but the correct course of action for every Member of Parliament would be to raise that matter directly with the Minister responsible for the secret service, either the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister. That course of action can be pursued without the Member of Parliament concerned committing any offence and, of course, the matter can be pursued and investigated. We must make it clear that any hon. Member who receives a disclosure from a member of the secret service does not commit an offence. It is wrong to say otherwise.
      Mr. Norris: Will my hon. Friend accept, however, that the person who communicates the information to him, as the Bill is drafted, automatically commits an offence?
      Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I fully accept. That person, however, has a direct line of normal procedure to follow—to the staff counsellor, who will then go to the Minister responsible for the secret service—and his point will be dealt with.
      My point is, what safeguards does this House and members of the secret service have should it be that the Minister concerned has no interest and wishes to conceal something which is obviously detrimental and should not be considered?
      When we dealt with the Security Service, built into the Security Service Bill was the provision for a commissioner who would look over the Home Secretary's shoulder to protect the public interest when the Home Secretary issues warrants to pursue matters where extraordinary action, which would normally breach the civil liberties of an individual, is required. That commissioner reports back to the House and he has a clear responsibility to represent the public interest. In those circumstances there is a problem, with which I hope my hon. Friend will deal.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Following on directly from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), I do not accept that what he has said has much merit on the question whether people working in the Security Service can go to their Member of Parliament when they have problems. I want to bring to the Minister's attention a case which I had in my surgery two months ago. Someone in precisely that position came to me because he was profoundly unhappy about the way in which he was being treated within his department. He had followed the procedures laid down. He had seen his departmental head, but he remained extremely unhappy about the way in which he was treated. I was able to take his case up with the appropriate Minister and, while I cannot say that my constituent is necessarily fully satisfied, at least he has had the advantage of seeing that his case has been properly considered by the Minister and by the officials at the highest level.

      1093
      I believe that it would be appalling if this Government were to legislate—and I believe legislate by mistake, because I am certain it is not their intention—in such a way as to prevent a constituent going to his Member of Parliament with a problem relating to his personal circumstances at work, because he would be committing a criminal offence if he were to do so. I do not believe that that is my hon. Friend's intention. I hope that by showing sympathy to the amendment to this clause and by being prepared to look closely at it before Report, the Government will put that right. If the Government do not, I am sure many of us will look at that point and be unable to support them.
      Dr. Alan Glyn: I support this Bill, because it enshrines in legislature some form of basis for the security services. [HON. MEMBERS: "That was last week's Bill."] I believe that the most important point is that there is a lifelong confidentiality for people who work within that service, which is essential.
      Mr. John Patten: We have had a most interesting debate. I begin by welcoming back to the House my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) in his new seat. His return has been greeted by plaudits from both sides of the Committee. He is sadly missed in Oxford not only by me, but very much by the ladies and gentlemen of the press corps of Oxford, because he and I used to give a good joint party. Unfortunately, the new occupant of the seat, the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith)—perhaps under the strictures of his general management committee—does not join in this entertainment.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) pointed out that this debate was being held on the Floor of the House because it concerns an important and constitutional issue, which is indeed the case. I am glad that that fact has been recognised, because it has given right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to debate these issues fully.
      I turn my mind first to a considerable issue of principle, and then there is a host of questions which I must attempt to answer, such as that put by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), by the right hon. Members for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), the six questions put by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and those asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). It has been a long debate and I shall be as brief as I can, but I shall certainly answer those questions.
      Mr. Maclennan: Before the Minister reaches matters of substance, would he be kind enough to explain why the Home Secretary has been, and is, absent from the debate?
      Mr. Patten: The Home Secretary has been a most assiduous attender at debates on these issues and he will be here shortly to take part, in particular in the important debate on the third group of amendments on public interest defence. It is uncharacteristic of the hon. Gentleman to criticise my right hon. Friend in that way. Anyone who sat through the long hours of the debates on the Security Service Bill would have noticed my right hon. Friend's attendance in the Chamber, and I hope that he will not be gratuitously criticised.
      It is the Government's firm view that secrecy must be at the heart of the work of the security and intelligence
      1094
      services. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That argument is shared by all of us. The decision is where to draw the line and which areas should or should not be secret. Clearly, there is a substantial division between me and several hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn), all of whom support an absolute lifelong duty of confidentiality, and those who do not. That is not to say that we do not all support the need for official secrets to be kept. There is a difference of view on where the line should be drawn, and it would be wrong of me to attempt to obfuscate that.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I have listened for several days to my hon. Friend the Minister. He says that the difference is about where the line is drawn. Is that not what he just said? The point that we are concerned about—I want him to address it somewhere in his effluvium—is that the Minister is not drawing lines. That is an absolute contention. It is not a question of drawing lines; it is absolute assertion. We are trying to draw lines in our amendments. Let the Minister be disabused of the idea that he is trying to draw a line. Our criticism is that he should be drawing a line, but he is contending for everything.
      Mr. Patten: We are drawing different lines because we believe that in one part of clause 1 those in the services should have an absolute lifelong duty of confidentiality. In another part of clause 1 those who are Crown servants and in the Civil Service have other tests of damage applied to them. This is not such a pure and simple matter as my hon. Friend suggests.
      The services can operate effectively only if members of those services honour their obligation of absolute secrecy. Any disclosure by them without authority breaches that trust, and so must damage the work of the services. That is what we believe, and it is a matter of belief and view on which we differ.
      Amendments Nos. 14 and 16 in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) set aside those propositions. They believe—this is where the line is drawn—that secrecy is not always necessary in all circumstances. They think that a member of the services should be able to disclose information without attracting the sanction of the criminal law if he or she can show that the information did not damage the work of the services. We believe that this is one comparatively narrow but vital area where we cannot afford to drop our guard by removing the sanction of the criminal law. It is not new, but already exists and the Bill narrows it.
      Mr. Heffer: That is precisely the argument that was used by Mr. Stalin and those in the dictatorships of eastern Europe and other parts of the world. Is not the Minister aware that a gentleman called Krivitsky in Stalin's service wrote a book—he had left Russia—and was run down by the GPU and shot in his hotel in Switzerland? The Minister must think about what he is saying. He is putting forward a dangerous argument.
      Mr. Patten: I am not aware of the book to which the hon. Gentleman referred, nor of the name of its author, and it is no good pretending that I am.
      Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What about the principle?
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman asks about the principle. It is far-fetched to suggest that there is any similarity between the actions of Mr. Stalin and the actions of this Government.
      The secrecy which must imbue the services is not merely incidental. It has not grown out of some bureaucratic stuffiness. It is essential for the work of the services. The security of the country and the people rests on members of the security and intelligence services carrying out their work in secret. That is fundamental. That point was well made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) in a debate earlier this week.
      Having set out my views on the principles involved, I shall get down to answering the practical questions.
      Mr. Hattersley: The Minister may have forgotten that not long ago I said that the problem with the Government's argument is that they assert the necessity for absolute, everlasting secrecy, but never justify it. Would the Minister, who has repeated about five times that it is his belief that secrecy must be absolute and everlasting, justify why that must be so for matters of triviality?
      Mr. Patten: The justification is the operational needs of the service. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has given me the chance to extend my argument. I was not going to, but he wants me to. If a member of the services breaks the obligation of lifetime secrecy, that person certainly gives information which is almost certainly harmful—[Interruption.] Let me explain. If the right hon. Gentleman will listen, I shall answer his question. That agent betrays the special trust which has been placed in him or her and undermines confidence in the ability of the services to carry out their vital work.
      Mr. Hattersley rose—
      Mr. Patten: Let me finish the argument and then I shall give way again to the right hon. Gentleman. I listened carefully to what he had to say.
      It is not just the confidence of the public which is damaged but, equally important, the confidence of those who provide or may provide information to the services, and the confidence of others who necessarily co-operate with them. When a member of the service breaks the necessary silence in which we believe and assert the services must work, he also undermines the confidence of his colleagues in each other. That point has been missed entirely during the debate and it is worth our attention.
      Mr. Hattersley: Will the Minister address the matter seriously? If he accepts the amendment, there is a mechanism by which trivial information may be legitimately passed out. The idea that a Security Service officer has broken any rules is automatically vitiated by the fact that the rule is there so that trivial information is available. The idea that it is a breach of confidence is destroyed if there is a mechanism by which non-damaging information can legitimately be disseminated.
      1096
      I shall give the Minister an example of what I mean and he can explain why the information should be kept secret. Sir Mansfield Cummings, who was head of MI6 during its inception and remained head from 1919 to 1923, kept a log book since it was his habit, having been a sailor. Recently his family asked, for sentimental reasons, to see it. They were told that they could not see any of it or obtain the information they sought—the name of the theatrical costumier from whom Sir Mansfield Cummings bought his disguises. [Laughter.] How would it be detrimental to the state if that information were given a wider audience? [Laughter.]
      Mr. Patten: The right hon. Gentleman succeeds in engaging the attention of the Committee and in getting a good laugh from his right hon. and hon. Friends. I will not comment on operational decisions taken by the service in the past. That is a tradition followed by Governments of all political colours in respect of major and minor operational decisions. I hope that it will continue.—[Interruption.]
      The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Patrick Cormack): Order. The Minister must be allowed to develop his argument.
      Mr. Patten: I have news for you, Mr. Cormack—I have deployed my argument.
      I turn to specific questions. That put by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston particularly exercised the attention of the hon. Member for Linlithgow. I also knew the late Russ Kerr—although, I suspect, much less well than Opposition Members. I remember him seated below the Gangway, and seeing him in other parts of the House. He was a much respected Member. As with my answer to the last question, when a hilarious and funny example was given by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, my response to any question regarding operational decisons relating to someone in the past must be the same as that always given by Ministers, of whatever party, who have ever stood at the Dispatch Box. We do not comment on operational issues affecting individuals. That is a fundamental principle. I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman is a member of a future Labour Government, he will not stand at the Dispatch Box and make flip judgments about operational matters concerning the security services.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): He would.
      Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend says that is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman would do.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston gave a specific example and asked whether he would be committing an offence. I assure him that, although his example came from before the introduction of the Interception of Communications Act 1985, as I explained earlier, he could now go to the tribunal and have the matter properly investigated without placing any secrets in jeopardy. Alternatively, he could go to the police, who are themselves Crown servants. In that way, he would commit no offence.
      Sir Richard Body: If my informant wrote his memoirs 20 years after the events, would he be committing an offence under the Bill?
      Mr. Patten: No; its provisions are not retrospective. However, will my hon. Friend elaborate? I want to answer his question properly.
      Sir Richard Body: If, 20 years after the event, and having retired from the security services, my informant wrote his memoirs and alluded to the incident I mentioned earlier, would he be committing an offence under the Bill?
      Mr. Patten: I wanted to establish, by asking my hon. Friend to elaborate, whether the informant to whom he refers was a member of the security services. Having established that, the answer to his question is yes. He would commit an offence, because he has a lifelong duty of confidentiality owed to the state.
      Another question raised by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook interested the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and the hon. Member for Linlithgow. The right hon. Gentleman asked what will happen if he is informed that his telephone is tapped. It is a variant of a number of possibilities he has suggested over the past weeks.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
      Mr. Patten: I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman's question first. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) must contain himself.
      The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook cited the example of a member of the security and intelligence services informing the right hon. Gentleman that his phone is tapped, or that his property has been entered, without a warrant. The right hon. Gentleman asked what he could do in that situation. I shall take it in three stages, and then give way if the right hon. Gentleman wants me to elucidate.
      Any person finding himself in such a situation could refer to the tribunal and complain. That is one avenue of redress. The Bill does not require such a person to leave the matter there. If he has evidence of the commissioning of a criminal offence, he could quite properly go to the police. I shall refer the right hon. Gentleman to the relevant clauses and subsections.
      The police are Crown servants and their function is to investigate crime. Nothing in the Bill prevents the police from investigating crime. Clause 7(3) is explicit on that point. So another sensible course of action for the right hon. Gentleman would be to report his feelings to the police. However, if, in this hypothetical example, the right hon. Gentleman acted differently and did not go to the tribunal or to the police but made his views known in a different way, he might commit an offence.
      However, I shall place that in context. It certainly would not be an absolute offence. It is an offence that would need to be considered under clause 5(3), which attracts the damage test in clause 1(3). It would be a matter of judgment whether a prosecution should be brought. If it was, it would be for the jury to decide whether the right hon. Gentleman is guilty. I hope that I have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman on that point.
      Mr. Hattersley: As we seek to be sensible in debating the Bill, I do not propose being categoric. However, I have grave doubts about the Minister's interpretation. We shall pursue it, but as we wish to deal with the Bill sensibly, I shall not attempt to score points until I am sure of my facts. However, the Minister answered another point by implication. I asked him if, in the circumstances he described, and in which I was informed of such an act, I
      1098
      would be committing an offence if I so informed a solicitor. As a solicitor is not, by any standard, a Crown servant, it seems that I would.
      Mr. Patten: The first person that any sensible member of society would go to in the first instance would be the police.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
      Mr. Patten: Perhaps I may be permitted to conclude my argument.
      The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook says that he wants the issue to be addressed in a sensible and rational way. That is precisely what I am seeking to do. The other half of the question concerns the position of Crown servants. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was about solicitors."] The right hon. Gentleman should first go to the tribunal, which has legal staff, and he should then go to the police.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: But not to his solicitor.
      Mr. Patten: The other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman concerns Crown servants. If a member of the security and intelligence services, or a notified person, discloses any security and intelligence information without authority, he commits an offence—and quite right, too. However, if he feels aggrieved—and this point concerns my hon. Friends the Members for Thanet, South and for Lancashire, West—he may refer to the staff counsellor. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster gave an excellent example in the course of his brief and pointed remarks towards the end of the debate, which showed that the system is working. The mechanism whereby people can refer to their departmental heads and then seek redress works.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Patten: I want to try to respond to a number of important points made earlier.
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. We cannot have four hon. Members on their feet at once. The Minister is not giving way for the moment.
      Mr. Patten: I shall not do so until I have dealt with important points raised much earlier, when for understandable reasons—
      Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
      Mr. Patten: If interventions are concerned with what I am now discussing, I shall of course give way seriatim.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister told my right hon. Friend that if he had evidence he should take it to the police. Information about telephone tapping would only be in the hands of persons on the "contained secrecy" side of the law. If they made a statement which was then used in evidence to the police, could they not be prosecuted because they had been used as people giving evidence?
      Mr. Patten: That is not the case. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to know whether, if he felt that a criminal offence had been committed, he would himself be liable under criminal law if he alleged as much to someone—he was unclear about who that would be. I have

      1099
      described the route down which any aggrieved citizen can go. It is a twin-track route consisting of the tribunal and the police, and is protected under clause 7.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: Is not the remedy that the Minister suggests—that Mr. Citizen should go to the police and make a complaint—likely to prove illusory in practice, because it is probable that someone who leaks information from the secret services will not wish to be named in view of the possible repercussions for him? He could only say to the police, "I have it on good authority that my telephone is being tapped." The police would almost certainly reply, "We want better evidence than that before we are prepared to investigate."
      Mr. Patten: As a distinguished barrister, the hon. Gentleman knows that sometimes complaints are laid before the police and investigated thereafter, on the basis not of naming the person concerned but of allegations that have come from a number of sources.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister has pushed the point that the logical course is to go to the tribunal. But, as was said earlier, many citizens in such circumstances would not know where to go. The Minister says that they should go to the police, but I suspect that many people would be very worried about going to the police in the first instance unless someone encouraged them that that was the right thing to do. They might consult a solicitor or a Member of Parliament. Can the Minister give an absolute assurance that they would not be committing an offence by giving the information to either a solicitor or a Member of Parliament?
      Mr. Patten: There is no offence in the Bill of receiving information. If someone receives information that gives him cause to believe that a criminal offence is being committed, he should, like any citizen, seek the automatic redress of going straight to the police.
      Mr. Gorst: If a disaffected, aggrieved member of the service went through all the correct procedures and at the end was not satisfied; if he believed that the matter was serious and of national importance; if he stood for Parliament and was elected, and then raised the matter on the Floor of the House, would he be committing an offence?
      Mr. Patten: That is a very interesting question, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has asked it. I had never considered the possibility. But the answer is surely yes, because anything raised on the Floor of the House is privileged.
      Let us suppose, however, that that aggrieved member of the service, having approached the staff counsellor and the director-general and tried to get through to the Prime Minister, still—amazingly enough—felt aggrieved, and went public. In that case he would indeed be committing an absolute offence under clause 1.
      Mr. McWilliam: Evidence on telephone tapping might well come from a member of my trade union, the National Communications Union. Would the individual concerned automatically become a notified person? If so, who the hell could he complain to?
      Mr. Patten: We shall have an opportunity on the next group of amendments to discuss such issues as notification. I do not want to stray out of order.
      The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent raised an important point about parliamentary privilege and what happened to Churchill in the 1930s. I do not propose to follow him into the history of the 1930s, because I have not his expertise. It is important to note, however, that the blanket provision of section 2 was in force then. This Bill, as well as containing a number of other narrowing provisions, will abolish the offence of receiving information, so anyone receiving information now would not be committing an offence.
      I cannot comment on the specific example given by the right hon. Gentleman because I do not know all the details, but members of the service, if they were breaching confidentiality, would be committing the absolute offence in the first part of clause 1. I am glad to learn that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that interpretation.
      Mr. Foot: What I am agreeing with is that this piece of legislation changes what was understood to be the case pre-1938, and makes it much more difficult for people to raise matters with Members of Parliament.
      Mr. Patten: Pre-1938, section 2 of the 1911 Act was on the statute book. I do not know what use was made of it in different cases, but the law was considerably more draconian than it will be.
      Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Cormack. I wonder whether you would remonstrate with the garrulous rabble below the Bar. We cannot hear what is being said because of the noise issuing from them.
      The Temporary Chairman: Garrulousness is always to be deprecated.
      Mr. Patten: I shall observe your strictures, Mr. Cormack, and be as quick as I can.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: A Committee stage is for asking questions, and one has now been elucidated.
      A Minister is a Crown servant. We shall come on the next set of amendments to whether notification is required, but let us assume that the Minister has been notified and thus comes under the legislation. If he then goes on to the Back Benches, he becomes an ex-Crown servant, but is still covered by the legislation. Let us suppose that he feels very strongly about something that has come his way. We are not saying that he should go to the police station and go through all the procedures. He would have an absolute right, as a Member of Parliament, to raise the issue on the Floor of the House. We are not going back to 1939 and the Duncan Sandys affair, which we wrote about in the Franks report because it was a factor in section 2. But what would happen to an ex-Minister who wanted to raise a great issue against his own Government or the Government of the day?
      Mr. Patten: As the right hon. Gentleman says, we shall deal with notification on the next group of amendments. If that Minister was notified, he would be notified only about what he had learnt, under the then Official Secrets Act, while he was a Minister. He would remain notified in regard to the "secrets", to put it colloquially, that he had learnt during that period; that is a lifetime duty. Anything

      1101
      that he learned thereafter would not be subject to the notification provisions. I cannot imagine the circumstances, but I suppose for the sake of argument we must imagine these hypothetical cases. If that ex-Minister had gone through all the routes, he could then come to the Floor of the House and speak with absolute privilege. If he speaks outside the House, he will fall foul of the absolute offence.
      Dr. Gilbert: What is the position of an ex-Minister who subsequently learns about circumstances of which he was not aware when he was in office?
      Mr. Patten: If he learns about such circumstances through legal routes from people outside the service and outside his period as a Minister, he would not be committing the absolute offence. The Committee knows that parliamentary proceedings are privileged. I stand to be corrected by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, but I understand that statements attributed to an hon. Member in Parliament cannot be used against a Member in a court.
      Mr. Peter Archer: Whether we have agreed or not, up to now I have understood the Minister. He says that anyone who has once been notified is covered for information that has come into his possession for the period of the notification. Where is that spelt out in the Bill?
      Mr. Patten: That will be the subject of the debate on the next set of amendments, and it may be better to address it then in the context of the amendments on notification.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Patten: No. I have given way to everyone who has risen and I must try to answr the debate. Many hon. Members have been sitting here for three hours or more.
      In another of his telling speeches my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South spoke about the lifelong duty of confidentiality. He spoke about recent statements made in courts by learned judges on the application of civil law. But we are not here dealing with the civil law, which can operate before an event to stop it happening. We are dealing with the role of the criminal law in penalising offenders. We can look at that in greater detail during debate on the group of amendments about the public interest defence.
      The question of the civil duty of confidentiality was considered in the Lords and the judgment was given on 13 October 1988. Lord Keith of Kinkel said on page 12 of his judgment:
      "I regard this case"—
      we all know the case that he was talking about—
      "as having established that members and former members of the Security Service do have a lifelong obligation of confidence owed to the Crown. Those who breach it, such as Mr. Wright, are guilty of treachery."
      That was the most telling judgment given in this area of the civil law. I have not yet come to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen).
      Mr. Aitken: I appreciate the Minister's selective use of the quotation. It is fair to say that we are arguing not about a duty of confidentiality but an absolute lifelong duty about which at least one judge, Mr. Justice Scott, said was not heard on this side of the iron curtain.
      1102
      I should like to press my hon. Friend on one key point. Perhaps we could return for a moment to the BBC series "My Country, Right or Wrong". In that series former members of the Security Service talked in totally innocuous terms about their experiences in the Secret Service only in so far as they affected public policy issues such as the desirability of ministerial accountability, oversight and so on. Are we to understand from the Minister that in future distinguished former Crown servants such as Lord Dacre of Glanton, Lord Annan and Mr. Day will be guilty of a criminal offence?
      Mr. Patten: That depends on whether they were members of the service at the time and whether they were notified. My hon. Friend has quoted one learned judge and I have quoted another, but I did not quote out of context what Lord Keith said. I shall repeat it. He said:
      "I regard this case as having established that members and former members of the Security Service do have a lifelong obligation of confidence owed to the Crown."
      That was the concluding judgment, and our proposals in the clause are fully consistent with it.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: That is a curious summary of the judgment. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister recalls that by a clear majority the Lords found other than the judgment that he has cited. Never at issue in front of them was the lifelong duty of confidentiality. In this debate we have cited Sir Leon Brittan's quote from them that the duty of confidentiality is correct and unexceptional. That is accepted. This whole testing debate is about the absoluteness of that duty. My hon. Friend the Minister serves himself ill by failing to address himself to the absoluteness of it in the light of assertions by judges in the context of our common law that it is inappropriate and wrong.
      Mr. Patten: These assertions have been about the civil law.
      Mr. Shepherd: Judgments.
      Mr. Patten: I used the word "assertions" because that was the word my hon. Friend used. I shall use the word "judgments" if that is what he prefers. These judgments have been made in civil courts. I explained earlier why I thought we needed the absolute offence. I hope that my hon. Friend paid close attention to that explanation. It will be in Hansard tomorrow for all who wish to read it.
      I shall now turn to the six matters raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. I shall try to reply to them as briefly and accurately as I can. His first point was about Desmond Morton. I think that the hon. Gentleman recognised that it was not sensible to speculate on the outcome of a case from the past about the effects that it might have in future in the context of the Bill. I think that the hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that. His second important point was about telephone tapping. I have given an explanation about that and perhaps on reflection he will be satisfied with it. He has given notice that he may return to the matter.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston spoke about reporting to the police, as did the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. I gave assurances about access to the police, which everyone in Britain should have. The fourth point of the hon. Member for Linlithgow echoed what the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport

      1103
      (Dr. Owen) said about the right of Crown servants to justify disclosures. I think that this argument is about the public interest defence which will be debated later. I look forward to further contributions by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and the right hon. Member for Devonport in that debate.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow raised the matter of Gartside and Outram, but I cannot follow him down that route because at that stage it was a matter for the civil law and was a civil case. The Bill does not change the operation of the civil law but purely alters the operation of the criminal law. There is a well-recognised principle that a person to whom an iniquitous matter has been communicated will always be free to report it to the proper quarter, usually the police. Nothing in the Bill and, funnily enough, nothing in the Official Secrets Act 1911 affects that principle.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Patten: I am going through a list of answers to six questions which the Committee wishes me to answer. When I have done that, I shall give way. As hon. Members have said, these questions need to be answered in full.
      Mr. Archer: The courts have regarded it as important that the civil duty of confidentiality should be subject to the exception that there is no confidentiality in iniquity. Is the Minister saying that notwithstanding the fact that the Government want to impose a criminal sanction without any such exception?
      Mr. Patten: There are much fiercer criminal sanctions under the 1911 Act than are proposed in this Bill. The letter was signed by Lord Croham and a number of others, including Sir Patrick Nairne, who is a constituent of mine and a most distinguished public servant who was at one time permanent secretary at the Department of Health and Social Security. The description in the letter is not new. I believe that Sir Douglas Wass made at least some of those suggestions to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee about three years ago. The description in the letter of the existing procedures is not up to date or accurate. It was subsequently modified to make clear that the head of the Civil Service would be prepared to hear personally appeals from officials who had followed the earlier stages of the procedure. I am advised that the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee has said, in one of its reports, that there should be a trial before a system of external review is reconsidered.
      Mr. Dalyell: Can we be quite clear as to what the Government think is inaccurate about the letter of Lord Croham, Sir Douglas Wass, Sir Patrick Nairne and Sir Frank Cooper?
      Mr. Patten: I said that it was inaccurate only to the extent that the description of the procedures is not up to date. The procedure was modified in 1985 to make it clear that the head of the service would always be prepared to hear personally appeals from officials who had followed the earlier stages of the procedure. That is where the difference lies.
      I turn now to the important amendment and new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) which was clearly supported by a number of hon.
      1104
      Members, including the right hon. Member for Devonport. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay recognised that retired members of the security and intelligence services cannot, without authority, be free to disclose any information that they have as members of the service. That is something on which we all agree.
      However, my hon. Friend is concerned that there should not be any unnecessary restraint on the ability of former members to publish with authority. His amendment proposes a mechanism for considering such publications. The necessary procedures are already in place. It is not desirable to accept a provision which could give a group of people outside the service the right to decide whether vital operational and other secrets should be published at large. Our intelligence service will be affected only if they restrict control over what is written by their members and former members. The duty of confidentiality cannot be an option; it must be a certainty. It is vital to the successful functioning of the services. Members and former members of the service know that they cannot publish material about their work without authority.
      On procedure, I have little to add to what I said on Second Reading. It will not come as any surprise to those concerned to know that authorisation to members and former members to disclose information about their work will be rare and given only in exceptional circumstances. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay wishes to have those outside the ring of secrecy act on those within the ring of secrecy. They would either not know enough to make the judgments or they would have to be brought within the ring of secrecy and could not act as an independent, outside adjudicating body. If a former member ignores his or her obligations to the Crown and does not seek authorisation, or proceeds without receiving it, it must be right for the Government to consider action in the courts to enforce the fundamental principle of the duty of confidentiality. That is now well understood and, on that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman will not press their amendments and new clause to a vote.
      Mr. Corbett: It would be churlish not to recognise immediately that the Minister has done his best. There have been 19 speakers in this debate from the Back Benches. In various ways, 16 have opposed what the Minister, on behalf of the Government, is suggesting. Three of his Back Benchers have spoken, with some brevity, in favour of it.
      I join in the general welcome to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). If it had to be a member of his party who won Epping Forest, it could not have been a better one. I hope that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) will accept it when I say that I did not mean to be offensive to him. I understand the difficulties of hon. Members who have to sit for long periods waiting to speak, but, none the less, this has been an extremely important debate and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, one of the highest calibre debates through which it has been our privilege to sit.
      The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) reminded the Minister that, in circumstances where the weight of opinion from both sides of the Committee has been so critical and hostile to what the Government propose, it behoves the Minister to tell his

      1105
      right hon. Friend, when he can lay hands on him, what happened during this debate and to encourage him and his colleagues to think again.
      As was said by some of my hon. Friends and by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), something has happened to the House of Commons. The Government can be like stone and totally deaf to a variety of views from both sides and all quarters, mostly hostile to what they are about, yet arrogantly believe that they can snap their fingers and get their supporters to trot meekly and silently through the Lobby.
      It is significant that the Minister of State, despite many and repeated invitations, failed to answer the extremely important point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) about him being told by a serving member of the security or intelligence forces that his telephone is being illegally bugged or that his house is being, or has been, illegally entered. We have cleared up one point, which is that my right hon. Friend, or any hon. Member, can safely stand up in this place and reveal that under the mantle of parliamentary privilege. That is fine. We have also established, as those of us who had read the Bill rather than the press release knew, that the member of the security or intelligence forces who told my right hon. Friend of any illegality, commits an absolute and total offence and would find himself or herself in prison.
      The Minister of State has not said—I hope that he will do so, because this is the Committee stage of the Bill and we ought to know—what will happen when either a Member of Parliament or a member of the public, faced with that information, thinks, "My God, I shall have to do something about it. I must get hold of a solicitor." There is no answer to what happens then. We can only infer that the passing on of that information to a solicitor is an offence under the Bill.
      Mr. Gorst: His alternative is to go to a priest and confess it to him, when he would also be committing an offence.
      Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he was trying to find a bolthole for the Minister and that perhaps priests should be excluded. However, it is a serious point. That could be another means of landing that person in trouble.
      Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on the same point?
      Mr. Corbett: We are pleased that the hon. Gentleman is joining in the debate, so I shall give way to him.
      Mr. Dickens: Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the public interest defence, whereby good is done by a disclosure, is a perfect defence and that the Director of Public Prosecutions would never bring a case against such a person. Since time immemorial this Chamber has always been filled with Members who are concerned about the views of Government, but there are hundreds of Members in their offices who are happy about what the Government are doing.
      9 pm
      Mr. Corbett: The Committee will welcome the hon. Gentleman's first remarks, but he is two sets of amendments too early. As for his second point, had he
      1106
      been here earlier he would have heard at least one of his hon. Friends make the point that in private conversations many Conservative Members are deeply unhappy about the proposals. This is a House of Commons matter. We represent the people who sent us here to work against the arrogant, vested interests of the Executive.
      The reason why the Minister is in such trouble—and it is obvious to him—is that he is seeking to lay upon members and former members of the security and intelligence services, itinerant Government contractors and their named staffs and groups and classes of such people a lifelong gag and a lifelong duty of silence. We are being told that when the Government say, "This is secret," it will remain a secret for ever—not just to the grave but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook demonstrated, even beyond the grave and into the next world. The effect will be to pass that lifelong duty of confidentiality to other members of the family who have only a family connection with the person concerned. That is what has got the Government into trouble.
      Another curious aspect of the Government's proposals is that over the years and under successive Governments the so-called lifelong duty has been only selectively applied. Harry Pincher, writing under the name of Chapman Pincher, could be "done" under this Bill for the books that he has written about spooks and spies. He received the information, knowing that it could only have been given to him on an unauthorised basis. Those who have read the books may wonder whether that was the case. Some or many of the leaks to Mr. Pincher that found their way into his books or into headlines splashed across the Daily Express may have been authorised leaks, in the sense that the information was given to him by highly placed people in the security and intelligence service who wanted to peddle a particular line.
      It would be understandable if someone in MI5 or MI6 got hold of Mr. Pincher, suggested a quiet drink in a country pub or a walk, seemingly aimlessly, along the bank of a quiet river on a Sunday afternoon to deliver a message that what had been alleged about incompetence in the service was not so and that the so-called facts were this, that and the other, the better to defend the good name and reputation of the service. It is conceivable that that is how many of these things happened. There is another twist. Mr. Pincher could not know whether what was being said was true. The version would certainly collide with the earlier version but someone might be setting Mr. Pincher up.
      As to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) of a publications review board, it would have been better had he made it clear that he is not suggesting a review board in the sense that following publication of a book the board would review it. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head and confirms that. It would be more in the business of looking through manuscripts or perhaps talking to authors before they started to prepare the manuscript.
      The hon. Gentleman explained only that the board would have a chairman and three members appointed by the Home Secretary. He did not indicate who the members were likely to be. I should think that some of them would be old spooks called in from the field, selected Gower street warriors or the lately retired from the shadowy departments of Whitehall and Queen Anne's Gate. I do not think that a Conservative Home Secretary would stop the first four people he met in the street and ask them to make up the publications review board.

      1107
      In any event, I wonder how much good a review board could do. The decision would be left to nameless men; I must point out to my hon. Friends that they are bound to be fellows because fellows are always given these jobs. Nameless men would make decisions behind closed doors on the basis of criteria which the Minister of State would tell us could not possibly be published because they were secret.
      Another point touches the heart of the Government's claims about the lifelong duty of confidentiality. Are the Minister and his colleagues seriously arguing that former spies are no longer able to make sensible judgments based upon their experience about what might or might not cause serious injury to the interests of the nation? On leaving office do spies suddenly become totally irresponsible in these matters? I do not believe it. Whatever criticisms my right hon. and hon. Friends and I may have of the security and intelligence services, I hope to God that they are not staffed by people that the Minister thinks would behave in that manner once they have retired. We are in trouble if that is so. That is one strong foundation on which the Government are building their case.
      Mr. Dalyell: If my hon. Friend will allow me to support his argument, is it not a fact that Anthony Cavendish wrote his book in order to be fair to the late Maurice Oldfield? Government sources had cast a slur on Oldfield and Cavendish wrote the book to protect his old friend.
      Mr. Corbett: My hon. Friend has illustrated the point extremely well, and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made a similar point. The Minister must not pretend that he is drawing lines. We are the people who want lines drawn. The Minister does not want to draw any lines because he wants anybody who has been involved, whether only up to his ankles or to the top of his head, not to say a word about it, under any circumstances, to anybody, even beyond the grave. That is why we get into difficulties.
      Let us suppose, Mr. Cormack, that a former member of the security or intelligence services was engaged in covert operations in the Soviet Union in the 1960s, which were aimed not only at collecting sensitive information of possible intelligence use about intentions, but at trying to foment industrial and political unrest, touching on what one might call the economic well-being of that nation. Are the Government seriously suggesting that a former spy who has been engaged in such work and who wanted, 20 years later, to write about it would not hesitate, if only for a moment, and decide that his story could not be told?
      Is it being suggested that someone who had had that experience would be careless about what would certainly follow if his story was published? He would, surely, decide that it should not be published, not to protect the necks of those in Whitehall, but because he would realise immediately that certain and lasting danger would be caused to relations between the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom and its allies. If the Minister is asserting that it is even remotely possible that such a person would decide to publish, he is insulting the integrity of those who have worked in the security and intelligence services.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I accept that point. Would the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that the high standards of these fine people can often be seriously
      1108
      affected if they are offered vast sums of money by some of the irresponsible papers and book publishers? Will he accept—and I voted against the Bill for reasons that he knows—that the danger of allowing a degree of liberality is that he is not talking about freedom, but the freedom to make a great deal of money irresponsibly?
      Mr. Corbett: I may disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that people who work in these services are open to such temptation. I am being open about that and I should like to think that my view is shared generally in the Committee. If I am wrong such people should never have been working in those services in the first place. I know that it is difficult to pull out such information at interviews, but I expect and assume—and I am sure that I shall be corrected by several Conservative Members if I am wrong—that the greatest care is taken by those who recruit on behalf of the security and intelligence services.
      I must say to the hon. Member for Torbay that I am left with the impression that the board that he proposes would not be simply a publications review board but, because of the way in which it was made up, it would turn into an official publications review board and the Government would still be left in the position of deciding what should be published. The amendments tabled by some of his hon. Friends are a better proposition, although I acknowledge that his proposal is far better than anything on offer from the Government.
      I started by saying that the Minister had done his best and I feel that I may not have been fulsome enough in my praise. We want to proceed to a vote on amendment number 71—in case that news has not reached you, Mr. Cormack—but I must say first to the Minister that immediately the debate is over tonight, I shall make it my business to nominate him for the Denis Norden Boy-Stood-On-The-Burning-Deck Award 1989.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I should like to make just one observation on the Minister's response to the amendments and new clause tabled by my hon. Friends and the right hon. Member for Morleyy and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). The House is confronted with the proposition, mounted by the Minister through clause 1, that there is an absolute duty of confidence and that there can be no countenancing of any circumstances in which the duty will not be absolute. My hon. Friends, and the right hon. Member for Morleyy and Leeds, South and myself want to be helpful but "absolute duty" is manifestly preposterous. We have tried to introduce the concept that there must be some test of reasonableness.
      9.15 pm
      My hon. Friend the Minister of State did not address himself to the concept of triviality. Is there not a piece of information so trivial that it does not require the mounting of a criminal prosecution under the "absolute" assertion? That is one side of something that becomes more serious. We have been confronted with the "flat earth" approach of the "absolute" assertion. One almost felt that one was in the presence of a 12th century geographer who had discovered that the world was flat. Unfortunately, we live in a different century and the world is round.
      We want to induce some help for the Government because their proposition makes our party and the Government look ridiculous by saying that in all

      1109
      circumstances every piece of information revealed must give rise to an absolute criminal offence. We shall certainly seek to divide the House also on the new clause.
      Mr. John Patten: I am sorry that I was unable to oblige my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I have listened carefully to his arguments and he has listened to mine. We simply disagree on the important issue of disclosures to solicitors. If a person wishes to consult his or her solicitor as to what remedy he or she may want to have in respect of information received, such as his or her telephone being tapped, of course that person can do so because a communication between a person and his or her lawyer cannot form the subject matter of a prosecution against that person because he is covered by legal professional privilege.
      Mr. Hattersley: Heaven knows, I do not want to prolong the debate and I am even more reluctant to ask the Minister of State to speak again, but to say that the solicitor's relationship with his client is covered by professional privilege is to imply that it is a privilege that transcends an Act of Parliament—and that is simply nonsense. I assure the Minister of State that no part of the Bill allows a client to consult a solicitor in the terms that I have described. [Interruption.] The Minister may be muttering that it does not have to be in the Bill, but if the Bill states that it is an offence to consult anyone except those who are named, and if a solicitor is not named, it does not seem any great flight of logic to assume that solicitors are ruled out. I do not see how the Minister of State—even after his performance today—could possibly argue what he argued a moment ago.
      Mr. Aitken: I shall detain the House for only a few seconds but I should like to press the extraordinary ministerial assertion that we have just heard. It simply cannot be true that the doctrine of absolute lifelong confidentiality as laid down in the Bill can suddenly be changed in a wind-up speech by saying that there is a privilege for solicitors which transcends the statute—
      Mr. Archer rose—
      Mr. Aitken: I happily give way to the former Solicitor-General.
      Mr. Archer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that solicitor-client privilege goes not to criminal liability, but to evidence?
      Mr. Aitken: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes my point for me. We simply cannot accept the assertion that has just been made.
      I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State one final question. He could have dealt with quite a few of the points that have been made tonight about trivia and solicitors by referring to the provision that the Attorney-General's fiat is necessary before a prosecution can commence. At least that provision would give some safeguards. I am not at the Dispatch Box and I am not a Minister, but—
      Mr. Corbett: The hon. Gentleman very soon will be.
      Mr. Aitken: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that—it would be a triumph of hope over experience.
      At least I can see one let-out for some of the absurdities that we have heard. It could be said that solicitors, trivia, and BBC radio programmes dealing with public policy
      1110
      could be stopped from the statutory doctrine of absolute confidentiality by the use of the Attorney-General's fiat. That is the one argument that might make sense and it has not been deployed. Has my hon. Friend the Minister forgotten it or am I wrong? Will he answer that point when he returns to the assertion of privilege for solicitors, which is quite mysterious?
      Mr. Maclennan: We listened to the Minister's reply with dismay. He failed to deal with the central question raised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) about revelation of iniquity. If the clause is passed unamended, the people of this country will have to rely on members of the Security Service breaking the criminal law to protect them from iniquity of which they are aware but which it would be an offence to reveal. In his reply, the Minister opened his mouth and out gushed silence.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Cormack. Will you give the Committee some guidance about how to vote on the amendments? As I understand it, a request has been made to vote on amendments Nos. 71 and 14. Will you confirm that we are able to vote on amendment No. 71 now but that we shall have to debate the next group of amendments before voting on amendment No. 14?
      The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is a master of procedure and has answered his own point of order.
      Question put, That the amendment be made: —
      The Committee divided: Ayes 215, Noes 263.

      Division No. 51]

      [9.21 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Clay, Bob

      Allason, Rupert

      Clelland, David

      Allen, Graham

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Anderson, Donald

      Cohen, Harry

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Coleman, Donald

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Corbett, Robin

      Ashton, Joe

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Cousins, Jim

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Cox, Tom

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Cryer, Bob

      Barron, Kevin

      Cummings, John

      Battle, John

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Beckett, Margaret

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Beith, A. J.

      Dalyell, Tam

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Darling, Alistair

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

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Bidwell, Sydney

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

      Boateng, Paul

      Dewar, Donald

      Body, Sir Richard

      Dixon, Don

      Boyes, Roland

      Dobson, Frank

      Bradley, Keith

      Doran, Frank

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Douglas, Dick

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Eastham, Ken

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Buchan, Norman

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Buckley, George J.

      Fearn, Ronald

      Caborn, Richard

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

      Callaghan, Jim

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Flannery, Martin

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Flynn, Paul

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Canavan, Dennis

      Foster, Derek

      Cartwright, John

      Foulkes, George

      1111

      Fyfe, Maria

      Michael, Alun

      Galbraith, Sam

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Galloway, George

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      George, Bruce

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Morley, Elliott

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mullin, Chris

      Gordon, Mildred

      Murphy, Paul

      Gorst, John

      Nellist, Dave

      Graham, Thomas

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      O'Brien, William

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Grocott, Bruce

      Parry, Robert

      Hardy, Peter

      Pendry, Tom

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Prescott, John

      Henderson, Doug

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hinchliffe, David

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Radice, Giles

      Holland, Stuart

      Randall, Stuart

      Home Robertson, John

      Redmond, Martin

      Hood, Jimmy

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Reid, Dr John

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Howells, Geraint

      Rooker, Jeff

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Illsley, Eric

      Salmond, Alex

      Ingram, Adam

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Janner, Greville

      Sheerman, Barry

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Short, Clare

      Kennedy, Charles

      Sillars, Jim

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lambie, David

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Leadbitter, Ted

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

      Leighton, Ron

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

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Lewis, Terry

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Litherland, Robert

      Stott, Roger

      Livsey, Richard

      Strang, Gavin

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Straw, Jack

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Turner, Dennis

      McAllion, John

      Vaz, Keith

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Wall, Pat

      McCartney, Ian

      Wallace, James

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Walley, Joan

      McFall, John

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      McKelvey, William

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      McLeish, Henry

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Wigley, Dafydd

      McNamara, Kevin

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      McTaggart, Bob

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      McWilliam, John

      Wilson, Brian

      Madden, Max

      Winnick, David

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Marek, Dr John

      Worthington, Tony

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Martlew, Eric

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Maxton, John

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Meacher, Michael Meale. Alan

      Mr. Frank Cook.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Arbuthnot, James

      Alexander, Richard

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Amess, David

      Ashby, David

      Amos, Alan

      Aspinwall, Jack

      1112

      Atkins, Robert

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Atkinson, David

      Gow, Ian

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Baldry, Tony

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

      Beggs, Roy

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Gregory, Conal

      Bendall, Vivian

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Grist, Ian

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Ground, Patrick

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Grylls, Michael

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Boswell, Tim

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

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Harg reaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Harris, David

      Bowis, John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Hayward, Robert

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Heddle, John

      Brazier, Julian

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Bright, Graham

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hill, James

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Hind, Kenneth

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Holt, Richard

      Burns, Simon

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Burt, Alistair

      Howard, Michael

      Butcher, John

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

      Butler, Chris

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Butterfill, John

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cash, William

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Irvine, Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Irving, Charles

      Chope, Christopher

      Jack, Michael

      Churchill, Mr

      Jackson, Robert

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

      Janman, Tim

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Jessel, Toby

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Conway, Derek

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Key, Robert

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Kilfedder, James

      Cran, James

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Critchley, Julian

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Curry, David

      Knowles, Michael

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

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Devlin, Tim

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Dicks, Terry

      Lightbown, David

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lilley, Peter

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Dunn, Bob

      Maclean, David

      Durant, Tony

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Eggar, Tim

      Madel, David

      Evennett, David

      Mans, Keith

      Favell, Tony

      Maples, John

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Mellor, David

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Forman, Nigel

      Mills, Iain

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Forth, Eric

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Franks, Cecil

      Moate, Roger

      Freeman, Roger

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Fry, Peter

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Gale, Roger

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Qardiner, George

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Gill, Christopher

      Moss, Malcolm

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mudd, David

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Nelson, Anthony

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Neubert, Michael

      1113

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Squire, Robin

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Steen, Anthony

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Stern, Michael

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Stevens, Lewis

      Page, Richard

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Paice, James

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Stokes, Sir John

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Pawsey, James

      Summerson, Hugo

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Taylor, John M (Sollhull)

      Portillo, Michael

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Price, Sir David

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Ratfan, Keith

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Thorne, Neil

      Rathbone, Tim

      Thurnham, Peter

      Redwood, John

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Riddick, Graham

      Tracey, Richard

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Trippier, David

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Trotter, Neville

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Viggers, Peter

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Rost, Peter

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Waller, Gary

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Ward, John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Watts, John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wells, Bowen

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Wheeler, John

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Whitney, Ray

      Shelton, Sir William (Streatham)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Wilkinson, John

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wilshire, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sims, Roger

      Wood, Timothy

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Yeo, Tim

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Speed, Keith

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Speller, Tony

      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mr. Michael Fallon.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 1, line 7, leave out 'a person' and insert
      'a Crown servant or government contractor'.
      The Temporary Chairman: I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss at the same time the following amendments: No. 38, in clause 7, page 7, line 2, leave out from 'servant' to end of line 5.
      No. 39, in clause 8, page 8, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: The purpose of this series of amendments is to take up the Government's own distinction and limit the range of people who can be notified by a Minister that they are under the same absolute bar on disclosures as members of the security and intelligence services. Under the amendment, only Crown servants and Government contractors could be notified. Those are the only people whom Ministers have said might need to be notified.
      Clause 1(1)(b) allows a Minister to extend the absolute bar on the disclosure of information about security and intelligence to certain designated people who are not themselves members or former members of the security or
      1114
      intelligence services. Clause 1(6) states that this may be done where the person's work is connected with the security and intelligence services and where the bar on disclosure is required in the interest of national security.
      In explaining this provision, the Government have said that it will apply only to certain civil servants and members of the armed forces. But the power under the Bill goes beyond that by permitting the designation of "any person."
      According to paragraph 45 of the White Paper, designation would apply to:
      "those who work closely in support of or who are in frequent contact with the services, such as certain members of the armed forces who provide technical support for the services, or officials in specified posts in certain Departments who deal with the services on a regular basis as part of their normal duties."
      The Secretary of State said last July that designation would apply to civil servants
      "in my private office … who nevertheless acquire, inevitably, an extensive knowledge of the services."—[Official Report, 22 July 1988; Vol. 137, col. 1415.]
      The Minister of State, on the same day, at column 1478, suggested that it would apply to departmental principal private secretaries who convey information about the services to their own Secretaries of State.
      Although Ministers have said that designation is intended for civil servants, the Bill refers to "any person". No explanation for this wide definition has been given arid its purpose is unclear. It has led to speculation that people such as the Comptroller and Auditor General, or even newspaper editors sitting on the D notice committee, might be designated, making them subject to the absolute bar on disclosures about security and intelligence, denying them the defences provided in clause 1(4). The Government have so far given no indication that this is or is not intended.
      The effect of the amendment is to restrict designation' o those people for whom Ministers have said designation is intended—that is, Crown servants. The definition of "Crown servants" in the Bill, in clause 12(1), is wide and includes civil servants, Ministers, members of the armed forces and police officers. The amendment would also allow Government contractors to be designated, which would permit the designation of people who might occasionally assist the services on a freelance basis. We are clearly concerned that that power of designation should not reach out and grasp anyone and thus place an inhibition on them that was not intended by Ministers when they promoted this measure and argued the case in the White Paper.
      Mr. Archer: The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has made out clearly and effectively the case for the amendment and it would not improve if I sought to repeat it. I seek only some guidance from the Minister on a matter about which I ventured to intervene at an earlier stage in our debates. As I understood it, the Minister said that the effect of the draftsmanship of the Bill was that someone on whom a notice had been served should be inhibited from disclosing information which came into his possession during the currency of the notice, and should continue to be inhibited even after the notice had been withdrawn. He would not, however, be affected by information which came into his possession afterwards.
      If that were the position, whether I agreed or disagreed with it, I could see the reasoning behind it, because that

      1115
      clearly is what the Government intend to do. I wonder, however, whether the draftsmanship achieves that, because clause 1(1) says:
      "A person who is or has been— …
      (b) a person notified that he is subject to the provisions of this subsection, is guilty of an offence if … he discloses any information".
      I should have thought that he had been a person notified, whatever happened afterwards.
      If we then look at clause 1(7), it is fairly clear what it is intended should happen. It states:
      "A notification … shall be in force until revoked by a further notice in writing".
      That I understand, but surely the effect of a revocation is that he is then not a person notified.
      Mr. John Patten: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong.
      Mr. Archer: The Minister says that I have that wrong. I have always spoken English, however, and that appears to be the effect of ordinary English. A revocation means that he is no longer a person notified. If that is so, he is not a person notified within clause 1(1) and, therefore, does not commit any offence at all even if he discloses information.
      That happens to be the effect of the draftsmanship, but I ask whether the Government have really achieved what they set out to achieve in the Bill. Whatever the merits of what they set out to achieve, what I have put forward would be nonsense.
      Mr. Gorst: What worries me about the way in which this clause is drafted is that, if Ministers are to be notifiable people, there is nothing which I have read here which says at what moment in time they might be notified. One can envisage a situation in which a Minister is not a notified person when he serves his Government, but when he goes on to the Back Benches and another Government come in, that Government could discover that he knew something that was highly embarrassing and slap a notification on him to keep him quiet.
      I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure me that that is not the case. Can we be certain, if it is not the case, that it cannot be used in that way? Is the drafting adequate to provide that protection?
      Mr. Heffer: I am confused because of previous discussions that we have had on the question of "a person". The concept of "a person" worries me. In an earlier debate, the Minister said that an ordinary person could go to the tribunal and he should also notify the police. Supposing, however, that that person has his house burgled, believes that it was carried out by the security services and decides to go to the police. He says to the police, "I think it is the security services who have done it." The police say, "Right, we'll find out." When they find out that it is the security services they will not want to know any more. That will be the end of the matter.
      On one occasion I had my house burgled and the first question that the policeman who came to see me asked was, "Do you think it was political, Mr. Heffer? Have they taken any of your papers?" I knew why he asked that. If it had been political and papers had been taken, he would
      1116
      have said, "It has nothing to do with us." He did not have much to do with it anyway. He merely said, "You're well insured, so you'll be all right."
      9.45 pm
      What do we have in the police service? Special branch are the leg men for the security men. We all know that. We were not born yesterday and we did not fall off a Christmas tree. That is what happens and the Minister must know it.
      I am a bit worried about this business of "a person". He may well think that he is notified and then he is told he is. What does he do then? I am not certain that he could go to his Member of Parliament. The position is so confusing. It could be cleared up without question by the Government accepting this amendment. It makes the position 100 per cent. clear. The Government would be wise to accept the amendment because it would get rid of many of the arguments—some will continue to apply to other people—for ordinary people. I hope that hon. Members will accept this sound, sensible amendment.
      Mr. AitkenMy hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has done the Committee a service by tabling this amendment. As we have established from our debate on clause 1, it is a limitation on civil rights to be put in the category in which the doctrine of absolute, lifelong, eternal confidentiality applies. If people are to be designated, the Committee rightly, will want a more precise definition of who is to be designated than the one contained in the Bill.
      The Home Secretary has given the impression that this category of persons will be confined more or less to people in his Private Office who have dealings with the Security Service. Could it go much wider than that? Those who work closely with the security services cover a wide category of people. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) or Chapman Pincher could be covered by this. Clearly, designation must not be unfairly used.
      There is a crucial point why this definition is deliberately vague and it must relate to agents in the Security Service. There are two types of agent. There are above-the-line agents, who, in the event of an operation being compromised, cannot be denied because they are known to exist and Ministers must ultimately take responsibility for their existence if an operation is botched, there is a row and the security services' involvement is clear. There are also below-the-line agents who are deniable under all circumstances. They are buried beyond reach of theoretical knowledge of Ministers and people like them.
      I cannot see any other justification for having this vagueness about designating people. Why not just leave the definition at Crown servants or Government contractors? The answer must be in this difficult twilight zone of above and below-the-line agents.
      Again, we get into deep complications. If a below-the-line agent is to be designated, he cannot be a below-the-line agent. He is no longer deniable under all circumstances. In leaving the definition as vague as this to be able to designate below-the-line agents, the Government are compromising and revealing in advance the whole nature of below-the-line agents.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am slightly bemused, because I thought we were placing on a statutory basis the very existence of such people. Will they not become above-the-line by definition?
      Mr. Aitken: If the Home Secretary or those with authority for the security services want the power to designate as people who must observe the absolute doctrine of confidentiality, those other than Crown servants and Government contractors, they are making a rod for their own backs. That is, unless a totally unfair and arbitrary designation is applied—in which case we want to know about it—in respect of agents. That is why the wording of the Bill is left vague. It is a dangerous hostage to fortune to designate such people, if the point of having them in the first place is that they will always be deniable. Designation will mean that they are no longer deniable. The clause is misguided and needs to be narrowed. That is why I support my hon. Friend's amendment.
      Mr. Gorst: Will my hon. Friend address himself to another point that he has almost inadvertently touched upon? I refer to the question whether people can refuse to be designated. If I am an innocent passer-by and witness something that it is inconvenient for me to know, can someone slap a designation notice on me, to keep me quiet?
      Mr. Aitken: Such a question is more appropriately addressed to the Minister. However, one ought to ask for the record whether there will be any appeal against designation. Are there any arrangements for fighting unfair designation. As we know, the security services make mistakes in naming people or in placing them in categories, so it is possible that they could wrongly designate someone. There ought to be a procedure for dealing with that.
      Mr. Corbett: This will get worse before it gets better. Paragraph 47 of the White Paper—although the Home Secretary denied it when we debated that document—states:
      "the Government proposes that there should be a power for the responsible Minister to designate individuals or groups."
      Whether such a group could include Members of Parliament we shall never know. I say that because paragraph 48 states:
      "The list of persons designated would not, for obvious reasons, be made public."
      Mr. Aitken: Again, the word "groups" must apply to people who might have been engaged in a below-the-line security operation. It could include a group of boatmen moving our agents.
      Mr. Ashdown: Could not such a group include all the employees of a private security firm employed by the Government or by the security services?
      Mr. Aitken: Whether the word "groups" includes the employees of a security firm, boatmen, or even special boatmen—as the hon. Gentleman once was—it may be convenient to give the power to designate. I believe that the Committee will be wise, in the best interests of security, not to allow power of designation on the scale for which the Bill provides.
      Mr. Rees: There are so many cross-threads in the Bill. In our earlier debates today we have, understandably, found ourselves in danger of picking up on points that will
      1118
      arise later, but they are germane to the earlier arguments. We have successfully avoided doing so except on one or two occasions.
      In this series of amendments, for example, there looms the matter of public interest—as to whether a person, notified or not, has a right at some pitch to reveal information. That is a point to which we can return, and it applies whether the group is large or small. I wish to make it clear, although I shall not develop the point, that despite all the difficulties involved I still believe that the Franks committee was right and adoption of its recommendation would have saved a lot of bother in this Committee. Franks said that the only people criminally vulnerable under new secrets legislation should be those who reveal information classified as secret and above. That would have a bearing on what we are discussing, but I will save my fire until later.
      The amendment is intended to limit the definition of notified persons. We must, of course, be clear about who is included in the wider group of persons, and I shall put my mind to that shortly. But what about Ministers? As a junior Minister, under the Mountbatten reforms, like the hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) at a later date, I was Army Minister and RAF Minister. I cannot recall signing a bit of paper or being nominated by anyone, but as RAF Minister—which is what I was, although changes had taken place—I received information that I would not and will never discuss with anyone about the targeting of the RAF at the time. Under the Franks recommendations such material is secret and above, and in any case who would want to reveal it?
      Sir Antony Buck: For the sake of accuracy, may I point out that although I was a Member of Parliament for an Army constituency, I was Minister for the Royal Navy at the relevant time?
      Mr. Rees: Between us we cover the waterfront.
      I was a service man. The point that I am making is that no one designated or nominated me so far as I recall, but I remember—as I imagine the hon. and learned Gentleman does—rather pleasant occasions when senior Army officers, and later senior RAF officers, came in to introduce themselves. We talked about their work and ended up discussing such subjects as what happened during the war. I remember a man coming to talk to me about the need to keep papers secure and not leave them lying about, but we were aware of what to do without being told.
      The Minister may tell me that my question is dealt with in clause 7, which some of us have been looking at but do not entirely understand. However, I should like to know how long the notification lasts. Will there be a day when someone writes to say, "You are no longer a notified person"? We built into the Franks recommendations that papers in every Department—heaven knows how many thousands of MOD papers are secret and above, but there are not so many in the Department of Education—would be reclassified from time to time. When they fell below the "secret and above" classification in two, three, four or 10 years' time, they would not come under the criminal sanctions recommended in the Franks report. The time factor, therefore, was dealt with through the reclassification of documents.
      My question is, how does the time factor come into this legislation? A problem is raised for the group of people

      1119
      —Ministers, ex-Ministers or more usually ex-Prime Ministers—who write long memoirs, in some cases as many as nine volumes, breaking the Official Secrets Act on almost every page. The Prime Ministers concerned have probably never signed a bit of paper, and in any case they are allowed to get away with it because it is nonsense to prevent information from being revealed 20 or 30 years after the event. How do the Government intend to deal with the question of timing?
      Although we have attempted to narrow the definition in the clause, we are still left with Ministers under the heading of Crown servants. Who will have the responsibility of making the Prime Minister a notified person? I presume that other Ministers will be notified by the Prime Minister. Who will administer the notification to the Prime Minister? I am not joking about this. Perhaps Prime Ministers will notify themselves that they are notified persons. What is the procedure for that? I fully appreciate that one or two people in the Private Office and possibly someone who does the typing would have to be secure. They will have to be notified persons. A small group of people would not be notified and it will not be difficult for the Department to decide—
      It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report Progress.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Official Secrets Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
      Bill again considered in Committee.
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      Mr. Rees: I should like to emphasise what the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said about agents other than what I suppose are called contract agents who are not full-time with MI5. At this time no one likes to talk about this sort of thing, but we have to be sure about how such people are dealt with under the notification process. If someone is taken on, either by a security firm or to act for MI5 under certain conditions, does that person become notified and how long does the notification last? I ask that because—foolishly, and not altogether by design—I found myself on a programme discussing security. I thought that the programme would last an hour, but it went on for half the night. It was called "After Dark" and had no time limit.
      I wrote to the Home Secretary because a chap called Gary Murray on the programme made the most astonishing allegations about being trained by MI5, saying that people from private security firms were trained on Ministry of Defence premises. Then he made allegations about certain prominent cases in which my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) had been involved. True or false, that chap was breaking section 2 of the Official Secrets Act by his allegations. Unless he becomes a notified person, he will certainly break the law under the proposed legislation. I have no strong views about that, but if I had I would make them known in the later debate on amendments about the public interest.
      I emphasise that we have to be clear about how such people are covered. It will be interesting to note to what degree the measures are used. In that respect, the other secret service—the SIS—is not covered because, rightly or
      1120
      wrongly, it engages in activities abroad. I want to be assured that there are no circumstances in which state security services other than MI5 operate in this country.
      My last heading is journalists.
      Mr. Ashdown: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the other security service—the SIS. Could it not operate legitimately in Britain, but against foreign targets?
      Mr. Rees: The clear division is MI5 at home and MI6 abroad. If anyone is responsible for operations in this country, it should be the Home Secretary—not the Foreign Secretary. Wires would be crossed if such a case arose. Some action would be carried out at the request of MI6, but I want to be sure what class of security officer would be involved in this notification procedure.
      I have just been handed a copy of a letter that the Home Secretary wrote to me.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is all in my library.
      Mr. Rees: I did not know that my hon. Friend had a copy of that letter. In it the Home Secretary denies the remarks about the security services, although he does so in the usual way, as I did myself many times, saying that it is Government practice not to confirm or deny allegations about operations but
      "I can assure you, with regard to Mr. Murray's allegations, that I am now satisfied … that no further investigations are warranted."
      That reinforces the view that we need to be sure whether those people are covered in this process. I hope that the Minister of State will clarify that.
      This debate in Committee will continue a great deal longer and I hope that we do not end up with a guillotine. It is important that we use the time that the Government will provide, and that the Opposition want, to do what was not done with the official secrets legislation between 1889 and 1911 and on to 1920. It was always shoved through late at night because there was a scare. We must get it right this time. One of the most important points to clarify is which group of people will be notified that they are covered by this legislation.
      Mr. Dalyell: Although I suspect that it would be in order, the case to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) referred—that of the murdered Shrewsbury rose grower, Hilda Murrell—might be better dealt with in respect of a different amendment on another day, so I shall not pursue that.
      However, my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that he raises a real problem of the authority of who is to say what is to be done in Cabinet. He referred to prime ministerial memoirs. I understand that, in the 1968–69 period of the Labour Cabinet, there was a lengthy discussion about the note-taking of Mrs. Castle, Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Crosland. The Prime Minister came up with the view that the party leader—the Prime Minister himself—should be able to read through the memoirs of Cabinet colleagues before they were published.
      To illustrate the difficulty—Mr. Crosland told me that he said it, but others have claimed credit for doing so—they turned round in unison and said, "Harold, would you allow your memoirs to be vetted by Hugh Gaitskell?" That was the end of that argument. In no way would Harold Wilson have permitted his memoirs to be vetted by Hugh

      1121
      Gaitskell. [Interruption.] Hugh Gaitskell was certainly dead, but it was a hypothetical question. The answer, nevertheless, would have been a very big "nyet". I digress, but it encapsulates a real problem.
      I am sure that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) will agree that this is not the most momentous amendment, but for some of us it is something of a litmus test. If the Government were doing what many Opposition Members and some Conservative Members want, there would be little or no difficulty about accepting the wording suggested by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills.
      Time is short, so I shall content myself with two questions on this amendment. The first was referred to by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. What exactly is the position of the D notice committee? The Minister may say, "Don't worry about it; it's obvious." It is not obvious from the Bill. The position of the D notice committee is left in limbo by the wording of the Bill. In the same breath, I ask, what is the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General? My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I, too, have served on that Committee. The role of the Comptroller and Auditor General is absolutely crucial, but, as I understand it, the wording of the Bill does not make that clear. If there can be clarification, let the Minister give it.
      Secondly, the House of Commons is entitled to know that advice was given on this subject by the Security Commission. Were Lord Griffiths, General Sir Hugh Beach and Philip Allen invited to give advice? [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) says no. He may be right. In that case, why were they not invited to give their advice? It is important to know what they think. They are people of considerable weight, and I want to know whether they gave advice on the subject. If the Government say that they cannot reveal whether such advice was given to them, at least it is legitimate to ask what the Security Commission said to Ministers.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: May I press the Minister on the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst): will this provision be retrospective? If people are told when they are appointed that they are subject to the provision, that is one thing. It is a very different thing if they are notified later that there will be retrospective notification, particularly if they have started to ask awkward questions.
      The White Paper limits the scope of the Bill. Will the Minister give us some guidance about what will happen when defence contractors are involved in nuclear work, or in other high security work, and health and safety problems or problems over unfair dismissal arise? Does the Minister envisage that an absolute ban will be imposed if it becomes inconvenient for the Government when somebody raises a health and safety issue or complains about unfair dismissal? As the Bill is drafted, there is a temptation to brush aside awkward matters by suddenly slapping a notice on an individual. As I read the Bill, there is no limit on who can have a notice slapped on them if they appear to have information that might be embarrassing to the Government and that the Government can claim has security implications.
      10.15 pm
      Ms. Abbott: In the run-up to the White Paper there was much talk about the possibility of the Bill containing ministerial certificates on information. There were extensive arguments in the media that ministerial certificates on information, whereby pieces of information would be designated, would open up the possibility of arbitrary behaviour by Ministers. Under clause 1 we will have ministerial certificates on people. The self-same arguments that were marshalled against ministerial certificates on information apply to ministerial certificates on individuals.
      Will people have a right of appeal against designation? Subsections (6) and (7) deal with the procedure for effecting and revoking designation. Will a designated individual be able to petition for revocation, or will he have to wait until the Minister sees fit to revoke the designation?
      The clause refers to persons being designated by virtue of being in possession of information. Ministers are technically in possession of a great deal of information which they never read. Would it be a defence for an ex-Minister to argue that, although he might have been in possession of information, he did not read it at the time? Ministerial certification of information has been argued against, but there are more problems when it is proposed for individuals. There are many grey areas which I hope the Minister will clear up.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I can curtail my comments substantially if the Minister will intervene to give me an undertaking; otherwise, I shall have to proceed, perhaps at length, with the aid of an article in The Observer some eight months ago. Can the Minister tell us, in an intervention, whether a journalist could be subject to subsection (1)(b)? Could a journalist be "a person notified"?
      Mr. John Patten: No. I will deal with that in my reply.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall move to the second point, the position of members of the Public Accounts Committee. During the course of our hearings when we take evidence we may examine defence officials on military equipment, in particular telecommunications equipment which has an intelligence connection. In other circumstances it might have been the Zircon project. Does the fact that I am a member of a Committee which might have to take evidence in private on a project similar to Zircon mean that I could be subject to notification under subsection (1) (b) and defined as "a person notified"?
      Mr. Corbett: This is a fascinating debate. I hope that the Minister will reply particularly to the point about the D notice committee. For the sake of argument we will say that a designated person can be anyone the Secretary of State chooses. The power in the Bill to designate a person seems to make the D notice committee redundant, given the protections which the Government want to build into the legislation.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) raised the important question about an appeal or a petition against notification when a person has been designated. I would be interested to know whether the Minister will provide those avenues.
      Mr. Heffer: I am a simple bloke and when I read the words "a person notified", I assumed that notification was not the same as designation. Perhaps we had better clear up what notification means because it can be a broad term. Designation means that one pinpoints a person or group, but what does notification mean? I do not know, and that is why I raised that question originally.
      Mr. Corbett: I was using the word "designation" to mean the consequence of being notified, so the end result would be the same. My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point and, without becoming involved in a great semantic argument, perhaps the Minister will explain.
      Our debate revolves around the question of who is a person or persons. We have little guidance on this. It is another example of the Home Secretary saying one thing in the White Paper, a second thing in the press release, a third thing at the beginning of the debate on the White Paper and, lo and behold, a fourth and contradictory thing when we come to debate the Bill.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Read the Bill.
      Mr. Corbett: It would be progress if the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were to do that; I would welcome it.
      Paragraph 45 of the White Paper, which follows on a discussion about the lifelong duty of confidentiality, says:
      "Those issues have been discussed in terms of the 'security and intelligence services'."
      We all know where we are with that. It continues:
      "But the arguments apply not only to actual members and former members of the services but also to those who work closely in support of or who are in frequent contact with the services, such as certain members of the armed forces who provide technical support for the services, or officials in specified posts in certain Departments who deal with the services on a regular basis as part of their normal duties."
      As has been asked already, does that apply to private security contractors? If it does, the Bill is far wider than was suggested in the White Paper, but the implication is that it does.
      Let us imagine that the security in a certain building in Gower street has been privatised in pursuance of the Government's intention to privatise or shut everything in sight. Let us suppose that security there is handed over to Securicor, in which one of the Minister's hon. Friends has an interest, but that is by the by. Clearly, it would be nonsense, in view of the ambitions of clause 1, not to notify the members of that private security firm that they were being fingered under the provisions of the Bill.
      We are also left with the point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and other hon. Members about other people. What will be the position of Ministers? It is clear in the Bill that when a Minister is in office, he or she will be a notified or designated person. That is clear.
      Mr. Heffer: It is not. The White Paper speaks about designation, whereas the Bill talks about notification. I left school at 14, but I know that there is a distinction between the two words. We should be clear about that because I do not trust people who draft proposals in a Bill differently from a White Paper unless we know what is meant and why the words have been changed.
      Mr. Corbett: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I cannot help him, although I imagine that perhaps the Minister of State will be able to do so.
      We have established that when in office a Minister is covered, and we assume from that that when the Minister leaves office, he or she will be sent a note saying that he or she is no longer a notified person. Suppose that someone was a Minister and either is or is not still a Member of this House that introduces other matters because we can always fall back on parliamentary privilege and the two things are possible. What happens if he is told by a member or former member of the security and intelligence services something that happened during his period as a Minister of which he was totally unaware then and which at the time was illegal? What can that person do? Can that person tell someone? No doubt the Minister of State will remind us that that person can go to the tribunal or to the police and he has said that they can, in safety, go to a solicitor but we question that.
      More to the point, where there is some great iniquity and something illegal happened, can that person telephone Chapman Pincher and say, "Oi, Harry, have I got a story for you. Can you get it in the Daily Express tomorrow?" If that happens, who carries the can?
      Mr. Archer rose—
      Mr. Corbett: I shall give way to my right hon. and learned Friend in just a moment.
      We established in an earlier debate that the messenger will go to chokey—to gaol—and that the member or former member of the service who gave the information will go to gaol, but what about the editor who prints the information in those circumstances? What about the former Minister who passed on the information? Where does it stop?
      Mr. Archer: Does my hon. Friend agree that it appears that no offence would have been committed in that instance because it will not be information in his possession in the course of his work while the notification was in force? If that relieves my hon. Friend's mind, is it not even odder that if it were something that he had learned while a Minister, he would have been covered, but if it is something that he learns accidentally later, or which slipped his memory but which he re-learns, apparently no offence has been committed?
      Mr. Corbett: My right hon. and learned Friend has noticed a most interesting point. There is another flaw in the clause because, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, it all hangs on the fact that the former Minister picked up the information in the course of his work while the notification is or was in force. That is an extremely apposite point.
      Will the Minister of State say, "You have all been guessing that at some time after that person ceases to be a Minister, the notification will be revoked, but I have to tell you that it will not be revoked in the case of a former Minister because," lo and behold, "we are now going to extend the principle of the lifelong duty of confidentiality to anyone who has served as a Minister and been notified under the provisions."? That is possible under the Bill although I may be told that is wrong and although it could be perfectly logical to do that, I do not for a moment want it to happen.

      1125
      The Government cannot have it both ways, but they can try to have it both ways. One could generously say, "This is clearly a drafting fault and it is not the Government's intention to pin this narrowly on the words `while the notification is or was in force- and that the Government meant it to be wider to cover the problems that I have put to the Minister of State.
      Although the White Paper widened the scope of what was proposed outside direct members of the security and intelligence services, it added comments about others who have frequent contact with members of the service. Will the Minister let the Committee know whether it is the Government's intention that notification would be applied only to those individuals and groups of people referred to in paragraph 45 of the White Paper? I anticipate that the answer will be no. I hope that the Minister will tell us. One reading of the Bill is that it could be applied to any person who has had any fairly regular contact with the security or intelligence services. I want to find out from the Minister how far it goes.
      Do the Government intend to argue that an employee of a firm of contractors called in to refurbish the office of Mr. McColl, the new 56-year-old head of MI5, must be notified in the course of carrying out the work because of the likelihood, however remote, that they could trip across information that may put the state at risk? If that is so, do the Government believe that MI5 staff would be so careless as to leave classified or highly classified information lying around an office while it is being refurbished? I do not believe that. If that is flickering across the Minister's mind, he has a low opinion of senior personnel in the security and intelligence services.
      10.30 pm
      Does the Minister envisage that there could be circumstances where Mr. McColl goes to the gents, happens to meet a colleague and begins to discuss some highly secret security officer while a contract plumber is changing a tap? How far do the Government intend to extend the list of persons whom they want to notify under the Bill? If one takes the Government's stand, it would be sensible to notify the plumber, painter, carpenter and electrician. because once they get inside buildings of that sort, given that the Government think that the staff are so careless as to flick secrets all over the place, who knows what they may find?
      The Minister became excited the other night when he recalled that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) had 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.]
      He said again tonight that that view is shameful. Based upon this clause, that seems to be the view of the Minister and the Government. The Government are seeking powers that it would be possible to extend to anyone with a brush or a hammer in their hands who gets anywhere near the security and intelligence services. They are saying that they must be gagged for life, presumably because it is the view of the Home Secretary and his colleagues that those in the services are casual and careless about what they do with secret papers or are indifferent about whether their discussions on such matters come within earshot of outsiders. We do not take that view.
      We are still left with a conundrum: how far do the Government intend the notification to go? It may be
      1126
      argued that the Government want the power to stretch notification beyond those types of people mentioned in paragraph 45 of the White Paper.
      Perhaps the Minister will turn his mind to people who have more regular contact with the security services than itinerant contractors refurbishing offices or painting buildings. What about the squads of cleaners who enter buildings at 5 am to get them shiny and in working order for when the spooks and spies arrive later in the day at more convenient hours to do their work? What happens. if the catering has been privatised? Catering staff would be in regular contact with members of the services. Is it intended to notify them? It appears that the Government can wrap this catch-all mantle around the neck of anyone they choose. That is unacceptable. It contrasts and collides dramatically and noisily with their claims that the Bill narrows the scope of official secrecy.
      I hope the Minister will be able to satisfy me about these things; I await his reply with bated breath.
      Mr. John Patten: I hope that I can satisfy the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and my hon. Friends the Members for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). The debate gives me the chance to clear up some misconceptions about notification generally. I shall deal with specific questions when appropriate, but many of the questions asked have been general.
      The amendments would place a restriction on a power that is already strictly limited. I will tell the Committee the exact limitations on the power in the Bill. The amendments would mean that certain people who work with the security and intelligence services, and who do not fall within the definitions of Crown servant or Government contractor as set out in the Bill, could not be placed under the same liability as members of the services, although they have very much the same knowledge as those members.
      I want to impress on the Committee how limited this power is. The occasional fanciful story has appeared in the press, although one can sometimes believe what one reads there. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and one or two other hon. Members have asked about the power to notify journalists, Members of this House, or anyone else. The criteria in the relevant subsection are clear and narrow.
      First, a person cannot be notified unless his work is connected with the security and intelligence services. That does not mean a person with an interest in them—an interest which a writer, journalist or broadcaster might quite properly have. It is not enough to be professionally interested in the services—there must be some direct connection. This means that Ministers can notify only those who have some official standing in relation to the security services. There is no power to notify those who work as journalists, or as Members of this House, or as anything else, if they do not have that standing.
      Secondly, the nature of the person's work must also be of such a kind that the interests of national security require that he be subject to the same offence as members of the services. The word "require" is deliberately chosen. It means that a Minister has no power to notify someone merely because he considers it desirable or convenient to notify him. In other words, national security interests must mean that notification is applied.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am grateful for that clarification. I should like to know what are the relevant lines and clauses of the Bill to which my hon. Friend is referring so that I may be assured of this.
      Mr. Patten: Clause 1 sets out those people who can be notified, and we see here the notification powers set out in clause 1 to which I referred. In subsection (6) we shall see what applies.
      Mr. Dalyell: Clause 1(6) says that a person may be notified if,
      "in the Minister's opinion, the work … is or includes work connected with the security and intelligence services … and the interests of national security require"
      an absolute bar on disclosure. What safeguard, if any, exists to ensure that notification is not abused to cover situations quite outside the examples cited—that is, to notify someone whose job has made him or her a witness to an incident involving the security services? The Gibraltar example springs to mind.
      Is the test that it is the Minister's opinion that the work is connected with the services? And is the Minister's opinion subject to judicial review if unreasonably exercised? Should there not be some form of appeal against abuse? Otherwise persons who are notified cannot mention the fact to anyone without consulting and creating an offence.
      The Minister cannot complain about arbitrary notification without committing the absolute offence to which he has been made the subject.
      Mr. Patten: The hon. Member has made a number of points. In answer to one: no, the matter is not open to judicial review. But in answer to the point raised by both the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, we can see the protections in clause 1(6), because
      "the work undertaken by the person in question is or includes work connected with the security and intelligence services"—
      Mr. Shepherd: "In the Minister's opinion".
      Mr. Patten: Indeed, in the Minister's opinion, if the Minister's opinion is that the nature of the work is such that considerations of security require that he be subject to the provisions of that subsection. The word "require" is deliberate.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: The intervention of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) was important. He stressed the words "in the Minister's opinion". The Minister's opinion may change. It may be that the interpretation placed on the words
      "or includes work connected with the security … services"
      may change from the relationship outlined by the Minister, which included only a professional relationship, to another kind of relationship which could perhaps include journalists. How can we be sure that the Minister's opinion might not change in the way that I am suggesting?
      Mr. Patten: Looking at the words on the page, I do not understand how the Minister's opinion could be construed as involving the notification of someone who happens to have an interest, passing or permanent, in the work of the security services. The work must be undertaken by the person in question and must involve or include work in connection with the security services. That is a point that I have made on three occasions.
      1128
      Perhaps some of these points would become clearer if I gave some illustrations to the Committee of the sorts of people who would be notified.
      Mr. Shepherd: This is the whole point of our emphasis on the words "in the Minister's opinion". In my introduction we cited the different views that have been passed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State himself—the view that they were essentially Crown servants. That is why we tried to limit it to that restriction so that there would be no confusion. Now we have another "in my view" which is justifying a wider clause. That is our anxiety—that large sections could be designated on the Minister's understanding, with no appeal or ability to argue that the wrong person has been notified.
      Mr. Patten: In the end, notification—and the power of notification—is an operational decision and would always be an operational decision.
      Mr. Shepherd: Without judicial review.
      Mr. Patten: Yes, without judicial review. I have already said that twice to the Committee.
      I think that my hon. Friend's anxiety and that of Opposition Members might be satisfied if I outlined to the Committee the sort of people who might be notified.
      Sir Barney Hayhoe: What happens if the Minister makes a mistake? My hon. Friend seems to be arguing that Ministers are infallible. There must be a new breed of Ministers known only to the Home Office if that is his argument. If a Minister makes a mistake, who will review that decision if it is not available for judicial review?
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Patten: Operational decisions on what should happen in the Security Service, including the power of notification for those who are closely connected with the service, must in the end be determined by ministerial decision. It is an operational decision by the Minister.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Patten: I hope that hon. Members will not intervene while I set out the types of people who will be notified. I wish to give the Committee as clear an indication as possible of how, on the basis of the present situation, the notification power will be used. I want to be helpful, but I cannot and will not reveal operational secrets. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members would not expect me to do so. It may be a matter of jocularity to some, but it is a serious issue to others, especially those in the service.
      We propose to notify some carefully selected and mainly senior officials and members of the armed forces working in a few Government Departments because they are involved in assessing and deploying intelligence information of the greatest sensitivity and in assisting Ministers in the exercise of their responsibilities for the security and intelligence services.
      We propose also to notify some, mainly Crown servants, who work on providing the services with regular professional support for their operations and activities. We will also notify those members of the armed forces who undertake technical communications and work alongside the services in various parts of the world. We also propose

      1129
      to notify those with particular responsibilities or public duties in respect of the services, including the Ministers. That answers the point that the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) raised.
      It will be clear from what I have said that notification will not apply to the vast majority of people who are provided with information by the security and intelligence services as part of their work or who may be aware of particular aspects of the work of the services or who may from time to time give support and assistance to them. Of course, any unauthorised disclosures by such people will, for the first time, be subject to a test of harm.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: Part of the purpose of this debate was to identify those who might be notified. The amendment would leave out "a person" and insert
      "a Crown servant or government contractor."
      We were trying to identify, outside that range, who else would be notified. It was designed to meet the classification or definition that Ministers had given. We thought we were being helpful.
      Mr. Patten: I was coming to that point. I am going through the whole argument, from the beginning to the end of the story, in view of the concern that has been expressed on both sides of the Committee.
      Among the small group with particular responsibilities or public duties in respect of the services, there are some people who, under this series of amendments, we would not be able to notify. They are holders of public offices which involve a detailed knowledge of the service. Such people must have a close and detailed knowledge of the workings of the security and intelligence services to discharge their functions. Furthermore, they stand in a position of trust, such as the chairman and members of the Security Commission. Furthermore, they stand in a considerable position of trust in society. We have no expectation that any of those eminent persons would ever break that trust, but, as a matter of principle and of consistency, I believe that their liability should be the same as that of members of the services. If my hon. Friend's amendments were put through, as the Bill stands now we could not notify such people.
      Another important point was raised about notification.
      Mr. Archer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Patten: I shall be coming to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point in a moment, but I would like to make some progress. I have given way a great deal this evening. I would like to deploy the arguments to the Committee and then, as it is a Committee, hon. Members can return again and again to the debates if they wish.
      An interesting linked point was made by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington—an even longer title for a constituency than mine—about whether a person could actually refuse notification. I reassure the hon. Lady that every effort will be made to ensure that no civil servant is asked to fill, against his or her will, a post carrying notification. It is hardly in the public interest or in the interest of the efficiency of the Civil Service that a sensitive post should be held by a disaffected or discontented person.
      Mr. Maclennan rose—
      Ms. Abbott rose—
      Mr. Patten: I shall give way to the hon. Lady to whose point I was referring.
      Ms. Abbott: Could I ask two linked points? First, can a person appeal against notification? Secondly, as there is provision in this clause for revocation of notification, can a person petition for revocation or is it entirely at the whim of the Minister whether he chooses to do so?
      Mr Patten: There is no need to appeal against revocation, because, if someone is unwilling to accept a job involving notification, it would be bizarre to suggest that someone should be notified.
      Mr. Allason: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Maclennan: In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), the Minister said that a person would not be required to take a post carrying notification. If I have read the Bill correctly, it does not give the Minister powers to allow him to designate posts as notifiable posts. The Bill refers to the notification of individuals, and the Minister will be required to look at the position of individuals.
      Mr. Patten: If anyone within the Civil Service is disatisfied, he has the well-laid-down lines of appeal right up to and including the head of the Civil Service.
      The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South mentioned the position of Ministers, which we need to consider. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that proper arrangements will be made within the Government to notify the relevant Ministers under the requirements of this provision, about which we foresee no difficulty.
      Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Can we be clear on the question whether someone can refuse to be notified, as this would obviously have important implications if that person was already in possession of information? Can he simply say, "I refuse to be notified"? It would be difficult, if it were possible to notify someone after the event, to make the effect of the notification retrospective.
      Mr. Patten: That person could not do that while he was in a position of some trust, where he had access to secret information. If, on the other hand, it was someone who was not a Crown servant who was being brought into notification, of course, he could refuse to be notified.
      Mr. Allason: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Higgins: Presumably, he could refuse to be notified and resign, or whatever the appropriate action might be.
      Mr. Patten: Or that person could be transferred to another post or do something else. We all get faced with those rough decisions sometimes.
      The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South raised an important point about the time factor for Ministers, which I must answer. A former Minister who wished to reveal information about security and intelligence, given to him while he or she was a notified person—I must stress that there is no retrospective notification—would of course need to seek authority in the normal way, if he or she wished to make available that information.
      Mr. Allason: On that point, would my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Patten: I wonder if my hon. Friend would forgive me, because I must answer other points which have been raised in the debate.
      Mr. Allason: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
      Mr. Patten: I shall give way in a moment. I shall just deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, which is in many ways linked, because it deals with non-Crown servants. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Security Commission is aware of our proposals. As he generously said, it would not be right for me to go into further detail on that issue.
      Mr. Allason: Does the limitation on retrospective notification apply only to Ministers? Is it impossible to notify retrospectively civil servants and other Crown servants who would otherwise qualify?
      Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right. Such notification would be impossible.
      The existence of the D notice committee and its usefulness are not affected by the Bill. Having said that, I shall respond to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South on notification. Clause 1 refers to:
      "A person who is or has been…notified."
      That is the force which makes it possible for someone to be notified by statute, and that is the period for which he is notified.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Bill does not say that.
      Mr. Patten: Clause 1 refers to:
      "A person who is or has been…notified."
      Those words appear in the first lines of the Bill. I think that I have read that correctly. All the best novels contain the advice "Read on", and that is what the hon. Gentleman should do. I understand that the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South accepts that the Bill deals with the issue that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has raised.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) is concerned about the position of a Minister who retires and then discovers something heinous or awful and
      1132
      wishes to talk about it. My hon. Friend wishes to know whether the notification procedure will be a possibility retrospectively. The answer is no. A retired Minister will have to abide by the duty of silence over the period when he was in office and during which he gathered information. If he discovered something after his retirement, he would not be subject to retrospective notification.
      Mr. Gorst: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for that answer, but I still have a nagging fear. Let us suppose that a Minister in office has not been a notified person and someone says, "You realise that Bloggs may find out about what happened three weeks ago, so we shall make him a notified person."
      Mr. Patten: I do not think that retrospective notification is possible inside or outside of office. Retrospection is not possible, whether someone is in office or out of office, and not notification is permitted on a passerby.
      I hope that the fuller explanation that I have given of the scope and intended use of the powers will reassure the Committee. I hope that on that basis there will be a preparedness to withdraw the amendments.
      Several Hon. Members: Will the Minister give way?
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I think that the Minister has sat down.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Sir Paul. The Minister said that he would respond to all the issues that were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), but he has not referred to the sub-tier, about which the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) spoke, of those who work for the Security Service, but not directly.
      The First Deputy Chairman: The Minister has resumed his place. Accordingly, I call Mr. Archer.
      Mr. Archer rose—
      Mr. Patten: Further to the point of order, Sir Paul. I think that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has done me an injustice. When he reads Hansard, I think that he will find that I dealt with the "sub-tier" to which he has referred.
      Mr. Archer: It is a late hour and I do not wish to delay the Committee for long.
      The Minister has reminded us that we are discussing a serious matter; he rebuked some hon. Members for failing to treat it as such. He then said that it is an operational matter, and repeated that two or three times. I am not clear what follows from it being an operational matter, but criminal liability rests on those to whom the term applies. That is certainly a serious matter. Those notified will be people who, in the Minister's opinion, fall within the category of people liable to notification. It will not do for the Minister to say that the Bill has safeguards. He says that one has only to refer to subsection (6), which identifies who is liable for notification—but in the Minister's opinion. There is no appeal against the Minister's opinion, and there is no one to whom the Minister need refer.
      11 pm
      The Minister was kind enough to give the Committee examples of the people he has in mind for notification, and of those who will not be notified. But we all have experience of legislation by undertaking. Again and again, legislation has been put on the statute book, and two or three years later, when a situation arises, it is said, "But an undertaking was given in the debate." There follows an argument about what was meant by that undertaking, who gave it, and in what circumstances. No one is in a position to adjudicate. Legislation by undertaking is unsatisfactory.
      If the Bill's existing text enters the statute book, then if, in the Minister's opinion, someone is liable to notification, no one will be able to challenge his opinion. The amendments deal with that situation, and the Minister's answers are not enough.
      Mr. Dalyell: The hour is late, and no one who has taken part in the debate can say that there has been any irrelevance. However, deep and increasing worry has been expressed about the substance of the ministerial replies. If I do the hon. Gentleman an injustice, he will tell me. Has he answered at any point in the last half-hour the question raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer)? How can a ministerial opinion that is thought to be unreasonable be challenged? To those of us who have been listening intently, it seems that there is, in the Minister's opinion, a blanket, cover-all phrase embracing anything that the Government of the day want. This is a serious matter of liberty and freedom. If I am wrong in my interpretation, the Minister will tell me. I fear that I am not.
      Mr. Maclennan: I am, more than ever, mystified by the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). We have been trying to clarify the people who will be notified. The Minister says that it is all clearly set out in clause 1. Alas, it is not. The Minister referred to subsection (6), which states:
      "such a notice may be served if, in the Minister's opinion, the work undertaken by the person in question is or includes work connected with the security and intelligence services"
      and so on. Are those people an objective class of individuals, or are they people subjectively defined by any Minister, at any given time?
      The Minister sought to illustrate his argument by citing the categories that he or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department might have in mind as the subject of notification. But the Bill, as I read it, does
      1134
      not give the Minister power to designate categories of people. The power applies only to individuals. If the Minister is to exercise that power appropriately, I do not see how he can deal with the matter, even by reference to categories, without misleading the Committee.
      If the Minister is of the opinion that the work of a tailor or dentist or someone in the Security Service is connected with the Security Service, it will be open to him so to decide.
      Mr. Hurd indicated dissent.
      Mr. Maclennan: The Home Secretary shakes his head. But who is to challenge the Home Secretary's judgment if there is disagreement that the Security Service man's tailor or dentist is not a suitable person to be notified? Such a power is open to gross abuse. The Committee must be given greater reassurance.
      The amendment is extremely important, because in the Bill the Minister is taking powers to nominate individuals as being potentially guilty of an absolute offence if they disclose information. That is creating crime by fiat and is entirely unacceptable.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I should like to dwell on a point that I raised earlier. The words "in the Minister's opinion" give him immense powers. He, as a Minister, might well make the right decisions having formed the right opinion, but the question is what might happen in changed political circumstances. At some stage in the future, his post might be occupied by someone with a very different view of what constitutes reasonable action. The Cabinet might be comprised of people holding such a view. They might say that a journalist or a member of a Select Committee should be notified. [Laughter.] The Minister may laugh, but these are serious matters. Under the Bill, any Member of the House might—depending on what parliamentary Committees he sits on—find himself a notified person. It all depends on the opinion of the Minister.
      The Minister should take on board the reservations that have been expressed about the wording, and perhaps table an amendment on Report. The Government might provide for a form of judicial review, or perhaps some other alternative; but it must not be left to a Minister, however reasonable and liberal he may be today, to make such decisions for all time. Others who came after him might take a very different view.
      The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) asked the Minister about the sub-tier of people whose work may be connected with the security services. That was also referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). The hon. Gentleman maintained that the companies concerned, often private companies, were in a special position, being privy to information that might well bear some protection.
      In the programme "After Dark", Mr. Gary Murray identified the firm KMS. In a letter to my right hon. Friend, of which I have a copy, the Home Secretary himself referred to the work carried out for the Government by that firm—work involving the protection of people from other countries while they are in the United Kingdom, and the protection of embassies in London. Employees of KMS may well be in contact with people in the security services, and on occasions required to work with them. They may therefore gain knowledge of a sensitive nature, in the view of the Minister. Can those persons be notified under clause 1(1)(b)?

      1135
      The Minister said earlier that he had answered that question. I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South, who said that he had not heard the answer. I asked the hon. Members for Thanet, South and for Torbay (Mr. Allason); they had not heard the answer either. May we now have the answer to that simple question?
      Mr. Gorst: Will my hon. Friend the Minister give me an assurance that two things will not be possible under the Bill? First, will he assure me that categories of people will not include trade unions?
      Mr. John Patten indicated assent.
      Mr. Gorst: I thank my hon. Friend for his assurance. Secondly, will he assure me that it will not be an offence in any circumstances for a notified person to reveal publicly that he is notified?
      Mr. Jeff Rooker: I came to listen and not to speak, but I want to put three short questions to the Minister. He will have to return to the Dispatch Box simply to clear up many misunderstandings. He did not satisfactorily answer the question about retrospective operation. Is he resting that on the word "is" in line 15 and the word "its" in line 16 of clause 1? The tense of the words is the only ground for retrospective action. That seems a weak argument, and if the matter is dealt with in some other part of the Bill he should draw that to the attention of the Committee.
      My next point is crucial and was raised by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). This is a serious and probing amendment. We seek from the Minister the groups or classifications of people other than Crown servants and Government contractors who could be covered. The Minister gave no example other than the Security Commission. All the people in the list that he read were covered in one way or another by clause 12.
      I should like to press the Minister on another matter raised by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. Will the person responsible for auditing the books and looking at the accounts of the intelligence services be dedicated to security? The Minister may argue that such work is not closely related to national security, which is the interest of the state. Clause 12 defines the state as the Government. Such a definition could be used to cover up embarrassments that have nothing to do with what we understand to mean national security and the interests of the state. It may be used to save embarrassing the Government. Of course, clause 12 says that the state includes things other than the Government.
      Will the Minister answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills about whether those responsible for auditing the books would be notified? It is a specific question, and it is clearly legitimate to ask it. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Minister could not bring himself to go wider than he did and give examples of people other than members of the Security Commission. He should have included people who audit the books.
      Mr. Corbett: I am sorry to speak again because I know that it is late, but these are extremely important matters and we should do our best to put them right. I do not know what to make of the Minister's list of persons who are
      1136
      likely to be notified. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, the Minister did no more than take us at a canter through clause 12 when he talked about senior, carefully selected members of the armed forces, people—mainly civil servants—providing professional support and holders of public office.
      The Minister then used a rather curious phrase that does not appear in the Bill. Paragraph 48 of the White Paper makes it clear that, when the Bill reaches the statute book, no one will be able to find out who has or has not been notified, but there is no provision in the Bill for that to be done. The Minister referred to people in positions of trust and went on to mention members of the Security Commission. If the Minister intends to extend the provision and to include, as would be proper following the Government's logic, people holding positions of trust in these sensitive areas, why is that not in the Bill? Will he now consider including it in the Bill?
      11,15 pm
      I am sure that the Minister did not want to speed up the proceedings and thus fail to answer questions put to him quite legitimately, but what am I to make of his silence about those classes of contractors who are employed from time to time to do specified jobs over specified periods in the offices or premises of the security or intelligence services? Am I to take it that they would not be subject to notification in any circumstances?
      Mr. John Patten indicated dissent.
      Mr. Corbett: The Minister shakes his head. I hope that, when he looks at Hansard, he means that. Perhaps he will put me right on this. Is the Minister saying that, if a fairly lengthy contract for major refurbishment of an MI5 building were involved, necessitating 12 or 18 months' work, none of those contractors would be notified, or can private contractors called in for such work be made temporary Crown servants?
      I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter. Hon. Members are worried that it is left solely to the Minister's whim and discretion and, as he has confirmed tonight, it is not even subject to the expensive and rather lengthy process of judicial review.
      Sir Barney Hayhoe: When my hon. Friend the Minister gave way to me a moment ago, I asked him a simple, straightforward question. What happens if a Minister makes a mistake in notifying an individual or individuals? What redress of grievance is available? The House is concerned with the redress of individual's grievances. What redress of grievance is available to an individual who has been wrongly notified? That is a straightforward question, and I hope that the Minister will give us an answer.
      Mr. John Patten: People have to accept notification.
      Sir Barney Hayhoe: I must still ask what happens if a mistake is made. Is my hon. Friend the Minister saying that the individual who has been wrongly notified has to lump it? Is that what he is saying to persuade the House to vote in favour of this proposition, that the individual with a genuine grievance has to lump it and that the Committee is being asked to legislate to the effect that there is no redress of grievance for that individual?
      There is surely no need, as a matter of order, for me to give way to the Minister. We are in Committee and surely

      1137
      all of us, including the Minister, can intervene in the debate as many times as we wish. This is an important enough issue for me to ask the Minister to give a clear answer to what I believe is a clear and straightforward question.
      Mr. Dalyell: The Minister obviously does not intend to reply to the questions he has been asked by his hon. Friends or to give answers to a number of other legitimate questions. Some of us believe, in all seriousness—I do not use the word frivolously—that that is an insult to the Committee. To those hon. Members who have just entered the Chamber I say that until now the Minister has been rather good about giving way. He has been courteous to the Committee. These are crucial questions; they are not debating points.
      I ask the Minister yet again a question that has been asked in several forms by several Members on both sides of the Committee: how can an unreasonable ministerial opinion he challenged? That is an important question. Will either a mistake or an unreasonable ministerial opinion be open to challenge? The Minister sits firmly in his place. He may have been given instructions by the Chief Whip to do so, but after all that has taken place today I think that that is extremely poor behaviour.
      Mr. Corbett: The Minister's decision not to reply to these questions is absolutely unacceptable. You will have seen, Sir Paul—as has every other hon. Member—the Chief Whip sitting beside the Minister on the Treasury Bench and saying certain words to him. I also saw the Home Secretary, on one of his rare visits during the debate on these amendments, appear—I put it no stronger than that—to encourage the Minister of State to keep what he said to the absolute minimum. I am all in favour of keeping what is said to the absolute minimum, but in this case the Committee is being treated with contempt. Legitimate questions have been put to the Minister by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
      If, at the behest of some of his hon. Friends who are trying to twist his arm, the Minister intends to deal with legitimate questions in that way, the Committee will have to sit far longer than it needs. If the proceedings go on for a long time, that does not mean that a great deal of ground has been covered. I repeat that legitimate questions were put to the Minister with which he did not deal. It is not good enough for him to leave them unanswered. The Committee will not accept it.
      Mr. John Patten: All these fine words, arguments and verbal threats by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) are based on the belief that no further reply would be given. I have been here happily since 4·30 pm, I have given way on many occasions and I have tried to be courteous to the Committee. I seek always to answer all the questions that I can. I do not take amiss the strictures of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), which I presumed were designed to trap me into getting to my feet. I assure him that his strictures were unnecessary.
      Ministerial decisions would be judicially reviewable. The normal principles of judicial review would apply. A person could argue that he was not properly covered by the criteria in subsection (6) of clause 1 and that therefore he should not have been notified. That would make the decision judicially reviewable.
      Mr. Corbett: Can the Minister confirm that traditionally the courts will not interfere in matters that involve national security? Is that not the case?
      Mr. Patten: The courts will take their own view on these issues.
      There is also the important issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe)—
      Mr. Archer rose—
      Mr. Patten: I am about to deal with mistaken notification. Then I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I have given way to him on many occasions. It has been a pleasure of mine since he gave me my first tutorials in "teach yourself criminal law" during the proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill last year.
      If the notified person thinks that a mistake has been made—I think I made the point before in two interventions—he can take it up through the normal channels. The Minister can consider his representations and, if necessary, revoke the notification. The representations should go through the usual channels, which can include the head of the department. I hope that I have satisfied the Committee on those two points.
      Mr. Archer: One does not want to prolong this discussion indefinitely, but the Minister, virtually at the last moment, has changed the case he was making and has said that the matter is subject to judicial review. Judicial review is not a form of appeal. A person cannot go to the court and say, "Do you disagree with what the Minister says?" The Minister has to give a reason for saying that the person falls within the criteria. Unless that has happened, I do not see how we even begin to get judicial review on its feet. What the court is being asked to do is to look at the Minister's reasons and to say whether it thinks there is something wrong with the reasons. But the Minister does not have to give reasons. I will not take it further now, but at some stage the Minister will have to do better.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: When I moved the amendment I thought that my hon. Friend the Minister could give a simple explanation. I wanted to find out the sorts of individuals who would be notified outside the remit of Crown servants, et cetera. The debate has taken a long time and at the last moment my hon. Friend the Minister of State has notified us that there could be some form of judicial review, a point on which he was not able to advise us during the last hour or so.
      Mr. John Patten: An ordinary form of judicial review.
      Mr. Shepherd: My nervousness has increased during the debate because of the extraordinary language that the Minister has dredged up. We now have ordinary judicial review, presumably as opposed to extraordinary judicial review. Last week on the Security Service Bill we had an important clause which tried to take out of any form of judicial review the work of the tribunal. This is close to the work of the security services. The same sort of individuals will be involved and those who come into contact with them will be notified. On the one hand, we will be able to have a review; on the other, we will not. I am lost.
      I no longer have confidence. I am sorry to say that at this late hour. The Minister understands the Bill that he is piloting through the House. A series of questions were asked legitimately. We wanted an example of the sort of

      1139
      individual who might be notified. The only example he gave was a member of the Security Commission. There must be a better answer. I am not satisfied, and I propose to force a vote on the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 197: Noes 246.

      Division No. 52]

      [11.28 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Galbraith, Sam

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Galloway, George

      Allason, Rupert

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Allen, Graham

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Anderson, Donald

      George, Bruce

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Ashton, Joe

      Gordon, Mildred

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Gould, Bryan

      Beckett, Margaret

      Graham, Thomas

      Beith, A. J.

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

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

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Grocott, Bruce

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hardy, Peter

      Blunkett, David

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Boateng, Paul

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Body, Sir Richard

      Haynes, Frank

      Boyes, Roland

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Henderson, Doug

      Buchan, Norman

      Hinchliffe, David

      Buckley, George J.

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Caborn, Richard

      Holland, Stuart

      Callaghan, Jim

      Home Robertson, John

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Howells, Geraint

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Clay, Bob

      Illsley, Eric

      Clelland, David

      Ingram, Adam

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Janner, Greville

      Cohen, Harry

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Coleman, Donald

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Corbett, Robin

      Kennedy, Charles

      Cousins, Jim

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Cox, Tom

      Lambie, David

      Cryer, Bob

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Cummings, John

      Leighton, Ron

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Lewis, Terry

      Dalyell, Tam

      Livsey, Richard

      Darling, Alistair

      Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Loyden, Eddie

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

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dewar, Donald

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Dixon, Don

      McFall, John

      Dobson, Frank

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Doran, Frank

      McLeish, Henry

      Douglas, Dick

      Maclennan, Robert

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      McNamara, Kevin

      Eastham, Ken

      McTaggart, Bob

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      McWilliam, John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Madden, Max

      Fearn, Ronald

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

      Marek, Dr John

      Fisher, Mark

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Flannery, Martin

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Martlew, Eric

      Foster, Derek

      Maxton, John

      Foulkes, George

      Meacher, Michael

      Fraser, John

      Meale, Alan

      Fyfe, Maria

      Michael, Alun

      1140

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Morley, Elliott

      Short, Clare

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wshawe)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mullin, Chris

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

      Murphy, Paul

      Soley, Clive

      Nellist, Dave

      Spearing, Nigel

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      O'Brien, William

      Strang, Gavin

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Straw, Jack

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Parry, Robert

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Pendry, Tom

      Turner, Dennis

      Pike, Peter L.

      Vaz, Keith

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Wall, Pat

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Wallace, James

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Wai ley, Joan

      Radice, Giles

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Randall, Stuart

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Redmond, Martin

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Reid, Dr John

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Richardson, Jo

      Wilson, Brian

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Winnick, David

      Robertson, George

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Rooker, Jeff

      Worth ington, Tony

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Rowlands, Ted

      Ruddock, Joan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Salmond, Alex

      Mr. Frank Cook and

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

      Sheerman, Barry

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Carttiss, Michael

      Alexander, Richard

      Cash, William

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Amess, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Amos, Alan

      Churchill, Mr

      Arbuthnot, James

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

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Ashby, David

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclitfe)

      Atkins, Robert

      Colvin, Michael

      Atkinson, David

      Conway, Derek

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Baldry, Tony

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Beggs, Roy

      Cran, James

      Bendall, Vivian

      Curry, David

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

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

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Devlin, Tim

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Dunn, Bob

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Durant, Tony

      Boswell, Tim

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bottomley, Peter

      Eggar, Tim

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Evennert, David

      Bowis, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Favell, Tony

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Brazier, Julian

      Forman, Nigel

      Bright, Graham

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

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

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Forth, Eric

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Franks, Cecil

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Freeman, Roger

      Burns, Simon

      Fry, Peter

      Burt, Alistair

      Gale, Roger

      Butcher, John

      Gardiner, George

      Butler, Chris

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Butterfill, John

      Gill, Christopher

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Carrington, Matthew

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      1141

      Gow, Ian

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Key, Robert

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Gregory, Conal

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Knowles, Michael

      Grist, Ian

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Grylls, Michael

      Lightbown, David

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Lilley, Peter

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Maclean, David

      Hannam, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

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

      Mans, Keith

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Maples, John

      Harris, David

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Hayward, Robert

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Mills, Iain

      Heddle, John

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Moate, Roger

      Hill, James

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Hind, Kenneth

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Holt, Richard

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Moss, Malcolm

      Howard, Michael

      Neale, Gerrard

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

      Nelson, Anthony

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Neubert, Michael

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Norris, Steve

      Hunter, Andrew

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Irvine, Michael

      Page, Richard

      Jack, Michael

      Paice, James

      Jackson, Robert

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Janman, Tim

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Jessel, Toby

      Pawsey, James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      1142

      Portillo, Michael

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Price, Sir David

      Stokes, Sir John

      Raffan, Keith

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Summerson, Hugo

      Rathbone, Tim

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Redwood, John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Renton, Tim

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Riddick, Graham

      Thorne, Neil

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Thumham, Peter

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Tracey, Richard

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Trippier, David

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Trotter, Neville

      Rowe, Andrew

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Viggers, Peter

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Waller, Gary

      Shelton, Sir William

      Ward, John

      (Streatham)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Watts, John

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wells, Bowen

      Shersby, Michael

      Wheeler, John

      Sims, Roger

      Whitney, Ray

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wilkinson, John

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Wilshire, David

      Speed, Keith

      Wood, Timothy

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Yeo, Tim

      Squire, Robin

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Steen, Anthony

      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

      Stern, Michael

      Mr. Tom Sackville.

      Stevens, Lewis

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

Monopolies and Mergers
11.40 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): I beg to move,
That the draft Monopolies and Mergers Commission (Performance of Functions) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 26th October 1988, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
This order makes two amendments to schedule 3 to the Fair Trading Act 1973 which governs the procedures of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The first change will reduce the minimum size of the groups appointed to carry out investigations from five members to three. The second will allow the chairman acting alone to seek the Secretary of State's agreement to the laying aside of a merger reference where the merger proposal has been abandoned before a group has been appointed for that investigation.
Schedule 3 to the Fair Trading Act governs the MMC's procedures for all types of references to the MMC. Investigations are, in practice, carried out by groups of commissioners appointed for that purpose. The schedule provides that the minimum size of such groups is five, but in recent years the usual number has been six. The first of the amendments made by the order would reduce the minimum to three and would apply to all references, except those under the Telecommunications Act 1984, for technical reasons contained within that Act. The Companies Bill includes a number of amendments to mergers legislation, putting into effect proposals in the Department of Trade and Industry's policy paper on mergers, published in March. This is a useful minor change which can be made now by statutory instrument, as we undertook to do in our policy paper.
The order will not mean that the size of MMC investigation groups will be reduced for all or even most inquiries but it will enable smaller groups to be appointed where appropriate in the interests of greater flexibility. Which references the smaller groups are used for will be a matter for the chairman, who will always have in mind the need to ensure an adequate spread of experience and expertise.
The second change relates solely to merger references. Proposed mergers are sometimes abandoned soon after they are referred to the MMC and often that is before the inquiry group is set up. The Secretary of State's agreement is then sought to laying the reference aside. It was in the past the practice for the chairman of the MMC in such cases to act alone. However, in 1986 the Court of Appeal held that the decision to lay aside a reference was beyond the powers of the chairman acting alone. Since then it has been necessary to set up a group just for that purpose. That is clearly inefficient and the change we are making would remove the need to do so by allowing the chairman to exercise the MMC's functions for that purpose alone.
Those two changes will not affect the role the MMC performs or substantially change the way it operates. They will certainly have no bearing on the matters referred to the MMC or the way decisions to refer are made. By improving the procedures in two small but useful respects they will contribute to the efficiency of its operations.
11.44 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I want to express my disappointment at missing the earlier part of the Minister's scintillating speech.
This is not a major matter. We welcome the order. I want to ask the Minister about the role of trade unions in monopolies and mergers. The merger policy paper of the Department of Trade and Industry said that the Department wanted well-balanced groups. That means that trade unions will be included in those groups. As there are only four trade union representatives, does the Minister intend to increase that number, or will he guarantee that a trade union representative appears in each inquiry? That is appropriate and essential. It is the only major point to arise about the order.
I wish to make some general comments about the Government's policy on mergers. This will be a brief discussion, because there is no such policy. It is all over the place. We have a rather zoot-suited jelly in charge of policy—and now the Tebbit doctrine, under which only matters of competition are referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Typically, for a policy of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), it is clear, simple, straightforward and wrong. The noble Lord who is in charge of the Department seems to prefer a role that is as much hands-on as a Saudi thief who has had two convictions. He wants the market to prevail. He argues that if it does, and the maximum number of takeovers is permitted, there will be an improvement in management.
Academic research tells us that the opposite applies in takeovers and mergers. All the research shows that there is no benefit to the community or the firms, there is a loss of jobs, and there is no greater efficiency. The Conservative party talks about the market because it represents the predators, not the producers. The hands-off policy is being embarked on because of that. We are allowing the merchants of greed to take over British industry.
While saying that they want a hands-off policy towards takeovers and mergers, the Government do not have a consistent policy. They dredge up grounds for referral in each case as it arises, responding to political pressures, to fears about the future of British industry and to the problem of EEC rules. The Government have given up trying to sustain a clear policy on these matters. We urgently need one. If the order had contained a hint of one, it would have been a welcome improvement.
Merger mania rampages on, gobbling British industry. It is running at record levels. Nearly one fifth of British companies have changed hands in the past five years. There is no sign anywhere of a consistent Government approach to these issues. In the case of takeovers and mergers, the sum of the whole is not greater than the sum of the parts. There is no improvement in efficiency, research, design, development or employment. The only benefits go to shareholders selling out at a higher price—a fairly short-term benefit—and to certain people's ability to control and manage the market.
Mergers and takeovers are defensive manoeuvres which are of no benefit to the competitiveness of British industry. A short-term calculation is being made. At the cost of those short-term manoeuvres we are seeing an enormous breach in trust, because a company is an organism, a network of obligations, a network of trust. It is a network

1145
of obligations to employees who have devoted their lives to the firm, to managers who devoted their efforts to building up the firm, to suppliers—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. As the hon. Gentleman himself said at the beginning of his remarks, it is a comparatively narrow order dealing with the administration of the commission. He is now widening it. I am sure that he will address his remaining remarks to what is in the order.
Mr. Mitchell: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am drawing my remarks to a close. But it seems to us that, having changed in a sensible direction the role of the chairman in these matters, and having allowed the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to take on more inquiries by reducing the number of members needed for an inquiry, there could have been further improvement. We await with some anxiety the emergence of any sensible Government policy on these matters because the changes embraced tonight are a postponement of major problems. This rampaging campaign of takeovers is going on and all the Government can propose to cope with it, deal with, adjust to it, is a minor tinkering with the legislation such as we are debating tonight.
Here is an opportunity wasted. The Government must urgently apply their minds to the wider issues raised by this order, particularly the future of British industry under this hands-off regime. We have a very serious problem. Industry is crying out for legislation, the CBI wants it, surveys of managers indicate that they are anxious about the state of takeovers, as well they might be, and Europe is proposing its change. Yet the Government are dragging their feet, proposing a minor tinkering such as we have tonight while all this goes on.
Industry is particularly vulnerable. That is why the number of inquiries that can be dealt with is having to be increased, because British industry is more vulnerable than industry in any other country in the world, with the possible exception of the United States. It is more vulnerable because a higher proportion of its capital is raised from shares, and so it is more liable to takeover.
Mr. Maude: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that in the past year acquisitions by United Kingdom companies overseas exceeded in value, to the power of two, acquisitions by overseas companies in the United Kingdom? The net gain to the United Kingdom has been double the net outflow.
Mr. Mitchell: The Minister is trying to divert me into irrelevancies by raising a trivial and largely irrelevant debating point. There has been a failure of the Department of Trade and Industry's own campaign for awareness about the single market in 1992, with its heavy advertising, featuring people like Sir John Harvey-Jones, about to burp, telling us that history is in the making. Meanwhile British industry is investing in the United States, as the Minister has just told us. If the campaign is so effective, why is it not investing in Europe? Why are European firms taking over British companies to use this country not as a base for exports but as a market to be exploited? The country is being turned into a branch economy, an irrelevant economy, for purposes other than the purposes of this country.
It is time we had a clear, straightforward policy from the Government on monopolies and mergers which puts
1146
the onus of proof on the firm which wants to take over, a policy which does not say "Hands off" or "This is an open slather" but which requires proof of benefits to the community, which gives something to the workers in these takeovers, which contains some element of national interest. That national interest must be taken into account. It is an interest in jobs and in exports. This is an essential requirement.
I have curtailed my remarks to a very brief dimension, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, I hope, stayed strictly within the terms of the order. But there is here a major issue concerning the future of this country. The strength of this nation is a national industry which is controlled in thus nation, run for national purposes and working to the benefit of the wider community, using Britain as a base from which to export, not simply regarding it as a market to be exploited. The interests of the nation have been neglected, as have the interests of the workers, of industry and of the future.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House again that this is a comparatively narrow debate dealing with the administration of the commission. It would not be in order to broaden it out into a much wider debate about monopolies and mergers.
11.55 pm
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Whereas the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) invariably invigorates the House when he speaks at this time of night, his speech tonight was less of a pep-up and more of a night-cap. He rehearsed the tired rhetoric of employee and trade union rights, whereas we are concerned—as you, Mir. Deputy Speaker, rightly drew to the hon. Gentleman's attention—with the narrower point of the extent to which those sitting in judgment over whether a monopoly or merger is against the public interest should be reduced to three. Although it is a narrow point, some substantial issues should be considered.
This debate provides us with a rare opportunity to pay tribute to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which has done an outstanding job over many decades—even before the passing of the Fair Trading Act 1973—and in recent years, since its remit has been substantially increased, enabling it to act as an arbitrator between certain privatised interests and the regulators concerned. In the present chairman, Mr. Sydney Lipworth, his 31 members and staff of 100, we have custodians of the public interest who perform with integrity and assiduity a considerable public service every year.
In the past year they have completed inquiries into 15 cases that have been referred to them, and they have done so against increasing pressure from Secretaries of State who require reports to be delivered within ever shorter periods. Moreover, the bids referred to them have been of an increasingly complex nature.
The order would reduce the minimum number sitting on inquiries into such mergers from five to three. May we have an assurance that the inquiries will still be conducted according to the criteria held uppermost by the M MC-- thoroughness and fairness? Does the reduction imply that the MMC or the Government anticipate more smaller mergers being referred to the MMC? The statement that fewer members on an adjudicating committee assessing a

1147
merger will be sufficient and that more flexibility is required implies that many more smaller bids will be referred to the MMC. This is an important point for the market and many companies to anticipate.
Is there more danger of perverse decisions being produced by the MMC, and are there possibilities of conflicts of interest? The qualifications of members of the MMC are set out in the annual report. They are all eminent and, in large part, professional people. Inevitably, however, their wide experience brings with it certain preferences and patronage and it is important that public bodies which sit in judgment over questions of objective issue should, in terms of their number and deliberations, reassure the public that their results will be fair and thorough. I am sure that the Minister appreciates my point.
The further the number is reduced—in the extreme, if it is reduced to one person making the judgment—the more subjective the judgment becomes. We are right, therefore, to question a proposal to reduce the minimum number from five to three. I only ask the question because without doubt—I am sure that every chairman of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would admit it—from time to time there have been perverse decisions. We all have our judgments about what perverse decisions have emanated from the MMC or, indeed, successive Secretaries of State, but there have certainly been some. If the number is reduced to one, two or three persons making recommendations, it becomes more likely that perverse decisions will be made. I believe that my hon. Friend has a case to answer in that respect.
I ask my hon. Friend to comment on what is becoming a serious problem. Will any reduction in the number result in the personalities involved in any takeover being assessed more carefully than they have been before? In recent cases of major takeovers, the personalities lying behind them—whether they be Mr. "Tiny" Rowland, Mr. Arnold Weinstock or Mr. Al-Fayed—assumed, unfortunately, increasing importance in judgments which should be entirely objective. It is important that the House and the public should be reassured that judgments reached by the MMC and recommendations made to the Secretary of State—as well as decisions made by the Secretary of State himself—are entirely objective and completely divorced from any assessment on a personality basis. After all, in this country there must be compelling reasons of national interest for members of a company—that is to say, the owners and shareholders of the company—to be dispossessed of their right to dispose of their assets as they see fit. Essentially, we must allow people who own assets to dispose of or acquire them freely—[Interruption.] The House must agree—the legislation was, after all, passed by a Labour Government—that the only reason against allowing that freedom must be where there are compelling reasons of national interest to prevent it.
A Companies Bill in the House of Lords will be coming to this House, and there may be opportunities to assess whether the criteria should go wider than the narrow basis of pure competition policy and the rather negative assessment of national interest provided in the Fair Trading Act 1973. In the meantime, I believe that the House is right to call for some reassurance that the decisions reached by the MMC and the Secretaries of State
1148
are on an entirely objective basis and do not take account of any subjective assessments of the personalities involved, difficult though that may be.
With all those questions and reservations, I support what I believe is a fair provision. That is certainly the case in allowing the chairman of the MMC to abandon an inquiry to take account of what I regard as a rather perverse decision of the Court of Appeal. This is an order which I believe the House should be speedy in passing.
12.3 am
Mr. Charles Kennedy: The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) has addressed some characteristically pertinent questions to the Minister. I should like to apologise to the Minister. Such was the brevity of his speech that by the time I reached the Chamber he was half a minute into it. I have a couple of straightforward questions concerning the background to this proposal. If in that opening half minute the Minister dealt with these matters, perhaps he will forgive me for not having heard what he said.
Where did the impetus or the encouragement for this come from? Did it come from the commission or from the Secretary of State? Standard wording is used, but it is somewhat ambiguous given the nature of the order before us. Power is given to the Secretary of State to make modifications under the Competition Act 1980, which to him would appear appropriate for improving the performance of the commission. Did the suggestion come from the commission, or did the idea come to the minds of Department of Trade and Industry Ministers in view of the increasingly important role that the commission is seen as having?
There are various functions which constitute a group, and reference is made to the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Competition Act 1980, the Airports Act 1986 and the Gas Act 1986. The explanatory note states:
"For the purpose…of the Commission's functions under the Telecommunications Act 1984…the minimum number who may constitute a group remains 5."
What is the reasoning that lies behind maintaining that distinction? To take up the question of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) about trade union involvement, will there be any distinction drawn between the operation of the new regulations as it affects groups that come within the Telecommunications Act 1984 as opposed to the other groups that are specified?
As you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is not the occasion for a broad debate. However, as the Government are showing a willingness, for whatever reasons, to amend the operations of the commission, there is displayed also a willingness to consider some of the broader aspects of policy, not least when the Companies Bill comes to us from another place. The arrival of the Bill will provide us with an opportunity to discuss in greater detail many of the issues to which we are referring in general terms tonight.
There is a growing feeling in the House, and, I think, outside it, that with predatory bids that lead to increasingly personalised media battles—they are fought as much on television screens throughout the county as on video screens in the City—the Government should consider in due course whether the onus should move more towards the predator. If it is a fundamental principle of law that someone is innocent until proven guilty, it is curious that when a hostile takeover bid takes place the onus is reversed and it is necessary to prove innocence.

1149
As hon. Members, we receive representations from the threatened company, be it Scottish and Newcastle or the Guinness bid, which was significant for Scotland slightly more than a year ago. Perhaps Government policy should focus more clearly on the onus. During the passage of the Companies Bill the Government might consider making the predatory or bidding companies honour the guarantees or pledges that they make during the takeover process if it proves ultimately to be successful. Anyone who is concerned with the financial community, not least that which is based in Charlotte square in Edinburgh, is only too well aware that Scottish-based companies may have been offered guarantees when they have been subject to bids from south of the border or abroad. As anyone who is involved in business and company activities will explain, the siting of a company's headquarters—the Minister will appreciate that this can be a sensitive political issue north of the border—may constitute little more than a brass plate on the front door. The real decision making may take place elsewhere.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman earlier laid down well the ground rules for the debate, but he is now straying from them.
Mr. Kennedy: I shall stray no further, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall resume my place.
12.9 am
Mr. Tim Smith: There are two striking features of the 1988 review of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The commission has been under pressure from the Government, the business community and the markets to complete its reports with much greater speed. The review makes the point that prior to 1987, the period normally allowed for a merger inquiry was six months or longer, but that today, only three months, or sometimes four, is usual.
Another feature is the commission's increased work load. The quarter from July to September 1988 is cited, when the commission dealt with 14 simultaneous inquiries, and in November and December it undertook 16. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) questioned whether that increase originated in the Department or in the MMC. The report refers to that change:
"It is proposed to seek powers for the Commission to appoint groups with a minimum of 3 members, and not 5, as the law currently requires."
I believe that that has come about because the commission is required to produce reports at much greater speed, and because of its increased work load. Although the commission has 31 members, and that sounds like a large number, they are busy people who work for it only part-time. They often find it difficult to get together for the required number of meetings within a three-month period. I am concerned that if the minimum number in a group is reduced from five to three, there may be more perverse decisions than there have been in the past.
Will my hon. Friend say something about the commission's resources? Is it not a good idea to increase the number of staff and, if there is more work, of members rather than cut back on the size of groups? When I spoke to the MMC chairman, Mr. Sydney Lipworth, earlier this week, he explained that when the commission finds adversely, there must be a two thirds majority. Therefore, arithmetically, a membership of five is a useless, awkward
1150
number. The number needs to be six, or three. It may be that, in future, the commission will work with groups of four, who will be able to reach a two thirds majority if necessary.
I understand the arithmetic of the proposal for groups of three, but I am not sure that that is the right way to go. It will be better to increase the number of commission members. Those who serve it are busy people. Their work load is greater, and they work within greater time constraints. Hon. Members have remarked that they do an important job. We expect them to be objective and to act in the public interest. They make decisions of the utmost importance. If the Secretary of State overturns the commission's decisions, he is always open to criticism. It is important that its members reach the right decisions in the national interest. As has been said, if the membership of any inquiry is reduced by one, it is much more likely that it will reach a contentious decision. The larger the number involved, the better. Reducing groups to a membership of three is fraught with danger.
12.12 am
Mr. John Fraser: For three years, I had responsibility for interviewing and recommending the appointment of commission members. Often, it was difficult to find candidates willing to serve. Although it is a part-time job, it is arduous. I was at pains to ensure the right balance as between men and women, and between those representing trade unions and workers, the consumer, academics economists, industrialists, and those with a detailed knowledge of commerce. It was difficult finding the best people, because they were already preoccupied with their own businesses and had little time to spare for the commission's work.
It is right that a wide range of interests should be involved in examining references to the commission. but if the group number is reduced to three, it will be easier to fix the panel's composition. With only three members, it may be necessary to omit a consumer or trade representative —but that is a risk inherent in reducing the membership from five to three.
There is also the risk, to which the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) adverted, concerning quorums. It is not possible for the Secretary of State to make an order under section 75 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 unless the recommendation is by at least two thirds of the panel's membership. I remember that on one occasion—partly because of a misprint in the Fair Trading Act 1973, and partly because of the pregnancy of one of the panel's members—there was great difficulty in achieving a recommendation on which the Minister involved could act. If the number is reduced from five to three, and if one of the members falls ill, or discovers a conflict of interest, and is unable to perform his or her duties, it will be impossible with just two members—unless there is unanimity—to reach a recommendation on which the Minister can act.
On the other hand, I can see the sense of reducing the number to three for reasons of speed and economy if the inquiry is concerned with matters of an unimportant nature. It is a difficult balance to reach. The Minister's problem is that, because the chairman of the commission acts in a semi-judicial capacity, it is hard for him to give undertakings on the chairman's behalf. I hope, however, that he can assure the House that limiting the number to

1151
three will be restricted to cases in which that is appropriate because the matter is not controversial, of major interest or concerned with large assets. Although he cannot give such an undertaking on behalf of a quasi-judicial figure, I hope that the Minister will tell us that that assurance has been given to him voluntarily by the chairman.
I have only one other reservation. I feel that, with five members on a panel, it is much more likely that the commission will take into account matters apart from those of purely economic interest. The Government's stated policy—and they have exerted pressure in this regard—is that competition issues are the main issues to be considered on a commission reference. But many other questions are important, such as whether research and development remains in this country or goes to the United States or elsewhere. Employment too is an important public interest consideration. In such cases as the AI case of 1978, there is the possibility of a whole sector of British industry being destroyed by an acquisition. I fear that in large and controversial cases matters of public interest that have been largely ignored and downgraded by the Government are at much greater risk of being ignored if a panel has three members rather than if it has five.
12.16 am
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell us whether the change will mean that the commission will be able to handle more references? Has there been any indication of restrictions on references, and does he intend to show more liberality as a consequence?
On the basis of an answer given to me by the previous Minister—now Minister for Public Transport—I understand that the commission is the only body that can advise disinvestment in the case of an investigation into a merger previously agreed by the commission. I am particularly worried about cases in which a previous recommendation has been made. If information comes up in the interim to show that the original information was wrong, that the reports on which it was based were bogus and that there was a case for a review, it would be very unfortunate if there were no possibility of any advice on disinvestment. It would mean that the aggrieved party would have no power whatever. The guilty people could perhaps be fined or sent to gaol, but the previously agreed merger would go ahead.
I hope that my hon. Friend can give me an assurance that, because of the extra resources being made available, in future cases in which uncertainty or new evidence arises out of a previously agreed merger, the aggrieved party will be given the advantage of going to the commission, which alone has the power to recommend disinvestment.
12.18 am
Mr. Maude: As you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a very narrow order. It makes two small-scale changes on which for the most part tonight's debate has focused.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) paid a generous tribute—as have other Conservative Members, and the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) —to the work of the MMC. I wholeheartedly endorse what they have said. The
1152
commission is a thoroughly professional body whose members give unstintingly of their time, often well beyond the call of duty.
My hon. Friend asked whether investigations would continue to be thorough and fair. Of course they will; the change will make no difference to that. Will more smaller mergers be referred? No. The criteria for referring a merger will remain the same. As we have said on many occasions, the principal criterion is whether there is a competition issue.
Some hon. Members asked whether it will be possible to make more references. There has never been any question of not making a reference because of lack of resources. That is not an issue. The possibility of expanding the capacity and making more references does not arise. Several hon. Members said that there are more types of reference that are available. Under the Water Bill and the Electricity Bill the role of the MMC will be expanded once again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester also spoke about the possibility of perverse decisions because smaller groups might make more subjective decisions. The order does not mean that every reference will be considered by a group of only three members. It will remain open to the chairman of the MMC to appoint as many members as he deems appropriate. At present the minimum number is five, and ordinarily six are appointed. He may well decide that in most cases he should continue to appoint six. There is no pressure on him to appoint fewer than that and the matter is within his discretion. Hon. Members have spoken about the quality and standing of the chairman, and I am sure that we all respect the basis on which he makes his decisions.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) asked from where the impetus for change came. He will have seen in the policy paper on mergers that we issued last March proposals to improve efficiency and speed in the MMC. I cannot honestly say whether the idea came from the MMC or from my Department. These matters are properly discussed between us. They are operational matters and it does not much matter where the impetus came from. It is a sensible change and no one has seriously argued against it.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye also asked about the Telecommunications Act 1984 and why the order does not change the requirement for a minimum of five. That is simply because for one reason or another the Telecommunications Act does not apply section 24 of the Competition Act 1980 which, in turn, enabled schedule 3 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 to be amended by order. This was an oversight and is being put right in the Companies Bill which is now being considered in another place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with that explanation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) asked whether more resources should be made available to the MMC. He will know that the Companies Bill provides for charging so that when a merger is proposed a fee is payable to the competition authorities. As a result of that, I intend to make it possible to increase the resources available to the competition authorities so that speed and efficiency can be further improved.
The hon. Member for Norwood spoke about the reduced number of commissioners and about any change that that might make to the quality of decisions. He will know from his experience that the quality of the members

1153
of any inquiry is of the highest importance. I assure him again that when a reference is made to the MMC it is able to consider any aspect of the public interest. We make reference decisions principally on the basis of competition, but that does not mean that when a reference is made the MMC is limited to that. It can consider any aspect of the public interest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asked about the possibility of advice being given about disinvestment. I canot think of what case he was referring to, but I assure him that, as I said earlier, there is no question of references not being made because of a lack of resources. Therefore, the matter that he mentioned does not arise.
That brings me to the points raised by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), whose speech was perhaps not made in his finest flippant form. Nevertheless, he performed his usual task of taking us back through the mists of time to the dear old days when mergers were not done by the market. There was then no question of shareholders being able to sell their shares to whoever they wanted. Mergers were done by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation and the man in Whitehall knew best, although, luckily, no one paid any credence to that. When the hon. Gentleman says that British industry is extremely vulnerable, he is living in a bygone age. British industry is not vulnerable; it is doing extremely well. The balance of acquisitions is heavily in the United Kingdom's favour, and that is a sign of the great strength of our economy and industry, not a sign of weakness.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I did not say that the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation or the man in Whitehall knew best, but we must take as the basis of tonight's debate the fact that the Monopolies and Mergers
1154
Commission knows best. Is the Minister saying that the market knows best and that it should determine the future of British industry?
Mr. Maude: We have said repeatedly that we shall only ordinarily refer a matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission if competition is seriously threatened. If it is not seriously threatened, the shareholders should sell their shares to someone offering the money for them. That is a perfectly proper principle and there is no reason why it should not operate. The hon. Gentleman seeks to protect inefficient management from those who are prepared to back their judgment with their money and believe that they can manage those assets and that company better. That approach has been tried and tested and is thoroughly satisfactory.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that our approach to references is affected by political considerations. He will have studied this and will know that, in the 18 months since my noble Friend and I have been responsible for these matters, we have followed the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. We may be frail politicians who are subject to such pressures, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to make such an accusation in respect of Sir Gordon Borrie. That criticism also falls well wide of the mark.
This is a narrowly defined order, but it raises some wider issues. I have no hesitation in recommending it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Monopolies and Mergers Commission (Performance of Functions) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 26th October 1988, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

West Midlands Serious Crime Squad
Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
12.27 am
Ms. Clare Short: I wish to raise the case of my constituent, Paul Dandy, and further serious allegations that have been put to me, as I have investigated his case, by a number of solicitors and retired policemen in Birmingham. The widespread allegation is that the West Midlands serious crime squad has for many years been engaged in serious and widespread malpractice and that that situation continues today.
I have heard before of allegations of malpractice in the police force and did not think that I would be easily shocked, but the degree and breadth of the allegations of malpractice in the West Midlands serious crime squad which have come to me from solicitors in Birmingham has shocked me. I hope that the Minister will take the issue seriously tonight and not dismiss it.
My constituent, Paul Dandy, was arrested in February 1987 and held as a category A prisoner at Winson Green prison for 10 months during which time he attempted to commit suicide. In November 1987, all charges against him were dropped because his solicitor had obtained forensic evidence which showed that his confession—the charge against him was based on his confession—had been forged by the police. The prosecution consulted its forensic expert, who confirmed the finding and the charge was dropped. The technique that proved this is new. The equipment used is called electrostatic detection apparatus. It can copy a page that has been laid below another one and bring out, through the imprint, a copy of what was written on the page above. The test showed that the crucial page containing Mr. Dandy's admission had been rewritten and the confession inserted. It had not been there when the statement was taken.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Dandy made a very serious complaint against the police. I notice that the Minister is not listening to this short debate about a very serious matter. It amounts to conspiracy to pervert the course of justice—forgery by the police in an attempt to frame an individual on a very serious charge.
What happened then was very shocking. The case was investigated by the Birmingham police force. A person from outside the force was not appointed, which is supposed to be done in a serious case such as this. There was a long delay before any inquiries were made. The guy who was appointed to carry out the inquiry was on holiday at the time. After that long delay, the eventual finding was that the police concerned were not to be charged with a criminal offence, or even disciplined for having fabricated evidence. They were merely reprimanded for disposing of the original page of the statement.
Mr. Dandy's solicitors contacted me about the matter. I went to the Police Complaints Authority. I was told that it was very worried about the case, that it was also very worried in general about the behaviour of the serious crime squad in the west midlands but that it could do little because Parliament required the authority to prove cases beyond reasonable doubt. It said that attempts were being made to clean up the serious crime squad in the west midlands. I hope the Minister will tell us more about that.
All that is bad enough, but I am afraid that the story gets very much worse. When I met Mr. Dandy's solicitors
1156
they told me that allegations of malpractice against the serious crime squad were widespread. They suggested to me that I should contact a number of other solicitors in Birmingham and the west midlands who could provide me with the details. I do not have the time now to outline all the cases that were put to me when I telephoned a number of solicitors. I have decided not to give the names of the police officers or of cases. The major import of what I want to say tonight is not that injustice has been done in a number of individual cases—bad though that is and true though that is, and I should like justice to be done for my constituent, Mr. Dandy—but that there is a pattern of malpractice. I shall describe it briefly. I want my remarks to be taken seriously and action to be taken to clean up the serious crime squad in the west midlands.
A solicitor in Wolverhampton told me of a case he had handled in the Dudley Green court and of another one in the Stafford Crown court. Three people were involved in each case. They all made supposed confessions, which they denied. As soon as he heard of this new forensic test the solicitor obtained the approval of the court to obtain the original statements. Until that time he had been given only photocopies. The test can only be made with the originals that contain the imprints.
There was a delay of six weeks before the papers were handed over. He made a number of demands that they should be handed over and then he was told that all the papers, involving six individuals in two separate cases, had been lost. That experienced solicitor, who handles a wide range of cases in Wolverhampton, said that the serious crime squad in the west midlands is rotten, that that is known by solicitors throughout the west midlands, that this practice had gone on for many years but that the recent new test had caught out the serious crime squad. He also said that respected judges had complained on a number of occasions but that nothing had been done.
Another solicitor in Birmingham told me of a case involving four men who were arrested six months after a jewellery robbery involving goods to the value of £40,000. It was a serious robbery. The only evidence against them was confessions. The same forensic test was used. In one case it showed that two pages had been inserted in a five-page statement. Three pages contained no confession. All the damaging stuff had been inserted on the other two pages.
Another person who was charged in the same case had supposedly made a confession in 14 minutes. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the amount of time during which people are interrogated is now recorded. The judge agreed that the policeman should be asked to rewrite the confession in 14 minutes. He attempted to do so—presumably writing at top speed, faster than one would when taking down a statement—and it took him 21 minutes and some seconds to do so. The case was thrown out of court. His solicitor said that such things had been going on in the West Midlands serious crime squad for at least 15 years, the time he has been practising in the area. He thought it was astonishing and worrying that absolutely nothing had been done about it.
Another fine solicitor whom I have known for many years as a friend was involved in another bad case which I have not time to outline but which has been publicised in the past. He said to me, "Dandy is the tip of an iceberg." No solicitor in Birmingham would say anything other than that the serious crime squad is fundamentally dishonest. The men in the squad decide who are guilty and frame

1157
them. The malpractice goes back to at least the mid-1970s. I remind the House that the serious case of the Birmingham bombers goes back to that time. Many people are convinced that the wrong men were convicted of that terrible crime. So we are talking about something widespread, deep and serious. This solicitor was angry that in the few cases where there was evidence which might have led to things being cleaned up, there was a cover-up and in the individual cases nothing was done.
A retired policeman who served honourably in the Birmingham police force says that the problem is that the serious crime squad is an elitist squad in which there is enormous pressure and competition to get results and convictions. Many men who have served in it for a long time have fallen into malpractice and protect each other constantly. They cut corners. Everyone knows it. The policeman said that other policemen look the other way and that many good policemen in Birmingham refuse promotion so as not to have to serve in that squalid way. Ambitious policemen go into the squad and they have to go along with the malpractice.
I hope that the Minister will not tell me that the Police Complaints Authority will investigate the cases I have outlined and that justice will be done. In the case of Paul Dandy the Police Complaints Authority could not ensure that justice was done. The widespread allegations about the position in the west midlands are so serious that we need more than incomplete investigations in individual cases.
I want the Minister to consider using the police inspectorate. I understand that the Home Secretary talked recently about using the inspectorate to ensure efficiency and good value for money. I assume that the inspectorate has the power to move into the West Midlands serious crime squad in Birmingham to make a full investigation and clean up the squad by moving out the men whose names occur time and time again. A policeman involved in one case to which I have referred was also involved in the case of the Birmingham six.
The squad must be reorganised. Some people who are not guilty are being framed and put behind bars. The new forensic test has only recently become available but according to the solicitors the malpractice has been going on for years. When policemen with a bad reputation appear in court for the prosecution their record is brought into play, juries do not believe their evidence and people are acquitted. I am told by solicitors in Birmingham that serious criminals are being acquitted because of the reputation of senior figures in the West Midlands serious crime squad.
I hope that the Minister will take the matter seriously. I considered that it was right to bring it before the House rather than seek private meetings with, for example, the chief constable, who in any case is about to leave us and go off to Northern Ireland. The people in the west midlands are entitled to know about this and they are entitled to action to clean up the malpractice. I very much hope that the Minister will assist us.
12.39 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): As the House will appreciate, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) has made a series of important and serious
1158
allegations against a force, and I am sure that the chief constable of that force will give serious consideration to the points that she has made.
This debate gives me the opportunity to make clear the arrangements for handling complaints and allegations against police officers in England and Wales. It is essential that these arrangements—and the statutory responsibili ties of the parties concerned—should be understood., for it is against this background that the case of Mr. Paul Dandy and the other allegations referred to by the hon. Lady must be seen.
The procedures for dealing with complaints against the police and with police discipline matters are set down in part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the associated regulations. Where a chief officer receives a complaint against an officer of his force who is a chief superintendent or below, he is required to record it. If it cannot be resolved informally, the chief officer must arrange for it to be investigated formally. As the hon. Lady knows, complaints against senior officers are matters for the Police Complaints Authority. Certain complaints—for example, where death, serious injury or corruption are alleged—must be referred to the Police Complaints
Authority.
Ms. Short: I am familiar with the police complaints procedure, so I hope that the Minister will not filibuster and simply describe that procedure. The questions that. I have put tonight are far more serious than that. We understand the procedures and we have been through them, but they have failed. We have also discovered a pattern of widespread malpractice, which is what we want the Minister to address tonight.
Mr. Hogg: It is never my practice to filibuster, but it is my practice to give the House a clear understanding of the issues in such a case and the procedures that apply. That is what I propose to do now.
Certain complaints—for example, where death, serious
injury or corruption are alleged—must be referred to the Police Complaints Authority. In other cases, the chief officer may, nevertheless, decide that it is in the public interest to refer the case.
The authority is totally independent of the police and the Government. Its job is to see that a complaint is dealt with thoroughly and, above all, fairly. None of the members of the authority is a police officer or has ever been one. The authority has two main functions. First, it supervises the investigation by the police of serious complaints and others of an exceptional nature. Secondly, it has the final say about whether a police officer should be charged with a breach of discipline.
These powers are considerable. It is, for example, required to approve the appointment of the police officer conducting an investigation, and if it is not satisfied it may direct that another is appointed. Where the report of an investigation indicates that a criminal offence may have been committed by a police officer, it is for the chief officer to consider whether the police officer should be charged and, if so, to bring that before the Director of Public Prosecutions. In addition, the Police Complaints Authority may direct a chief officer to send an investigation report to the director to consider bringing criminal charges. It is entirely a matter for the director as to whether charges should be brought.

1159
The House will note from what I have said that my right right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no part in these procedures. It would be quite wrong for him to be involved in such matters in view of the fact that he is the appellate authority in police discipline matters.
I turn now to the specific case of Mr. Dandy. The hon. Lady has outlined the circumstances of his arrest in February 1987 by the West Midlands serious crime squad, those leading to the decision by the prosecution to call no evidence against him and the dropping of the charges. Subsequently, as the hon. Lady has said, Mr. Dandy made a formal complaint against certain police officers. The complaint was referred by the chief constable of the West Midlands force to the Police Complaints Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The authority then supervised an investigation into the complaint—once again, strictly in compliance with the legislation.
After consideration of the investigating officer's report, the Director of Public Prosecutions decided—and it was his decision alone—that the evidence did not justify the bringing of any criminal proceedings against any police officers.
Subsequently, however, disciplinary charges were brought against three officers with the agreement of the Police Complaints Authority. They were dealt with by the chief officer under the provisions of the Police Discipline Regulations 1985.
Ms. Short: Will the Minister confirm that the officers were disciplined not for fabricating or forging a confession, but simply for having disposed of the original piece of paper and for nothing else?
Mr. Hogg: Broadly speaking, the hon. Lady is correct, but I do not have in front of me the exact provision of the discipline regulations under which the officers were charged.
Mr. Dandy's allegations were fully considered and dealt with by the proper authorities under the statutory provisions. Home Office Ministers have no part in this process and it would be wrong for me to comment on the outcome of proceedings that were clearly in accordance with established procedures and the statute.
The hon. Lady made a number of allegations that were more general in character. I understand that complaints from other members of the public about the West Midlands serious crime squad have been, or are being, investigated under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority. These investigations must take their proper course.
1160
I turn to the specific allegations made by the hon. Lady —specific in the sense that they were descriptive, although she did not, and I understand her reasons, identify the officers or give such close particulars that one could identify them. If people are alleging that there is serious misconduct in the force, and especially in the serious crime squad, they must go to the chief constable with specific allegations, backed by evidence. If they do that, the procedures, which have been established by statute, will take their course. That is the procedure laid down by Parliament to deal with matters of this kind.
If the hon. Lady is in possession of detailed allegations which, on the face of them, are credible and for which there is supporting evidence, I urge her to lay those allegations, together with the evidence, before the chief constable. If she does not wish to do that but the complainants do, I urge her to urge them to do so. I take advantage of my presence at the Dispatch Box to do just that. If there are serious allegations that can be substantiated, those complaints must be placed before the chief constable and the procedures that I outlined at the beginning of my speech, and for which, incidentally, I was criticised by the hon. Lady, will then operate. That is the proper way to proceed.
Ms. Short: There have been several complaints and there have been unsatisfactory outcomes in a large number of those cases. That is part of the problem. I shall, of course, encourage everyone to continue to use the complaints procedure, although our confidence in it has been deeply dented. However, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary is housed at the Home Office and it has powers to ensure that police forces around the country operate up to standard. This matter is so serious that the inspectorate should be sent in and the West Midlands serious crime squad cleaned up. I hope that the Minister will respond to that suggestion.
Mr. Hogg: The inspectorate is not the proper method of dealing with problems of that nature, which involve allegations of specific misconduct against a number of named officers, as I understand it. The proper procedure is to adopt that which I have outlined. There is no other proper procedure. I urge the hon. Lady to do what I have put to her, and I urge those who have put complaints to her to do that which I have outlined to the House.
Home Office Ministers have no power to intervene. There is a thorough and fair system for dealing with allegations against police officers and it provides for an independent element in the form of the Police Complaints Authority. I am sure that if allegations are properly made, they will be examined in a fair and independent manner.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to One o'clock

WALES

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the most recent figure for empty local authority housing; how many of these properties have been vacant for periods over six, 12 and 24 months, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The total number of local authority empty dwellings as at 1 April 1988 was 3,365; the number vacant for more than six months was 389. Information on the number vacant for 12 and 24 months is not held centrally.

  Motorways (Matrix Indicators)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report a list of those sections of motorways in Wales fitted with matrix indicators which permit written messages to be conveyed on them.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  There are no written message matrix indicators on the M4 in Wales. There are however nine variable message signs between Newport and the Severn bridge and 71 matrix indicators displaying traffic signs over the whole length.

  Meetings
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times he has met the farmers' organisations of Wales since October 1987, giving the details of each meeting with each organisation.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Since October 1987 I have met farmers' organisations 15 times. Details are as follows:22 October 1987—Meeting with the Farmers Union of Wales (FUW) to discuss the hill livestock compensatory allowances (HLCA) review.
  28 October 1987—Meeting with the National Farmers Union (NFU) Wales to discuss HLCA review.
  28 October 1987—Ministerial meeting with the NFUs for England. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, to discuss HLCA review.
  10 February 1988—Meeting with the FUW to discuss a wide range of agricultural subjects including extensification, stabilisers and milk quotas.
  30 March 1988—Meeting with the NFU to discuss a range of agricultural issues.
  10 May 1988—Speech to the FUW annual general meeting about sheepmeat regime and general matters of interest to the agriculture industry.
  19 July 1988—Meetings with the NFU, FUW and the Country Landowners Association (CLA) at the Royal Welsh show to discuss general subjects of current interest to the agriculture sector.
  31 August 1988—Visit to mid-Wales co-operatives with representatives of the Welsh Agricultural Organisation Society (WAOS) to discuss co-operation in the Welsh agriculture sector.
  13 September 1988—Visit to West Midland Farmers Association to open its new premises at Bridgend.
  562
  20 October 1988—Meeting with the FUW to discuss HLCA review.
  25 October 1988—Visit to mid and west Wales region of the Organic Growers Association to discuss general topics of interest to organic farming.
  27 October 1988—Meeting with the NFU Wales to discuss HLCA review.
  27 October 1988—Ministerial meeting with the NFUs for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to discuss HLCA review.
  2 November 1988—Speech to the Welsh Agricultural College: Farming Conference on the outlook for Welsh agriculture and subjects of general interest to the industry.
  8 December 1988—Meeting with the NFU to discuss the Wool Board and agriculture generally.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times he has met consumer organisations in Wales since October 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Since 1987, I have met Welsh representatives of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and the chairman of the Transport Users Consultative Committee (Wales). My hon. Friend the Minister of State has hosted a meeting with the chairman and members of the Welsh Consumer Council, and attended the annual conference of parent-teacher associations in Wales. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has met the Association of Welsh Community Health Councils. All three of us are consumers and meet other consumers every day.

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to make any changes to his Department's running costs and cash limits in the current year.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, cash limits are being changed as follows:

  The cash limit on class XVII, vote 5 is being increased by £18,789,000 from £223,766,000 to £242,555,000. This increase covers additional provision of £18,803,000 for trunk road construction, of £261,000 for historic buildings and ancient monuments and of £100,000 for the cost of the nurses' clinical regrading, partly offset by savings of £375,000 elsewhere.

  The cash limit on class XVII, vote 8 is being increased by £10 million from £777,017,000 to £787,017,000. This increase will enable health authorities in Wales to meet the estimated total costs of the nurses' clinical grading exercise which I announced on 4 November 1988.

  The running costs limit for the Welsh Office is being reduced by £1,000 from £41,081,000 to £41,080,000. This decrease will be offset by a corresponding increase in the running costs limit for the office of the Minister for the Civil Service (class XX, vote 1) and reflects the transfer of costs for recruitment under the direct entry grade 7 competition 1988. There is a consequent reduction of £1,000 in the cash limit on class XVII, vote 9 from £42,526,000 to £42,525,000.

  The cash limit on class XVII, vote 11 is being increased by £1,000 from £2,796,000 to £2,797,000. This increase is matched by a corresponding reduction of £1,000 to the cash limit on class XVII, vote 10 from £1,014,800,000 to £1,014,799,000.
  563
  The net increase resulting from these cash limit changes will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Road Construction Costs
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will give(a) the amount of finance made available in the form of grant or loan by the European Economic Community towards the construction of the Welsh section of the M4 and (b) the actual and estimated costs of construction, giving all figures at current prices;

  (2) if he will give (a) the amount of finance made available in the form of grant or loan by the European Economic Community towards the construction of (i) the A55 Conway tunnel, (ii) the other Welsh sections of the A55 and (iii) the Welsh section of the A494 Queensferry bypass, (b) the latest estimated cost of the Conway tunnel and (c) the actual and estimated costs of the improvements to the other Welsh sections of the A55 and the A494 Queensferry bypass, giving all figures at current prices.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Somalia (Refugees)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give consideration to the position of refugees from the northern area of Somalia, with a view to giving special assistance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have already provided over £2·3 million for relief programmes to help some 400,000 refugees who have fled into Ethiopia from civil strife in northern Somalia since the middle of last year. Over £1 million of this assistance has been channelled through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and £1·3 million through British charities for water and health facilities. We shall continue to consider sympathetically further requests for assistance.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Costs and Productivity
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when his Department intends to respond to the findings of the study carried out for the Government by PA Cambridge Consultants into geographical variations in costs and productivity.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department commissioned this study to assess the extent and source of differences in industrial costs and productivity in English regions. I have seen the study and noted its findings. The study was published on 20 July 1988 and a copy has been placed in the library.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many oral parliamentary questions he has answered by written reply, in connection with his duties as 564
  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, because the question was not reached at Question Time, for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Newton
  In respect of my responsibilities for the Duchy of Lancaster, there were no such questions during 1988.

  Companies Act Inquiries
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which investigations under sections 432, 466 and 442 of the Companies Act have been completed since 1 February 1988.

  Mr. Maude
  The following investigations under these sections have been completed since 1 February 1988:

  Company Name

  Type of Inquiry

  Signal Life Assurance Co. Limited

  S.432

  Summer International plc (formerly Sumrie Clothes plc)

  S.442 and S.446

  Guinness plc

  S.432 and S.442

  Consolidated Gold Fields plc

  S.442

  Bremner plc

  S.442

  House of Fraser Holdings plc

  S.432

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the management target for the duration of inquiries under sections 432, 466 and 442 of the Companies Act.

  Mr. Maude
  The usual practice is to agree a provisional time scale for the investigation with the inspectors at the outset and to hold regular progress meetings thereafter.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which inquiries under sections 432, 466 and 442 of the Companies Act are currently outstanding.

  Mr. Maude
  The following investigations under section 432 and 442 of the Companies Act 1985 remain outstanding. There are no outstanding investigations under section 446.

  Date of Appointment

  Company Name

  Type of Investigations

  8 November 1982

  Minet Holdings plc

  S.432

  8 November 1982

  WMD Underwriting Agencies Limited

  S.432

  11 March 1983

  Graylaw Holdings plc

  S.432

  11 March 1983

  Link Service Stations Limited

  S.432

  4 October 1983

  Bank Street Securities Limited

  S.432

  4 October 1983

  Pennine Commercial Holdings Limited

  S.432

  20 November 1987

  Animal Defence Society Limited (The)

  S.432

  10 June 1988

  James Ferguson Holdings plc

  S.432

  4 July 1988

  James Ferguson Holdings plc

  S.442

  4 July 1988

  Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers Limited

  S.432

  22 July 1988

  James Neill Holdings plc

  S.442

  565

  Date of Appointment

  Company Name

  Type of Investigations

  22 July 1988

  F. H. Lloyd Holdings plc

  S.442

  22 July 1988

  Francis Industries Limited

  S.442

  16 August 1988

  Rotaprint plc

  S.432

  16 August 1988

  Rotaprint plc

  S.442

  1 September 1988

  Aldermanbury Trust plc

  S.432

  20 October 1988

  Consolidated Gold Fields plc

  S.442

  19 December 1988

  County NatWest Limited

  S.432

  19 December 1988

  County NatWest Securities Limited

  S.432

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the average length of time for completion of inquiries under sections 432, 466 and 442 of the Companies Act begun since May 1979.

  Mr. Maude
  Two years three months.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many prosecutions have resulted from inquiries under sections 432, 466 and 442 of the Companies Act since May 1979.

  Mr. Maude
  To date, there have been eight prosecutions following such inquiries since May 1979.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of the public appointments made by his Department have been from the ethnic minorities; and what proportion this represents of the total.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of the public appointments made by him since June 1987 have been(a) men and (b) women.

  Mr. Forth
  Whilst information in the form requested is not collected, details are given each year in the publication "Public Bodies" of the number of men and women holding public appointments. The latest edition, for 1988, shows that at 1 April 1988 903 men and 227 women held appointments made by my Department.

  Inner City Renewal
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has had on inner city renewal and urban regeneration and the likely impact of value added tax on non-domestic construction on the viability of private sector schemes in these areas in general; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have received a number of representations about the imposition of VAT on non-domestic construction. following last year's decision of the European court. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Post Office Counters Ltd
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on whether he has any plans for privatising Post Office Counters Ltd.

  Mr. Forth
  The Post Office has no plans to sell its subsidiary Post Office Counters Ltd. to the private sector.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much of the broadcasting spectrum will be allocated to(a) Channel 5, and (b) MVDS.

  Mr. Atkins
  As stated in our recent White Paper "Broadcasting in the '90s: Competition, Choice and Quality", the fifth terrestrial television service will make use of two standard 8 MHz channels, 35 and 37, in the UHF broadcasting band; whilst decisions on the amount of choice of spectrum for MVDS will be announced by the end of April this year.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether it is his intention to release additional frequencies to the radio authority for ancillary services, programme links and radio communications.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department is currently considering how best to meet the rapidly growing needs of both existing and prospective programme-makers for additional spectrum for the range of programme-making and related activities.

  Recycling
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to promote further measures to encourage the recycling of industrial materials.

  Mr. Atkins
  We shall continue with our present initiatives of sector conferences; promoting awareness of the benefits of recycling to industry, schools and the general public; and the provision of technical advice through our Warren Spring laboratory. A series of seminars will be held throughout the United Kingdom during the next few months to promote the collection of waste paper for recycling and a conference on plastics waste and recycling is planned for September.

  Where appropriate, further initiatives will be introduced.

  Anti-dumping Action
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many anti-dumping actions have been initiated by the European Commission against Japanese companies over the last three years; and what have been the results of these actions, broken down into duty imposed, price undertaking agreed, or no duty imposed.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  During the period in question the European Commission initiated 12 investigations into alleged dumping by Japanese companies in response to complaints from European industries. Two of these resulted in the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties, two were terminated without an anti-dumping remedy, while the remaining eight cases are still under investigation. In one of these cases provisional antidumping duties have been imposed.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when discussions began between the British Steel Corporation and Firth Brown Ltd. for the transfer of the British Steel Corporation's river Don works, press forging and drop forging divisions, Sheffield to Firth Brown Ltd.

  Mr. Atkins
  These discussions, which took place in the early 1970s, were primarily a matter for the British Steel Corporation and information concerning them is not readily available within the Department.

  British Coal
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the investment programme of the British Coal Corporation will be published.

  Mr. Maude
  The report is published today.

  The commission was asked to investigate the investment programme of British Coal. It took into account British Coal's achievements and looked to the future, particularly in the light of the changing environment posed by privatisation of electricity supply. The commission concluded that British Coal should take a more positive view of the opportunities which existed to influence vital aspects of its business future, for example, in its response to the threat of future imports.

  The Commission found that in general investment and post-investment appraisal had worked effectively, but singled out Asfordby new mine for particular comment. It disagreed with British Coal's view that the project had ever been demonstrably viable according to British Coal's investment criteria. However, the commission accepted that the project now has sunk costs and that this, combined with agreement on six-day working, might mean that the remainder of the project could be shown to be a worthwhile investment. However the commission recommended that in future the sort of conditional approval which was given for expenditure in Asfordby, in advance of its showing a sound financial prospectus, should not be allowed, except where other factors were explicably judged to be of sufficient weight, were clearly laid out in the project appraisal, and a decision to proceed was made at board level.

  Looking to the future, the commission recommended that British Coal should now commit itself firmly to

  Expenditure at current prices

  £ million

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89 (estimates provision)

  (a) Regional selective assistance

  England

  59·1

  46·7

  48·6

  54·4

  68·7

  62·2

  72·9

  74·8

  100·6

  122·9

  157·0

  Scotland

  14·9

  17·8

  22·3

  19·7

  21·6

  28·2

  38·2

  55·0

  43·9

  46·0

  60·4

  Wales

  30·3

  18·8

  10·7

  9·2

  15·5

  18·2

  25·1

  28·0

  35·6

  36·7

  47·3

  (b) Regional development grants

  England

  238·1

  210·0

  273·8

  351·8

  280·7

  223·8

  209·1

  166·5

  254·3

  139·3

  161·6

  Scotland

  107·3

  70·2

  113·3

  142·7

  287·3

  143·0

  109·2

  107·5

  170·2

  78·0

  60·3

  Wales

  71·5

  50·7

  103·5

  122·2

  121·5

  72·1

  92·7

  84·4

  88·8

  53·4

  65·6

  568
  specific quantified financial objectives for the next five years. All investment projects, and the investment programme as a whole, should be related to these targets. British Coal should also continue to examine the prospects of further simplifying its organisational structure to enable it to respond flexibly to a rapidly changing business environment. The commission commended British Coal's efforts to introduce more flexible working.

  The commission also recommended that British Coal should update and run its forecasting models more frequently, and should incorporate the United Kingdom coal market into its world model. It should use its models to consider the effect on the industry of a wider range of possible developments, including ESI privatisation, exchange rate movements, competition from alternative fuels and possible rapid growth in world trade in coal.

  The commission made some 20 other recommendations relevant to British Coal's investment policy. It concluded that British Coal was not operating against the public interest in the areas falling within the reference.

  Detailed case studies are included as appendices to the report.

  British Coal will be producing a preliminary response to the commission's findings within three to four months, in the light of which my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Energy will inform the House of his views.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide figures for spending on(a) regional selective assistance and (b) regional development grant for (i) Scotland, (ii) England, (iii) Wales and (iv) Northern Ireland for each year from 1978–79 to 1988–89, and estimated figures for 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92, in cash and at 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 24 January 1989]: Gross expenditure on regional development grant and regional selective assistance in England, Scotland and Wales in the financial years 1978–79 to 1987–88 is shown in the tables together with current estimates provision for 1988–89. Information about planned expenditure on regional assistance in future years will shortly be published in the public expenditure White Paper.

  The RDG and RSA schemes do not operate in Northern Ireland.
  569

  Expenditure at constant (1987–88) prices

  £ million

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89 (estimates provision)

  (a) Regional selective assistance

  England

  121·4

  81·9

  72·0

  73·4

  86·5

  74·9

  83·6

  81·4

  105·9

  122·9

  147·8

  Scotland

  30·6

  31·2

  33·0

  26·6

  27·2

  34·0

  43·8

  59·8

  46·2

  46·0

  56·9

  Wales

  62·2

  33·0

  15·9

  12·4

  19·5

  21·9

  28·8

  30·5

  37·5

  36·7

  44·5

  (b) Regional development grants

  England

  488·9

  368·4

  405·6

  474·8

  353·5

  269·6

  239·8

  181·2

  267·7

  139·3

  152·2

  Scotland

  220·3

  123·2

  167·9

  192·6

  361·8

  172·3

  125·2

  117·0

  179·2

  78·0

  56·8

  Wales

  146·8

  88·9

  153·3

  164·9

  153·0

  86·9

  106·3

  91·8

  93·5

  53·4

  61·8

  Notes:

  1. All figures in the above tables show gross expenditure, that is they exclude domestic receipts and receipts from the European Regional Development fund.

  2. The RDG figures comprise expenditure under the original and revised schemes. The RSA figures incorporate expenditure under industrial and training grants, as well as assistance under the Business Improvement Services and Exchange Risk Guarantee schemes.

  3. Current price data have been converted to constant (1987–88) prices by using the Implied Market Price Gross Domestic Product Deflator (1987–88= 100).

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Legal Profession (Consultation Papers)
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Attorney-General when the Green Paper on the future of the legal profession and the two other consultation papers, which were announced to the House on 24 October 1988 will be published.

  The Attorney-General
  The three papers on the work and organisation of the legal profession, conveyancing by authorised practitioners and contingency fees have been laid before the House today and have been published as command papers. The Government's overall objective in publishing the Green Paper on the work and organisation of the legal profession is to see that the public has the best possible access to legal services and that those services are of the right quality for the particular needs of the clients. The Government hope that this examination of the legal profession will stimulate comment from a wide range of opinion. These are matters not only of concern to lawyers but are of great public importance. The Government will welcome comments on all three papers by 2 May 1989.

PRIME MINISTER

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will outline the division of responsibilities for administration of magistrates courts in England and Wales between different Government Departments.

  The Prime Minister
  Responsibility for the magistrates courts service is shared between the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor. The balance of these responsibilities is defined in the Justices of the Peace Act 1979. Broadly, the Home Secretary has responsibility for matters relating to the staffing and administration of the courts. The Lord Chancellor is responsible for the appointment, training and conduct of magistrates.

  Ozone Layer
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps she plans to take to ensure the atmospheric control technology, the support refrigerant technology for catering, and the packaging material for documentation 570
  for the forthcoming United Kingdom-sponsored conference on the ozone layer depletion and dangers of chlorofluorocarbons, minimises the use of chlorofluorocarbons.

  The Prime Minister
  As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment informed the House on 15 December 1988 at column 725, Government Departments have been asked to review their policies, specifications and practices with a view to promoting the objective of reducing use of chlorofluorocarbons and halons to the maximum possible extent.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Prime Minister if, at her next meeting with President Mitterrand, she will propose the establishment of a joint British-French team to co-ordinate investment, social and environmental criteria for the high-speed rail link between London and Paris, to take account of British Rail's corporate disadvantages; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I can see no advantage in the establishment of such a team. As I have already explained to my hon. Friend, there is regular contact at working level between the British and French Governments on issues related to the construction of rail links to the Channel tunnel.

  VAT
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on interdepartmental co-operation on the implementation of judgment of the European Court on value added tax on new non-domestic construction.

  The Prime Minister
  Any statement on this matter will be made in due course by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the present division of responsibility for consumer affairs among ministries for the representation of the interest of the consumer;
  571
  (2) what steps she is taking to improve the co-ordination between Ministries on consumer protection to provide improved representation for consumers.

  The Prime Minister
  I am satisfied that the present arrangements for representing consumers' interests and the present division of responsibility among Departments work satisfactorily. I have no plans to change the existing arrangements for interdepartmental consultations.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will consider the creation of a consumer affairs Ministry embracing the activities in relation to consumers of a number of Departments; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

TRANSPORT

  Bus Services
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those English counties which, in the last 12 months, have produced(a) timetables for all bus services within their counties, (b) bus route maps, (c) timetables for supported bus services only, and (d) no publicity at all; and if he will indicate in each case whether a charge other than mailing costs is made for the information, where available.

  Mr. Portillo
  This information is not held by my Department. However, information on timetables along the lines requested is available in a commercial publication and I will write to the hon. Member with details.

  Brown Route
  Mr. Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will inquire into the circumstances whereby callers to his Department's regional office in Manchester were informed that the line of the A6 Disley-High lane bypass is likely to be the Brown route; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I am not aware of any callers having been advised as to the likely outcome of the A6 Disley and High lane bypass public consultation. The Department published its proposals for a bypass last January. These took the form of a single favoured route (the Brown) and rejected alternatives. There was a massive response from the public which is still being considered.

  It is likely to be some time yet before an announcement can be made as to whether a scheme should be added to the national trunk road programme and, if so, on the choice of route.

  Railway Line Closures
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria British Rail is required to meet when considering a railway line for closure; and what consultation process it is required to hold.

  Mr. Portillo
  When considering a railway line for closure British Rail should have regard to the objectives which were set for the chairman on 21 October 1986 and which were announced to the House the same day in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet 572
  (Mr. Chapman) at columns 772–74. The statutory railway closure procedure is set out in section 56 of the Transport Act 1962, as modified by section 54 of the Transport Act 1968.

  M1 (Congestion)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he intends to take to improve road conditions on the section of the M1 between the M25 and 15 miles north of Luton.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  On the M1 itself a scheme is being prepared to instal climbing lanes in both directions from junction 9. An experimental automatic incident detection system has also been installed on the northbound carriageway of the M1 from Bedfordshire to Northamptonshire. In conjunction with more frequent matrix signals, this will give motorists better warning of slow-moving or stationary traffic ahead when incidents occur.

  Improvements to alternative routes, including the extension of the M40 to Birmingham, are expected to attract some traffic away from the M1. We are, in our current review of the road programme, considering what further measures are necessary.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning congestion with particular reference to tailbacks being experienced during the early morning from the M25 to about 15 miles north of Luton; and if he will estimate the time lost to motorists in tailbacks on that section of the M1.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  From time to time members of the public write to us about congestion, usually as a result of an incident on the motorway. In our economic assessment of the need for improvement, account is taken of notional delays to vehicles. We do not systematically record information about the time actually lost in tailbacks.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the extent to which junction 8 on the M1 is operating satisfactorily.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We plan to study problems of queuing occurring on the northbound off-slip at junction 8. Temporary difficulties were experienced when the junction was closed to allow for the rebuilding of the A4147. The junction is now fully operational.

  Airline Pilot Training
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will take steps to ensure that there are an adequate number of places in approved commercial airline pilot training establishments to meet current and future demand;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the shortfall in qualified commercial airline pilots and the lack of technologically advanced training facilities to overcome this problem.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Government's policy is that the aviation industry should be responsible for meeting the costs of training whatever skilled manpower it needs. It is
  573
  important to maintain professional pilot training facilities in the United Kingdom and to ensure a supply of high-quality United Kingdom professional pilots, but the responsibility for funding such training must rest with the air transport operators themselves.

  Bridge Heights (Signs)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will introduce legislation to provide for bridge height signs to be displayed in imperial and metric measures.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No fresh legislation is needed. Bridge heights may already be shown in imperial and metric measures.

  Battersea Bridge (Collision)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the collision of a river craft with Battersea bridge on 19 January; and what steps he will be bringing forward to improve river safety and navigation on the Thames.

  Mr. Portillo
  This incident is being investigated by a marine surveyor from the Department as well as by the Port of London Authority. The surveyor will be concerned to establish the causes and to see whether the circumstances point to any steps which can be taken to avoid a recurrence.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to match the subsidy provided by the French Government to Sociéte Nationale de Chemins de Fer for its Channel tunnel rail plans, by making available to British Rail additional funds to enable it to meet essential environmental costs relevant to a new line of railway from the tunnel to London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 prohibits Government subsidies in connection with British Rail's Channel tunnel rail services. But I expect BR's proposals for a new line to take full account of environmental considerations.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much public money(a) has already been spent on the docklands light railway, and (b) is planned to be spent in the next three years.

  Mr. Portillo
  Public expenditure on the initial docklands light railway and City extension is expected to reach some £140 million by the end of this financial year. Public expenditure in the following three years on the City extension is forecast to total some £45 million. In addition to this Olympia and York the developers of Canary wharf are contributing £68 million. The cost of the Beckton extension will be met by the LDDC out of the increases in the value of its land holdings generated by the railway.

  Manchester Airport (Accident)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the reply to the right hon. Member 574
  for Manchester, Wythenshawe of 12 January, Official Report, column 728, if he will now summarise in a statement to the House the main findings of the report on the British Airtours Boeing 737 accident at Manchester airport on 22 August 1985.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There has been no request for a review board, so we expect to publish the full report on 13 March. No useful purpose would be served by publishing a summary of the findings before that. The report has already been seen in draft by the CAA and by other par ties to the investigation. Relevant recommendations have been acted upon.

  A40
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if there are any plans to improve the traffic flow on the A40 at the remaining road junctions in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Yes. Improvements are planned or under construction at the four remaining junctions on the A40 in London as follows:

  Swakeleys Road
  An underpass is under construction and due for completion Spring 1990.

  Long Lane
  Work is to start on construction of an underpass later this year.

  Gipsy Corner Western Circus
  Draft orders proposing grade separation at these junctions were published in March 1988.

  Severn Bridge
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give(a) the amount of finance made available in the form of grant or loans by the European Economic Community towards the construction of the M4 Severn bridge and (b) the total actual cost of construction, giving all figures at current prices.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The United Kingdom was not a member of the EEC when the existing Severn crossing was constructed in 1961–66.

  The cost of construction of the Severn bridge alone was £ 63·8 million, and the Severn crossing as a whole (including the Wye bridge linking viaducts);£ 102·3 million, both at current prices.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of gross and net public sector capital spending by his Department by both central Government and local authorities for 1988–89 and for each of the next three years, at current prices and at constant 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Portillo
  The table shows spending on fixed assets, both gross and net by central Government and local authorities. Information about public sector capital spending will be included in table 21.1.11 of the 1989 public expenditure White Paper, to be published on 30 January.
  575

  £ million

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Cash

  Gross spending

  Central Government

  960

  1,290

  1,370

  1,410

  Local authorities

  700

  810

  770

  790

  Net Spending

  Central Government

  920

  1,250

  1,350

  1,390

  Local authorities

  660

  730

  730

  750

  Real Terms (1987–88 prices)

  Gross spending

  Central Government

  900

  1,160

  1,190

  1,190

  Local authorities

  660

  730

  670

  660

  Net spending

  Central Government

  870

  1,120

  1,170

  1,170

  Local authorities

  620

  650

  630

  630

  National Bus Company (Accounts)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the National Bus Company's accounts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  The NBC's report and accounts for 1987–88, published today, show that at 31 March 1988, the estimated gross proceeds from the disposal programme are £323 million, an increase of £17 million over the estimate given in the accounts for 1986–87. After allowing for the repayment of all the NBC's debt, taxation, redundancy costs, and the costs of the disposal programme, there should be a net surplus to the Government of at least £89 million.

  This is an excellent outcome to the NBC's privatisation programme which involved the sale of 72 subsidiaries (over half of which were sold to their own managment) embodying some 14,000 buses and coaches and 48,000 employees. The completion of the NBC's disposal programme, well within the statutory deadline, has played an essential role in the successful introduction of competition in the bus industry and I pay tribute to all those involved. A copy of the accounts has been deposited in the Library of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Chemical Weapons (Control)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives he plans, following the Paris 145-nation conference on chemical weapons, control and disarmament to facilitate the framework for the formation of an international regulatory agency within the United Nations for the control of exports of chemical agents capable of being put to military use.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are committed to the achievement of a comprehensive global and verifiable ban on chemical weapons as the only effective means to halt the spread of these weapons and to ensure the destruction of existing stockpiles.

  Pending the conclusion of such a convention, 19 western countries (the "Australia Group") meet regularly to exchange information and to concert action on export controls on chemical weapon precursors. Members of the group also circulate to national industries a longer warning list of other chemicals which might have relevance to the manufacture of chemical weapons.
  576
  Security Council resolution 620 of 26 August 1988, sponsored by the United Kingdom called upon all states
  "to continue to apply, to establish or to strengthen strict control of the export of chemical products serving for the production of chemical weapons".

  This reflected points made in the speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the UN special session on disarmament on 7 June last year.

  Middle East Peace Initiative
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has considered the recent Council of Europe middle east peace initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We warmly welcome this helpful Council of Europe initiative, which has our full support, as do all efforts which encourage the parties to the Arab-Israel dispute to recognise each other's legitimate rights and to make progress towards a settlement.

  Point Geologic
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what protests have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the French authorities regarding the construction of an airstrip at Point Geologic in Antarctica and the threat to penguin breeding grounds; if any of the Greenpeace protesters were British subjects; what policing arrangements exist within Antarctica; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We are following with close attention the construction of the French airstrip at Point Geologie in the French-claimed sector of Antarctica. The information required under the Antarctic treaty concerning French activities this austral summer has already been provided by the French authorities.

  The French are constructing their airstrip under the terms of article VII. 2 of the agreed measures on the conservation of antarctic fauna and flora, which permit such activities to the minimum extent necessary for the establishment, supply and operation of Antarctic stations. Observance of the agreed measures is subject to review, and this can be done during the normal course of Antarctic treaty meetings, the next of which will take place in Paris in May.

  I understand that a number of the members of Greenpeace involved in the recent airstrip protest were British subjects.

  Under the Antarctic treaty, consultative members have the right to designate observers to carry out inspections in all areas of Antarctica including all stations operated by treaty members.

  The United Kingdom is a founder member of the Antarctic treaty system, and a full consultative party.

  Diplomatic Wing (Costs)
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he proposes to make any changes to his Department's diplomatic wing running costs limit and cash limits for 1988–89.

  Mr. Eggar
  The cash limit for class II, vote 1 (overseas representation) will be decreased by £9,196,000 from £439,022,000 to £429,826,000. In addition, the running
  577
  costs limit on vote 1 will be reduced by £4,347,000 from £406,298,000 to £401,951,000. Both changes are due to reductions in assumed costs overseas.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council held on 23 January.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Foreign Affairs Council met in Brussels on 23 January. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State represented the United Kingdom.

  The council again discussed the dispute with the United States over the EC directive banning imports of hormone-treated meat. It called on the Commission to continue the action initiated in GATT to seek condemnation of United States unilateral retaliatory measures, but also to continue bilateral contacts with the United States Administration to secure a negotiated settlement of the dispute. While approving a revised list of Community counter-retaliation measures, it agreed to defer the question of their implementation for further consideration, at its meeting in February, in the light of progress in GATT and bilaterally.

  The council reviewed EC/EFTA co-operation, and called for a further strengthening of the relationship. To this end the EFTA countries will be invited to an informal ministerial meeting in March. The United Kingdom welcomes such moves.

  Taking account of the Community's close relations with Cyprus and Malta, the council agreed on new financial protocols to be offered to the two countries, providing generous levels of grant aid and access to El B loans.

  The Presidency introduced the Commission draft directive on the right to vote in local elections. Substantive discussion was deferred.

  Meeting as a conference of representatives of the member states, Ministers agreed on the appointment as vice-presidents of the Commission for 1989–90 of Mr. Frans Andriessen, Mr. Martin Bangemann, Sir Leon Brittan, Mr. Henning Christophersen, Mr. Manuel Marin and Mr. Filippo Pandolfi.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average general Government expenditure in cash terms, real terms, and as a percentage of gross domestic product for each period of five years since 1959.

  Mr. Major
  Figures for general Government expenditure (excluding privatisation proceeds) in cash and real terms and money gross domestic product for 1963–64 to 1991–92, for which five yearly averages can be derived, were given in table 1.1 of the 1988 Autumn Statement. For earlier years, calendar year figures for general Government expenditure, in cash and real terms, and as a percentage of GDP, were published in the article "Long term trends in public expenditure" in the October 1987 edition of Economic Trends.

  VAT
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessments he has made on the impact of the imposition of value added tax on non-domestic construction of the viability of schemes entered into but not confirmed by binding building contracts before the date of publication of the judgment by the European Court on 21 June 1988.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have given detailed consideration to this matter in the course of consultations with developers following the EC court ruling on the imposition of VAT on non-domestic construction. I propose to publish draft clauses shortly.

  National Savings
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sales of the new National Savings capital bond have been made to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  By Tuesday 24 January savers had invested some £45 million in capital bonds since they were introduced on 4 January. Purchases are currently running at nearly £20 million a week. This is a most encouraging start. It demonstrates that investors are attracted by the offer of a guaranteed annual return of 12 per cent. gross of income tax over five years, regardless of what happens to other interest rates.

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is proposing any change to the Central Office of Information cash limit for 1988–89.

  Mr. Lilley
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class XIX vote 1 will be increased by £103,000 from £1,181,000 to £1,284,000. The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure. The additional expenditure is needed to cover services provided by the Central Office of Information on an allied service basis.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there are any proposals to change the 1988–89 cash limit and running costs limit for Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Lilley
  Both the cash limit and the running costs limit for HM Customs and Excise (class XIX, vote 2) have been reduced by £3,000: from £514,733,000 to £514,730,000 and from £464,058,000 to £464,055,000 respectively. These decreases will be offset by corresponding increases in the cash limit and running costs limit for the Cabinet Office: Office of the Minister for the Civil Service (class XX, vote 1) and reflect the transfer of costs for recruitment under the direct entry grade 7 costs competition, 1988.

  There is no overall increase in either cash limits or gross running costs limits for Government as a whole as a result of these changes, which will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Race Relations
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce identifiable channels of complaint or grievance procedures for prisoners who feel that they have suffered racial discrimination; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Any prisoner who thinks that he or she may have suffered racial discrimination can raise the matter through the usual grievance procedures. In addition, provided that the complaint is raised internally at the same time, the prisoner may write to the Commission for Racial Equality, which will decide what action to take.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that every regional race relations co-ordinators' group includes a representative from the Prison Officers Association.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The regional race relations co-ordinators' group provides a forum for the discussion of race relations issues and, drawing on these discussions and on information from governors and prison service headquarters, advises the prisons board on the service's implementation of the race relations policy. Its membership includes the four regional race relations co-ordinators, representatives from headquarters and one of the community relations consultants. It is not the general practice to invite representatives of staff associations to participate in meetings that are essentially concerned with management matters.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will take steps to ensure that boards of visitors have oversight over race relations matters; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will take steps to ensure that boards of visitors routinely receive results of all racial monitoring and liaise on a regular basis with the race relations committee on their establishment.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The principal duty of a board of visitors is to satisfy itself as to the state of the prison premises, the administration of the prison, and the treatment of prisoners. Boards report annually on how they have carried out this duty. Guidance to boards on the content of their report includes the need to report on race relations matters. We would expect them to ensure that they have access to the necessary information for this purpose. We are considering, however, whether more detailed advice would be helpful.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that the monitoring of members of ethnic minorities in prison and various work parties and training courses is sensitive to the length of time inmates stay in a particular workplace and the allocation of high-status jobs.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Guidance issued to governors requires them to ensure that all inmates have equal access to training courses and to jobs and to be particularly vigilant in monitoring access to the more attractive jobs. No specific guidance has been given in regard to monitoring the length of time inmates stay in particular jobs.
  580
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that data collection on race in prison department establishments is standardised to enable comparisons to be drawn across establishments and across regions.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Establishments have already been given guidance on the standard classifications to be used when recording the ethnic origin of prisoners. This took effect from I June 1984.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the report entitled "Race Relations in Prison" by Elaine Genders and Elaine Player; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We understand that the Oxford University Press will be publishing the report on 2 February.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that staff who are chosen to undertake specific duties in prison such as classification and transfer are given particular guidance on the exercise of their discretion in matters involving race relations.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Guidance issued to prison staff stresses that all duties can be discharged properly only if staff treat prisoners with humanity and respect, impartially and without discrimination on the grounds of colour, race or religion.

  Prisons (Psychiatry)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners and others taken into custody have been subjected to body belts in 1988; to what extent a rota system of consultant psychiatrists is available to(a) prisons and (b) the police; on how many such cases their services were used; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A governor may order an inmate in a prison service establishement to be put under restraint in a body belt where this is necessary to prevent the inmate from injuring himself or others, damaging property or creating a disturbance. During 1987 (the last year for which figures are currently available), body belts were used on 74 occasions in establishments in England and Wales. The prison medical office must be informed whenever a governor orders an inmate to be put under restraint.

  Consultants employed in the NHS are frequently called upon by prison medical officers for specialist advice in the context of inmates' treatment generally and in emergencies. In the year ended 31 March 1988 (the last year for which information is available), the cases of 2,815 inmates were referred to NHS consultant psychiatrists, and of a further 9,410 to other NHS psychiatrists. Such services are available round the clock by arrangement with regional health authorities. Information about the incidence of referrals or consultants for specific purposes is not available.

  The treatment of people held in police custody is governed by code C (code of practice for the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers) of the codes of practice made under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The code states that reasonable force may be used to prevent escape, injury, damage to property

  581
  or the destruction of evidence and requires medical attention for the suspect to be sought whenever necessary, normally from the police surgeon.

  Custody records in respect of every person detained by the police are held locally and the information sought could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Essex Police Force
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to increase the establishment of the Essex police force by 150 phased equally over the next three years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend will consider applications for increases in the Essex police establishment, together with those received from other authorities, in the context of the extra police posts which may be

  Table 1. Annual total of new passports issued and amendments made to existing passports (1979–1988)

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  London

  405,431

  71,146

  471,479

  34,253

  392,725

  21,101

  453,262

  25,246

  423,957

  27,995

  Liverpool

  474,179

  35,916

  575,012

  24,946

  432,953

  20,739

  542,412

  27,021

  492,901

  30,054

  Peterborough

  376,507

  42,948

  459,426

  27,696

  383,155

  17,196

  457,855

  21,699

  434,193

  23,141

  Newport

  389,821

  27,105

  463,915

  22,439

  393,331

  15,336

  447,159

  18,241

  439,793

  19,261

  Glasgow

  163,153

  15,387

  212,868

  12,191

  166,374

  7,537

  197,109

  10,309

  182,386

  11,141

  Belfast

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6,514

  603

  Total

  1,809,091

  192,502

  2,182,700

  121,525

  1,768,538

  81,909

  2,097,797

  102,516

  1,979,744

  112,195

  Column (a) shows new passports issued.

  Column (b) shows endorsements and amendments to existing passports.

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  London

  424,341

  31,988

  418,036

  26,889

  437,857

  28,129

  355,475

  23,345

  414,569

  22,649

  Liverpool

  481,540

  28,952

  446,813

  32,327

  556,664

  36,076

  554,993

  27,595

  665,277

  32,829

  Peterborough

  418,074

  25,986

  392,460

  25,249

  482,797

  31,581

  480,422

  29,114

  565,096

  29,617

  Newport

  403,520

  18,356

  369,981

  17,472

  427,800

  18,829

  439,302

  14,048

  547,685

  23,175

  Glasgow

  146,123

  10,362

  137,098

  9,650

  159,954

  11,587

  159,723

  11,042

  165,633

  9,480

  Belfast

  33,707

  1,546

  34,655

  1,537

  45,472

  2,031

  51,305

  2,321

  60,248

  2,458

  Total

  1,907,305

  117,190

  1,799,043

  113,124

  2,110,544

  128,233

  2,041,220

  107,465

  2,418,508

  120,208

  Column (a) shows new passports issued.

  Column (b) shows endorsements and amendments to existing passports.

  2 Monthly total of new passports issued (1987–88)

  London

  Liverpool

  Peterborough

  Newport

  Glasgow

  Belfast

  Total

  January 1987

  23,682

  30,319

  29,806

  27,999

  7,251

  2,534

  121,591

  January 1988

  25,044

  28,592

  41,880

  35,049

  7,402

  3,246

  141,213

  February 1987

  35,565

  48,946

  49,917

  39,614

  13,838

  4,954

  192,834

  February 1988

  34,136

  68,377

  44,845

  52,379

  10,613

  5,575

  215,925

  March 1987

  40,488

  75,898

  60,983

  51,542

  21,179

  5,604

  255,694

  March 1988

  38,831

  78,554

  60,155

  66,788

  20,035

  6,278

  270,641

  April 1987

  33,065

  62,425

  56,051

  31,345

  16,334

  6,362

  205,582

  April 1988

  39,994

  79,168

  62,605

  59,824

  20,556

  7,443

  269,590

  May 1987

  24,383

  51,586

  48,473

  30,188

  11,109

  6,874

  172,613

  May 1988

  45,130

  103,559

  57,405

  60,329

  26,149

  7,929

  300,501

  June 1987

  31,376

  55,486

  54,841

  44,200

  18,524

  8,405

  212,832

  June 1988

  51,411

  71,656

  63,461

  57,851

  22,272

  10,286

  276,937

  July 1987

  52,269

  65,066

  48,004

  45,575

  19,069

  5,625

  235,608

  July 1988

  48,953

  76,327

  64,174

  46,446

  22,682

  7,969

  266,551

  August 1987

  40,099

  56,929

  38,765

  53,836

  17,939

  4,195

  211,763

  August 1988

  34,458

  46,551

  50,528

  51,991

  2,630

  4,566

  190,724

  September 1987

  24,731

  32,838

  25,815

  49,407

  14,665

  2,681

  150,137

  September 1988

  24,480

  31,081

  25,929

  22,112

  7,284

  2,421

  113,307

  October 1987

  15,940

  27,529

  22,891

  23,236

  7,410

  1,596

  98,602

  October 1988

  23,312

  32,086

  28,829

  26,042

  8,453

  1,653

  120,375

  November 1987

  20,584

  26,496

  24,242

  21,095

  6,646

  1,356

  100,419

  November 1988

  31,220

  39,145

  37,792

  37,755

  9,474

  1,714

  157,100

  December 1987

  13,293

  21,475

  20,634

  21,265

  5,759

  1,119

  83,545

  December 1988

  17,600

  10,181

  27,493

  31,119

  8,083

  1,168

  95,644

  582
  available year on year and with advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. He expects shortly to announce his decisions on increases in police establishments for 1989–90.

  Passports
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for(a) new passports and (b) amendments to passports were made at each office in each year since 1979; and if he will indicate the number of applications received in each month in 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Renton
  The information, which relates to passports issued rather than to applications, is shown in the tables.
  583

  London

  Liverpool

  Peterborough

  Newport

  Glasgow

  Belfast

  Total

  Total 1987

  355,475

  554,993

  480,422

  439,302

  159,723

  51,305

  2,041,220

  Total 1988

  414,569

  665,277

  565,096

  547,685

  165,633

  60,248

  2,418,508

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average time taken to process applications for new passports at each office from time of receipt to date of issue as at the first day of each month in 1988;

  (2) what was the average time taken to process applications for (a) renewal and (b) amendment to passports at each office from time of receipt to date of issue on the first day of each month in 1988.

  London

  Liverpool

  Peterborough

  Newport

  Glasgow

  Belfast

  January

  45

  5

  19

  7

  6

  2

  February

  32

  10

  12

  12

  14

  3

  March

  43

  14

  20·5

  15

  24

  3

  April

  39

  11

  25·5

  18

  28

  3

  May

  47

  13

  30

  18

  33

  4

  June

  56

  11

  34

  21

  35

  4

  July

  52

  14

  34

  22

  38

  3

  August

  12

  11

  16

  12

  2

  2

  September

  8

  10

  7

  5

  7

  2

  October

  8

  7

  6

  6

  13

  2

  November

  16

  6

  7

  11

  11

  2

  December

  11

  2

  7

  6

  13

  2

  Note: Figures are those at the first weekend of each month in 1988.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of staff(a) in past and (b) actually on duty in each passport office on the first day of each month in 1988.

  London

  Liverpool

  Peterborough

  Newport

  Glasgow

  Belfast

  January

  (a)

  250·5

  200

  177·5

  177

  83

  14·5

  (b)

  215·5

  165·5

  153

  160

  65

  11·5

  February

  (a)

  271·5

  209

  191

  185·5

  91

  16

  (b)

  244·5

  178·5

  158

  155

  76

  16

  March

  (a)

  272·5

  231

  208

  221·5

  92·5

  16·5

  (b)

  243·5

  187·5

  185

  190

  78

  12

  April

  (a)

  278·5

  248

  217·5

  221·5

  103·5

  18

  (b)

  255·5

  175·5

  167·5

  146

  81

  13

  May

  (a)

  304·5

  248·5

  226·5

  223·5

  123·5

  20

  (b)

  280·5

  206·5

  194·5

  187

  107

  17

  June

  (a)

  302

  259·5

  223

  220·5

  121·5

  21

  (b)

  281

  205·5

  168·5

  147

  104

  21

  July

  (a)

  301

  256·5

  217

  213·5

  126·5

  21

  (b)

  272

  187·5

  153·5

  171

  107·5

  14

  August

  (a)

  304

  249·5

  221

  207·5

  122·5

  23

  (b)

  284

  185·5

  177

  156

  103·5

  17

  September

  (a)

  266·5

  210

  179·5

  189·5

  114·5

  15

  (b)

  240·5

  154

  152

  160

  91·5

  10·5

  October

  (a)

  266·5

  195·5

  169

  168·5

  104·5

  13

  (b)

  241·5

  148·5

  143

  137

  77·5

  10

  November

  (a)

  251·5

  190·5

  169

  166·5

  120

  12

  (b)

  235·5

  160

  148·5

  141

  107

  7

  December

  (a)

  245

  198·5

  176

  162·5

  129

  12

  (b)

  221

  154·5

  158·5

  128

  101

  7·5

  584
  Mr. Renton
  I regret that the information is not available in precisely the form requested. The processing times in working days for straightforward, non-urgent applications of all types are shown in the table, and relate to applications completed on the dates shown.

  Mr. Renton
  The table shows the number of staff in post and on duty at each regional passport office on the first working day of each month in 1988.
  585
  Column (a) Number of staff in post.

  (b) Number of staff on duty (London figures do not reflect absences on annual/flexible working hours leave).

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were employed on a casual basis, namely, not on the permanent staff, at each passport office in each month of 1987 and 1988; and what was the cost of such staff.

  London

  Liverpool

  Peterborough

  Newport

  Glasgow

  Belfast

  January 1987

  20

  5

  19

  16

  5

  —

  January 1988

  20

  11

  25

  20

  8

  —

  February 1987

  22

  27

  26

  21

  7

  1

  February 1988

  27

  32

  43

  53

  10

  2

  March 1987

  25

  34

  37

  33

  9

  1

  March 1988

  37

  51

  51

  52·5

  21

  4

  April 1987

  40

  33

  39

  33

  9

  2

  April 1988

  62·5

  50

  62

  53·5

  40

  5

  May 1987

  27

  45

  42

  39

  15

  3

  May 1988

  54

  62

  60

  51·5

  38

  5

  June 1987

  50

  49

  43

  51

  26

  5

  June 1988

  56·5

  58

  54

  48·5

  39

  6

  July 1987

  47

  46

  37

  50

  24

  5

  July 1988

  57·5

  53

  58

  41·5

  35

  8

  August 1987

  34

  12

  24

  41

  18

  4

  August 1988

  26

  25

  31

  35·5

  29

  —

  September 1987

  12

  —

  9

  11

  8

  —

  September 1988

  19

  21

  8

  5

  18

  —

  October 1987

  10

  —

  2

  —

  7

  —

  October 1988

  12

  17

  9

  4

  7

  —

  November 1987

  6

  —

  2

  —

  6

  —

  November 1988

  10

  17

  16

  4

  7

  —

  December 1987

  3

  1

  —

  6

  —

  —

  December 1988

  7

  12

  4

  —

  7

  —

  Salary cost of casual staff: 1987–£567,002.1988–£864,030

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visitors' passports were issued in each year from 1979; and how many extensions to passports were issued in 1986 to date.

  Mr. Renton
  The information is shown in the tables.

  I. Annual issues of British Visitors Passports (1979–1987)

  Numbers

  1979

  1,087,485

  1980

  1,178,885

  1981

  1,739,194

  1982

  1,399,575

  1983

  1,436,639

  1984

  1,501,579

  1985

  1,419,225

  1986

  1,806,168

  1987

  2,161,489

  The figure for 1988 is not yet available.

  II. Annual total of free short-term extensions to expired passports granted to personal callers at the London Passport Office

  Number

  1986

  Nil

  1987

  13,532

  1988

  18,511

  Precise figures are not available from the other regional passport offices, but the numbers issued were very low.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated time expected to be taken between receipt by application and issue of(a) new passports, (b) renewals and (c) amendment to passports at each office in 1989.
  586
  Mr. Renton
  The table below shows the number of casual staff in post at each regional passport office on the last day of each month in 1987 and 1988, and the annual cost of such staff.

  Mr. Renton
  Subject to continuing satisfactory progress with the computerisation programme and no unforeseen changes occurring in the volume and pattern of demand for passport services, the passport department will be aiming in 1989 to process all straightforward, non-urgent passport applications within a month.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the target time for answering telephone inquiries at each passport office as at(a) 1 July 1988 and (b) the latest available date; what was the estimated average time to answer such calls; and if he will
  make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  There were no specific target times for answering telephone inquiries during 1988, and no information is available as to the average time taken to answer such calls. The passport department has undertaken a complete review of its telephone systems with a view to improving the service provided to the public, and various enhancements are being made. The aim in 1989 will be to provide a personal response to 90 per cent. of calls within two minutes of connection, but the achievement of this will depend on a number of factors, including the successful implementation of the remainder of the computerisation programme.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate the date of receipt of applications for new passports being dealt with on(a) 1 July 1988 and (b) 1 August 1988 at each passport office.

  Mr. Renton
  The table shows the date of receipt of applications for new passports being dealt with by each regional passport office at the first weekend in July and August 1988.
  587

  Week ending 3 July 1988

  Week ending 7 August 1988

  London

  19 April

  25 July

  Liverpool

  17 June

  22 July

  Peterborough

  19 May

  18 July

  Newport

  6 June

  20 July

  Glasgow

  19 May

  5 August

  Belfast

  1 July

  5 August

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff not employed as permanent members of staff have worked for a continuous period of(a) three months and (b) six months or more in 1988, showing the information for each passport office.

  Mr. Renton
  The table shows the number of casual staff employed continuously at each regional passport office during 1988 for(a) three months or more and (b) six months or more.

  (a)

  (b)

  London

  70

  25

  Liverpool

  29

  29

  Peterborough

  63

  34

  Newport

  52

  30

  Glasgow

  39

  29

  Belfast

  3

  2

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider a public campaign to encourage people to apply for new passports in the months from January to June and November and December.

  Mr. Renton
  The passport department already publicises on its application forms and in other ways, the need to apply for passports in good time and to avoid the peak summer periods when delays tend to be greatest. They are examining ways of reinforcing this message in 1989.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total budget for salaries and overtime in passport offices in 1988–89; what is the estimated expenditure; and if he will provide the same information for 1989–90.

  Mr. Renton
  The salaries and overtime element of the passport department's budget for running costs in 1988–89 amounted to £9.9 million. This is likely to be exceeded due

  London

  Liverpool

  Peterborough

  Newport

  Glasgow

  Belfast

  January

  (a)

  2,088

  1,263

  2,269

  2,391

  325

  0

  (b)

  22,181

  10,180

  18,288

  19,271

  2,620

  0

  February

  (a)

  5,029

  6,467

  3,634

  4,810

  1,520

  0

  (b)

  53,424

  52,124

  29,290

  38,769

  12,251

  0

  March

  (a)

  4,667

  11,017

  3,190

  4,994

  2,636

  0

  (b)

  49,578

  88,797

  25,711

  40,252

  21,246

  0

  April

  (a)

  7,373

  16,276

  5,138

  7,455

  3,865

  0

  (b)

  78,325

  131,185

  41,412

  60,087

  31,152

  0

  May

  (a)

  6,432

  11,119

  3,792

  4,059

  3,648

  0

  (b)

  68,328

  89,619

  30,564

  32,716

  29,403

  0

  June

  (a)

  4,351

  4,625

  4,065

  3,271

  2,809

  248

  (b)

  46,221

  37,278

  32,764

  26,364

  22,641

  1,999

  July

  (a)

  5,654

  4,301

  2,928

  3,388

  2,790

  614

  588
  to the heavy demand for passport services during the year, but it is not yet possible to say precisely what the outturn expenditure will be. Budget estimates for 1989–90 have yet to be finally determined.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many telephone lines are available for calls from the public at each passport office in 1989; how many were available in 1988; how many staff are currently allowed to answer such calls; how many were available to do so during June to October 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The table shows the number of telephone lines available for incoming calls from the public at each passport office in(a) January 1988 and (b) January 1989.

  (a)

  (b)

  London

  28

  28

  Liverpool

  24

  24

  Peterborough

  12

  24

  Newport

  17

  40

  Glasgow

  6

  12

  Belfast

  3

  3

  The switchboards at London, Peterborough and Newport connect callers initially to recorded message systems, giving general information for passport applicants. This service is to be extended to the other offices. Staff are allocated to telephone inquiry duties according to the overall operational needs of the office, taking into account other demands, in particular that of passport-issuing. No precise information is available as to the number of staff available to answer incoming calls during a particular period.

  Passport Offices (Hours of Work)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate(a) the number of hours overtime, (b) the average number of hours overtime and (c) the cost of such overtime to each passport office in each month in 1988.

  Mr. Renton
  The table shows the monthly number of hours overtime worked at each regional passport office, and the estimated cost of such overtime, in 1988.
  589

  London

  Liverpool

  Peterborough

  Newport

  Glasgow

  Belfast

  (b)

  60,063

  34,666

  23,600

  27,307

  22,487

  4,949

  August

  (a)

  1,637

  0

  1,686

  1,322

  0

  0

  (b)

  17,390

  0

  13,589

  10,655

  0

  0

  September

  (a)

  231

  397

  29

  0

  315

  0

  (b)

  2,454

  3,200

  234

  0

  2,539

  0

  October

  (a)

  997

  1,407

  123

  0

  594

  0

  (b)

  10,591

  11,340

  991

  0

  4,788

  0

  November

  (a)

  3,463

  2,386

  998

  1,146

  0

  0

  (b)

  36,788

  19,231

  8,044

  9,237

  0

  0

  December

  (a)

  1,342

  0

  1,238

  2,905

  461

  0

  (b)

  14,256

  0

  9,978

  23,414

  3,716

  0

  Column:

  (a) shows the number of hours overtime worked.

  (b) shows the estimated cost of such overtime in £.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated amount of overtime expected to be worked at each passport office in 1989; and what is the estimated cost.

  Mr. Renton
  The requirements for overtime working are determined by operational needs, which are in turn determined by the level and pattern of demand for passport services. Budget estimates for 1989–90 have yet to be finally determined.

  Heathrow (Police)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis of the total hours worked by police officers at Heathrow airport in each month from April to October 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the commissioner that the information is as follows:

  Hours

  April

  64,069

  May

  65,996

  June

  64,483

  July

  64,917

  August

  61,673

  September

  60,900

  October

  65,553

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the number of hours worked by police officers at Heathrow airport in each week from 31 October 1988 to 22 January 1989 or to the latest date for which information is available; what is the average number of hours expected to be worked by officers at Heathrow in each week until 31 March 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the commissioner that the information is as follows:

  Hours

  31 October 1988 to 6 November 1988

  15,485

  7 November 1988 to 13 November 1988

  15,389

  14 November 1988 to 20 November 1988

  15,682

  21 November 1988 to 27 November 1988

  15,489

  28 November 1988 to 4 December 1988

  16,539

  590

  Hours

  5 December 1988 to 11 December 1988

  16,032

  12 December 1988 to 18 December 1988

  14,863

  19 December 1988 to 25 December 1988

  14,765

  26 December 1988 to 1 January 1989

  11,024

  2 January 1989 to 8 January 1989

  14,016

  9 January 1989 to 15 January 1989

  15,361

  The average number of hours worked each week until 31 March is expected to be about 15,400.

  Crime (Lighting)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider implementing a programme to substantially improve lighting in public areas and streets to combat crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I accept the view that substantial improvements in street lighting can reduce the public's fear of crime, and in certain circumstances can help to prevent crime itself. Together with colleagues in the Departments of Environment and Transport, we are seeking to identify where early action can be taken.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the average time taken for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to come to a final decision on claims made to the board for compensation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) on 20 January at column 350.

  Pirate Decoders
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what body will have the responsibility for policing pirate decoders after the abolition of the Independent Broadcasting Authority.

  Mr. Renton
  Should pirate equipment become available, it would be for the company to pursue the pirate manufacturers through the civil courts, or for the police to investigate any criminal offences which might have been committed.

  Channel 5
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether investment in Channel 5, prior to its establishment, will be borne by ITV and Channel 4.

  Mr. Renton
  We have no proposals to invite existing contractors to invest in Channel 5.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on how much the Independent Broadcasting Authority spent on Channel 5.

  Mr. Renton
  The IBA has been involved in a study of the operational and engineering aspects of the proposed Channel 5 but I understand that their costs have not been separately identified.

  Mr. Mark Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of any disruption to ITV and Channel 4 services which will be caused by the installation of Channel 5 transmitter equipment.

  Mr. Renton
  Detailed arrangement have not yet been made for the introduction of Channel 5 transmission. Experience suggests that, though short-term interruptions to night time services might be necessary there need be no interruption to services during the day and evening.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish a table identifying which transmitter sites need additional equipment before transmitting Channel 5.

  Mr. Renton
  The precise coverage of a Channel 5 service has not yet been decided.

  Transmitters
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is his intention to define minimum standards of transmitter performance which will apply after 1992.

  Mr. Renton
  As our White Paper made clear, we intend to ensure that high technical standards are maintained. The study on the privatisation of the transmission system which we announced on 30 December will examine whether any technical regulation is necessary to ensure this, and if so, what form it should take.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what means transmitter replacement will be funded.

  Mr. Renton
  As we made clear in our White Paper, a privatised transmission system will be expected to achieve the same degree and quality of coverage as at present. The study on the privatisation of the transmission system which we announced on 30 December will be examining how this objective can be best achieved. The cost of maintaining the transmission system would fall to the private sector operators.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Independent Television Commission will be responsible for monitoring transmitter performance.

  Mr. Renton
  It is envisaged that the ITC will supervise the transmission arrangements for independent services, in 592
  order to ensure conformity with international obligations and the observance of technical specifications designed to limit interference. The study on the privatisation of the transmission system which we are commissioning will consider whether any further technical regulation is necessary.

  In the transitional period before the establishment of a privatised transmission system, we envisage that the ITC will also be responsible for appointing, and monitoring the performance of, transmission contractors.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many ITV and Channel 4 transmitters are on British Broadcasting Corporation-owned sites.

  Mr. Renton
  Four hundred and sixty one.

  Business Vote (City of London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to abolish the business vote in the City of London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  Aldermen
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to seek to abolish the office of alderman.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to abolish the office.

SCOTLAND

  Skye (Road Bridge)
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the proposed construction of a road bridge to Skye; what submissions he has received from the private construction sector; what further consultations have taken place with representatives of the Highland regional council; what consideration has been given to the possibility of recouping capital costs by means of toll charges; and what assessment has been made of the implications of any of the above on the budgetary position of Highland regional council's roads department.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Highland regional council commissioned a study of the possibility of building a bridge to Skye. This was discussed with officials of the Scottish Development Department in October 1987. It was agreed that the regional council should ask its consultants to carry out further work. Following its completion there was a discussion between Highland regional council and Scottish Development Department officials in November 1988. A range of options and their financial implications is now being considered. Two firms which suggested that the bridge might be built as a private sector project have been asked to provide further information, in particular on the level of tolls which might be charged if the bridge was built in this way.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of those aged three and four
  593
  in Scotland in nurseries, pre-school playgroups or other forms of education (a) at the latest available date, (b) five,
  (c) 10 and (d) 15 years ago, expressed numerically and as a percentage of the age group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of children aged three and four years (at December each year) in nursery, special and primary schools in September 1972, 1977, 1982 and 1987 were 21,880, 40,570, 45,010 and 50,070 respectively which were 12·3, 28·4, 36·5 and 39·7 per cent. of the population respectively. In addition, in 1987 there were 43.430 places in pre-school playgroups and 4,470 in day nurseries, children's centres and family centres; information on pupil numbers is not available for these establishments. It is estimated that in total about 80 per cent. of three and four-year-olds were involved in one of the above mentioned forms of activity in 1987.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the most recent figure for empty local authority housing; how many of these properties have been vacant for periods over six, 12 and 24 months, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  On the basis of information returned to the Scottish Development Department, some 23,000 local authority houses are estimated to have been vacant at the end of March 1988. Information on the length of vacancies is not collected in the form requested, but, of the 8,150 vacant houses estimated to be available for letting, approximately 1,500 had been vacant for more than six months.

  I am concerned that, where possible, empty houses should he brought back into use and I have sought details of authorities' policies in this regard.

  Health Service (Dismissals)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what current procedures are in force concerning an appeal against dismissal, by a health board, of a consultant-surgeon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are two avenues of appeal to the Secretary of State which are available to an NHS consultant dismissed by a health board. One, which is open only to senior medical and dental staff, is that set out under paragraph 190 of their terms and conditions of service. Under this the doctor remains suspended from duty until the appeal process is completed. The other procedure, which is open to all NHS staff, is that set out under section 40 of the general Whitley council agreements. This is normally invoked after dismissal has taken effect.

  Rates
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year from 1982–83(a) the average rates and (b) the percentage annual increase in the average rates payable per household in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The figures requested are shown in the table.
  594

  Average domestic rate bill £

  Percentage increase

  1982–83

  309

  13·6

  1983–84

  310

  0·1

  1984–85

  328

  6·0

  1985–86

  392

  19·5

  1986–87

  417

  6·3

  1987–88

  474

  13·8

  1988–89

  495

  4·4

  Rating Reform
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the organisations which have made representations concerning exemptions from the community charge for people with a severe mental impairment.

  Mr. Lang
  The following organisations with an interest in the exemption for the severely mentally impaired were consulted about the detailed provisions relating to that exemption:

  Archdiocesan Council for the Mentally Handicapped

  Association of Directors of Social Work

  British Association of Social Workers

  British Psychological Society (Scottish Branch of the Division of Clinical Psychology)

  Church of Scotland Board of Social Responsibility

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Health Board General Managers

  Housing Corporations

  Institute of Health Service Management (Scottish Division)

  Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland

  Psychiatric Nurses Association

  Royal College of General Practitioners (Scottish Council)

  Royal College of Nursing

  Royal College of Psychiatrists (Scottish Division)

  Scottish Assessors' Association

  Scottish Federation of Housing Associations

  Scottish General Medical Services Committee

  Scottish Society for Mental Handicap

  In addition my right hon. and learned Friend has received representations or inquiries from:—

  Alzheimers Scotland

  ACORN Centre, Edinburgh

  British Medical Association

  Scottish Action on Dementia

  and a number of Health Boards and other NHS organisations.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by district council area the weekly net income level at which a single person with no dependants would lose entitlement to the community charge rebate.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not available.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the number of adults who will be eligible for a community charge rebate.

  Mr. Lang
  It is estimated that over 1 million adults in Scotland will receive a community charge rebate.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of premises, broken down by community charge registration area, which have been designated as liable for the collective community charge.
  595
  Mr. Lang
  The number of designated premises included on the community charges register for each regional and islands council area as at 1 October 1988 was as follows:

  Number

  Borders

  3

  Central

  n/a

  Dumfries and Galloway

  8

  Fife

  5

  Grampian

  n/a

  Highland

  6

  Lothian

  37

  Strathclyde

  40

  Tayside

  60

  Orkney

  0

  Shetland

  1

  Western Isles

  0

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce flexibility in the application of the standard community charge multiplier.

  Mr. Lang
  Under section 10(7) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, as amended by the Local Government Finance Act 1988, local authorities already have discretion to set the standard community charge multiplier at between one and two times the level of the personal community charge for their areas. There are no plans to introduce greater flexibility.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he will give to private sector tenants who do not have registered rents and to private landlords regarding the abolition of domestic rates and the consequent reduction which should be made to the tenant's period charge following the removal of the rates element.

  Mr. Lang
  After 1 April this year private sector tenants whose accommodation charges include contributions towards their landlord's domestic rates bills will be entitled to a reduction in their payments to reflect the abolition of domestic rates. Landlords will have no right to ask for such contributions. Regulated tenants who do not have a registered rent at present will be able to enforce their right to lower payments by applying to the rent officer for their rent to be registered. They will then know by how much they should reduce their payments, because registered rents are net of any payments towards rates. Tenants in regulated tenancies will have a right to seek registration of a fair rent for as long as their tenancy lasts.

  Tenants of assured tenancies taken out from 2 January this year will see from the written statement of the terms of their tenancy which their landlord is obliged by law to give them what reduction should be made in their payments from 1 April. Thereafter, prospective tenants will be able to ask the landlord what adjustment has been made to the total accommodation charge to take account of the rates element of the previous charge.

  Tenants will therefore have full protection against unreasonable charges by landlords.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if single persons in prison will be liable for a standard community charge and community water charge in respect of a house they own, rent or lease during the period of their imprisonment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Where a prisoner's house ceases to be his sole or main residence and there is no one else solely or 596
  mainly resident there he will be liable to pay the standard community charge and the standard community water charge in respect of it.

  Public Spending
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of gross and net public sector capital spending by his Department by both central Government and local authorities for 1988–89, and for each of the next three years, at current prices and at constant 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Lang
  Information on public expenditure in Scotland will be provided in the Scotland and supplementary analyses chapters of the public expenditure White Paper which will be published on Monday 30 January 1989.

  Employment Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what was the total number of employment training places(a) authorised and (b) filled on the latest date for which information is available.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 January 1989]There is provision for 41,473 employment training places in 1988–89 once the programme is fully operational. On 13 January 1989, 12,497 places were filled by employment training trainees. A further 7,174 were filled by those continuing under community programme terms and conditions.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will consider extending the establishment of city technology colleges to rural areas.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The terms of section 105 of the Education Reform Act, under which we shall pay grant to CTCs, lay down that a CTC should be situated in an urban area because it is there that the expectations of parents and pupils of the education system are furthest from fulfilment. However, CTCs will have lessons for all schools in combating underachievement, in establishing closer links with employers, in the use of information technology throughout the curriculum and in more effective school management.

  Pupil Numbers
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children have been in fee-paying schools for the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Butcher
  The total number of pupils attending non-maintained schools in England in 1986, 1987 and 1988 wre 526,000 538,000 and 547,000 respectively.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his latest estimate of the proportion of children at school who are educated within the state education system.
  597
  Mr. Butcher
  In January 1988 the number of children attending maintained schools in England as a proportion of all children in school was 92·8 per cent.

  History
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the curriculum working group on history to report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 13 January at column 762.

  Truancy
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to provide national truancy statistics to enable comparison to be made between schools that have opted out and those that remain with the local education authority.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to require local education authorities and governors of grant-maintaind schools to submit information to him on attendance levels. It will be for local education authorities and governers of grant-maintained schools to monitor attendance levels at their schools and to decide whether to publish information on attendance.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many full-time students entered(a) university or (h) polytechnic courses for the first time in the academic year 1988–89.

  Mr. Jackson
  Provisional estimates for 1988 indicate that there were 87,000 full-time first year students, other than postgraduates, in universities and 124,000 in polytechnics and colleges in Great Britain.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total amount spent, per capita, on children with special educational needs in each of the last five years at constant prices.

  Mr. Butcher
  The average net institutional expenditure per pupil in maintained special education for the five years to 1986–87, the last year for which information is available, is as follows:

  Net institutional expenditure per pupil (£)

  Special education—England1 2

  £ per pupil

  1986–87 real terms3

  £

  1982–83

  3,655

  1983–84

  3,725

  1984–85

  3,880

  1985–86

  4,175

  1986–87

  4,460

  1 The figures are based on LEA expenditure returns to DOE and pupil number returns to DES.

  2 The figures cover maintained special schools, home teaching, individual teaching in hospitals, other special education provided

  598
  other than at school and education in social services establishments where this is charged to the education account. Information on expenditure on pupils with special needs educated in primary and secondary schools is not available.

  3 The cash figures for the earlier years have been repriced to 1986–87 prices using the gross domestic product (market prices) deflator.

  ECCTIS and CATS
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the scale of operations cost and relationship of the educational counselling and credit transfer information system (ECCTIS) and the credit accumulation of transfer systems (CATS).

  Mr. Jackson
  The ECCTIS is a computerised information service funded by the Department of Education and Science at an estimated cost in 1988–89 of £789,000. Its main purpose is to provide prospective students with information about courses in further and higher education. It also contains a facility to provide information about credit transfer opportunities including, where available, the credit rating of certain courses included in its database. The credit rating information is provided by the Council for National Academic Awairds (CNAA) which runs CATS. The CNAA is an independent chartered body funded from fee income and CATS forms an integral part of the services which the council provides. I understand that the annual cost to the CNAA for CATS is of the order of £350,000.

  AIDS
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research is being undertaken in the United Kingdom on the effectiveness of anti-viral drugs in preventing or delaying the development of AIDS in people who are HIV positive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Medical Research Council is conducting a clinical trial to test whether zidovudine (formerly known as AZT) benefits healthy HIV positive people. In the MRC's view, no other drug is yet developed enough to justify a trial. The MRC directed programme aims to develop anti-viral drugs and vaccines to prevent or delay the development of AIDS in people infected with HIV.

  Medical Students (Drugs)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will undertake research into the number of medical students who have taken cannabis or other addictive drugs.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to initiate such research.

  Residential Special Schools
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will be providing additional financial support to inner London boroughs to maintain the Inner London education authority's residential special schools after transfer in April 1990.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is hoped that detailed decisions about the allocation of responsibility for these schools will be
  599
  reached shortly. Like other local education authorities, from April 1990, the inner London councils will be operating under the financial arrangements established by the Local Government Finance Act 1988; in this context, the Government are currently consulting the local authority associations about a new simplified needs assessment for education.

  Marine Pollution
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the level of funding for research into marine pollution.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Natural Environment Research Council plans to undertake research relevant to marine pollution in the financial year 1989–90 at a level of some £4.55 million, including the North sea project to study

  1988–89 estimated outturn £ million

  1989–90 plans £ million

  1990–91 plans £ million

  1991–92 £ million

  Cash

  Local authority

  gross

  619

  545

  555

  563

  net

  461

  385

  394

  403

  Central Government

  gross

  378

  494

  475

  481

  net

  371

  487

  466

  472

  Real terms (1987–88 prices)

  Local authority

  gross

  583

  489

  481

  473

  net

  434

  345

  341

  339

  Central Government

  gross

  356

  443

  411

  404

  net

  349

  437

  403

  397

  From 1989–90 the central Government figures include capital expenditure on the polytechnics and other higher education institutions transferring from the local education authorities to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council sector.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Mater Hospital
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Eastern health board's proposal to remove obstetrics from the Mater hospital.

  Mr. Needham
  This proposal is one of the recommendations of the eastern board's complementarity study which are currently the subject of consultation as part of the draft operational plan for 1989–90. When the board reaches conclusions on the study I shall want to discuss the implications for the Mater hospital with the chairman.

  Prisoners (Working Out Scheme)
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners in Northern Ireland have been processed through the working out scheme operated from Her Majesty's prison, Belfast during the past three years; how many prisoners are currently working out; how many are awaiting an opportunity to 600
  water quality. In the wider context, the co-ordinating committee on marine science and technology will report in due course on a national strategic framework for Government-funded marine science.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of gross and net public sector capital spending by his Department by both central Government and local authorities for 1988–89 and for each of the next three years, at current prices and at constant 1987–88 prices.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The estimated capital spending outturn for 1988–89 within the Department of Education and Science programme and planned provision for the next three years are as follows:

  participate in the scheme; what is the average waiting time for the scheme; and if he will consider its extension to Her Majesty's prison Maze.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  During the thre-year period between 1 January 1986, and 31 December 1988, 71 indeterminate sentence prisoners were released on licence after completing a pre-release programme operated from Her Majesty's prison, Belfast. Thirty-eight prisoners are currently involved in the pre-release programme. Fifteen of them are working out of the prison each day and eight are working and living in the community, reporting to the prison at intervals.

  There are no prisoners awaiting an opportunity to participate in the scheme. The practice is that once a provisional release date has been set by the Secretary of State the prisoner is informed and transferred to Belfast prison shortly afterwards.

  There are no plans to move the pre-release unit from Belfast prison. The use of other prisons, including Maze, on an ad hoc basis has not, however been ruled out should the number of prisoners on pre-release exceed the capacity at Belfast.

  Students Numbers
  Mr. Eddie McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the student numbers in each year group of the bachelor of education honours in-service
  601
  part-time degree courses in each of the years 1983–84 to 1987–88 in (a) Stranmillis college of education and (b) St. Mary's college of education, Belfast.

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Stranmillis

  New Starts

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  25

  Nil

  Carry over

  59

  35

  Nil

  Nil

  25

  St. Mary's

  New Starts

  34

  25

  10

  29

  9

  Carry over

  77

  69

  56

  34

  29

  Note:

  The numbers of St. Joseph's college of Education are included with St. Mary's in respect of 1983–84 and 1984–85. The 2 colleges amalgamated on 1 September 1985 to form St. Mary's college.

  The Department does not hold any information about "independent" students who are not receiving student awards.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what were the student numbers in the post-graduate certificate in education course in each of the years 1983–84 to 1987–88 in(a) Stranmillis college of education and (b) St. Mary's college of education, Belfast;

  (2) what were the student numbers in years 1 and 2 of the bachelor of education degree course in each of the years 1983–84, to 1987–88 in (a) Stranmillis college of education and (b) St. Mary's college of education, Belfast;

  (3) what were the student numbers in year 3 of the bachelor of education (a) honours and (b) pass degree course in each of the years 1983–84, to 1987–88 in (i) Stranmillis college of education and (ii) St. Mary's college of education, Belfast.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  Stranmillis College

  St. Mary's College

  1983–84

  Year 1

  156

  157

  Year 2

  108

  102

  Year 3 (Pass) Degree

  74

  56

  Year 3 (Hons) Degree

  30

  40

  PGCE

  40

  43

  PGCE (Hons) Psychology

  5

  —

  1984–85

  Year 1

  165

  168

  Year 2

  153

  153

  Year 3 (Pass) Degree

  74

  59

  Year 3 (Hons) Degree

  34

  45

  PGCE

  43

  46

  PGCE (Hons) Psychology

  3

  —

  1985–86

  Year i

  168

  166

  Year 2

  162

  160

  Year 3 (Pass) Degree

  94

  95

  Year 3 (Hons) Degree

  59

  57

  PGCE

  43

  47

  PGCE (Hons) Psychology

  5

  —

  1986–87

  Year 1

  166

  171

  Year 2

  160

  165

  Year 3 (Pass) Degree

  89

  86

  Year 3 (Hons) Degree

  75

  64

  PGCE

  45

  46

  PGCE (Hons) Psychology

  6

  —

  1987–88

  Year 1

  177

  173

  Year 2

  164

  166

  Year 3 (Pass) Degree

  77

  75

  Year 3 (Hons) Degree

  84

  94

  602
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The numbers of students receiving support from the Department of Education for Northern Ireland in each year are as follows:

  Stranmillis College

  St. Mary's College

  PGCE

  60

  58

  PGCE (Hons) Psychology

  6

  —

  Note: St. Joseph's college amalgamated with St. Mary's college on I September 1985. Figures for the former St. Joseph's college have therefore been included in the St. Mary's college figures for the 1983–84 and 1984–85 years.

  Colleges (Grants)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the total grant allocations in each of the years 1983–84 to 1987–88 to(a) Stranmillis college of education and (b) St. Mary's college of education, Belfast.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows in respect of recurrent grant payments:

  Stranmillis college£

  St. Mary's college£

  1983–84

  2,654,476

  1,961,725

  1984–85

  2,590,107

  1,988,000

  1985–86

  2,542,597

  2,235,000

  1986–87

  2,690,466

  2,510,000

  Notes:

  1. St. Joseph's college amalgamated with St. Mary's college on 1 September 1985. Figures for the former St. Joseph's college have therefore been included in the St. Mary's college figures for the 1983–84, 1984–85 and 1985–86 financial years.

  2. Figures have been taken from the audited accounts; information is not available for 1987–88.

  Employment Bill
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to follow the proposals in the Employment Bill introduced on 30 November 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  Yes. It is our intention to legislate where appropriate for corresponding purposes in Northern Ireland.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many police officers of each rank, and how many civilians of each grade are employed in processing firearms certificates at the Royal Ulster Constabulary firearms section: and what were the comparable figures five and 10 years ago, respectively.
  603
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 24 January 1989]: The number of police officers and civilians employed in processing firearms certificates at the Royal Ulster Constabulary firearms section is as follows:

  31 December 1988

  31 December 1978

  31 December 1983

  Superintendent

  1

  1

  1

  Chief Inspector

  1

  1

  1

  Inspector

  1

  1

  1

  Sergeant

  1

  1

  1

  Constable

  1

  1

  1

  Executive Officer II

  1

  1

  0

  Administrative Officer

  5

  5

  5

  Administrative Assistant

  33

  27

  22

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Annual Review
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how his Department's documents covering the annual review of United Kingdom agriculture will be made available to hon. Members and the public; and if there are to be any major changes in content as compared with previous annual review White Papers.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave on 5 December to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) at col 30.

  Hares
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department is conducting or funding any research into the distribution and density of the British hare population.

  Mr. Ryder
  My Department is not conducting or funding any research into the distribution and density of the British hare population.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council in Brussels on 23 and 24 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement that I gave earlier today.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what responsibility his Department has for ensuring that foodstuffs are safe for human consumption and carry no risk of food poisoning; in what way this responsibility is carried out; how many and what type of staff are required; what is the annual cost to his Department; and what has been the change in the number of staff and the annual cost to his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 15 December 1988.]: The Ministry has joint responsibility with the Department of Health for ensuring that foodstuffs are wholesome and safe. This responsibility is exercised through legislation, principally the Food Act 1984 and subordinate legislation
  604
  and the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. Under the Food Act 1984 the food industry has the primary responsibility for ensuring that its products are safe.

  While enforcement of the legislation lies mainly with local authorities the Ministry also carries out an extensive programme of food surveillance designed to complement the effect of statutory controls and monitor their effectiveness. The work is co-ordinated by the steering group on food surveillance and its latest report, "Food Surveillance Paper No. 24," has been deposited in the Library of the House. The steering group and its working parties also liaise with other advisory committees with responsibility for food safety matters, including the food advisory committee, the advisory committee on pesticides and the veterinary products committee.

  A detailed breakdown of ministerial objectives in the area of food safety and the resource allocations, including manpower, over the last three years, are given in programmes 35, 36, 37 and 51 of the Ministry's MINIM 1987 publication. Subprogramme 51a identifies the resources allocated for research into food safety. A copy of MINIM 87 is in the Library of the House.

  Cook-Chill Food
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to ensure that instructions concerning refrigeration and storage on containers of cook-chill food products are sufficiently clear and are printed in large enough type size as to be easily understood and readily identified by consumers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]: The European Community food labelling directive and the Food Labelling Regulations 1984 already require such foodstuffs to be marked or labelled with an indication of special storage conditions. This information has to be easy to understand clearly legible and indelible and when the foodstuff is sold to the consumer marked in a conspicuous place in such a way as to be easily visible.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  VAT
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he has held with(a) Government agencies and (b) outside bodies and others about the impact of value-added tax on non-domestic construction work on the viability of commercial and mixed commercial and residential schemes of urban renewal of inner city regeneration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  All interested parties, including Government agencies and outside bodies were invited to respond to the consultation document issued on 21 June. Many did so respond and some made points related to urban renewal and inner city regeneration. These responses were followed up in many cases at meetings with me or Customs and Excise officials. As regards residential schemes, there will be no VAT on new housing; and refurbishment of existing housing is already liable to VAT.

HEALTH

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Evennet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health Wwhether he has a plans to provide additional funds to reduce hospital waiting lists in the South East Thames region.

  Mr. Mellor
  Last December we announced a further £1·956 million for South East Thames region from the waiting list fund for 1989–90. This brings the total additional funds made available to South East Thames through this initiative to £6.346 million over three years. In addition two South East Thames districts—West Lambeth, and Lewisham and North Southwark—will have an opportunity to bid against the £6 million reserved next year from the waiting list fund for districts with special waiting problems.

  Grading
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what directives have been issued to regional health authorities on regrading nurses; if he will publish them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have issued a range of guidance to regional health authorities, copies of which are in the Library. The objective throughout was to ensure that the clinical grading structure was implemented properly, and in accordance with both the spirit and the letter of the agreement reached by both sides of the nursing and midwifery staffs negotiating council.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in his drive to encourage pharmacists to provide professional services in addition to dispensing and the savings which are being made.

  Mr. Mellor
  Discussions are taking place with the representatives of the profession on ways in which the proposals in the White Paper "Promoting Better Health" can be put into effect.

  The changes to the remuneration system and the controls on the entry of new pharmacies to NHS dispensing introduced in April 1987 have resulted in expenditure on pharmacists' remuneration being lower than would otherwise have been the case.

  OPCS
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any changes to announce to the cash and gross running costs limits for the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys for 1988–89.

  Mr. Freeman
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class XX vote 16 will be increased by a token £1,000 from £24,752,000 to £24,753,000,. The OPCS gross running cost limit for class XX vote 16 will be increased by £257,000 from £38,096,000 to £38,353,000. This increase, reflecting increased expenditure by OPCS on services provided to the Department of the Environment, the Department of 606
  Education and Science, the Department of Employment and the Health and Safety Commission, will be offset by corresponding reductions in their gross running costs limits and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  There is no overall increase in gross running costs as a result of these changes.

  Crewe District Health Authority
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will institute an immediate inquiry into the management of the Crewe district health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  Adoption and Care
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the national statistics of the number of children adopted or taken into care in 1986, 1987 and 1988 because either or both parents have been suffering from severe mental illness.

  Mr. Mellor
  This information is not available.

  "The Nation's Health"
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make it his policy to accept the targets for health set out in "The Nation's Health: A Strategy for the 1990's"; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has considered the recommendations made to Government in "The Nation's Health"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The recommendations and targets pu t forward in the report "The Nation's Health" cover the work of a number of Government Departments not simply this Department. We welcome the publication of the report, not least because it helps to emphasise the promotion of good health and the prevention of disease:. Many of its concerns had already been recognised by the Government and acted upon before publication. We will be considering the many detailed points in the report.

  Ambulance Service
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times recorded announcements have been used in response to calls to the London ambulance service in(a) London and (b) South East Thames regional health authority in the last year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not collected routinely in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many delays of more than(a) two minutes, (b) three minutes and (c) five minutes were recorded in the response rate by the London ambulance service to incoming calls in (i) London and (ii) South East Thames regional health authority in the last year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not collected by the London ambulance service.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average answering time by the London ambulance service to incoming calls in(a) London and (b) the South East Thames regional health authority.
  607
  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not collected routinely in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if incoming calls to the London ambulance service are stacked by the operator before being connected; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Incoming telephone calls to the London ambulance service are not stacked by an operator. All calls to the LAS central ambulance control are received by their automatic call distribution system which groups them in order of emergency. Within these groups calls are taken in the order that they are received when an operator becomes available. If the hon. Member would like to know more about the capability of the computer which controls the LAS telephone system, and the information which it can provide, she may wish to contact South West Thames regional health authority which manages the service.

  Listeria
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, on 14 December 1988,Official Report, column 601, if he will list the causes other than food of listeria poisoning; what were the causes of the 259 incidents of listeria poisoning notified to the public health laboratory in 1987; if he will request the public health laboratory to keep him fully informed of all cases of food poisoning; and if he will make a statement on the growth in the number of cases, the seriousness, and the causes of listeria poisoning, and indicate what precautionary measures are advisable.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No vehicle was identified for any of the listeriosis cases reported to the public health laboratory service in 1987 and 1988, other than the three in 1988 which were microbiologically associated with food. My Department has been and is working on the reasons for the increase of listeriosis which occurred between 1986 and 1987; the increase in cases in 1988 was less marked than between 1986–87. The public health laboratory service is keeping us fully informed.

  The manifestations of listeriosis range from a mild, flu-like illness to septicaemia and meningitis and the organism can cross the placenta in pregnant women and affect the baby. The mortality rate in reported cases of listeriosis may be of the order of 30 per cent. While adequate cooking will destroy the bacteria, bad handling or bad hygiene subsequent to cooking can result in cross-contamination, and good hygiene practice including adequate refrigeration is essential to reduce risk. This will be a central message of the Government's campaign on food hygiene which is to be launched very soon.

  Child Sex Abuse (Broxtowe)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what involvement his Department has had in the Broxtowe child sex abuse case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The regional office of the Department's social services inspectorate gave appropriate advice and support to the Nottinghamshire social services department.

  Medical Manpower Planning
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the report of the second advisory committee on medical manpower planning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have today published the report of the second advisory committee for medical manpower planning. The committee's two main recommendations are that there should be no immediate change in the numbers entering medical school and that there should be a standing committee to monitor annually the balance of supply and demand for doctors. The Goverment have accepted both these recommendations. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library.

  Capital Spending
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of gross and net public sector capital spending by his Department by both central Government and local authorities for 1988–89 and for each of the next three years, at current prices and at constant 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information on the Government's plans on public sector capital spending can be found in table 21.1.11 of the 1989 White Paper on public expenditure which will be published on Monday 30 January.

  Certificate of School Nursing
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses gained the certificate of school nursing in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 January 1989]: The information requested is given in the table:

  Number of nurses successfully completing school nursing courses. England

  Year ended 31 March

  Number

  1984

  306

  1985

  421

  1986

  404

  1987

  294

  1988

  311

  Source: English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Doctors (Statistics)
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors are employed in the National Health Service; if he will break the figure down into hospital consultants, junior hospital doctors and general practitioners; and if he will give comparable figures for 1978–79.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 24 January 1989]: The information is set out in the table:

  Table: National Health Service Medical Staff in England

  Whole·time equivalents at 30 September

  1978

  1987

  Medical staff1

  33,796·1

  39,012·7

  Hospital consultants

  10,381·9

  12,830·5

  Junior hospital doctors2

  18,090·5

  20,678·8

  609

  Whole-time equivalents at 30 September

  1978

  1987

  Numbers at 1 October

  General medical practitioners

  22,651

  27,023

  1 Including hospital, community health services and community medicine staff.

  2 Including senior registrars, registrars, senior house officers and house officers.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his provision for the urban programme for 1988–89 and for the next three years at cash prices and at 1987–88 constant prices.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 24 January 1989]: The information requested is given in the table:

  Cash Provision £ million

  At 1987–88 prices £ million

  1988–89

  46

  43

  1989–90

  38

  36

  1990–91

  39

  37

  1991–92

  40

  38

  (Whole Time Equivalent)

  Regional Health Authority

  Number of NHS Hospitals Having beds for the Elderly1

  Staff1 Medical

  Nursing3

  Northern

  65

  110

  3,330

  Yorkshire

  63

  130

  3,710

  Trent

  63

  190

  4,330

  East Anglian

  31

  80

  2,120

  North West Thames

  54

  120

  2,310

  North East Thames

  57

  140

  2,970

  South East Thames

  56

  150

  2,040

  South West Thames

  39

  110

  1,950

  Wessex

  52

  110

  3,000

  Oxford

  44

  60

  1,770

  South Western

  72

  100

  3,030

  West Midlands

  78

  160

  5,290

  Mersey

  34

  100

  2,390

  North Western

  65

  200

  3,980

  Special Health Authorities

  2

  10

  90

  1 For the financial year 1987–88. Excluding beds for the elderly mentally ill.

  2 Working the geriatric area. Rounded to the nearest 10 whole time equivalents. (WTE) at 30 September 1987.

  3 Nursing and midwifery staff.

  NHS Employees
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) men and (b) women are employed in the National Health Service;

  (2) how many (a) men and (b) women are employed as nurses in the National Health Service;

  (3) how many (a) men and (b) women are employed as midwives in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 November 1988]: The information for September 1986 is given in the table. This is the latest date for which reliable information to this level of detail is available. Unfortunately, there are discrepancies in the 1987 data which are being checked urgently; I will write to the hon. Member with 1987 figures as soon as these are available.

  Care of the Elderly
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by regional health authority(a) the financial resources allocated to the National Health Service for the care of the elderly and (b) the number of units and staff specifically allocated within the National Health Service for the care of elderly people.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 25 November 1988]: In the main the Department does not identify funds for specific purposes such as provision of care of the elderly within its overall allocations to regional health authorities. The allocation of resources to district health authorities is a matter for regions and districts to determine, within a national framework of health care priorities, and in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Information on the number of units and staff allocated to care of the elderly is not available in the form requested. The number of NHS hospitals having beds for elderly in 1987–88 and the number of medical and nursing staff allocated to the geriatric area of work on 30 September 1987 are shown in the table.

  Number1 of NHS staff in post—England 30 September 1986

  Male

  Female

  Total directly employed staff (excluding agency nursing and midwifery staff and locum medical and dental staff).

  211,600

  735,200

  Nursing staff (including agency staff)2

  42,800

  404,000

  Midwifery staff (including agency staff)3

  4—

  26,500

  1 Figures are independently rounded to the nearest one hundred.

  2 Includes qualified nurses, learners and unqualified nursing staff.

  3 Includes qualified midwives and student midwives.

  4 Less than 50.

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

  Baby Food (Aluminium)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the levels of aluminium in proprietary baby milk and foods; and if he will make a statement.
  611
  Mr. Ryder
  I have been asked to reply.

  A survey of infant formulae recently carried out by this Ministry showed that aluminium present in these products is derived from natural levels of aluminium present in cows' milk or soya from which the foods have been prepared.

  The results are shortly to be published in the scientific literature.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with manufacturers of proprietary baby foods and milk on the level of aluminium content in such products; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have been asked to reply.

  Discussions are shortly to be held with representatives of the trade on the results of a recent survey on aluminium levels in infant formulae.

  Table showing disposable weekly income of a single man over 65 but under 80, when receiving basic retirement pension and retirement pension plus SERPS/Occupalional pension Average local authority rent and rates

  Gross income

  Tax

  Income after tax

  Rent

  Rent Rebate

  Rates

  Rate Rebate

  Total net income

  Net income after housing costs

  RP

  41·15

  0·00

  41·15

  16·60

  16·60

  6·90

  5·52

  63·27

  39·77

  RP + £5

  46·15

  0·00

  46·15

  16·60

  15·23

  6·90

  5·10

  66·48

  42·98

  RP + £10

  51·15

  0·00

  51·15

  16·60

  11·98

  6·90

  4·10

  67·23

  43·73

  RP + £15

  56·15

  0·00

  56·15

  16·60

  8·73

  6·90

  3·10

  67·98

  44·48

  RP + £20

  61·15

  0·00

  61·15

  16·60

  5·48

  6·90

  2·10

  68·73

  45·23

  RP + £25

  66·15

  1·25

  64·90

  16·60

  3·05

  6·90

  1·35

  69·30

  45·80

  RP + £30

  71·15

  2·25

  68·90

  16·60

  0·61

  6·90

  0·60

  70·11

  46·61

  RP + £35

  76·15

  3·75

  72·40

  16·60

  0·00

  6·90

  0·00

  72·40

  48·90

  RP + £40

  81·15

  5·00

  76·15

  16·60

  0·00

  6·90

  0·00

  76·15

  52·65

  RP + £45

  86·15

  6·25

  79·90

  16·60

  0·00

  6·90

  0·00

  79·90

  56·40

  RP + £50

  91·15

  7·50

  83·65

  16·60

  0·00

  6·90

  Q·00

  83·65

  60·15

  RP + £75

  116·15

  13·75

  102·40

  16·60

  0·00

  6·90

  0·00

  102·40

  78·90

  RP + £100

  141·15

  20·00

  121·15

  16·60

  0·00

  6·90

  0·00

  121·15

  97·65

  Table showing disposable weekly income of a single man over 65 but under 80, when receiving basic retirement pension and retirement pension plus SERPS/occupalional pension Assuming rent £35 per week, rates £10 per week

  Gross income£

  Tax£

  Income after tax£

  Rent£

  Rent rebate£

  Rates£

  Rates rebate£

  Total net income£

  Net income after housing costs£

  RP

  41·15

  0·00

  41·15

  35·00

  35·00

  10·00

  8·00

  84·15

  39·15

  RP + £5

  46·15

  0·00

  46·15

  35·00

  33·63

  10·00

  7·58

  87·36

  42·36

  RP + £10

  51·15

  0·00

  51·15

  35·00

  30·38

  10·00

  6·58

  88·11

  43·11

  RP + £15

  56·15

  0·00

  56·15

  35·00

  27·13

  10·00

  5·58

  88·86

  43·86

  RP + £20

  61·15

  0·00

  61·15

  35·00

  23·88

  10·00

  4·58

  89·61

  44·61

  RP + £25

  66·15

  1·25

  64·90

  35·00

  21·45

  10·00

  3·83

  90·18

  45·18

  RP + £30

  71·15

  2·25

  68·90

  35·00

  19·01

  10·00

  3·08

  90·99

  45·99

  RP + £35

  76·15

  3·75

  72·40

  35·00

  16·57

  10·00

  2·33

  91·30

  46·30

  RP + £40

  81·15

  5·00

  76·15

  35·00

  14·13

  10·00

  1·58

  91·86

  46·86

  RP + £4S

  86·15

  6·25

  79·90

  35·00

  11·70

  10·00

  0·83

  92·43

  47·43

  RP + £50

  91·15

  7·50

  83·65

  35·00

  9·26

  10·00

  0·00

  92·91

  47·91

  RP + £75

  116·15

  13·75

  102·40

  35·00

  0·00

  10·00

  0·00

  102·40

  57·40

  RP + £100

  141·15

  20·00

  121·15

  35·00

  0·00

  10·00

  0·00

  121·15

  76·15

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing the disposable incomes of a single pensioner and a married pensioner paying(a) average local authority rent and rates and (b) rent of £35 and rates of £10 a week, when in receipt of the national insurance basic retirement pension only and when in receipt of (i) state earnings related pensions or occupational pensions of (a) £5, (b) £10, (c) £15, (d) £20, (e) £25, (f) £30, (g) £35, (h) £40, (i) £45, (j) £50, (k) £75 and (1) £100 a week and (ii) income from capital of the same amounts.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information relating to (i) is shown in the following tables.

  It is not possible to provide an answer to (ii) because entitlement to housing benefit depends upon the amount of a pensioner's capital and the tax payable will vary according to type of investment.

  For those on the lowest incomes, income support may be available.
  613

  Table showing disposable weekly income of a married man over 65 but under 80, when receiving basic retirement pension and retirement pension plus SERPS/occupational pension Average local authority rent and rates

  Gross income£

  Tax£

  Income after tax£

  Rent£

  Rent rebate£

  Rates£

  Rates rebate£

  Total net income£

  Net income after housing costs£

  RP

  65·90

  0·00

  65·90

  16·60

  16·60

  6·90

  5·52

  88·02

  64·52

  RP + £5

  70·90

  0·00

  70·90

  16·60

  14·52

  6·90

  4·88

  90·30

  66·80

  RP + £10

  75·90

  0·00

  75·90

  16·60

  11·27

  6·90

  3·88

  91·05

  67·55

  RP + £15

  80·90

  0·00

  80·90

  16·60

  8·02

  6·90

  2·88

  91·80

  68·30

  RP + £20

  85·90

  0·00

  85·90

  16·60

  4·77

  6·90

  1·88

  92·55

  69·05

  RP + £25

  90·90

  0·00

  90·90

  16·60

  1·52

  6·90

  0·88

  93·30

  69·80

  RP + £30

  95·90

  0·00

  95·90

  16·60

  0·00

  6·90

  0·00

  95·90

  72·40

  RP + £35

  100·90

  1·02

  99·88

  16·60

  0·00

  6·90

  0·00

  99·88

  76·38

  RP + £4O

  105·90

  2·27

  103·63

  16·60

  0·00

  6·90

  0·00

  103·63

  80·13

  RP + £45

  110·90

  3·52

  107·38

  16·60

  0·00

  6·90

  0·00

  107·38

  83·88

  RP + £5O

  115·90

  4·77

  111·13

  16·60

  0·00

  6·90

  0·00

  111·13

  87·63

  RP + £75

  140·90

  11·02

  129·88

  16·60

  0·00

  6·90

  0·00

  129·88

  106·38

  RP + £100

  165·90

  17·27

  148·63

  16·60

  0·00

  6·90

  0·00

  148·63

  125·13

  Table showing disposable weekly income of a married man over 65 but under 80, when receiving basic retirement pension and retirement pension plus Serps/occupational pension Assuming rent £35 per week, rates £10 per week

  Gross income£

  Tax£

  Income after tax£

  Rent£

  Rent rebate£

  Rates£

  Rates rebate£

  Total net income£

  Net income after housing costs£

  RP

  65·90

  0·00

  65·90

  35·00

  35·00

  10·00

  8·00

  108·90

  63·90

  RP + £5

  70·90

  0·00

  70·90

  35·00

  32·92

  10·00

  7·36

  111·18

  66·18

  RP + £10

  75·90

  0·00

  75·90

  35·00

  29·67

  10·00

  6·36

  111·93

  66·93

  RP + £15

  80·90

  0·00

  80·90

  35·00

  26·42

  10·00

  5·36

  112·68

  67·68

  RP + £20

  85·90

  0·00

  85·90

  35·00

  23·17

  10·00

  4·36

  113·43

  68·43

  RP + £25

  90·90

  0·00

  90·90

  35·00

  19·92

  10·00

  3·36

  114·18

  69·18

  RP + £30

  95·90

  0·00

  95·90

  35·00

  16·67

  10·00

  2·36

  114·93

  69·93

  RP + £35

  100·90

  1·02

  99·88

  35·00

  14·08

  10·00

  1·56

  115·52

  70·52

  RP + £40

  105·90

  2·27

  103·63

  35·00

  11·65

  10·00

  0·81

  116·09

  71·09

  RP + £45

  110·90

  3·52

  107·38

  35·00

  9·21

  10·00

  0·00

  116·59

  71·59

  RP + £50

  115·90

  4·77

  111·13

  35·00

  6·77

  10·00

  0·00

  117·90

  72·90

  RP + £75

  140·90

  11·02

  129·88

  35·00

  0·00

  10·00

  0·00

  129·88

  84·88

  RP + £100

  165·90

  17·27

  148·63

  35·00

  0·00

  10·00

  0·00

  148·63

  103·63

  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance is issued to local offices in respect of social security payments for the support of mentally handicapped persons in homes transferred from local authority control to private companies.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  General advice on the handling of claims in a variety of circumstances form people in private and voluntary homes is in the adjudication officers' guide, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many households in(a) Corby and (b) east Northants were in receipt of housing benefit in 1987–88;

  (2) how many council tenants in (a) Corby and (b) east Northants are in receipt of housing benefit;

  (3) how many council tenants in (a) Corby and (b) east Northants were in receipt of housing benefit in 1987–88;

  (4) how many households in (a) Corby and (b) east Northants are in receipt of housing benefit.
  614
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest information available for 1987–88 is given in the table. Information for 1988–89 will become available when statistical returns from all local authorities have been received and validated.

  Estimated number of housing benefit recipients 1987–88

  Recipients

  1987–88

  Corby

  Council Tenants

  6,125

  All households

  7,260

  East Northants

  Council Tenants

  2,880

  All households

  5,662

  Source: Local authority housing benefit subsidy claims.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for housing benefit transitional protection have now been received; and how many have been assessed as eligible for payment.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Up to 23 January 1989 the transitional payments unit had received 405,314 applications. A total of 402,118 inquiry forms, requesting housing benefit details, have been issued to local authorities of which 370,464 have been returned. The unit processes
  615
  applications as soon as these inquiry forms are returned and so far 171,559 have been assessed as eligible for payment; 190,285 have not been eligible.

  National Insurance Numbercards
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many national insurance numbercards have been issued since their launch in 1984; how many national insurance numberholders have these plastic cards and how many do not; what representations he has received since their issue on the implications of the cards for civil liberties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  About 7 million numbercards have been issued since 8 January 1984. Some of these were reissued cards to replace lost cards or those where the contributor's name had changed. We do not know how many of the estimated 21·5 million national insurance contributors currently have number cards.

  In 1984 when the card was first issued concern was expressed, but few representations have been received since. The card is merely a durable reminder to a person of his national insurance number, containing only his name and that number. It is not an identity document.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information is currently stored on the memory strip of the national insurance numbercard; and what free space exists for further information.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The magnetic strip on the back of the national insurance numbercard contains three tracks. Each is capable of recording 79 characters. The only information currently recorded is that shown on the front of the card, that is the holder's name, nine character national insurance number and the two character check code. The free space remaining on the magnetic strip depends on the number of characters in the cardholder's name. There are no proposals to include any further information on the magnetic strip.

  Benefits (Disqualification)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will specify the number of people referred to adjudication offices by employment service staff because of doubts about their availability for work; and how many were disqualified from receiving benefit on grounds of non-availability for work for each of the years 1983 to 1988;

  (2) if he will specify the number of people referred to adjudication officers by employment service staff because of restrictions they placed on their availability; and how many were disqualified from receiving benefit on grounds of non-availability for work for each of the years 1983 to 1988.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Claims referred to adjudication officers and claims disallowed: availability for work and restricted availability

  Availability

  Restricted availability

  Year

  Referrals

  Disallowances

  Referrals

  Disallowances

  1983

  97,844

  50,243

  21,853

  6,994

  1984

  81,186

  43,465

  16,781

  5,578

  1985

  100,474

  45,903

  16,520

  5,617

  1986

  114,447

  . 61,402

  23,868

  7,371

  616

  Availability

  Restricted availability

  Year

  Referrals

  Disallowances

  Referrals

  Disallowances

  1987

  171,515

  85,319

  68,400

  16,455

  19881

  78,259

  38,141

  45,347

  10,149

  1 To June 1988 only. Later information is not available.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will specify the number of people referred to adjudication officers by employment service staff because they neglected to avail themselves of or refused suitable employment; and how many were disqualified from receiving benefit on grounds of neglecting to avail themselves of or refusing suitable employment for each of the years 1983 to 1988.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is as follows:

  Neglect to avail of a reasonable opportunity of suitable employment

  Refusal of suitable employment

  Claims1 Referred

  Claims1 Disqualified

  Claims1 Referred

  Claims1 Disqualified

  1983

  784

  433

  5,030

  1,450

  1984

  1,071

  504

  5,019

  1,461

  1985

  1,564

  762

  5,331

  1,534

  1986

  2,906

  1,242

  6,654

  1,945

  1987

  5,176

  2,013

  7,783

  2,308

  19882

  4,697

  1,733

  3,939

  1,205

  1 Figures relate to the number of claims, not the number of people making those claims.

  2 Figures for 1988 are for the first six months only; data for the second half of the year are not yet available.

  Source: 100 per cent. count of adjudication officer decisions.

  Transitional Payments
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people are now receiving housing benefit transitional protection;

  (2) how many people will lose housing benefit transitional protection after April.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Up to 20 January 1989, 155,153 awards of housing benefit transitional payments had been made. The closing date for applications is 31 March 1989 and until all applications are received, and processed, we will not know the final number of successful applicants or how many of them will cease to receive these payments from April 1989.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants have lost their income support transitional addition as a result of changes in their circumstances.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Of the estimated 1·4 million incol,le support claimants who received a transitional addition at the inception of the scheme in April 1988, some 1·1 million are expected still to be receiving such an addition at the beginning of April 1989.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families are now receiving family credit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 13 January at columns 781–82.
  617
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Government expect to achieve their target for the take-up of family credit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Expenditure on family credit is already running at approximately the level estimated for the current financial year. It is apparent that the majority of people with a large entitlement are already claiming it. Our overall target is to ensure that families are made aware of their possible entitlement to family credit and encouraged to claim it. We have had two major television and press campaigns and have issued leaflets to child benefit recipients paid through the Post Office. We are now planning a further major campaign, to include television, to coincide with the uprating in April.

  Severe Hardship Allowance
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give details of the numbers of young people under the age of 18 years who were in receipt of severe hardship allowance by month, for the period September to December 1988 inclusive.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information is not available. However the number of directions enabling income support to be paid on grounds of severe hardship was as follows:

  Claims madel received (thousands)

  Determinations (thousands)

  Awards (thousands)

  1983

  1108

  351

  205

  1984

  386

  394

  210

  1985

  397

  393

  204

  1986

  411

  409

  225

  1987

  420

  422

  227

  19882

  111

  103

  61

  1 Figure available from 3 September 1983 only.

  2 January to April only.

  Widows (Benefit)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women in Britain have been excluded from receiving widow's benefit owing to new regulations effective from 11 April 1988; and how many women in Britain are receiving a reduced amount of widow's benefit in relation to that paid prior to 11 April 1988.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women who would otherwise have been eligible are estimated to have lost their entitlement to widow's pension because of the raising of the age limit from 40 to 45 years; and, of these, how many actually qualified for widow's allowance but were then disqualified by their age from receiving a widow's pension.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 19 January 1989]Latest estimates* indicate that during 1988–89 approximately 2,500 women, who would otherwise have been eligible, will have lost their entitlement to widow's pension because of the raising age limit from 40 to 45 years. Approximately 600 women will have qualified for widow's allowance but will then have been disqualified by their age
  618

  Period ended (1988)

  Cumulative number of directions1,2

  30 September

  234

  28 October

  545

  25 November

  980

  30 December

  1,637

  1 Figures relate to the number of decisions rather than to the number of individuals involved. Some individuals may have had more than one decision made in respect of them.

  2 Severe hardship directions are for variable periods.

  Social Security Operational Strategy
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the estimates of net savings and costs contained in "Social Security Operational Strategy: A Framework for the Future" at 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Using the gross domestic product reflator, the estimates of total costs and net savings would be £856 million and £1,379 million respectively (at 1987/88 prices).

  Family Income Implement
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide figures detailing the number of claims made for family income supplement in each year since 1983; how many such claims were received in each year; how many were determined in each year; and how many resulted in an award.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is as follows:

  from receiving a widow's pension. Approximately 17,500 women are receiving a reduced amount of widow's benefit in relation to that paid prior to 11 April 1988.

  * Source Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much it is estimated would have been paid out in 1989–90 in widows' benefits had the age limit for widows' pension not been raised from 50 to 55 years. This represents an increase of £35 million on estimated actual expenditure.

  * Source: Government Actuary's Department.

  Attendance Allowance (Training)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the purpose of reviewing attendance
  619
  allowance when a recipient commences an employment training programme or a youth training scheme; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many reviews of attendance allowance recipients who entered employment training or a youth training scheme took place in 1988; and what percentage of these reviews have resulted in the withdrawal of attendance allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 20 January 1989]: Entitlement to an attendance allowance is reviewed if there has been a relevant change in a recipient's attendance needs. It is for the independent attendance allowance board to decide whether such a change has occurred in each individual case. Information about the number and outcome of reviews conducted in 1988 where the attendance needs of a recipient undergoing employment or youth training had changed is not available.

ENERGY

  High Moor Colliery (Accident)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the events leading up to the collapse of 30 m of roof in 91's main site heading at High Moor colliery in which 10 miners were trapped in an accident on 13 January.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is primarily a matter for British Coal and the Health and Safety Executive's mines and quarries inspectorate. I understand that they are each carrying out their own investigations into the cause or causes of the accident.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the cost of transporting imported coal from port of entry to power stations; and what percentage of the total price at the port of entry this represents.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Transport costs, which vary widely depending on distance and other factors, are a commercial matter for those importing coal.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much foreign coal has been imported into(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland in each year of the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Available information for the five years commencing 1984 is as follows:

  Imports of Foreign Coal

  Thousand tonnes

  Destination

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  January-November 1988

  United Kingdom

  8,894

  12,732

  10,554

  9,781

  10,755

  Scotland

  1,097

  1,650

  1,174

  1,269

  1,655

  Source. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise (port of entry basis).

  Energy Systems
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department, or consultants to his Department, have carried out a comparative study of(a) public concern
  620
  towards, and (b) the environmental intrusion of, renewable energy systems such as wind farms or wave generator arrays off shore, and nuclear power plants, respectively.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Energy Paper No. 54 "Energy Technologies for the United Kingdom: 1986 Appraisal of R, D and D" summarised the environmental implications of energy technologies in the United Kingdom. Appropriate studies of environmental features and public attitudes are being conducted of each renewable source as part of its development programme. An application to my right hon. Friend, under the Electric Lighting Act 1909, for consent to build a new major power station (including a nuclear station) is accompanied by an environmental statement. My right hon. Friend requires the applicant to advertise any such applications so that the public has a full opportunity to express their views.

  Ministerial Broadcasts
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will seek permission from the British Broadcasting Corporation to issue a copy of a transcript of(a) his interview on BBCI Television's "On the Record" and (b) his interview with BBC Radio 4's "The World this Weekend", both on 15 January; and if he will place copies in his departmental library and the Library of the House of Commons.

  Mr. Parkinson
  No. I understand that the Library of the House does obtain transcripts from the broadcasters on behalf of hon. Members.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the cost of the capital investment programme to replace old electricity generating plant, for the new power generation and national power companies in Wales and England.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The cost of investment to replace old electricity generating plant will depend on a number of factors including when the plant is retired and what type of equipment is chosen by the CEGB's successor companies and their competitors to replace it.

  Electricity Industry (Expenditure)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of capital spending by the electricity industry for 1988–89 and for each of the next three years at current prices, and at constant 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Approvals given for capital expenditure by the electricity supply industry in England and Wales, based on programmes submitted in 1988, related to projected expenditure of:

  1987–88 prices £ billion

  Outturn prices £ billion

  1988–89

  1·4

  1·5

  1989–90

  1·5

  1·6

  1990–91

  1·7

  1·9

  1991–92

  1·9

  2·2

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of gross and net public sector capital spending by his Department by both central Government and local authorities for 1988–89 and for each of the next three years at current prices and at constant 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Estimates of public sector capital spending by my Department appear in the public expenditure White Paper supplementary analysis—chapter 21, Cm. 621—which is due to be published on Monday 30 January.

  Contributions to the percentage increase in the "all items" retail prices index in the 12 months ended:

  December

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Food

  3·2

  2·1

  2·0

  0·8

  1·2

  0·6

  0·7

  0·6

  0·6

  0·6

  Catering

  1·1

  0·7

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  0·2

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  Alcoholic drink

  1·4

  1·4

  1·3

  0·7

  0·5

  0·4

  0·5

  0·3

  0·7

  2·9

  Tobacco

  0·7

  0·5

  1·1

  0·4

  0·2:

  0·5

  0·3

  0·4

  0·1

  0·3

  Housing

  2·3

  3·6

  3·0

  -0·1

  1·3

  1·3

  1·7

  1·3

  0·7

  2·9

  Fuel and light

  1·1

  1·6

  0·8

  1·0

  0·1

  0·3

  -0·3

  -0·3

  -0·1

  0·3

  Clothing and footwear

  0·9

  0·5

  0·0

  0·1

  0·1

  0·0

  0·3

  0·2

  0·1

  0·3

  Motoring expenditure

  0·7

  0·6

  Fares and other travel costs

  3·1

  2·0

  1·7

  1·0

  0·8

  0·3

  0·6

  0·1

  Household goods

  0·2

  0·3

  Household sevices

  0·2

  0·2

  Personal goods and services

  3·3

  2·8

  1·5

  1·1

  0·8

  0·9

  1·1

  0·5

  0·2

  0·2

  Leisure goods

  0·2

  0·2

  Leisure services

  0·1

  0·2

  ALL ITEMS

  17·2

  15·1

  12·0

  5·4

  5·3

  4·6

  5·7

  3·7

  3·7

  6·8

  Employment Training
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the target number of employment training scheme places to be filled by the end of each month from 30 September 1988 onwards, in each area where such statistics are collected.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Planning profiles for the number of filled places are for internal management purposes only and are not normally made available.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the decision of Warrington borough council to boycott employment training and on the reasons it has given for their decision.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Many local authorities support employment training and are actively participating in the programme. Unfortunately Warrington borough council has decided not to do so. The council disagreed with some of the arrangements for the programme, including the payment of training allowances to trainees. In the council's view, those taking part should be employees and paid a wage, even though the concept of "rate for the job" is quite out of place in a programme of training. The council's approach is of no help whatsoever to unemployed people in Warrington.

EMPLOYMENT

  RPI
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage contribution made by each component to the retail prices index in December 1988; and what was the percentage contribution of the same components at the same month in each of the preceding nine years.

  Mr. Lee
  Following is the information for the sub-groups of the retail prices index. Owing to a change made in January 1987 in the structure of the index it has not been possible to provide a complete back series in all cases. Because the contributions have been rounded independently they do not all add precisely to the 12-month change for all items.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the opencast sites identified by the Health and Safety Executive mines and quarries inspectorate where preventive and advisory action has been taken following the flooding of the St. Aidon's site and specify the action taken.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Following the national survey carried out by the Health and Safety Executive's mines and quarries inspectorate four sites were identified where working was planned in the vicinity of water courses. Where appropriate, modifications to existing methods of work have been agreed.

  Mr. C. Petrie
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will receive a reply to the letter he wrote to the unemployment benefit office in Wavertree, Liverpool 15, about an ex-Cammell Laird shipyard employee, Mr. H. C. Petrie of 93 Picton Road, Liverpool, on 21 March 1988 and on two subsequent occasions.

  Mr. Lee
  Although officials at the Wavertree unemployment benefit office have spoken to the hon. Member's private secretary on two occasions, I regret that a written response to his letter had not been sent. I have
  623
  asked the office manager to ensure that a full reply and an appropriate apology is sent immediately giving the complete details of the case in question.

  I understand that the case has been resolved in Mr. Petrie's favour, and a payment can now be made.

  Student Exchange
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many United States students have taken temporary employment in the United Kingdom under the student exchange employment programme in the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available; and how many British students worked in the United States of America under the same programme during that period.

  Mr. Lee
  In 1988, a total of 4,122 United States students came to the United Kingdom under the British Universities North America Club student exchange programme which allows those taking part to take up temporary employment. In the same period 8,684 British students went to the United States of America under the same programme. It is not known how many students actually took up jobs.

  Pay Differentials
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department has figures for pay differentials between low and high-paid workers in the United Kingdom; and if a breakdown of such figures by standard planning region is available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Annual surveys of earnings are conducted concurrently for Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the results are published separately. They provide figures of the average weekly and hourly earnings of different categories of employees and of the distribution of their earnings for a pay period in April. Summary figures are published in table 1 of the reports. Details figures by standard regions of Great Britain are published in part E of the report on the new earnings survey and for Northern Ireland in the separate report on the new earnings survey for Northern Ireland. Copies of the latest, 1988, reports are in the Library.

  Tilbury Port (Health and Safety)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will conduct a full public inquiry into the level of health and safety provision at the port of Tilbury.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No.

  North-west region

  Letters of invitation

  Restart interviews

  Benefit/Credit disallowances for failing to attend interview

  Referred to claimant adviser

  Referred to disablement resettlement officer

  January

  43,000

  33,000

  2,000

  2,000

  900

  February

  35,000

  31,000

  2,000

  1,900

  800

  March

  32,000

  30,000

  2,100

  2,100

  800

  April

  41,000

  34,000

  2,000

  2,400

  900

  May

  34,000

  28,000

  1,800

  2,300

  1,000

  June

  38,000

  28,000

  2,000

  2,500

  1,000

  July

  44,000

  38,000

  2,500

  3,100

  1,300

  August

  36,000

  29,000

  2,100

  2,400

  900

  September

  42,000

  28,000

  1,500

  2,100

  900

  Tilbury Docks(Deaths)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Port of London Authority about the number of deaths caused by industrial accidents at Tilbury docks.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions.

  Dockyards
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to improve the safety record in Britain's dockyards.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The new Dock Regulations and the Loading and Unloading of Fishing Vessels Regulations came into force on 1 January 1989. Both are aimed at promoting health and safety in docks and have the support of all sides of the ports industry. They reflect the technological changes that have occurred in cargo handling since the inception of the now revoked Docks Regulations 1934 and take account of the 1979 International Labour Office convention and recommendation on dock work. The Health and Safety Executive is working on establishing the new standards and is co-operating with the British Ports Federation and others to bring the requirements to the attention of all concerned.

  Restart
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of long-term unemployed people have obtained jobs from their restart interviews.

  Mr. Lee
  We do not know how many people get a job as a result of the restart interview. The aim of the restart programme is to make contact with longer-term unemployed people. It provides information and advice about opportunities to help people back into work.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the most recent figures for the north-west region showing how many unemployed people have, for each year since the introduction of the restart initiative(a) been called for a restart interview, (b) attended a restart interview, (c) had their benefit disallowed for failing to attend a restart interview, (d) been referred to a claimant adviser as a result of a restart interview and, (e) been referred to the disablement resettlement officer.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  625

  North-west region

  Letters of invitation

  Restart interviews

  Benefit/Credit disallowances for failing to attend interview

  Referred to claimant adviser

  Referred to disablement resettlement officer

  October

  53,000

  30,000

  1,700

  2,500

  1,000

  November

  42,000

  32,000

  2,100

  2,600

  1,100

  December

  32,000

  28,000

  2,400

  2,200

  800

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish details, as soon as they become available, of how many unemployed people in the north-west region have in each month January to December 1988 inclusive(a) been called for a restart interview, (b) attended a restart interview, (c) had their

  North West Region

  From

  1 July 1986

  10 April 1987

  28 March 1988

  To

  9 April 1987

  25 March 1988

  30 December 1988

  (a) Letters of Invitation

  259,000

  441,000

  362,000

  (b) Restart interviews

  217,000

  353,000

  276,000

  (c) Benefit/Credit disallowances for failing to attend interview

  N/A

  19,000

  18,000

  (d) Referred to Claimant Adviser

  1,600

  19,000

  22,000

  (e) Referred to Disablement Resettlement Officer

  8,000

  10,000

  9,000

  Career Development Loans
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the most recent details of how many people have been awarded career development loans; in what occupational sectors; and what was the status of those awarded loans at the time of application—employed, unemployed, student, trainee and other; and the destinations of recipients and the average cost of each place.

  Mr. Cope
  As at 31 December 1988, a total of 1,706 people had obtained career development loans, 655 of whom had obtained their loans during the pilot phase of the scheme. The training courses undertaken were in the following occupational sectors:

  Numbers

  Management

  249

  Commercial/professional

  215

  Shorthand/typing

  140

  Processing

  9

  Engineering

  37

  Construction

  30

  Hotel/Catering

  6

  Service/Retail

  137

  Computer Skills

  156

  Clerical

  40

  Science/Technology

  129

  Automotive

  1

  Flying Occupations

  102

  Driving Occupations

  217

  Health

  184

  Miscellaneous

  54

  At 31 December 1988, a total of 678 trainees were recorded as having been unemployed at the time of application, 814 as employed and 214 as "other".

  Of those individuals who, at 31 December 1988, had responded to a follow-up questionnaire 81 per cent. had obtained employment following their course, and a further 3 per cent. had gone on to further training.

  The average size of a career development loan at the end of 1988 was £2,400, although loans have been taken
  626
  benefit disallowed for failing to attend a restart interview,(d) been referred to a claimant adviser as a result of a restart interview and,(e) been referred to the diablement resettlement officer.

  Mr.Lee
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  out across the full available range, from £300 to £5,000. The Government pay the interest on the loans during the period of training and for up to three months afterwards.

  YTS
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the most recent details, for the north-west, of(a) the numbers of filled places in YTS by training occupational classification and (b) the number of contracted places in YTS by training occupational classification.

  Mr. Cope
  At 31 December 1988 there were 65,906 young people training on YTS in the north-west region. A breakdown by training occupational classification is given in the table. Information on the number of contracted places for YTS by training occupational classification is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  North west region Filled places by training occupational classification at 31 December 1988

  Number

  Administrative and clerical occupations

  13,409

  Creative, and educational and recreational service occupations

  1,650

  Health, community and personal service occupations

  7,009

  Selling and storage occupations

  7,262

  Scientific occupations

  473

  Catering,and food preparation and processing

  2,550

  Agricultural and related occupations

  2,109

  Fishing occupations

  19

  Transport operating occupations

  667

  Construction and civil engineering occupations

  10,350

  Mining, oil extraction and quarrying occupations

  62

  Electrical and electronic engineering occupations

  2,992

  Mechanical engineering, and metal production and Processing occupations

  6,315

  Motor vehicle repair and maintenance occupations

  4,181

  Non-metal processing occupations

  1,143

  Printing occupations

  393

  Clothing and textiles manufacturing occupations

  1,924

  Security service occupations

  16

  627

  Number

  Others

  3,382

  Total

  65,906

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the most recent details, in the north-west region, of(a) the number of young people who have been referred by the careers service for failing or refusing to take up a YTS place, (b) the number of young people who have waited more than eight weeks for a suitable YTS place, and in which occupational sector, and (c) the financial arrangements which have been made for young people in(b).

  Mr. Cope
  I am not aware of any case where the careers service has referred a young person to the benefit service for failing or refusing to take up a YTS place.

  It is not possible to provide information on the number of young people who may be waiting for a YTS place, as young people are not required to report what they are doing once bridging allowance expires. Provided they had made early contact and kept in regular touch with their local careers office they would have been offered a YTS place before the eight weeks bridging allowance period ends.

  A young person who is still actively seeking a YTS place when his bridging allowance runs out and who,if benefit were not paid,would suffer severe hardship,may be eligible for income support.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on proposals to review the YTS, in particular if he will give details of the date and scope of the review, and of the parties likely to be involved in such a review.

  Mr. Cope
  I have nothing to add to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) on 17 January 1989 at column 197.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the YTS allowances will be increased in the current year.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) on 18 January at column 253.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the most recent details of(a) the number of YTS schemes and work placements which have been referred to the Training Agency in regard to allegations of racial discrimination, sex discrimination and discrimination against people with disabilities, (b) the outcome of the above allegations and (c) the number of YTS schemes and work placements which have had their contracts with the Training Agency cancelled because of evidence of discrimination in the three categories referred to in (a).

  Mr. Cope
  Within the past year there have been three cases of racial discrimination drawn to the attention of the Training Agency head office, which have been the subject of a Commission for Racial Equality investigation. In one, a potential work experience provider was found guilty of unlawful discrimination. In the others, two managing agents are currently being investigated by the Commission for Racial Equality.
  628
  Allegations of discrimination in YTS are handled initially at local level by the Training Agency, where most are resolved and do not need to be reported to head office.

  Five YTS managing agents have failed to achieve approved training organisation status on grounds which included an unsatisfactory equal opportunities policy.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will meet the chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission to discuss the advancement of equal opportunities in the workplace;

  (2) if he will discuss plans for the provision of childcare facilities to ensure equality of opportunity in the workplace with the chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Department of Employment Ministers have frequent discussions with the chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission about equal opportunities in employment. The EOC chairman will be leading a discussion on child care for working parents at a meeting on 2 February of the advisory committee on women's employment chaired by me.

  Co-operative Development Agency
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the Co-operative Development Agency.

  Mr. Cope
  The Co-operative Development Agency was set up in 1978, with the aim of promoting co-operative ventures and representing the interests of the co-operative movement. Since that time and with the help of the CDA, many co-operative support agencies have been established, offering advice and assistance to anyone wanting to start or develop a co-operative business.

  The CDA was originally set up with a finite ceiling of financial support. Its life was extended under the 1984 Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Act and the financial ceiling increased to £3 million. We estimate that this ceiling will be reached in the 1990–91 financial year.

  The CDA has done the job it was asked to do by Parliament and there is now a good national network of local co-operative development agencies. There is also a wider network including the small firms service and local enterprise agencies able to offer business advice to small firms of all kinds; the local training and enterprise councils announced in the White Paper "Employment in the 1990s" will be asked to take account of the needs of all small and developing businesses in their localities including co-operatives.

  We are therefore inviting comments from interested bodies on whether the agency is still needed and on our proposal to bring it to an end. We will consider any comments carefully. If, after doing so, we conclude that the agency should be wound up we will do so by order under the affirmative resolution procedure in accordance with the provisions of the 1984 Act.

  Safety at Work
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions have been brought
  629
  under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and associated legislation in England and Wales in each year from 1982 to 1988; and if any estimate has been made of the inspection days saved if all proceedings had been conducted by the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]The figures requested are given in the table.

  Number of informations laid by Her Majesty's Factory and Agricultural Inspectorates and local authorities England and Wales4

  Year

  Factory and Agricultural Inspectorates

  Local Authorities

  1982

  2,099

  3468

  1983

  1,971

  3511

  1984

  1,978

  3585

  1985

  1,898

  394

  I986–872

  1,892

  560

  1987–8812

  2,103

  ..

  ..=not available.

  1 Provisional

  2 Year commencing 1 April.

  3 Informations laid relate to Great Britain.Data for England and Wales alone is not readily available.

  4 Data for the small number of prosecutions taken by other enforcing authorities is not readily available.

  No estimate has been made of the effects of proceedings being conducted by the Crown Prosecution Service. Since health and safety cases are frequently highly technical, and the expertise of HSE inspectors is required to explain them to the court, it is highly unlikely that many inspector days would be saved.

  Labour Statistics
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many firms in percentage terms have a work force of(a) 1 to 50 persons, (b) 51 to 100 persons,(c) 101 to 250 persons,(d) 251 to 500 persons, (e) 501 to 1,000 persons,(f) 1,001 to 2,500 persons, (g) 2,501 to 5,000 persons, (h) over 5,001 persons and (i) broken down by sector and standard planning region.

  Mr. Maude
  I have been asked to reply.

  Expressed as a percentage of all firms, that is companies, partnerships and sole proprietors, the numbers registered for VAT are:

  Sector

  Per cent.

  Agriculture, forestry and fishing

  1l·l

  Production

  10·1

  Construction

  14·8

  Transport industries

  4·4

  Wholesaling and dealing

  8·0

  Retail

  16·5

  Finance, property and professional services

  8·3

  Catering

  8·0

  Motor trades

  4·9

  Other services

  13·9

  Employment figures are available solely for manufacturing industries to the following bands:

  Percentage of total firms in manufacturing

  Employment

  Per cent.

  1 to 49

  90·9

  50 to 99

  4·1

  100 to 199

  2·4

  200 to 499

  1·6

  630

  Employment

  Per cent.

  500 to 999

  0·5

  1,000 and over

  0·4

  These figures relate to 1988 which are the latest available and are derived from tables 1 and 6 of Business Monitor PA1003 "Size analyses of United Kingdorn businesses", which is available in the House of Commons Library. Because corporate businesses may have widely dispersed local sites, an analysis by standard planning region is not produced.

ENVIRONMENT

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to include provisions covering houses in multiple occupation in the forthcoming Housing and Local Government Bill; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  We are still considering possible changes to the legislation on houses in multiple occupation in the light of the 200 responses to our consultation paper.

  Urban Regeneration
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of urban development corporations in carrying out the regeneration of the areas for which they are responsible.

  Mr. Ridley
  The corporations are making very good progress indeed.

  Water Company Land
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the case for the code of practice on conservation and access to the countryside to apply to water company land which is sold or transferred.

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend has received a
  number of representations on this matter. I published the draft code yesterday.

  Litter
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce new legislation to control litter.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No, the Government are vigorously pursuing a series of initiatives within the existing legal framework.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the spending on litter collection for each year from 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Details of local authority expenditure on litter collection are not available centrally.

  Strategic Planning (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for improving the quality of strategic planning in Greater London.
  631
  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend is preparing strategic planning guidance for London which will be published in draft for consultation in the near future.

  Housing (Torbay)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the proposed transfer of council housing stock in Torbay.

  Mr. Ridley
  Torbay borough council applied to me on 17 November for consent to dispose of its housing stock to two housing associations. My Department replied on 10 January saying that I am minded not to give consent to the disposals, and inviting the council to consider conducting a further ballot of tenants to establish more clearly both the extent of the opposition and the extent of positive support.

  Housing Associations (Bolton)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes were provided by housing associations in Bolton in 1987; and what is the estimated figure for 1988.

  Mr. Trippier
  Bolton metropolitan district has reported that housing associations completed 259 new dwellings and renovation work on a further 57 dwellings in their area in 1987. In the first nine months of 1988, 91 new dwellings were completed, whilst in the first half of the year there were 12 renovations.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he has taken to assist local authorities with the implementation of the community charge.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government are working closely with local authorities to ensure that they are fully prepared to implement the community charge in April 1990, in terms both of advice and resources. We are also helping local authorities by ensuring that the public are fully informed about the community charge.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest available estimate for the levels of community charges in Norfolk after April 1990.

  Mr. Ridley
  The illustrative figures for Norfolk, based on 1988–89 expenditure, are in the range £173 to £206 with no safety net and £178 to £215 with the full safety net.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  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 Ealing.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A ward sister earning £15,000, living in a flat in Ealing worth £70,000 and with a rateable value of £300, would pay a rates bill of £537, a community charge of £234 (disregarding the transitional safety net), and £695 under a system of capital value rates plus local income tax.
  632
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has made of the cost to the average household in London of a system of local government finance based on(a) the community charge and (b) a local income tax combined with a local domestic rate based on capital values of property.

  Mr. Gummer
  Illustrative figures, published on 23 June 1988, show that the average household in London would be considerably worse off under a system of local income tax combined with capital value rates than with the community charge.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to change the date at which registration for the poll tax will begin in England.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax. We intend that the regulations enabling community charges registration officers to request information from members of the public will come into force on 22 May.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of local authorities in preparing for the introduction of the community charge.

  Mr. Gummer
  Many local authorities are clearly making good progress in preparing for the introduction of the community charge. I intend to monitor progress carefully in the months ahead.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of car refuellings now take place at garages which stock unleaded petrol.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  About 25 per cent. of refuellings are now estimated to take place at petrol stations where unleaded petrol is available.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the percentage increase in demand for unleaded petrol over the last 12 months.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The demand for unleaded petrol has increased by over 1,500 per cent. during the last year. We hope the demand will increase substantially further in the next 12 months.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the current availability of unleaded petrol; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Encouraging progress has been made with about 3,000 petrol stations around the country now selling unleaded petrol. This is growing by some 60 stations a week.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to change the law in relation to drinking water.

  Mr. Howard
  The Water Bill contains proposals for a new and substantially strengthened system for setting drinking water quality standards and ensuring compliance with those standards.

  Waste (North Sea)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the dumping of waste into the North sea.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have continued to receive a large number of representations about a wide range of marine environment issues including the dumping of waste from ships and discharges from land-based sources.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning applications were allowed in 1988 after appeal and where only minor modifications were necessary; what proportion these constituted of the total number of applications made; and what was the estimated average length of time between submission and final approval of applications allowed after appeal and with only minor modification.

  Mr. Howard
  Information in the form requested is not available. Generally, the number of appeals allowed is estimated to represent some 1 per cent. of over 600,000 planning applications submitted in a year. Between 1 January and 31 October 1988 (the latest date for which information is available), 16,977 planning appeals were determined, of which 6,375 were allowed. The average length of time between the date the application was made to the local planning authority and final approval following the appeal, for these 6,375 cases, was 54 weeks.

  Football Clubs (Membership Scheme)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the proposed football membership scheme.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have received over 1,800 representations on a wide range of issues relating to the idea of a scheme, most of them against the idea. In addition, I have received a large number of proposals to implement the scheme from computer companies and others.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from football authorities on the proposed football membership scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The football authorities contributed fully to the working party I chaired on the national membership scheme and agreed the report which the working party produced. They have made it clear that they are opposed to the principle of the scheme but have confirmed that they will co-operate with the Government in producing a workable scheme.

  I wrote to the president of the Football league and the chairman of the Football Association on 17 January inviting them to confirm that the football authorities would wish to take on responsibility for the FMA. I understand that the president of the League has said they will do so and I welcome this.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the latest meeting held between his Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and the chairmen of Football League clubs.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I had a useful and constructive meeting about the Football Spectators Bill with the chairmen of 634
  many of the league clubs on 17 January. I have accepted an invitation from the Football League to meet club chairmen again on 26 January.

  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to meet the chairman of the Football League to discuss proposed legislation on a football membership scheme.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I wrote to the president of the Football League and the chairman of the Football Association about the Bill on 17 January, I look forward to meeting them soon.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to meet representatives from the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs to discuss identity cards.

  Mr. Moynihan
  At the meeting I held with the FSA and NFFSC on 6 December about the proposed national membership scheme I said that any further views that both organisations wished to express would be welcomed. I also said that I would be happy to meet both organisations again following the introduction of the Football Spectators Bill.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has had any discussions with the chairman of the Sports Council since the publication of the report of the working party on the proposed national football supporters membership scheme.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have not discussed the proposed national membership scheme for football supporters with the chairman of the Sports Council. I have, however, seen the council's press release of 9 January. I welcome the chairman's comments about the commercial opportunities that the scheme would provide.

  Local Authorities (Enforcement Powers)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to seek to amend local authorities' enforcement powers in relation to planning, air pollution and waste disposal.

  Mr. Howard
  We hope shortly to receive the report of the review of local authorities' planning enforcement powers, now being carried out by Mr. Robert Carnworth QC, and the need to amend existing powers will be considered in the light of the report's recommendations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already announced our intention to introduce, in the lifetime of this Parliament, legislative proposals to improve waste management. We hope to provide for new controls over air pollution which will give local authorities powers of prior authorisation (and associated enforcement powers) over certain industrial processes as announced in consultation papers issued in December 1986 and December 1988.

  Local Authority Land
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any application for the sale of local authority land in Bradford has been made since September 1988; and if he will make a statement.
  635
  Mr. Trippier
  No applications have been received.

  Global Environment (Research)
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responsibility he has for research into the global environment supported from public funds; and what support he is giving to it on the Votes for which he is responsible in 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department supports research into the global environment where this will provide a sound scientific basis for its policy and statutory responsibilities. Climate change and ozone layer depletion are currently the principal issues of global significance. Expenditure on these areas is expected to rise from £191,000 this year to about £950,000 in 1989–90.

  Council Properties (Transfers)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that a tenant who moves into a council property after a landlord has made a bid for that property will not have his home transferred without his consent.

  Mr. Trippier
  Where a dwelling is let by the existing landlord after a tenant's choice application has been made, regulations under Section 101 of the Housing Act 1988 will provide for vacant possession to be given on transfer. Such lettings will therefore be temporary and will not involve the transfer of dwellings over a tenant's or licensee's head. Existing landlords will be required to make the temporary nature of any such lettings clear at the time to the tenants or licensees.

  Beijing (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his visit to Beijing to discuss the effects of chlorofluorocarbons on the global environment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had very useful discussions in December and was impressed by the understanding of the Chinese Government of the effects of chlorofluorocarbons on the ozone layer and by their appreciation of the gravity of the possible effect of CFCs on world climate. China has given an enthusiastic and positive response to our initiative in holding a major international conference in March on "Saving the Ozone Layer" and is considering the most appropriate senior level of representation.

  Nirex
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet representatives of UK Nirex.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet representatives of UK Nirex.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet representatives of UK Nirex.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet representatives of UK Nirex.
  636
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans at present to meet representatives of UK Nirex.

  Planning Law
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to amend existing legislation that provides presumption in favour of developers, in current planning law; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  There is a long-standing principle that applications for planning permission should be granted unless the development proposed would cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance. That principle remains sound.

  Housing Action Trusts
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to publish the consultants' reports on housing action trusts.

  Mr. Trippier
  When we have received all the consultants' reports and have had an opportunity to consider them, we shall publish their findings.

  London Boroughs Grants Scheme
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the London boroughs grants scheme on section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972; and whether he has arranged to meet their representatives.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The London borough grants scheme wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State arguing against the proposal in paragraph 8.20 of the White Paper "The Conduct of Local Authority Business". My right hon. Friend, the Minister for Local Government, will meet representatives on 23 February.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take in light of the findings of the Audit Commission study on homelessness and local authorities.

  Mr. Trippier
  I shall consider action on this study when it is finalised and published.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest figures for families accepted as homeless by local authorities(a) in Greater London and (b) in England and Wales as a whole.

  Mr. Trippier
  The latest estimates of households accepted as homeless by English local authorities appears in table 1 of "Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England, Results for the third quarter of 1988, Supplementary tables", which is available in the Library.

  For Welsh figures, I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the reason for the delay in publishing the Audit Commission's report on its study of local authorities and homelessness; when he expects the report to be published; and if he will make a statement.
  637
  Mr. Trippier
  The timing of publication of Audit Commission reports is entirely a matter for the Commission.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's latest assessment of the danger posed by the greenhouse effect; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the Government's reply to the first report from the Environment Committee, Session 1987–88, HC 270–1 on air pollution, Cm. 552.

  Water Authority Land
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from recreational groups concerning access to water authority land after privatisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend has received representations from a number of bodies which are being carefully considered.

  However, the Water Bill imposes on the NRA and on the water and sewerage undertakers the same duties in respect of public access as at present apply to the water authorities, and the associated draft code of practice will make clear the presumption that the undertakers should continue to open up land of high amenity value to public access wherever circumstances allow.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the financial implications of the Water Bill in respect of land owned by the water authorities.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend has received representations from the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Countryside Commission and others on access to and conservation of water authority land after privatisation. In addition he has received representations from a local authority about compensation for councils whose land was transferred to water authorities under the Water Act 1973.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received a copy of the Countryside Commission's report of December 1988 on sites of conservation and recreation value currently in the ownership of water authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Countryside Commission has produced an interesting and useful study.

  The planning system, together with the existing arrangements for national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, protects and will continue to protect amenity land.

  The majority of land in national parks has always been in private ownership, and there is no evidence that this inhibits public enjoyment or leads to unacceptable development.

  Local Authority Housing (Paper)
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in 638
  response to the consultation paper "A New Financial Regime for Local Authority Housing in England and Wales"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) on 11 January 1989 at column 676.

  River Quality
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of rivers in England and Wales are of good or fair quality.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 14 December at column 618.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further action he proposes to improve the quality of English rivers.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Water Bill provides for the establishment of the new National Rivers Authority with strong powers for the protection and enhancement of the water environment. The Bill also contains proposals for a strengthened general framework for the control of water pollution through the introduction of statutory water quality objectives. Improved powers to establish water protection zones are included in the Bill along with new provisions designed to allow most stringent controls over discharges of the most dangerous "Red List" substances.

  Other action in hand includes major programmes by the regional water authorities, costing in the region of £900 million to £1,000 million to bring sewage treatments works which are at present failing to meet discharge consent conditions into compliance by March 1992. Regulations are also being prepared to improve controls over three of the commonest sources of water pollution incidents—slurry, silage and oil stores.

  Climatic Change (Research)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what support he is giving to research into the effects of long-term climatic change on the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 22 December at column 431.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest available figures for households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation(a) in Greater London and (b) in England and Wales as a whole.

  Mr. Trippier
  Latest estimates of households temporarily placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation by English local authorities appear in table 4(a) of "Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England. Results for the third quarter of 1988. Supplementary Tables", which is available in the Library.

  For Welsh figures, I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  639
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the cost of keeping a homeless family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

  Mr. Trippier
  The latest estimate of the average cost per household day of bed-and-breakfast accommodation provided by English local authorities in 1987–88 is £34 (£26 net of offsetting income such as DSS allowances).

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further measures his Department is considering to control the use and production of chlorofluorocarbons in commercial products.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend, the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo).

  Rate Support Grant Settlement
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received following his announcement last month of the rate support grant settlement for 1989–90.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received representations from or on behalf of about 15 local authorities concerning the announcement on 19 December by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government of the rate support grant settlement for 1989–90. Several hon. Members also made representations during the debate on the settlement on 19 January. The House then approved the 1989–90 rate supports grant report and supplementary reports for earlier years.

  Rural Planning Strategies
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made in the preparation of rural planning strategies by district councils in England.

  Mr. Chope
  District councils for rural areas should include appropriate planning policies in their local development plans. Our planning policy guidance note on local plans, published in November, notes that large areas of the country still have no local plan and urges local planning authorities to make full use of this key component of the planning system. In rural areas new and updated local plans should reflect the Government's policies for fostering diversification of the rural economy.

  Housing Association Rent Levels
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the extent to which housing association rent levels can be kept within the means of locally employed people in rural areas under his present policies.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to ensure that housing association rents set under mixed funding in rural areas will be affordable by rural workers.

  Mr. Trippier
  The average grant rate for housing association schemes using mixed private and public 640
  funding in England in 1989–90 will be 75 per cent. The Housing Corporation is publishing rates, within this overall average, for different types of development in different areas of the country. Housing associations in all parts of the country, including rural areas, will be able to set rents within the reach of people in lower-paid employment.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the percentage increase in provision for housing associations between 1988–89 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend, the member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) on 14 December 1988 at column 629.

  Private Tenants (Landlords)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to enable private tenants of non-resident landlords to change their landlord in the event of being subjected to persistent harassment.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Housing Act 1988 extends the remedies available to tenants through the courts by strengthening the law on harassment and illegal eviction, and introducing a new civil right to damages for an illegally evicted occupier. With the increase in privately rented accommodation expected as a result of the Act, tenants who wish to change landlord for whatever reason should find it easier to do so.

  Bathing Water Standards
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has any plans to bring forward the date of compliance with EEC bathing water standards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  At present, some £70 million a year is being spent on schemes to improve the quality of bathing waters. We are discussing with water authorities the costs and the feasibility of bringing all waters identified under directive 76/160/EEC up to the European standards. In 1987, some 60 per cent. of the waters met those standards. The indications are that the results for the 1988 bathing season will show a further improvement.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the current level of council house sales.

  Mr. Trippier
  Sales have increased substantially over the last two years. The current forecast is for more than 150,000 sales by local authorities and new towns in England in 1988–89 some 70 per cent. more than in 1986–87 and the second largest total for any financial year since the right to buy was introduced.

  Estate Action
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of Estate Action finance is directed to energy conservation and to providing heating facilities; and if he will make a statement.
  641
  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on Wednesday 18 January 1989 at column 211.

  Mortgage Arrears
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how many families have been admitted into local authority homeless accommodation in the last 12 months due to mortgage arrears.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has of the number of persons currently homeless as a result of building societies foreclosing on their mortgages.

  Mr. Trippier
  In the 12 months to September 1988 local authorities accepted responsibility to secure accommodation for an estimated 9,100 households under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act, where the immediate reason for homelessness was mortgage arrears. Information is not available of type of mortgage lender.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest figures for mortgage repossessions in England and Wales.

  Mr. Trippier
  The latest figures available for mortgage repossessions by building societies cover the first half of 1988. At 0·134 per cent. of all mortgage advances, the figure shows a continuing downward trend.

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the new financial arrangements for parish councils when the Local Government Finance Act becomes operational.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  When the Local Government Finance Act becomes operational, parish councils will continue to have the right to raise whatever money they need by precepting on the charging authority for their area, which must meet such precepts from the moneys—community charge, needs grant and its share of the national business rate—in its collection fund. The charging authority will reflect a parish precept in the community charge it sets for the parish area.

  We are currently discussing with the local authority associations needs assessments for the grant system and the detailed arrangements for paying precepts. We envisage that charging authorities' needs assessments will include recognition of spending on functions which may be undertaken by parishes, and that a charging authority will meet its parish precepts in full, whatever the actual amount of community charges it collects.

  Pield Heath Nurseries, Cowley, Uxbridge
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be able to announce his decision on the appeal by Milton Hutchings Ltd. and the Costain Group against the decision of the London borough of Hillingdon in connection with Pield Heath Nurseries, Cowley, Uxbridge.

  Mr. Chope
  As my hon. Friend will know, this is a complex and difficult case. We are making good progress in considering the further views of the parties and hope to reach a decision shortly.

  Empty Council Houses
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the number of empty council homes.

  Mr. Trippier
  I can reply only for England. Returns made by English local authorities with their latest housing investment programmes indicate that there were 102,900 empty council dwellings at 1 April 1988. With the agreement of the local authority associations, my Department has carried out a survey of authorities' policy and practice with their empty dwellings; when the results are available, I will consider what action should be taken to bring these dwellings into use.

  Derelict Land Grant
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he expects to change the criteria in regard to the derelict land grant.

  Mr. Trippier
  A departmental review of measures for dealing with derelict land reclamation and the criteria attaching to derelict land grant is now under way. The outcome will be announced later in the year.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of Government grant aid for the reclamation of derelict land in inner city areas in 1987–88 and 1986–87; and how many acres of land were involved in each year.

  Mr. Trippier
  Public expenditure of approximately £50 million in 1986–87 and £75 million in 1987–88 was applied to the reclamation or improvement of land in the areas of the 57 urban programme authorities, through derelict land grant, urban development grant, the urban programme and the urban development corporations. Comprehensive statistics for the area of land reclaimed in inner cities were not collected centrally for this period.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has received from Nirex concerning the choice of sites for the disposal of nuclear waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has still to receive Nirex's proposals for a radioactive waste disposal facility. These are expected shortly.

  Planning White Paper
  Mr. John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his White Paper on planning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend hopes to do so shortly.

  Basildon Council
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what information he based his decision not to rate-cap Basildon council in the current financial year.
  643
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided in July last year not to designate Basildon for rate limitation in 1989–90 on the best information then available to him about Basildon's likely total expenditure for 1988–89, namely the budget return for 1988–89 dated 14 April 1988.

  National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he used in considering the appointment of a chairman to the National Rivers Authority advisory committee; and whether it is his policy to extend the criteria in making future appointments including the chairman for the proposed National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wished to appoint as chairman of the National Rivers Authority advisory committee someone with proven management experience and experience of environmental matters. In accordance with the requirement in clause 1(4) of the Water Bill my right hon. Friend will seek to appoint people to the board of the National Rivers Authority who have experience of, and have shown capacity in, matters relevant to the functions of the authority.

  Housing Act 1985
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning his review of part III of the Housing Act 1985, previously the Homeless Persons Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Reports have been sent by SHAC/Shelter; the Institute of Housing; the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux; the Association of London Authorities and the Association of District Councils. In addition, a number of other organisations, individual local authorities and members of the public have sent representations.

  Green Belt, Barnsley
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to release land from the green belt around Barnsley.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has had no such proposals before him.

  Service Men (Tenancies)
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to prevent the homes of service men on active service being transferred from the local authority to another landlord if they are unable to vote under the tenants' choice provisions in the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Trippier
  Arrangements proposed under the tenants' choice provisions to consult tenants, including 644
  those temporarily absent from home, were described in my Department's consultation paper "Tenants' Choice: Consultation and Voting", which was issued on 8 December 1988 and copies of which were placed in the Library.

  Marine Environment
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to promote further measures to protect the marine environment.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Protection of the marine environment remains a high priority for my Department and other Departments with marine responsibilities. In addition to implementing the major programme of measures agreed at the London North sea conference and preparing for the third North sea conference in March next year, we are discussing a wide range of follow-up work in other fora including the Oslo and Paris commissions, the North sea scientific task force and, where relevant, the European Community.

  Housing Corporation (Funding)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what initiatives he is taking to ensure that areas including north Oxfordshire have access to Housing Corporation funding.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is for the Housing Corporation to determine the allocation of its capital programme to individual housing associations and areas, within broad priorities agreed with my right hon. Friend. Details of the approved development programme for 1989–90 and forward plans for 1990–91 and 1991–92 were given in my answer of 14 December to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) at column 629.

  Domestic Rates
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average increase in domestic rates in April 1988.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The average increase in domestic rates between 1987–88 and 1988–89 was 8·8 per cent.

  Atmospheric Pollution
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the five main sources of pollution into the atmosphere, giving the tonnage of pollution per year in each case.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Data on emissions of selected gases into the atmosphere are published annually in the "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics", the latest issue of which (No. 10) contains figures for 1976–86.

  The table summarises the data given for 1986.
  645

  United Kingdom estimated emissions of selected gases into the atmosphere, by source, 1986

  thousand tonnes

  Source

  1 SO2

  NOx

  CO

  HCs

  2 CO2 (million tonnes)

  Domestic

  200

  57

  483

  78

  91

  Commercial/Public Service

  130

  45

  11

  1

  35

  Power Stations

  2,600

  783

  48

  13

  227

  Refineries

  170

  38

  4

  1

  22

  Agriculture (fuel use)

  10

  3

  1

  —

  3

  Other industry

  570

  179

  75

  3

  122

  Transport

  50

  821

  4,762

  583

  96

  Other sources

  —

  3 12

  3 220

  4 1,387

  25

  Total

  3,740

  1,937

  5,602

  2,065

  621

  1 from fuel combustion only.

  2 to be published for the first time in Digest No. 11.

  3 incineration and agricultural burning.

  4 mostly industrial processes and solvent evaporation.

  Pollution (Trees)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement of his Department's policies towards protecting trees from the effects of pollution.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The surveys carried out by the Forestry Commission are giving us information about the state of health of trees, but do not tell us whether any effects observed are the result of pollution. The Department is supporting research into possible mechanisms by which air pollution might damage trees. The most recent authoritative advice, from the Department's terrestrial effects review group, is that some trees are exposed to pollution levels which may be expected to cause stress. Research will continue in order to establish whether there is any threat to the long-term health of trees. The Department also funds the arboricultural advisory and information service located at the Forestry Commission's research station at Alice Holt, which gives a wide range of advice to local authorities and others on tree matters.

  Irish Sea (Pollution)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of riverborne pollution in the Irish sea comes from British rivers.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The recent status report prepared for the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea by scientists from the UK and Ireland summarises available information on inputs from rivers to the Irish sea. The information supplied for river discharges from English and Welsh coasts, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland indicates that for the majority of anthropogenic inputs, the proportion coming from English and Welsh rivers ranges between 50 and 80 per cent. and is typically about two thirds. As the report indicates, the data available is of variable quality.

  Water Supplies (Nitrate Levels)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further estimate he has made of the cost to water authorities of reducing nitrate levels in public water supplies; and if he will make a statement.
  646
  Mr. Moynihan
  The capital costs to water authorities of reducing nitrate levels in public supplies will be between £25 million and £35 million; the cost to statutory water companies will be around £5 million.

  Water Bill
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from organisations representing consumers concerning the Water Bill.

  Mr. Moynihan
  During the preparation of the Water Bill and following its publication, representations have been received from

  The National Consumer Council

  The Consumer Association

  The National Federation of Consumer Groups

  The Welsh Consumer Council

  The Birmingham Consumer Group

  The Tyneside Consumer Group

  The Portsmouth and District Consumer Group

  The National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux

  These have been concerned mainly with the organisation of river basin management, the question of a national body to represent consumers, the responsibilities and powers of the National Rivers Authority and of the Director General of Water Services, and price control. More recently the National Consumer Council has also made representations on the guaranteed standards scheme and on disconnections practice.

  In addition, the consumer consultative committees of all ten water authority regions in England and Wales have made representations on the scope, membership and responsibilities of the proposed new customer service committees.

  Local Government Manpower
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people were employed in local government in 1968 and in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Gummer
  The number of people employed by local authorities in England in June 1968 was 1,948,000; this figure excludes law and order staff (except police—all ranks) and agency staff, as these were not included in surveys before 1975. The corresponding figure for June 1988 was 2,440,000.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last discussed the implementation of the EEC directives on bathing water and tap water quality with the Commission of the European Communities.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My officials are in regular contact with Commission officials about the implementation of these directives.

  London Docklands (Infrastructure Schemes)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to respond to the request by the London Docklands development corporation for an extra £400 million Government subsidy to fund infrastructure schemes; and whether he intends to put a limit on the amount of subsidy payable.

  Mr. Trippier
  The LDDC's splendid achievements in regenerating London's docklands are funded by Government grant and by receipts from land sales. No request for £400 million additional grant is under consideration. Grant is paid within annual limits as voted expenditure approved by Parliament.

  Empty Council Houses (London)
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of council properties in Greater London which have been empty for longer than six months.

  Mr. Trippier
  London boroughs reported in their housing investment programme returns that there were 12,400 council houses which had been vacant for more than six months at 1 April 1988.

  Redundant Agricultural Buildings
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take further measures to encourage planning authorities to consider positively applications for the change of use of redundant agricultural buildings.

  Mr. Chope
  Since 1980 we have consistently encouraged planning authorities to take a positive approach to proposals for the reuse of redundant farm buildings. This policy is clearly stated in our planning policy guidance notes on green belts and rural enterprise and development. We shall continue to advocate this policy as opportunities arise, and to have regard to it when determining planning appeals.

  Council House Tenants (Opting-out)
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to ensure that all council house tenants are fully appraised of the choice to opt out of local authority control.

  Mr. Trippier
  Tenants' choice will be implemented fully in the spring. Comprehensive information material from my Department about tenants' choice is being prepared and will be published shortly. The Housing Corporation is already providing advice, information and assistance to tenants and prospective new landlords about the scheme. Any tenant or body wishing to know more should contact the corporation.

  Canary Wharf
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to put a limit on the subsidy to the developers of the Canary wharf.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Isle of Dogs enterprise zone provisions lapse on 26 April 1992. Within the statutory provisions, variations are not possible between particular developers or sites.

  HIP Allocations, London
  Mr. Cohen (Leyton)
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much housing investment programme allocations for London have been reduced for 1989–90 from 1988–89, in real terms; and why.

  Mr. Trippier
  The total for basic HIP allocations in London for 1989–90 is £289·891 million. In real terms this amounts to 74·4 per cent. of that for 1988–89. London received 33·2 per cent. of the national total, the same proportion as for 1988–89. Although the net total for HIP allocations has reduced, capital receipts from sales of council housing have increased substantially, and gross provision nationally for local authority housing capital expenditure in 1989–90 is £3,303 million, an increase of 15 per cent. on previous plans.

  Planning Inquiries (Appeals)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider introducing changes in the planning inquiry appeals procedures, including the inspectors' adjudication, which would help to equalise the rights of existing local residents and property development companies.

  Mr. Chope
  The rules of procedure at public inquiries are designed to meet the criteria of openness, fairness and impartiality which were laid down by the Franks committee in 1957. The present rules were comprehensively revised only last year; I see no need for further changes at this stage. Within the framework provided by the rules, inspectors are expected to use their discretion to ensure that all relevant submissions, from whatever source and however presented, are given due consideration.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in England since May 1979.

  Mr. Trippier
  From April 1979 to September 1988 about 963,000 tenants bought their homes from English local authorities and new towns.

  Water Companies (Ownership)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to preserve diversity of ownership of the statutory private water companies.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 11 January.

  London (Air Pollution)
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times carbon
  649
  monoxide levels in London's air have exceeded World Health Organisation deadlines in the last 12 months; and how many times nitrogen dioxide levels in London's air have exceeded the air quality standard contained in the European directive 85/201 over the last 12 months.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The World Health Organisation has set guidelines for carbon monoxide concentrations using average periods of eight hours and one hour. These are targets for improved air quality and not limit values. In 1988 one exceedance of the eight hour guideline was measured at the Department of the Environment's monitoring station in central London. No exceedances of the one hour guideline were measured.

  Provisional results from the United Kingdom nitrogen dioxide monitoring network indicate that the EC directive limit value, which is based on the 98th percentile of measurements throughout the year, was not exceeded in London in 1988.

  People With Special Needs (Hostels)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement concerning the future of hostel placements for people with special needs.

  Mr. Trippier
  No. Placements are a matter for the individual local authorities, housing associations and voluntary bodies concerned.

  Child Care Provision
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he will be giving local authorities on improving child care provision for their employees.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None. Conditions of employment in local government are a matter for the local authorities.

  Ports (Pollution)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those ports in the south-west of England and south Wales which make a charge for the disposal of refuse from ships using those ports; what charges are levied; and if he will make a statement on the environmental consequences of dumping such refuse in United Kingdom coastal waters.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Regulations made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, which came into effect on 31 December 1988, permit harbour authorities providing reception facilities for ships' garbage to make reasonable charges for their use. Although some information on these facilities is available, details of what charges they make are not definite or comprehensive.

  This Department is concerned with arrangements for the disposal of landed ships' waste. Regulations made under the Control of Pollution Act classify ships' waste, including refuse, as industrial waste. Most industrial waste is collected by the private sector but where local authorities undertake this function they are required to levy a reasonable charge for collection and disposal.

  Dumping ships' waste in coastal waters can have very damaging environmental consequences. The dumping of certain materials such as plastics is now an offence under the Merchant Shipping Acts.

  67 Tufton Street, London
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what annual rental charges have been paid by the Property Services Agency to the owner of the freehold of 67 Tufton street, Westminster, London, for each of the years since 1980.

  Mr. Chope
  The rental charges agreed by the Property Services Agency of leasehold buildings are determined on a strictly commercial, and therefore confidential, basis.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes occurred in the terms and conditions of the leasehold agreement between the Property Services Agency and their landlord at 67, Tufton street, Westminster, London at or around the time when Westminster city council disposed of the freehold to Bourne Association Ltd.

  Mr. Chope
  One minor change to provide an optional access to the top floor.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes occurred in the terms and conditions of the leasehold agreement between the Property Services Agency and their landlord at 67, Tufton street, Westminster, London at or around the time when Bourne Association Ltd. disposed of the freehold to the present owners.

  Mr. Chope
  None.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who is the present landlord of the Property Services Agency at 67, Tufton street, Westminster, London.

  Mr. Chope
  This information, like all aspects of the landlord-tenant relationship, is a matter of confidentiality.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research is undertaken by his Department to ascertain the contributions to the greenhouse effect of vehicle exhaust gas emissions.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I have today given to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) which includes information about emissions of CO2, the principal greenhouse gas.

  London Docklands
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place a copy in the Library of the report on employment in London docklands commissioned by the London Docklands development corporation from Research Bureau Ltd.

  Mr. Trippier
  I will do so, as soon as the report has been considered, and can be published.

  East Thameside Study
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what extra resources he is planning to commit to the provision of housing for those on low and medium incomes on the sites included in the east Thameside study.
  651
  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter).

  Construction Work (VAT)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had about the impact of value added tax on non-domestic construction work on schemes planned and appraised but not legally binding or backed by a building contract on 21 June 1988.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government have had discussions with some interested parties who made representations on their proposals for transitional relief on VAT for non-domestic construction projects.

  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the chairman of each urban development corporation on the likely effect of the imposition of value added tax on non-domestic construction work on the contribution private sector investment will make to urban regeneration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  None, but I am of course aware of the representations being made by developers.

  Water Industry (Spending)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the capital spending by the water industry for 1988–89 and for each of the next three years at current prices and at constant 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Estimates of capital expenditure in 1988–89 and in 1989–90 will be published on 30 January by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the public expenditure White Paper. The remaining information requested by the hon. Member is not available.

  Housing Subsidies
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the housing subsidy paid to each partnership and programme authority in each of the years from 1978–79 to 1989–90 (plans) expressed in cash and constant 1987–88 prices.

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

  Viraj Mendis
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will request a report from Manchester City Council as to the reasons why Mr. Viraj Mendis who has illegally overstayed in the United Kingdom since 1975 was provided with council properties by that council; what the total subsidies were on these properties; and whether Mr. Mendis's rates and rent were in arrears.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 24 January 1989]: Yes. I have requested a report from the city council and will write to my hon. Friend in the light of its reply.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has of any rent and rate rebates and housing benefit payments made to Mr. Viraj Mendis since 1973.
  652
  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 24 January 1989]: I have no information, but I have taken the matter up with the city council and will write to my hon. Friend in the light of that reply.

DEFENCE

  Plutonium, Uranium, Tritium (Exports)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any unsafeguarded plutonium, uranium or tritium has been exported to the United States of America since May 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 25 April 1984 by the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement at column 506.

  Development Projects
  Mr Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those development projects which have been written off by his Department in the last two years in each of the services; what will be the savings for each project cancelled; and how much development expenditure had been involved in each project until the date the projects were cancelled.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In the financial years 1986–87 and 1987–88 the following major projects which had entered full development were cancelled:

  Title

  Service

  Date of cancellation

  Expenditure at cancellation £ million

  CACS4

  Royal Navy

  1987–88

  1 28

  SP70

  Army

  1986–87

  88

  Nimrod AEW

  Royal Air Force

  1986–87

  660

  1 Expenditure on hardware only. Other expenditure is commercially confidential.

  Projects funded for full development are the preferred solution to approved defence requirements. Although a project may subsequently be cancelled, the underlying requirement will almost certainly remain and will need to be met by other means. This is the case in respect of all three projects listed. The question of savings in respect of these cancellations does not arise.

  Payroll Deduction Scheme
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is(a) the name of the agency charity which has been awarded the contract for his Department's payroll deduction scheme, (b) the length of time that the agency has been in existence, (c) the number of civilian and military personnel that will be covered by the agency, (d) the number of staff employed by the agency, (e) the agency's experience in dealing with computerised records systems, (f) the number of other payroll deduction schemes with which it is involved and the number of employees covered by such schemes, and (g) the length of time that will have elapsed between Mr. Chancellor's announcement of tax concessions for payroll deduction schemes and the operative date of his Department's scheme.
  653
  Mr. Sainsbury
  The agency charity which has been awarded the Ministry of Defence contract for the payroll deduction scheme is South West Charitable Giving. This agency was awarded Inland Revenue approved status in March 1987. Potentially there are 161,950 civilians and 312,000 military personnel who could subscribe to the payroll deduction scheme. Details relating to the agency such as personnel are of course a matter for the company.I can however say that it is registered for payroll giving under the Data Protection Act 1986. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced tax concessions for payroll deduction schemes in the 1986 Budget. For civilians the charities payroll giving scheme came into effect on 1 November 1988, and the armed forces expect to join the scheme on 1 April 1989.

  Ministerial Staff
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of staff, 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 sum varies due to location; what qualifying period of scale-related criteria is used; and whether this varies by location.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  Military Aircraft (Accidents)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the numbers of military aircraft destroyed or severely damaged by accident during each of the last 10 years for which figures are available, indicating the aircraft types involved.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to the annual statements on the defence Estimates (SDE) which since 1980 have published such information about accidents to aircraft of the three services. The relevant information for 1988 is as follows:

  Date

  Aircraft

  Service

  1. 22 January

  Hawk

  RAF

  2. 3 February

  Sea King

  RN

  3. 2 March

  Bulldog

  RAF

  4. 10 March

  Lynx

  RN

  5. 30 March

  Tornado

  RAF

  6. 11 April

  Lightning

  RAF

  7. 20 April

  Phantom

  RAF

  8. 6 May

  Chinook

  RAF

  9. 10 May

  Tornado

  RAF

  10. 13 May

  Hawk

  RAF

  11. 20 May

  Harrier

  RAF

  12. 30 May

  Meteor

  RAF

  13. 14 June

  Hunter

  RN

  14. 23 June

  Lynx

  Army

  15. 24 June

  Hawk

  RAF

  16. 2 August

  Phantom

  RAF

  17. 9 August

  Tornado x 2

  RAF

  18. 18 August

  Harrier

  RAF

  19. 6 September

  Bulldog

  RAF

  20. 6 September

  Gazelle

  Army

  21. 7 September

  Jaguar

  RAF

  22. 14 September

  Gazelle

  Army

  23. 23 September

  Phantom

  RAF

  24. 13 October

  Sea King

  RN

  25. 18 October

  Phantom

  RAF

  26. 19 October

  Gazelle

  Army

  Skyguard Radar
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training in the operation of the Skyguard radar system has been given to RAF police responsible for monitoring low flying.

  Mr. Neubert
  There is no operational training requirement for the RAF police in the use of Skyguard in a monitoring role because trained operators and engineering support are provided by 2729 squadron, Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment, RAF Waddington. However, limited training has been provided during the trials of the equipment to enable RAF police investigators to familiarise themselves with its operation.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the assessment of the results of the trial of the Skyguard radar system for monitoring low-flying aircraft is complete; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The results of the trials to assess the possibility of using a Skyguard system to monitor the heights of low-flying aircraft are still under consideration. I hope to be able to announce our conclusions shortly.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist to deploy mobile threat simulator equipment in low-flying areas during exercises, to provide electronic warfare training to aircrews.

  Mr. Neubert
  A programme is currently underway to construct eight remote sites within Spadeadam range airspace to which mobile threat simulators could routinely he deployed. In addition to this, mobile threat simulators may be used on a limited basis elsewhere in the country in support of a RAF sponsored exercise.

  Arms Race (Symposium)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West, 10 January,Official Report, column 539, if he will list those civil servants by grade and division who took up the invitations from Imperial college, London, to attend the "Ways Out of the Arms Race" scientists conference symposium on 2–4 December 1988.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member on 10 January at column 539.

  Disarmament (Verification)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution in terms of research finances and personnel has been made by his Department's arms control unit into the outstanding verification problems, within the disarmament regimes of(a) chemical, biological or toxic warfare agents, (b) cruise missiles, (c) nuclear warhead testing, (d) the safeguarding of military grade nuclear materials from misuse and (e) ballistic missile exports and testing.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The defence arms control unit, in consultation with a number of other divisions in the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, keeps all aspects of arms control, including
  655
  verification, under review. The Department does not, however, record the time spent by personnel on individual arms control issues in the way that the hon. Member requests. Although no research finance is currently devoted specifically to arms control verification by the Department, we do maintain close contact with academics both in the United Kingdom and internationally who are engaged on research in this field.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any Royal Air Force bases ever receive air freighted consignments of radioactive wastes from British military bases abroad.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Small quantities of radioactive waste from British military bases abroad have been returned to the United Kingdom on an ad hoc basis. Most of the consignments have been sent by sea. Some minor items containing very small quantities of radioactive material, for example, instruments luminised with radium, may have been moved by air, but records of such movements, if any, are not held centrally, and therefore the question could be answered only at disproportionate cost.

  Chemicals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there are any stocks held at any Ministry of Defence establishment in the United Kingdom or elsewhere of(a) diphenylaminechloroasine, or phenarsazine chloride (Adamsite), (b) phosgene, (c) dichlororethyl sulphide, (d) hydrocynanic acid, (e) chlorovinyldichloroarsine and (f) diphenylcyanoarsine.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence holds small experimental quantities of agents solely for research into protective measures for personnel against chemical and biological attack. These include substances of the type identified in the question. The United Kingdom abandoned its offensive capability in chemical warfare in the late 1950s and does not hold stocks of agents for offensive purposes.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham),Official Report, 10 January, column 679, if he will give the locations, dates and methods of destruction of the United Kingdom chemical weapons stockpile, to which he made reference.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United Kingdom abandoned its offensive capability in chemical warfare in the late 1950s. United Kingdom chemical weapons were disposed of over a lengthy period and it would require disproportionate effort to research old records for precise locations, dates and methods. However, I can confirm that all known stocks were disposed of, although from time to time there are discoveries of buried items dating back to the two world wars, which are taken to the chemical defence establishment at Porton Down for safe disposal.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are used to decide whether the standard £250 cost limit for the answering of parliamentary questions may be waived.

  Mr. Younger
  Any parliamentary question which is likely to involve disproportionate expenditure—currently £250—is referred to the responsible Minister before significant resources are committed. It is not a rigid limit: it is for the Minister concerned to decide in each case whether there are exceptional circumstances to justify answering a question which would cost more than £250.

  Chemical Warfare Agents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when members of the scientific section of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Japanese Army Institute of Science and Technology visited this country to obtain details of production of chemical or biological warfare agents.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have been unable to find any record of a visit which might correspond to the one described by the hon. Member. In any event, the United Kingdom does not provide chemical or biological warfare agents.

  Low Flying (Swansea)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the low-flying incident over the city of Swansea on Friday 20 January.

  Mr. Neubert
  Following a number of complaints about the incident to both RAF Brawdy and the Ministry of Defence by residents of Killay, Newton and Langland during the afternoon of Friday 20 January, a full investigation was commissioned to establish what military aircraft was involved and the circumstances. Such investigations are always thorough and may take some time to complete, but I shall write to the right hon. Member once the results are available.

  Tactical Booking Cell, West Drayton
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the roles, responsibilities and staffing levels of the tactical booking cell, RAF West Drayton;

  (2) what responsibility the tactical booking cell at RAF West Drayton has for the control of military low-level flying in each of the low flying areas 1A, 1B, 3, 9, 13, 19, 20, (T) and Yeovilton.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 December 1988]: The tactical booking cell at RAF West Drayton manages the day-to-day use of the United Kingdom low-flying system and air weapons ranges, provides warnings and compiles statistics. The cell is also responsible for dedicated user low-flying areas when their co-ordinating authorities are closed. The established staff level of the cell is 20 Royal Air Force personnel.

  Aircraft (Low-flying Sorties)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those aircraft types for which central records are kept of low-flying sorties over the United Kingdom.
  657
  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 December 1988]: Central records of low-flying sorties over the United Kingdom are kept for all regular military users of the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Low-level Flying (Management Group)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian personnel from the National Air Traffic Services serve on the military low flying management group.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 December 1988]: One.

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.

Arab—Israeli Dispute
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are proposing to invite Mr. Shamir to this country, and whether they are satisfied that he has renounced terrorism in all its forms.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, Mr. Shamir has been invited to visit Britain. We look forward to discussing with him how we can help achieve a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, may we be sure that Ministers who meet Mr. Shamir will impress upon him that there is no chance of peace unless both sides renounce terrorism? Does the noble Lord recall that last year, as Prime Minister, Mr. Shamir was responsible for the assassination in Tunis of Mr. Arafat's deputy and of two other PLO leaders in Cyprus, and also for the killing or wounding of thousands of people in occupied Palestine, including hundreds of children?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it has been the policy of this Government to deplore terrorist acts of whatever kind wherever they occur, and we shall continue to do so.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we know and respect the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, as a member of the Arab lobby in this House, and that we therefore understand his question? Is the Minister further aware, and is he prepared to comment on the fact that Mr. Shamir—whatever Israel's faults—is justified in doubting that the words and platitudes of Mr. Arafat are enough to quell the memory of the atrocities and appalling behaviour of the PLO towards the Jews over the past 10 years?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the important point to bear in mind is that there has been a change in the stance of the PLO. We welcome Mr. Arafat's renunciation of terrorism and we trust that the PLO will live up to his commitment.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, further to my noble friend the Minister's remarks about there being a change of stance, is he aware that the Palestinian National Covenant, which unequivocally aims at the total destruction of Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state in the pre-1947 territories of Palestine, is still the accepted covenant of the PLO and is unamended? Is he further aware that Article 33 of the covenant states that there can be no
694
amendment unless at least two-thirds of the national congress of the PLO meeting in special session vote for it? Is the Minister aware of any indication having been given during the discussions that have recently taken place with Yassir Arafat that there is likely to be a special congress of the PLO with a view to seeking any amendment of that covenant?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am not aware of any special congress. I think that it is important that we should continue to strive to help in the search for a peace solution. That is what we have been looking for for some time. It was in that light that we welcomed Mr. Arafat's new commitment to such a solution, which was recently reiterated at a meeting with my honourable friend the Minister of State. That is why we believe that an international conference remains the most suitable framework for the necessary negotiations between the parties directly concerned.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that at this crucial time we would welcome talks between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Israel at the highest level? Can he say whether any plans exist to facilitate such talks and whether there are any plans, for example, for Mr. Waldegrave to visit Israel? Further, may we assume that Her Majesty's Government will have talks on the issue with the new Administration in the United States?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, of course it is important to keep up the momentum of our bilateral relations. That will be achieved when Mr. Shamir comes here and may be achieved before then if visits take place in the other direction. So far as concerns the United States, yes, it is important that its engagement is wholehearted and we welcome the United States—PLO dialogue. We look forward to early contacts with the new US Administration on those matters.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, now that the United States has at last adopted an even-handed policy towards the Arab—Israel wars and disputes, and now that Israel is at last left alone with the necessity of learning how to live according to the usual laws of civilised international relations, would the Government agree that the role of gadfly might now be abandoned by all Members of this House and that the role of dove and negotiator would be a more suitable one in future?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we continue to play our full part in bringing both sides in the dispute to understand the merits of the suggested conference. We shall continue to do all that we can to bring that about.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us in all parts of the House will always honour and respect those British soldiers who were slain and hanged in the Middle East by Jewish terrorists? We quite rightly condemn the occupation of lands by the Soviet Union and other countries and the Government have also condemned the occupation of that part of Palestine which belongs to

695
the Palestinians. Will the Government now take it upon themselves to keep bringing that to the attention of the United Nations so that the Palestinians can have back the lands which the Balfour Declaration said and the United Nations agreed were theirs?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is all very well to look to the past and it is important that we do so from time to time. However, it is also important that we direct our energies toward a policy that will provide a satisfactory future and that is what we propose to do.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is it not a fact that since its creation Israel has never had security? There have been five unprovoked attacks upon Israel and continuing violence and terrorism against innocent women and children. I hope that when Mr. Shamir arrives those facts will be acknowledged and that we shall talk with him in the knowledge that after all he represents the only democratic country in the Middle East.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we shall put over whatever points are necessary in order to try to bring about the kind of resolution that we seek. We have to speak frankly with all those concerned and shall continue to do so. I am sure that the point made by the noble Lord will not in any way be lost.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, we all welcome the Government's efforts to find a peaceful solution in the Middle East, but does not the Minister feel that the Government are exerting pressure in the wrong way by pressurising Israel to accept a conference on the Middle East? The only object of that conference would be to establish a heavily armed Palestinian state in the middle of what is now Israel, with its capital in Jerusalem. Would that not fatally compromise the independence of Israel and therefore make it quite impossible for Israel to accept such a conference? Do not the Government feel that it would be much better to try to persuade Mr. Arafat to accept what is now on offer; namely, autonomy on the West Bank and in the Gaza strip?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I should have thought that the noble Lord's question pointed up the importance of the international conference in respect of this issue. I do not think it is possible to find a solution in a matter of minutes across the Floor of the House. It is a complicated matter and that is why we need to have the international conference to which reference has been made.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is it not a fact that the real trouble is that bodies become lumbered with old, written commitments in which at one time they firmly believed but which they later find are an encumbrance and would like to dispose of? Is that not Mr. Arafat's trouble, as indeed is the similar commitment of the Labour Party to socialism?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not think I shall comment on the noble Viscount's last point. I can say
696
that there are two basic principles for settlement which have been long advocated. One is the right of all states in the region, including Israel, to a secure existence; the other is the Palestinians' right to self-determination.

Developing Countries: Privatisation Aid
2.45 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to supply aid for the privatisation of nationalised industries in the developing world.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we have long been active in helping developing countries to promote their private sectors. Advice on privatisation is one element of that. It is widely acknowledged that both the Government and the British private sector have a special expertise here, and we stand ready to consider further requests for assistance.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that at the end of last year the British missions in the third world were given the task of seeking out those nationalised industries in the third world that might be suitable for privatisation and offered financial assistance in so doing? Will he also confirm that at the same time the United States' AID was following the same policy? Is it this Government's policy to export Thatcherism to the ex-colonies?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, all that we have done is to ask our posts in developing countries to keep their eyes open, together with the Americans who share our interest, for cases in which advice on the development of the private sector, including privatisation, might be welcomed. We certainly have no intention of imposing our views.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the ODA held talks with the Adam Smith Institute during the past year and that they discussed the institute's proposal to set up a privatisation unit in the ODA?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, certainly the Adam Smith Institute report, to which I think the noble Baroness is referring, is being looked at carefully. However, we see no reason at this stage to establish a privatisation unit of the kind to which she refers. Our present bilateral aid systems are well able to cope.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would the Minister regard it as hypothetical if I were to ask him what he would think if, under a future Labour Government, instructions were sent to embassies abroad to keep an eye open for possible candidates for nationalisation and help offered in doing it?
Lord Glenarthur: I should think, my Lords, that it was very hypothetical.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that our ex-colonies have made a sufficient mess of things on their own without being introduced to privatisation to enable them to make a still bigger mess?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the fact is that not every body takes that view. Indeed, a number of countries have benefited from the advice given by the United Kingdom. I could certainly let the noble Lord have details.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the great dynamo for development in the developing world historically has been the private sector and that the essence of the private sector is that it does not need advice? It dynamises itself.
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. Privatisation is only one aspect of that matter. There are a number of very good instances which I could give him to show how poor countries have been helped in developing their private sectors by both aspects.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the Minister differentiate between the private sector in third world countries and the public sector? Nobody would criticise the Government for assisting the private sector, which has and is doing a good job in many third world countries. But is it not a fact that through both tradition and communal practice many third world countries have collective industries and that if they did not do so there would be no industries there at all? The centre of capital in most third world countries must lie in the government. Historically that is the situation. Are the Government now saying that they will try to break up the collectivisation which culturally and economically is viable in these countries and introduce the British form of privatisation? In many third world countries that would be disastrous to the economy.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we are not helping to break up anything. These countries are coming to us for advice. We can assist them in three broad ways. The first is by encouraging an appropriate environment in which the private sector may flourish, often in the context of structural adjustment. Secondly, there is the identification of public sector activities which could be transferred to the private sector; and privatisation is only one of the mechanisms involved. Thirdly, there are the mechanics of privatisation. These are all helpful. They are matters on which other countries have asked us to advise in many cases. That is all that we are doing.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord is introducing an anomaly into his second reply to me. In his first reply he said that British missions were looking for opportunities for privatisation. He is now saying that these countries are coming to Britain for help in privatisation. Both replies cannot be right. Is it the British Government's policy to introduce privatisation into third world countries, or is it the
698
third world countries that are coming to Britain for help to privatise what are now nationalised or communal industries?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord is getting himself into the most terrible muddle. There is nothing cloak and dagger about this. Other countries have come to us. We have asked our posts to keep their eyes open because they may find that they can be helpful, and, through that, that we can assist those countries to achieve a sensible future for themselves.

Spokes Report: Further Action
2.52 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
When an inquiry by the Social Services Inspectorate into the present state of social work services for mentally ill people in the London boroughs of Bexley and Lewisham can be expected following the report on the care and aftercare of Miss Sharon Campbell.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Social Services Inspectorate is in discussion with the London boroughs of Bexley and Lewisham specifically about their responses to the Spokes Report.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he give any idea when this inquiry may start? It seems some time since the report on Miss Sharon Campbell was made.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as part of its joint work with the Health Advisory Service, a visit focused on services for mentally ill people is currently taking place in Bexley and a similar exercise is planned for Lewisham later this year.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform the House of the extent to which the London boroughs of Bexley and Lewisham have already carried out the recommendations of Mr. Spokes's report to which reference was made in the Question?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to disciplinary action, with regard to the London borough of Bexley, two members of staff criticised in the Spokes Report have both left the authority. With regard to Lewisham, the case worker criticised in the report no longer works for the authority.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind that the inquiry of Mr. John Spokes dealt with the urgency of improving the quality of community care, on which Sir Roy Griffiths has made important recommendations, is it not now a very serious matter that the Government are still refusing to give any lead either to the authorities or to the public on this patently serious and sometimes tragic issue? Will the Minister give an assurance that at least by the time the presentation is made on Tuesday there will be a Statement about the Griffiths Report?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we are very conscious of public feeling that our response should not be too long delayed with regard to the Griffiths Report. We hope to put forward our own proposals in the near—and I emphasise the word "near"—future.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in the light of recent history does the Minister agree that the Secretary of State should keep the social work services under constant review?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do, and we are.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, bearing in mind that an element in these tragic cases is the over-heavy work load of social workers, can the Minister tell us what steps the Government are taking to monitor the staffing levels of social services departments—in particular in London where one sees that they are inadequate in line with their resources—and to ensure that further resources are made available to them?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with regard to the specific recommendations of the report, we have provided an additional £1 million in the present financial year towards a balanced programme of improvements to training.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the Minister explain to us what he means by keeping the social workers "under constant review"? It is one of those bland phrases that we constantly hear. What on earth does it mean? There are thousands of social workers. What is the Secretary of State going to do?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Baroness is well aware, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State keeps all matters concerned with health under review.

Christmas Card: Religious Theme
2.56 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked the Chairman of Committees:
Whether it would be possible in future to have at least one House of Lords Christmas card each year with a Christian religious theme.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, responsibility for selecting the House of Lords Christmas card rests with the Sub-Committee on Works of Art. I understand that the sub-committee will meet for that purpose in the next few months and I have no doubt that it will bear in mind the point made in the noble Lord's Question. I understand that it has been the general policy of the sub-committee to select a single picture card with a House of Lords or at least a parliamentary theme, very often a work of art from within the Palace of Westminster.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree—I hope the Sub-Committee on Works of Art will also agree—that it would be very nice to have a card
700
which was relevant to Christmas and which celebrated the Christian occasion rather than simply a good work of art picture which means nothing?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I am sure that the subcommittee will take note of the noble Lord's remarks. It is difficult to reconcile having a card that is specifically a part of the House of Lords and relevant to it with one that has a Christian religious connotation. There was once a card with a picture of the angel in the Crypt; and on one occasion there was a picture of the seven bishops being found not guilty. I shall certainly draw the matter to the attention of the sub-committee.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, would it not be a Christian act to sell the cards for a charity or charities as many other bodies do?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I do not quite understand how we would do that. These are cards of the House of Lords, available for its Members to send on its behalf.
The Lord Bishop of Truro: My Lords, on behalf of this Bench I am sure that I can welcome the first Answer to the Question. However, will the noble Lord bear in mind that the Christian message is based on the Christmas story, as are the works of art which depict that story? It issues in the great Christian themes which all religions and none wish to promote in the country. They are the great themes of the dignity of human beings, hope, love, good will and peace. I should have thought that the noble Lord and the sub-committee might bear those themes in mind in considering the message that is printed inside the card as well as the picture on the front.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, that seems a sensible suggestion. I am quite sure that it will be taken into account by the sub-committee when it makes its next decision.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, it may interest the noble Lord to know that my Christmas budget provides for 75 Christmas cards, 50 secular, which I buy here, and 25 religious cards, which I have to purchase elsewhere. If I am at all representative in the House, the effect of having a religious Christmas card would be to increase the turnover by 50 per cent.
Lord Aberdare: That would be very welcome, my Lords.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend take into consideration the fact that some of us—I include myself—rather like the chaste design of the portcullis in preference to anything else?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I am sure that that will continue to be available. As the noble and learned Lord knows, it is a smaller and less expensive card and one that is very suitable for airmail postage.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that the story of the rising sun is vastly older than Christianity and that it is getting on very well without any Christian assistance?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I do not think that I can answer that question.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I think I speak for a good many Peers. Is my noble friend aware that the design and choice of the average picture Christmas card with which he provides us are very much to my liking and that I send the card out to about 300 friends every year? It is much enjoyed by my friends and he could not do better than his arts committee is now doing.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I am sure that the chairman of the sub-committee and its members will be very grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Works of Art Sub-Commmittee always looks with the greatest care and constructively at any suggestion made by any noble Lord, whether made to your Lordships' House or to the committee directly?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, that seems to me to be a very Christian attitude.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, do our cards have to be so big and heavy? Would it not be possible for the picture card with its envelope to weigh under 10 grammes so that it could go at the cheapest postal rate?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, that has already been discussed in the sub-committee. There are possibilities of that kind. The present thought is that the smaller card is suitable for airmail. To have the quality and a decent reproduction on the larger card it is rather more difficult to bring it down to 10 grammes.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not consider it to be a jarring intervention, but some of us feel that the larger card is rather expensive. It costs four times as much as the equivalent card in another place. I understand that the same firm produces both cards. Is it possible for that aspect of the matter to be looked at?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, another place has a much larger turnover of cards; about five or six times as many. It also undertakes a large part of the administrative arrangements within the Fees Office of another place. I do not think that our card compares badly with equivalent cards that one can buy outside.

The Conduct of Foreign Relations
3.2 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead Lord Jenkins of Hillhead rose to call attention to Her Majesty's Government's method of conducting relations with foreign countries; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, one or two noble Lords have expressed a little uncertainty as to exactly what I had in mind with this Motion. Therefore I shall begin with a word of explanation. What I intend is not a compendious tour d'horizon of the substance of our relations with every important country in the world but rather a consideration of the style of conducting foreign policy; at the balance of power between 10 Downing Street and the Foreign Office; at the deficiencies or otherwise of the foreign service; at the advantages or disadvantages of megaphone diplomacy and government by indignation; and at the exercise of effective influence within the European Community.
First, I shall consider the state of relations across Downing Street. Historically there has been a good deal of fluctuation in the balance between the Foreign Office and No. 10 Downing Street. Until 50 years ago Prime Ministers who interfered substantially in the conduct of foreign policy were very much the exception. There was Disraeli, who was most exceptionally present at a diplomatic conference and with Bismarck stole the limelight at Berlin. There was Salisbury, who did not need to interfere with the Foreign Office. For nearly the whole of his 14 years as Prime Minister he was primarily Foreign Secretary and ran the government rather in his spare time, with 10 Downing Street as an outstation of the Foreign Office. There was Lloyd George, who, according to Curzon, treated his Foreign Secretary as a valet, almost a drudge, but in whose crashing downfall foreign policy certainly played a major role; and there was Neville Chamberlain, the 50th anniversary of whose diplomatic triumphs we have just been celebrating.
At the other end of the scale there was Baldwin, who looked amazed at Austen Chamberlain, his Foreign Secretary, when he asked him for advice, saying, "But you are Foreign Secretary"; and nearly, but not quite, Attlee. It was certainly under the latter that the Foreign Office played its most dominant role in the first half of this century and under Ernest Bevin set up, for a mixture of good and ill, the main lines of British foreign policy which have persisted to the present day.
The crucial good was the Atlantic commitment of the United States, which has been the single most important factor in making post-1945 so different from post-1918. The ill, in my view, was the beginning of the semi-detached attitude to Europe which was enthusiastically continued in the Eden Foreign Office and by most subsequent British Governments. Some would add the Middle East, but I have never there felt the simplicities of certainty.
It would not be possible today for any Prime Minister to play such a self-effacing foreign policy role as did Baldwin or Attlee. The impact of the White House and of presidential diplomacy, the 13 year-old habit of yearly Western economic summits and the only slightly older introduction of European councils into the affairs of the European Community combine to preclude that. But this does not mean that foreign policy is best conducted when a Foreign Secretary is frequently overruled or when the foreign service, with the exception of a few favoured

703
members, is regarded by 10 Downing Street as less ideologically sound than even the Bench of Bishops or the ancient universities.
The Foreign Office is the only one of the three great traditional departments of state of which I have not been temporarily—nominally, if one likes—in charge. But I have nonetheless had exceptional and considerable opportunity, and from an unusually detached position for a British politician, to observe the British foreign service in operation and to be served directly by several of its most outstanding members as well as by diplomats from other countries. This experience has led me to the firm conclusion that, first, the foreign service is by and large of very high quality. Indeed, I have sometimes wondered whether a disproportionate amount of our top quality public service talent is not concentrated there. Secondly, in my experience, the foreign service is effective at safeguarding and promoting the interests of this country. I can think of one or two rather isolated examples where, as a result of being too stridently demanding, I have seen a senior British diplomat achieve less than he might have done. I can think of none of any significance where I have seen a legitimate British interest thrown away.
It very much depends on whether one believes that the object of foreign policy is to achieve results or to strike attitudes. At the beginning of December we saw a rather striking example of that dichotomy in the notorious case of Father Ryan. At the end of a week or so of explosive headlines, I was left in serious doubt as to whether the Government had wanted him extradited to this country, or whether they preferred the pleasures of expostulation to the reality of a trial.
If they wanted him here, they could hardly have gone about it in a more counter-productive way. If the prejudicial statements made in the House of Commons had been avoided and the matter left to a little quiet diplomacy by our much maligned diplomats, I venture to think that there would have been a better chance of his being delivered for trial.
That leads me to what I referred to at the beginning as "government by indignation". It has achieved quite ludicrous proportions. On that occasion at the end of November and in the first days of December, each morning we read, by courtesy of Mr. Bernard Ingham and the lobby system, a daily report on a kind of Richter scale about the force of the previous day's volcanic eruptions. There was more variation in direction than in intensity. One morning the Prime Minister was "seething with anger" against the Belgian Government and next she was "boiling with rage" against the Irish Government.
It is not totally new that the Downing Street press office should think that it owes the nation daily spiritual guidance. That is not only on the level of the Prime Minister's indignation but also on the standing of various Ministers. I have known some fairly odd things take place in the past under previous Prime Ministers, and not all of one party. But it seems to me that the present practice piles Pelion on Ossa and is not by its very nature likely to be the most skilful or sensitive way of conducting foreign relations. I believe that lessons were learnt from the incident of the Queen and Mr. Gorbachev and that that is
704
unlikely to be repeated. It was remarkable that the Government's hypothetical advice to the Sovereign about an invitation which had been neither sent nor received should be announced in advance by an unattributable briefing.
A view exists that this is all more than made up for by a robustness which gives British interests a special protection and has greatly increased our influence abroad. I do not deny that in the recent past top level relations with the United States and the Soviet Union have been good. That is a major factor. But we have firmly decided—and the Government have frequently proclaimed it—that the European Community should be both a focus and a vehicle for much of our foreign policy effort. I do not believe that there we exercise an influence conmmensurate with our desire or our much proclaimed new economic strength.
Since the late 1940s nearly every British government, perhaps with the exception of that of Mr. Heath, have mishandled our relations with the Continent of Western Europe because we have failed to understand the force of the European idea and, in particular, the importance to it of a sense of political direction and ultimate purpose. It is not that there is a great danger of our being swept along faster than we want to go. On Monday the noble Lord, Lord Roll, rightly said that lack of progress in the Community is a far greater practical danger than premature federation or uniformity.
The practical divide is not so great as the theoretical divide. However, an unnecessary theoretical battle between us and most of the rest of Europe can nonetheless do enormous harm to us and the interests of this country. On Monday I was most struck by the difference in tone between the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham. They are both practical men with a business background. It is probable that what they want to achieve at the end of the day is not vastly different. However, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Young, the difference which came across clearly is that one understands Europe and the other does not.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield—who must wonder whether warm congratulations, in which I fully share, are a wholly adequate recompense for being kicked out—has been accused of "goingnative". If that means a comprehension of the forces with which one must deal, I wish that more people would go native.
In any event, the concept that a British Commissioner who becomes part of the core of the Commission, instead of standing ineffectively on the periphery, and who understands the force of the simple concept which has inspired people as different as Monnet and Soames, Spaak and Schmidt —the idea that someone who has grasped that has sold out to the Euro-fanatics is hardly a contradiction of the sin of semi-detachment which has so damaged our European influence from the beginning.
The fatal view is that our relations with the Community are a zero-sum game: either they win and we lose or vice versa. It simply is not the case that intransigence mostly pays. I shall never forget the

705
second major crucial issue which occurred during my time as President of the Commission. The first was the creation of the European Monetary System, when there was for me deep disappointment that my own country was the only one which stood out of the scheme which I had tried to initiate. However, although there was disappointment there was not embarrassment because, as was my duty, on that issue I was manifestly playing a European rather than a British hand.
The second crucial issue was the first major round of Britain's budgetary dispute with the Community. I was convinced of the essential justice of Britain's claim and believed that a fair settlement was crucial to Britain's healthier relations with the Community and was also in the interests of Europe as a whole. But I believe that a more partial view of my motives may sometimes have been taken in Paris and perhaps also in one or two other capitals.
The position was made much more difficult by the Prime Minister's method of negotiating—or rather, demanding, because there was very little negotiation. At the second European Council on the issue, a very good offer was made by Chancellor Schmidt and President Giscard. The Prime Minister turned it down flat. Another month of bad temper and unnecessary labour had to be spent on putting together an alternative solution. In substance it was no better, but it was cosmetically different. It was skilfully negotiated by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, after a marathon session. Nothing was gained by the delay but a great deal of exhaustion was caused and a great deal of goodwill lost.
Therefore, I believe that without in any way sacrificing legitimate British interests, we could exercise a much more central and beneficial role in the affairs of the European Community. That would require a change not so much of substance as of style. However, I believe that that would in any event be desirable in itself. A little more confidence in the qualities of our foreign service, a little less stridency of tone and a little more regard for the authority of the Foreign Secretary, who, in my view, has on the whole done a very good job, would enable results to be achieved and Britain's influence to be more effectively deployed. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for giving me this opportunity to dispel some of the current popular myths about the Government's conduct of this country's foreign relations. Indeed, his speech itself reflected some of those myths. I shall therefore try to explain why I believe the noble Lord's views are in some cases misplaced and why his apprehensions are unfounded. As with the leave of the House I shall have the chance to reply to this debate, I propose now to concentrate on the fundamental principles underlying the conduct of our foreign relations. I will deal with other aspects in detail when I wind up.
Perhaps I may begin by stating what our foreign policy is for. Methods and means after all only exist to service particular ends. The objectives of our foreign policy are threefold: to enhance the security
706
and prosperity of this country: to promote and protect our interests overseas; and to work, with allies, partners, and others to advance freedom, resolve conflicts and increase prosperity elsewhere. These objectives are quite clear. They stem from fundamental views that we have traditionally held and upheld. And they have been consistently, collectively and effectively pursued by Her Majesty's Government.
We cannot afford not to conduct our foreign relations effectively. We have worldwide interests to protect. We are responsible for 16 dependent territories across the globe. We export 27 per cent. of our GDP. We are the world's second largest overseas investor. Five million Britons live and work abroad. Global problems also affect us and we cannot tackle them alone. Whether it be the fields of arms control. combating terrorism and drugs, playing our part in the management of the world economy and environment, we need to work with others. Multilateral consultation and negotiation are a growing element in our diplomacy.
We live and work in a rapidly changing world. Who could have foreseen, for example, only a few years ago, the transformation that has taken place in the climate of East-West relations, or the new sense of purpose that characterises the approach of the UN to regional conflicts? The conduct of foreign policy must be flexible enough to adapt to such changes in circumstances. That is where the analysis of those who believe in a fixed strategy or rigidly-defined priorities, fails. We must be certain of our objectives—that is fundamental to any concept of policy.
The framework of our foreign policy is also determined by the treaty and other obligations and commitments that we believe can best secure our objectives. Thus, our active participation in NATO, in the European Community, the U N and the Commonwealth is unquestioned. But new opportunities may require new approaches, a reassessment of priorities or a change of emphasis. Recognition of this reality lies at the heart of the pragmatism which has traditionally characterised British foreign policy.
In all this, ultimate responsibility for policy and its conduct rests with Her Majesty's Government. It is a collective responsibility. It devolves principally upon my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Both enjoy the immense advantages of long incumbency. This year sees the 10th anniversary of the election that returned the Conservative Party to office, and the Prime Minister to her present position. She is already the longest-serving Prime Minister this century. Yesterday, my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State became the longest-serving continuous holder of his office since Sir Edward Grey stepped down in 1916. The combined experience of my right honourable friends spans changes of leadership in many other countries. They have also seen numerous British ambassadors and officials come and go. Their experience has given direction and consistency to the conduct of our foreign relations.
Perhaps I should now tackle the first myth about our foreign policy—a myth regrettably reflected in

707
the noble Lord's remarks—that the Prime Minister plays too prominent a role, and that her contribution is not a wholly constructive one. I am somewhat astonished by criticisms of this kind. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister's international stature and authority are great assets to our diplomacy, and my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State works closely with her. Noble Lords might not like the fact, but she is an eloquent and effective spokesman for the values in which we believe. It is surely right to speak frankly in defence of those values. The warm personal relationships she has established with other world leaders have served this country well.
Those who seek to criticise my right honourable friend's role sometimes seem to forget that holders of her office have traditionally been prominent in foreign affairs. The noble Lord gave instances of the past. I am sure that the noble Lords, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff and Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, who I see in his place, would not disagree. I seem to remember, for example, the idea of a Commonwealth mission to Vietnam, and the "HMS Tiger" talks on Rhodesia. Both were personal initiatives, doubtless undertaken with the best of intentions. The fact is, as the noble Lord knows full well, that it is cabinet government which gives the Prime Minister an essential role in the formulation and presentation of policy. To suggest otherwise is to be inaccurate about the past and mischievous about the present.
Another school of thought perpetuates another myth. It is in a sense the other side of the same coin. It is the idea that there exists some sinister and pervasive "foreign office view"; one that insinuates itself into the foreign policy-making process and corrupts the otherwise healthy instincts of Ministers. This is an extraordinary allegation. Ministers formulate policy. Officials inform, knowledgeably; they advise, wisely; and they implement, faithfully. But it is Ministers who make the decisions and justify them to Parliament. As I have indicated, in many cases they can often draw on an experience in office longer than the time they have been served by their officials.
In the conduct of our foreign relations we are well served by the dedicated professionals of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for his recognition of their skills. Their abilities allow us to build on the experience and prestige of my right honourable friends. This country is better thought of abroad as a result.
Clear objectives, the authority and experience of my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, able professional personnel: these are all assets our foreign policy enjoys. There are others. As I have mentioned, there is our membership of NATO, the EC, UN and Commonwealth; and also good established bilateral channels of communication, notably with the United States, (a point made by the noble Lord); our commitment to a strong defence; our economic recovery as a result of this Government's policies, and the respect it has earned us abroad; and our language and culture which are reflected in many countries and admired in many more.
708
An effective and successful foreign policy means applying these assets successfully. That is exactly what we have been doing. Through bilateral and multilateral contacts, through public and private representations, we have worked to advance our objectives. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, spoke of megaphone diplomacy; but megaphones are only necessary for a dialogue of the deaf. That is not the sort of dialogue we seek. Rather, where we have differences with others, we identify and acknowledge them so as to be better able to look for common ground.
The range of tools available to our diplomacy includes neither megaphones nor hearing aids. Sometimes it is necessary to make clear and forthright statements on important issues. Public statements inevitably attract the most attention, but much patient work goes on behind the scenes.
Precisely this combination of a firm stand in public and much detailed groundwork in private characterised our long pursuit of a more equitable British financial contribution to the European Community. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was a member of the government whose renegotiation of our Community membership failed to resolve this fundamental question. If he dislikes the kind of diplomacy that thumps the table in order to resolve a difficult problem, how much more must he dislike the diplomacy that thumps and achieves nothing?
There is more that I should like to say about our attitude to the European Community, since the noble Lord expressed dissatisfaction with it in a number of important respects. But I hope he will understand that I should prefer to return to this subject at the end of our debate when others will have had the chance to make their opinions known.
I am sure that we shall hear a wide range of opinions expressed this afternoon. I hope however that we can agree at the outset on our objectives and on the need for a policy to serve them effectively. I am convinced that this Government have turned the conduct of foreign relations successfully to this purpose.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for enabling us to have this debate, and for his impressive opening speech. We are also thankful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for giving a government view of the Motion.
How governments conduct foreign affairs, how they formulate foreign policy and the relations between the Prime Minister of the day and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary—and generally between No. 10 Downing Street and the Foreign Office—are not only interesting topics but they are of crucial importance to Parliament and the nation. In this House we are fortunate to have noble Lords who have held the highest offices of state and others who have been ambassadors and permanent secretaries in the Foreign Office and who therefore have immense experience of the matters under discussion. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said, our Foreign Service is of the highest quality. I agree entirely with that.

709
I am sure that all the many experts in this House agree that while successive governments pursue policies which are in general design and objective not dissimilar, every Prime Minister and every Foreign Secretary brings his or her own style to the task. That is no had thing. What would cause disquiet is a radical switch in foreign policy objectives or a series of misjudgments which might damage relations with allies or affect Britain's reputation generally. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, drew attention to this, particularly in the context of the Community. I am sure that Ministers will pay careful heed to what the noble Lord said because he speaks with considerable authority in this field.
I am probably old-fashioned, but I still believe that the parties represented in our Parliament should, if at all possible, seek to achieve a bipartisan foreign policy. Although there have been peaks and troughs, this has been, on the whole, a tradition in this country. This means that the Government should take careful account of Opposition views, especially on major issues. The onus is mainly on the Government; but all oppositions must also avoid raising niggling, petty objections on every issue, great and small, for short-term political advantage.
There are times when the Opposition must voice their criticism clearly as a matter of public duty; for example, on the occasion of the Suez crisis or currently on the Government's policies on southern Africa.
We know that some Prime Ministers, and indeed many Presidents of the United States, have assumed office without a close knowledge of foreign affairs. Others have been fortunate to have wide experience. I am sure the Prime Minister concedes that she was probably in the first category. She was therefore fortunate when she entered No. 10 Downing Street to have the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, an old hand, to guide and advise her as he did on the Rhodesian problem. It is to Mrs. Thatcher's credit at that time that she accepted the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and changed her position. This of course led to the subsequent settlement of that long-standing problem. That was an example of close and effective co-operation between No. 10 and the Foreign Office. It was also an example of a successful bipartisan approach to a major issue.
It is also generally true that the longer Prime Ministers remain in office, the greater their interest becomes in foreign affairs. That is inevitable, especially in these days of rapid travel and communication; though even 70 years or so ago Lloyd George was much criticised for spending too much time in Versailles and too little in the House of Commons. Honourable Members expecting to see him in the House were disappointed because he was not there; they only saw his pictures in the newspapers with Presidents Wilson and Clemenceau and Signor Orlando. Lloyd George had a great responsibility to discharge in Versailles but the view of some was that he overdid it a bit.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, suggested, the ideal is to get the balance right between Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. If the Prime Minister wants to do all the work, then he or she should take on the Foreign Office portfolio as well. In 1924
710
Ramsay MacDonald, who had always taken a close interest in foreign affairs, did just that, largely upon the advice of Arthur Ponsonby, the grandfather of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who correctly predicted that he would not be in office for long and that it would therefore be possible for MacDonald to combine both great offices of Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. I think it is now generally admitted that Ramsay MacDonald was an effective Foreign Secretary but he was also criticised, as Professor David Marquand tells us in his excellent biography,
"for devoting too much of his attention to the mysteries of foreign policy and too little to urgent domestic problems of employment and economic stagnation".
The present Prime Minister has played an increasingly active role, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, referred to her style and some of her incursions into foreign relations. It is impossible at this stage to make a full judgment of the right honourable lady, but we are entitled to comment on certain aspects of her policies. As has been said, she is now one of the longest serving national leaders. She has a reputation for what some would call plain speaking and what others have seen as tactless outbursts; and she has formed relations with other world leaders, notably President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev.
Britain is not a superpower. Our influence is most significant when we work constructively through our alliances and associations. Those were listed by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, in his speech—the Community, NATO the United Nations and the Commonwealth. The Prime Minister has used these platforms to air her views; but she has not always done so to the best advantage and that must be conceded in this debate. She has been described as "meddlesome", "interfering" and "negative". There are times when one has the impression that the Foreign Secretary is tiptoeing softly behind her carrying a large oil can.
It is possible to underestimate the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, but I have a great deal of respect for him and for his patient and reasonable handling of foreign affairs. It has not always been easy for him. He handled the Hong Kong problem skilfully, supported by the Prime Minister after her hiccup in Peking. When he is going around the capitals of the world I must confess that I feel quite relaxed and satisfied that his calm diplomacy will not let this country down.
During her 10 years in office the Prime Minister has developed her own methods. That is not necessarily a bad thing provided of course that there is agreement and understanding between her and the Foreign Secretary. In his recently-published memoirs the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, makes the following interesting comment. Given the respect with which he is held throughout this House I believe that we must note his comment very carefully. He said:
"Margaret Thatcher evinced at times a distrust of the Foreign Office, a determined attitude that it didn't stick up for Britain and was softly conciliatory when the reverse was needed. I found that this sentiment was never far from the surface and could erupt in impatient hostility unless ably countered …".
That was the view of the noble Lord.

711
Of course there is a time for plain speaking if that is clearly in the interests of the country and if it has the support of the Foreign Secretary and of the Cabinet. As we know, foreign affairs is the second subject on the Cabinet agenda every Thursday morning and Ministers have the opportunity to express their views on major issues at that time. If the Prime Minister speaks with the accord of her colleagues and with the agreement of the Foreign Secretary then, even if we in Opposition may disagree with what that policy is, we cannot complain. It is government policy decided by agreement between the Prime Minister, who is primus inter pares, her chief foreign affairs Minister and her colleagues in the Cabinet.
But the reflections of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, must cause some unease. Noble Lords may have read a recent book on British foreign policy since 1979 that I found most revealing. Mr. Bulpitt of Warwick University writes this in the book:
"Between 1979 and 1987 British foreign policy was presented as the policies of one woman, so that in many aspects this method became the message".
While the Prime Minister has many admirers at home and abroad, it is also true that her handling of foreign relations has often caused tension and unease and brought about unnecessary discord between Britain and friendly nations. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has given examples of this and the reactions of our European partners to them. There was the interview given by the Prime Minister in the United States in November when she made a partisan remark about the main issue of the Canadian general election that was taking place at that time. Mr. Turner, the former Canadian Prime Minister said:
"I can only say with considerable regret that Mrs Thatcher's comments are inappropriate".
She should not have behaved like that in a foreign country. I believe that there should be general agreement in this House that her action was misguided. It was not a myth but a fact.
The way in which she handled the Patrick Ryan case to which reference has been made, whatever the merits, did nothing to improve the relations with Belgium and Ireland. If it was in the public interest that Patrick Ryan should be extradited to this country, the handling of the matter by the Prime Minister made sure that he was not. Finally, the premature warning that the Queen would not be advised to visit Russia was crude and unhelpful. I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, that these are surely not myths.
The way in which policies are worked out is one thing; the way in which they are handled publicly is another matter. We must hope that policies are the end product of close consultation and that the Prime Minister's subsequent handling of those policies when she does intervene is agreed upon by the Foreign Secretary and the Cabinet. If the Prime Minister starts shooting from the hip heaven knows whom she may hit next.
But the Prime Minister does have important contributions to make. She described her relations with President Reagan as "very, very special" and there is no doubting their real friendship. She has also
712
said that President Gorbachev is a man she can work with and that is encouraging. These relations can be put to good use provided they are seen in the right perspective.
However, friendships do not add up to a foreign policy. We must realise that our strength comes from our partnerships and alliances and the way in which we strengthen our influence within them. In the book on foreign policy to which I have referred, Mr. Michael Smith makes a perceptive remark. He writes:
"British policies have become more regional and European while American orientations have become a strange hybrid of globalism and insularity. Personalities can delay or divert this process, but they cannot halt or reverse it".
I believe that the House will agree that there are more opportunities today to create international stability and to move towards substantial disarmament than have existed for many decades past. With our allies and with wise leadership we can contribute towards this. If we do so I know that the House will give its full support.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, in a discussion on the conduct of foreign relations, I might be considered a prejudiced witness as for 25 years I was a member of the diplomatic service. I have however for approximately the same time been engaged in other occupations in what the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry seems to enjoy calling the "real world". I hope therefore that in this discussion I shall not be unduly partisan.
One of the occupations in which I have not engaged has been party politics. I should therefore like to try to avoid dealing as directly with current personalities as some of the previous speakers. I am bound to say that when I first saw the Motion on the Order Paper it seemed a little opaque. I did not know whether the noble Lord wanted us to discuss the direction of British policy or the means and mechanics by which the Government tried to implement it. But all this has been clarified by his extremely interesting speech which reminded us that he is a distinguished historian as well as a statesman.
In the debate on the Address last November 1 drew attention to the formidable foreign affairs agenda that faced the British Government. But I suggested that there was at last a hope that some long deadlocked problems showed some promising signs of solution. I concluded that there might be opportunities for initiatives by the British Government either alone or more likely in concert with others in alliances or through the reviving United Nations Organisation. I believe that subsequent events have confirmed those views and that the general thrust of the Government's policies merits our support. In East-West relations, in arms control, in disarmament, in the Middle East and in other regional problems, even in southern Africa, in my view Her Majesty's Government are aiming in the right direction and they are well equipped to contribute positively. On certain questions I am glad to see that the Government and the Opposition are coming nearer together. The recent exchange between Mr. Waldegrave and Mr. Gerald Kaufman illustrated that very clearly.

713
In European affairs there is room for domestic argument. But I believe that Monday's extremely interesting debate showed that the majority of us accepted a policy that involved a series of practical steps rather than prematurely debating ambitious goals. The number of people in other countries who favour the same line will become increasingly apparent.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has criticised megaphone diplomacy. In my view, megaphone diplomacy can be sometimes right and sometimes wrong. After all, Sir Winston Churchill's famous Fulton speech was an example of beneficial megaphone diplomacy. There is also a useful variation of megaphone diplomacy which is sometimes referred to as "Jericho diplomacy". It is the policy that when faced by an obstruction you march round and round it making as much noise as possible in the hope that the obstructing walls will eventually come tumbling down. The Prime Minister did this very successfully when she succeeded in getting a much more substantial rebate from the European Community. She was criticised at the time, but I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was one of her critics then.
It is highly desirable and indeed essential that Prime Ministers and departmental Ministers should make public policy speeches about foreign affairs. They are usually the best judges of when it is appropriate to do so as they naturally have domestic as well as foreign targets. A comparatively recent development, and one not welcome to me, is that in this country we no longer have a large measure of consensus on foreign policy. There is therefore a temptation for politicians on both sides to speak too loudly and often too soon. It seems to have become customary to react to any event or development immediately in order to get first place on the television or the radio. This produces an immediate reaction from Opposition spokesmen and from other governments whose actions are criticised or applauded. In very quick time there is a crisis in relations which makes constructive diplomacy more difficult. Nevertheless, I see no alternative and we have to get used to it. I do not see that Ministers are likely to resist immediate access to the television screen, but we must hope that they will from time to time look carefully at the possibility that an immediate, excessive political reaction may create long-term obstacles to a good solution in the interests of all.
But it is right in my view that government leaders should have a high profile. No one can deny that our international status has benefited from this and that we are held in higher esteem now than at any time in the past three decades. But I regret to say that this esteem is from time to time diminished by the decline in British manners, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, refers in his autobiography, and by the loutish behaviour abroad by people of all kinds.
As the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, mentioned, we are extremely fortunate in having a Foreign Secretary who has long and continuous experience in international affairs, both as Chancellor of the Exchequer and in his present post. There are those who criticise him and question his ability and the
714
ability of his department to offer good advice to the Prime Minister and to the Cabinet as a whole, which is ultimately responsible for approving foreign policy. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, however, has spoken well of the Foreign Office but there are others who maintain that the vision of the Foreign Office is too narrow. They say that it should be more open to ideas from outside. This is a longstanding view which to my knowldege is totally misplaced.
Foreign Office Ministers and members of the Diplomatic Service do not live in a world of their own. They are influenced by what is said in Parliament and by other powerful Whitehall departments. They read the newspapers of our own and other countries and they are bombarded by television and radio pundits. They are in touch with the opinions—the useful and powerful opinions—of the academic world. Their views are also informed and influenced by the flow of opinion and information from our missions abroad and from their official contacts with foreign governments. They also have access to the products of our intelligence services. They clearly cannot be faultless. They make misjudgments and mistakes.
Those who distrust or doubt the Foreign Secretary and his advisers believe that the Prime Minister needs a group in No. 10 to second-guess them. To a large extent a Prime Minister already has this. He or she has contacts of their own. There are highly competent people in the Prime Minister's private office. There is the joint intelligence committee on which several departments are represented, and there is a senior Cabinet committee of the most influential Ministers. In our own comparatively recent history and in the example of the United States we have seen how a rival centre of official advice carries serious risks. These risks are of course diminished if the relations between the group in No. 10 and the Foreign Office are cooperative and not confrontational.
Some years ago a senior Commonwealth Prime Minister tried a personal staff of this kind. I asked one of the members how the staff got on with civil servants. He said, "We don't talk to them; we only talk to Ministers". That is the way not to do it. It is unfortunately human nature that two centres of official advice more often than not foster departmental rivalry. This was certainly the case in the United States in my experience when the State Department was constantly in conflict with the assessments of the CIA. Prime Ministers certainly want and must have first-class advice. In the limits of my experience there is no reason why the present system cannot provide this. It taps all relevant sources.
Do our missions abroad do a good job? I believe they do, provided they are given adequate resources. Those Members of the House who served under the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, on the Select Committee on Overseas Trade were able to see for themselves when we visited Tokyo just how efficient an embassy can be. There are occasions when missions fall short but the view of several committees of this House and of the other place confirm the generally high standards.
In summary, this country is well placed both in personalities and in machinery to take a proper place

715
in the development of a safer world. There is greater hope now than for many years for the solution of some obstinate problems. I believe that we can help.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for his choice of an interestingly worded topic for the Motion today. The whole discussion raises the question of why we have a Foreign Office. It has not been raised yet, but it used to be raised in circles which looked forward to rapid European integration and could see the time coming when policies could be formulated, at least among the West European countries, by meetings of functional civil servants—the idea that civil servants from, for example, Departments of Transport could meet and settle everything. One would have a kind of function merge, to use computer language. That has not happened and could not happen. As long as sovereign states remain, sovereign states with sovereign democratic parliaments, each of them will need a Foreign Office, simply because there is no one else to give orders to those who are carrying out the negotiations and to set their terms of reference.
In his interesting speech, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, set out some aims of national policy. I do not think it matters where they came from. I do not know whether they were new or old and, if old, whether they have been endorsed by many recent British governments, but they certainly are the sort of thing that successive British, French, German, Soviet, U.S. and all governments set themselves on those occasions when they do anything so dangerous as to draw up a list of national policy aims.
I should have liked a lesser emphasis on preserving and maintaining the interests of this country and a greater emphasis on doing what this country best could to attain a certain general condition of the world. But what condition would that be? How should the desirable condition of the world be defined? Obviously it would be peaceful, it would be prosperous, it would be just, and so on. Then, reasoning back from that, what is the best detailed general line of conduct for a given nation having our characteristics? For instance, being roughly democratic, being middle-sized, speaking a world language, and so on. A rational list framed according to that procedure could, I imagine, become rather more useful as time goes on.
We are now seeing—this has not been mentioned —the growth of political co-operation among the countries of the Community through the mechanism which used appropriately to be called PoCo because there was indeed molto poco of it. There is now some more and, no doubt, the time will come when it becomes molto enough to allow a formalisation of it with the consequent effect on the national foreign offices of the countries concerned. In the meantime, I do not think that we can go much faster than we are going in that direction. Indeed, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that that does not depend on whether a given Prime Minister takes up a strident or a conciliatory attitude towards his or her colleagues in the European Community.
716
There has been this recent eruption—principally, I think, in The Times newspaper—of what looked like a campaign but then did not really turn into one, for the Prime Minister to have her own foreign policy unit in No. 10. The suggestion was quite boldly framed by some apparently very eccentric people as being something which would enable her to override the bad advice from the Foreign Office because it would have sole possession of a higher truth; namely, a truth which did not come from observing the lie of the land beyond our shores, but from higher principles altogether. We should be glad that we have not heard any more of that suggestion.
I must say in passing that I was surprised that the Foreign Secretary found it necessary to take part in that discussion. I do not know whether we should infer from that that its wings did brush him more closely than we should have wished. I shall, however, return to the Foreign Secretary later on.
Of course the Prime Minister can be his or her own foreign secretary, as Lord Rosebery was—a fact pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. In which case he can and does use the existing Foreign Office and, one hopes, trust it.
A noble Lord: It was Lord Salisbury.
Lord Kennet: I am sorry if I said Lord Rosebery, it was of course Lord Salisbury. On the other hand, if the Prime Minister is not being his or her own foreign secretary it is a recipe for absolute and immediate disaster that there should be a separate department to serve him or her. In this day and age prime ministers should not be foreign secretaries. The present one has not been and if she were ever to take on that duty—I do not attempt to disguise my own view—I believe that it would be an absolute disaster too.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said that the Prime Minister stands for the things in which we all believe. Well, she does not, you know. The only thing which we believe that she stands for is that the interests of this country should be interpreted and pursued as best one can. But what they are is an issue upon which we are very sharply divided. Many of the values she proclaims around the world are matters in which not many people in this country believe. It would make an easier relationship with other countries, and an easier relationship internally in this country, if she were to examine on which points she does express the generally held view of her people, and on which she does not. She is a Prime Minister whose convictions and whose courage run very far in advance of her comprehension. It would be possible for her to know this and the better, by knowing it, to benefit us from her great courage.
I should like to endorse everything said by the Leader of the Labour Opposition about Sir Geoffrey Howe. Life with Mrs. Thatcher and without Sir Geoffrey Howe would be almost too alarming to contemplate. If she had anyone less skilful as Foreign Secretary, less calm, less broad in his approach to the world, then the country would be very poorly served indeed.
Kind things have been said about the quality of the British foreign service, and I endorse them. We have

717
a good foreign service, and we are lucky to have such a good one. However, we want to avoid complacency. I do not think that it has always necessarily been the best. There have been two or three people in it over the past 40 years who have risen near the top, despite a degree of overestimation in their own abilities and underestimation of the opinions of other persons and other countries. Indeed, two or three absolute fools have shot through the firmament, but they have not done much harm in the end and by and large the standard has been extremely high.
Over the years the Canadian foreign service, especially in the Third World, could have been an example to us which we did not always follow. And in Europe I have been much impressed by the standard of technical performance—which says nothing about the policies from time to time of their government—of the German foreign service. I believe that we could, certainly in the past, and possibly still now, have something to learn from both of those.
One thing which we may unreservedly welcome is that the great impetus of the 'fifties and 'sixties to commercialise the Foreign Office and the foreign service is now forgotten. The task of promoting the commercial interests of the firms of a given country is not historically especially close to the task of diplomacy and of achieving harmonious relations with other sovereign governments. It has its bearing; but it is not on the same main line, and it was rather a mistake ever to think that it was.
Traditionally, those who opened up the world to British commerce, and the sale of British industrial products, did not rely on the ambassador or the consul too much. The personage of the commercial counsellor had not of course been invented in the great days. In those days, from the 13th century right up to the early 20th century, the person they relied on was their agent on the spot—that is, a native of the country concerned—and on an increasingly sophisticated network, cohabitation, and interaction between the agents of different countries, different industries, different firms in a given country; so as to build up a more light-footed basis of trading and trading knowledge and one which was less hampered by the sovereign interests of the sending country, which can indeed get dreadfully in the way of trade.
Therefore I am glad that the commercialisation of the service is going no further. However, is it not surprising that hiving off these duties—privatisation of advice from government to traders, merchants and industrialists abroad—has not been more to the fore? The Government could logically hive off those functions to the private sector while of course keeping up a central core of advice and keeping in touch with everything that goes on. The reliance by the private sector of industry and trade on government advice abroad has been simultaneous with, perhaps in part has caused, the relative collapse of British industrial exports over the past 30 years.
Lastly; the Queen and the invitation to Moscow. If the Soviet invitation ever had been given—it must have been expected—would it have been to the Queen solely as the Queen of this country or would it have been to her partly as head of the Commonwealth? It
718
is difficult to disentangle the two functions and sometimes it is highly undesirable to try: but when the Queen is invited on a state visit to an important country does the Prime Minister convey to the Queen the advice only of the United Kingdom Government or does the Prime Minister also convey the advice of the Commonwealth Secretariat or individual Commonwealth countries? If the Prime Minister does not convey that advice, who conveys it to the Queen?
I realise that that is an opaque area about which little knowledge exists. The matter should be looked at in a future debate, or in some sensible way, first, to find out what happens and then to see if there could be an improvement. It could be part of a general examination of the whole relationship between the Queen in Parliament and the majority in one of the two Houses of Parliament which might become—I shall not say crucial—a lever, or possible spark point in the future, the longer the majority in the House of Commons continues to represent a minority in the country.
4.12 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for introducing the debate. My enthusiasm for the debate is slightly tempered by a point which he made at the beginning of his speech, as did the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, and I was not sure that I understood what his purpose was in putting down the Motion in the terms that he did. I therefore listened with great interest to what he had to say and now of course we know what his purpose was. He identified, and I think that I wrote them down correctly, five guiding principles as to why he thinks that the Prime Minister has too much effect on our foreign policy. He especially dislikes her style.
I speak as someone who was recently a Foreign Office Minister for four years. During that time I had the advantage, and enormous interest, of travelling to some 60 different countries. I can only say, speaking from my experience then, that the Prime Minister was held in high regard throughout the world. She was admired for her courage; for the fact that she stood up for Britain around the world; and for the Government's economic policies.
I can assure your Lordships that I had some unexpected and unusual conversations, not merely with governments which might be described as right wing but frequently with governments which were unquestionably left wing, which were trying to find out about Britain's economic policies and how we had succeeded in reversing Britain's relative longterm economic decline. One must recognise the influence that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has had—a point to which I shall return.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, began by talking about the European Community. We all know and appreciate the great work that he has done in Europe and his great knowledge of the Community. In no way do I pretend to be an equal expert; but I look upon myself as someone who is committed to Europe. I made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House in 1971 in support of the principle of Britain's entry to the Community. I have

719
always stood as someone who is a great supporter and believer in the great European ideal. I look upon the whole development of Europe as unquestionably one of the great political developments since the Second World War.
What has happened over what is regarded as the style in Europe is that there have been great differences of opinion about what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister meant in her speech in Bruges. Often what was reported in the press bore little relationship to what she said if one read the speech. That is often the case when one reads what is said and compares it with what is reported.
Basically, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister set out in that speech five principles about Europe. The first was the willing and active cooperation between independent and sovereign states. The second was that Community policies should tackle problems in a practical way. I should have thought that that was something that most people in this country firmly support. It has been not only the work of the Foreign Office, to which I shall come in a moment, but the work of the Prime Minister which has made enormous improvements to the budget of the Community and Britain's share of it. The Prime Minister has also intervened to do something about the common agricultural policy, which everyone understands has become expensive and out of control and in many respects has had extremely damaging effects, especially in the Third World. We must give credit where credit is due.
The Prime Minister said that the Community's policies should encourage enterprise; that Europe should not be protectionist. There again, one of the greatest economic dangers in the world today must surely be that there might be a trade war between Europe and the United States in which both would be bound to be the losers. That would be damaging and needs to be avoided. Secondly, protectionist policies would be dangerous to Third World countries.
The final point was the importance of European defence through NATO. I believe that those views reflect what the majority of British people think about the Community. I do not believe that at present most people in this country want something like a federal system. I greatly respect the views of my noble friend Lord Cockfield—unfortunately I could not be here on Monday to hear the debate, but I read it—and I recognise that he holds firm views. Who is to say that he will not be proved right and that we shall not have a single European currency by the year 2000? However, I do not believe that at present most people in Britain think of that or a central bank or close political alignment as priorities. We are moving in a pragmatic way towards Europe. A great many practical steps are being taken. From my experience in business as a director of a bank and a business, I know that an enormous amount of thinking and planning is going on for 1992. I hope that that is going on up and down the country, because there are enormous benefits to be gained. However I am not sure that we would gain anything by leaping into great decisions which would not have the support of people. That would be very divisive. It is right that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister
720
should spell out clearly what some of these things are. Some will move more quickly, some more slowly and after all, some people will not even move at all as regards the European Community. I think that we have got this about right. The great point at the moment is that we should be making preparations for 1992 and the benefits which that will bring, not only to ourselves but to the whole of Europe.
Perhaps I may now turn to the reality of the relationship of the Prime Minister with my right honourable and learned friend Sir Geoffrey Howe and to the Foreign Office. I believe that the Foreign Office not only exists to implement the policy of the Government but it builds on the tremendous experience—my noble friend Lord Glenarthur drew attention to this—of both the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, made the point, with which I agree, that we as a country have benefited enormously from the particular relationship between the Prime Minister and President Reagan. I have not the slightest doubt that there will be a good relationship between the Prime Minister and President Bush, just as I believe—and I am sorry that he is not in his place this afternoon—that there was
a very good relationship between the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and President Carter. It is in the interests of Britain that there should be a good personal relationship between our Prime Minister and the President of the United States.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, the fact that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister had said that she could do business with Mr. Gorbachev signalled that this was going to be a good relationship. We are already seeing the benefits of that. I believe that there are very many instances in foreign affairs in which the fact that there has been a good relationship between two Ministers has enabled foreign policy to progress.
Having said that, I worked very closely with my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary for four years. I was very glad indeed to hear the tributes that have been paid to him personally. The country has very often owed far more than it knows to his patience, his unending good humour and his very great negotiating skills. I watched them closely in the negotiations on Hong Kong, to which reference has already been made. I know that his negotiating skills have been used extensively in Europe, in the whole area of arms control and on the big issues of the Middle East, and they will be so used in the future. Nothing would be more unfortunate than to think that he has been other than a very great Foreign Secretary. The country should be grateful for what he has done.
He is well served by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I cannot claim, like the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, to have had 25 years there, and perhaps some people may think from what I say that I too have been brainwashed in some way. I have been told from time to time that one of my faults is being too outspoken, but perhaps I may be forgiven for what I say. One of my ministerial responsibilities was administration and I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and others have paid tribute to the high calibre of people in the Foreign Office. We

721
are very fortunate there and also we are fortunate that the Foreign Office is still recruiting some of the most able graduates from our universities, despite the temptations of often far higher salaries in other jobs for these young men and women, who are actively headhunted by many people. One is very struck by, for example, their skills as linguists. It is probably, person for person, as good as or better than almost any other foreign service in the world. I well recall a time when I did not myself have ministerial responsibility for China. I was asked to host a lunch for a Chinese mayor at which half the people present were Chinese and the other half from the Foreign Office. I suddenly realised that I was the only person at the table who did not speak Chinese. That was a very unusual occasion but it brought home to me in a real way the kind of skills we have, skills which we could use to advantage.
There is one other point which I wish to make about the Foreign Office and which we forget today. What is often seen by the outside world as an immensely glamorous job is a very dangerous one today. It may not be necessary to say so in this House but in the four years when I was there a member of the Foreign Office was assassinated, as was a member of the British Council. There were a good many people who were threatened, and I remember that one young girl in a Latin American embassy came to a party when she had only just come out of hospital, having been stabbed while waiting for traffic lights which were red to turn green. The kinds of dangers our people abroad are up against are real and I am sure that none of your Lordships has visited an embassy abroad without being struck by the fortifications around the embassy. They are there because they are necessary, and that is something to bear in mind.
As a consequence of our success—and I think it has been a success—in foreign affairs we have been able to build on the expertise of Ministers who decide the principles of Foreign Office policy. But we carry our policy through by the skilful negotiations of our people who are professional diplomats.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to three areas. One only has to look at the whole area of disarmament, where we have a very real input into conventional arms control and where we are part of the negotiating team. We have made a real input into the whole area of the control of chemical weapons, particularly on verification and on the principles of NATO's arms control position. The 50 per cent. cuts in the United States and the Soviet strategic arms, the chemical weapons ban and the elimination of the conventional imbalance in conventional forces were agreed between the two principals, President Reagan and the Prime Minister, in 1986. The detailed working out, where there has been a measure of success, comes from our professionals. If we look at the Middle East, again we played a leading role in the work at the United Nations which led to a ceasefire between Iran and Iraq. We initiated and drafted Resolution 598, which set the terms for an international settlement of the Gulf conflict.
Commercial work has already been referred to and I think that we often forget that 30 per cent. of Foreign and Commonwealth Office frontline
722
resources overseas, and a significant proportion of those at home, are devoted to supporting United Kingdom commercial effort, particularly our exports. This strengthens the economy of the United Kingdom and it therefore helps Britain's foreign policy.
Perhaps I may conclude on that point, where I began. I believe that since 1979 we have seen that Britain's role in the world and the respect and regard in which Britain has been held have risen. That is due to a number of factors, not least the success of Britain's economy and certainly not least the success which the leadership of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has given to the country. However our success abroad is equally important in the work of my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, who, by his tenure of office and his skills, has also put his stamp on what has been done both in Europe and in the great negotiations which are going on.
We must all surely want success in our foreign policy for the very reasons set out by my noble friend in his speech, because the aims of' the foreign policy may be very big words like "peace" and "prosperity in the world" but, after all, they are what we all want.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I must begin by apologising for the fact that owing to a long-standing prior commitment, I shall be unable to stay until the end of the debate. Secondly, I should like to say at the outset that, contrary to what some Members of the House may be expecting, I am not going to devote any time this afternoon to the Diplomatic Service, although it may be quite well known, at least among some of your Lordships, that I have some experience —perhaps not as much as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, or the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill. However, it is experience in a rather different context of our embassies and high commissions overseas, of the Foreign Office in London and of relationships between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and home departments.
Something I should like to say however—and I have listened with great interest to what others have said about this—is that I do not think anybody ever doubted the high calibre of our foreign service. What some of us doubted when we looked at it in the late 1970s was whether the best use was made of that high calibre at all times. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, made one or two points that I would perhaps on another occasion like to take up; but this afternoon I want to concentrate on some of the issues already raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.
It has been said by some commentators that the Government have achieved a new-found confidence in their relationships with other countries. It has been argued that this greater self-confidence since the mid-1980s is based on a much stronger economy. I would contend that the self-confidence is in fact apparent: indeed, it often takes the form of overbearing and arrogant over-confidence. However, I cannot accept that it is built on a substantial and long-term improvement in the nation's economic position. If we accept the importance of a country's economic

723
strength in determining its significance and "clout" in the role it is able to play in the world—and surely we must accept this—then there is no justification for the apparent belief that Britain is now in a stronger position to dictate to foreign powers or to get its own way in either bilateral or multilateral negotiations of various kinds.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, talks about myths; but he is guilty of spreading just such a myth in referring to our economic recovery, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Young. On the contrary, Britain's underlying economic weakness continues, and no amount of propaganda, either at home or abroad, can hide it from the discerning observer. Since the end of last summer we have had a series of appalling trade figures, which demonstrate more clearly than anything else Britain's failure to earn its living by selling goods abroad. Unemployment still stands at around 2 million, which represents a terrible waste of human resources. Since 1979 manufacturing output has gone up by only 4 per cent., compared with 35 per cent. in the USA and 40 per cent. on average in Western Europe. In GDP per head, Britain is far below most of its competitors in the other OECD countries. Within three or four years North Sea oil, which has helped to shore up our persistently weak economy, will run out. No, my Lords, in the central area of international economic relations Mrs. Thatcher and her Ministers have no reason to be self-confident.
In spite of the harsh reality of those facts, Mrs. Thatcher continues to prance around on the world stage as if this country had not lost its empire, had not slipped even further behind other nations economically and had not had to accept its military insignificance in relation to the superpowers. Continuity in office, which several of your Lordships have already referred to, may have turned the Prime Minister into a world leader who has been around longer than most. It has not, in my view, turned her into a statesman who both accepts Britain's much reduced power and behaves accordingly.
The most important adjustment required is a willingness to accept that relations with foreign countries must increasingly be conducted through multilateral channels. As a middle-ranking European power with a much less successful economy than that of West Germany and a rather less successful economy than that of France or even of Italy, the Government need to accept that our chances of influencing other countries will be greater if we throw ourselves wholeheartedly into trying to make Britain's voice effective within Europe. In this respect, as in others, I strongly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has already said.
While of course it would be foolish to abandon the strong links with the United States that were maintained and developed during the post-war years, I believe that Mrs. Thatcher has relied much too heavily on the special relationship at the expense of fostering good connections with Europe. Mrs. Thatcher's friend, President Reagan, has now retreated to his ranch in California; and in spite of what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said, I
724
think it is doubtful whether the present or any subsequent Prime Minister can repeat the act with President Bush or with any of his successors. Even Mrs. Thatcher's pal, President Reagan, did not tell her in advance that he was going to invade a Commonwealth country. It is in fact dangerous to rely too much on personal factors in the pursuit of foreign policy, as my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos said.
As a result of the Government's relative neglect of Europe with respect to cultivating friendships in favour of the USA, the Bonn-Paris axis continues to be the dominant relationship in Europe, leaving London all too frequently on the sidelines. Devoting a substantially greater proportion of GDP to defence than either of those countries has done little to alter the balance of power within Europe; nor can it be claimed truthfully that it has made or will continue to make much difference to our relationship with the USA. Our military might is so minuscule in relation to that of the United States that a percentage off the proportion of GDP that goes to defence would hardly alter the balance between Britain and the USA.
Continuing to run an overstretched defence budget is another symptom of the illusions of grandeur of our Prime Minister. It also represents a failure to understand that our security is not just a function of how much we spend on our military effort, but it is also a function of other things. Some of the recent investment in arms would have been better spent on non-military scientific research, on government support for innovation in new technologies, on training, and above all on aid and development in the Third World. All these things, I contend, would have done more to enhance our international reputation.
One of the happiest international developments to take place in recent months has been the resolution of the conflict in Namibia and concomitant improvements in the situation in neighbouring Angola. The successful outcome of the agreement to establish at long last an independent Namibia depends on the willingness of the major industrial countries, including Britain, to fund United Nations efforts to get the new county operating. This of course will include a peace-keeping presence and the organisation of connections. It is in Britain's interests to promote peace in Southern Africa; and Britain also has a moral obligation to do so. Instead, I am afraid that Britain has led the haggling over the provision of funding for this activity. It is a disgraceful example of the Government's petty meanness in supporting an international agency in vital work to promote peace and justice in the world. It well-illustrates the Government's mistaken priorities, when the costs involved are compared with our over-inflated defence expenditure.
Turning to a rather different subject, the protection of the environment—both within Europe and globally—has become an important item on the international agenda. The Prime Minister's recent conversion to a green approach has manifested itself in quite a lot of rhetoric about the global environment. However, we can only improve that global environment with more support for less developed countries, whose own activies which are

725
damaging to the environment are frequently a function of their extreme poverty. It really is hyprocrisy to to talk about improving the global environment at the same time as keeping aid to the third world at a level well below that provided by many other western industrial countries. Within Europe, despite the rhetoric, the Government's record until recently has been to drag their feet on such important matters as radioactive emissions into the sea and sulphur emissions into the atmosphere. On social and employment issues the Government's record in Europe is equally poor. They recently used their veto to prevent progress being made in relation to equality for women at work, despite the fact that a number of the changes involved actually brought other EC countries into line with improvements already achieved in Britain.
In general Britain's approach to discussing these and other matters in Europe has been both nationalistic and chauvinist. An issue where the Prime Minister perceives sovereignty is at stake, regardless of the intrinsic merits of reaching a common European position on it, evokes a hard-line refusal to discuss it. A good recent example of this is border control. Eventually the Government will be forced into accepting that agreed European regulations will be needed, and absolutely nothing is achieved by initially taking a nationalistic stance and refusing to co-operate. Instead the benefits of positive but hard bargaining at the outset are lost, and the end result is frequently a rather ungracious and grudging acceptance of the outcome of such multilateral discussions, because in the end we have no other choice but to accept.
Conducting relationships with foreign countries requires a mixture of realism about the power and influence that we can rely on to achieve our objectives, consistency and clarity about priorities and the employment of the right means to achieve those priorities, and also a willingness to compromise when necessary. The Government are failing in all of these respects, as I have tried to demonstrate. Moreover, they are led by a Prime Minister whose behaviour is becoming more autocratic abroad as well as at home, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has said.
Being around the longest does not give her the right to lecture and hector her peers. It is certainly counter-productive to treat the heads of foreign governments like members of her own Cabinet. They have ways of getting back at her which her own Cabinet Ministers singularly lack. It is not Mrs. Thatcher's reputation that concerns me; it is Britain's. Unless there is a change in heart in the way our relations with foreign countries are conducted, it will be seriously damaged.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, like others who have spoken in this debate I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for introducing this Motion. Unlike many other discussions on foreign policy in your Lordships' House where we generally tend to concentrate on the substance of foreign policy, we are here invited to consider the methods by which foreign policy is conducted. I believe this to be
726
an important subject in its own right, and I should like to stick rather closely to this theme in what I have to say this afternoon. I do not propose to follow some of your Lordships who have entered into questions of personality, nor the subjects treated by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on the more general issues of foreign policy.
The reason why I think methods are so important for us to consider is primarily that the circumstances in which our foreign policy is conducted have undergone a fundamental change in the last generation. This is clear to most of us when we think of the decline of the nation state, the emergence of two superpowers, the growth of multilateral organisations, the birth of the European Community and our own membership of it, and since the passage of the Single European Act its commitment in the field of foreign policy. One has to add also our own relative decline.
All these factors have rightly brought about a considerable change in our methods. For example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has already said, there is a much greater emphasis on multilateral diplomacy. This is necessary. There is too a much greater involvement between domestic and international business. Every member of the Cabinet finds himself involved in foreign affairs to some extent. There is also, interestingly, much more direct contact between Ministers in one country and in another. This can he an extremely helpful process. There has been naturally a change in the role of our foreign missions, but I believe that they have not declined in importance.
However, there is another significant change which seems to me to be worth drawing attention to, and that is the increased importance of public statements by governments. if you think of the situation 50 years or more ago the normal way of conducting government business was by private and relatively informal discussion between governments. Nowadays there is far more emphasis on public statements; on declarations which set out national positions for all the world to see.
Ideally their purpose is to prepare for negotiations which may follow and to indicate the broad lines of approach which may be adopted. I presume that this was the purpose of the important speech that the Prime Minister made in Bruges recently. Such statements seem to me to be desirable and indeed necessary in democratic societies. The world has accepted the objective of "open agreements openly arrived at". By this I understand that the opening and concluding phases will be available and visible for all to see, and the purpose of the public declaration is to set the negotiating process in train and on the right track.
For me the question underlying the Motion before us this evening is whether this is what our Government are in fact doing, and my approach is thus somewhat different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in his most interesting and learned speech. In my view a firm statement of principle is a desirable prelude to a negotiation. In Britain this is naturally so because of our traditional preference for strong government; a preference which incidentally is

727
much stronger here than in other parliamentary democracies.
Other countries have come to expect this of us. They expect our public statements to be strong, clear and consistent. In the fluid world of international politics it is to our national advantage that the rest of the world knows where we stand and understands what we are saying. Those who have attended the debates of the General Assembly of the United Nations know how quickly a too carefully expressed speech, a too refined modulation, will sink without a trace.
Nobody would accuse our own Government on this score, and there are definite advantages to the national interest that we have pursued a consistent and clear line since 1979. But this firmness, clarity and consistency are not enough of themselves. Public statements need to encourage the process of negotiation and facilitate movement towards the objective. I am not sure that this part of the technique has been as well thought out as it might have been on some occasions.
I sometimes think that it would be useful to study the techniques of the trade union leaders in this country, whose methods I think could sometimes be applied in other areas with advantage. They are the people in our society who seem to have understood the techniques of negotiation best. By this I do not mean that we should follow all the suggestions which appear in books on what is called the theory of international relations, but which it is suggested that you should advance a false objective in order to abandon it at a later stage of the negotiations, or that you should soften up your adversary with the rough edge of your tongue, or stage a walk-out. These seem to me to be rather artificial devices. But I believe that public statements should be carefully calculated; that they should set out the principles to be adopted in a negotiation and that they should leave sufficient flexibility for the conduct of those negotiations. The words we use should give the impression to the other side that a successful negotiation is posssible, if that indeed is our objective.
What I am suggesting is that we need a more calculated and less instinctive approach in our public statements on foreign policy. It is of course natural that in our country, given the strength of our parliamentary institutions and the forceful nature of our political and public debate, there is sometimes observable a freedom of expression which is not sufficiently calculated. Other countries do not behave as we do in that respect, and where fewer policies may emerge unexpectedly from the pressure of a parliamentary debate.
Indeed, I sometimes think that image reversal is at work here in that we tend to think of ourselves as a uniquely calm, deliberate and phlegmatic political society. The reality I suggest is the reverse and we are sometimes more instinctive, more emotional than our Continental neighbours in our political debates. I do not intend that in any way to be a comment on the proceedings in your Lordships' House; but it is something which I have observed generally in our own society.
728
I should like to commend to your Lordships one positive example of the way in which that process of public statement of principles and detailed negotiation should work; namely, the result of the Brussels European Council in February 1988 when the Government secured a very important agreement on a wide range of Community issues. That was a long negotiation on the structure of the Community's finance and agriculture which had been pursued in effect since 1979. The objective would not have been achieved, I believe, without a firmness and determination, stated with consistency and clarity over a long period.
One may perhaps question (as the noble Lord. Lord Jenkins, has done) whether the negotiations need have been quite so long. The important point to stress—and we are dealing with very long-term issues—is that sufficient flexibility was retained in order to reach an agreement in the concluding phase. Everything must depend on the limits of that flexibility; but in that particular case the method chosen produced a final result which was very satisfactory. I find that encouraging and worth bearing in mind.
We are now in the middle of another very important Community debate regarding its future financial structure. Other noble Lords have spoken on that subject and we had a very important debate on the matter in this Chamber on Monday. I do not prejudge the issue, and as we are debating methods today I shall say only that I hope that in those particular negotiations the Government will be able to adopt the tactics which were in the end successful in the negotiations of the Community budget—and in the Hanover European Council—and maintain the necessary degree of flexibility for the crucial stage of the discussion. If that is done, I see no reason to despair of a good result. That would be very much in the interests of this country and of the Community as a whole.
Another difficult test lies ahead of us. That concerns the negotiations on disarmament and arms control. The methods which we have employed hitherto on that subject have been successful in reaching the very important agreement on the zero option for intermediate nuclear forces. The technique adopted in that case was the well-tried one of negotiation between the superpowers and close coordination between the United States and her allies in NATO. Seen simply in terms of methods, the next phase looks more difficult because of the use of the CSCE Helsinki forum, where a much wider variety of interests will be involved which will be more difficult to reconcile, and the likelihood that fundamental questions may arise for Germany —as we have seen in the reactions in the past few days in the Federal Republic to the statements by Foreign Minister Shevardnadze.
We shall have a very important role in those negotiations because we are one of the most important members of NATO, one of the two Western European nuclear powers, and—a point I would particularly emphasise—because of our ability to maintain confidence on the western side during the negotiations, as was done most successfully after the Reykjavik meeting.

729
I should like to emphasise the importance of trust and confidence. Inevitably that will include the personal relations of the principal actors on the western side. It has always been that way in such negotiations. I hope that the Government will make use of the considerable opportunities which are open to them because a great deal may depend on it. You cannot expect an ally to trust you on vital security issues unless you have built his confidence in you across the board in preceding years. Confidence is indivisible.
We have heard about megaphone diplomacy, but I am not sure that that is a very helpful catchword. A megaphone after all is a useful instrument to have handy if one is trying to speak to someone who is very deaf, although your Lordships will have noticed that even the deaf object to being shouted at. My own bugbear is rather different, what I should term monotone diplomacy—the unchanging style, the unvarying cadence or argument.
The best way of entering Jericho is to persuade the inhabitants to open the gates. The most effective statesmen on the world scene are those who have been able to vary their arguments and their approach to the needs and national interests of the leader to whom they are speaking. That may be more easily said than done, but I am sure that the truth of that maxim is well known to the Minister of State and his right honourable and learned friend.
I cannot recall a moment in contemporary history when the international scene was changing more rapidly than it has over the past year. To a large extent that is the result of the appearance on the scene of a new Soviet leader. The outcome of his efforts is still difficult to predict. We have already seen some important results: the Soviet agreement to withdraw from Afghanistan; the prospect of Cuban withdrawal from Angola; the zero option agreement on INF; and the European Community agreement at Hanover, which I have already discussed.
Her Majesty's Government made a significant contribution on all those subjects. For that reason, I find it hard to agree with some noble Lords who have suggested that the Government's methods have been wholly at fault. My own view is that even sterner tests lie ahead. I hope that some of the reflections which have been contributed to the debate this afternoon may help the Government to register further success.
4.58 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity of taking part in this debate. which was so ably initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said, is a most distinguished historian and statesman.
It was a most interesting and indeed agreeable experience to be associated with the noble Lord when he was the first British president of the European Commission in the 1970s and I was the first British vice-president of the European Parliament. I need hardly say that we were both European-minded. Some people may have said that we were going native—a criticism which has been levelled at my noble friend Lord Cockfield, to whom we must all have listened with great interest on Monday. In
730
parenthesis, I must say that I cannot quite understand what that phrase "going native" really means. After all, we are all natives of Europe, and I do not see why the phrase should be in any way pejorative. It is true that my mother was French but I admit to being a native of the United Kingdom. Yet some of my closest relatives are French, Greek, Italian or American.
Although not all your Lordships are perhaps so internationally and intimately involved, many noble Lords must have Saxon, Roman, Danish, Norman or other Continental Euro-blood coursing through their veins. Therefore I cannot see how any of your Lordships could be opposed to a more united Europe or to our consulting our allies and other EC member states on major international and perhaps some domestic issues.
In my view the European Community should be the rock base for our conduct of relations with other countries, within the context, of course. of the British Commonwealth and our special relationship with the United States of America. At all events, I hope noble Lords will agree that being accused of going native because one has spent a few years of one's life in Brussels and elsewhere on the Continent of Europe should not make one suspect as a British national. Perhaps I may sum up in a few words. I believe that the Government's method of conducting foreign affairs should be such that in the Western world those of European stock should he united on both sides of the Atlantic as they are, more or less, in North America.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, called attention specifically to HMG's method of conducting relations with foreign countries. I have worked closely with the foreign service ever since I was a League of Nations official before the Second World War as well as during the second part of the war in West and North Africa. After the war I served in our embassy in Paris and later as chairman of the first Atlantic Committee in the 1950s. Later still, I was a Minister concerned with science and technology on a more or less global basis and I was also naturally concerned with foreign affairs as a Member of the European Parliament.
I therefore know something about the increasing complexity of conducting our relations with other countries and what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, well described as multinational diplomacy. The complexity results not only from our membership of the United Nations but also because we are members of NATO, the European Community and other international organisations. As members of the global village, we work together more and more closely. I came to see that very clearly only yesterday when participating in a USIA World Net television and radio programme at the American Embassy with, incidentally, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and others in Washington and Europe. One hardly needs to cross the Atlantic any more. We can converse by television and radio very naturally and easily, as indeed we did yesterday.
In different ways therefore I continue to be involved with foreign relations. In all the association that I have had with the foreign service I have come greatly to appreciate and respect its work. I was very

731
fortunate indeed to be for a while a member of that service.
I feel that in this debate it must be our membership of the European Community that most concerns noble Lords at this time, especially in view of the debate on Monday that was so ably initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, and in which I regret I was unable to take part. However, I agree very much with the remarks made then by my noble friend Lord Reay.
I have recently expressed my own views on the European Community in the European Atlantic Journal, in a review of various new books on Europe which are concerned mainly with 1992. As I said there, I do not believe that we shall ever have a United States of Europe on the same pattern as the United States of America. Each member state of the EC will retain its own language and cultural characteristics. Nonetheless, I hope that by 1992 we shall have a Western Europe without trading frontiers—though clearly joint measures will have to be taken by member states in the prevention of terrorism and drug trafficking.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and my noble friend Lord Cockfield, I hope that we shall soon join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system, even if all member states cannot yet agree to the establishment of a European central bank and complete monetary union. I would have said that on Monday. Noble Lords must forgive me for saying it now but it seems to me to be a point that I ought to emphasise.
I was encourged by the recent remarks of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that the European currency unit, the ecu, could be more widely used, as it is already in the issue of Treasury bonds. Above all, I agree with my noble friend Lord Cockfield that we should take the lead in achieving a more integrated Western Europe, economically, monetarily, and politically, and not hop on the bus rather late in the day as we did in 1972–73.
Certainly political consultation greatly improved when my noble friend Lord Carrington was our Foreign Secretary, as I believe it has under our present Foreign Secretary, my right honourable and learned friend Sir Geoffrey Howe, and our Minister of State concerned with Europe, my right honourable friend Mrs. Chalker. Her two speeches last week to the European Atlantic Group were in my opinion absolutely first class and in fact were not basically—I underline the word "basically"—so very far removed from the views of my noble friend Lord Cockfield. We cannot all yet agree on a common currency; but do not let us get left behind as we did in the 1960s.
At this point I should also like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Young. In particular, I agree wholeheartedly with all she said about my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
At all events, in agreement with Paul Johnson in his article in the Daily Mail early in the new year, I hope that by the end of the century Europe will have been transformed and that the single market will be going ahead full blast, making the European Community by far the world's largest economic unit.
732
I agree too that although Western Europe may have a gross national product twice the size of that in the USA, it will not become a federal superstate like America.
It will be interesting to see whether China emerges as a superpower in the next century. Having followed events there for some 12 years, and specifically on two fairly recent, separate high technology missions, I am not certain what will happen there, with Japan being so very close both geographically and now industrially. Whether the People's Republic will start to give greater autonomy to its many regions, as may happen in the USSR—with not only the Baltic States but also perhaps Armenia, Georgia and other republics becoming independent—I do not think any of us can clearly predict.
As regards the USSR, I believe that President Gorbachev—I hope that the Soviet Embassy will note my remarks—would certainly win the approval of most countries in the world if he declared his intention to grant independence to several of the Soviet republics, just as we British gave independence to member states of the British Commonwealth and France took the same course.
In the conduct of our relations with foreign countries, we must bear all those possibilities in mind. I think that the methods of our foreign service, and indeed of No. 10, in the conduct of our relations with other countries have been wise, sensible and correct. As has already been said, most Prime Ministers must be—indeed, nearly always have been—closely involved in foreign affairs.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for having given us the opportunity to discuss these matters. I certainly look forward to the comments of my noble friend Lord Glenarthur on what many of your Lordships have said or may yet say.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I wish to concentrate on one example of the Government's method of conducting relations with foreign countries. That is the Prime Minister's speech in Bruges, to which reference has already been made. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that I have a full copy of the speech as issued by the Conservative Political Centre. I have not relied simply on newspaper reports. I happened to be in Europe with a group of British business people when the speech was delivered, and there was general alarm and consternation. Re-reading the speech reinforces the reasons why that would have been so. When one reads it one realises that the Prime Minister was to a large extent in many parts of the speech tilting at windmills. For example, she said:
"It would be folly to try to tit them"—
the European nations —
"into some sort of identikit European personality".
Who is trying to do so? Nobody. Within Europe, many people yearn for, and believe that we should have, a form of European unity. I believe that it is the majority feeling in this country. I am sure that it is the majority feeling on the Government Benches. Most sensible people realise that the Community is a unique organisation. It is formed by independent

733
sovereign states. There is no precedent for it. It will obviously evolve into its own form of unity. It cannot slavishly copy any federal constitution because the formation of the United States, Australia or Canada, and other examples, took place in totally different circumstances. I think that every sensible person in Europe realises that.
What dismayed people about the Bruges speech was that it was a slap in the face for those who believe in real progress towards European unity. It is pointless to lecture, as did the Prime Minister, that Europe,
"never will prosper as a narrow-minded, inward-looking club".
In context, that implied that the other countries of Europe constituted a narrow-minded, inward-looking club and that we were not prepared to join it. One has the impression on reading the speech—which I have now read many times—that Britain wants what it can get out of Europe but is still extremely reluctant to make a real contribution and to become a full participant and to pull its weight to achieve European unity.
I quote from page 3 of the Prime Minister's speech to show the conflicting views that come over from it:
"The European Community is the practical means by which Europe can ensure the future prosperity and security of its people in a world in which there are many other powerful nations and groups of nations".
That is a sentiment with which I entirely agree. However, let us consider the next paragraph.
"We Europeans cannot afford to waste our energies on internal disputes or arcane institutional debates. They are no substitute for effective action".
What does that paragraph mean? Does it not mean that Europe has to agree entirely with us before we make any progress? That is what it amounts to. The contradictions in the speech follow. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the five principles that the Prime Minister laid down then. I quote from the first principle:
"I am the first to say that on many great issues the countries of Europe should try to speak with a single voice. I want to see us work more closely on the things we can do better together than alone. Europe is stronger when we do so, whether it he in trade, in defence, or in our relations with the rest of the world".
The next paragraph states:
"But working more closely together does not require power to be centralised in Brussels or decisions to be taken by an appointed bureaucracy".
How are we to achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has properly described as the framework under which countries can develop towards national unity unless that work is done in Brussels and unless the framework is set up there? It seems to me that, if the Prime Minister is right, we should have seen great progress in Europe, speaking with one voice on trade and defence, in relation to the rest of the world. Where is that progress?
If we isolate the words "better together than alone", they mean this. West Germany is the best example of a country in Europe which is so powerful economically that she could do many things as well as, or better, on her own than in Europe, but she does not do so. France could do the same. I have no doubt that we could do the same. There are other countries in Europe which are in a less favoured position and which can do things better together with European
734
partners than alone. If the Prime Minister's words mean that, if Britain can do things better alone, then she will, whatever disadvantage that course has for other countries in the Common Market, I do not think much of that proposition.
The Prime Minister stated:
"Working more closely together does not require power to he centralised in Brussels or decisions to be taken by an appointed bureaucracy".
Our Civil Service is an appointed bureaucracy but it has been and is essential for the effective running of our country. If in the Prime Minister's view the bureaucracy in Brussels is insufficiently accountable, the answer surely lies in institutional change, to which she is incredibly opposed.
What Brussels must do is to set up the necessary framework to enable the Community to work through its individual members towards common ends and to create the right means whereby— in the Prime Minister's words—
"the countries of Europe should try to speak with a single voice".
One had the uneasy feeling—and I still have it—that she never intends that Europe should speak with a single voice unless the single voice happens to be hers. The Government should surely spell out in clear and unequivocal terms how they see their obligations to Europe developing.
In his very impressive contribution to the debate on Monday, and in his evidence to the committee whose report was under debate, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, quoted from the Single European Act, which states:
"the Heads of State … approved the objective or the progressive realization of Economic and Monetary Union".
There is no doubt that our Government agreed that objective. As the noble Lord pointed out in the debate on 23rd January 1989:
"The commitment that has been undertaken in the present case is a commitment to monetary union; not simply a commitment to monetary co-operation".—[Official Report, 23/1/89; col. 467.)
Government spokesmen and others have constantly talked about that.
The Bruges speech was a very carefully considered document. It is headed Britain and Europe. The invitation had been issued a long time ago. What was the Prime Minister trying to achieve? It seems to me that she was deliberately trying to hold up the forward development of the Community in the direction of unity. This is a tremendously disappointing attitude.
The Foreign Secretary—with whom I have had a friendship for a great part of my life—is a man for whom I have the greatest respect. He could not possibly have delivered the Bruges speech. It was a case of the Prime Minister stepping in over and above the Foreign Secretary to lay down a position which I think is intended to dishearten our partners and to hold back progress in what is a misconceived effort to protect the interest of our country. I believe that the time has come for the Government to set out clearly what the Prime Minister intended to achieve by that speech, because it caused a great deal of dismay in Europe and within our own country.
5.20 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I know the enormous regard in which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is held in the chambers over which he presides and it is easy to see why after his speech this afternoon. I rise to support the Motion moved with so much historical wisdom and elegance by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and very effectively followed by my own Leader and by my noble friend Lady Blackstone. I hope that I am in order in saying that we on these Benches are glad to have someone among us to counter the youthful charms of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. In the age of Thatcherism I do not believe that her sex is of any disadvantage.
On the last occasion I spoke, I referred to the megaphone diplomacy of the Prime Minister in her dealings with the Ryan case. I shall return to that in a moment, but I shall not speak about it at any great length. I do not want to strike too tragic a note. I remember the late Randolph Churchill saying in my hearing to the late Evelyn Waugh that he was thinking of joining the Catholic Church. Evelyn Waugh replied that the Church had no reason to be unduly worried because it had survived many tribulations. No doubt that is how the intemperate strictures of Mrs. Thatcher are viewed in Ireland.
Before I say anything that could be regarded by the Minister as remotely unpleasant, I shall say something that I am sure he will be happy to hear. I regard the Anglo-Irish Agreement, in which on the British side the Prime Minister took the lead, as the best thing that has happened in my overlong experience of Anglo-Irish relations, with the possible exception of the Sunningdale Agreement which was cruelly sabotaged. I hope and believe that this agreement will not only endure but will lead to still more fruitful arrangements.
Still seeking to be pleasant, I can say other nice things. When I opened the debate on unemployment in Northern Ireland in the summer I referred to the confidence in which Mr. Tom King, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, is held among the Catholics of Northern Ireland and, to the best of my belief, in the Irish Republic. Sir Geoffrey Howe—who has been referred to more than once today—is recognised as a good friend of Ireland.
Sir Patrick Mayhew aroused enormous annoyance and indignation when he declined to prosecute certain police officers in what came to be known as the Stalker case. I have seen him at an Irish gathering on very good terms with his hosts. So I do not think that we can put any blame on him. Mr. Douglas Hurd was, from the Irish point of view, a rather unknown quantity until recently but for the moment he has become very popular by sending the Guildford Four back to the Appeal Court once again. We can only hope that justice will prevail, which brings me to the Prime Minister.
On 29th November she used this language:
"the … failure to secure Ryan's arrest is a matter of very grave concern to the Government."—[Official Report, Commons, 29/11/88; col. 575.]
At col. 574 she said:
"It is no use Governments adopting great declarations and commitments about fighting terrorism if they then lack the resolve to put them into practice".
736
That was hardly a tactful way of dealing with the people with whom one wants to develop good relations. She was so pleased with that way of putting it, that a minute or two later at col. 575 she was announcing:
"although the Government of the Republic of Ireland make fine-sounding speeches and statements, they do not always seem to be backed up by the appropriate deeds".
Again that is not always the best way to establish good relations, which I suppose if one asked her she would say was her purpose.
The trouble about Mrs. Thatcher, if I may say so with proper respect, is that she cannot get it into her head that the Republic of Ireland, the 26 counties, is an independent country whose status in the world is precisely the same as that of Britain. It is true that Eire is much less powerful than Britain, but Britain is much less powerful than the United States of America and the Soviet Union. Mrs. Thatcher, to do her justice, would never allow herself to be bullied by the United States or the Soviet Union in the way she has tried to bully that small, proud country, Ireland.
When the Irish Attorney-General published his considered reasons for not agreeing to the extradition of Mr. Ryan, it will be recalled that he laid stress on the impossibility of Ryan securing a fair trial in Britain. He said it would be impossible—I personally believe that he was right, but that is a matter of opinion—in view of the publicity already given to the case in the British tabloid press and in the House of Commons. I will quote one paragraph from a long statement made by the Irish Attorney-General. He referred to the general assumption in the media and among Conservatives in the House of Commons that Patrick Ryan was guilty not only of the offences comprised in the warrant, hut of other offences in respect of which no charges have been brought:
"It is clearly apparent that a wide range of reports contained or were based on information which could only have been originated from some official source".
When one looks closely at that I do not think it will be believed that he was mistaken there.
We are all aware that the media in this country are independent and so are Members of Parliament, including the Conservative Members who insisted on referring to Patrick Ryan as a guilty terrorist. But this Government possess, for good or ill, a propaganda machine, already touched on this afternoon, of highly-developed skill and far-reaching influence. The name of Mr. Bernard Ingham I suppose is more famous than that of any public relations officer ever employed by any government in the past. No one can deny that the intemperate line adopted by Mrs. Thatcher in the House of Commons was taken up gleefully by her supporters in Parliament and the press.
I am not suggesting that relations have been damaged on the Ministerial or official level, although I am not in the confidence of the present Irish Government. The Irish Prime Minister seems to have taken Mrs. Thatcher's measure and to have known how to deal with her in a dignified way. It is understood that she was going to tick him off in no uncertain fashion. He prudently let it be known that the meeting must await his convenience. His attitude was referred to as "cheeky" in some of the

737
government-controlled press here, but I am afraid that that is not how it will be seen in Ireland where it is felt that he stood up to someone who was trying to bully the small country that he represented.
I imagine that the Irish Ministers regard Mrs. Thatcher's bark as worse than her bite. I do not think that they are therefore very upset by her outbursts, but that is not true of the general public, which is like the general public anywhere else when denounced by the Prime Minister of a country supposedly friendly. The Irish people as a whole bitterly resent being treated as recalcitrant members of a third-rate girls' school. That is how the Irish people undoubtedly feel and English people would feel exactly the same if the Irish Prime Minister began addressing them in that kind of language.
However that is not my last word this afternoon. As I have said these things pass. Mrs. Thatcher has said that she will go on and on and on. I wish her a long and happy life whether or not in active politics, but the time will come when she is gathered to a heavenly Downing Street and there will still be a proud country called Ireland. One must not be too overwhelmed with sorrow at these happenings.
I hope Mrs. Thatcher will go down in history as the person on the British side who built up the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That will be her epitaph and it is a fine epitaph. Her strictures will by that time be forgotten.
In order to finish on an optimistic note I should like to say what I believe to he true; namely, that during my life there has never been a time when the future of Anglo-Irish relations has been as bright as it is now.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, it is 35 years since I wrote a book on the subject which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has invited us to consider—the general conduct of foreign relations by democratic governments and the relationship of the conduct of such policies to the opinion and political processes of those countries. I do not believe that this is an occasion to suggest the outlines of yet another work on the general subject. In part I have been convinced by the noble Lord and by other noble Lords that it is difficult to separate the general question of how the conduct of foreign relations is organised and carried on from specific issues which illustrate the strength or the weakness, as one might see it, of that particular system. I have informed the Minister therefore that I shall concentrate on a subject which was touched upon today during Question Time but which has not so far figured in our debate. It is the proposed mediation or intervention of the Government of the United Kingdom in the making of peace in the Arab/Israeli dispute.
I do so because I regard the achievement of peace in that area as perhaps the most important immediate issue confronting the world. Noble Lords will understand why I hold that belief. I also believe that a false step in the process towards such a peace might set back one's hopes.
I am convinced that that peace will not come about through an international conference. How can one
738
have an international conference including the five permanent members of the Security Council when two of those countries have no diplomatic relations with Israel? I believe that it will come about as a result of Israeli withdrawal of its initiative from the vast bulk of the occupied territories. It will not be as a result of negotiations, and still less of external pressure, but because public opinion in Israel is beginning to realise what many of its leading figures have said for many years; for instance, Mr. Abba Eban. It is that it is not healthy, or even possible, for Israel to continue in occupation of large territories which are almost entirely inhabited by persons of alien religion, outlook and aspirations. It will come to that conclusion, and is doing so, partly under the impact of the experiences of the young conscript soldiers who discover that there is a great difference between being in an army of occupation and the purpose for which they were called to the colours: the defence of their country and its frontiers.
If that is likely to happen, and I believe it to be the only way in which it is likely to come about, we must then ask what are the external changes in the environment which are likely to encourage this movement in Israel to the point at which either its present or a successor government will accept the logic of the situation.
I do not attach to one of them the importance that is attached by some people: no doubt they have their reasons. I do not attach great importance to the change in the language of Mr. Yasser Arafat. To be willing to accept two bites at the cherry rather than one is no doubt a move. However, in the light of some of the points made during Question Time, it is not sufficient or important enough to bring the confidence which would be required.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, reminded us, we do not know how long Mr. Gorbachev is likely to remain in power or be successful. But if he and Soviet policy continue along present lines—and it has included the development of some kind of diplomatic links with Israel —and if it were to be brought to its logical conclusion and the Soviet Union came to regard the establishment of peace in that area as a national interest (which clearly it has not for many decades), that would be important.
An importance is attached—and clearly that must he so—to those countries which can directly speak to the two parties. The United States has, and is bound to have a considerable degree of influence if only because Israel in the last resort is wholly dependent upon American good will both economically and militarily. However, for political reasons which one does not need to rehearse, it is unlikely that in the immediate future the United States will be very active in the area.
It is therefore understandable that the United Kingdom Government—which among the countries of the Twelve has the closest links with the area and the longest experience of it—may well be seen as a mediator. In undertaking that task the United Kingdom faces considerable difficulties. History is remembered on all sides and there is a legacy of misunderstanding and times of hostility between the United Kingdom and the Arab National Movement, and even more strikingly between the United

739
Kingdom and Israel. I regard that relationship to be the core because we are talking about persuading the Israelis to give up land for peace.
It is common ground that those relationships were ameliorated by the Prime Minister's visit to Israel a couple of years ago. My noble friend Lady Young did not mention it as being among her achievements, but undoubtedly it was one of them. Therefore in Israel she commands serious attention to what she has to say and would be a possible interlocutor at some point.
I now touch on the main theme of our debate. Unfortunately it appears that the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Waldegrave and Mr. Kaufman—the three British statesmen who have most recently busied themselves in the area—have been given inadequate advice, if one is to judge by their statements. It may well have seemed appropriate for whoever advised my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary on his speech in Kuwait to say something to indicate Britain's interest in furthering the peace process. However, if one is trying to persuade Israeli domestic opinion—and everything turns on that—it is unwise to do so in Kuwait, which is best known in Israel as the main supplier of finance to the PLO. Whatever one thinks of the PLO's change of heart today, no one seriously denies that in the past money has been spent on terrorist activities.
Similarly, I do not quarrel with anyone who refers to the somewhat murky past—and I am perfectly prepared to accept that word—of the present Israeli Prime Minister or indeed of his Likud predecessor. They do not excite universal admiration in Israel or in the Jewish Diaspora. However, it seems to me that it was enormously unwise of Mr. Waldegrave to make reference to that if at the time he was hoping to persuade the Israelis that they had good friends in this country and in Western Europe and could therefore take the risk of withdrawing their forces to an area or lines of demarcation which would be less favourable to them in terms of immediate military balance.
I believe that that was unwise and for the same reason, if I may say so to noble Lords opposite, it was also unwise of Mr. Kaufman to give the impression that the important thing was to talk to Yasser Arafat. The Arab position is known. It is understandable. If one were an Arab, one might well take that position. However, the Israeli position is the one which has to give if there is to be peace. Therefore I believe that it was also wrong to give the impression that because we have these good relations at the moment with the Arab movement it is sufficient to concentrate on that in our diplomacy.
If, for instance—and I put this forward simply as an example; I am not in the confidence of any of the parties involved—it had been indicated that if Israel withdrew from at any rate most of the occupied territories Britain would reconsider its lack of partiality in arms supplies in that part of the world, and if Israel could then be told that it could rely on Britain balancing the arms which it has given or sold to countries which are, at any rate on paper, at war
740
with Israel, that might have made a very considerable favourable impact on Israeli opinion.
It seems to me that though one may in general say that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its ambassadors abroad have done sterling work for this country, the Middle East has always been an area in which there has been an official line which the Israelis—and if one looks at the documents it is not surprising—regard as basically inimical, and the task of British statesmanship in the Middle East today must be to remove that impression.
5.44 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for initiating this debate and for giving us the benefit of his experience in the Foreign Office and in Europe. Like my noble friend Lady Young, I was also rather mystified as to what this debate was about, but I now see that largely it seems to be about attacking or defending my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I have many European and American friends who would give almost anything to have her as their Prime Minister. Her actions and achievements speak for themselves so splendidly that there is no need for anyone to defend them.
Perhaps I may quote from Caxton's preface to Sir Thomas Malory's Morte d'Arthur, which says that it may be seen as,
"noble and renowned acts of humanity, gentleness and chivalries".
He goes on:
"Do after the good and leave the evil, and it shall bring you to good fame and renown".
I might be quoting from President Bush's inaugural speech instead of from a 15th century romance, but it is so. There is a new spirit abroad of gentleness and kindness, as evinced by President Bush's speech and by President Gorbachev's promotion of perestroika and glasnost.
There is still a massive imbalance on the defence side in Europe against NATO and there is a long way to go. However, the idea of Soviet disarmament is a very good start. There is even talk of dismantling the Berlin Wall, which must be good, but there too there is danger that if West Germany became closer to East Germany its commitment towards NATO might be less. Even so, all over the Soviet Union little candlelights of freedom and friendship are beginning to twinkle out.
I believe that that has come about largely as a result of Britain's fair but firm and friendly foreign policy over the past decade. We have stood out against aggression and yet we have always taken the hand of friendship even if it is still wearing a pistol holster.
It seems significant to me that President Bush, who was a director of the CIA, and President Gorbachev, who was a member of the extreme Politburo, are now both promoting kindness, gentleness and openness. Those are qualities which we in Britain act for and believe in. Perhaps, having seen the barren rocks at the end of the world, they have come to realise the importance of spring flowers and green pastures.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, most of this debate focused, understandably, on the conduct of British policy in relation to Europe until the noble Lord. Lord Beloff, introduced a very relevant alternative topic; namely, that of British policy in the Middle East. I should like to follow him in making one or two comments on that and in particular on that part of the Palestine problem which relates to the question we are discussing: the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.
Many years ago I remarked to a member of Mrs. Thatcher's Cabinet, who shall remain nameless, that the Foreign Secretary, then the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was doing very well on Palestine. He replied, "Well, of course, he is big enough to resist the Finchley factor". By that I assume he meant, first, that in forming her views on Palestine the Prime Minister was unduly influenced by constituents who were supporters of Israel. and, secondly, that having formed those views she expected them to be accepted and implemented by the Foreign Secretary.
That that should happen is undoubtedly the hope of the Israelis and of their supporters. I was very struck not only by the speech we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, but by his typically cogent feature article in The Times on Monday. After criticising the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Waldegrave rather more sharply than he did today, and after criticising very sharply indeed what he called the permanent pro-Arab bias of the Foreign Office, the noble Lord concluded as follows:
"If Britain is to mediate, it may well he that Mrs. Thatcher will have to do the job herself: no one will accuse her of being the mouthpiece of officials, least of all for the officials of the FCO".
That is true enough. No one will accuse Mrs. Thatcher of being the mouthpiece of Sir Geoffrey Howe. Truly she is a conviction politician.
Unfortunately, there is no place in the world less suitable to the exercise of conviction politics than Palestine, especially when those convictions are based on a one-sided view of the conflict. For many years there has been a tendency for the Arab-Israeli conflict to be seen differently by politicians and by diplomats. That is true not only of Britain but of European countries. It is very true of the United States, where the State Department is often attacked by the politicians and by Israeli supporters as being pro-Arab. Yet events are showing conclusively that the judgment of Israel and her supporters on the future of Palestine has been badly flawed and that the warnings of the diplomats and Foreign Office officials have been fully justified.
That, after all, is what one would expect. By their nature politicians work and have close contacts both with the Arabs and pro-Arabs and with the Israelis and pro-Israelis. As we all know, that is far more true of diplomats than it is of Western politicians. Nor are diplomats as vulnerable to the political pressure of the Israeli lobby. They are not nearly as vulnerable as are many politicians. That is particularly true, again, in the United States, where Congress, unlike the State Department, has lost much of its freedom of judgment where Israel is concerned.
Thus, while it may be true—and it is true, as the noble Lord insists and as many other people have
742
stated —that there is a difference of view between, on the one hand, the Prime Minister and, on the other hand, the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Waldegrave and Foreign Office officials, it by no means follows that the Prime Minister's view is better informed or that it should be imposed upon the Foreign Secretary.
I give an example. A few weeks ago, alone among all the member governments of the United Nations, Britain abstained on a General Assembly resolution opposing the refusal by the United States of a visa to Mr. Arafat to go to New York and address the General Assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, explained that the British Government supported the visit of Mr. Arafat to New York and opposed the refusal of a visa to Mr. Arafat, but abstained because the Government did not like the wording of the resolution. That abstention was an abrupt departure from the policy of the Foreign Secretary; the policy of concerting Britain's position on the Palestine problem with the position of the European Community and the policy of encouraging Mr. Arafat to fill out the details of the new and more moderate policy outlined in Algiers. The reason for the abstention was not of course the wording of the resolution but the personal intervention of the Prime Minister.
Shortly before that Mr. David Mellor, Minister of State at the Foreign Office, spoke out boldly against Israel's conduct in Gaza and the West Bank. He was fully supported by the Foreign Secretary. However, shortly afterwards the Prime Minister decided that his talents were badly needed at the Ministry of Health.
We discussed megaphone diplomacy and the personal intervention of the Prime Minister in relation to many parts of the world: to Ireland, Belgium, the Bruges speech (which was so admirably analysed by my noble friend Lord Hooson) and in relation to poor Mr. Delors. However, on the Middle East the position is different. There has certainly not been any handbag diplomacy where the Israeli Government are concerned.
With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, it was encouraging to hear him refer to the need for and likelihood of a major withdrawal of the Israelis from the occupied territories. It was also encouraging to hear him say that the next move must come from the Israelis, which is a crucial judgment. However, I am bound to say that the part that Britain can play in achieving that is not to offer to send arms to the Israelis, who have more than enough arms, more than they can afford and more than they need from the United States. Britain's part must be to seek by every means possible to increase the security guarantees for Israel in the event of withdrawal, including with the European Community——
Lord Beloff: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will permit me to intervene. I did not intend to suggest that Britain should offer Israel arms at the moment. I said that after Israel's withdrawal to frontiers which might appear less defensible Britain should make it clear that she would then be impartial in arms deliveries between Israel and her neighbours. That is an entirely different point.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I apologise if I have misunderstood the noble Lord. I understand his position. I still feel that a more constructive and practical approach by the British would be to say to the Israelis, "We are working with our Community colleagues and inside the United Nations to ensure that after the withdrawal there will be security guarantees on the ground in the form of an international peace-keeping force, with teeth, to which Britain could and should contribute". In addition, there should be a treaty which would neutralise and demilitarise the area to give, so to speak, an Austrian-type status of neutrality to the new state of Palestine. Those are more constructive ways of dealing with the situation than offering to deliver arms, but of course it is a difference which is not so very wide.
As my noble friend so admirably explained with great historical insight, the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary is an extremely difficult one. The relationship between Attlee and Bevin, of which I had some personal knowledge, seemed to be admirable and produced a well-managed and effective British foreign policy; whereas the relationship between Chamberlain and Eden was bad and British policy at that time was badly managed and disastrous.
It is my view—I believe it is a strongly and widely held view in this country—that at this time, on this terrible Palestine question, Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mr. Waldegrave and the British Foreign Office are doing well. They have the support of all parties, including the Labour Party—
Baroness Phillips: No.
Lord Mayhew:—and the excellent and well-informed support of Mr. Gerald Kaufman. Therefore they deserve the support of the Prime Minister too.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, as other noble Lords have pointed out, this has been a difficult debate to prepare for since at least some of us were unaware of what charges the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, intended to bring against the Government.
One of the charges which the noble Lord seemed to be making, or declared he was making, was that the proper balance of power between the Foreign Office and Downing Street had in some way been upset. It would be extremely naive and unhistorical to argue that the conduct of foreign affairs should be left by the Prime Minister exclusively to the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was far too knowledgeable to do that.
There are innumerable examples in history of Prime Ministers taking over the conduct of foreign policy, sometimes successfully and sometimes less so, without those examples having been thought to raise a constitutional issue of any kind. Indeed, unless the Foreign Secretary was provoked into resignation (even the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, did not suggest that that is about to happen) such occurrences get more attention from subsequent biographers than from the general public at the time. I am sure the
744
general public treat it as being within the natural and expected order of things when Prime Ministers decide to take over the conduct of foreign affairs.
The noble Lord referred to Lloyd George. In Kenneth Rose's biography of Curzon, Superior Person, Curzon is quoted as describing A. J. Balfour, who was then Foreign Secretary—this was at the time of the Paris Peace Conference—as being in a state of "supine subservience" to Lloyd George. Curzon went on:
"He steadily day by day pulled the extinguisher more firmly down on the head of his Department, until it almost ceased to have a separate existence".
But no better a fate attended Curzon when he became Foreign Secretary to Lloyd George. In the words of Kenneth Rose:
"Humiliation and disappointment alone awaited him. Lloyd George, he soon discovered, was determined to be his own Foreign Secretary".
As Curzon himself put it:
"He (Lloyd George) set up his own personal secretariat to operate behind the back of the Foreign Office, conducting intrigues, sending messages, holding interviews, of which we were never informed until it was too late, or only heard by accident or gathered from the intercepted telegrams of foreign governments".
Kenneth Rose concludes:
"Insulted in Cabinet, ignored in private and ridiculed behind his back, Curzon nevertheless refused to resign; if he could not have the substance of power, he would at least enjoy its shadow".
Even the noble Lord—much though he would no doubt have enjoyed doing so if he thought it was plausible—did not attempt to draw a picture of comparable subjugation of the Foreign Office to Downing Street today.
As it has been mentioned, Neville Chamberlain is another example of a Prime Minister who imposed his own policy on his Foreign Secretary, bringing about Eden's resignation in the process. And what about the Prime Minister under whom the noble Lord enjoyed his own ministerial career but to whom he did not refer; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, as he now is? Who was it who conducted all those headline-catching negotiations with Ian Smith, unsuccessful though they were, both before and after UDI?
As the noble Lord also said, there have been Prime Ministers who have left foreign affairs entirely to the Foreign Secretary. Baldwin (about whom the noble Lord has written a biography) is a case in point. The result is not necessarily better, as the noble Lord will recall. Samuel Hoare, left by Baldwin to his own devices, stopped off in Paris on his way to a skating holiday in Switzerland and signed with his French opposite number the infamous Hoare-Laval Pact which aimed to dispose of Abyssinia. In fact it disposed of himself as Foreign Secretary and very nearly of Baldwin as Prime Minister.
So it is plain that whatever the noble Lord is complaining about falls well within the limits of the power arrangements which have been tolerated and which have been usual in the past. It seems to me that we would do better to pay more attention to the results to which the noble Lord paid lip service, but little more than that, and which no arrangements can guarantee, than to the manner in which those results are achieved.

745
The foreign policy achievements of this Government have been outstanding. Whatever the noble Lord says, the European Community has made unparalleled advances in the past few years. There has been nothing comparable since we first joined. Britain's budget grievance has finally been remedied under the Fontainebleau arrangement that was confirmed in Brussels last February. It succeeded where the so-called renegotiation of 1974 failed. Though the noble Lord sought to rehash those negotiations, I do not think that he succeeded in establishing how the result could have been better either for us or for the Community.
At last substantial progress has been made in the reform of the CAP and a stop put to the escalation of support prices and the accumulation of surpluses. Great and rapid strides have been taken towards the completion of the internal market and the Single Act. That is an extraordinarily bold and constructive constitutional advance. It was passed in order to break down the paralysis in the Community's decision-taking procedures and to make attainable the single market objective.
In all of these achievements this Government played a leading, if not the leading, role. I believe that it is impossible to imagine such things having been achieved except with a Prime Minister whom the British people instinctively believe they can trust to safeguard the national interest. The Community apart, the United Kingdom's relationship with the United States (so vital for the security of the whole of the Western world) could not be in better condition. No one can accuse the Government of failing to cultivate the transatlantic relationship, and this has not been gainsaid. Neither can it be said of relationships with the Soviet Union.
Thanks to the recovery in Britain's economy and finances, which only the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was unable or unwilling to see, and the Government's clear-sighted perceptions of where this country's interests lie, we have maintained a sound and credible defence posture. There have been other foreign policy successes. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, acknowledged the importance of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It is a most significant milestone in the short history of the United Kingdom's relationship with the Republic of Ireland. It is an agreement that is of immense importance to both our countries to maintain and develop.
There has been the remarkable agreement with China over Hong Kong. No doubt an example of the megaphone diplomacy that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, deplores was the Prime Minister's Bruges speech, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, devoted his speech. As I saw it, that speech gave a ringing reaffirmation of Britain's commitment to Europe. The words were:
"Our destiny is in Europe as part of the Community".
At the same time it drew attention to several undesirable tendencies that should not be allowed to determine the character of the Community in the future. To be specific, these were protectionism, over-centralism and socialism. I entirely agree. These remarks may have offended the noble Lord and others, and that is to be regretted.
746
I come back to the point that the noble Lord made but did not develop. Would one prefer a foreign policy that produces results or one—whether it is conducted in a style of which the noble Lord would approve of more or not—that produces nothing of substantial value? I do not wish to follow the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who is so knowledgeable and rightly concerned about Anglo-Irish relations, as regards the Ryan case. I do not see any useful international purpose being served by raking over the embers of that row today. Heated feelings should be allowed to cool. We continue to need the cooperation of all countries in the fight to defeat terrorism.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, called for more regard to be paid to the authority of the Foreign Secretary. We are fortunate to have the outstanding, popular and immensely experienced Foreign Secretary that we have. I am also quite convinced that our foreign service yields first place to none in the intelligence, talents, skill and dedication of its members. Graceful tributes have been paid by other noble Lords to both of them. But to expect any Prime Minister to leave the Foreign Office and the conduct of foreign affairs quite alone is entirely unrealistic and undesirable. Where is the borderline today? What are Community summits except regular occasions for the conduct of foreign relations by heads of government? A lack of interest in foreign affairs in a Prime Minister today would not simply be surprising; it would be a disqualification from office.
The noble Lord's case is misconceived, and I hope that the next time we come to debate foreign affairs the focus will be back where it normally is—on the policies themselves rather than on the purported inadequacies of the means or the style of their implementation.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, much of the debate has been centred on Britain's position in Europe. One of my reasons for opposing Britain's entry into Europe was my fear that we would become a part of a small, white, privileged area of the world and forget the rest. In his opening speech for the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, used these words:
"We must be certain of our objectives".
I agree. Does he agree that one of the objectives of British foreign policy is justice and equity for all peoples of the world? If he does, has he read The State of the World's Children 1989, published by UNICEF this month? I should like to quote a relevant passage to put into context the wider areas of British foreign policy which I want to introduce into the debate. It says:
"For almost 900 million people, approximately one-sixth of mankind, the march of human progress has now become a retreat. In many nations, development is being thrown into reverse and after decades of steady economic advance large areas of the world are sliding backwards into poverty. Throughout most of Africa and much of Latin America average incomes have fallen by 10 per cent. to 25 per cent. in the 1980s".
That is the state of the world today. We are entitled to ask what our Government are doing about it.
Later in the report it is shown that last year 43 billion dollars was transferred from the third world to

747
the rich world. In other words our affluence, our festivities at Christmas, were being financed by the malnutrition and the death from starvation of children throughout the third world. Last year alone more than half a million extra children died from malnutrition. Millions of children are undernourished. Large numbers of children throughout the world are having to leave education because their parents cannot afford to keep them there. I ask again: what are our Government doing about their position in the global village?
The answer is stark. In 1979 the Government of this country were providing 0.53 per cent. of GNP in overseas aid. Last year the figure was 0.28 per cent., a drop of almost one-half. When those of us who are concerned about the British contribution to world justice and equity have asked the Government repeatedly over the years why our overseas aid is falling we have been told regularly—I hope the noble Lord will listen to this point because I wish to ask him a direct question—that our overseas aid is falling because the British economy is declining. We are now told by the Government that over the past two years the British economy has attained a new and previously unreached prosperity.
If the Minister believes that the British economy is prosperous today, why has not the percentage of overseas aid from this country to the third world increased as our prosperity has increased? Surely that would be the logical conclusion of the answer which the Government have regularly given us; namely "we cannot afford to provide the kind of overseas aid which was being provided by the Labour Government in 1979". If he genuinely believes that Britain is now a prosperous country, why is not that prosperity reflected in the provision of greater aid to those who are dying from under-nourishment and lack of food?
I want to ask another question. I asked the Minister this question in a previous speech but he did not answer it. He did not have time to answer it and I have not received an answer by letter. Is it the case that the British Government are refusing to provide project aid to Zambia until the Zambians agree to the IMF terms, which when they were imposed 12 months ago led to food riots within two weeks? As the noble Lord knows, the Zambians have started to put their own house in order. After their elections in October they devalued the kwacha by 25 per cent. They are reducing subsidies. They have to do it gradually or people starve. That is the grim reality faced by the Zambian Government.
I ask again whether it is a fact that the British Government are refusing project aid until the IMF agreement is signed. Is it also the case that when Mrs. Chalker visited southern Africa she avoided going to Zambia, although she had been invited to go there, because she was embarrassed to tell the Zambians that Britain would not offer greater aid? Is it also the case that when the Prime Minister goes to southern Africa she also avoids Zambia? This policy of linking British aid to the policies of the IMF is surely disastrous. Even members of the IMF are now realising that many of their prescriptions for the restoration of economic stability have had a socially disastrous effect.
748
My next point concerns the Commonwealth. The point arose in our debates many years ago about British entry into the Common Market. Would entry be at the expense of the Commonwealth? A great many pious words have been spoken about the Commonwealth this afternoon, not enough perhaps but the subject has been referred to in passing. What are the Government doing about our membership of the Commonwealth?
The first thing they did—this was the personal responsibility of the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in the Bahamas four years ago—was to stand out like a sore thumb as the one country that refused to apply to South Africa the sanctions that the rest of the Commonwealth wanted to apply. Despite the report of the Eminent Persons Group, of which the noble Lord, Lord Barber, was a member, which was appointed by this Government and which said in stark terms:
"Either sanctions, or continuing violence",
the Government, led by the Prime Minister, have been the ones standing against the rest of the Commonwealth and lowering the position of Britain within it.
Moreover, can the noble Lord explain what the Government's attitude towards the Commonwealth is in view of the fact that this year alone they are raising the rent of the offices used by the secretariat of the Commonwealth? In one case the rent of one office is being increased from £12,000 to £232,000 a year. The whole rent bill of the Commonwealth secretariat is increasing this year from something over £600,000 to £1 million. Is that the way in which the Government are supporting the Commonwealth?
Further, what is the attitude of the Government to the Commonwealth Institute? How is it that this year they are cutting by 12 per cent. their contribution to that very fine institute which gives so much pleasure, education, insight and imagination to so many children in this country? There are bus-loads of school children outside the institute every day, and yet the Government are reducing their contribution to that valuable educational work by 12 per cent. is that the attitude of the Government to the Commonwealth and to their membership of it?
Finally, I turn to the attitude of the Government towards the Government of South Africa. It is only four years ago since the Prime Minister was entertaining at Chequers the man who was detained during the last world war as a Nazi sympathiser, President Botha. How is it that the Government consider that someone who was quite openly supporting the Nazi cause during the last world war is a respectable statesman but that those who are fighting, and have been fighting now for nearly 100 years, to get simple justice and equality in the state of South Africa are terrorists? How do the Government square that circle?
Are the Government on the side of what has been described in the American election as "state terrorism" led by president Botha; or do they support those who have tried for many years, by peaceful means and by passive resistance, to achieve constitutional change in order to acquire human

749
rights and who turned to violence—that is, selective violence—only when all constitutional means were blocked? Where do the Government stand so far as concerns their attitude to South Africa? The Government have shown themselves to be the odd man out in the international community, behind even Congress in the United States, in their pressure on the South African Government to grant human rights to the vast majority of its citizens.
I hope that when the noble Lord winds up the debate he will answer those specific questions and that he will answer them in the context of the position of Britain in the global village, not just in prosperous Western Europe.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may ask him whether he recognises that the aid which we are giving does not go to the starving children and the other destitute people living in the third world. It goes to their rulers. That is a big difference. Quite often the rulers themselves are responsible for the appalling conditions which prevail in those countries. Sudan and Ethiopia are only two examples among many.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I always welcome interventions from, if I may so call him, my noble friend Lord Bauer. Less than two years ago he and I debated this very subject on television. I think that we won; indeed, I think that I won. As regards the direct answer to his question, if he will read the very notable book of Rene Dumont, published 25 years ago and entitled False Start in Africa, he will see that I have criticised the elite in Africa and in other third world countries just as strongly as he has. Moreover, I still do.
Nevertheless, I believe that during that period we have learnt a great many things and that the Africans and other third world peoples have also learnt many things. Further, a great deal of what I fully admit was the corrupt use of a part—only a part—of our overseas aid has now been virtually stamped out. I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, to tell us whether it is not the case that the Overseas Development Administration is now carefully monitoring the aid which is sent from this country to ensure that it goes into productive purposes for the use of increasing the standard of living of the people and not to the small elites which the noble Lord quite rightly said have in some cases in the past taken an overwhelming share.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I, like other noble Lords, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for introducing this debate on a subject which has been full of historical allusions and lessons from the very beginning. On this side of the House I think that we have all been touched by the recognition by many noble Lords on the other side of the impact of the economic achievements of this Government internationally. Even the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, recognised that Britain's standing is different from what it was 10 years ago. Furthermore, Lord Greenhill's statement of that was especially convincing and encouraging. Again, the
750
recognition by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was the most encouraging change in Anglo-lrish relations in his lifetime also gave us a lot of heart on this side of the House.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, my message was not intended to be entirely complimentary. I thought that the noble Lord understood that.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: Nevertheless, my Lords, I think that they were the words used by the noble Earl.
It is true that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, criticised the style of the Prime Minister, although we all listened with some attention to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges—a recent distinguished ambassador—felt that an explosive style, even a trade union approach, sometimes had its benefit. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, also thought that the Prime Minister's method of negotiation of the revision of the Europen Budget had in fact yielded benefits. Of course style is an important question, but I suppose that there are many people who would have preferred President Giscard D'Estaing to have had a less cold style, and some people who would have preferred Lord Curzon not to have spoken with a Derbyshire accent.
The historical analysis of prime ministerial/foreign secretarial relations made by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, makes it unnecessary for me to go again into what has happened in the past, although surely it is fair to point out that a prime minister who in the late 20th century adopted the position of Mr. Baldwin would be properly condemned. It is also surely fair to point out that all the Prime Minister's colleagues, as heads of government in the European Community and in the case of France, head of state as well, have far larger foreign policy advisory apparatuses than No. 10 Downing Street. However, at the end of the debate I do not especially wish to defend the Government's policies, which have been amply defended; I wish humbly to suggest ways in which they may be even further improved.
In the course of the debate it has been generally recognised that the foreign service has admirable achievements to its credit. However, the noble Lord, Lord Franks, in his report on the Falklands crisis suggested implicitly that admirable though the foreign service has been for the past few generations in describing and analysing what has been happening in the world, it has sometimes been less impressive in presenting suggestions for long-term policy, especially if the policies involved affect domestic, colonial or imperial affairs. That is an important matter. After all, there are many issues where foreign policy in present circumstances is not confined merely to relations between nation states. For that reason, when I intervened in the debate on the Address two years ago, I said that I believed that it would be desirable for the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to be required by Parliament to present an account annually, before the passing of the Foreign Office Vote, as to what foreign policy was on a large range of issues.

751
I was criticised by the Minister who suggested that that proposal was undesirable since a policy statement of that nature would be bland and boring or indiscreet and dangerous. The Foreign Secretary also pointed out that he regularly makes speeches about what he is trying to do, and that probably serves the aims which I suggest are desirable. It is true that he makes such speeches and they are admirable. However, they are necessarily short and addressed to particular audiences.
We now accept foreign experience as a guide to our actions much more often than we did in the past. Foreign experience suggests that it is possible for the Secretary of State in the United States, when being accepted by Congress, to describe what he is trying to do. The statement, for example, made by Secretary of State Haig sticks in my mind as an admirable statement of what American foreign policy might be in the 1980s although he did not follow the terms of his own instructions. That is a matter the Government might like to consider.
That is especially the case in relation to three issues which are of much greater importance than any others at present. First, there is the question of the Commonwealth, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, alluded. As it happens, I do not share all his views about the Commonwealth, but I believe that he is right to say that some thought should be given to what its future should be. Is it an organisation of peculiar importance to us? Was the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, right to suggest that President Reagan's intervention in Grenada was especially condemned because it was a Commonwealth country or did it matter less than if it had been, for example, a country that was directly attached to the European Community?
If we believe that the Commonwealth is a good idea, are we interested in trying to extend it? Do we hope that Pakistan, under Prime Minister Bhutto, will rejoin? What are the long-term possibilities of Ireland joining the Commonwealth? Is that issue something that should be discussed?
The second question to which foreign policy should give attention is whether issues have arisen which in some way alter how such matters are considered within the Government. For example, surely the most striking change in the past few years has been the revival of religion in the world as an active political issue. Are we certain that the geographical departments within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are properly geared to deal with the changes in the political position of not merely Islam and the Roman Catholic Church? The third question relates to Europe, to which a great deal of discussion has been devoted today. That is the most important matter. It is especially important because our relations with the European Community are definitely not the relations which we were used to having with independent sovereign states. The fact that we refer to the European nations as our partners is an indication of that point.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which deals with foreign and Commonwealth countries, should speculate that if it is to continue to deal with
752
Europe it should perhaps change its name and become the Foreign, European and Commonwealth Office.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, pointed out that Ministers are constantly meeting one another within the European Community. That goes also for civil servants and other organisations. European law, as the House knows well, applies to this country as if it had been passed by the British Parliament. That makes relations between continental countries and ourselves different from anything else of which we have had experience.
In relation to the future of Europe, the Government sensibly have said that they favour a step-by-step approach. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, said that on Monday. My noble friend Lady Young said it today. The Secretary of State has often said it. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, spoke of practical steps. That of course is a good Anglo-Saxon position. Get the shape, size and colour of the tomato right and the greenhouse will in some way build itself. I have an instinctive preference for that approach since, as we know only too well, during the 20th century Europe has had many heady and disastrous visions of the future.
All the same, the image of a step-by-step approach presupposes that there is some kind of staircase. Staircases have different gradients. Some staircases go down easily to a Roman bath and others go sharply upwards like the pyramids in Chichen-Itza causing vertiginous anxiety en route. All staircases, presumably, have a view of the top or the bottom. It is plain that there are many Europeans, headed by Mr. Delors, who have one plain view. The Government do not agree with that view about the future of Europe and most of us concur in that disagreement. But is the Government's view quite clear as to what the future of Europe should be? Is the Opposition's or indeed the nation's view clear? I do not think so. All of us favour economic union which even if there is no common currency goes further than any such relationship which we have entered into previously. All of us who have any historical knowledge must know that economic unions of this nature in the past involving the United States, Germany or Italy, have always led far faster than has seemed likely to some form of political union.
Clearly an economic union in the 20th century must have political implications, so some kind of political structure is necessary. At least an umpire is needed to tell the club members how to behave. How strong will that umpire be? Where are his sanctions going to come from? As I see it, Britain stands for a Europe of diversity. The Prime Minister and Lord Cockfield, I suspect, arc in agreement in this respect. A centralised government in Europe is not in our interest and I suspect that most Europeans agree. However, to ensure an effective Europe of diversity surely needs more work and more thought than seems as yet to have gone into the matter. Maybe there have been many excellent long papers within government explaining exactly what our long-term aims are, in the same style, say, as the famous papers written after 1945 defining our relationship with the Soviet Union and the United States under the auspices of Mr. Ernest Bevin. If such papers exist,

753
that is all right, at least Ministers will know exactly where they stand. But if such papers do not exist, if such thought has not yet been given, there is a very strong case for some special inquiry into what we hope will have been achieved in Europe by the end of the century and in the 21st century.
When there was a crisis of similar uncertainty about the future of a part of what was then the empire; namely, Canada in 1837, the Government appointed the then Lord Durham to write his famous report which formed the concept of the 20th century empire by suggesting that we could keep the empire by allowing the colonies to govern themselves. I suggest there is a very strong case in the late 1980s for asking a modern equivalent of Lord Durham to write a similar document which would ensure that the characteristics we regard as desirable in the Europe of the early 21st century are safeguarded.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I listened to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, with great interest, and I shall return to them in a moment. A number of your Lordships have expressed in the course of their speeches some mystification as to the precise meaning of the Motion of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead which is before the House. However, that does not seem to have prevented many of them saying a great many things, and in consequence the debate has ranged extremely widely over a large number of topics. I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has my deepest sympathy in having to wind up. I notice that he shakes his head in complete confidence, but how he could foresee all the points which were going to be raised and answer all the questions which have been shot at him will interest me very much when I listen to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, raised a number of interesting issues, in particular suggesting that we require a modern version of Lord Durham. I think it would be extremely difficult to find or recreate him in the age in which we live. However, I hope the noble Lord is right.
I was interested in his comments on Europe and the ingenious hut, I thought, unconvincing—I do not believe that he even convinced himself—defence of what he called the step-by-step approach. If we are to have a step-by-step approach—and that is one means of locomotion—we must know what our objective is. We have not heard from the present Government precisely or generally what their objective is in the context of Europe. What is our destination? Where are we going? How fast and with what objectives? Of course, the noble Lord is totally right in saying that it is not enough simply to have economic union, desirable though that is. Directly there is economic union one has to have a political superstructure or infrastructure; call it what you like. That may perhaps define the distinction between two schools of thought: those who think we can get by with a political infrastructure (hut then it will be accused of being a bureaucracy); and those who say that it must be a political superstructure; in which case it must mean giving more powers to the European Parliament. On those critical matters we have had no guidance from the Government.
754
As for the Europe of diversity, I do not think anyone who considers the past or the present of Europe can possibly envisage a Europe which is not diverse. One of the Prime Minister's eccentricities in respect of Europe is to believe that we may be swamped by European culture, as though we were not part of it ourselves. But what is even more eccentric is the idea that the French would ever agree to a political organisation which was somehow or other going to drown the French culture.
A far greater danger which faces this country's cultural development is not Continental culture swamping us but satellite television beaming in—as the first programmes of Mr. Murdoch's Sky television indicate—nothing but American soaps, American quiz shows and American films from his own company, 20th Century Fox. If we are frightened of this country losing its cultural identity, that is the source of which we should he afraid.
When I consider some of' the problems facing the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, when he winds up, I think he will have to do rather better in his defence of the Prime Minister's record than he did in his opening remarks. Some shrewd comments have been made in the course of the debate and it is no good just saying "Everyone loves her". We know perfectly well that there are large numbers of people at home and abroad who far from love her. It is no good pretending that you are The Times or The Sunday Times and can simply issue statements which you expect your readers to accept without any qualification.
I find it difficult to believe that Mr Delors is fascinated by her charisma or that Mr. Kohl altogether agrees with her or, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, that Mr. Haughey is altogether pleased with her. Taking them in no particular order, we cannot altogether forget the unwarranted intervention in the Canadian election. We cannot simply pretend that the Bruges speech, as The Times, The Sunday Times and, I regret to say, the Economist pretended, was a great European statement. Anyone who has set foot on the Continent of Europe or has spoken to anybody on the Continent and who is interested in the European Community knows that this was a cold shower. It produced shock. It was regarded as a hostile statement. It requires almost unbelievable insularity for people in this country to pretend that that was interpreted by anyone who had the European idea at his heart as a speech that was anything other than hostile. To suppose that this was not the case is to delude ourselves.
Nor can we pretend that the Ingham affair and the invitation to Moscow to Her Majesty the Queen were trifling. They were not trifling. When I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in connection with a speech he made or a Question he answered in this House—I cannot remember which—to ask him what it signified, he replied that there was nothing more he could say about it because it was purely speculative. What was speculative was the invitation; what was not speculative was the statement issued at a briefing meeting by Mr. Ingham
So these things cannot just be brushed aside as matters of total indifference; nor can the Ryan affair; nor can the Carrington quotation referred to by the

755
noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn; nor, I must admit to my noble friend Lord Greenhill in his defence of megaphone diplomacy, do I find the Fulton speech a very good example. Mr. Churchill was not at that time a member of the Government. He was not exercising diplomacy. He was expressing his opinions in a speech and that is a different matter in very different circumstances.
As I have said, in the course of this debate people have touched on a very wide range of subjects and it seems to me that the reason, as has been said, is that it is difficult to separate the method of conducting foreign policy from the policy that is being conducted. What I would like to look at briefly is how we in this country and how NATO as a whole are responding to the changes following the arrival of Mr. Gorbachev on the world scene.
It is perhaps somewhat surprising that so little attention has so far been paid today to this important event. Owing to the arrival of Mr. Gorbachev, we have moved from diplomatic trench warfare into open diplomacy, from techniques developed over the past 40 years in response to the cold war, of tiny advances and tiny retreats, to a diplomacy of manoeuvre. Again and again the Western alliance has found itself false-footed. Again and again it has found in Mr. Gorbachev a kind of Rommel in this sort of diplomacy of manoeuvre. The fact is that NATO has failed to develop any comprehensive posture with which to meet this diplomatic offensive. Of course I recognise that a co-ordinated response from the 15 democracies which comprise NATO, and France in addition, in the face of the USSR, which remains a highly centralised and authoritarian polity, is very difficult to achieve. But to recognise the difficulty, it seems to me, is not to diminish the importance of trying to construct a comprehensive, positive and coherent response which will have the assent of the members of NATO together with the support of the populations which elect the governments to NATO.
It seems to me transparently true that Mr. Gorbachev has had an enormous impact on public opinion in Western countries. It is not only in Germany that anti-Americanism has been growing in the past year or so, dangerously in some ways. If one may take another example, in Spain, according to a recent poll, the USA is regarded as being more likely to be the cause of a war than the USSR. Elsewhere, where opinions are not so strong, I have a feeling that there was disappointment in the response of NATO to the succession of unilateral initiatives made by Mr. Gorbachev and his colleagues, which by any reckoning appear to be unprecedented, surprising and pleasing.
NATO's response appears to have been consistently negative. The withdrawal of 500,000 troops produced the response that it was a political gesture. Some political gestures are very important, and it seems to me that was one of them. When Mr. Shevardnadze, at the end of the Vienna meetings recently, made his speech, The Times reported:
"The West sees his offer as a ploy to exploit their differences".
British sources, in another report, said that Moscow had not yet specified which six divisions would be
756
removed. The point most people noticed was that six divisions would be removed. They did not actually want to know their names. One Western diplomat moaned:
"The Russians pull one surprise after another and now they have done it again".
All that is not from the subversive BBC, from the dangerous Guardian or from Thames Television's "Death on the Rock". It was from the Downing Street press: from The Times.
I think that represents the kind of reaction people feel we are getting from NATO in this momentous change which has occurred over the past three years. It is a momentous change, and NATO appears to be peeping over its trenches with its little periscope, sniping away with its Enfield rifle, in a war of diplomatic manoeuvre which swirls around it, catching it by surprise on every occasion. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said, three years ago no one foresaw the faintest prospect of the revolution in which Mr. Gorbachev is engaged. He has opened up possibilities that none of us dared to envisage; and it strikes me that it is one of the most exciting and encouraging prospects that has occurred since the Fulton speech rang down the Iron Curtain.
In those circumstances, at first the Prime Minister seemed to see and to seize this opportunity with great courage and perspicacity when she found that Mr. Gorbachev was someone with whom you could do business. Since then it appears that, whether from ideological prejudice or her determination to keep in step with the USA, she has become more cautious. I shall perhaps be told that her determination not to disagree publicly with the United States is a wise and prudent policy whereby she strengthens the special relationship, and that this policy has given her unequalled influence.
I think we must examine with some scepticism the idea of the special relationship. I would hope that she would engage in constructive dialogue with people other than the United States and South Africa. The special relationship, as Mr. Macmillan discovered at Suez, is in my view a British delusion. That is confirmed by the priorities announced by President Bush. He accords first priority to the United States-Japanese relationship, and within Europe, if there is a special relationship, it must be with Germany. If you want confirmation of that, look at the ambassadorial appointments.
However, that is not to say that we must let down our guard. It is not to say we must not act with caution. Mr. Gorbachev may fail. He is faced with huge economic problems at home, and there is no good economic news from Russia. That is bad news for us, but it means that the necessity for arms cuts, the necessity to transfer resources from defence to consumer industries, is all the more important. At the same time, the United States faces a dreadful economic problem which equally will demand on its part arm cuts, and Europe will be asked to look after itself in security terms to a greater extent than ever before. If that is so, Europe must play a larger part in forming a security and foreign policy of its own. If it is to do that, it means that we must develop a political superstructure rather than a political infrastructure.

757
I therefore conclude by reminding your Lordships of some words spoken by Sir Michael Howard, formerly Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford, in a lecture that he gave in September this year at a conference. He said that governments are inevitably cautious, and went on:
"Their spokesmen will make weighty statements to the effect that it is too early to judge and we must wait and see, as if that was the end of the matter. But of course it is not. Statesmen should not confine themselves to reacting to circumstances. They should have some vision of the way they wish to see the world develop, and some capacity to move it in that direction".
7.2 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, we have had an extremely interesting debate. Whether it went on the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, intended when he set out the words that described it I do not know, but I cannot honestly believe that he thought that this House would spend the whole afternoon debating the methods of foreign policy and not the content of it. It was inevitable that the debate would go as it has with considerable excusions into the substance of foreign policy.
On the question of method I should like to say first that it is striking that there have been no serious criticisms of the quality of the diplomatic service itself, and indeed many friendly tributes paid to it. This I hope—though with no particular confidence —will he noticed by some organs of the press who regard attacks on the Foreign Office and those who work there as a regular dish to be served up every now and again when they are short of something else. The truth is that this country is very well served by its diplomatic service. One could go on in considerable detail suggesting changes here and changes there, but I do not know that that is what we want to do now.
The other question that came up early in the field of method was the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office. The two are bound to be closely related because the Foreign Office is concerned with questions of power, from which a Prime Minister can never dissociate himself. It is inevitable that the two Ministers will either work closely together or tread on each other's feet, and we must hope that it works out for the best.
It is interesting to notice—and it may perhaps encourage among professional diplomats a certain amount of smugness—that if we look at three major errors of British foreign policy in this century (I refer to the series of acts labelled appeasement which led us to Munich and then into a war that we ended at a terrible disadvantage; secondly, the Suez adventure; and thirdly the resumption of sales of arms to South Africa in 1970) all were urged on the Foreign Office by the Prime Minister of the day and were against the weight of official opinion in the Foreign Office.
I say that this entitles professional diplomats to perhaps a certain amount of smugness when they are criticised for anything that may have gone wrong. The moral of it seems to be that it is not desirable for Prime Ministers to tread into the foreign affairs field without first informing themselves carefully and realising that it is quite possible that the Foreign Secretary, who has been specialising in it, and the
758
professional diplomats who have been specialising in it for years may know a little more about it than the Prime Minister. That degree of caution is necessary if Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries are to get on well together.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was correct in his analysis of the Father Ryan episode, which was a striking example of an ill-judged, infelicitous action by a Prime Minister with unfortunate effects on the conduct of affairs by the Government as a whole. In the course of the debate several other infelicitous acts have been quoted, but we do not want the debate to become exclusively one about the merits or demerits of the Prime Minister.
On the question of style of diplomacy, I understood the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, to speak in favour of what he called calculated statements. The question was not so much whether they were delivered through a megaphone or quietly or whether or not they were explosive but whether they had been thought about in advance and were well judged for the situation. Here it is clear that the Prime Minister's speech at Bruges on European matters was not in that sense calculated, or if it was it was most disastrously calculated.
What in fact did she do? She urged her hearers against the perils of in effect a federation of Europe—which nobody was asking for. The impression she created was that she did not want any steps taken in the direction of greater unity. It is possible, by selecting the appropriate sentences from her speech, to represent her either as a friend or as an enemy of closer unity between the states of the European Community. But the plain fact is that most of her hearers got the impression that she was opposed to any greater measure of unity between the European countries. That, I am sure, is the very last impression that we want to create at the present time.
It is an absolute condition of the conduct of British diplomacy today that we have to recognise that we work in groups; that we are not a country that can, by its own motion, alter the whole course of world affairs. We can only be effective as a member of the various groups to which we belong. They are NATO, the European Community, the Commonwealth and the United Nations.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, pointed out to us the importance of having some concerted policy in NATO; that the actions taken by the Russian Government, which I think have been a welcome surprise to us in many directions, require an appropriate response from NATO. Admittedly, as was suggested, it is rather harder for 15 democracies to reach a common policy than for the Government of the Soviet Union to make a decision, but it is surely something that we have to do.
At present we have a series of sorties made by the Russian Government proposing this or that measure of disarmament, to which no convincing replies are made. We cannot let that situation continue indefinitely. I fear that the Prime Minister's attitude towards Europe has produced the result that we are not regarded as a country that is likely to be cooperative in trying to work out together a common policy with NATO. I hope that that is not so. I hope that we can reach agreement on how to do

759
business—to use the Prime Minister's phrase—with Mr. Gorbachev. However, we do not appear to be going in that direction at present.
There has also been mention of the importance of a common currency. I wonder whether it is realised that before the First World War, although Europe did not have a common currency, practically every country was on the gold standard. That is to say that each nation regarded it as its business so to conduct its economic affairs as to give a certain value to its currency. Consequently there was a stationary comparative value with all other currencies. We talk as if that was almost an impossibility instead of something to which the whole of Europe used to be accustomed.
I think that we ought therefore to show a greater willingness to accept the principle of a common currency for Europe. I believe that that is bound to happen, if not in the lifetime of some of us certainly in the lifetime of our children. We have to be prepared to accept that and to recognise that a far more united Europe than the one we have known is going to come into being. I think that it is a disservice to British foreign policy for the Prime Minister to have given the impression, whether intentionally or not, that that was not a direction in which Britain wished to move.
To take another example of working together in harmony with other countries, it is proposed that there should be an international conference to solve the vexed question of the Middle East. I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said in arguing against the proposition. Quite frankly I do not know whether that is what should be done, but I think that we both have to accept that that may be attempted and that Britain in one form or another will have to play some part in trying to create a peaceful solution to the problems of the Middle East and the disputes between Israel and her neighbours.
What worried me about Mr. Waldegrave's remarks was that they were in tone and in nature a rebuke to Israel, whereas in Israel's situation surely what should have been addressed to her was not a rebuke but an encouragement and a reassurance. What is it that we are asking Israel to do? We are asking her to take the enormous risk of giving up the possession of certain territories which, even if uneasily, give her some kind of security and put herself in a position in which she may be in deadly peril. Unlike her Arab neighbours, Israel can afford to lose only one round in the conflict between Israel on the one hand and the Arab countries on the other. Arab countries can be defeated and can return to the harassing of Israel. A defeat for Israel will mean extinction. Israel is aware of that.
If Israel is to be persuaded to take risks she must be offered encouragement and reassurance. One of the problems for which we have to find a solution is this: whatever method is used, international conference, United Nations or whatever, at the end of the day there must be some guarantee of the agreed solution. If there is no such guarantee one cannot expect Israel to put her name to it. Here again I am afraid it was all wrong for that style of remark to proceed from a Foreign Office Minister. That kind of
760
remark can damage the work of a well-intentioned Foreign Secretary and a diligent and highly talented diplomatic service.
We have heard a great deal, and understandably, from noble Lords opposite about the economic strength of this country. It was just as well that we had a warning speech from my noble friend Lady Blackstone reminding us that there is not quite the rosy and assured picture that has been set out by noble Lords opposite and that we should be making a mistake if we conducted our foreign policy on that assumption.
In the ancient world if a country wanted the best possible advice about what it should do next it sent a delegation to the oracle at Delphi. It was not very useful because the oracle gave an answer for which there were two or three different interpretations and it was up to you to judge which interpretation to adopt. However, above the shrine where one went to consult the oracle there were two very valuable mottos. One of them said, "Know thyself', and the other said, "Nothing too much".
Britain has to know itself. It has to know that it is no longer a power that can act except in groups, and in groups with which it cheerfully and willingly cooperates and which it wants to see strengthened. When we congratulate ourselves on such economic progress as we have made in recent years we should also remind ourselves, "Nothing too much". We should not build too much on that and not be too sure that everything is going to be rosy in the future.
There is one very dark shadow on the horizon. It was referred to in particular by my noble friend Lord Hatch and by my noble friend Lady Blackstone. The Prime Minister has never in her various speeches given foreign policy a jolt in the direction of further regard for the needs of the third world or further efforts to get the South African Government to change their policy. That is putting us in the position where we are being increasingly regarded as of all countries in Europe the one most favourably disposed towards the present Government in South Africa.
That is a position of great danger because I think that it is quite clear to all of us that the present Government of South Africa will not last. It is walking down the road at the end of which is doom. No one can see any way of diverting her from it except by a complete change of heart, of which there seems to be no sign whatever. It is extremely important in the final crisis that Britain is not regarded as the one friend who advised and encouraged South Africa along that road when everyone else was trying to discourage her.
That is the kind of issue which our foreign policy ought to be spelling out. If Prime Ministers, or anyone else, want to give foreign policy a nudge in any particular direction, that above all is the direction they should choose.
It is my feeling therefore that we can congratulate ourselves on having an admirable diplomatic service. We can hope that we are in a stronger position to contribute to the wealth and security of the world than we were a decade ago, although we ought not to read too much into that. There are available to us

761
groups with which we can work—NATO, the Commonwealth and Europe—and in which we can make ourselves effective. But we put ourselves at terrible risk by choosing to be on what will inevitably he and is increasingly as the years go by the wrong side in that very great world issue. It is that we must avoid.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we have had a good debate with many notable contributions to which I have listened carefully. To the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, I say that I agree and that I have indeed been set something of a challenge. With a certain amount of material before me I shall try not to detain him too long.
I should like to begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, in particular. My noble friend's interesting recollections of her time at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are valuable. I share her impressions. I have not been in that office more than 18 months but after those 18 months I hope that no one will accuse me of either being brainwashed or having gone native, to use two of the phrases that have been referred to today. The speech of my noble friend Lady Young illustrated some of the themes that I addressed at the outset. The experience of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, on the professional side of the Foreign Office is well known to everyone. I am grateful to both my noble friend and the noble Lord and for all other tributes that have been paid to the staff of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, for which I know they will be grateful.
It is sometimes alleged—indeed the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, hinted at this—that Ministers are too dependent upon the advice of officials, whether it be in the Foreign Office or at No. 10. Although in my opening speech I emphasised that Ministers and not officials take the decisions, there are those who suggest that Ministers need greater access to alternative views and to a greater political input. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, that it is not as if my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs are at present wholly dependent upon the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for foreign policy advice. Of course they receive information and suggestions from a wide range of sources, and that includes political advice. Indeed there is a strong political dimension in British foreign policy. It could hardly be otherwise when those in charge command years of experience of leadership in a government who have achieved radical political and economic change.
However it is the responsibility of governments successfully to combine political instinct with pragmatism. I said that we should avoid too rigid an approach to foreign policy. The world in which we are seeking to make our influence felt will not fit comfortably into a preconceived set of political prejudices. Where we wish it did, we often lack the means to compel it to conform.
As my noble friend Lord Reay hinted, we have to face up to the realities of foreign policy-making in a complex and often recalcitrant world. A narrow,
762
ideological approach is no basis for a credible, effective foreign policy, as even the Soviet Union now acknowledges.
We have heard criticism of the speech made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in Bruges and more generally of her dealings with European colleagues. I too acknowledge and respect the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, to the European ideal and his experience in these matters. Both qualities shone through not only in his speech today but in his thoughtful contribution to our debate on the Loyal Address on 23rd November. I must say to him that criticisms of the kind that he and others have put forward today overlook the facts. I agree with my noble friend Lady Young that too many people have read the headlines about the Bruges speech and too few have read the speech itself—even though the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has read it. Some have even read it selectively. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has read the speech in detail and I hope that he and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, will acknowlege that it made many thoughtful and constructive points on European co-operation. My noble friend Lady Young spelled out what they were and the support that they received in this country.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister emphasised in Bruges that Britain's destiny is in Europe as an active and committed member of the Community. She has played a leading and positive role in European Community questions and negotiations with our partners. Since last summer, in addition to the European Council in Rhodes, she has visited five Community countries for discussions with colleagues and held bilateral talks in this country or elsewhere with a further four Community Heads of Government. That constant round of communication and consultation all too often escapes the notice of the press.
Obviously in a Community of 12 nations there will be differences of approach and of emphasis on some issues. That is natural and, as I have suggested, it is more healthy to acknowledge than to deny them. Our cultural diversity and differing national traditions are our strength, not our weakness. Many of our partners share that feeling.
I am struck with the fact that the pragmatic British approach to Europe has increasingly become a hallmark of Community activity, and I am glad that my noble friend Lord Bessborough shares that view. As a result, over the past year we have reached agreement on the future financing of the Community and made an excellent start on reform of the common agricultural policy. There is still a lot to be done but the will is there and, as we have long proposed, the focus of Community activity is now completion of the single market. The single market programme is a practical and evolutionary approach to fulfilling our treaty commitments and goals.
Another recent event that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, and discussed by my noble friend Lord Beloff was the meeting of my honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with the chairman of the PLO. I shall not attempt to follow the example of my noble friend Lord Beloff by giving quite so much

763
detail, nor indeed that of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, who also went into detail on that topic. But that was a good example of the flexibility of approach which allows us to respond appropriately to changing circumstances. The private groundwork for the meeting was extensive and established the conditions that allowed it to take place. The PLO had accepted Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, recognised Israel's right to a secure existence and renounced terrorism. I believe that this was a clear vindication of our firm policy over the years and merited that forthcoming response.
My noble friend Lord Beloff implied, and the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, endorsed the view, that my honourable friend was too publicly critical of Israel. That charge does not stick. As a staunch friend of Israel for over 40 years who sees the damage that her policies and practices in the occupied territories are causing to her international reputation, we are bound to express concern. We believe that the PLO's new, moderate position deserves to be tested in face-to-face negotiations. Israel has nothing to lose by negotiation and everything to gain from a peaceful settlement which offers her the security that she has craved for so long. When we speak out in this way it is not megaphone diplomacy; it is a friend's concern for Israel's future.
My noble friend Lord Beloff told tales of pro-Arab bias in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and no doubt can claim that these always make good anecdotes. Maybe that is true. It is equally true that many in the Arab world regard us as pro-Israeli. In this and other contentious areas perhaps the best test of whether we are achieving balance in our policy is when we draw equally strident criticism from those on both extremes. Judging from the many times that questions have been asked in this House on this particularly difficult and intractable issue, on which there is now progress being made, I endorse that view.
Our common sense and patient approach to foreign policy has scored notable successes in the multilateral organisations to which we belong and to which others have referred this afternoon. Through these organisations we have worked effectively to magnify our influence and move towards what would have been beyond our reach had we acted alone.
As my noble friend Lady Young said, in NATO the three key principles for arms control agreed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister with President Reagan at Camp David in 1986 were subsequently endorsed and developed by the whole alliance and the firmness and unity that we had consistently advocated within the alliance have brought us the first of those priorities; namely, an INF agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, suggested that our attitude to the new style of Soviet foreign policy was not imaginative enough. Exciting the prospects may be, but I think that there is a critical difference between showing imagination and indulging in fantasies. Of course we welcome the more constructive Soviet approach on human rights, arms control and regional issues. Our response is imaginative. But let us not forget that we are dealing
764
in realities. As my noble friend Lady Strange said, it is too early for us to conclude that the changes in Soviet internal and external policies are permanent. For example, subversive KGB activity abroad—there is nothing too gentle about that—seems hardly to have been affected by the new mood. While cuts in the Soviet armed forces and Soviet military expenditure are of course welcome, they are cuts in the fat, not in the lean meat. The Soviet Union retains a substantial advantage in almost every category of weapons facing NATO in Europe. Where NATO's defences are concerned, we cannot afford simply to trust in Soviet good intentions, much as we should like to. We must put those intentions to the test. That may not be a headline-winning approach. But it is a steady, tested and reliable route to greater security.
NATO is a vehicle which we are using effectively to safeguard peace and stability in Europe. Our policy seeks also to bring that same peace and stability to other regions of the world, more troubled than our own. We have long been convinced that the United Nations can make an important contribution. That is why this country has played a leading part in reactivating a sense of common responsibility and purpose in the five permanent members of the Security Council. As my noble friend Lady Young has pointed out, the first fruit of that co-operation was the acceptance by Iran and Iraq of Security Council Resolution 598 as the basis for a ceasefire—a resolution for which the United Kingdom was largely responsible. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, will appreciate from his own experience how ably our permanent representative Sir Crispin Tickell has executed his tasks.
All these successes are the results of a foreign policy consistently pursued. The principles underlying our approach to these diverse issues have been the same, our objectives uniform. If we had failed or faltered in the conduct of our foreign relations, would we have achieved so much? I very much doubt it.
Perhaps I may turn to some of the specific points that were raised on different aspects in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, made the charge of government by indignation. I am sorry that the noble Lord bases his comment on the lobby system on the sole and doubtful authority of the media on this issue. He will not expect me to be drawn into commenting on important and sensitive policy questions on the basis of what may by some be viewed as a certain amount of mischief-making. However, the important matter is that it is the Government who pronounce on the policy—which we do regularly from this Dispatch Box—and the noble Lord ought not always to take too much account of what he reads elsewhere in the papers.
In an important speech, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, raised the comments that the Prime Minister made about the free trade agreement between the United States and Canada when she was in Washington in mid-November 1988. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister was addressing an issue of international interest and concern. It is widely known that she was a keen supporter of free world trade. She has never hidden this view and it is not a new one. I would therefore argue that it was

765
only natural for her to comment on this subject in the way that she did. My right honourable friend's remarks did not amount to the interference with which those who do not subscribe to her views charge her.
I am hesitant to go further into the matter of the Patrick Ryan case, to which reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford. However, there is no doubt in my mind that the Prime Minister was right to speak as she did. She reflected the views not only of the Government but of the vast majority of the people of this country when she spoke of her dismay at the Irish decision to refuse our request for extradition. No one denies that there is a proud Ireland—to use the phrase of the noble Earl, Lord Longford—but the reason given by the Irish for their decision—that Ryan would not receive a fair trial—was in our view totally unacceptable and unjustified. The noble Earl would do well to remember, as I am sure he does, that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has personal experience of a bomb in Brighton that was set by the IRA. We would all do well to remember that.
One speech with which I found myself in almost total disagreement was that of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I am sorry that she is not in her place so that I can respond to elements of it. She made a number of different charges: that we were in no position to dictate; and that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was not a statesman. One of the more extraordinary charges that she made was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, in his winding up remarks. That was her comment about the economy. The fact that the GDP in this country is at its highest-ever level can hardly be described as bad news. That we are now into our eighth successive year of sustained growth averaging over 3 per cent. cannot be described as bad news. The fact that the United Kingdom economy has grown faster than those of all other major EC countries during the 1980s contrasts pretty starkly with the previous two decades when the United Kingdom was bottom of the league.
When the noble Baroness reads Hansard she may do well to remember the famous dispatch from Sir Nicholas Henderson when he was in Paris in 1979. It subsequently reached the public eye. This dispatch surveyed Britain's position throughout the period since the war compared with that of France and Germany. The opening section was entitled ominously, "The account of our decline". Sir Nicholas went through the economic figures one by one, comparing British performance with that of France and Germany. By every yardstick—gross GDP per capita, productivity, exports, average earnings, car ownership, and industrial output—Britain had once had leadership over France and Germany and had now lost it. Only in strikes had we apparently extended our lead.
It is harsh to believe that an ambassador in 1979 should be forced to say that at least in France in many public statements Britain was mentioned as a model not to follow if economic disaster was to be avoided, and to continue by saying that it made life extremely
766
difficult for an ambassador to conduct his normal responsibilities in the present uncertain state of our economy and of our European policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, raised a number of important topics which go well beyond the focus of the debate, though that has ranged fairly widely. I shall study his remarks in detail even though I have probably answered many of those questions before. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will not be visiting Zambia. But this is not a question of a snub or anything like that. The visit involves a very tight schedule and my right honourable friend wishes to see two Commonwealth countries that she has never visited, unlike Zambia, which she has already visited. The noble Lord ought to be aware that my right honourable friend Mrs. Chalker was in Zambia for two days last week.
I think that the noble Lord is confused over the matters of aid. He is confusing programme aid with project aid. The latter—project aid—is ongoing. We shall resume programme aid when an IMF-approved economic reform programme is in place.
The noble Lord raised points about the Commonwealth. The importance that we attach to the Commonwealth has been spelt out by Ministers at this Dispatch Box many times. He referred to the rent for the Commonwealth secretariat building. The secretariat occupies Marlborough House rent free. It has commercial leases on the other office accommodation necessary for the staff that cannot be accommodated in Marlborough House. The rents from these properties are subject to normal commercial terms, including five-yearly rent increases. I fear that the noble Lord has the wrong information on that.
Grant-in-aid to the Commonwealth Institute is one of a number of items met from the FCO vote and is assessed annually on the basis of all competing claims. It now stands at £2.5 million as opposed to £2.665 million in the previous financial year. That is still a very respectable and considerable sum and reflects the continuing importance we attach to the institute's educational work.
As for aid volume and the third world, I acknowledge the importance which the noble Lord attaches to helping where we can in the third world. I have seen in the last 18 months a very great deal of the third world, admittedly not Africa but other parts of the world. The Government have accepted the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GDP, but like previous administrations and many other donors we have not set a timetable for reaching it. Progress towards the target must depend on economic circumstances and the extent of other calls on the resources. The noble Lord has heard me say that before, but for those who challenge that view there is the point that it would be easier to reach the GNP target if the GNP were lower. The other aspect which is important to bear in mind is that since 1979 we have reached the 1 per cent. UN target for aid and private flows in every year but two.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my question. The Government pleaded the poverty of the British economy as a cause of the decline in the percentage of GDP given in aid.

767
Now they have been boasting for years that the economy has recovered. Why is it that the percentage of GDP given in overseas aid has not also recovered to the figure that it was in 1979?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if the noble Lord likes to look at the figures he will find that compared with the original overseas aid budget this year of £1337 billion, the figure for the coming years represents an increase over the period in cash terms of 18 per cent. or 5 per cent. after allowing for expected inflation. The important thing is to look to the future not always to the past which appears to be a feature of the noble Lord's comments.
My noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton made some important points about the Commonwealth, religion and its role in politics and Europe. I shall take note and carefully study the remarks that he has made. I do not propose to go into the question of South Africa again this afternoon. It is a matter which has been dealt wth very fully in debates on that subject. I believe that the noble Lords, Lord Hatch and Lord Stewart of Fulham, are fully aware of our views upon it.
Returning to the theme of' the Motion that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, put down, we have an effective foreign policy and an active diplomacy. All the elements are pulling in the same direction. No one should doubt our intentions or our capacity to work constructively in the field of foreign affairs. We are fortunate in my right honourable friends who determine our policy and in the officials who carry it out. Far from being divisive or damaging, our method of conducting this country's relations with foreign countries has identified areas of common ground, and has built solid structures upon them.
Ours is a policy that works. It is a simple statement of fact that in the world today, the United Kingdom is held in well-earned respect far greater than we have enjoyed for many years.
These are exciting times in which to be engaged in foreign policy. We shall not shirk the challenges ahead. We can take confidence from past achievements, and we are ready to continue giving a lead.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his comprehensive reply as I thank the other 17 noble Lords, apart from myself, who have contributed to the debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Greenhill, and Lord Bridges, for the expertise and experience that they brought. I am also grateful for the gracious remarks which were made by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, replying directly to me, talked about the Bruges speech. I did not mention the Bruges speech on this occasion in my remarks. Nonetheless it has figured in the debate to a considerable extent. The noble Lord must realise that the impact that a speech makes must be the
768
responsibility of the person who has made it. The impact which that speech made is undoubtedly very much as described by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham. There are parts of' it which are good and there are parts which are less good. I am reminded of a comment made on a book many years ago when somebody said "This book does not make much sense". "On the contrary," it was said, "If you only read every other sentence it makes perfect sense". That is true of the Bruges speech. It depends whether you start with the odd sentence or the even sentence as to what impression you gain at the end of it.
I particularly enjoyed the speeches of' the noble Lords, Lord Reay, and Lord Thomas of Swynnerton. The noble Lord, Lord Reay engaged me directly in an argument which was slightly nostalgically reminiscent of another place. I thought that some of the points that he made in his argument were sound and some were interesting. Perhaps those that were interesting were less sound and the other way round. Nonetheless he made me think again on one or two points. I thank him for paying me the compliment of engaging me so directly with a series of interesting arguments. He certainly convinced us that prime ministerial interference in foreign policy to a high degree is not something which is entirely new. He was less convincing on whether it had been beneficial from the examples which he and others cited.
I much enjoyed the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, to wrestle with his own preference for qualitative leaps and his loyal defence of a step-by-step approach. I cannot think of anyone more likely to be attracted by a qualitative leap than he is with his swooping intellect and his liking for the metaphysic of history. He has indeed made some qualitative political leaps himself over the period since I have had the pleasure of counting him as a friend. However, as I understood it, he reconciled it all with a striking simile about tomatoes marching up the broad bare staircase of their duty in the greenhouse, which left me a little confused as to how he had brought this altogether in this single metaphysic. However, I greatly enjoyed his speech and those of other noble Lords.
I hope that the debate has been worth while. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, wondered whether the debate had taken the direction that I expected. I assure him that broadly it did. It was a mixture of form and substance. I thank all noble Lords who have participated and beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Junior Hospital Doctors (Regulation of Hours) Bill [H.L.]
7.47 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I should like to say how delighted I am that so many distinguished noble Lords have agreed to take part in the debate. I am particularly pleased that my opening batsman will be the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, with his maiden speech. As we all know, he has just retired from his

769
position as Regius Professor of Physic at Cambridge University, after a long and distinguished medical career.
I have to declare an interest in the Bill as I have been a junior hospital doctor. Admittedly it was 30 odd years ago, but my memory is very vivid. One of my sons is also a junior hospital doctor, now in his third year, so I have both historical and current family experience to draw on.
When I first told the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, that I was thinking of bringing in the Bill he said, "Ah, a well-known form of slave labour"! In one sense I would not go that far. At least junior doctors are paid for their work, though in a rather peculiar way as I shall describe. But in another sense they may be worse off than slaves. The Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war, who are surely a form of slave, forbids a working week of more than 48 hours. Junior hospital doctors are contracted on average for an 86-hour week and many do far more than that.
There has been a tremendous amount of public interest in our topic in the past six weeks since the First Reading of the Bill. That was greatly helped by the Minister, Mr. David Mellor—for which I thank him most sincerely,—when he said that accounts of long hours worked and their effects had a whiff of the fisherman's tale about them.
That had the effect of galvanising medical opinion. For example, a group of 15 doctors from St. Stephen's Hospital wrote to the Independent on 2nd January this year. They stated:
"Mr. Mellor insults us when he claims our statements of overworking are fishermen's tales. Doctors among us have fallen asleep at the operating table. Doctors among us have missed a crucial diagnosis late on a Sunday night. For him to accuse junior doctors of fabricating their stories is to try to protect the public from the reality of over-tired doctors treating their loved ones and perhaps making life-threatening mistakes. For too long junior doctors have kept quiet so as not to upset their bosses or damage their promotion prospects. We owe it to our patients and to ourselves to demand better working conditions so that we can provide better medical care".
Similar letters appeared in other newspapers up and down the country.
The Bill has the support both of the BMA Hospital Junior Staffs committee, which represents all junior doctors, and of the Medical Practitioners' Union. They believe that 72 hours per week of contracted availability for work by 1992 is a realistic aim not requiring a large increase in medical manpower.
I shall attempt to give a brief outline of the present situation and the reasons for seeking legislation. First, who are the junior doctors? There are approximately 26,500 in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Approximately 3,600 are pre-registration house officers doing their first year of professional work after qualifying. There are 11,500 senior house officers, who may work for several years in hospital before going into general practice or becoming registrars. There are approximately 7,500 registrars. That is the first step on the ladder to becoming a consultant. They may stay in the grade for two to four years, or even longer, before becoming senior registrars, of whom there are 3,800. Nearly all should become consultants—and I choose the word "should" advisedly—after a further four years. The average age of consultants on appointment is now 38,
770
by which time they will have served 10 to 14 years as a junior hospital doctor.
Technically speaking, all junior hospital doctors are in training but some are not at all junior. As a group, they consist of some of the most able and highly trained people in the country. They handle most of the emergency and routine medical care in the hospitals. They are the doctors whom patients are most likely to meet when they first attend hospital and who will look after them from day to day when they are admitted to a ward. They are a group of professionals who like their work and carry it out extremely well.
Much is said about the importance of developing primary care in the community as being the key to improving health services. I agree with that statement because I am a general practitioner. However, good primary care is impossible without an effective hospital service. That must be, and it is, consultant-led. However, at present the bulk of the work is carried out by junior hospital doctors. The weekly contracted hours of work for those doctors as a whole were 86 in 1985, compared with 89 in 1981. Those figures are given in two Office of Manpower Economics surveys.
The hours consist of a 40-hour basic working week, plus 46 hours on call. The hours worked on average were 57; that is a decrease of one hour since 1981. That varied from 69 hours for pre-registration house officers in their first job—and they are the real workhorses—to 53 hours for registrars. There is a great deal of variation between specialities.
There is evidence to show that, although the total number of hours actually worked may have marginally decreased, interruptions in sleep while on call have increased in recent years because of the greatly increased throughput in hospitals and the greater use of technically sophisticated equipment for diagnosis and treatment. My son tells me that a major reason for interruption in the sleep of junior hospital doctors is the need for attention to intravenous drips and the drugs that they contain. It is a job which nurses could easily carry out. They could do it better if that were allowed and if their morale were better.
I hope that noble Lord will bear with me while I explain the implications of a one in three and one in four rota. They are stated early and long-term government aims. "One in three" means a basic 40-hour week—that is, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., five days a week, paid at a standard rate—plus one-third of the remaining 128 hours in the week on call, which is paid at only 38 per cent. of the standard rate. It is a total of just under 83 hours.
That is not an incentive for local authorities to reduce the hours of work for junior doctors, because it costs far less to employ one doctor for 80 hours than two doctors for 40 hours. The 83-hour week of a one in three rota usually works out at 86 hours or more because, inevitably, the basic 40-hour week is unsufficient to complete day-time tasks.
A one in four rota implies a 72-hour week, as requested in the Bill. It could be achieved on a one in three basis if certain changes in working practices were made. If time permits, I hope to describe them in a little more detail. If locums are not employed and

771
prospective cover is given for colleagues who are unwell or on holiday, the hours worked in a so-called one in three rota are much greater. They are up to 104 hours a week or more, which is equivalent to a one in two rota.
A one in three rota requires a doctor to be on call on two week nights for two weeks out of three, and for one week night with two week-end nights for the other week of the three. That is without days off after nights on call. In the busy specialties—and they are the majority—nights on call can be most arduous, especially if the firm is "on take" for new admissions that night. Then the doctor gets little or no sleep and even that is likely to be broken by bleeps and telephone calls. The benefit of such broken sleep has been shown to be little better than a night without any sleep.
The serious effect of sleep deprivation on decision-making and manipulative skills has been shown by numerous studies. Noble Lords, particularly those who served in another place, will be fully aware of the problem. While sleep-deprived subjects may be able to carry out major activities which are emotive or stimulating—for example, coping with a cardiac arrest or a major accident, behaving like troops in action—they become very inefficient at dealing with routine procedures or interpreting data. That duty is becoming increasingly important as technology advances. It is worrying to note that such skills begin to fall off at any time after the internal clock indicates that sleep is due after being awake for 15 hours or so. That would be at 1 or 2 a.m. in the morning if you got up at 7 or 8 a.m.
An increasing number of doctors in the United Kingdom are prepared to come forward and admit that they have made clinical mistakes as a result of fatigue. The results of a recent study carried out in Bristol were handed to me before the debate. They show that only 14 per cent. of those who answered the survey stated that they had made no mistakes. Twenty-two per cent. said that they had made four or more mistakes. Therefore, 85 per cent. were aware of one or more mistakes as a result of lack of sleep.
In the Confidential Enquiry into Perioperative Deaths (known as CEPOD for short), in three regions in the UK in 1985–86 it was judged that 618 deaths had avoidable elements over a one-year period. Fatigue was blamed as a possible cause in 28 cases. Extrapolated to all 15 regions, that represents 140 surgical deaths alone in one year and it is probable that fatigue in other specialties contributed to an equal or even greater number of deaths. The main problem associated with other avoidable deaths was the inexperience of the surgeon or anaesthetist; the corollary being that consultants or senior registrars should be more directly concerned with patient care.
It has been said that long hours on duty are necessary for educational purposes so that junior doctors can accumulate sufficient experience of a wide variety of clinical conditions and also because continuity of care by one doctor is highly desirable. Against that it must be asked: how valuable educationally is clinical experience if the learner's intellectual faculties are dulled by lack of sleep? Is
772
patient care not better if tired personal doctors are relieved periodically by more alert colleagues?
A resolution of the Council of the BMA in December last year stated:
"Council believes that an average of 72 hours per week should be the maximum necessary for post-graduate training, and sees no reason for service needs to exceed this, save in exceptional cases".
The Social Services Select Committee which reported in 1981 on medical education and medical manpower needs states:
"In present circumstances where many young doctors are expected to be on call for excessively long hours, not only arc they not in a position to provide a satisfactory service to the patient, but they are also not in the best position to learn and benefit from the training that is available.".
We may ask how the Government have responded to that report in subsequent years. As a result of the report and other pressures, in November 1982 the DHSS announced a programme for health authorities to eliminate rotas more onerous than one in three. That was followed by three further circulars, the most recent in June 1988, in which district working parties inquiring into junior doctors' hours of work were recreated and asked to report later this year and have recently been asked for a progress report.
The most recent information shows that 12 per cent. of junior hospital doctors were still contracted to work for 99 hours or more per week. Clearly, the one in three rota aim stated in 1982 has not been achieved, let alone the 1981 Social Services Select Committee's aims of 80 hours. Even a one in three rota can be extremely onerous, as I have explained. Junior doctors want and deserve, I feel, something better for their patients' sake as well as their own mental health. However, a 72-hour week could be achieved with very little increase in manpower on a one in three basis if, for example, a day off was given after every night or weekend on call. There are a number of other ways in which hours on call could be reduced without greatly increasing staffing requirements. Schemes need to be adapted to suit local circumstances.
A good example is the model for Bath and District worked out by Dr. Ruth Gilbert and colleagues which achieves an average of 72 hours per week for 122 junior hospital doctors who are now averaging 86 hours a week by a combination of methods; namely, cross cover, flexible working, teamwork between teams in the same or similar specialties and the elimination of one tier in internal referral systems. Other ways of looking at cutting hours would be to look as split sites where two hospitals in the same district are offering acute services. One hospital could concentrate of some of those services and another on others without the necessity of closing the hospital altogether.
Further reductions beyond 72 hours would have greater manpower implications, but that does not mean employing 3,000 extra junior doctors as suggested by Mr. Mellor, further upsetting the balance between the numbers of junior training posts and career positions. However, it requires a considerable expansion of consultant numbers. The 1986 DHSS plan Achieving a Balance recommended a 2 per cent. increase per annum of consultants. In

773
fact that has not been achieved, particularly in surgery, which is one specialty where junior doctors are most hard pressed. A 4 per cent. per annum increase, an eventual doubling of consultants, is required. In my view further permanent staffing in hospitals to buttress the consultants could be achieved by expanding the hospital practitioner grade for general practitioners who have developed skills in a particular specialty and who possibly have higher qualifications. They could come in for three sessions a week to do the work now being done by junior hospital doctors on the day which they should be having off having been on duty at night.
It has been said that a block to achieving reductions in junior doctors' hours of work should be laid at the door of those consultants who do not wish their numbers to be expanded and who are opposed to an increase in the hospital practitioner grade. However, the BMA Council now supports a 72-hour week. Many consultants who I have spoken to are aware of the problems of junior hospital doctors and are fully in favour of decreasing their working hours, increasing teamwork and becoming themselves more involved in patient care. Many are already doing that with increased job satisfaction and better patient care.
In your Lordships' House seven years ago in February 1982 a similar Bill to this was moved by my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell arising from the then recently-published Social Services Select Committee report. The Bill was withdrawn at Second Reading because at that point the BMA Hospital Junior Staff Committee was not in favour of legislation. The Government said, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Elton:
"we recognise the problem, we want to solve it and we intend to play our proper role in it … we shall certainly be at the centre of the operation, and with Lord Wells-Pestell's riding whip to it, we shall not be able to spend a long time about it".
My noble friend said:
"The best way of protecting patients is to see that junior hospital doctors do not work extraordinarily long hours. If they do and the department cannot deal with it, the BMA cannot deal with it and the doctors themselves cannot deal with it, then I believe it is a matter for legislation, and I would have no hesitation in coming back again if this was necessary".—[Official Report, 16/2/82; col. 539.]
On his behalf, I have done precisely that.
Finally, I should like to say a few words about the Bill itself. It is extremely short—hardly a page long. Clause 1 sets out the requirement of 72 hours' availability for work in any one week averaged over a one-month period. That allows for considerable flexibility from week to week. If required to work extra time because of the absence of a colleague, doctors should be given time off in lieu the following week. Clause 2 enables further reductions to be made without fresh legislation and its presence in the Bill will enable Parliament to press for further reductions in hours down to 60 if they are not made by the department. Clause 3 concerns variations in the case of emergencies and speaks for itself. Clause 4 is not intended as a let-out clause for health authorities but it enables them to make a special case to be allowed to contract for longer hours in perhaps a small remote hospital, with few staff, which is not very busy or for a registrar in a less hard-pressed specialty to be on call from home. Clause 5 allows Parliament to
774
assess the progress of the legislation. Clause 6 allows regulation by negative instrument of Clauses 2 to 4. Clauses 7 and 8 contain definitions and the title.
I should like to conclude by further quoting the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, seven years ago. He said:
"We do know that if a Government department is not enthusiastic about something there is nothing like a Government department for dragging its feet, and it does it extraordinarily well … I shall watch for dragging feet.—[Official Report, 16/2/82; col. 539.]
I believe that the Government may well develop a form of locomotor ataxia, otherwise known as creeping paralysis, so slow has progress been. That is why the Bill is both necessary and overdue. It is for the safety of the public and to prevent disillusion and a collapse in morale among a group of extremely hard-working professionals on whom our lives may literally depend. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Rea.)
8.12 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for his lucid explanation of the background to the Bill and particularly for introducing the Bill just at this time. It provides me with an opportunity to make this maiden speech on topics with which I am familiar, so making the occasion marginally less daunting than going in to bat for the first time at Lord's cricket ground.
I must be brief and uncontroversial. The former is a good discipline for someone like myself who recognises that he is usually too talkative; and in my work on health promotion, in recent years I have been helped in avoiding public controversy by the wise counsel of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I hope that I can achieve the same lack of controversy here today.
I am of that generation of doctors which has been proud to work in the National Health Service. The NHS has grown and now has a workforce of over 1 million people. We are today concerned with about 2 per cent. of that workforce—the junior hospital doctors. It is a very important 2 per cent. Those junior doctors are the future medical leaders that the service needs and I very much hope that the present difficulties about duty times and payments can be resolved without these important young people becoming embittered with the NHS administrators because that could poison relations in the NHS far into the future.
I understand—the noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to this—that the last time your Lordships had a similar Bill before the House was in 1982. It was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who remarked towards the end of his introductory speech that the matter we are considering—junior doctors' working hours and on-call hours—needs careful investigation into what really happens to junior doctors. I hope I am not being too controversial when I say that in my view the same is true today.
In 1982, as I read Hansard, nine of the speakers felt that the subject was not right for legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to that. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, who is so

775
experienced in matters related to the management of the health services, reflected the views of the distinguished doctors and surgeons present at the time when he said:
"What is required is an urgent investigation into flexible rostering."—[Official Report, 160/82: col. 518.]
He was, and remains, right.
Life for our young doctors has not eased much since 1982. There have been some slight reductions in duty hours but at the bedside it is they who have to deal with new threats to health, like AIDS. It is they who use new medicines which often need extra monitoring. Since 1982, 320 new medicines have been licenced by the Department of Health. That is a lot of new information for them to master. Moreover, our young doctors are undertaking research on ever-widening topics to keep our NHS in the forefront. We must, as the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals urges, ensure that this work is not inhibited. It may be if people are too tired.
There is a further aspect. An ever-increasing number of elderly people are over the age of 75; about 600,000 more since 1982. Because they are so variable in their responses to standard medicines and so much more prone to develop side effects, they need extra vigilance. Despite all those factors, the NHS increased its throughput of patients from an average throughput of 16 patients per bed in 1982 to 20 patients in 1985, which is the most recent statistic that I have been able to trace. I suggest that most industrialists might be thinking of a staff bonus for a 25 per cent. increase in throughput in a four-year period.
I have no doubt that our junior doctors have been affected by the recent review of the salaries of their colleagues on the wards—the nurses. They must have been. They are probably wondering whether their lot will be improved by the NHS review which is about to be reported or whether even more will be expected of them.
One cannot speak with detailed knowledge about administrative changes in the working hours of junior doctors in all parts of the country. I know that it is recognised as an important and sensitive topic which is receiving attention. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, will be pleased to learn that folk at the Department of Health say that his activities are stimulating people to respond; I hope more quickly than the ataxic gait which he suggested.
At Cambridge, where I come from, and elsewhere, we have had detailed discussions involving both the hospital and the university because, your Lordships will remember, for the first year of their career after graduation our pre-registration doctors remain under the control of their medical school. I must try to make a little joke. These young people only come under the proposed Bill's authority when they finally register as medical practitioners. I very much hope that the pressures on the health service will not percolate downwards and create a class of fags, if I may so call them; that is, the students ending their period of university-supervised education and training but not yet registered.
776
At this time we are fortunate in Cambridge. Almost all our junior doctors, pre-registration doctors included, work one night in three and one weekend in three. However, we are concerned about the weekends. Where I come from the weekend for young doctors lasts from Friday evening to Monday morning and conscientious young people can get very short of' sleep. Our psychologists tell us that when people reach a deficit of seven hours sleep against their usual sleep pattern they make errors in tests and clinical judgments. Or course, that has been confirmed by the study referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rea.
Your Lordships do not want from me any further discussion about the clinical history. The question is: what treatment can we find? It will not be easy. Almost all the studies that I have looked at involve finding more doctors. We cannot wave a wand and quickly produce more British doctors from the medical schools in this country. It will take at least five to seven years. Should we consider trying to recruit overseas doctors? Perhaps they will come here, in time. I know that the Royal Colleges are trying to produce good training programmes for them.
I have reached the conclusion that we probably have no alternative but to follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, and encourage the senior doctors in the NHS, together with the NHS administrators at hospital level, regularly to review, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, urged, exactly what is going on with their services at night and during the weekends and to take, individually, the best steps that they can to combat the difficulties that they find. Many senior doctors are doing that, but all of them might make sure that their hard-working young colleagues have access to some food at night and somewhere to put their feet up whenever they can.
Whatever happens to the Bill before us, the educational ethos of senior doctors caring for and helping their junior colleagues as well as their patients cannot be wrong. In that regard there is much more that must be achieved.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, it is my pleasant duty and a great pleasure on behalf of your Lordships' House, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, on his maiden speech. He brings to our debate in this field a very wide and long experience and an enormous expertise from a distinguished career. I suppose that for most people to be a professor in one institution is enough; to be a professor in three and a vice-chancellor of two universities and also a regius professor would seem to be almost excessive. We are delighted that he has contributed to our debate tonight. I hope, as I am sure do the rest of your Lordships, that the noble Lord will contribute again.
Perhaps I may add a personal reason for congratulating him particularly in a debate concerning junior doctors. Nearly 30 years ago when I was a junior doctor, one of the leaders of one of the firms for which I worked was none other than the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield. I therefore learnt early from a very

777
high and distinguished source all the problems of slaves and masters in the medical hierarchy. More seriously, I recall those days both as pleasurable and as rewarding. We hope that we shall hear a good deal more from the noble Lord in future debates.
I now turn to the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I too am very grateful to him for introducing it because it allows us to discuss a most important subject. I agree entirely with his aim of curbing the excessive hours worked by junior doctors in the National Health Service. I am personally totally committed to the National Health Service, which I regard as one of the great institutions of this country. I also congratulate the noble Lord on introducing such a short Bill. We are used to such large and complicated ones that it is a pleasure to read one that is almost but not quite on the famous one side of the paper.
However, I qualify that by saying that I believe it is too short and too simple. For example, it is too short because it has left out senior registrars. They are a very important and most senior part of the junior doctor hierarchy. I believe that this Bill applies as much to them as to any others. The Bill is too simple because this is a much more complex problem than we have so far allowed. Not all junior doctors are the same and not all of them work excessive hours.
It is essentially in the acute services that excessive hours are worked. It is done mainly by those who operate either in what is called the preregistration field or those who then choose to operate in the acute services. They work the excessive hours. For example, there would be no problem of many night or weekend calls if one referred to specialties like pathology, haematology, dermatology, rheumatology, and so forth. There may be some occasionally, but not very often. This is totally different from working where there is intensive care work: in acute medicine or surgery, obstetrics, and so on. So not all junior doctors are the same.
Not all junior doctors have the same aims. The preregistration year is compulsory but thereafter their objectives in taking any particular post may vary considerably. They may wish to get on to a training scheme for general practice; they may wish to continue in the specialty of hospital medicine of one kind or another. Some junior doctors may be aiming for a specific specialty which may or may not require excessive hours. Therefore, we are speaking about a largely different population within this group of junior doctors.
Their work practices are also totally different. I believe we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Rea (or it may have been from the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield) that the population is growing older and there is greater demand for the elderly. Whoever said it, it is quite accurate. The work in a geriatric department or for the care of the elderly is generally speaking quite different. Many people choosing a career in this field are, as I say, on their way to something different. They may work for only a very limited period in this field where excessive hours may be worked. It is a matter for consideration but it is not in any way an exclusion of the fact that even then they should not he working excessive hours.
778
I firmly believe that it is not necessary to introduce legislation for this purpose when the problem can be solved in present circumstances almost with existing resources if there is a will so to do. It is the will and not the means that is lacking. We have to remember that there are a number of different considerations that we have to balance. We have heard about the significance and importance of the continuity of care with patients. Patients can be very confused by seeing four, five or six different doctors. We have to bear this in mind. I am very glad that in introducing his Bill the noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned this point and the question of patients. It is often forgotten when talking about the working practices of doctors.
Another factor is that there are certain experience requirements that must be obtained. I shall tell you a silly story. The other night on leaving this House I returned to the hospital to find a registrar working at a very late hour. He was not supposed to be on duty. When I asked why he was doing this and why he was there, he said to me, "On the present rotas that you are operating I am supposed to have experience of transplant surgery. I have missed four out of the last six simply because they have not occurred when I was on rota". We need to take this kind of factor into consideration. This man was perfectly voluntarily but quite unnecessarily staying on. In these circumstances this proposed legislation is too simple because it does not take into account the complexity of the situation, the innumerable considerations.
The Bill does not mention service requirements. I have deliberately left that subject out of my initial comments simply because the moment one uses the term "service requirements" one always feels that whoever is using it is falling into the trap of bureaucracy or else is referring to money. I am not referring to either, but to that predominant function of all doctors of all types, which is the delivery of health care to the patient at the time he needs it. I believe that this legislation is only attacking part of a much larger problem and only a part of that larger problem.
To change by law the working practices or the hours worked of one particular group, albeit a very important one, affects the working practices of all others who work within that context or in relation to it. Incidentally, that includes nurses. To my mind there is no reason why nurses should not be far more widely used in terms of what they are allowed to do. They are perfectly capable. In the unit in which I have the privilege to operate our nurses do far more of this kind of work. None of our doctors in that unit would be raised from his sleep to deal with the question of an intravenous drip. I suspect that the nurses do it rather better. They are very practised at doing it in this unit. They give about 1,500 intravenous injections a week. By that I mean putting people on kidney machines and taking them off. So the nurses are perfectly capable of doing a great many of these things. Very often it is a restrictive practice that does not allow them to do it. It is only part of a problem of part of a wider context affecting a good many other people that this Bill proposes to tackle. That is what worries me about it as part of legislation.
I have said that there are ways of dealing with this problem. If there is a will there are the means. There

779
is also the consideration that it is the essence of a profession that it should regulate its own practices and standards. This, I think, the profession should do. Unfortunately I have to concede that over the years all this has failed to happen. Perhaps I may say one or two words about why it has failed to happen and what we should do. I shall do so under four headings.
First, there are the problems of the juniors themselves. We heard about the Monday to Friday weekend at Cambridge, to which the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, referred. In my hospital we would not allow that for the simple reason that if a man or a woman worked on Saturday and Sunday he or she would not work on Friday on take and would not work on Monday on take. If one runs weekends from Friday to Monday, one is asking for trouble for reasons of sleep, exhaustion and so on. That is wrong. It needs a certain amount of fiddling with rotas and great attention to detail to make sure that the same consultants, registrars, SHOs, junior doctors and so on are on at the same time and that if by chance they are on on Friday they are not on on a Saturday or a Sunday and vice versa. It needs the consultant who leads the team to remember when he sees them on Monday that if they have been on take on Saturday and Sunday it is time that they were off.
That is the leadership the consultant should give. He should not just swan in and swan out. He should pay great attention, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, pointed out, to the needs not only of his junior doctors but of his nurses, his ancillaries, his clerks and his domestics, for nowadays medicine is teamwork. Medicine is not the individual, high and mighty, one and only consultant who knows all the answers. Such consultants should be locked up in a psychiatric institution if they believe that. It is teamwork. Part of leadership of a team requires attention to the details not only of the consultant's immediate junior doctors, his colleagues, but of the other staff as well.
Juniors have problems. They want a social life. They have problems requiring longer weekends. If one turned round and said "shift system" to them and suggested 12-hour shifts, they would be the first to object to losing a full Saturday and Sunday. This point must be taken into consideration. Equally, there is the problem that large numbers of juniors are not involved in this way. Shift systems can be operated in certain places. In most casualty departments shift systems are already operating. We have heard how general practitioners, as clinical assistants, as hospital practitioners or in many of the different ways in which they can help, could help, but again that would affect the working practices of general practitioners. Do we have so many of them that we can spare them to take the places of junior doctors? Do we have so many trained consultants that they could take the places of junior doctors? These questions need to be addressed before we tackle part of part of part of a larger problem.
I say sincerely and with no criticism of junior doctors that nobody teaches them how to work. They are taught what to do and how to treat patients but
780
not to organise that treatment and how to use their time and skills efficiently. The result is that a massive amount of time is wasted by their wandering, phoning, getting the wrong things and so on. This is why we need to look into the working practices of junior doctors and the related specialities, whether consultants or even in some respects nurses. We need to look into what they do. We must ask whether they need to do it and whether they or somebody else should be doing it. I shall not cover the question of what is a reasonable working week in this respect because I believe that there should be flexibility, proper leadership, proper organisation and rota and consultation with the junior doctors, to whom I shall come in a moment.
The second major problem is with the health authorities. With due respect to most members of health authorities—I do not refer to the professional members—they do not have knowledge, the experience or the understanding of this complicated question. Those who listened just now to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, talking about the complications of the hours and the one in three, one in four and one in five rotas will understand that it is not easy. I hope I have illustrated some of the problems. Health authorities are reluctant to interfere in a purely professional matter. Many of them regard this as a problem for doctors (in the widest use of that term) and not as a matter for health authority diktat. By and large that is another reason why, if they do not drag their feet, at least they do not take too much direct action.
The Department of Health has come in for a good deal of stick and during the rest of the debate will undoubtedly come in for a good deal more stick. In actual fact I would not hold the Department of Health very responsible in this respect. It has shown an interest. It has issued guidelines and has required the setting up of district working parties and so on. Perhaps it has not put as much shove behind it as it could have done. But for many reasons similar to those which I have just mentioned with regard to district health authorities, there is a reluctance for it to become involved in what it sees as primarily a professional matter. I am afraid to say, mea culpa.
The real roadblock lies with the profession and with the consultants themselves. They take a view of the service needs and of the practice and delivery of health care in their districts and then they try to fit things in according to that. Unfortunately, the junior doctors are not always considered when these plans are made. For example, when another consultant or two consultants are appointed to a unit with two junior doctors, the juniors may not be asked about the appointment. It would be unusual if they were. Yet the very arrival of these people would probably mean two more rounds each week, different practices and foibles for them to learn and perhaps two more outpatient sessions. The last person to be asked when the job description of the new consultant is laid down is the junior doctor. This may be the last straw which breaks the proverbial camel's back. There is a lack of consultation.
Another example, which may be regarded as an ego trip, is that many consultants insist on all their junior staff attending upon them for much if not all

781
of the time. This is unnecessary but it is a restrictive practice for some consultants. Occasionally it is necessary, but by and large it is not. It is the working practices not only of the junior doctors but of the consultants that play the large part in the problem. The consultants need to look also at their own working practices as well as the working practices of junior doctors. Taken together one could get a good picture of what needs to happen and what does happen in hospitals.
I began by saying that I thought that the problem could be solved without legislation and was more appropriately solved without legislation. I think that with due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who introduced the Bill. Nonetheless I am obliged to him for doing so for he has raised an important question. It has given prominence to the question, has pushed people into thinking about it and will no doubt make people take further action. It is for the profession to organise the system, but it should be done with the Department of Health driving it along with specific time-scale targets. It is a question of will. The sanctions are there to ensure that all parts of the profession co-operate and act to reduce these excessive hours. If it is wished to be done it can he done.
8.38 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, speak on many occasions before, I was greatly looking forward to his maiden speech. I was not disappointed. Our House will be enriched by his presence and I very much look forward to hearing him speak on many occasions in the future. Incidentally, in addition to enjoying the noble Lord's maiden speech, I also agreed with a great deal of it, which is not quite the same thing.
I should also like to say that I agreed substantially with the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford. I am afraid that I find increasingly often that I am in agreement with him. I hope that nothing political will be read into that statement, but I agreed very much with what he said. I especially agreed with his general implication that the only people who can solve the problem are the consultants and the junior hospital doctors themselves. It is not the kind of matter which can be dealt with by hospital managers, nor can it be dealt with by importing the shop floor philosophy of industry into professional work. However, the problem must be dealt with by someone.
Had I had any doubts whatever about the reality, or indeed the seriousness of the problem, they would all have been dispelled by the letters which I have received from many junior hospital doctors. Indeed, I know that many noble Lords have received many such letters. I shall quote from but one of them. It was sent to me by Dr. Lamorna Osborne, a doctor who qualified in this country, trained as an anaesthetist then worked abroad and finally returned here. In her letter she says:
"I was on duty as the anaesthetist at St. Thomas's on a weekend early three years ago… I had enjoyed my work until my return to London when I discovered that I would be required to work continuously for three or four days at a time … On that weekend I remember a fit, 69 year-old man being admitted with a ruptured aortic aneurysm at 2 a.m. on the Monday morning".
782
Dr. Osborne had told me earlier in a letter that she had in fact been on duty since the Friday morning, and this case arose at two o'clock on the Monday morning. The letter continues:
"As I pressed the plunger of the Thiopentone syringe, I thought, 'if I just squeeze this two more inches I can go to my bed'. It is a moment that I shall never forget, weighing up the fact that this operation had 50% mortality anyway, so nobody would query a death and the fact that I was so tired".
She then says:
"I suppose the patient in question could have been my grandfather, or even yourself. In any event, I carried on; the patient did survive. I vowed there and then never to allow myself to be placed in that situation again. I almost gave up medicine. I decided instead that I would try,… to get the message of the juniors across. If this was happening to me, it was happening to many other people, who were too tired and too afraid, because of the reference problem, to voice their view".
Those were her views. However, I think that the problem of references, to which she referred, and the fear of juniors voicing their opinions, has now largely gone because consultants now tell us that they agree on this matter. So, if they agree, then they can do something about it. Indeed, they can do much more than they have already done and I think that they should get on with the job.
Like many other noble Lords I entered this debate today with a feeling of déjà vu. I spoke, as did so many who are speaking today, in that earlier debate which took place on 16th February 1982 on the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. The Bill was very similar to this one and that rather raises the question as to why the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, did not deal with this urgent problem during the years when he was a Minister in the department and, indeed, when the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was Secretary of State. However, to be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals—who will be speaking later—I think that he genuinely thought that he had dealt with it, or that he had set in train various steps which would in fact deal with the matter.
As I said, I spoke in that earlier debate and I have no wish to repeat the speech which I made on that occasion save to say, as I said then, that we appear to be proceeding with the inevitability of gradualness. On that occasion I quite wrongly attributed those words to Winston Churchill. Perhaps I may therefore now make amends by acknowledging that they were in fact the words of Sidney Webb. But to realise how gradual is our progress, one only has to look at the end of that earlier debate on the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell.
I disagree marginally with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, did not withdraw the Bill solely because the BMA, and perhaps the junior doctors were opposed to legislation at that time, although they have changed their minds now. He withdrew the Bill in part because of assurances which were then given by the Minister who replied; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I think it would be helpful if I were to look at those words now because the noble Lord, Lord WellsPestell, listened carefully to the Minister's reply and was wondering whether to withdraw, but instead he intervened at the end of the Minister's reply and said this:
"I would like to feel that this is going forward, not haphazardly, not when various groups decide to meet, but under the leadership and guidance of the department, so that within a comparatively short space of time there will he something emerging".

783
He then said:
"I do not know whether the noble Lord would like to intervene".
and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, did intervene saying this:
"My Lords, with some temerity, I would say that I have experience of predicting the length of time things take in Government and have been wrong. I would not like to come to the House and say that this problem will be solved in a particular span of time. I have said that we recognise the problem, we want to solve it and we intend to play our proper role in it".—[Official Report, 16.2.82; col. 539.]
That of course was a long time ago. I think it is right that I should say that we are indeed proceeding extremely gradually.
The problem cannot be solved just by the Bill. In view of the complexity of the whole question—the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, illustrated this point, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Rea—I should like to see a Select Committee set up to investigate the whole subject fully so that we have all the facts. I am not quite sure that we have all the facts at present. We do not quite know in which hospitals the problem is the greatest. I suspect that when we get those full facts we may find that the hospitals in which the doctors work the most outrageous hours are very often teaching hospitals which are well staffed, whereas some of the hospitals which are badly staffed somehow seem to manage rather better.
I recollect my experience when I qualified during the war at a time when staffs had largely disappeared and everyone was very much understaffed. In those days we managed. It is true that we cut some corners, some of which perhaps should not have been cut; but I think we managed without working absolutely outrageous hours. We managed in many ways by doing the kind of things at that time which the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, has already suggested. For example, nurses did things which it was necessary for them to do because there was not a doctor available to do them. Those are the kind of adjustments which will have to be made and I believe that the problems will not be solved by the Bill. I would welcome a Select Committee to look at the matter as a whole, but the department itself will somehow have to take active steps to assist the consultants and the junior hospital doctors to take on the issue in the kind of way suggested and thereby solve it.
I believe that the problem can be solved now that the parties say that they agree. The consultants say that they agree and the BMA as a whole says it agrees, so why on earth do they not get down to it and really solve it here and now? Further, why does the department not assist them so to do? I repeat that the matter is an extremely complex one, but I shall mention only one other point and it is one which I mentioned in my speech in that debate all those years ago. I think that it illustrates in a way the complexity of the problem. The point has already been hinted at and it is this. In looking at the hours of junior hospital doctors, one has to remember the whole question of continuity of care within a hospital for a patient. It is very often with the junior hospital doctor that the patients establish a relationship. They get used to the junior hospital doctor and they like to see the same one. On that occasion at col. 515 I said:
"When one talks to patients, as I have, they tend to say that they would rather have a very tired doctor whom they know very well, to
784
whom they can talk and who they know understands their position, than another doctor who is totally fresh and rested, but who they have never seen befor at all during their hospital period".
That is an important point. We must go on to consider the importance of continuity of care on a daily and continuing basis for patients in hospital. I am speaking of care not only by the nurses, but also by the junior hospital doctors whose relationship with the patient is so much closer than is the relationship of perhaps even the consultant who has the overall clinical responsibility for the case.
I, too, am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for bringing the matter forward. It is most important that we should have had this debate. However, it is also most important that the debate should be followed by action, and not inaction. Everyone is now aware of the problem and everyone is calling for it to be solved. I believe that it could be solved. I believe, with the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, that if the consultants think that it should be solved, then they should get down to the job with the junior hospital doctors and solve it. I hope that the noble Lord's Bill and this Second Reading debate will help towards that end.
I hope that the Bill is carried, that it proceeds on its passage and that we may go further into the matter. However, I also hope that during that period other things will happen and that the department will see to it that something is done and that some of the hopes expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, all those years ago—and some of the promises made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton—will be kept, but carried out perhaps a little more speedily than appears to have been the case so far.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Richardson: My Lords, I too have had the privilege of knowing the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, for 30 years. I was mildly interested when he spoke about going in to bat. My interest was considerably increased when he mentioned Cambridge more than once, because he used to go in to bat for an Oxford cricket XI. We all hope that we shall hear a great deal from him in the future. Knowing him, I know that he will be eloquent.
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for bringing up this subject, but at the same time I feel a considerable degree of sadness that it has to come up at all. It was a living problem over 30 years ago, so much so that the then recently formed Association for the Study of Medical Education did a special study of the educational effects of the time that junior and younger doctors spent at work and of their over-long hours. It was a sufficiently serious problem for the very much respected and highly regarded Minister for Health, Mr., now Sir, Kenneth Robinson, to set up a working party to examine the whole of the work of doctors in hospitals.
That working party divided into two. The Minister took a great personal interest in it and chaired as many meetings as he could. The two parts dealt with consultants' work and the junior doctors' work. The junior doctors' committee reported after the consultants because the Department of Health, together with the Joint Consultants Committee, had commissioned a study of the junior hospital doctors'

785
work. It was a detailed study. If I remember rightly, the work of 83 doctors was examined. 'Over 7.000 hours' work were watched and records made at half-minute intervals. Nine hospitals of different kinds were under scrutiny. They found that the doctors worked about the same time as they do now. At that time it was felt that that was not excessive. They wanted to have the experience, and there is nothing much to be said about that.
However, the committee was greatly disturbed by the fact that time on call was added to the total of 86 hours worked. The solution then was what has been suggested tonight and may well come from speaker after speaker. The noble Lord, Lord Trafford, went into the matter in detail. The solution was that there should be proper organisation of the doctors' work by doctors (consultants primarily) and by the junior doctors themselves, who of course are under a disadvantage. They are inexperienced. They are anxious. It weighs heavier on their spirits and their bodies to have great responsibilities. However, at that time there was evidence that they could save themselves a great deal of trouble by using their common sense as well as their increasing medical knowledge. That was all that time ago. We are now discussing again what we discussed in 1982.
There are various considerations about the limitation of hours. They were touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, who pointed out the educational implications that are different at the different stages of a so-called junior doctor's career towards consultancy. There must be careful consideration if there is to be such a thing as a statutory limitation of hours. A senior registrar, shortly to be a consultant, would be greatly offended if his time of work were to be legislated for.
Another factor is the inflation in the number of doctors. That matter needs looking at carefully because over the years there has been tremendous anxiety in the medical profession about the question of numbers, not only because it could lead to medical unemployment under-employment—that is not a myth; it is something of substance—but because it could lead to the alarming situation where the boys and girls who are practising in their junior capacity have the whole of their future distorted by the terrible problem of the staffing structure. If one has more juniors, one will to some extent vitiate the already not terribly successful attempts described by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, to produce a staffing structure balance by increasing the ratio of consultants to junior staff. That has been a running sore since the beginning of the health service. It is the future of the juniors that we are talking about, because, if there are too many juniors chasing too few senior jobs, that will surely be very much to their disadvantage.
What about the question of a profession having its hours of work controlled by the law of the land? I cannot help feeling strongly that that is profoundly against the basic professional ethos. Medicine is one of the three original professions of mediaeval days. To it were added the armed forces, but of course in the past 20 years—longer perhaps—the number of so-called professionals has increased enormously. Many have had their circumstances controlled by legislation.
786
It would be a sad thing for what I choose to call the true professions if their professionalism were in any way invaded. It is the hallmark of a profession that it controls its education, its discipline and its responsibilities. There is another aspect to this matter. It concerns the attitude of the young entering the medical profession and their enjoyment of it. It is an exciting period to be a junior doctor in hospital. One is beginning to feel one's strength as a doctor. It is a tragedy if that time is blighted and turned into a nightmare by an excessive amount of work, but it is a very great tragedy if by having one's hours of work controlled one loses the sense of adventure, the sense of obligation to the patient, the sense that the patient is the person who matters. One loses the realisation that in the profession the patients or the clients must come before one's own interests. If we lose that feeling we shall lose a great deal of the satisfaction that comes from learning about looking after patients and feeling our responsibilities towards them.
Patients know when a doctor is dedicated. Any doctor at this moment in your Lordships' House will feel grateful, remembering patients who have put up with his inadequacies, as I do, because that doctor and all of us who are doctors were really trying and were in a sense dedicated. That is the way to happiness in medicine and the way to make patients feel that they are getting what they deserve.
I cannot join the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, in hoping that the Bill will pass. However, I hope with the greatest possible intensity that it will lead to real action, administrative action, all the way up, with proper and rigid monitoring of results. It is disgraceful that such a problem as this should have been spread over 30 years and no solution evolved, although the solution lies in proper administration.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I think am the first layman to speak in this debate. That is perhaps a rather daunting prospect since all five previous speakers have been luminaries of the medical profession. Of course this Bill concerns us all as members of the general public.
The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, which is before us performs a very useful service in drawing attention to a profoundly unsatisfactory situation which has hardly changed or has changed very little since the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, moved a similar Motion on 1st February 1982. That has already been referred to and he later withdrew it in circumstances which were explained by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. I shall not use the same quotation as was used by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and others, but on that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Elton, speaking for the Government, accepted,
"that the hours of work of some junior hospital stalls arc excessive. Indeed, the average junior doctor is contracted for nearly 90 hours a week. Although contracted hours include both time spent on-call and hours actually worked, we consider this figure is too high. We are anxious that it should be reduced and have started to consider steps to do so".—[Official Report, 1/2/82; col. 532.]
Later on at col. 536 he said that there was general recognition that there was a real problem to which a solution must be found. At that time there was considerable evidence of government interest in the whole matter.

787
Whatever steps have been taken have not got very far because today, seven years later, the average still stands at 86 hours according to BMA figures and as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has also told us. It might therefore be thought that I should give an unconditional welcome to the Bill. However, I am afraid that, while I appreciate the motives by which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, is animated, I have a number of reservations. In the first place we have a shrewd suspicion that the Government will not give the Bill any help. It goes against Mr. Mellor's declared objective of reaching a maximum one in three rota or 84 hours a week of time on duty. So we know or are pretty sure that it will not reach the statute book. That is not to condemn it out of hand. Many good Bills do not reach the statute book. But we know it is a non-starter in terms of achieving its main objective.
Next I am unhappy with its blanket approach to the problem. There are undoubtedly some staggering abuses of junior doctors' staying power. A number of instances have been given this evening and I recently heard one of a junior house officer contracted for a one in two rota working from 8 a.m. on a Friday morning until 7 p.m. on a Tuesday night and then from 8 a.m. on Wednesday until 7 p.m. on Thursday; and finally from 8 a.m. until 7 p.m. on Friday evening, a total of 142 hours in that week. That is quite unacceptable.
However I venture to suggest that there is another side to the coin. All doctors going into general practice must do a minimum of one year as a junior house officer, as we have heard, and two as a senior house officer. That may be prolonged if no suitable practice opening occurs, but in most cases they are out of the hospital system in three or four years. During this period they not only need, but some actively desire, to get as much experience in as many specialties as they possibly can. In pursuit of this end, intensive on-the-job training at that age is probably sustainable over a relatively short period. I think the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, touched on this.
The Bill as drafted might well inhibit that kind of zeal for knowledge and experience and in this respect I think frankly that it is a little too prescriptive. The real problem surely, at any rate in a layman's eyes, is that the term "junior doctors" somewhat absurdly covers the whole hospital careers structure up to and including senior registrar, who may be someone with 14 or 15 years' experience, waiting for a consultant post to be vacated. What can be sustainable for a few years in the mid to late 20s takes on quite another colour when prolonged into middle life.
What alarms me here is that although the average weekly hours on duty of all hospital doctors are the same as in 1981, those of senior registrars within that aggregate have risen from 78 to 87 hours. These are people quite literally at the cutting edge who make many of the big decisions. When that is coupled with a not very attractive pay scale and with family commitments, it might seem that these are the people with whom we should be concerned no less than those further down the scale. Yet the Bill appears to exclude them, unless they are intended to be subsumed under the generic word "registrar".
788
In these circumstances one might think the Bill would have done better to go for greater flexibility—say, a maximum of 84 hours for all grades and a lower maximum for the higher responsibilities carried out by more senior junior doctors, who in a saner world would no longer be so described. They are the equivalent of experienced middle managers in industry. I have to note that the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, thought there should be no restraints at that level, which goes to show the many dimensions involved in a doctor's working life.
As the noble Lord, Lord Porritt—I am delighted to see that he is speaking this evening—said during a debate on 16th February 1982 (col. 528 of Hansard):
"There are so many sidelines connected wth this problem that it merits very long and detailed consideration".
That is obviously true. You cannot consider registrars and senior registrars without considering consultants, and this brings a number of additional factors into play. In the first place, the Government's undertaking to expand consultant posts by 2 per cent. per annum is not being met; so I understand. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned that. Nor do the plans in the joint statement of Ministers, consultants and health authorities of July 1986, entitled Achieving a Balance, appear to have made much progress.
There is then the interesting suggestion made by the Medical Practitioners' Union that there ought to he more cross-cover between consultant "firms". This, over time, would inevitably lead to the replacement of these so-called firms by a system of speciality teams. Something along these lines would presumably be needed if the present level of cover were to he provided on reduced hours without a very substantial increase in the number of doctors and thus of the hospitals' salary bills. Yet if such a reform were implemented it would have profound consequences for the whole consultant system.
I could go on. I have hardly touched on the critical question of pay; but I will not do so because the whole purpose of the remarks I have made so far is to show that the question is much more complex—here I am entirely in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, said—than appears from the Bill as drafted. I suggest that we lack much of the objective information, as opposed to impassioned advocacy, that we need if we are to make sensible improvements to this Bill in Committee. Of course we can have an interesting Committee stage, to which eminent members of the medical profession will undoubtedly contribute from the great store of their knowledge and experience. The Government will no doubt thank us politely for our labours and say that our valuable opinions will be taken into account, but I doubt whether it will go very much further than that.
Alternatively, I suggest—the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has already partly floated this—that we could produce something much more authoritative and make a real contribution to an eventual solution if we were to send the Bill to a Select Committee, where evidence could be taken and weighed, the facts properly established and different interests heard, including those of the junior doctors and those I like to call the middle doctors, the consultants, the Royal Colleges, the hospital managers, the BMA and the

789
department itself. We would then have an extremely thorough report produced with the agreement of all parties and none, which is the only proper way to proceed on an issue of this kind which is not basically of a party political nature.
When a Private Member's Bill is sent to a Select Committee, that committee can do various important things. First, it calls for evidence, as I have already outlined; it can then redraft the Bill and produce something more acceptable in terms of feasibility. It can even make a useful report with positive proposals but recommend that the Bill itself should not proceed, thus saving time on the Floor of the House. Whatever course it chooses, its report is a document of considerable value which the Government find difficult to dismiss even if the Bill itself fails—which, as I have already pointed out, in this case it is almost bound to do. I think it is no secret that some of us wanted such a Motion to be moved this evening so that in the event of the Bill receiving a Second Reading, as I hope it does, it would go to a Select Committee before being brought back to the Floor of the House at Committee stage.
Other noble Lords, while accepting the attraction of this approach, wondered whether this was the right way to proceed before listening to the Government's response and in particular with the Prime Minister's National Health Service review due to be published, we understand, on 3Ist January. Personally, I doubt whether a broad brush White Paper is likely to tackle these intricate details. We shall see. Caution prevails; but I must say that if the Government have nothing much to tell us this evening, apart from invoking the regional working parties Mr. Mellor has set up, and if the White Paper is silent on the matter, as I think it probably will be, I still believe there would be a strong case for tabling a Motion for the Bill to go to a Select Committee during the course of next week.
I should add that there is no procedural barrier to doing this, provided it is done prior to an order of commitment to a Committee of the Whole House. The Select Committee route has been taken on eight occasions since 1975. In that year the noble Lord, Lord Denham, no less, speaking then from the Opposition Front Bench, moved that the Hare Coursing Bill be sent to a Select Committee. That was a government-mandated Bill. We would not of course be prolonging consideration of government legislation in such a way.
The most recent instance was the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill, interrupted by the last general election, and on that account sent twice to a Select Committee in that year. If the argument is invoked that such a move places an unwarranted strain on the resources of the House, the answer must be that that is to place the cart before the horse. Our prior duty is to ensure that matters like this of legitimate public interest receive proper scrutiny. We are, incidentally, probably the cheapest and most cost-effective second chamber in the Western world, and the resource implications in this instance would not be very great.
I hope I have not steered the debate off course. Naturally I look forward to the other contributions and await with interest the Government's reply. But I hope that other noble Lords in the course of their speeches will agree with me that we should not
790
dismiss the option of a Select Committee just because a Motion to that effect has not been moved tonight. In the meantime, my Lords, I support the Second Reading of the Bill.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rea for introducing this Bill, and it has my support. I must apologise to him for not being here for the early part of his speech. Unfortunately I am doing a locum for a colleague of mine at the moment and I was doing his evening surgery.
Last Friday I read an article in the Independent indicating the desire of the authorities further to tighten the controls in the number of hours worked by airline pilots. In the same paper there was an article indicating that the health Minister was suggesting to health authorities that they should get junior doctors to cover for colleagues while on leave or unwell rather than employ locums. Your Lordships will realise that this will further increase the number of hours that junior doctors will have to work.
An airline pilot can work for a maximum of 50 hours a week, with no more than seven consecutive days on duty without a rest of at least one day and two nights. The long-distance lorry driver can drive for a maximum of 56 hours a week, with 45 minutes' rest every 44 hours and a weekly rest period of 45 consecutive hours. Junior doctors face much greater demands. They often have to work an 80-hour weekend when they are on duty from 9 a.m. on Friday to 5 p.m. on Monday.
I well remember when I was a house physician at the San Fernando Hospital in Trinidad forcing the medical superintendent to do casualty duty from Sunday afternoon to Monday morning, because I was on duty from 8 a.m. on Friday and the weekend was busy, so I had very little sleep. He looked at me and decided that I was much too exhausted to carry on, and told me to go to bed and he carried on doing the job himself. But there are no medical superintendents in British hospitals any more, so I do not know who would do for any house physician in this country what Dr. Rostart did for me.
Concern about the long hours worked by some junior doctors has been a regular issue coming to the BMA juniors' committee for debate over many years. Following a conference organised by the Chief Medical Officer in 1981, lengthy negotiations have taken place and have managed only a minimal reduction in hours worked. The junior doctors believe that something more needs to be done now to force the health authorities to act, and agree with them.
The present contract was introduced in the mid-1970s, with junior doctors feeling that if they had to work such long hours they should at least be paid for them, because up till then they were not paid at all. Even now their "overtime" is paid at only 30 per cent. to 38 per cent. of their base rate. In other words, for every hour's "overtime" a house officer earns £1.75. In late 1981—nearly eight years ago£the BMA opened negotiations with the Department of Health to ban one in one rotas, which means working or

791
being on call for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and to get a maximum one in three rota, which is still an 84-hour week. That means that, in addition to the 40-hour basic week, one night in every three and every third weekend is also worked.
Those measures have produced very little success. The average hours worked by junior doctors fell by only three hours between 1980 and 1986. In 1987 about 12 per cent. of junior doctors were still contracted to work over 101 hours a week. I suspect that there are still junior doctors—admittedly only a few—working the one in one rota (24 hours a day) despite it having been banned by the Department of Health. I suspect that if one did some careful research one would find that that was so.
I know that many of the older generation of doctors are not convinced that for junior doctors life should be easier than it was for them. However, as a result of advances in technology more and more junior doctors are having to use complex equipment which was not available in my days as a junior doctor. There is also a vast increase in day cases, which puts particular pressure on junior doctors who have to check the patients in and see them onto the wards. Patients survive now with diseases which were previously untreatable. There is no comparison between being a junior doctor 30 years ago—or 40 years ago in my case—and now.
I read an article written for the BMA News Review by Sir Christopher Booth, who is a former head of the Clinical Research Centre at the Northwick Park Hospital and was my successor as President of the British Medical Association. Sir Christopher was sent by the editor of the magazine to spend a night on duty with two junior doctors in a hospital in the North of England. Initially he was not convinced by the junior doctors' argument that their work is now much more complicated. After following the junior doctors around for a whole night, as well as being shattered by the next morning, his views had changed dramatically. He now concludes that the situation faced by junior doctors is "monstrous". That is his term.
Sir Christopher tells of how the whole practice of medicine is more complex and more stressful than in his day. For example, 30 or 40 years ago a heart attack victim would have been left in bed to rest and recover or die. Nowadays patients are linked to ECG machines which need to be monitored constantly. Doctors have to be alert enough to respond immediately to any abnormality in the hearbeat rhythms. Within a couple of minutes the doctor has to make the decision as to whether or which drug needs to be administered, and if so in what dosage. He needs to monitor the patient's reaction and continue to act if necessary. A tired junior doctor cannot do that properly. It is necessary to face that fact.
I am convinced that the experiences of the junior doctors which we read in the press are not exaggerated. The time has come for the Government to act to reduce the hours worked by junior doctors. I would regard this legislation as just one important step. I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord
792
Kilmarnock, that it should be sent to a Select Committee. I hope that the approach of the House will be that we should give the Bill a Second Reading and send it to a Select Committee.
9.24 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, I should like to say how good it is to hear that he is interested in health promotion. I hope that he will promote it in your Lordships' House.
On one occasion when travelling back from abroad the aeroplane broke down and I went for almost two nights without sleep. I am fortunate in that I do not need a great deal of sleep. My noble kinsman the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, needs far more sleep than I, as he will tell any of your Lordships. On our return we had an engagement to fulfil near Cambridge. I was driving and this was the third day with little sleep. Suddenly my noble kinsman shouted at me and I opened my eyes to find that we were heading straight for a bluebell wood.
There is a point when without sleep one's system cannot operate. I have learnt my lesson about the danger of driving when lacking sleep. I am convinced that doctors, who have the responsibility of patients' lives and deaths in their hands should work within safe limits of sleep. In the cause of the safety of patients and the wellbeing of junior doctors I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for bringing this timely Bill to your Lordships' House.
I should like to ask the Minister a few questions. I have always felt that an expert is a person who continues to learn. The field of medicine has now become very specialised with many different drugs and high technology equipment which need great skill and understanding. I asked several consultants how they feel about the situation of junior doctors and several of them said. "We had to do long hours; we lived through it".
But hospitals were different then. The throughput of patients was much slower, the technology and skill needed to keep tiny babies alive was not there; the knowledge and skill to transplant organs did not exist. Moreover, the expectations of patients were not so great; the elderly did not live so long and the pace of life outside the hospital was also slower.
The medical situation has changed because society has changed. All doctors, however senior, have to keep up with new developments. When a doctor is given the status of a junior doctor, does it not mean that he is an apprentice to the consultant? Is too much responsibility being placed on junior doctors? Do they have enough time to study? Are they being drained of energy because those who are on call for too many hours work constantly both night and day so that they end up exhausted? They must become edgy and difficult to live with and the patients worry when they have to depend on young, tired doctors.
Are we taking too much out of the junior doctors and not enough out of the senior doctors or do we not employ enough doctors? We employ fewer than do several European countries or America. Some senior doctors work very hard indeed. I know several of them. But can that be said of all senior doctors?

793
Would it be possible for some of them to share with some of their juniors some of the load of routine work? I feel that such a move would be unpopular.
However, the situation could be made more flexible in many ways. Senior doctors need time to do research and keep pace with progress. We are lucky to have some splendid and excellent consultants but can that be said of all of them? I have heard of consultants who have not turned up on ward rounds and not informed the sister in charge when they did not attend clinic. What kind of example is that to a junior doctor?
We must not fall into mercenary ways wherein monetary interest rules all, as is so well described in the book The Citadel. It is a wise practice to have two nurses checking when they dispense drugs to patients. Many people throughout the country are now worried, having read the recent Sunday Times article on overtired junior doctors and their prescribing of the wrong quantity of a drug which unfortunately killed the patient. Doctors are covered by insurance but the life of the patient cannot be brought back. It would help to abate fears if when a junior doctor prescribes a drug the system is that a senior nurse checks the quantity. There is always a senior nurse on duty in any hospital for acute cases. I would appreciate the view of the Minister on this point.
The question of junior doctors' hours is not a new issue. In November 1982 Ministers announced a programme of action for health authorities to work towards the elimination of regular rota commitments requiring junior staff to be on duty on average more than one night and one weekend in three—a one in three rota—where resources and the needs of patients permitted. Measures taken included the setting up of district working parties to review rota commitments and the establishment of a ban on regular rota commitments more onerous than one in two. Despite this, there still remains in the Yorkshire region, which is the authority on which I serve, a considerable number of rotas that involve junior staff being on call more than one night and one weekend in three. One of the main reasons for this is that the Department of Health exercises strict manpower controls on the number of junior doctors and there is an embargo on the appointment of additional senior house officers and registrars. This clearly makes the reduction of existing rotas difficult so long as existing working arrangements continue.
Not all junior medical staff are anxious for their on-call commitment to be reduced because they regard the exposure to medical emergencies that being on call gives them as a valuable part of their training and because a reduction in their on-call commitment will mean a decrease in salary. Because of this, would it be possible to give junior doctors a choice of working more hours than those stated in the Bill if they so wished? I have often heard it said that the amount of work which being on call entails depends very much on the specialty. Junior staff working a one in three rota in hard pressed specialties such as general surgery and paediatrics may have a more onerous on-call burden than those working a one in two rota in less hard pressed specialties such as ENT, ophthalmology and dermatology. If there were more cross cover within clinical units, this might help
794
to spread the load. However, many consultants are reluctant about this and if the junior doctor is serving an apprenticeship in a specialty one can understand the argument. But the wider cover might also be good experience for the doctor. That illustrates the difficulties of overcoming these problems.
We have heard in the region that the Government wish to reduce the number of junior doctors. This would be pulling in the opposite direction when trying to reduce junior doctors' hours. I do not see that it is possible to reduce the number of junior doctors unless senior doctors undertake considerably more work than they now undertake. I shall have to get up at 6 a.m. tomorrow to catch a train to go to my regional health authority meeting. We have 17 health districts. I hope when the Minister replies that he will give some encouraging messages that I can take up North with me. In some of our districts it is difficult to fill some posts with good quality doctors.
We have on paper at region and at districts further planned rota reductions for our districts and those which have already been achieved. What is written on paper is not always what happens in practice because there are absences due to illness and other reasons. With doctors, as with nurses, one needs some extra cover if the targets are to be achieved. There must be a safety net.
It seems that this matter of junior doctors' hours has come to a head. I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading. If improvements are to be made we can make them in the further stages of the Bill or perhaps, as has been said by other noble Lords, the Bill will go to a Select Committee. But something positive must happen. I do not believe that overtired and overstressed junior doctors who have a great deal of responsibility can give of their best to their patients or their employers or find for themselves the much-needed job satisfaction. We need an efficient but caring health service. The junior doctors are a very important part of it.
There is nothing as important as the good health of our nation and for this we need enthusiastic, well-trained, committed doctors.
9.37 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, this is a very timely debate. I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for moving this Second Reading, unfortunately at a very late hour. The debate coincides with the forthcoming National Health Review. Whether or not anything relevant to the problem which is the subject of this debate will be contained in the review we shall have to wait to see.
One of the fascinations about this Second Reading is that there are almost as many, if not more, distinguished members of the medical profession taking part than there are lay people. In many ways that is a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for his consistency in this matter. Inevitably those who are outside the profession must be very careful not to tread on professional corns. I do not propose to go into a kind of ping-pong match between consultants and junior doctors.
I have had very few spells in hospital, but just over two and half years ago I parted company with my

795
gall-bladder in my local district hospital in Epsom where I am president of the Friends. I was operated on by a consultant of outstanding ability as was his registrar. They made an excellent team. Undoubtedly there are times when consultants could put in more time, but on the whole I believe the teamwork between consultants and junior doctor is admirable. I do not believe that that is the root of the problem.
Just over a week ago I talked to some of the junior doctors in our local district hospital over lunch. What I should really have liked to have done—and I hope that I shall sometime—is to have experienced a round with them. I should have liked to have experienced the hours that they work on any one shift and seen what happened. Conditions vary from hospital to hospital and one might think that the London teaching hospitals do not have the same problems as, for example, the West Cornwall Hospital in Penzance which, according to a recent television programme, has major problems.
There are London teaching hospitals where major problems exist. There was an admirable article in last weeks's Sunday Times colour supplement. It is sad to note that the doctors who took part incurred the displeasure of the regional health authority. Under the Hypocratic Oath doctors have certain constraints upon them. However, having read the article carefully I thought that their observations were sound and restrained. Often those who go into hospital for treatment are the best judges of the extent to which a junior hospital doctor's abilities are tried. There are occasions when they are tried considerably.
The Bill obviously excludes a national emergency and major accident. For example, the recent crash on the M I motorway, when at least three major hospitals were alerted, would be excluded from the Bill and one would expect that. I hope that the country will not take for granted the fact that such junior doctors who took part in the rescue work and treatment will work for 90 or 100 hours each shift on such an occasion. Accidents of that kind involve a great deal of work.
It has been suggested that nurses could take over some of the duties which junior doctors carry out. I speak as a layman among the medical talent taking part in the debate so I use my words carefully. In theory that is a good idea but I look at the suggestion from another angle. Let us suppose that something goes wrong and, hypothetically, a nurse gives the wrong injection. In the case of a doctor one presumes that the British Medical Association or an allied organisation will deal with the matter. If the mistake should happen in the case of a nurse or a nursing sister, would the same apply to the Royal College of Nursing?
An important matter which could be resolved as a result of the Second Reading debate is that there should be more consultation between the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing in order to devise some kind of working practice. My noble friend Lord Trafford has said that in his professional experience there is a tendency to see simple solutions in the Bill. Of course, it is a fact that not in every single hospital do junior doctors work these very long shifts. However, I believe that it
796
is equally the case—and it is certainly so if some of the journals including the British Medical Association journals are to be believed, as undoubtedly they are—that there are all too many hospitals where that takes place.
Of course, with modern technology doctors, be they housemen, registrars or senior registrars, have to take on very much more responsibility. They need training. I believe that it is equally important to point out that the National Health Service caters for some 50 million people today. Twenty or 30 years ago when a junior doctor may well have been told by his senior consultant to get on with it because he had had to do the same work, there may have been some justification because there were fewer patients to treat, albeit with less technology then. Nowadays both nurses and doctors have to cope with many more technological complications. They obviously have to treat more and different kinds of patients. A gall-bladder operation 20 years ago may have necessitated a patient being in hospital for a month. In many cases today he is in hospital for just over a week. Whoever performs the operation— whether it be a senior registrar or consultant—has the added responsibility of modern technology and ensuring that the operation is carried out as expeditiously as possible due to the availability of beds.
What is the solution? A Select Committee has obvious attractions because one can have those with considerable knowledge of the health service and other matters to take part and give evidence. My reservation is the time which that takes. I believe that this is a very urgent matter, whether or not this is the right Bill. I believe that very much more urgent consultation must take place between the various medical organisations including, possibly, the Royal College of Nursing because co-operation between nurses and junior doctors is all-important. However, that is for those far more expert than I to solve.
Meanwhile, I end by saying that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, whatever happens to this Bill, has given the House the opportunity to think very carefully about a very major subject.
9.48 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, in the first instance it is a great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, on his maiden speech, which I enjoyed enormously. That is not unexpected. Having known him for some 40 years, I am sure that it is exactly the sort of speech which the House will enjoy from him on many occasions to come.
It has been said that one should sit through a debate and make up one's mind listening to it. Almost every conceivable aspect of this topic has been dealt with except for one question which arose in my mind when I read some of the recommendations of the Social Services Select Committee. One recommendation was:
"We believe that the reduction of the doctor's contract week initially to a maximum of 80 hours should be one of the top priorities".
In 1982 the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said:
"The number of junior doctors on call could be reduced",
and so on. I listened with great interest to the brief account given by the noble Lord, Lord Richardson,

797
of the problems that arose in the training of doctors in the 1970s when I was privileged to be associated with him. There were problems regarding the career structure and consultants posts within the health service with which we struggled for many months at the time.
In listening to the debate, and reading of all this, the thought occurred to me that the Government must have had some good reason for what has or has not happened. Therefore, one looks forward to the Minister's reply with particular anxiety. We want to know whether there have been difficulties of one kind or another. The department is well known to me and therefore I feel I must make that point.
As has been said, this is not simply a matter of reducing the working hours of junior doctors. The whole concept of the delivery of medical care and its administration is involved. As the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, said, the situation is complicated by trying to combine three roles: experience, responsibility for patients and training for the professional posts, with time being allowed for teaching and research.
One aspect that urgently needs to be examined, and perhaps the Government have examined it, is the nature of being on call. As has been said, it is so different in the casualty department from, say, the department of dermatology. Suggestions were made in 1982. What happened to them? At that time the junior hospital doctors said:
"The Hospital Junior Staff Committee is opposed to any legislation seeking to reduce the hours of work of junior doctors at the present time".
We still have the same problem of organisation and management and the sharing between specialties of' similar skills, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford.
In 1982 the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that the Government were concerned that the average doctors were contracted for nearly 90 hours and that the Government were anxious to reduce that. In his perceptive speech the noble Lord said that the average doctor could be on call or on stand-by for 50 hours per week and that this of course was inconvenient but it was not necessarily very tiring; so we are back to organisation and sharing as suggested by Dr. Ruth Gilbert, deputy chairman of the Junior Staff Committee of the BMA. She states, rightly, that the current arrangements are inefficient of doctors' time.
In 1972 I chaired a committee of the department concerned with the role of medical managers. This report was largely ignored and the government of the day instead introduced consensus management. I wonder how much consensus management is responsible for the present situation. Now we have general managers. Are general managers beginning to make any real contribution to solving the problem we have been discussing?
As has been said, the medical managers of clinical units are by tradition senior consultants. How many of them have ever attended a management course, or do they believe that any doctor can be a good manager? On making some inquiries, as others have done, I find that it is not exceptional to have a first-class team of consultants, registrars and house
798
officers with the consultant prepared to do his share of on-call cover, particularly if he is worried about the welfare of his juniors. We have not heard much about these people but perhaps we should because they are the backbone of the National Health Service.
Management is not enough. There has been a substantial increase in technology and there are demands on staff. The Government have exerted constant pressure for improved turnover—that has been referred to and the details given—with maximum use of beds. Nowadays patients do not need to be kept in bed so much. Undoubtedly the consequence is that more staff are required to meet a more intensive regime. It would be wasteful of resources to do this until the whole question of the management and organisation has been sorted out.
9.55 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I find it somewhat daunting to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, and other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate who are so widely experienced and knowledgeable in the matters we are considering. The complexity of the subject and the solutions have been mentioned by all noble Lords who have spoken. I will not resist the temptation to expand this debate into the wider critical issues as regards the present and future state of the National Health Service. In my opinion the issues that we are debating today are closely related to the basic reasons for this Bill.
I support the general principles of the Bill that are designed to regulate and improve by statute the working hours of junior hospital doctors. Mention has been made of the long-standing professional approaches to the medical ethos. I greatly respect this personal commitment when it is freely given by doctors at all levels. There are vast areas of professional medical conduct that are already subject to statutory regulation. I do not see that the question of hours of work should be omitted. I believe that the adoption of the principle of statutorily regulated hours of work for junior hospital doctors is basic to the achievement of the declared objectives of the national hospital service. These objectives are to ensure the highest possible quality of patient treatment and medical care.
In my opinion the principle of statutorily regulated hours is consistent also with the recognised needs of working conditions which suitably protect the health, safety and quality of life of all junior hospital doctors. I listened with great interest to the very thoughtful speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford. He expressed the opinion that the will is needed to bring about the necessary change. He dealt also with the question of the number of hours of work, which vary from a few hours to much longer periods.
In my opinion, if one junior hospital doctor has to work the hours that have been expressed here, it is worthwhile to go down the line to correct it. No doctor should be put under the stress and strain of the kind that has been suggested. I believe that the figures relate to many who are in this category. I repeat to some extent what has already been said. How can our hospital doctors be expected to provide the highest standards of medical and surgical treatment when all too often their duties involve such long periods

799
without sleep? In such conditions of fatigue doctors on first call have to make decisions vital to the wellbeing, the life and death of patients under their care.
Much has been said in this debate about patient care. It is a matter which is of supreme importance. But what about the quality of life of junior hospital doctors? How can we expect them to be intelligently aware and involved in the cultural, economic and political life of the community when their social life is so drastically restricted by long hours in dealing with human ailments in life in hospital wards? I know that some noble Lords have already told us they came up through the ranks of junior doctors to consultant level. They are acutely aware of the problem and are deeply involved in the social life of our community.
Two matters arise from the text of the Bill which at Second Reading should be clarified. The first relates to the constitutional scope of the Bill, which I believe should embrace the whole of the United Kingdom. The second relates to the practical measures required to implement the statutory regulation of working hours.
As I understand it, the Bill proposes to amend the National Health Service Act 1977. That Act makes provision for the health service for England and Wales only but gives certain powers to the Secretary of State to extend the provisions to Scotland and Northern Ireland. I have been lobbied about the Bill by junior hospital doctors and others directly concerned in Northern Ireland. From the information given to me it is evident that junior hospital doctors in Northern Ireland are subjected to hardships regarding contracted hours of work similar to those in England and Wales. I am given to understand that the position in Scotland is the same.
It is important that I should make reference to the standing of the hospital service in Northern Ireland in case it is thought that I am making derogatory remarks about the general personnel in that service. The people of Northern Ireland arc justifiably proud of the high standards of their health and personal social services. Over the years the services have been quick to adopt new and better methods of treatment and care for victims of disease, illness, accident or social disability. The capacity of the services to cope with new developments and changes demanded of our society is a tribute to the skill and dedication of staff at all levels in our hospital services. Whatever changes may be made for England and Wales, the
800
same measures should be applied to junior hospital doctors in Northern Ireland. I wish also to stress the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford. There is a will at all levels of the medical profession to adopt change.
I should like to turn now to the practical measures required to implement the proposed statutory regulation of working hours. We are dealing with a wide variation of hours and working practices in the different hospitals across the areas, the regions and the districts. It is a complex subject and one which I would not attempt to debate simplistically. In promoting any change we must consider the implications for existing manpower ratios in regard to hospital medical arrangements, the working practices under the consultants "firm" system, the hospital service management relationships and the procedures already being practised at various levels.
In addition, factors such as the maintenance and improvement of the efficiency and effectiveness of the various medical specialties within the national hospital service must be considered. Any change must not bring about a deterioration or a further deterioration in the national hospital service.
We note that in the past eight years numerous attempts have failed to bring about any effective change in the reduction of hours for junior hospital doctors. It is evident that legislation is urgently required to limit the hours worked by junior hospital doctors. If this is so, a code of work practice is also required. While the elements of such a code of work practice could not be effectively framed in a parliamentary debate of this nature, it is important that such a measure should be enshrined in any proposed changes or legislation. It may he that a Select Committee would be the most useful means of bringing forward recommendations that could bring together the measures to implement such changes.
In conclusion, I must say that this Bill, which was so ably promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has generated considerable public interest and indeed concern. The outcome of this evening's debate is keenly awaited, not only by the junior hospital doctors. Therefore I hope that the Government will be earnest and generous in their consideration of the time factor and other factors which made it necessary to bring the Bill into creation. I also hope that we shall have some action that will bring about agreed change. Having said that, I support the Second Reading of the Bill.
10.6 p.m.
Lord Porritt: My Lords, for what seemed to me two very good reasons, I had not originally intended to take part in the debate. First, long before the date of the Second Reading was announced, I had accepted an invitation to a very interesting medico-pharmaceutical occasion which I imagine is now pretty well over. Secondly, and much more to the point, my medical status is now at best that of a Rip van Winkle and at worst that of a Methuselah. Further, whatever I may say will probably be considered miles out of date.
However, as noble Lords can see, I have decided to change my mind on both counts, despite the fact that it is certainly well over 60 years since I could reasonably be called a junior hospital doctor. I have changed my mind following the old cliché that if one cannot change one's mind then one probably does not have a mind to change. So I have changed my mind as regards speaking and also, more importantly, I have changed my mind on the subject under discussion. Therefore my speech is by way of being a pseudo-confession.
I am glad that I changed my mind in regard to speaking because it gives me an opportunity warmly to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, whom I have also known for some time. His was a tour de force in making a non-controversial speech on a controversial subject. But that is typical of him; he can manage the most difficult situations with consummate ease, and believe me, your Lordships have not even begun to experience his repertoire yet— although I hope you will.
However, perhaps I may resume with the main subject. When I first came into contact with the issue of overworked junior doctors I realised that it had very definite importance because questions were being asked all the time and, similarly, receiving no answers all the time. My first reaction, from what I have already said, was simply that of a very grown-up junior hospital doctor of the 'twenties'—you can imagine what that was. However, I wanted to say what I felt at first.
In those faraway days we worked as we were required to work. We worked without remuneration for our board and lodging and we worked for as long as it took. It was a privilege to be involved in emergency work at the hospital— in fact in any work at all—which gave us personal experience and the opportunity of learning from our elders and betters.
Words such as "contract" and "overtime" still make me shudder. Paid holidays, rotas and remuneration did not exist in our vocabulary. We vied with one another to do long stints of work. If at the end of it we were tired, that was a state of which we were rather jealous as regards each other. That makes me think of the extremely good speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Richardson. It moved me because it took me back to those days which showed that there was another side of being a junior hospital doctor.
Those were days where there was a sort of ethos to it; where there was a joy to it; where there was fun to it; and where there was great companionship. Those
802
things do not add up with what we are talking about tonight but they very definitely exist.
In the intervening years, the whole face of medicine has changed dramatically. The present face is just a little stern, materialistic, and businesslike compared with the face of pre-war days, which was kindly, personal, and perhaps almost happy-go-lucky. It was a very different atmosphere.
On more than one occasion, even in your Lordships' House, I have recently been guilty of saying that in the past 30 to 40 years we have developed an entirely new type of doctor, a very good doctor; a well-trained doctor; an efficient doctor; a hard-working doctor; and a doctor conversant with the advances in modern Medicine. But, in view of the circumstances in which he has to work today, his motivation is different from that of his predecessors. His motivation is, to a considerable extent, more material, more technical and more financial. That has nothing to do with his personality; it has to do with his environment. In all fairness one should say that there has also developed a new type of patient with whom the doctor has to deal—a patient who is well aware of his rights and, sadly, not quite so well aware of his responsibilities. It is a case of the chicken and the egg.
Your Lordships well know the causes of that change in medicine in Britain. The first is the advent of the National Health Service, with its complex statutory regulations; its bureaucracy: its financial limitations; and its restrictions. The second, and far more important cause, is the gigantic strides that have been made in technical and scientific knowledge. In other words—I want to make this point because I do not believe that it has been made tonight— the whole question of overworked junior hospital doctors might well be interpreted as yet another manifestation of the exceptional progress that has been achieved in modern medicine. It is another success story. It may be a backward way of looking at it, but it is one way of looking at it. It brings in a little optimism, and we have not had much of that tonight.
It is for those reasons that I have changed my mind. I have talked to a number of the younger doctors over the years. Please, we should not classify senior registrars with junior hospital doctors. At a pinch, one can include registrars, but I would not do so. We are not talking about them. We are talking about genuine juniors, not people with 14 years of training. I have talked to a number of them; I have talked to a number of their more senior colleagues who are still in active practice, and I have also talked to some of the rather more broad-minded of my contemporaries who still exist.
I am now willing to believe that such is the intensity and complexity of today's therapeutic measures, and incidentally the concomitant responsibility that goes with them, that the junior officer today has more stress and more fatigue than we had. Probably mathematically he works more hours, but there was nothing like the organisational arrangements in our day that exist now. If that is so, if he has more stress and fatigue, it is quite right that we should look at

803
some limitation of his hours of work. The extent of that limitation is very much open to discussion. In his excellent and succinct explanation of this little Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned 72 hours. So does the BMA, I think, but this is by no means a set figure. There are many others that could be discussed.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, I had very much hoped that this would not require legislation. It does not seem to me a matter for laying down the law, as we are trying to do tonight. One should remember that these young doctors are essentially on call, I suppose, to the ubiquitous bleep that they take round with them. That may mean very strenuous periods at work; it may also mean periods without excessive work but with loss of sleep. It may also mean periods of relative inactivity, periods of no work. We should remember that.
Furthermore, changes in the type of hospital and the type of work done in that hospital will make an enormous difference to the hours and frequency of work, so that has to be discussed. It is a much more complicated problem than one thinks.
The whole problem seems to be an ideal occasion for getting together the departmental sides and the professional side and trying to agree on an arrangement that suits both sides. I know that this has been mooted for the last eight years and nothing has happened. But if we have shown by tonight's discussion that it is now a really urgent problem, it might be possible to achieve something without the rigmarole of legislation.
There were two further points which I wanted to make but they have been made so I wish just to underline them. One is that the younger doctor in post is not only there for his service but to be trained. I underline "trained". If we are going to keep up the reputation of the British doctor all over the world, this is the stage at which he must receive that training. He must gain more confidence and, we hope, more knowledge and he must certainly gain more experience.
The last point I want to make is quite a simple one. It has been said in different ways by many noble Lords in this discussion. If we are to talk about the hours of work of a junior hospital doctor, we should talk about the hours of work of every doctor in the hospital. The senior levels, the consultants, are automatically bound up in any discussions that we have on junior doctors and we must remember that. For these reasons I have given my support to the Bill in principle, but I feel that it opens up an enormous problem of which we have dealt with only a very small part. I support the Bill but not very enthusiastically I am afraid.
10.20 p.m.
Lord Brain: My Lords, it is late and I shall be as brief as I can because I do not want to give an overdose of the medicine we have already received. The noble Lords, Lord Trafford and Lord Pitt of Hampstead, have made many of the points I have in my notes and I shall not repeat them. I would just emphasise the question of experience through my
804
daughters who are both junior hospital doctors; the need to get the complete co-operation of the team when fixing rotas; and also the need to get the cooperation of the staffing department of the hospital, because it is no use trying to organise a rota if the staffing department says, "You cannot have a locum on this occasion: it is not allowed." It may make all the difference to a really effective rota.
I also support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. I shall make two further points. One is that everybody thinks of the hospital doctor problem as being a problem related to the wards. However, a tremendous amount of the hospital problem relates to clinics, which occur in addition to the ward work; and it is staffing those clinics that very often makes the rotas and allowing time off a difficult matter and much more complicated than might appear to the average person.
The other point is that I support the Bill in principle but a lot of work will need to be done either in Committee or Select Committee. It talks about "required hours of work" but, as has been said, the medical profession does not know about required hours of work: it wants to give service. I shall here pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, that care of the elderly or geriatrics might be thought to be a simple profession. I remember an occasion when one of my daughters was due to leave the hospital for the weekend at 5.30 and she rang at 9 o'clock saying, "I've just left the hospital: I had a difficult case."
It is not easy to rule for difficult cases. I support the Bill. I think it is easier to support it by being brief, and so I shall finish.
10.22 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, speaking towards the end of the list, I shall be brief, albeit anecdotal. For me the wells of memory go back nigh on 20 years to when I became chairman of the Doctors' and Dentists' Pay Review Body. I listened to many witnesses and my noble friend Lord Richardson was one of them. A lot of what I listened to was not directly relevant to my remit. Nevertheless, I naturally formulated my thoughts on what I listened to and I fed them forward via the Office of Manpower Economics in the hope that they would reach the lords and masters of the National Health Service in due course.
Junior doctors were tired, stale and overworked then, as now. Nothing appears to have changed. Morale was at a low ebb then, as now. Oh dear! This is where I came in nearly 20 years ago. There were too few junior doctors because they had every incentive to leave hospital service as soon as they possibly could and go into general practice. The remedy was to declare a minimum number of years' hospital service before they would qualify to enter general practice in the National Health Service.
I thought one might be able to compensate for the temporary reduction in recruitment to general practice by encouraging general practitioners to postpone their retirement for a few years. The effect of course would have been to raise the standard of

805
general practitioners by appropriate registrarships in hospitals. A registrarship should be held in every specialism that on a statistical basis they were bound to encounter in general practice: for example, paediatrics, geriatrics, psychiatrics, cardiac conditions, rheumatic conditions and so on. They are bound to encounter all these, and the better trained they are the better. But the recruitment of registrars was a shambles, with the lack of any form of planning beyond the current post held by a registrar for six months' tenure.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, in private conversation, assures me that a lot of that has in fact taken place, though not necessarily by the means that I advocated. My last suspicion was that firms worked in too watertight compartments, with a floating population of house officers and registrars, so that the firm on a long-term basis consisted of one consultant plus one senior registrar training to be a consultant. I was strongly influenced by the views of the noble Lord, Lord Trafford. We need the will to organise properly. Nothing gets done in this world without some tough, strong, driving individual will behind it.
How then do we achieve it? By legislation? Certainly I shall vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, but I must not allow the noble Lord, Lord Rea, to suppose that a Private Member's Bill launched here as late as this can get on to the statute book without government support in the other place. Unless the government spokesman this evening supports the Bill here and now, it is unlikely to get on to the statute book.
It might be a good vehicle for initiating reference to a Select Committee, but this might not be the occasion on which to move that because the Select Committee bottleneck is caused by a a lack of clerks and rooms. If not legislation, then what else? By what other means are men governed? By stick and carrot: no more merit awards for hospitals where the consultants and the junior doctors do not get together to solve this problem—the job that the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, seeks to assign to them. Stick and carrot; stick and carrot.
If other ranks are demoralised, blame their officers whose first duty it is to raise the morale of the regiment. What incentives are there to join the medical profession at all if the other ranks express public dissatisfaction with their working conditions? That appears to be the view of the noble Lord, Lord Trafford. It is also mine.
10.27 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I must first apologise for inserting myself into this debate unexpectedly at this late hour, and I am sorry to do it. Unfortunately my name was not sent forward through the usual channels due to some oversight and I was unaware of the fact until I arrived in the House this afternoon. One consequence of course is that I find myself in an unusual position on the list for a Bishop. It has been a salutary and I must say stimulating experience to listen to the considerable array of wisdom that has been deployed here this
806
evening on this important subject. I have also had the experience for once of watching my speech quietly disintegrate. But I want to say just a few things briefly, and I shall try to be as quick as I can.
My primary intention was, and still is, to focus on the question of training rather than or safety, which has already been well covered, since the majority of junior doctors are still in some kind of clinical training as well as providing a service. That is a point already made strongly by some of your Lordships. They are the people on whom the future of the health service depends.
It may be helpful to underline this from some of the evidence that I have been gathering in my diocese, which contains four of the best-known London teaching hospitals, and to come at it from the angle of another profession. When you require someone to work exceedingly long hours not only do you impose a physical strain on them which may easily impair their judgment; you also reduce their capacity to learn at other points in the week when they are at the receiving end of specific teaching or involved in other forms of learning.
Someone was giving a talk to a group of young doctors recently on how to break bad news. One fell asleep during the talk, most were obviously on the brink of doing so and one of them said at the end, "Thank you for what should have been a very helpful talk on an important subject. Not everything that doctors do is simply clinical medicine, and I wish we could have taken it in properly bul we are all exhausted".
There appears to be very little provision so far as I can gather for the kind of in-service training that enables people to stand back from the demands of sick people and emergencies for at least a couple of days at a time: that is to say, to concentrate on the task of taking in rather than giving out and to reflect on what they have been doing and the experience they have been gaining. As clergy numbers drop and pressures actually increase, more and more we find the need to do just that.
I noticed that a number of speakers tonight almost appeared to equate training with the amount of time you spend on the wards or in the clinics, rather like a pilot clocking up hours of flying time. I recognise that that is a very important dimension of medical training but I do not think that it can be as simple or as restricted as that.
What has struck me tonight is the frank recognition on the part of many distinguished speakers, led by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, that the reason why the training dimension has remained unsatisfactory is that some of those directly responsible have not yet taken into account the extent of the changes which have taken place over the past 25 or 35 years, nor faced the organisational changes that are needed.
I have been told again and again in the past few weeks that the "We had to do it, so can you" syndrome is still around, and the noble Baroness confirmed that. That cannot be right on safety grounds, given modern drugs and technology. Everyone is agreed on that. It cannot be right either on training grounds.

807
A hospital chaplain talked with four new junior doctors a few weeks ago and found them all frightened by the responsibilities thrust on them and feeling that they were not supported by senior colleagues. I find that worrying. Instead of a training relationship which encourages people to share their difficulties and their doubts in order to become more effective at a deeper level, there is the fear of saying anything which might be interpreted as an inability to cope. I suspect that that is one reason why the present unhappiness and low morale has not surfaced earlier.
It is not a sin, nor is it always a sign of weakness, to say that one cannot cope with life and death decisions without sleep or that one's learning curve is likely to drop out of sight in such circumstances. There is an image of efficiency nowadays which holds up the excessive workaholic for our admiration and expects the rest of us to conform. We have it in the Church too, with God pictured as relentlessly demanding more and more of us. But it is not a good or true image and it can have tragic consequences.
The Bill is about the hours which junior doctors will he allowed to work in future. I have listened with great interest to the difficulties expressed by those who know much more about it than I do, and I have no opinion to offer on that subject. The only comment I should want to make tonight is that I get a little worried when professionals say that this is a matter which is not a fit subject for legislation; "leave it to us". The whole subject was raised seven or eight years ago. According to the statistics the matter is in the same difficult state.
Behind the Bill there is the equally important question of how people work together in a profession and how well newcomers are supported and cared for by their more experienced seniors. Those are, as many have said, questions for the medical profession itself, not for government. I hope that there may be real co-operation, honesty and a willingness in some cases to change attitudes in addressing this very urgent problem together.
10.33 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for having filled the gap. What he had to say was most relevant and provided a useful way of bringing this debate to an end.
First, I want to say how grateful the House is to my noble friend Lord Rea for bringing the issue before us today. He chose a very good time to do so, a time when the issue has been much debated in the press and when there is deep feeling among junior hospital doctors.
I know that, having just completed a successful stay in hospital. This was an issue which was being much debated by those, both patients and doctors, who were at my side. I want to say a word or two about that later because I believe that I owe a great debt of gratitude to the consultants, doctors and nurses and all the others who work in the health service for the fact that I am here and able to make a speech, albeit a poor speech. So I am grateful to my noble friend.
808
Secondly, on behalf of us all, I want to give a very warm welcome to our new arrival, the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield. I have had the privilege of knowing him for a considerable time and admire his talents. I was delighted when he was invited to come to this House.
His first speech was a very warm reminder to us of his many talents. "Many talents" have been the feature of today's debate. An extraordinary combination of medical talents has come before us and given us advice. The vast majority of those who have spoken are or have been doctors. I think in particular of the noble Lords, Lord Porritt, Lord Richardson, Lord Hunter, Lord Trafford and Lord Butterfield, who are among the most distinguished men of our time—or their time, whichever it may be. They have shown tremendous distinction. That is not to underplay the significance of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and my noble friends sitting behind me, both of whom are from the medical profession.
In a sense we are in an interesting situation. The majority of speakers quite clearly favour legislation; only two or three speakers hoped that matters could be settled in some other way. As I have said, the doctors, who are in the majority today, are divided. Some favour the concept of self-regulation which was first advocated in today's debate by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford. There is much weight in what he had to say. There is no need to legislate if there is a will.
I believe that there has been a will for some time, but change has not come about. I do not know whether we should criticise any one section and say that the blame lies on the consultants or the politicians or the administrators. I do not think that it is easy to say who is to blame. But what we know and what the junior hospital doctors know is that change has not happened. We can go back over many years of activity in which initiatives have been taken, but it has not happened.
However, there has been a very important change of attitude. It was an issue in 1978 when I was Secretary of State for Social Services, but the junior doctors were against legislation. We say "junior", but as your Lordships have been reminded, many of them are men and women of great distinction and have years of very considerable experience which is of great value to the health service. I think that sometimes we write them off by using the word "junior". There is tremendous sympathy for them and for the case that they are making today. However, in my time they were absolutely against legislation. The BMA was against legislation and so too was the Hospital Junior Staffs Committee of the BMA. There was hardly any argument put forward by the medical profession.
I was involved in the negotiations about how to put a new price tag on units of medical time, to put a limit on the number of UMTs that could be paid for by the health authority and to set a target for the maximum number of hours that could be worked. It was my impression—and this was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley—that there was a great will and enthusiasm. I thought that we had produced a pattern and that change would come about in 1978, but the next attempt was made in 1981—and the pattern has been repeated every two years between

809
then and now. Each time an attempt has been made to get something done to make sure that doctors do not work the intolerable hours that they are now expected to work.
So we have to ask ourselves how we can deal with this intolerable position in which the doctors find themselves. It is not just an intolerable position for the doctors concerned; it is an intolerable position for society. As we were reminded by the noble Lord. Lord Pitt, we take powers to regulate the hours of many workers. The noble Lord referred in particular to airline pilots. I must say that junior hospital doctors would welcome the kind of pay that is received by airline pilots. Junior hospital doctors work several times as many hours as airline pilots for a fraction of the pay achieved by them. As a result, the attitude of the doctors has been transformed. Of those who have spoken in today's debate, there are those who have changed their attitude, including the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, who said that he had altered his approach.
How do we resolve the problem? I do not think that anyone can say that legislation alone will do so. It is true that eventually it has to be resolved by agreement, by administrative pattern, and by determination between juniors, consultants, the health authorities and the department. After all, the department has been seeking a solution, with such energy as it could put into it over a period of successive governments; so there should be no doubt about its intention.
First, we can give this Bill a Second Reading and, I hope, send it to another place. I am not arguing that the idea of a Select Committee ought not to be considered. Are the Government and Members on all sides of the House prepared to accept the concept of a Select Committee which might be able to report in, let us say, nine months? It could take evidence from all those involved and come up with a solution which legislation could not provide. Legislation simply provides a requirement for a solution to be found. But that is important since other methods have not so far succeeded.
I agree with the view that was taken by the Select Committee in 1981. I was a member of the Social Services Select Committee in another place which recommended in 1981 that,
"The reduction of the doctor's contracted week, initially to a maximum of 80 hours, should be one of Government's top priorities and the existing agreement to achieve this for junior doctors should be enforced. To this end, the Health Departments should study different patterns of shift work and work-sharing between different firms in a district".
I assume that the initiatives that have been taken by the department seek to bring about the same aims that were set out by the Select Committee at that time.
The BMA's hospital junior staffs committee believes that this pattern would be greatly strengthened by legislation. I take that view myself. There is no doubt that legislation would help the situation. The medical practitioners' union also agrees that it is essential a solution be found.
I say that it is essential because there are some very disturbing factors. I have recently come out of hospital. The registrar who was responsible for my
810
health, under the consultant Mr. James, Dr. Andrew Liddle, has prepared a very significant document that I asked him to prepare on the matter as it affected him. I shall not go through the details but he has given me two examples of circumstances in which, after tremendously long hours of work and pressure, he was in a situation where he could have caused loss of life. It was only because of the intervention of someone else that it was possible to see the patient safely through.
There is a great danger that inevitably results from the conditions of work under which doctors labour at the present time. We must remember that junior doctors in the United Kingdom work more than 40 per cent. longer hours than their counterparts in every other EC country except the Republic of Ireland. While United Kingdom juniors average 86 hours a week, in EC countries the average is 60 hours or less. If the problem can be resolved in other countries, it can and must be resolved in Britain. I believe that it is not only bad for the doctors' morale—some of them are leaving and taking their skills to other countries—but it is disturbing for the patients.
In conclusion, the passing of a law will not solve the problem. It must be solved by those in the professions, with the leadership of the department. However, the passing of a law will create a requirement for a solution. I hope that is what will happen. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Rea for having initiated this debate and for giving us the opportunity of passing legislation.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, first, let me humbly say how much I appreciated the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield—more than that, how illuminating I found it. Also I agree with what he said about there being no magic wand. This evening has demonstrated that he is entirely correct in that supposition.
It might be of help to your Lordships if, before outlining the Government's views on the Bill—for that is all that the Government can do—I explained the basis of junior hospital doctors' contracts and gave some background to what has happened about their hours of work over the last few years.
Junior hospital doctors contract for a basic working week of 40 hours. This is usually from Monday to Friday. In order to provide 24-hour cover most juniors additionally have a contractual duty to be on-call for a further number of hours on a rota basis. Average weekly contracted hours for all grades is approximately 83. However, and this is an important point which is not always fully understood, not all this time is spent working. Some will be spent on-call in hospital or at home. Average hours spent actually working are 57, and this varies accordingly to specialty, ranging from 46·4 hours in mental illness and psychiatry to 66·9 hours in general surgery.
The Government have long been concerned at the hours some juniors have to work. No easy answers exist. Government initiatives between 1982 and 1985 were largely instrumental in a reduction in the number of doctors on rotas more onerous than one

811
night and one weekend in three being cut by some 30 per cent.—from 5,000 to 3,500 doctors. Juniors' hours of duty were on average 91.3 in 1976, 87.7 in 1982 and 83 in 1987. Independent surveys show that average hours of work in 1981 were 58·3 but, as I said earlier, by 1985 they were 57. Progress has, therefore, been made but there is still a long way to go.
A departmental survey in 1987 showed that there were a significant number of people working a one in two rota. The problem was considered by a working party consisting of representatives of the health departments, the National Health Service, the Royal colleges, consultants and juniors. Their recommendations led to health authorities being asked, last June, to re-convene district working parties including managers to advise on the elimination, wherever possible, of regular commitments for juniors to be on duty on average more than one in three. Particular reference was made to those first on call in the hard-pressed posts. Authorities are due to report to the department on the final results of this initiative in October. However, because of recent public concern about the long hours worked by some junior doctors and because of the timing of this debate, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health earlier this month called for urgent interim reports from health authorities.
Your Lordships may know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State together with my honourable friend the Minister for Health met representatives of the British Medical Association on 9th January about the problem of juniors' hours. All present at that meeting agreed that it was a complex and long-standing issue to which a solution must be found, although no simple solution is available. It was further agreed that all parties concerned at national, regional and local level must throw their weight behind the initiative launched last June to make it a success. My honourable friend the Minister for Health is to chair shortly a further meeting with the representatives of the BMA to discuss the picture which emerges from the interim reports to which I have already referred and to consider what further action may he required.
Your Lordships will wish to know that by the end of last week interim reports had been received from every regional health authority. The content of these reports will need to be carefully analysed and discussed within the department and with the NHS as well as at the meeting that is to be held with the BMA. Although the progress has been different from region to region, I am pleased to say that all have confirmed that the programme will be completed by the end of September. The reports show that some districts have been able to reduce rota commitments already and plans for further reductions are envisaged. The evidence exists of the willingness of regions to look at the whole problem and to make suggestions for improving the situation. These suggestions will be given close attention. But the reports also confirm what Ministers and representatives of the BMA agreed. This is a problem with no easy answers, but the willingness to tackle it is something that we must build on.
812
I turn now to the Government's views on the Bill that is before us tonight. Noble Lords will be aware, from what I have said so far, of the Government's concern at the excessive hours worked by some junior hospital doctors. The objective of the Bill is to make the hours they should work or be available for work no more than 72 in any one working week, averaged over a one-month period. The Government are committed to a further reduction in junior doctors' hours wherever possible and believe that an average week of duty of 72 hours is a target which we should work towards. But there are a number of reasons why the Government have grave reservations on the effect that statutory limitation on hours proposed in this Bill would produce.
First, the Government's initiative announced last June, with, as I have said, the agreement of all interested parties, has a programme of action which is partly completed and which envisages reports to the department in October this year.
Secondly, the pattern of work of junior hospital doctors cannot—and should not—be determined centrally. Rota commitments can only sensibly be worked out locally. They are influenced by a number of factors: speciality, training needs. the organisation of hospital services locally, the needs of individual consultants and. most important of all, the need to ensure satisfactory medical cover for patients throughout the year.
Thirdly, to implement the Bill with conventional staffing patterns would require a very substantial increase in the number of junior doctors, especially in the senior house officer grade. It is far from clear that we could recruit these extra doctors, at least in the short-term, given that there are already difficulties in filling the existing number of senior house officer posts.
Fourthly, any increase in the number of junior doctors would run entirely counter to our current efforts to reform the hospital staffing structure. The main thrust of Achieving a Balance, published in 1987, in agreement with professional and health authority interests, is to increase the number of consultants while limiting the number of junior doctor posts to the number required to fill future career vacancies. The effect of increasing the number of juniors would be to increase the length of time which juniors spend in training—which is already widely recognised to be excessive—and could mean that some juniors never attain the career post for which their skill and expertise would fit them.
The regrettable fact is that no one has yet come forward with a generally applicable scheme which would enable hours to be reduced but would safeguard career prospects. Various suggestions have been put forward, but they would either require a big increase in junior numbers, or would involve novel patterns of medical care such as shift-working. I am aware that specific innovations of this kind have been proposed and in some cases even implemented successfully, but I do not sense that the profession at large is ready to adopt these on a wide scale. In this connection I was encouraged to see the recent comments of the president of the Royal College of Surgeons; that the solution is not more junior doctors

813
but more consultants. I should like to see the medical profession work through the implications of this remark and bring forward specific proposals for ways in which consultants could help to take over some of junior doctors' existing workload. For the time being, however, I believe it would be irresponsible for the Government to make firm plans for a maximim of 72 hours, however desirable that may be in itself, without a clear and agreed view in the medical profession on how that could be achieved.
To conclude, I repeat that the Government are firmly committed to seeing a further reduction in hours. We wish to see the current initiative work and, as I have said, my honourable friend the Minister for Health will next month be examining progress on this with BMA representatives and discussing with them any alternative action that may be necessary.
I must emphasise that the department is committed to assist with the professions as and when asked. However, as I explained to your Lordships earlier, we are not convinced that statutory limitations and the timetable proposed in the Bill is the practical way to achieve the reductions which we all want.
Finally, a number of noble Lords mentioned a Select Committee. That is not for me but is a matter for the usual channels.
10.55 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I should very much like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken and who have stayed so very late. I have found the contributions from all sides to be of great interest and I should particularly like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, for his very supportive, though of course completely non-controversial, maiden speech.
I welcome the comments and criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, and appreciate many points which he made. I hope that he will be able to put some of his ideas into the form of amendments if we reach a Committee stage. That also applies to many other noble Lords who have put forward suggestions for improving the Bill.
As always, I was very interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, and delighted that he realises that circumstances have changed in the past half century. He spoke of the hard, materialistic doctor of today, but talking to junior doctors I am repeatedly told that the first thing which suffers with exhaustion is the patient. Caring doctors become automatons like the correspondent of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.
I very much welcome the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark who eloquently touched on the more human dimensions of medical care and showed how they elude exhausted doctors.
Referring to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, I am delighted that the Government are working towards a 72-hour limit on contracted working hours for junior doctors. I am also delighted that the department wishes to assist the profession in reaching that end. Of course he pointed out that there has been a reduction in contracted hours over the past decade. However, I am not convinced that that represents the whole truth. For example, what about
814
the possibility of work outside contracted hours? I have evidence that there is more work being done than is demonstrated by the statistics. I also believe that the decision to cut back on the use of agencies to provide locums will inevitably increase the hours worked by some junior doctors and that may not be included in the statistics which the noble Lord has to hand.
I do not believe that there is enough in his remarks to convince me that there will shortly be a significant improvement in the situation. He certainly mentioned that there should be more consultants, but I did not hear any commitment that that was a good idea. However, he put the responsibility for that onto the consultants themselves. I shall read his remarks. but that seemed to me to be what he said. I did not hear any commitment from him to double the increase in consultant numbers, which many authorities to which I have spoken feel is necessary as a permanent solution to the situation.
Referral to a Select Committee was suggested by several noble Lords. I believe that the House as a whole is quite interested in that idea. At this stage I will merely say that I shall take this away and give it very serious thought. If the Bill is given a Second Reading, I shall inquire into the possibility through the usual channels.
I believe that this has been a very successful debate and the time has now come to put the Question to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at eleven o'clock.

  FINGERPRINT REGISTER PROPOSAL
  FINGERPRINT REGISTER PROPOSAL
  SECURITY SERVICES: ALLEGATION
  SECURITY SERVICES: ALLEGATION
  LIFE SENTENCES: JUDICIAL RECOMMENDATIONS
  LIFE SENTENCES: JUDICIAL RECOMMENDATIONS
  LEGAL PROFESSION: GREEN PAPER
  LEGAL PROFESSION: GREEN PAPER
  HUMAN RIGHTS CASES: COSTS
  HUMAN RIGHTS CASES: COSTS