Sitting of 30 January 1989

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

    Energy Conservation
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the percentage of present energy consumption in Greater London which would be saved if all domestic buildings were fitted with the best existing energy conservation equipment.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): Details of domestic energy consumption and potential savings in Greater London are not available. We are continuing to promote energy savings in all domestic buildings.
    Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister seen the recent "Electricity for Life" report published by Sussex university, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and Friends of the Earth, which suggests that for every pound spent on electricity conservation the consumer would save, say, £1·90 annually and we would have 42 kg less emissions of carbon dioxide? Will the Minister look at the report and consider that aspect? In London, we have only one energy efficiency officer—
    2
    clearly an inadequately staffed resource. With substantial investment, we could improve the environment and reduce fuel poverty across our capital city.
    Mr. Morrison: I regret that I have not seen the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Now that he has drawn it to my attention, I will certainly look at it and carefully weigh the arguments. As for the Energy Efficiency Office, the hon. Gentleman is probably aware that more emphasis is being put on localised London officers. That accords with the hon. Gentleman's views and my own.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister agree that he should pay close attention to last Thursday's words of Robert Malpas, currently managing director of BP Oil and chief executive-designate of PowerGen? He said that energy conservation was the great issue of our time and that electricity privatisation was a distraction from it. Does the Minister agree that things have come to a pretty pass when we have to rely on a BP Oil salesman to tell the energy conservation facts of life to Ministers of the Department of Energy?
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Energy Efficiency Office budget is much greater—by a factor of about seven times—than it was when the Labour party was last in Government. It does not come well from him to lecture me on precisely how we should be energy efficient.
    Mr. Malpas' speech has been drawn to my attention and I concur with his views on energy conservation, but not on electricity privatisation being a distraction. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Standing Committee that is currently considering the Electricity Bill, so he will know better than I that some of its clauses relate to energy conservation. In no sense is that a distraction.

    Renewable Energy Sources
    Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of electricity generated in the year 2000 he estimates will come from renewable sources of energy.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): There is great uncertainty about projections for developing technologies such as renewable sources of energy. By the year 2025, wind and tidal barrages, for example, might provide up to 10 per cent. of curent electricity requirements each, if they could be successfully developed and were found to be environmentally acceptable.
    Mr. Fearn: Will the Minister confirm that renewable energy from the Mersey barrage will be included for the north-west? How much energy could come from that source and what progress has been made on the scheme?
    Mr. Spicer: Speaking from memory, 0·5 per cent. of electricity could come from the Mersey barrage. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the Mersey barrage would come under the non-fossil fuel obligation, for instance, which we have laid out as part of our electricity supply privatisation.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Does my hon. Friend agree that 10 per cent. will cut the illusions of those who think renewables can make an immense contribution by the year 2000? Does he agree that, these days, large tranches of power are required not small contributions which often come from environmental developments which can be a disaster?
    Mr. Spicer: The Government are doing a tremendous amount to sponsor research into renewable sources of energy. As I have already said, we have produced a scheme—the non-fossil fuel obligation—whereby renewable energy will be given special treatment. As I said in my main answer, it is difficult to predict exactly how these technologies will develop. That is why, in the foreseeable future, we shall be putting great reliance on the variety offered by nuclear energy.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Does the Minister accept that offshore wave power could make substantial contributions to the national grid by the end of the century? Does he further accept that a substantial body of opinion believes that dirty tricks by nuclear interests in his Department may have contributed to the rundown of offshore wave power research? Can he report on the progress of any discussions following the meeting between Baroness Hooper and my constituent, Professor Stephen Salter, earlier this winter?
    Mr. Spicer: I categorically refute the dirty tricks allegation. No Government have done more for the promotion, development and research into renewable energy than this Government. As the hon. Gentleman knows, all renewable energy sources are reviewed from time to time, and offshore wave power will certainly be reviewed. Large-scale offshore wave power is not one of the sources that we are currently pursuing as hard as the others.
    Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that, for all the calls for increased spending on research into renewable energy, if the technology is not there we could spend two or three times as much money on research and still not bring it any quicker? Does he agree, therefore, that for the foreseeable future the only significant alternative to production from fossil fuels is nuclear power?
    Mr. Spicer: I agree with that, but I must stress again that we are doing more than any other Government have to explore the potential for renewables and to proceed with them where it appears feasible and commercial to do so.

    Electricity Privatisation
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received regarding the protection of consumer interests following privatisation of the electricity industry.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): I continue to receive a number of representations on this topic. The Electricity Consumers Council has welcomed the proposals in the Electricity Bill for protecting consumers' interests.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, despite his smooth words and the sham of competition in the Bill, consumers will still pay dearly for the dogma of privatisation? Why is he not prepared to provide in the Bill for right to supply, not necessarily for credit, to ensure that those living in poverty have a right to heat and light?
    Mr. Parkinson: There is an obligation to supply within the Bill and it is a wider obligation than has ever been placed on the industry before. Previously, if one were beyond 50 yards from a distribution point one could be refused supply. That has gone. We are also making it a right for the low-income user of electricity to have a prepayment meter fitted as an alternative to disconnection. At present that is an option, but in future it will be a right. Prepayment meters have been the real reason why there has been such a substantial fall in the rate of disconnections under this Government.
    Mr. Rost: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the best protection for consumers will be competition in electricity production with the distribution boards shopping around for electricity?
    Mr. Parkinson: I agree with my hon. Friend that it will be a more competitive market for the area boards to buy their electricity and the regulator will be under a duty to regulate the prices of transmission, for both high and low-level distribution systems. Our package plus the package of customer rights adds up to a better deal for the consumer than any ever before.
    Mr. Blair: Consumers will be concerned about how far they will have to underwrite the Government's insistence on building four new nuclear power stations. Since we know even from the authorised version of Mr. Baker's speech that the newly privatised industry will not build those power stations unless "the terms are right", and since we are told in today's papers that the Government are refusing to concede the industry's demands that any cost overruns are to be underwritten by the taxpayer, what will happen if there is deadlock between the industry and the Government? Is the Secretary of State .prepared to contemplate the four new nuclear power stations not being built, which alone would give his negotiating arm strength, or is this just a public posture to be adopted while the Bill goes through the Commons?
    Mr. Parkinson: I remind the hon. Gentleman that Sizewell B is already under construction and will be coming on stream in 1994. An inquiry is being held about

    5
    Hinkley Point C and I have just been informed by the Central Electricity Generating Board that it expects to apply for the other two stations within the next few months. Negotiations between the Government and National Power are progressing well. The hon. Gentleman should not believe what he reads in the newspapers any more than what is in the leaked documents that he seems to love using.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that few things are more irritating for a consumer than to be told that a certain service will come on a specified day at 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock, when the consumer waits in and cancels all professional and family engagements and the service does not turn up? Consumers will be delighted that there is to be a consumer right in the matter in future.
    Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that for the first time consumers will have a statutory right to compensation in the event of failure to meet performance standards.

    British Coal
    Mr. Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he will next meet the chairman of British Coal; and what matters he proposes to discuss.
    Mr. Parkinson:I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.
    Mr. Barron: At the last meeting, did the Secretary of State discuss the problems lacing ex-miners who took redundancy payments between the ages of 50 and 60? Under the Government's restart scheme a 58-year-old ex-miner who cannot find a job might lose his unemployment benefit equivalent which could be paid by the coal board if it so decided. If the Secretary of State did not discuss that, will he do so now and stop the problems throughout the British coal fields where ex-miners, having spent nearly a lifetime working in coal mines, believe that their five loads of coal and other benefits are under threat?
    Mr. Parkinson: I did not discuss that with the chairman of British Coal, but my officials and the Department are having discussions with other Government Departments about the problem. We recognise that the new arrangements have produced new difficulties and we are determined to find a way around them.
    Mr. Williams: When the Minister next meets the chairman of British Coal, will he raise with him the future of the west Wales anthracite field? We have lost Cynheidre colliery and there is serious concern about the mothballing of Carway Fawr drift mine. Those jobs are badly needed in the area and there is a problem caused by competition from Chinese anthracite. In the interest of the balance of payments and future supplies of anthracite, we want an early go-ahead for the Carway Fawr project.
    Mr. Parkinson: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I am aware of the project and the local concern and of the
    6
    shortage of high-grade anthracite reserves in this country. I will bring the hon. Gentleman's points to the attention of the chairman of British Coal.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Coal, will he congratulate him and the east midlands electricity board on deciding that the first mini power station will be in my constituency at Bilsthorpe? That is an environmentally friendly station and shows our commitment to British Coal. That station is in addition to and not a substitute for the coal-fired West Burton power station.
    Mr. Parkinson: I do not wish to dampen my hon. Friend's enthusisam, but I have read about those proposals with interest as well. I know that discussions are taking place between the east midlands electricity board and British Coal, but no proposals have been put to me to date. When they are, I will look at them with great interest.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: When my right hon. Friend next speaks to the chairman of British Coal, will he ask him to think very carefully about the medium and long-term future of Gedling colliery in my constituency which is currently under threat of closure? Is he aware that the colliery has received an enormous amount of recent investment? The paint is hardly dry on a £6 million underground motorway system. The investment has been successful and the pit has seen an enormous increase in productivity and output and has only relatively recently hit severe geological drawbacks. Will he bring all those points to the attention of the chairman of British Coal when he next meets him?
    Mr. Parkinson: I know of my hon. Friend's great concern about Gedling and I will bring those points to the chairman's attention.
    Mr. Eadie: In the many discussions that the right hon. Gentleman may have with the chairman of British Coal, will he raise the apparent breakdown between the south of Scotland electricity board and British Coal concerning the board's take of coal from the deep mine Scottish coal industry? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it ridiculous that this matter should continue and have to be resolved by the court, which will be too late in any case because I believe that the south of Scotland electricity board intends to take no more Scottish deep-mined coal after 31 March and that that industry will, therefore, be obliterated?
    Mr. Parkinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have made my position in this matter clear. I should like to see the two sides reach agreement. Last year, when we appeared to have reached an impasse, the two sides found a way forward, which I earnestly hope they will do again.
    Mr. Gow: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the chairman of British Coal and his colleagues are all in favour of his declared policy of privatisation? Can my right hon. Friend assure us that, when that privatisation comes, those working in the coal industry will be given preferential terms so that they can acquire shares in the industry in which they work?
    Mr. Parkinson: Yes, I can confirm that one of our objectives in privatising the industry will be to give each miner a chance to have a stake in the industry in which he works. I confirm that I have conveyed to British Coal the

    7
    Government's determination to go ahead with privatisation after the next election. We are working together gradually on plans to that end.
    Mr. Patchett: Will the Minister discuss with the chairman of British Coal the number of mines currently going through the review procedure and how many are likely to survive? Is this not in fact a closure programme brought on by the Government's lack of interest in the industry?
    Mr. Parkinson: I would claim that we are showing our lack of interest in a rather strange fashion, as we have put up £6 billion for investment since we came to office, and we have approved investment plans for nearly £600 million per year for the next three years. This Government have made more investment in British Coal, have paid more generous redundancy terms to miners, and have a far better record, even in the business of closures, than any Labour Government.

    Combined Heat and Power
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment has been made of the potential of combined heat and power following privatisation of the electricity industry.
    Mr. Parkinson: A number of published assessments all indicate considerable potential for combined heat and power. Our proposals for privatising the electricity supply industry will for the first time create conditions which will allow combined heat and power schemes to proceed on an equal basis with conventional generation.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people believe that there is a tremendous use for reject heat in myriad different projects? It is likely that that would be best exploited by the private sector with its usual greater imagination.
    Mr. Parkinson: Yes. The Government have shown their commitment to combined heat and power by funding to date 69 studies and giving approval for a further 92 studies. We believe that there is substantial scope for combined heat and power. We believe that we have laid the way open for it to become a successful competitor in supplying electricity.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Secretary of State ensure that any combined heat and power schemes in the Nottinghamshire area are located at the Blidworth, Cotgrave or Gedling pit sites, which are currently under threat? To keep those combined heat and power stations running, will he consider the redundant mineworkers' scheme agreements which, if people are forced back on to restart and not allowed to continue in the scheme, will not be worth the waste paper that they are written on?
    Mr. Parkinson: That was a clever, convoluted question, but I am not quite sure where it got us—nor, I believe, is the hon. Gentleman. Combined heat and power schemes will be placed where they are best able to operate efficiently. I am sure that that is what the hon. Gentleman wanted to hear.

    Waste Burning
    Mr. Norris: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the potential for generating electricity from waste burning.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: There is great uncertainty about projections for renewable sources of energy. We estimate that by the year 2025 up to 4·5 per cent. of current energy requirements might come from biomass if the diverse technologies involved can be successfully developed and applied.
    Mr. Norris: Does my hon. Friend agree that as environmental concerns are rightly at the top of the agenda these days, biomass power generation offers two marvellous possibilities—first, the generation of power without recourse to primary fossil fuel extraction and, secondly, an opportunity to dispose of waste in a way infinitely more environmentally desirable than conventional landfill methods? Will my hon. Friend therefore commit the Department to an even more vigorous study of the ways in which biomass power generation can be enhanced?
    Mr. Spicer: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. We already spend £1·5 million a year on research into biomass and there have been some successful outcomes of that research. I recently visited an example just north of Birmingham, which is planning to produce about 3 MW of electricity from methane.
    Mr. Dalyell: On waste burning, could the Minister, whom I have always found helpful in such matters, call for an urgent report on the situation at Polkemmet and Wilsontown where Dixon's pit is suffering from ever-growing subterranean fires, with the result that sulphur emissions are becoming a major environmental problem throughout central Scotland? The Scottish Office is doing its best, but this is an extremely serious situation.
    Mr. Spicer: I will, of course, look into the matter and see what lies behind it.

    British Nuclear Fuels plc
    Mr. Morley: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels plc; and what matters they discussed.
    Mr. Parkinson: I last met Mr. Harding on 23 January when we discussed a range of matters concerning British Nuclear Fuels plc.
    Mr. Morley: Will the Secretary of State pass on to the chairman the relief of the people of Humberside that neither the Killingholme site, nor any site on Humberside, was chosen for the particular diposal site? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that British Nuclear Fuels would rather have gone for a site on Teesside instead of the one chosen at Sellafield? Would the right hon. Gentleman care to speculate on why that site was chosen?
    Mr. Parkinson: At the moment I hear a lot of rumours about what the Nuclear Industry Radioactivity Waste Executive will say, but it has not yet made its recommendations about the deep site. I do not know where it will recommend for that site and I do not want to add to the speculation, but I look forward to receiving its report.
    Mr. Jack: During his discussions with the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels, did my right hon. Friend discuss the economics and feasibility of the proposition for smaller nuclear reactors and the contribution that they may make to our future power supplies?
    Mr. Parkinson: I did not discuss that with the chairman, but I have noted with interest the agreement between Rolls-Royce and the Atomic Energy Authority to investigate the possibilities for smaller nuclear generators.
    Mr. Salmond: During the discussions did the Secretary of State and the chairman discuss the fierce resistance in Scotland to any prospect of a Scottish site being used as a nuclear dump? Will the Secretary of State tell us what representations he has received against Caithness, in particular, being used as a nuclear dump?
    Mr. Parkinson: I have received very few, but I suspect that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has received rather more. I must point out that at present this is a matter not for the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels, but for Nirex. It is the job of Nirex to come forward with recommendations and, when it does, the Government will take a decision.

    Renewable Energy Generators
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received proposing that, after privatisation of electricity, all smaller hydro-electric wind or other renewable energy generators will have the right to supply into the grid as they have at present, and at a price negotiated on a cost plus basis.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: There have been a number of informal representations. Purchases by distribution companies of electricity generated from renewable sources such as wind and hydro will contribute to their non-fossil obligation. We shall be setting the obligation to accommodate renewable projects.
    Mr. Speller: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, whatever the obligation is, it will provide a level playing field for the other non-fossil fuels? Is my hon. Friend aware that the general feeling among those connected with renewable sources of energy is that, as with research money in the past, future obligations will be tilted towards nuclear power and away from the small private generators?
    Mr. Spicer: In my first answer to my hon. Friend, I specifically said that the obligation would be set at a level such as to accommodate renewable projects. I hope that that directly answers my hon. Friend's worries about this matter.

    Flue Gas Desulphurisation
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the next approvals for flue gas desulphurisation process equipment to be fitted to Central Electricity Generating Board power stations.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: I understand that the CEGB and its successors will be making a full contribution towards meeting the United Kingdom's obligation of a 60 per cent. reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions, on 1980 levels, by
    10
    the year 2003. My right hon. Friend gave his consent to the Drax application last August and I expect further applications to follow as soon as possible.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister recall the terrible smog problems during the 1940s and 1950s and that the Government decided on a national effort to bring in smokeless fuels? Why can the present Government not show the same enthusiasm to solve the problems of the so-called clean fuel electricity by sorting out the problems of nuclear waste and the acid rain caused by the emissions from power stations? All that they seem to do is to drag their feet and be pushed along by the EC. If they do anything at all it is merely to manipulate the price difference between nuclear and coal produced electricity.
    Mr. Spicer: I remember very well that the clean air legislation about which the hon. Gentleman speaks was passed in 1956 under a Conservative Government. I am sure that my hon. Friends also remember that. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to suphur dioxide and carbon dioxide emissions. They form one of the reasons why we have signed an agreement under which there will be a 60 per cent. reduction in 1980 levels by 2003. That is why we shall set levels of emission for each of the companies in the private sector. Those levels will be such that the obligations are met and the costs of the emission controls will be spread over all the plants. We are aware of the problems that the hon. Gentleman mentions and we are implementing our obligations in the matter faster than any Government have ever done.
    Dr. Michael Clark: When the next round of approvals for flue gas desulphurisation comes about, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that British chemical engineering contractors are keen to undertake this task, not only to provide more work for their work force but further to enhance their reputation abroad so that they may export more and improve the balance of payments to which chemical engineering already contributes substantially?
    Mr. Spicer: The placing of orders for equipment will of course, be a matter for the industry, and particularly for firms in the private sector. I am sure that people in the industry will have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways ahead on environmental issues is to continue to fund the experimental stage of the fluidised bed? Does he agree that it would be wrong to lose this simply because a top-up fund is not available and that it should come into commercial use?
    Mr. Spicer: I understand that there is some commercial interest in the topping cycle. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the chairman of British Coal and the Department are in touch with each other to see what, if anything, can be done to further this technology.

    Sizewell B
    Mr. Ground: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of contracts in the Sizewell B development will be placed with British firms; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Parkinson: The placing of contracts is a commercial matter for the CEGB. It advises me that about

    11
    90 per cent. by value of the project contracts for the Sizewell B PWR are expected to be placed with firms in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Ground: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a very high figure and shows that the benefits of the Sizewell B development will be felt not only in the electricity industry but throughout British industry?
    Mr. Parkinson: Yes. The programme for modernising and improving the electricity supply industry—both the generation and the distribution of electricity—will be a source of valuable business for British industry in the years ahead.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the contracts that are going out for the Sizewell B development contain any provision for air monitoring of nuclear fallout? If not, can he explain why measurements in my constituency over the weekend show a fallout of 40 times the Government's levels? There is considerable doubt about whether air monitoring is effective.
    Mr. Parkinson: I cannot tell my hon. Friend whether these contracts contain provisions for air monitoring. I shall look into the point that he raises and shall be in touch with him about it.

    Piper Alpha Disaster
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if the safety recommendations made by the inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster will be fully implemented; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has already informed Parliament that if the public inquiry can recommend improvements to the present safety regime, these will be accepted. I cannot speculate on the findings of the public inquiry.
    Mr. Salmond: I thank the Minister for that assurance, but I should like to test its seriousness. Is the Minister aware that the National Union of Civil and Public Servants, the coastguard union, is submitting evidence to the Piper Alpha inquiry to the effect that the Peterhead coastguard station is an essential part of marine safety in the north-east of Scotland, and gives the flexibility to respond to major incidents? Is he aware that the Department of Transport is proposing to close that station, effectively prejudging the results of the inquiry and undermining the assurances that the Minister has just given? Will he undertake to contact the Department of Transport and his colleagues there to argue that any closure decision affecting Peterhead should be postponed until after the Piper Alpha public inquiry, and so validate the assurance that he has given us?
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member has reasonably raised an important point. I assure him that I shall have talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on that matter.
    Mr. Doran: This morning, I had meetings with the widows and the survivors of the Piper Alpha tragedy, and they raised with me a matter that is of major concern to them, which is the recovery of items from the sea bed. I know that this matter has previously been raised with the Minister in the House, but it is of continuing concern to
    12
    these people. Has the Department any plans, or is it its intention, to undertake an internal investigation into the costs of raising the equipment that lies on the sea bed, and which will provide vital evidence for the inquiry in Aberdeen, and perhaps lead to the recovery of more bodies?
    Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend gave consent to the abandonment of the platform. The toppling has not taken place, and it would be premature to make any judgment until we have seen how the platform topples, albeit that the purpose of the toppling is that it should fall out from the debris so as to enable investigators to look at the debris in more safety. At this stage, I cannot give any undertaking in reply to his question, but I note what he says.

    West Burton Power Station
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received recently concerning the proposed West Burton coal-fired power station; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: My Department has received nearly 30 representations about West Burton B from organisations and individual members of the public. I understand that discussions are continuing between the relevant local planning authorities and the CEGB about some matters concerning the proposed construction of the station. My officials have urged them to resolve the outstanding matters as soon as possible so that my right hon. Friend can proceed with his consideration of the CEGB's application.
    Mr. Haynes: That Minister there will realise that something was said on the Floor of the House about having a coal-fired power station in Nottinghamshire at West Burton, but when we got upstairs in Committee, the Secretary of State, dodging his responsibilities, went in a different direction. I want a straight answer to a straight question. Are we going to have that station at West Burton, yes or no?
    Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman is obviously on form today. The straight answer to him is that my right hon. Friend, when he receives an application, has a quasi-judicial role in determining first whether there should be an inquiry and secondly what the decision should be. We have to wait for the CEGB or its successors to come up with an application.
    In the case of West Burton, of the 43 conditions between local authorities and the CEGB, only one remains outstanding. We hope that these matters will be resolved so that we can determine the outcome of the application.
    Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you read Hansard of the Second Reading of the Electricity Bill, you will see that he promised—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise this on an Adjournment debate, it would be a different matter.

    Energy Efficiency Office
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the current remit of the Energy Efficiency Office.
    Mr. Cecil Parkinson: The Energy Efficiency Office promotes efficiency in the use of energy in buildings and industrial processes, by tackling market barriers and stimulating the market where it is slow to react.
    Mr. Taylor: Will the Minister explain how cutting the budget of the Energy Efficiency Office by almost half fits in with the statement by the Prime Minister to the Royal Society that energy conservation is crucial to tackling the greenhouse effect?
    Mr. Parkinson: The Government have decided to stop funding demonstration projects, because we already have enough, stop subsidising surveys, because hundreds of them have been done, stop general advertising and start to focus its budget much more on specific groups and areas and on spreading best practice. There is no conflict between the news that we are cutting expenditure in certain areas and the fact that we are still seriously promoting energy efficiency.
    Mr. Rost: Will the Energy Efficiency Office organise the programme that my right hon. Friend recently announced for setting a good example in the public sector with cost-effective energy efficiency investment?
    Mr. Parkinson: As my hon. Friend points out, the public sector is a major spender. A programme was inaugurated two years ago. It needs a further substantial boost, which it will receive in the weeks and months ahead, and the plans are currently being drawn up.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Church House
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what has been the level of abortive expenditure at the Millbank offices consequent upon the decision of the synod not to vacate Church house.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): As a result of the decision of the general synod, the works at Millbank, which were well advanced at this time and which were specially designed to meet the needs of the general synod, have had to be replanned to make the space suitable for letting commercially. The cost of the abortive works involved will, on the present professional advice, be around £1·25 million.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend advise the House of the cost to the general synod of this decision? Does he agree that this rather expensive decision reflects a strange order of priorities? Would not the general synod be advised to consider the use of the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre?
    Mr. Alison: The general synod will, in addition, have to pass on to the dioceses of the Church of England an annual bill of about £¾ million to pay a new rent liability at Church house which would have been offset if it had moved to Millbank. That is the equivalent cost of maintaining about 25 parish churches in action for a year. Against that background, I am convinced that the general synod reached an unwise decision, at least on cost-benefit grounds. The availability of the Queen Elizabeth II
    14
    conference centre would certainly have been one of the genuine and acceptable options available, if it had moved to Millbank.
    Mr. Gow: What injury would be done to Church or state if the general synod ceased to exist?
    Mr. Alison: So far as the state is concerned, we have a neutral view of the existence and prospects for the general synod. If the link between Church and state were severed, it would be entirely up to the Church of England to determine whether it were well served by the continuation of the general synod at Westminster.

    Clergymen
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many clergymen were dismissed for failing to work hard enough in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alison: This is not a matter for the commissioners. However, I understand that no central records are kept of the reasons for clergy leaving their posts.
    Mr. Greenway: Bearing in mind that my right hon. Friend and those whom he represents are responsible for the pay of bishops and clergy, is he satisfied that all bishops and clergy are working hard enough on legitimate matters? Will he bear in mind the recent harbouring of an illegal immigrant by a clergyman and agree that any member of the clergy or bishop who emulates that.example of encouraging illegality should not remain in his post?
    Mr. Alison: I note my hon. Friend's comments. I am quite sure that all Anglican clergy, indeed all Anglican diocesan bishops, will want to heed the advice given by the two archbishops that they should not aid or abet any individual or group who seeks to break the law.
    Mr. Winnick: Leaving aside how it can be decided whether clergymen are working hard enough, would not a clergyman looking into the Chamber now and finding fewer than 50 hon. Members—five of them Ministers and three PPSs—present out of 650 conclude that we are not in a position to give lectures on the subject?
    Mr. Alison: There may be very few people in the House at any one time, but very hard-working clergymen often find that there are very few parishioners in the pews. I do not think that that reflects on the amount of time and effort that a clergyman puts into preparing his sermon, or that Ministers put into replying to a thin House.

    Administrative Offices
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about the provision of administrative offices by the Church authorities.
    Mr. Alison: The Church Commissioners and the general synod will, for the foreseeable future, remain in their present office premises. The Church of England pensions board will be joining the Church Commissioners at their Millbank location in May this year.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend suggest to the Church Commissioners that instead of shuffling about in

    15
    expensive west end offices they should show real faith in the inner cities by selling both Church house and Millbank for over £50 million, and investing the proceeds in a move to an area of high unemployment such as my constituency?
    Mr. Alison: The trouble is that if we took that line we could have as many as 650 parliamentary colleagues bidding for the relocation of the Church Commissioners' premises. It might be more politic for us to remain where we are.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    National Audit Office
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how much money has been expended by the National Audit Office on audit of the books and records of (a) the banana trade advisory committee, (b) the Black Country limestone advisory panel, (c) Government hospitality fund advisory committee for the purchase of wine, (d) the Marshall aid commemoration commission, (e) Red Sea Lights Company Ltd., (f) persons hearing estate agents appeals and (g) the wine standards board of the Vintners Company, over the most recent period for which figures are available.
    Sir Peter Hordern (The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): Although the Commission is responsible under the National Audit Act for considering the estimates of the National Audit Office submitted by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the cost of particular audits that he carries out under his statutory duties is a matter for him. However, he has informed me that, of the bodies mentioned in my hon. Friend's question, he audits only the accounts of the Marshall aid commemoration commission. The cost of the audit of the 1986–87 account was £1,600.
    Mr. Field: Does my hon. Friend not find it extraordinary that the Comptroller and Auditor General should be responsible for the auditing of such minor bodies, particularly the Marshall aid commemoration commission? Would it not be better if he were left, on behalf of Parliament, to concentrate on the really large audits, and private firms of auditors were responsible for such quangos?
    Sir Peter Hordern: There is much in what my hon. Friend says. Of the bodies that he mentioned, however, only one is audited by the National Audit Office, and in that instance the full cost of the audit was recovered from the Marshall aid commemoration commission.

    Commission Meetings
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the Public Accounts Commission last met; and what topics were discussed.
    Sir Peter Hordern: The Commission last met on Tuesday 6 December, when the main business was consideration of proposed estimates for 1989–90 for both the National Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Audit Office.
    Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the potential deterioration in staffing levels in the Northern Ireland Audit Office? Will he undertake to write to the Comptroller and Auditor-General asking him to assess the staffing level statistics, and will he ask whether people who leave are interviewed to discover why they are leaving and whether those who return are interviewed to discover whether the career pattern in the office is sufficient to retain them in the long term?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I will certainly write to the Comptroller and Auditor-General as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I should say that although there was indeed a staffing problem in the Northern Ireland Audit Office some time ago, the position has improved. When the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and I visited the office, along with one or two other hon. Members, we were told that there had been a distinct improvement in recruiting, which we hope will continue.
    Mr. Gow: Have my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) considered the remuneration of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland? If so, what conclusion has been reached?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that although we have indeed considered the remuneration of the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General and have made a proposal, it has, alas, fallen on deaf ears within the Government. We shall have to return to the matter in due course.

    National Audit Office
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission whether the Public Accounts Commission has recently discussed the cost implications of moving the headquarters of the National Audit Office to the north of England.
    Sir Peter Hordern: As I told my hon. Friend on 23 May last year, the costs of the London headquarters buildings have been carefully considered in the past, both by the Committee of Public Accounts and the Commission. The National Audit Office employs 20 per cent. of its staff outside London. There, have, however, been no recent changes in the location of Government Departments. The principal work of the National Audit Office remains at the London offices of the Government Departments and other bodies it is required to audit.
    Mr. Favell: Does my hon. Friend agree that, with the drive from many Ministers to relocate in the north and with the expense of employing clerical labour in London, growing, it is time for the National Audit Office to up anchor and leave its office in Victoria?
    Sir Peter Hordern: My hon. Friend's case would be a good one if it were not for the fact that so many Government Departments are still in London. The National Audit Office has to audit the London offices of the Government Departments. As, when and if Government offices are located in different parts of the country, there will be a good case for the National Audit Office to do likewise.

  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    House Passes
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement about the number of passes to the House currently in issue.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): On 19 January 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, a total of 9,976 photo-identity passes, giving access to all or part of the Palace of Westminster, were in issue.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in view of the large number of passes currently in issue, it would be feasible to issue 70 or so passes so that all Members of the European Parliament, who are not currently eligible for a pass, could receive one, which would improve co-operation?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not anticipate the debate that will take place tonight.
    Mr. Wakeham: As you rightly say, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend raised a matter that, if you should select a certain amendment, will be right for debate this evening. As my hon. Friend knows, I have considerable sympathy for the point he makes.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Leader of the House tell us how many of the 9,000-plus passes are category 30 passes for lobbyists? Does he take the view—this is not dealt with in the report—that their number should be reduced?
    Mr. Wakeham: I do not want to anticipate tonight's debate, but lobbyists are partly dealt with in the report and we had best wait for the relevant debate.

    House of Commons Kiosk
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council what were the takings of the House of Commons kiosk in (a) the four weeks up to Christmas 1988 and (b) the 12 months up to Christmas; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wakeham: Kiosk takings for the four-weeks period to Christmas 1988 amounted to £193,249·69 and the figure for the 12-month period to Christmas was £588,007·41. Both amounts include VAT.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate all concerned on those remarkable figures? Will he accept that most items sold at the kiosk are of a fattening nature and add to the weight of hon. Members, making many, including myself, overweight? A good use of the profits would be to build a swimming pool within the precincts of Parliament to enable hon. Members to help reduce their weight.
    Mr. Wakeham: I usually agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend, but if he is overweight there are ways of reducing weight other than our building a swimming pool. He would have to take up the building of a pool with the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Leader of the House dispel rumours that are going round that the kiosk is being
    18
    fattened up for privatisation? If there are profits to be made, will the Government look more kindly, not towards providing swimming pools and all the rest, but to giving the profits to the staff who work in the kiosk and elsewhere?
    Mr. Wakeham: What is done with the profits is a matter not for me but for the House of Commons Commission. The profits of the Catering Department are substantially used to assist with capital projects and to improve the services of the House. I note the hon. Gentleman's point.

    General Medical Council
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Lord President of the Council when he next expects to meet the chairman of the General Medical Council; and what items he expects to discuss.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have no plans for such a meeting and, therefore, the second part of the question does lot arise.
    Q.58 Mr. Spearing: If the Lord President does see the chairman of the GMC, will he draw his attention to statutory instrument No. 2255/88, which the Council of which the right hon. Gentleman is President has recently issued on the new rules—the first for eight years—of the preliminary proceedings committee and professional conduct committee of the GMC? Will he tell the chairman that there is considerable concern on both sides of the House, for good reason, about the proceedings of both the committees? Given that fact, does he think that it would be appropriate that any prayer against the statutory instrument should be debated on the Floor of the House?
    Mr. Wakeham: I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's remarks to those whose concern they are. I remind him and the House, however, that the responsibility of the Lord President and the Privy Council is limited to approving, with or without modification, disciplinary procedures that are proposed by the GMC. New rules were approved on 21 December, and the Privy Council has no standing until such rules are made and submitted to it. The rules are currently being examined by a working party that was established by the GMC. The report of that working party will serve as a proper basis for discussion when it is available.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a tragic case that occurred in my constituency brought to my attention a number of cases of great concern and suffering throughout the country over the disciplinary arrangements for doctors? Will he convey that information to the chairman of the GMC when he next sees him? Is he aware that I would support the call for a debate on this important subject? The doctors cannot have it all their own way.
    Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern, and I know the case to which he refers. I shall refer his comments to the GMC. I must repeat that my task, and that of the Privy Council, is limited to considering the rules that it puts before us.
    Mr. Dobson Will the Lord President arrange to meet the chairman of the GMC urgently to express to him the abhorrence that is felt throughout the country at the idea of buying and selling human organs? Will he say that even under this Government there are limits to the introduction

    19
    of commercialisation into medicine? Will he remind him and those who are proposing the implementation of the idea that at least Burke and Hare, the body snatchers, waited until people were dead?
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is being less than his usual fair self. He knows well that I do not have any responsibility in these matters. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has responsibility, and action has already been taken, including the calling for reports. The health authority is already examining the matter

    Scottish Affairs Committee
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Lord President of the Council what further discussions he intends to have on the setting up of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
    Mr. Wakeham: I shall give the hon. Member the answer that I would have given to the hon. Members for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) had they been present in the Chamber.
    I refer the hon. Member to what I said on 19 January during business questions in reply to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I am not very hopeful about this matter, at least not in the immediate future, but I am having a meeting shortly with some of his hon. Friends to discuss the position and to see whether there is any scope for progress.
    Mr. Foulkes: I am most grateful to the Lord President. I shall pass on his answer. Does he agree with me, however, that it is extremely regrettable that a Committee of this place that should be set up has not been, and that the Scottish Office is the only Department of state that does not receive the scrutiny of a Select Committee? This is all because of what appears until now to have been the reluctance of the limited number of Scottish Conservative
    20
    Back Benchers to serve on the Committee. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been reports that in certain circumstances Scottish Conservative Back Benchers would now be willing to serve on such a Committee? In the light of that, will he renew and intensify his discussions with all parties concerned to ensure that the Committee becomes active and involved as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Scottish Office is still subject to a fair amount of scrutiny by various Select Committees. I accept that that is not as good as a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, and I regret as much as the hon. Gentleman does the fact that we were unable to set one up. But I understand the reasons for that, and I and the House have accepted those reasons.
    As I told the hon. Gentleman—I am not sure whether he is encouraging or discouraging me—I propose next to talk to two of his senior colleagues who have some proposals to put to me. I believe that that is the sensible thing to do. I shall try to keep the atmosphere calm—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, too—and we shall see whether there is a basis for proceeding.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is time for thinking through the problem and understanding the difficulties that the Committee of Selection had? The Committee of Selection reflected, properly, the facts as they were. What is important is how we arrived at that position. We cannot find a solution to the problem until we examine carefully how the House arrived at that position. More important, it must be seen in the light of all the activities of the House as they affect the unitary Parliament and the Union.
    Mr. Wakeham: As is often the case, my hon. Friend has made a wise contribution to this discussion. I shall reflect on all those points.

Wandsworth Prison
3.31 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the dispute at Wandsworth Prison.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): At 7.30 am yesterday about 100 uniformed staff at Her Majesty's prison Wandsworth went on strike. Fourteen uniformed staff worked normally. At about 9.30 am, under contingency plans, 60 staff in managerial grades from around the prison service were deployed in Wandsworth to maintain order and prison routines. There were inevitable delays and arrangements could not be made for prisoners to take exercise, but meals were served and visits took place normally.
This morning, at 7 o'clock, 197 police officers went into Wandsworth to assist the governor and to work alongside prison staff. During the normal working week many more staff are needed than for the Sunday routine. Although 34 uniformed prison staff are working normally today, peace and order could not have been maintained in the prison without the use of police officers.
Naturally these events led to heightened tension in the prison and there have been one or two incidents, but loyal prison staff and the police have managed to keep the prison running as near normally as possible.
Since last November prison officers at Wandsworth have been refusing to take a full number of prisoners. As a result, about 50 prisoners have had to be kept unnecessarily in police cells. Talks at national, regional and local levels have taken place over many months in an effort to resolve the dispute. The new working systems introduced yesterday are intended to make more effective use of staff resources and contain no unusual or threatening features. The action of the POA branch at Wandsworth in going on strike is completely unjustified. I call on the officers to go back to work under the governor's authority forthwith.
Mr. Hattersley: Will the Under-Secretary of State confirm that the action taken this morning by the new governor at Wandsworth prison has imperilled industrial relations throughout the prison service? Does he realise that his statement shows no recognition of the fact that the Prison Officers Association has now suspended the ballot on the fresh start agreement, acceptance of which it had previously recommended? How does he justify an action in a single prison that jeopardises the era of peace within the entire prison service which the Home Secretary claimed to be absolutely necessary for the service's success?
Secondly, will the Under-Secretary of State confirm, putting aside the bogus figures that he has already offered the House, that Wandsworth has an official complement of 1,259 prisoners, but that yesterday 1,505 prisoners were held there? Is not the insistence on 50 additional prisoners on top of the normal complement wholly unreasonable in terms of good management of the service?
Thirdly, what is the Minister's comment on the attitude of the Police Federation, which described the use of 197 of its members as a wholly disastrous decision by the Government, since its members are neither equipped nor prepared to act as prison officers?
22
Finally, does the Under-Secretary recall that, in December, the Home Secretary boasted that prisoners were no longer being held in police cells in London? That fact held good for a single day—the day on which he made the boast. Does that not provide the most vivid illustration of the causes of the crisis in the prison service? As is so often the case, the Home Secretary is more interested in the illusion of action than in genuine reform.
Mr. Hogg: As is usually the case, the remarks of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) have not added to his reputation.
The facts are as follows. In October last year, there was an agreement between the prison officers at Wandsworth and the Home Office whereby the Home Office agreed to a manpower review in return for the prison officers agreeing to admit 1,555 prisoners. The Home Office delivered its part of the bargain and the manpower team went in.
On 11 November 1988, the prison officers went back on their part of the deal and imposed the limit of 1,505 prisoners in the prison. The manpower review was delivered on 22 November, with the date of the implementation of the new shift being 15 January 1989. Thereafter, there were considerable negotiations We put back the implementation date by two weeks to allow for further discussions.
On 26 January 1989, there was a further meeting at a senior level where we offered to put back the implementation of the new shift by a further two weeks in return for the prison officers agreeing to admit 1,555 prisoners—as they had agreed to do in October. That proposal was not attractive to the prison officers and they therefore declined.
It is no good the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook grumbling about the number of people in police cells and then grumbling when we take action to reduce the pressure on police cells. That does him no credit.
Mr. John Wheeler: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem in Wandsworth and elsewhere in the prison system has continued for some time, notwithstanding the fact that prison officers are extremely well paid and have excellent conditions of service? Will my hon. Friend continue with the policy of negotiation to find a solution? Nevertheless, does he agree that it will eventually be necessary to de-unionise a service of the Crown?
Mr. Hogg: We certainly intend to stand behind the governor in his attempts to ensure that Wandsworth prison operates as efficiently and effectively as possible. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I suspect that most prison officers in other prisons will be extremely unhappy about what is happening in Wandsworth, because they are doing exactly what we are asking the prison officers at Wandsworth to do—neither more nor less.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is the Under-Secretary aware that, although the crisis has arisen in part because of the Government's policy on prisons and the overcrowding there, the prison officers' action seems highly irresponsible and that it is quite unacceptable for prison officers to stand at the gates of a prison jeering at the police as they seek to maintain order in a prison where order is close to breaking down? Does he

23
also agree that the pressure on the Prison Officers Association to take action from a handful of extremists in Wandsworth is also unacceptable? I hope that the Government will not accept the argument of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that if the fresh start initiative is in peril it is entirely because of the Government.
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. It is wrong that a disciplined, uniformed service of the Crown should behave in such a way. Prison officers throughout the country will be ashamed of what is happening in Wandsworth. I and, I suspect, other prison officers throughout the country call on the prison officers at Wandsworth to stop the dispute and to go back to work.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my hon. Friend congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on completely changing his policy once again? Will he confirm that the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the last Labour Government who brought in the troops to stop the firemen's strike, which makes his complaints about strike breaking sick and hypocritical?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely clearly. There is the further criticism that I have already made—it is no good the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook criticising us for the numbers held in police cells and complaining again when we take action to reduce the numbers. That ambivalent attitude is unworthy of him.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Given the situation that has arisen—I understand the problems that arise in prisons—what is the best thing to do now to bring the two sides together and end the dispute other than telling people to give in?
Mr. Hogg: I am glad to be able to tell the House that tomorrow afternoon, at the request of members of the national executive council of the Prison Officers Association, there will be a meeting between them and senior management at the Home Office. However, the Home Office is standing firmly behind the governor in his determination to manage the prison effectively and efficiently. I call upon the officers at Wandsworth to stop the action, which is highly damaging to the prison and to their reputations.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the action taken by the governor at Wandsworth has been taken only after protracted negotiations with the warders at Wandsworth? Will he also confirm that, at one stage, the implementation of the rota system was postponed for two weeks so that agreement could be reached between the prison officers and the governor of the prison?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is wholly right. The implementation date was originally fixed for 15 January but was postponed to allow for further discussion. At the end of last week, we made a further offer that, if the officers accepted 1,555 prisoners, which is what they agreed to in October, we would put back the implementation for a further two weeks. I am afraid that the prison officers felt unable to accept that generous suggestion.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman must know—if he does not, he should not be in his job—that this situation is not applicable just to Wandsworth and that overcrowding has been a problem in the prison service for many years for both prison officers and inmates. Is it not clear that we should look at the problem rather than call people names and suggest that they are stupid or silly because they have taken action?
The hon. Gentleman has helped the position somewhat by saying that the Home Office is prepared to meet the national executive of the Prison Officers Asociation, but why did he not say that from the beginning? The answer is to talk to the Prison Officers Association, not call people names. There are real problems in the service.
Mr. Hogg: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not do his homework before getting to his feet. Yes, we do have a problem with overcrowding, which is precisely why we are creating 25,000 new places by the mid-1990s, as contrasted with 1979. That is a remarkable achievement. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the dispute at Wandsworth is common to the rest of the prison service is nonsense because what is happening at Wandsworth is peculiar to Wandsworth. The officers at Wandsworth are being asked to do no more than that which is being done by most of their colleagues in other prisons.
Mr. Robert Key: No one doubts the skill and professionalism of the vast majority of prison warders, nor does anyone misunderstand the frustration of the police officers upon whose shoulders has fallen the task of looking after prisoners in police cells when they should never be there. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although it is time to talk and to listen, it is also time to be tough when it comes to coping with the tiny minority of warders who have held the rest of the prison service to ransom, which is inexcusable at a time when the Government are having some success in cutting crime rates?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is wholly right to imply that it is the business of a Government to back a governor who is doing his job properly and efficiently. We are in the business of doing that, and we propose to do just that.
Mr. Martin Flannery: It is sad that the mentality behind this problem is such that one hon. Member used the old-fashioned word "warders". In his eagerness to condemn my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), the Minister will not admit that anything is wrong, he did not mention that there would be a meeting. There is a crisis in all our prisons, not just in Wandsworth. I am a member of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts. For nine years, that Committee has been releasing reports on prison education. Prison education has been cut to the bone and nothing is ever done about it, even though prisoners are asking for education facilities. The Conservative mentality does not want to solve the problem because it costs money to do so. The Government will not admit that prisons are overcrowded and that the crisis is endemic.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is reinforcing the point that I have made about him in the past—he does not know what he is talking about. The plain fact is that the prisons are not in crisis and things are much better than they were. I have already made the point that, by the mid-1990s, we will have created about 25,000 new places, which will

25
substantially reduce overcrowding. We have introduced fresh start, which has enormously enhanced the position of prison officers. I am glad to say that we are working most effectively on enhancing regimes. Conditions in prison are substantially improving.
Mr. Tony Favell: Will my hon. Friend stand firm on the matter? To people such as myself who have made professional visits to gaols over the past 25 years, it is quite obvious that many officers are as bloody-minded as the people whom they guard and that their rigid working practices have made prisons more miserable than they need to be. Many inmates are kept in their cells 23 hours a day. They are kept behind closed doors because of the closed minds of those who guard them.
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has robustly put his point. In October last year, prison officers at Wandsworth agreed to admit 1,555 prisoners. I wish that they would now do what they promised to do three or four months ago.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: When Government representatives meet prison officers' trade union representatives over beer and sandwiches, whenever they meet, reverting to the question put by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler), will the Minister tell them that there is no question of de-unionising those who work in the prisons and that there will be no GCHQ? If he does not do so, the situation will be even further inflamed.
Will the hon. Gentleman express the view that there is nothing wrong with people in a trade union fighting for better wages and conditions, especially when the number of people they have to look after has increased so rapidly during the past 10 years? A trade union is set up to protect that right. As a lawyer, the hon. Gentleman should know that, especially just now.
Mr. Hogg: I rather fancy that the meeting tomorrow afternoon will be primarily spent in going over the
26
agreement that was made in October last year. I fancy also that the officials who meet the POA representatives will say, "Look, in October of last year, and in return for a manpower review which you have now had, you agreed to admit 1,555 prisoners. The time has come to deliver your part of the agreement."
Mr. Harry Greenway: Is it not true that important work and education programmes for prisoners have been disrupted by the dispute? In the discussions that my hon. Friend is about to have, will every effort be made to ensure that the promised work and education programmes for prisoners are delivered by prison officers and all others who are responsible?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend's remarks are important, but it is even more important to get prison officers to deliver the agreement that they made last October.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Is not the real crisis in our prisons the one that the Minister consistently refuses to address, which is that we imprison more people and for longer periods than any other country in western Europe? Is that not the root cause of the problem with the Prison Officers Association and others? If the Minister would address that matter, he could forget panics about prison building and endless industrial debates, and deal with the need for a lower prison population. It would be better for everyone if he were to do that.
Mr. Hogg: We are most certainly tackling the problem of overcrowding, in part by the building programme which I have outlined and in part by encouraging courts to seek non-custodial options. In these matters the hon. Gentleman would do well, as would his right hon. and hon. Friends, to assert that it would be right for prison officers to respect the instructions of the governor because prisons cannot be run unless governors' instructions are complied with.

Points of Order
3.50 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that during business questions on Thursday and subsequently on a point of order questions were asked about a statement on the London rail study. If the London rail study alone was published and the matter concerned a range of options, one could understand that it was not a statement of Government policy. However, two documents were published: "Transport in London" and a central London rail study. A third document called "Statement of Transport in London" was also published, section 6 of which deals with strategy and investment, so it is a statement of Government policy. It was not sent to hon. Members, at least not in the envelope that I received, although it was available in the Vote Office and the Library.
When the Government make a decision to apply to you, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement of policy or when other ways in which the matter could be raised are considered, will you take into account in particular whether it is a statement of options only or a matter of policy? As I understand it, this was a matter of policy and perhaps the Government or other people were not aware of that choice at that time. All I am asking you to do, Mr. Speaker, is to look into the circumstances surrounding these decisions so that in future matters on London, which has more Members of Parliament than Scotland, are the subject of statements on the Floor of the House on the appropriate occasion.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has just asked about statements by Ministers. Labour Members are always complaining that Ministers do not make statements when they should do so. As the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has issued a White Paper on the National Health Service which he claims is Government policy, should he not be here to answer questions from us?
Mr. Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your quarter of a century of distinguished service in this House you must have witnessed many great occasions when this House became the focus of the nation's affairs. Indeed, when you became Speaker I suspected that you would want to preserve that tradition because democracy means little if we are not given the chance to hear first. Government proposes, this House disposes. Will you please protect not just Back Benchers, but this House from an Opposition who are so irresponsible that they handle—I use that word in its criminal sense—stolen documents and prevent this House from becoming the first place to discuss such matters?
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one who has been concerned on many occasions with attempts at kidney legislation, I wonder whether you have received a request from the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on legislation that
28
may be urgently required in the light of the decision, much publicised by a journalist, about the commercial sale or otherwise of kidneys. Has the Secretary of State for Health given any sign that he proposes to make a statement on this matter to the House?
Mr. Speaker: I shall deal with all the points of order together. I missed the point last Thursday that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was making. I think that it arises from the answer to a written question. I shall certainly bear in mind what he has said in so far as it is within my responsibility.
The other matters are patently not for me. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] I am not responsible for what hon. Members say in the House, provided that they are in order. Whether it is right to make use of documents which have been leaked is a serious matter, but it is not one for the Chair.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are on very safe ground in respect of that very narrow issue. All these leaks began during the Westland affair when Ministers were leaking documents to each other. You were wise enough on that occasion, Mr. Speaker, to keep your nose out. I do not know how the document reached my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), but the chances are that the precedent was being followed and we will have to get that precedent in "Erskine May".
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman, as a chairman himself, has given me some good advice. I shall keep my nose out of it!

Points of Order

  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
  Ordered,
  That the Report [26 January] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Wakeham.]
  Report considered accordingly.
  Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) and agreed to.
  Following is the report of the Business Committee:
  That—

  (1) the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken shall be new Clauses; new Schedules; Admendments to Clause No. 1, Schedule No. 1, Clauses Nos. 2 to 4, Schedule No. 2, Clauses Nos. 5 to 13, Schedule No. 4, Clause No. 14, Schedule No. 3, Clauses Nos. 15 and 16, Schedules Nos. 5 and 6, Clause No. 17, Schedule No. 7, Clauses Nos. 18 to 28 and Schedules Nos. 8 and 9;

  (2) on the allotted day which, under the Order of 23 January, is to be given to the proceedings on consideration and Third Reading those proceedings shall, subject to the provisions of that Order, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the table set out below.

  Table

  Proceedings

  Time for conclusion of proceedings

  New Clauses, New Schedules, and Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 14

  7 pm

  Remaining Amendments

  9 pm

  Third Reading

  10 pm

Orders of the Day

  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill
  [Allotted Day]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill
    Part II

      Exclusion Orders
      3.56 pm
      Mr. Barry Sheerman: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 3, line 22, leave out Part II.
      The Opposition believe that this amendment goes to the heart of the criticisms of the Bill which has been examined in great detail in Committee upstairs. There is nothing more repellent to Opposition Members, or to many people in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, than the exclusion order. The whole thrust of this amendment is to remove the exclusion power.
      If we were to stop most people in the United Kingdom and asked them what the Government's exclusion power in this Bill means, they would not know. They could not give a very articulate response. It is only to be expected that the lay person would not know what an exclusion order meant because such an order falls on only a very small number of United Kingdom citizens. However, those citizens are affected in a quite amazing way.
      Few people in this country realise that there is a power under the law of this land which means that a citizen can be excluded from Great Britain to Northern Ireland or from Northern Ireland to the mainland and, under the law, those people cannot discover the reasons or the evidence against them for the imposition of the order. Under that order, a citizen has no right of appeal and cannot question the order. It cannot be questioned in the courts; it is all-embracing and cannot be challenged.
      In these days of glasnost, we are witnessing changes in the Soviet Union which we all welcome. There are also real changes in attitude in the Soviet Union towards political prisoners and civil liberties. We hope that those changes will continue. However, the kind of power that the exclusion order represents is more familiar to eastern European countries. It is more like the medieval powers used by monarchs to exclude powerful barons who were a threat to the throne.
      The exclusion order is a formidable power to exclude and exile citizens of this country to one part of the country. We object very strongly to the order because it is probably the most disgraceful and villainous part of the Bill. It infringes all civil liberties and rights to live under the law for which British people fought over many generations. We are not the only ones who believe that exclusion orders are wicked and should be abolished; a string of eminent authorities are in agreement with us. There is no doubt that this exclusion power was introduced by my party when it was in Government, but we say that, 14 years on from its introduction, it is high time that it was taken away. I say that because I am sure that the Government will say, "But you introduced it. This is a draconian power, but it is yours."
      30
      Although the power, when introduced, may have been necessary at that time—the Birmingham pub bombings created a climate in which perhaps draconian measures could be understood—14 years on, the Labour party has learnt a great deal about the terrorist and his mind. We believe firmly and fundamentally that this power should not be used by any Government in a civilised society. We have changed our mind. It is a healthy sign when a party can change its mind because of changing circumstances.
      It is not just the Labour party which has changed its mind. Eminent authorities have been asked by successive Governments to study the exclusion power and to assess the working of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Given the number of exclusion orders, all the problems and a fair assessment of the overall working of the Bill, those independent reviewers—I confess that they have not said, "Let us scrap the Prevention of Terrorism Act—have increasingly said that the Prevention of Terrorism Act does not need this section. Lord Jellicoe, in 1983, spoke ambivalently about this section and came down in favour of recommending keeping the exclusion order power, although he was not happy about it. Sir Cyril Phillips, in 1985, in an independent Government assessment, recommended that exclusion orders should go. Perhaps the most powerful and recent voice is that of Lord Colville. In both his assessments of the overall working of this legislation, he recommended that exclusion orders should no longer be part of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
      When one reads the Colville report and considers the hard work and detail put into it, one is impressed, even if one does not agree with every section of it. It was disclosed in Committee that, rather than having some vast bureaucracy helping Lord Colville in his investigation, he had a tiny staff. Lord Colville took the task of assessing the legislation seriously. The Opposition do not agree with some parts of his assessment, but there were many points with which we do agree. Even where we disagree, we believe that the assessment was fair, given the criteria on which he was asked to make it.
      Lord Colville pointed to a number of aspects introduced by the exclusion order. I should like to go through those aspects so that the House can be clear about how draconian this legislation is. First, exclusion orders deprive certain people of the right to move freely around the United Kingdom—in other words, to live where they please. That is why I have described it as a draconian power and one which runs against the civil liberties with which we are familiar.
      Whether this power affects only a small number of people is not the point at issue. What Conservative Members often do not understand is that when civil liberties need most to be defended is not in the crystal clear case of right or wrong, but in the marginal case. People who care deeply about civil liberties will take up a case not because they feel it is the best in the world, but because the essence of fighting for civil liberties is to take up a marginal case. If we consider the history of academic freedom and immigration law, we know that it has often been the marginal case that has been used as the test case to show where the parameters of civil liberties must be drawn. That applies to the broader conception of the exclusion power.
      The exclusion power does not apply to a large number of people each year. Eighty-three orders were enforced in 1976; 99 in 1977; 150 in 1978; 196 in 1979; and 241 in 1980. In 1982, 248 orders were enforced, the most there have

      31
      ever been. In the last period, it was down to 106 orders. The number of exclusion orders could be dismissed as affecting an insignificant number of citizens.
      The case that we make, in Committee and today, is that it does not matter about the number. What is important is what the power does to civil liberties and individual rights. In Committee the power as it affects the citizen was described as almost Kafkaesque. I believe that what was meant by that expression was that it was intolerable. How redolent of a novel of Kafka is a situation in which a citizen cannot find out the charges against him, who has given information against him or why the decision has been made. He cannot challenge the decision in any court, but his or her life can be ruined by it.
      The Minister may say that it used to have no time limit, but it now has a limit of three years. We would say that three years in a career, in a job, in a marriage or in separation from one's family—one's wife and one's children—is a long time. It can become a life sentence if the job is lost, the career ruined, the family split up or the marriage destroyed. Sadly, there have been cases in which that sequence of events has been recorded.
      Exclusion orders represent an Executive power of such force that it belongs to an authoritarian regime and is unlike anything in the British tradition of parliamentary democracy. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have admitted that the Bill is draconian, but the orders represent the most draconian power to be exercised by the state. They are unacceptable to all true democrats and champions of civil liberty.
      The Bill, as drafted, is similar to previous prevention of terrorism legislation. It is argued that, if the exclusion orders add to the propaganda effort of the Government, they can be excused. In other words, a certain number of people become subject to the exclusion orders to justify that power.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, as I did in Committee. He appears to oppose exclusion orders on principle. Therefore, why did the Labour Government of 1974–79 include exclusion orders in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 if the Labour party opposes them as a matter of principle?
      Mr. Sheerman: I have already dealt fully with that matter. We have acknowledged that the introduction of the power, in very different circumstances from today and shortly after the Birmingham pub bombings, was understandable. That does not mean that, on mature reflection, we believe that we were right. We believe that we were wrong and thank goodness there are political parties in this country that are able to say that they do not have a divine right to believe that they are always correct. A good historian will understand why we got it wrong. The introduction of the power was wrong, and we regret it.
      It appears that the existence of the exclusion power is the main reason why the British Government have not signed the fourth protocol to the European convention on human rights. Article 2(1) of the protocol states:
      "Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence"
      That the fourth protocol has not been signed by the Government is a sad comment on our country. If part II
      32
      of the Bill was deleted, we could sign the protocol, which would bring us more into line with the thinking of our European neighbours.
      Exclusion orders can divide families and make it difficult for people to get jobs. They also make it difficult for people to get away from former terrorist associates. We believe that there is nothing more effective than enabling those who have become enmeshed in the tentacles of terrorist organisations to make a clean break. However, exclusion orders do not make clean breaks possible.
      The restrictionns are feasible only because of the existence of the Irish sea. If terrorism existed in Scotland, Wales or any other part of Great Britain, exclusion orders would be unworkable. To treat other parts of the United Kingdom as separate and distinct from Northern Ireland is an insult to its people. If they are a part of the United Kingdom, they should not be treated differently. Exclusion orders create a distinction, and that is unacceptable.
      4.15 pm
      Another fundamental objection to exclusion orders is that they cannot be used against a naturalised or British-born citizen from another country who becomes involved in terrorism in Britain. What an anomaly. We all know what happens when a terrorist is excluded to Ireland. It is not a fanciful notion to suggest that terrorists love repressive legislation. Terrorists like to see the Governments of the countries in which they are active bringin draconian legislation—the more draconian, the better. Terrorists use such legislation to justify their actions. To repeat what I said on Second Reading: the Prime Minister may say that terrorists need the oxygen of publicity—they may like itߞbut they also need the oxygen of repressive legislation.
      If part II of the Bill was deleted, it would deliver a hammer blow to the terrorists. When a terrotist is excluded to Ireland, that event is always used by terrorist propaganda. I have already said that one of the aims of terrorism is to incite a Government to introduce repressive measures, and their subsequent unpopularity is used by the terrorists to increase their criticism of those measures and also as an excuse for increased violence.
      Mr. Andrew Hunter: Can the hon. Gentleman square his argument with the fact that the Governments of virtually every Western liberal democracy, in the face of the threat of terrorism, have felt obliged to introduce extra powers? It is not just this country or the hon. Gentleman's party that has introduced such powers; it is a universal pattern followed by Governments throughout western democracy.
      Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to what we said on Second Reading, in Committee or what I have said today. Exclusion powers are not used by any other European state, or by any other democracy in the western world.
      Mr. Seamus Mallon: In relation to what the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) has said, would the hon. Gentleman care to state hat other countries use a form of internal exile? There must be a clear distinction between exclusion from one country to another and a form of exclusion that operates within one jurisdiction.
      Mr. Sheerman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his help. Conservative Members will appreciate that that is

      33
      the thrust of our argument. No other civilised, democratic society has such a power. That is why it is so objectionable. The power of exclusion is reminiscent of the middle ages and characteristic of non-democratic regimes. We hate terrorism and terrorists, and we understand that terrorists must be pursued, but to pursue them with the wrong laws and powers gets us nowhere. That helps terrorism.
      Mr. Martin Flannery: Some countries have had such powers. Stalinist Russia expelled some quite distinguished people to Siberia, and so did Tsarist Russia. If that is the company that the Government want to keep, they are welcome to it.
      Mr. Sheerman: That is precisely the point that we made over many hours in Committee.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman has said that the IRA and other terrorist organisations welcome these draconian powers for exclusion orders. He has said that in Northern Ireland terrorist organisations use exclusion orders for propaganda purposes. Can he give any examples of people who have been excluded from the United Kingdom mainland publicising that in Northern Ireland?
      Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman knows that there are some examples of that. I do not have the references with me, but I am sure that some of my hon. Friends can supply them. It is rarely done, but it happens, and certainly in the context of exclusions that people feel are frivolous or amusing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has given the example of an Irish folk dance group that was excluded. That is one way in which the law pertaining to terrorism and terrorists can be sent up by the terrorists. The power to exclude is unacceptable in democratic societies.
      There is no real opportunity to challenge the evidence upon which the Secretary of State makes an exclusion order. One of the main thrusts of the criticism that we have levelled, not only against the exclusion power but against the Bill as a whole, is that the Executive power is great and runs throughout the Bill. That power is untrammelled and unchecked by the kind of checking by a legislature or judiciary that is normal in a civilised and democratic society. There is no regular review procedure either. That contravenes article 6.1 of the European convention on human rights, which says:
      "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."
      Such avenues are not open to people who are subject to exclusion orders. It could not seriously be said that the current right to make representations to the Secretary of State constitutes compliance with article 6(1).
      The Secretary of State has advisers on exclusion orders. They are appointed by the Secretary of State and he normally listens to their advice and acts on it. That is not the thrust of our criticisms. It is that this is a private and secret hearing and does not give any chance for the evidence upon which an exclusion order is based to come into the public domain or even to be brought to the attention of the person who may be excluded. Most people in the United Kingdom are totally ignorant of that element in the Bill—that one's rights to live in any part of the United Kingdom can be taken away without challenge.
      34
      Not only are normal judicial powers not involved in exclusion orders, but there is no real accountability to Parliament. That is because the Secretary of State will not discuss such cases in Parliament and hon. Members are not permitted to see evidence. That means that there is not only no judicial involvement, but no legislative involvement. That shows again that the power of the Executive is untrammelled. There is no statutory right to be informed of the reasons for the granting of an exclusion order or of the evidence or information that is being used. That means that there is a possibility of inaccurate evidence being used, such as evidence from unreliable informers. The difficulty in challenging an exclusion order is even more dramatically highlighted by that.
      The gist of our criticism will by now be clear to hon. Members. The exclusion power should not be in any legislation in a democratic society, and we have it only because it has been with us for a long time. I should like to go into some detail on the assessment of Lord Colville of Culross, a former Conservative Minister, who was asked to look at the legislation and its working in an objective way, In assessment 11.6.1 Lord Colville says:
      "Lord Jellicoe took the view that exclusion orders, of which there were then over 240 extant, materially contributed to public safety in Great Britain; and in Northern Ireland too, though there it is necessary to put into the balance any added risk to the security forces. I have to agree that it is probably an effective way of getting rid of people from an area where otherwise they might cause great trouble; and that it disrupts terrorist lines of communication and supply of arms, ammunition and explosives."
      Lord Colville was fair in putting that on record. However,
      he says:
      "I am not convinced that the ends justify these means. I renew my recommendation, made in the annual report on the Act for 1986, that Part II of the Act should not be renewed in 1988, or not replaced in the new Bill. The Home Secretary announced earlier this year that after careful consideration he had decided it would not now be wise to discontinue this power. I recognise that the alternative is a hard decision, but I express the view that it would be the correct one both in terms of civil rights in the United Kingdom and this country's reputation in that respect among the International Community."
      There could be no clearer condemnation of the exclusion power. That largely says it all.
      The Minister has had some time for mature reflection and, as Lord Colville said, this is a hard decision. Some decisions in politics, such as those that flow from a knee-jerk reaction or that are in line with what has gone before, are easy to make. It takes a true politician, perhaps a true statesman, to make a difficult decision. On Second Reading, in Committee and again now, we asked the Minister to show that he has the mettle to take tough decisions. The Home Secretary likes to tell us, in press conferences and on television, that he is capable of taking tough decisions and of looking at how things have been done over a long period and taking a new direction. There is little evidence to date that, on the Bill, he has done anything of the kind.
      4.30 pm
      Let us put exclusion orders in context. Through the Bill, new clauses are added to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. The Bill is a civil servant's dream. Everything has been added and nothing lost. Not one ha'p'orth has been taken out of the Bill. Whatever the arguments of the Opposition in Committee, almost every

      35
      comma and dot of the Bill remains as it was. The Committee made no change to the Bill either in detail or in its main thrust.
      We welcomed one provision of the Bill, that which will prevent the flow of money to terrorists. We welcome that power, although we thought that it was not necessary to have another Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill to legislate for it. The Government have bolted it on to this old and creaking Act.
      Here is an opportunity at least to unbolt the worst part of the Bill and to discard the exclusion orders. It has not been done in this House. Perhaps the Government will have time for greater reflection in the other place.
      Had the Government dropped exclusion orders, they would have sent a signal to Northern Ireland and to the people on the mainland that the House of Commons, and perhaps even the Government, were taking the argument on civil rights and people living under the rule of law more seriously than they had for some time. Lord Jellicoe moved towards this position and independent assessment moved progressively towards asking the Government—any Governmentߞto get rid of the exclusion power. It did not come about, but we hope that tonight the House will vote to make sure that the exclusion order power comes off the statute book.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: When I told my constituents, through my weekly newspaper column, that I was serving on the Committee examining the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, a number of them said, "That won't take very long because it must be a bipartisan Committee with the Labour party supporting the Bill." I had to disabuse my constituents by telling them that the Labour party was opposing the Bill, which renews the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. It is difficult to understand why the Opposition oppose it, especially after hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). It lasted for 38 minutes but he was not able to tell the House why a Bill that was first introduced by Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, when he was a Member of Parliament In 1974, should not now be supported by the Opposition. In 1974, the Act was given the support of the then loyal Opposition, the Conservative party.
      The hon. Member for Huddersfield said that the decision had been taken after mature reflection, and he asked Conservative Members to praise the Labour party for having changed its mind on this subject. If I felt that the Labour party had changed its mind on mature reflection, I might have been able to listen to its arguments with some respect, but, once again, that change of mind took place only when the Labour party went in to opposition.
      In five years of the previous Labour Government, Labour Members supported the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. They had no mature reflection between 1974 and 1979x2014;they were happy to support it. Their mature reflection began only when they formed the Opposition and no longer had the responsibility for governing the country and protecting the nation against terrorism.
      Mr. Peter Archer: Does the hon. Gentleman tell his constituents that the most effective way
      36
      to fight terrorism is to pass an Act labelled "the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act"? Does it not depend to some extent on what is in the Act? Lord Colville is not a member of the Opposition, and he agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) about this provision.
      Mr. Bennett: I tell my constituents what is in the Bill, and I shall return to its provisions in a moment. I am just drawing attention to the Labour party's behaviour on this matter because we are seeing in this, as in so many other subjects, the Labour party in opposition putting forward a different view from that which it put forward when it was in government. An analogy is the case of nuclear weapons. The last Labour Government were a firm supporter of nuclear weapons and independent deterrent policy. They even wanted to modernise it. Their Prime Minister, now Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, had to exclude the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) from the Cabinet discussions in case they were leaked, but the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was happy to work for five years in a Labour Government who supported nuclear weapons and then to change his mind when he left office.
      The same is true on this issue. The Labour party opposes legislation only when it goes into opposition. We are entitled to ask what is happening when the Opposition are prepared to do a 180-degree turn.
      Mr. Frank Cook: Get on with it.
      Mr. Bennett: The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) may not like what I am saying. If he wants to take part in the debate, perhaps he should get up and say why the Labour party has changed its mind rather than shouting from a sedentary position. I shall give way if he wishes to intervene, but he obviously does not wish to do so.
      Mr. Flannery: The hon. Member cannot accuse me of changing my mind on this. I was here when the Act was first published and I have been here for the passage of each Bill that renewed and amended the Act. The hon. Gentleman has not yet referred to the amendments that we are debating. The atmosphere in 1974, when the Act was first introduced, was horrific, and it arose from the Birmingham bombings. The then Labour Government realised that there was hysteria and panic among the public, as there was among some Members of Parliament. Many of us, including myself, fought against the Government of the day. Many people are now opposed to the Act because of the over-enthusiastic and brutal way in which the Government are carrying out the Act's provisions and adding to it every time it is renewed. That is one among many reasons why we have changed our minds.
      Mr. Bennett: Amendment No. 27 deals with exclusion orders. There are now fewer exclusion orders in being than there were in the last year of the Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman may talk about hysteria, but this Government have a balanced view towards the use of exclusion orders and have reduced the number.
      If the hon. Member for Huddersfield believes that we do not need exclusion orders, he must face two different ways. The first is to say that exclusion orders do not work, and so are a waste of time. I believe that that was what the hon. Gentleman meant to say. The alternative is that exclusion orders work and have been successful and we do

      37
      not need them any longer. Whichever way the Government face—if they were to accept the Opposition's point of view and withdraw exclusion orders or, as we propose, continue them—the hon. Member for Huddersfield would attack us. On the one hand, the hon. Gentleman is saying that exclusion orders do not work, but that, on the other hand, if they do work, they reduce the number of people involved and are therefore no longer necessary. That is a catch 22 position which it is not respectable for the Opposition to put forward.
      It is not respectable for the Opposition to advance such a view when the Opposition contain some hon. Members who actively support terrorist organisations. It is not respectable for them to claim that every Opposition Member supports that point of view. I know that the overwhelming majority of Opposition Members support the Government—
      Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will the hon. Gentleman give chapter and verse to support his claim that Opposition Members support terrorist organisations, or will he withdraw it?
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That is not a point of order for the Chair, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor will now explain himself.
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said "actively"; he did not just say, "supporting". One might support people in general terms, perhaps wrongly, but the hon. Gentleman said "actively", and that is not good enough.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: We had these points of order in a similar debate earlier and they were dealt with at that time. The hon. Gentleman is not naming any one person—he is generalising—but I hope that he will explain himself and now come to the amendment before us.
      Mr. Bennett: Let me name an hon. Member who actively supports the so-called freedom fighters. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who is often in the Chamber to question Ministers on Northern Ireland matters—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I dealt with a similar matter earlier in the debate, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw what he has just said.
      Mr. Bennett: I withdraw the hon. Gentleman's name, and shall quote an anonymous hon. Member who has said that the IRA are freedom fighters—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not have anonymous Members in this House. This matter has been dealt with earlier in the debate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will conduct himself in a proper parliamentary manner.
      Mr. Bennett: I apologise, and withdraw my remark, but it is a fact, in public print, that statements have been made which are capable of the analysis that I would have made if I had continued.
      Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his comment, not paraphrase it—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is on record that the hon. Gentleman has withdrawn his comment and apologised. I now ask him to come to the substance of the amendment.
      Mr. Bennett: The purpose of amendment No. 27 is to get rid of exclusion orders. It is a matter of judgment and balance as to whether exclusion orders work. It is clear that, when Lord Jellicoe considered the matter, he believed that they worked, and that the police officers representing England, Wales and Scotland believe that they work and are effective. Lord Colville has opposed them because he believes that the end does not justify the means. However, he is not arguing that those means do not have effect, and do not work. It must be a matter of judgment on the part of individual Members whether the means justify the end.
      If the end is to exclude people whose behaviour and actions would lead to the maiming and destruction of human life in this country and to explosions on the mainland of Great Britain, and if those people are known to be involved or there are good grounds for believing that they would act on behalf of the IRA, the Government have the right to exclude them from the mainland of the United Kingdom. The House would not be right to take away from the police and security services that valuable weapon which is clearly effective when used sparingly as at present. It is not a suitable argument for the Opposition :o claim that terrorists welcome such a clause, because clearly they do not. It attacks the heart of the organisation and disrupts its supply lines, organisation and terrorism We should therefore welcome it and take note of the comments of the people who have to deal with;.t at the sharp end—the police officers and the security services— and back them in supporting the retention of the exclusion clause in the Bill.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Robert MacLennan: Perhaps it is true that the further one is from office the more difficult it is to put oneself in the shoes of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. That might have something to do with what the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has described as the Labour party's change of mind about exclusion orders. It was not clear from his speech whether he and his hon. Friends took the view that it had never been right to use exclusion orders or that exclusion orders were now unsuitable because the circumstances had changed. Those are two very different positions. As I understand it, there was no doubt within the Labour Government that, although those measures were unpalatable and draconian in terms of their undoubted curtailment of human rights they were justified in terms of their impact on the safety of the community.
      If the situation had changed, we were entitled during the hon. Gentleman's 38-minute speech to hear some reasons for that. The arguments adduced by the hon. Gentleman might as well have been deployed when the Labour party was still in government. They did not address the question of the present threat in a different way from that which had prevailed before the present Government took office.
      Mr. David Sumberg: Perhaps 1 might suggest the change of circumstances that has caused that change of heart. In 1974, the people in control of the Labour party were the decent, good Socialists who always

      39
      run the Labour party and manage to get elected, whereas the people now in control are members on the Left, as represented by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough {Mr. Flannery). Hence the decision to oppose the exclusion orders.
      Mr. Macknnan: I do not wish to devote much of my speech, which will not be as long as that of the hon. Member for Huddersfkld, to cross-examining the Labour party. However, if that is the best argument that can be made against the continuation of exclusion orders, it is not very strong. Clearly, no Home Secretary will adhere to the policy of supporting exclusion orders which plainly infringe human rights, unless there are overwhelmingly strong reasons for so doing and those reasons are bound up with the protection of our citizens from the threat of terrorism and the particular threat of terrrorism in Northern Ireland, Unlike much of the rest of the Bill, these measures are not designed to deal with the general threat of terrorism. They are concerned exclusively with the Northern Ireland threat.
      In this debate, we are bound to consider extremely closely the recommendations of the Government's appointed reporter on the operation of the prevention of terrorism legislation. Lord Colville of Culross. I have no doubt that the Government did so before rejecting Lord Colville's recommendations. Earlier contributions to this debate suggest that the Government paid a great deal of attention to those recommendations, although they decided not to follow his advice.
      Some changes in circumstances can be seen if one considers carefully what Lord Colville said about the operation of exclusion orders. There is a decline in the number of people subject to such orders. There is an increase in the number of people who are successfully appealing against them, using the internal mechanism of addressing the adviser, to whom they have access as of right. Lord Colville's remarks suggest that that increased use may indeed reflect some growth in confidence among those to whom exclusion orders have been applied—that there is a fairness and open-minded ness in the examination of the case by the adviser and the Home Secretary.
      It is important to recall the facts as stated by Lord Colville, who pointed out that, in the year that he was reviewing, two of the new orders and three of the renewed orders were revoked. I refer to paragraph 11.3.1 of the report, which hon. Members no doubt have to hand At the time of writing, representations had been made against eight of the 17 new orders made so far. In four cases, the order had been confirmed and the remaining four were still receiving consideration. In addition, representations were made against four of the 16 orders renewed in the first quarter of the year. Two of the orders were confirmed and two revoked.
      I dwell on those points because I think it important to realise that, although this is a draconian power, being exercised without recourse to the courts to test its exercise by the Executive, it is being exercised with some discretion, and some of those subject to exclusion orders are having them revoked. I do not regard that as the rule of law in any normal sense, and I share Lord Colville's natural predisposition to call into question an Executive action that so curbs fundamental rights and freedoms.
      40
      I cannot think, however, that it would be right for the Home Secretary to give paramount consideration to that factor in deciding whether the powers should be renewed for another year. He must decide whether the powers materially contribute to the safety of our citizens. If, in the light of his knowledge of the general circumstances and of particular cases, he feels able and bound to tell the House that he requires such powers, I do not think that it is open to us to do more than ensure that he has addressed himself to the right questions and given the measures concerned the attention that they merit.
      The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr, Sheerman) read out Lord Colville's crucial assessment, and I shall not repeat it, but it should be recognised that Lord Colville did not call into question the efficacy of exclusion as a means of controlling terrorism and terrorists' movements. He suggested that, if the powers did not exist, considerable risks would be posed. He described the powers as effecting the disruption of terrorist lines of communication and supply of arms, ammunition and explosives, and as an effective way of getting rid of people from an area where otherwise they might cause great trouble.
      Mr. Heffer: I heard the hon. Gentleman's intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). The hon. Gentleman represents a party that is supposed to be deeply concerned with civil liberties. Do his comments mean that he has not yet caught up with a member of the Tory party, and that his party is not really in favour of the civil liberties of which it claims to be in favour?
      Mr. Maclennan: I think that my record on the issue is perhaps even clearer than the hon. Gentleman's. I promoted a Bill, which he did not support, to incorporate in our domestic law the provisions of the European convention on human rights, and I am very sensitive to any derogation from the convention or any provisions that curtail the fundamental rights and freedoms of our citizens, as are my right hon. and hon. Friends. There are, however, circumstances, recognised in the convention, in which Governments must circumscribe those liberties. They include circumstances in which there is a threat to national security—that phrase is drawn from the convention—and we are dealing with such circumstances here. No one can doubt that the power of terrorists in Northern Ireland to create havoc and mayhem on both sides of the Channel remains very strong.
      That is why, with great reluctance, my right hon and hon. Friends and I feel bound to accept the Home Secretary's judgment on this issue for this year. We are glad that the Government have introduced the legislation in a form that will enable us to address these questions again, for the powers cannot be extended beyond the operative date without renewal by the House. We should and must give the powers scrutiny no less detailed than Lord Colville's when we reconsider them in a year's time. We expect the Home Secretary not only to scrutinise each case through his own system of internal review, but to consider whether such a curtailment of fundamental rights and freedoms is justified in terms of the perceived threat, and to do so with continuity, before he comes back to ask for a further renewal of his powers.
      Mr. Hunter: I do not propose to pursue the line, or the tone, of the robust contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). I had no intention

      41
      of speaking until the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) responded to my intervention, as did the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).
      Let me make it clear that I do not for a moment dispute the sincerity of any declaration by Opposition Members of their opposition to terrorism. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said on Second Reading that all that we were talking about was the best way in which to deal with terrorism, and I broadly accept what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said.
      I wonder, however, whether the hon. Member for Huddersfield has fully appreciated the depth and the extent of part II. His reply to my intervention suggested to me that he, and perhaps the hon. Member for Hillsborough, regarded part II as merely an internal mechanism of exile. That is not the case. It is clearly stated that clauses 5 and 7 enable the Secretary of State to make exclusion orders
      "prohibiting a person from being in, or entering"
      Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom. We are not dealing merely with a mechanism to keep terrorists in Northern Ireland, as I believe the hon. member for Huddersfield said in Committee. Part II is far wider than his reponse to me suggested.
      On Report, as on Second Reading and in Committee, all hon. Members have been inclined to appeal to their sources of authority. Opposition Members have often turned to Lord Colville, and found that parts of his report differed from the Bill, but he is not the only authority to have pronounced on the legislation. Lord Jellicoe concluded that exclusion powers
      "materially contributed to public safety in the nited Kingdom."
      I readily confess that I adopt that attitude.
      The hon. Member for Huddersfield would have been on safer and surer ground if he had not attacked exclusion per se but rather the scope of exclusion orders within part II. It might be asked why they were connected only with the affairs of Northern Ireland. The Bill deals too excessively with terrorism related to Northern Ireland and does not sufficiently take into account the phenomenon of international terrorism.
      If the hon. Member for Huddersfield and other Opposition Members had said that part II was too limited, they might have found significant support from Conservative Members. Our quarrel, far from being theirs—that there should be no exclusion orders—is rather that the exclusion orders within part II are too limited. If, as the Home Secretary said on Second Reading, the aim is seriously to confront international terrorism, the Bill is limited, rather than deficient.
      5 pm
      Mr. William Cash: My hon. Friend and I have both made a similar point. He may recall that the Minister said that he would give the matter further consideration. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my intervention as a prompt, to obtain some information from the Minister about how he has addressed the problem since we were in Committee.
      Mr. Hunter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that comment in Committee. We look forward to the Minister replying to it.
      42
      The essential argument is that terrorism, far from relying on the oxygen of abnormality, is itself an, abnormal phenomenon and requires abnormal responses. That is why I totally support the Secretary of State's having the right to exclude. I entirely support part II. The arguments of the hon. Member for Huddersfield are deficient in that they are limited. I hope, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said, that before we conclude the debate the Minister will comment on that fact.
      Mr. Mallon: The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) did the debate a service when he said that he would make no imputations about any hon. Member supporting terrorism or violence. I welcome that. Having sat through the Committee which considered all these matters carefully with a great sense of responsibility, and having had to sit through the timetable motion debate last Monday, I was appalled that, rather than dealing with the issues, the debate almost reached the stage of "holier than thou". A series of people attitudinised, posturised and, to use a more basic word, craw-thumped.
      I accept, as does the hon. Member for Basingstoke, that all hon. Members involved in the democratic process are against violence, terrorism and sin. Our discussions are not about who was holier than thou, and when, but about how best to deal with the mutual problem. I hope that Conservative Members will not find it necessary to accuse—in oblique or other terms—hon. Members who feel strongly about the legislation of being soft on or actively supporting terrorism. Opposition Members should not have to thump their breasts every time they speak and state that they oppose violence or terrorism.
      The exclusion orders send out two messages. First they send a clear message to the people of Northern Ireland, from whichever side of the tragic political divide. The general message is that the north of Ireland is not as British as Finchley, as the Prime Minister keeps trying to tell us, but is different. It is a place to which to send people whom one does not want to retain within England, Scotland or Wales. There is a feeling of resentment within the Unionist community about that, because it is offensive to those who regard themselves as British. It is also offensive to those who, like myself, do not wish to see a continuation of the link with Britain one day longer than the time it takes to end it by peaceful democratic means. The message to both the Unionist and the Nationalist communities is that, in effect, they are dumping grounds for those who are excluded.
      The message is offensive to those in Northern Ireland who are constantly told that the laws of Britain and the membership of this Parliament are the fundamentals by which they should abide, yet a distinction is made in legislation. In terms of the Bill, Finchley is a long way from Belfast or south Armagh.
      The second message is to people involved in terrorism. When someone is served with an exclusion order, it is served not on evidence but on intelligence. There is a remarkable gap between intelligence and evidence. The clear message to those involved in terrorism is that there is no evidence on which he can be convicted. If there were, he could be charged before leaving Northern Ireland, when he entered this country or on the way out of it. This is a suspension of a basic form of justice and the substitution of an abnormal means of dealing with the problem on intelligence rather than evidence. That is a fatal flaw.

      43
      Even worse is the fact that there is often no hard evidence or intelligence. For that reason, the exclusion orders should be removed, as was suggested by Lord Colville. It is difficult for people who, through no fault of their own, but because of the area in which they live, or their relations' activities, about which they may not know, or a matter of which they have no knowledge, are excluded.
      I know that people will nod sagely and say that that will not happen, because there are checks and balances. However, such people should read a book published this morning by a former brigadier in the Parachute Regiment about his attitude to Northern Ireland. It has been said that we should listen to what our police and Army say. We should not just listen, but ask them questions. I recommend that people read that book and realise that, sometimes, what the Army does would not be approved by the House—for example, announcing that there was a bomb on a railway line between Belfast and Dublin when, patently, there was not; and covering up the death of a young soldier in south Armagh so that the incident would not give, in the words of the army brigadier, "publicity to the IRA." We are all against sin, but let us realise that human and legal rights should not be determined always on the word of those whose statements may be difficult at times to substantiate.
      Substantial financial losses are often suffered by people involved in exclusion proceedings. Perhaps it is important to remind the House on all occasions of the 80 per cent. unemployment that exists in parts of Belfast. There is 60 per cent. male unemployment in my constituency. Many of those who are unemployed in Northern Ireland have to come to England, Scotland and Wales to get work, and once they come to the mainland, they are immediately under suspicion. It is among those people that the problems of exclusion orders arise.
      The problems are not confined to someone losing a job here that he will not be able to find in Northern Ireland. There might be a loss of unemployment benefit. If an individual has built up a business and he is caused to leave it, there will be a loss to him and his entire family. We discussed these matters at length in Committee and I repeat my view that the Government's approach is a harsh one. We argued that some form of compensation should be arranged in certain circumstances, but the Government did not agree.
      There are many forms of subterranean activity in Northern Ireland. It is a small place, and news travels fast. When an exclusion order has been placed or when someone has been detained prior to an order being placed, others get to know of it quickly. That knowledge in itself can result in the assassin's bullet. For that reason we should always be extremely careful. Knowledge of the placing of an order, or of detention, is almost enough to result in assassinations as individuals defend their homes.
      This part of the Bill is seen to be fundamentally anti-Irish in its structure and in the way in which it will be implemented. It is seen—perception is often more important than reality—as a piece of legislation aimed at those who live on the other side of the Irish sea, and only those. That has a political effect on relations between the two Governments, and those relations must be good and must work positively if terrorism is to be defeated. If
      44
      legislation of this sort is retained when it could be done away with, we shall destroy the climate that must prevail if the problem is ever to be solved. How long has such legislation been on the statute book, and has it worked? I know that some will say, "If such legislation had not been in place, we can imagine the terrible things that would have happened." In other words, one would be asked to prove a negative, which would be impossible.
      When we consider the Bill in its totality—as we shall later—and the element that we are now discussing in detail, we must ask, "Why, after 14 years, has legislation of this sort, bearing in mind the powers and the means that it gives to the police, the Army and the authorities in both countries to defeat terrorism, not proved to be successful in defeating terrorism and realising the successes that were claimed would result from its implementation?" Why are we still dealing with the problem? I still believe that the wrong approach is to use the punitive type of legislation that we see before us. It has helped terrorism in the past; it has not stopped it.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough): My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) speaks with authority and knowledge of what is happening in Northern Ireland. Having been a Member of this place for some time, he knows a great deal of what happens in the Chamber. Many of us have sat through many debates of this sort over the years—indeed, there is a plethora of Irish Bills being pushed through the House. They are passing through it like lightning. My hon. Friend referred to the timetable motion that was debated last Monday. I was involved in a debate on Thursday of last week—consideration of the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill—there is tonight's debate on Irish matters, and there will be another one tomorrow. The Government are forcing us to concentrate on Irish affairs to the exclusion of other issues and we are having an arduous time. It seems that each Irish Bill deals with and follows on from another Irish Bill.
      I stay in Pimlico and I often walk along the embankment on my way to this place. As I walk past a tall block of flats I always notice a small obelisk at the side of it. I am sure that most people do not know about the obelisk. For a long time I walked past it casually, but on one occasion I decided to examine it. It is only a few feet from the ground and it bears a plaque on which it is stated that on the site of the obelisk was the old Millbank prison. It was the spot on which deportees to Australia last saw their homeland.
      The habit of exclusion continues—there was deportation to Devil's island by the French and by many other countries to many other places—and it is terrible that that should be so. Charles Dickens was well aware of the practice of deportation. He wrote in "Great Expectations" of Abel Magwitch, whose great expectations were given to Pip. Abel was one of those who went, and many of them went innocently. Vast numbers of them were Irish. They were taken to Australia and they had to live there. Some take the view that certain actions will stop people behaving in a certain way. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) used vindictive language and almost accused many of my hon. Friends and others of supporting terrorism.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennettrose—
      Mr. Flannery: I shall give way in a moment.
      The hon. Gentleman used an expression that suggested that he thought that everyone who was excluded was a terrorist. Even if that were true, exclusion would still be appalling. Most of those who are excluded are not terrorists. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman thinks that they are, and considers that many of us are supporters of terrorism. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have given way to him on so many occasions that if a count were made the result would be unbelievable. He is a congenital intervener. I give way to the hon. Gentleman. It seems that he does not want to intervene now. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh tells me that he thought that the hon. Gentleman wished to intervene.
      Mr. Mallon: Coitus interruptus.
      Mr. Flannery: Coitus interruptus, as my hon. Friend says. I would not have dreamt of saying such a thing.
      The vindictive approach of the hon. Gentleman deepens and intensifies the problem we face. My hon. Friend attends funerals with melancholy and frequent regularity within his constituency. His life is in danger, as are the lives of others in Northern Ireland. He saw fit to speak about the element of danger. As soon as it is known that someone has been excluded—he may be innocent, having done nothing—he is immediately in line for the assassin's bullet. The issue should be dealt with more lightly and more gently. The Government's approach is better than it was.
      No one can prove that exclusion orders have had the slightest effect on the political position in Northern Ireland or in this country. All they have done is satisfy the vindictive and terrorise people who have been wrongly excluded. They deepen their feeling of alienation from a society which dares to exclude people who have done nothing wrong. Like the Bill, exclusion orders are anti—Irish. They even victimise people who have an Irish accent or name. They do not do what they set out to do—all of which could be done under existing legislation. A United Kingdom citizen, or an alien, can be excluded from Britain to Northern Ireland if the Home Secretary is satisfied that he has been involved in political violence related to Northern Ireland. Such a person is condemned as being involved in those activities, even though he may not. Many times in the House we have raised the cases of people who did nothing to justify their being excluded.
      The previous Act and this Bill are examples of the appalling approach of, first, the Labour Government, and especially the Conservative Government, to Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. They are treated as dustbins. The Government can say, "If you remain in this country, you may engage in terrorism, so we shall send you to Northern Ireland." They shrug their shoulders and say, "You may do it in Northern Ireland, but you will not do it here." That attitude is personified by the hon. Member for Pembroke, who tried hard not to withdraw and apologise for what he wrongly said.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I withdrew the remarks, having not been in a position to make the quotations that I would have made had you allowed me to, is it in order for another hon. Member to attack me?
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): It is
      common courtesy that, once a matter has been settled, it should not be referred to in that manner again.
      Mr. Flannery: I accept that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was slightly needled by the continuing discourtesy and the traducing of honourable people.
      This part of the Bill has piled grave injustice and great human misery on to innocent people. As many hon. Members have said, it means internal exile. Lord Colville described the power as the most draconian in the Act and opposed exclusion orders. In 1985–86, Sir Cyril Philips, reporting to Parliament on the 1984 Act, recommended that no new exclusion orders should be made. Lord Colville went further and recommended withdrawal of that part of the Act.
      That is what the Opposition advocate. We know that we have no chance of winning the vote, but we believe that it is democratically correct to place on record our arguments against the measure. We struggled against the Labour Goverment to do that, and eventually we won them over. People and Governments can be won over, but this Government are a more difficult proposition.
      Since 1977, 4,358 people have been detained, 3,701 of whom were neither charged nor excluded. The number of exclusion orders has varied from year to year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, there were 248 in 1982, 99 in 1977 and today between 116 and 120. What misery they have heaped upon many honourable people. We have often been abused, sometimes by good people, because of our opposition to the Act. Even in this Chamber, we are pointed out as supporters of terrorism. But we oppose exclusion orders, just as we have opposed the entire Act.
      Mr. Heffer: I support the amendment. This part of the Bill should be dropped altogether. I am not particularly enthusiastic about the Bill. That does not mean that at one stage of my life I did not go along with the Act. I do not think that I ever voted for it, but there were occasions at the beginning when I did not vote against against it. The reason for that was the horrific events that were taking place at the time. Most of us felt that some immediate action had to be taken. We were not happy about the Act, and we were certainly not happy about the basic problem of civil liberties.
      The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) asked why the Labour party is now against the Act officially, when the Labour Government introduced it in the first place and supported it thereafter. That is a fair question, and it deserves a fair answer. The reason is that, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, after 14 years the Act has changed nothing. The problem remains the same. We need to look at the reasons behind the troubles in Northern Ireland. Why are there still shootings, killings, and terrible sectarian murders? Has the Act, particularly this part, contributed to changing the position? I believe that it has not.
      What worries me about this part of the Bill is that it can be, and is being, interpreted as anti-Irish. Some of us who are, unfortunately, old enough to remember the Second world war, remember that thousands upon thousands of people from Southern and Northern Ireland came to this country and joined the Army, Navy and Air Force. They fought alongside people from England, Scotland and Wales to defend the liberties of the people of these islands

      47
      against the Nazis. Thousands of them were killed. There is a special relationship. Our history shows that the English, with the Scots and the Welsh, dominated Ireland for centuries. The Cromwellian efforts in Ireland were not something of which we could be especially proud, yet I am a good parliamentarian and I believe that we would not have the liberties that we have now were it not for Cromwell and the parliamentarians and what they fought for.
      We must recognise that a special relationship exists with the peoples of the whole of Ireland—not a phoney relationship, such as the one with the United States. It is therefore scandalous to read in part II that people who have lived and worked for many years in this country, but who come under suspicion—perhaps because some of their relatives have taken a different position and have ended up in gaol in Northern Ireland or they have relatives in Southern Ireland—may find themselves being excluded from this country.
      5.30 pm
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I do not want to misinterpret what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I believe that he was saying that a person could be excluded from Great Britain even if he had been ordinarily here for many years. That would not be right.
      Mr. Heffer: In that case, I cannot read. The Bill says:
      "In deciding whether to make an exclusion order under this section against a person who is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the question whether that person's connection with any country or territory outside the United Kingdom is such as to make it appropriate that such an order should be made."
      Perhaps I have not understood that correctly. Can the Minister assure me of that?
      Mr. Hogg: If the person concerned is a British citizen and has been ordinarily resident in the relevant part of the United Kingdom, he cannot be excluded.
      Mr. Heffer: I did not say anything different from that. I was not arguing about the position of a British citizen; I was talking about people who may not be British citizens, who may be citizens of Southern Ireland, but who have lived in this country for 25, 30 or 40 years and who could be excluded from this country under the provisions of part II. The Minister seems to agree that that is what the Bill says.
      Mr. Hogg: I am trying to follow what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If I do him an injustice, I apologise. I thought that he was talking about people from Northern Ireland who were ordinarily resident here and who might be excluded.
      Mr. Heffer: I did not say that. People who live here, work here and vote here can be excluded under the provisions of the Bill and can be as much involved in the exclusion order as anybody else. That is not internal exile, although it would be internal exile if a person from Southern Ireland was sent to Southern Ireland under an exclusion order.
      Mr. Mallon: I am becoming confused about the Minister's point. I understand that, under law, I am a
      48
      British citizen. Under the Bill, I could be excluded from England, Scotland and Wales; so, in effect, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is correct. However, if the position has changed—although I am not aware that it has—and I am not a British citizen, I shall lead the trek down to the bar in another place and I shall buy at that bar with great pleasure.
      Mr. Heffer: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that point. The Bill proposes two types of exclusion. There will be internal exile if people who have lived in this country and who are British citizens are excluded to Northern Ireland. Equally, people who may not be British citizens but who are from Southern Ireland may be excluded. We have had this special relationship for a long time. People who may not be guilty of anything other than association because they have relatives could be picked up for any reason and excluded from this country, even if they have been here for 30 to 40 years. That is exactly what happened in Tsarist Russia and Soviet Russia, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) pointed out earlier.
      I now come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). He said that the matter was one of basic civil liberties. We cannot accept the exclusion order, but must argue and fight against it. I am glad that the Minister accepts that Labour Members are not in favour of terrorism, but I am worried that some newspapers and some Conservative Members consider that because I am putting forward this argument—and had the temerity to query what had happened to four people in Gibraltar—I am automatically a supporter of terrorism. The finger is pointed at me. However, we should still stand up and fight for what we believe to be right, especially when civil liberties are involved. The day that we cave in on that, all our basic liberties and concepts of democracy and freedom will go for all time and we shall be craven people from then on, living in terror. If we believe in the democratic process, we cannot accept that.
      I now want to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I do not know how his party can talk about its Liberal background—even its Social Democratic background— and say that it is the champion of freedom and democracy. I heard the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) make quite a good speech on the platform at his party conference—it was, in many respects, an excellent speech. He attacked what the Government was doing in relation to civil liberties in a forthright manner, which was perfectly acceptable to me. But the party's practice is very different from its speeches at such public demonstrations.
      Social and Liberal Democratic Members prove that, when they run away from dealing with issues such as the one today because they fear that the issue is unpopular or that they may be misinterpreted. Even if one fears misinterpretation, one must take a clear stand on the issue. I hope that we shall have maximum support for the excellent contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Opposition's case is that we should do away with the exclusion order-making power. It is perhaps desirable to remind ourselves of the arguments that they have made in support of amendment No. 27.
      The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who was nothing if not robust, described the exclusion

      49
      order-making power as disgraceful and villainous. He said that it was unacceptable to all true democrats and true champions of democracy. He asserted, in other words, propositions of fundamental principle. However, if his difference with the Government is a matter of fundamental principle, how was it that the Labour Government introduced these provisions in 1974 and 1976?
      It is not good enough to say, "After mature reflection we have changed our mind," because although after mature reflection on matters that are nicely balanced one can certainly change one's mind, it makes no sense when one is talking about matters of fundamental political philosophy. To say, "After mature reflection we have changed our minds," is not a proposition which hangs together in such cases and, because it does not hang together, I find the whole case deployed against the exclusion order-making power unacceptable.
      It is desirable that we reflect on the circumstances in which the exclusion order-making power can be made. It is set out in clause 5, which states that the Secretary of State may make an exclusion order
      "If the Secretary of State is satisfied that any person—

      (a) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this Part of this Act applies; or

      (b) is attempting or may attempt to enter Great Britain with a view to being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts of terrorism,".

      As the House knows, similar powers apply in the case of Northern Ireland and rest with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
      Those powers are tightly drawn and they are subject to further restrictions, such as those set out in the remainder of part II, which limits the power in respect of British citizens, ordinarily resident in the relevant part of the United Kingdom for three years or more. It is interesting to note Lord Colville's views about how the order-making powers have been operated. The one thing that he made wholly plain was his conviction that the powers are used in a fair and reasonable manner. He said:
      "if exclusion orders were to stay, I am entirely satisfied that the applications are prepared with great care and processed by officials in both Departments concerned with meticulous regard to the statutory grounds set out at the beginning of this Chapter."
      Ms. Mowlam: We must be careful of the Minister's nasty habit of quoting selectively from Lord Colville when it suits him. The Minister quoted from points 45 and 44, but, with the logical consistency that we have learned to love in the Minister, he missed point 43 which states:
      "the authorities in Northern Ireland would not be severely handicapped by the abolition of the exclusion orders."
      Will the Minister please put his comments in context?
      Mr. Hogg: I am perfectly well aware of Lord Colville's conclusions, but at the moment I am dealing with the narrow point of whether the order-making powers are being exercised in a fair and reasonable manner. The plain fact is that, having examined this matter, Lord Colville concluded that they were. Perhaps that is not wholly surprising when one bears in mind the fact that, at the end of last year, only 144 orders were in place in the United Kingdom. If we can be sure that the order-making power is being exercised meticulously and carefully and with full regard to the statutory criteria—
      Mr. Sheerman: The Minister knows that the case that we made many times in Committee was that surely good
      50
      law, which guarantees rights and civil liberties to individual citizens in this country, must be above the individual whim and practice of particular Home Secretaries. We embarrassed the Minister several times by contrasting the attitudes of different Home Secretaries to different parts of the legislation. Bad law presents a vacuum that can be filled in different ways by different Home Secretaries.
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman should direct his mind to the need for the order-making power, to which I shall now turn. The questions that the House must consider are, who says that we need the order-making power, and why do we need it? Once again, the answer to those two questions appears clearly in Lord Colville's report, which makes it plain that all the senior officers of the police forces in England and Wales are ardent supporters of exclusion orders. Lord Colville stated:
      "With one accord they say that they would not be able to provide surveillance for all the Irish terrorists who might arrive."
      Later in the report, under the heading "Assessment", Lord Colville's more qualitative judgment of the effect of the powers is:
      "I have to agree that it is probably an effective way of getting rid of people from an area where otherwise they might cause great trouble; and that it disrupts terrorist lines of communication and supply of arms, ammunition and explosives."
      5.45 pm
      It is perfectly true that in the end Lord Colville came to a different conclusion from that which I commend to the House, but there is no doubt that he was satisfied that the powers address a real need and have a real and desirable consequence.
      It is wrong to suppose that where facts exist that justify the making of an exclusion order, there inevitably exist facts that justify the institution of criminal proceedings against such a person. That, too, was one of Lord Colville's specific findings.
      However, in the end, there is no answer to the question that was posed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Second Reading when he outlined to the House the fact that earlier in 1988 he had had to deal with a number of terrorists operating in London and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, against whom it was not possible to press specific charges, although they were known to be about terrorist business. My right hon. Friend has to ask himself whether he should do noting or whether he had to make an exclusion order. His decision was to make an exclusion order, and that would have been the decision of every person who has had direct responsibility for carrying through such business. It is for that reason that I reject the amendment.
      Amendment negatived.

    Schedule 2
      Exclusion Orders
      Amendment made: No. 6, in page 24, line 5 leave out 'if necessary by force'— [Mr. Douglas Hogg]
    Clause 12

      DISCLOSURE OF INMFORMATION ABOUT TERRORIST FUNDS
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 7, line 38, at end insert 'express'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, we may discuss Government amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
      Mr. Hogg: I move the amendment formally, but if specific questions arise, I shall be pleased to try to answer them.
      Mr. Archer: I do not wish to detain the House, but I should be grateful if the Minister would explain the case for amendment No. 1. On the face of it, I cannot see the difference between a police officer giving "express" instructions to someone to take a particular course of action or implying that he has given those instructions and allowing someone to think that this is the course of action that he wishes them to take.
      Mr. Hogg: In the absence of the word "express" there could be dispute. People might assume that they have received implied consent and there could be an argument about that. It is better by far to make it plain that the consent must be express, that is why we have tabled the amendment.
      Mr. Archer: I only hope that it will be made clear to police constables that they should take great care and not let anyone think falsely that he is being encouraged to take a particular course of action.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. MacLennan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Amendment No. 28 was not a Government amendment. I wonder whether there is any way of the House knowing at this stage whether the Government accepted that amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: There is no way now that we can go back to that. The Government have not accepted the amendment.
      Amendments made: No. 2, in page 7, line 43, after 'made', insert
      'after he enters into or otherwise becomes concerned in the transaction or arrangement in question but is made'.
      No. 3, in page 7, line 44, at end insert
      'but paragraphs (a) and (b) above do not apply in a case where, having disclosed any such suspicion, belief or matter to a constable and having been forbidden by a constable to enter into or otherwise be concerned in the transaction or arrangement in question, he nevertheless does so'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

    Clause 13

      PENALTIIES AND FORFEITURE
      Amendments made: No. 29, in page 8, line 41, leave out from 'property' to end of line 44.
      No. 30, in page 9, line 3, leave out
      'to which subsection (5) above applies'
      and insert 'under this section'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

    Schedule 4

      FORFEITURE ORDERS
      Amendments made: No. 31, in page 28, line 45, at end insert—
      52
      '(cc) directing a specified part of any money, or of the proceeds of the sale, disposal or realisation of any property, to which the forfeiture order applies to be paid by the proper officer to or for a specified person falling within section 13(6) of this Act;'.
      No. 32, in page 28, line 48, leave out 'or (c)' and insert ',(c) or (cc)'.
      No. 33, in page 29, line 5, after 'under', insert 'sub-paragraph (l)(cc) above or'.
      No. 34, in page 34, line 27, at end insert—
      '(bb) directing a specified part of any money, or of the proceeds of the sale, disposal or realisation of any property, to which the forfeiture order applies to be paid to or for a specified person falling within section 13(6) of this Act;'.
      No. 35, in page 34, line 30, leave out 'or (b)' and insert ',(b) or (bb)'.
      No. 37, in page 34, line 34, at end insert 'sub-paragraph (l)(bb) above or'.
      No. 39, in page 40, line 26, at end insert—
      '(cc) directing a specified part of any money, or of the proceeds of the sale, disposal or realisation of any property, to which the forfeiture order applies to be paid by the proper officer to or for a specified person falling within section 13(6) of this Act;'.
      No. 40, in page 40, line 30, leave out 'or (c)' and insert ',(c) or (cc)'.
      No. 41, in page 40, line 35, after 'under', insert 'sub-paragraph (l)(cc) above or'.
      No. 7, in page 31, line 36, leave out second 'the' and insert 'a'.
      No. 8, in page 32, line 3, at end insert—
      '(6) Sub-paragraph (8) of paragraph 3 above applies for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes of that paragraph.'.
      No. 9, in page 37, line 32, leave out second 'the' and insert 'a'.
      No. 10, in page 37, line 50, at end insert—
      '(7) sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 13 above applies for the purposes of this paragraph.'.
      No. 11, in page 41, line 6, after 'take', insert 'that'.
      No. 12, in page 41, line 29, after 'charged' insert 'in Northern Ireland'.
      No. 13, in page 43, line 17, leave out second 'the' and insert 'a'.
      No. 14, in page 43, line 33, at end insert—
      '(6) sub-paragraph (8) of paragraph 23 above applies for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes of that paragraph.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

    Schedule 5
      PORT AND BORDER CONTROL
      Amendment made: No. 18, in page 48, line 35, leave out from first 'him' to end of line 36.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
    Schedule 8

      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 22, in page 64, line 4, at end insert—
      '(4) In Schedule 14—

      (a) in paragraph 5, for the words "section" 12(l)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984" there shall be substituted the words "section" 14(l)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989"; and

      (b) in paragraph 6, for the definition of "the terrorism provisions", there shall be substituted—
      '"the terrorism provisions' means section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and any

      53
      provision of Schedule 2 or 5 to that Act conferring a power of arrest or detention.".'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

    Schedule 4

      FORFEITURE ORDERS
      Amendments made: No. 36, in page 34, line 30, at end insert—
      '(1A) The Court of Session may by rules of court prescribe the powers and duties of an administrator appointed under sub-paragraph (l)(b) above.'.
      No. 38, in page 35, line 4, at end insert—
      '(3) The accountant of the court shall supervise an administrator appointed under paragraph 11 above in the exercise of the powers conferred, and discharge of the duties imposed, on him under or by virtue of that paragraph.'.— [Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

    Clause 14

      ARRERST AND DETENTIION OF SUSPECTED PERSONS
      Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 9, line 38, leave out 'five' and insert 'two'.
      This amendment, if carried, would require the Government to respect and observe the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Brogan and others. That is to say that, if carried, the amendment would require the Government to accept that men and women should not be detained for seven days without either charge or judicial review. In the limited time available for this debate—just over an hour to consider whether the Government were right to derogate from the court's ruling—there is no opportunity to do more than discuss three central issues which should dominate our consideration of the amendments.
      The first is the issue of principle—whether it is reasonable in any circumstances to detain a suspect for seven days without charge or judicial review. The second issue is whether it is reasonable to derogate from the European convention on human rights in these circumstances. The third issue is whether it is reasonable for the Government to invite us, as they do today, to pass into law a Bill which, if we are to take the Government's word, as I do, they hope substantially to amend in the immediate future. In each case, the Government's conduct is unreasonable.
      By far the most important of the three issues concerns the question whether seven-day detention without judicial review is right, or, for that matter, necessary. The European court adjudges that, in general, it is not right, and it adjudges that for specific reasons. Men and women should be held in prison only when they are suspected of specific offences and when it is at least anticipated that they are to be charged with specific offences, not when their detention is convenient to the Government to deter others or to trawl for information. We know that the immediately previous Home Secretary has been explicit in saying that the prevention of terrorism powers were intended for exactly the purposes that the European court, and, indeed, all civilised people, deplore.
      Sir Leon Brittan's own words in the House were these:
      "The use of the powers of detention under the legislation has acted, first, as a deterrent to persons other than the people who have been detained and, secondly, it has in the course of the detention of those concerned enabled some to be excluded and charged on the basis of information to be obtained that
      54
      was of direct value in the battle against terrorism, even though it did not lead to action against the people concerned."—[Official Report, 24 October 1983, Vol. 47, C. 55–56.]
      In Committee, the Minister quoted the Solicitor-General before the European court expressly denying that the Government would use detention for those disreputable purposes which the previous Home Secretary said were the intention of the Bill. But it was the Solicitor-General's duty—I do not blame him for carrying it out—to put the best possible interpretation on the Government's actions when he addressed the court. If the previous Home Secretary is to be believed, there is no doubt that, if they wished, any Government could disreputably use the present Act and the proposed powers of the new Bill. Indeed, if the previous Home Secretary is to be believed, there is no doubt that the Government have disreputably used the present Act and the present powers. I repeat that there is absolutely no doubt that, if they choose, future Governments could use such powers to trawl for information.
      On 24 October 1983, I asked the previous Home Secretary this question:
      "Is he saying that it is right in a free society to detain innocent people without charge for the purpose of obtaining information from them?"
      His answer was categorical:
      "It has been made clear not by me but by the courts that that is a legitimate and necessary use of the power."—[Official Report, 24 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 56.]
      I repeat again that I am well aware that in Strasbourg the Solicitor-General said that the Government would not use these powers for that disreputable purpose, but, unless Sir Leon Brittan was ludicrously wrong, the best that can be said of the Bill is that it provides the power to control that information, and all we can do is hope that no future Government will employ it for that purpose.
      In our view, and in the traditional view of the House, it is unacceptable to legislate on the basis that powers may be provided, but there is no need to worry, for the Government will not use them in the way that is allowed. We have contended that, in place of such power, we should apply the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The Secretary of State, who I thought would be here, but is not—I do not blame him for that; he has been here all afternoon—replied to our proposal with an answer which was prolix even by his usual standards:
      "under PACE the powers of arrest can be exercised only where a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that a particular offence has been committed or is about to be committed".
      The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that, under the Bill, it is possible to detain an individual who is
      "suspected of being involved in terrorism in circumstances where one cannot prove, or does not have reasonable grounds to suspect, the commission of a specific arrestable offence."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 10 January 1989, c. 295.]
      It is worth while dwelling for a moment on what the Minister said. Once again, as so often is the case with Government Bills that the Opposition regard as severe infringements of liberty, simply to state the power in the Government's own language shows how wrong the position of that power is. The Minister said that the Government wished for powers, demanded powers, and would insist upon powers that allow them to detain a man or woman who there were no reasonable grounds to suspect had committed an arrestable offence—a man or woman who was not simply innocent because they had not been tried and proved guilty, but a man or woman against

      55
      whom there was insufficient information to mount a charge. Yet the Government insist that against such persons seven days' detention is essential.
      The Under-Secretary went on to say that the powers of detention under PACE were "insufficiently strong". Apart from the issue of principle—putting aside the question of propriety, whether we should ever detain a man or woman against whom no charge can be made—two questions immediately arise from that answer. First, why do we need to detain for seven days a person who there are no reasonable grounds to suspect has committed an arrestable offence? The Under-Secretary of State has not answered that question, other than to say that he will "obtain information" which he did not give to the Committee.
      6 pm
      The second question which the Under-Secretary's answer requires is more fundamental. Is it ever right to detain for seven days a person whom one does not have reasonable grounds to suspect is involved in an arrestable offence? In a free society, the answer must be that such detention cannot be justified. It can only damage the reputation of any country which makes such a proposal.
      If we are to have any sort of debate on this important question, time allows only the briefest of references to the two other questions about the Government's attitude to the Brogan judgment which I posed at the beginning of my speech. The Government have entered a derogation from the convention. I have made it clear that I well understand that the Government are wholly within the terms of their agreement and are entitled to make such a derogation. There is no question of the Government having acted illegally or unlawfully, or having broken or abandoned their commitment to the convention in general. Sovereign states would never become parties to such conventions unless such derogations were possible. The question is not whether the Government were within their legal rights— clearly they were—but whether they were just and wise to use their legal rights as they did.
      Clearly the terms of the derogation—the notion that terrorism is now putting at risk the whole of the United Kingdom—are palpable nonsense. But I suspect that the Home Secretary will say that the words are no more than a technicality and that if there were to be a derogation it had to be in those terms. The important part of my question does not concern either the technicality or legality. It concerns the justice and wisdom of what the Government have done in terms of fundamental human rights. The Government have chosen to dissociate themselves from the convention in that particular.
      Mr. Archer: Lest there be any misunderstanding, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the wording of the derogation is not a matter of technicality? Unless the Government can bring themselves and the situation within the rules they are not entitled to derogate.
      Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. and learned Friend, who is careful in these matters, will notice that I am almost as careful, and said that the Home Secretary would undoubtedly attempt to argue that the words are a technicality. If he does not, he will find it difficult to justify on the evidence of the language that the situation on which he relies operates in the whole United Kingdom. As I
      56
      understand it, to make the derogation he must make that point. I look forward to seeing whether he calls it a technicality, as I predicted, or attempts to justify the words in their literal sense and application to the United Kingdom, which I believe would be impossible.
      I reiterate my basic point, with which I know my right hon. and learned Friend agrees, which is whether the Government were right in principle, wisdom and justice to make the choice which they were legally entitled to make. My view, which is the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends, is that, as well as being wrong in principle, to erode our commitment to the cause of freedom which the convention enshrines was also deeply unwise, because it damaged the cause which the Government claim to serve. When the Government attempt to cut funds to the IRA by attempting to have passed through the House a Bill which is specifically in part designed to achieve that objective, by taking their decision about derogation they are providing for IRA fund raisers a propaganda weapon of incalculable value.
      The Government will say in the derogation that terrorists are having a profound effect on the life of the whole United Kingdom. Terrorists will say that the Government at Westminster are prepared to abide by the rule of law when it is convenient, but that, when it is inconvenient and the Government wish to detain men and women for seven days without trial or judicial review, they fly to the derogation, with all the consequences involved.
      The third question, which I asked a quarter of an hour ago and which I repeat in slightly greater detail, concerns the Government's decision to press ahead with the Bill, although, according to their published statement, they hope to replace it with new powers almost as soon as it becomes law.
      If we are to take the Government at their word, which I do, they still hope to arrange a system of judicial review which would provide an examination of the justification of detention after four days, thus bringing our law into line with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. The Government are by no means sure that they can achieve that end but I give them credit at least for attempting to being that alternative about. Until we know how they want to organise detention, it is palpably unreasonable to ask the House to pass a Bill which stipulates one form of detention about which the Government may change their mind next year.
      The Government have known about the Brogan case for several years. There was a specific reference to it in the report on the prevention of terrorism published by Lord Colville in 1987. Yet the Government behave as if the ruling and their need to react to it came as a complete surprise towards the end of last year. After some confusion, which the Home Secretary will remember well and which I shall detail for him if he wishes, and some contradictory statements about when the Government could or could not make an announcement, whether they would have to derogate and whether the derogation would pe permanent, the Under-Secretary eventually sent a letter to members of the Committee. That letter, sent on 10 January, said in terms that the Government could not announce how they intended to proceed with the question of detention and the possibilities of a judicial review, and therefore with the necessity for permanent derogation, until the Bill becomes law, as the Government purpose, on 24 March.

      57
      The House is left in an absurd position. We are being asked to support a Bill which, if it becomes law, the Government will do their best to change almost immiediately out of all recognition. Simply in terms of good government, sensible management of business, courtesy to the House and demonstrating that they have a clear, concise and cogent line on civil liberties, the Government should have come to the House specifically describing which of the alternatives was likely to be the permanent feature of the legislation before they asked us to complete every stage of the Bill's consideration on the Floor.
      This is an example of incompetence, but it is the sort of incompetence that invariably comes about through arrogance and a stubborn refusal to admit error and agree to rectify mistakes. If it is impossible—as we understand it, because of the opposition of the Northern Ireland judiciary—for a judicial review to examine the case of men and women detailed under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, arrests should be made under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. That is the sensible as well as the principled response to the dilemma in which the Government find themselves. Support for our amendment would achieve that end.
      Mr. Barry Porter: I listened with great care to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and I want to confine my remarks to two of his major points. He asked whether it was reasonable for the Government to derogate from the Brogan judgment and the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, and to detain people in these particular and peculiar circumstances for seven days without trial or judicial review.
      Although I was young at the time, as no doubt was the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, I remember that there were very strong draconian powers of detention during the second world war. I appreciate that we are not at war in the strict, technical sense of the word, but it is clear that the Provisional IRA is quite willing to use the phrase "armed struggle". If that phrase means anything, it means the use of force to obtain a political end. The IRA uses that phrase to all intents and purposes, if it is not a war, it is certainly a quasi-war. Given those circumstances and the use of that phrase by enemies of this kingdom, we are entitled to look at the realities of the situation rather than at the legalistic aspects. The reality is that we cannot deal with those people with the ordinary powers of the law.
      It is naive in the extreme to say that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides enough power for the security forces and the intelligence services to provide the police with adequate information to bring certain people within the PACE regulations, under which there must be reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed or is about to be committed.
      I accept that the intelligence services will be able to provide certain information to the police, but it might not be sufficient to allow the police to say that an offence had been or was about to be committed. However, I believe that there would be sufficient information for the police to detain in almost every case. I do not want to know what that information or intelligence is. I cannot believe that it is the end of the world if someone with terrorist connections and about whom there is intelligence is kept for no more than seven days.
      58
      Surely it is better to be safe than sorry. Surely the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook must consider the fact that more than 3,000 people have been killed over the past 20 years. Surely it is better that someone should be inconvenienced—and I do not diminish that inconvenience—by being detained without charge for that time, than that someone else on the mainland or in the Province is murdered. Is that such a price to pay? I think not.
      The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that it was unwise to use the powers because there was a public relations aspect. Although he was not specific about this, he said that it might upset people in the United States of America or elsewhere in Europe and that it would in some way contribute to the funds now being channelled to the Provisional IRA. I suppose that that is possible. However, can the right hon. Gentleman imagine the effect on another part of the public—the citizens of Northern Ireland?
      I was in Belfast last week. The most remarkable idea, suspicion or feeling was obvious there that the Government were in some way weakening and preparing to remove themselves from the Province. I believe that that is untrue. This Government, like previous Governments, have made it abundantly clear that they will stand by our co-citizens in Ulster. However, some people on the Unionist side of the community divide were saying that.
      If the House accepts this amendment, we must consider another public relations aspect to the issue. People in the Province would say that it was more evidence that the Government are not determined in their fight against the terrorists. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook should examine his conscience. Even if he thinks that people should not believe that, that is what they will believe. The provision in the Bill to which the amendment refers is a sign of the Government's determination to use a weapon against the Provisional IRA and any Protestant paramilitary organisation which might fall foul of it; more generally, it is a weapon against the forces of violence. It is not too high a price to pay.
      Please God that we return to a time when these provisions are not necessary. However, 20 years on from the start of this struggle, these powers are still necessary. It is infinitely better to be safe than sorry. It is better to be sorry that some people no doubt will be detained when in other circumstances they would not. However, I would be more sorry if someone was murdered, assassinated or maimed as a result of this amendment being accepted.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Archer: I hope that the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) will forgive me if I do not immediately take up his arguments. I want to be brief because this is a very short debate. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will allow me to voice a protest about the completely inadequate amount of time given for this Report stage by the Government business managers. They have brought this situation about.
      I want to respond to only one of the three matters explored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), but not because the other two points are unimportant. In fact, I agree with my right hon. Friend that his first question was the most important. But I have seized opportunities at other stages during our deliberations on this Bill to deliver my views on those two points. It is important that

      59
      something should be said in relation to my right hon. Friend's second point. The Official Report of this debate will be widely read internationally and many people will want to know whether hon. Members are urging the United Kingdom to be concerned about its international obligations.
      There is an international consensus that terrorism is an international problem and that it must be dealt with on an international level so that those who seek their political ends by the use of violence will have no resting place or hiding place. On 15 July 1986 the Financial Times reported that Interpol spends 10 per cent. of its time on investigating terrorist offences. There were complaints from Conservative Benches when Ireland appeared to be dragging its feet in respect of the European convention on extradition, one of the major purposes of which was to deal with international terrorism.
      The European convention on the suppression of terrorism agreed in 1977 was, very properly, ratified by the United Kingdom in 1978. It has now been substantially enacted into our domestic law. Action has also been taken within the EEC, although some people believe that the EEC is not primarily concerned with terrorism. The Trevi group of Justice Ministers has committed itself to a co-ordinated policy and the sharing of information to bring terrorists to justice.
      All those initiatives have helped to make it clear that it is not simply terrorism that is international, but that law and order is international as well. Those initiatives show that terrorism will be fought at international levels. That means that nation states should accept some restrictions on their freedom of action and some limitation on their sovereignty in the interests of their people.
      The other side of that coin is that we agree on international standards of human rights and limitations—which are proper limitations—on the power of the police and the investigating authorities, so that a citizen of any of the countries which are part of this consensus can expect certain standards from his or her Government. The nations of Western Europe have accepted that they are, and should rightly be, answerable before an international tribunal to their own citizens when there is a complaint about those standards. Those who invoke, quite properly, the international consensus to deal with terrorism, to pursue terrorists and to prevent terrorism are committed equally to that same international consensus from the other purposes—to the commitment to the rule of law.
      I hope that not only will there be an agreement throughout the House on that principle, which can be read in the report by those in other countries, but that it will not be in issue that this country is bound in international law by the provisions of the European convention. There will be no issue that we were right to accept that obligation and to ratify the convention and that we were right to submit ourselves to the jurisdiction of the European Court and to the right of individual petition. I believe that that has not been brought into issue even by this Government, who have denied so many of the political propositions which we thought at one time formed part of the political consensus.
      It is said that it is our right within the convention—we are entitled to derogate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said, the right of derogation is part of the convention. It is not, however, something to be
      60
      embarked on lightly. It was not intended by those who drafted the convention, who agreed with it and who ratified it, that it should be invoked by a Government every time they found it inconvenient to abide by a ruling of the European court.
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook reminded us, the Government have publicly proclaimed that the activities of the IRA fall within the wording of article 15, which provides that we are entitled to derogate
      "in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation."
      If there is room for argument about the meaning of those words, it has to a great extent been resolved. We have the guidance of the European court in the Lawless case. The court said:
      "…in the general context of Article 15 … the natural and customary meaning of the words 'other public emergency threatening the life of the nation' is sufficiently clear; … they refer to an exceptional situation of crisis or emergency … which affects the whole population"—
      not just the population of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, but the whole population—
      "and constitutes a threat to the organised life … of the community of which the State is composed."
      If that was what the Government were describing in the words of their derogation, it ill fits some of the things which they have said about the success of those who are containing the IRA, which was said with the agreement of many of the Opposition and was something which we welcomed. There will be great rejoicing in the IRA at the wording which the Government have now publicly placed on record.
      I do not intend to embark on any of the other issues raised by this debate, but, if that issue is questioned before the European Commission and subsequently before the European Court, I venture to predict that the Government will have quite a rough ride. I do not suppose there is much danger of it, but I would not like to be the advocate who had to argue the Government's case. The provision we are discussing is one which other Governments in Europe, who too have experienced terrorism, have found themselves able to live with. Our commitment to the convention should go out from this House to our friends abroad.
      Mr. Mallon: I believe that this provision in the Act has caused more problems than any other, because it has been the most widely used part of the legislation, especially in the North of Ireland. The words of the former Secretary of State, Sir Leon Brittan, were quoted by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). The former Secretary of State said in October 1983 that it was a legitimate and necessary use of power to detain people to obtain information.
      One need only look at the figures to realise the extent of this appalling exercise. Sixty-nine per cent. of those held in the North of Ireland under this power of detention have been released without charge, and 91 per cent. of those detained in England, Scotland and Wales have been detained without charge. The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) glossed over the point and said that it would be better if people were detained for seven days rather than that they should be killed because of the activities of those involved in terrorism. That is a spurious argument when one considers the figures, the law as it stands and what I believe should be one of the golden rules

      61
      of any legal and judicial process, which is that the purpose of the law is to administer justice and to protect the individual as well as society.
      The figures speak for themselves, and there can be no doubt that what Leon Brittan confirmed as a fact is something which has continued until this day. It is known in the North of Ireland and readily admitted privately by the Army, by the police, by the people involved and by everyone in the community that the provision is used for that reason. If dogs in the street could talk, they would be saying the same.
      Surely the Act was draconian and punitive enough without the Government involving themselves in abuses of it. I believe that the protections in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 should be given in the North of Ireland. I mean not just the implications of the various measures under PACE, but the protection of the codes of practice, because that does not apply under PACE as it applies in the North of Ireland under the Northern Ireland order.
      What, therefore, can we rely on for protection? Should we rely on the judges' rules, which are completely unstated and, I believe, not clearly defined by the judges or understood by them? The judiciary would be the first to admit that. Alternatively, should we rely on the codes of practice of the RUC, which were not given to this House, or the codes of practice of the Army, which, under new legislation, would be a matter for prosecution if one were to divulge them? There are no codes of practice for people detained under the Act, which is something which should and could have been put right by applying to those people in the North of Ireland the codes of practice of PACE. Unfortunately, that has not been done, so that there is no protection, because none is provided in any other way.
      The reality of temporary derogation is that we cannot be a la carte: we cannot take what we like of European judgments and ignore what we do not like. We must abide by the rules. If we do not, we will be seen as acting as bad Europeans. We must ensure at all times that we have a proper supply of inverted commas in our pockets so that they can be put around such words as temporary, when we see how long temporary may be in this type of decision.
      I believe that the Secretary of State has three choices in relation to the Brogan decision. He should obey the decision of the director of the European Court, he should change the laws so that they accord with those which exist in the rest of Europe, or he should simply derogate. I believe he has chosen the worst of all worlds. He has done something that will not help to resolve the problem. It will add to the feeling that, when it comes to dealing with the problem of justice in the North of Ireland and the choice between retaining the integrity of justice and the Government's commitments in Europe, they will opt to behave in such a way that not only shows contempt for the European Court of Human Rights and the European convention on human rights—the British Government played a central role in developing them—but demonstrates that they are prepared to pursue an atavistic attitude that is endemic to them. In the last analysis, that atavism will be one of the downfalls of the Government because it is destroying the integrity of the law and the integrity of justice, which must be the foundations of any free society.
      62
      6.30 pm
      Apart from the contempt the Government have shown for Europe and its laws, it is intrinsically wrong for the Government to show such scant regard for the basic concepts of human rights. They are throwing them out of the window, but, sooner or later, there must come an end to repressive punitive legislation. Someone must call a halt because we are almost at the end of the road and, once we reach it, we must then row back up the river against the tide. The Bill represents one more waterfall on the way back to the type of normality that alone will solve the problems in the North of Ireland.
      The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) made a dangerous claim when he said, I believe with some pleasure, that there was a war going on in the North of Ireland. The only people who want to believe that there is a war are those fighting it. For years the Provisional IRA has said that its prisoners should be treated as prisoners of war. Hence the problems in the prisons with people in compounds who are not treated as ordinary prisoners and who believe themselves to be prisoners of war. To confirm that what the Provisional IRA has said all along is correct—that the country regards itself as being at war—is most dangerous for the people of the North of Ireland. It is also dangerous when one considers that in the light of a publication today and considers it through the minds of those who are on the other side of the coin in the supposed war—those in the Army serving the Government.
      Mr. Hunter: I expected that there would be more robust support for the Government's stance from the Conservative Benches, but the mantle falls on me.
      The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) repeated what he has said in Committee about the need to avoid punitive and repressive legislation. Our essential argument is that the Bill is neither but gives the Government the powers necessary to combat an ugly situation.
      The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) delivered his thesis—it is familiar to us and we heard it in Committee from his hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)—which must be rejected. Surely in Northern Ireland we are dealing with a unique situation. It does not exist in any of the other countries that are signatories to the European convention on human rights. The judgment that the right hon. Gentleman has sought to exploit to his political advantage duly acknowledges that the circumstances in Northern Ireland are unique.
      The Government are in the unenviable position of having to seek to reconcile irreconcilable legal traditions. A variety of national legal traditions led to the composition of the European Court of Human Rights which must be reconciled by that court. The legal systems are not the same. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to the Brogan case and said that, in other European countries, the equivalent to the magistrate plays a much earlier role in the interrogation and investigation process than is the case in this country.
      I do not know what my right hon. Friend will say in reply to this debate. He may respond to the judgment in the Brogan case, but I fancy not. I suspect that he will ask for more time and that that request will be well received by Conservative Members. This is such a serious matter that we cannot leap to judgment and we should not try to score

      63
      cheap political points at each other's expense from it. We want to proceed in a judicial manner. We want to ensure that our procedures are acceptable to other European countries, but our circumstances and traditions are unique. We must ensure that we do not rush into making a judgment that will detract from our ability to combat terrorism.
      The powers of arrest and detention enshrined in the Bill are needed to guarantee that we are able to combat terrorism. They should be supported because they are necessary for that purpose. It is also important that we do not rush into making a judgment about how to deal with the Brogan case.
      Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) spoke about the reasonableness of using the power of detention in any circumstance. He and other members of the Labour party have been consistent in arguing that the time for the use of such powers has passed and that they are not prepared to support their use.
      Although there is no doubt in my mind that the powers in the Bill are a substantial infringement of a citizen's liberties, are draconian and unwelcome and that it is essential that they should be subjected to periodic scrutiny by the House, the case for retaining them within the prevention of terrorism legislation is powerfully made by the evidence of Lord Colville. That argument is most forcefully and compellingly put in appendix C to the report, which describes the events in the week beginning 25 October 1986 in Scotland. A number of people were held under the detention powers, as a result of which, at the end of that week, 10 individuals were charged with serious criminal offences and were convicted.
      Apart from that example, the weight of evidence given by Lord Colville about the use that has been made of the powers by the law enforcement authorities is compelling. It is bound to carry weight with all who review these matters. We shall have to return to this question not only because of what has happened in Europe but because of the sense of repugnance felt by hon. Members about detaining people without the strongest possible arguments about the practical necessity for it.
      I shall now turn to the second question posed by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. It is convenient to follow his example because it will enable me to be brief. I have been consistent about derogation from the moment that this problem arose. I have called upon the Home Secretary to seek some means of complying with the judgment and to interpose judicial scrutiny at an appropriate stage in detention. I said that, if he was not able to do that during the passage of the Bill, it would create—here I agree with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook—some international embarrassments. It will raise questions about our willingness to abide by the international rule of law and the provisions made for the international protections of fundamental freedoms and human rights.
      The argument has moved on since the Home Secretary first addressed it. I listened with care to what he said in the debate on the timetable motion a week ago, and I have no doubt from what he said then that he and his colleagues are seeking means of complying with the ruling of the court in the Brogan case. I hope he will be able to tell us
      64
      that some means of complying with the judgment will be possible, although he said earlier that that is extremely unlikely before the passage of the legislation is completed. He and his colleagues are engaged in a quest for a means of complying with the judgment of the court. I hope that he can tell us that he is somewhat more optimistic than when he spoke on the subject last week, when he said that he was engaged in an uphill struggle. Those who are responsible for the maintenance of law and order in Britain would do well to co-operate with the Secretary of State in his quest because it is of great assistance to this country to be able to remain fully within the ambit of the convention.
      I do not think that the consequences of derogation are as the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) described them. The Labour Government in which he was Solicitor-General derogated from the European convention in 1978 on the issue of detention in respect of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. That derogation lasted until 1980 when the use of the powers in the Act were suspended. That was an unfortunate derogation, and many regretted that the Government of the day thought it necessary. However, that was the Labour Government's judgment and the House accepted it. The Home Secretary now judges it to be necessary. Unpalatable though it may be, we shall return to the issue regularly and frequently because we are not persuaded that it is impossible—although it may be difficult to do it now—
      Mr. Archer rose—
      Mr. Maclennan: I wish to conclude, because I know that the Home Secretary wishes to speak, but I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
      Mr. Archer: Would the hon. Gentleman at least remind the House that, when the Labour Government derogated from the convention, they did so in respect of part of the territory of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland? They did not undertake to prove that there was a danger to the national existence of the whole of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Maclennan: I am not at all clear that, when the Labour Government derogated from the convention, they sought to justify it in the precise language that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has used. I have the terms of the note that was put before the Council of Europe, and it does not spell out the provisions in the manner in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. Be that as it may, the Government of the day thought that it was necessary, and that was not questioned. The Home Secretary has given evidence of his good faith and intention in this matter, and I hope that the House will support him in pushing to achieve the judicial review process that is necessary to maintain our position on the international protection of human rights. I deeply regret that so far he has not been able to do that, because that would have made his task with the House and the country much easier. I hope that, before the Bill leaves the other place, which may be in a matter of weeks, that will yet prove possible.
      6.45 pm
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The debate has been quietly conducted, but the discussion on the amendment is about the risks that we are prepared to run with terrorism. The amendment would be prepared to run risks that are unacceptable. The House has again been searching to find a balance between the protection of the community as a whole and the protection of the legal rights of the individual. We think that the balance is rightly struck in the Bill, and that the amendment would tilt it unacceptable against the safety of the community.
      The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) conveniently organised discussion under three headings. I agree that his first heading is the most important, so I shall deal briefly with the other two. The Brogan judgment did not say that it was wrong or illegal to detain an individual without charge for seven days. It could hardly have done so, because in France, for example, the limit for detention without charge is four months. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) was right in what he said about the different legal positions.
      The Brogan judgment said that a judicial mechanism needed to be interposed so that some independent person could review detention after a certain time. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I have been entirely open with the House and the Committee about this. I am quite clear in my mind that it would not be safe to leave the police without the power of detention. The nature of terrorism, which we all read about over Christmas and the new year, bears that out.
      Of course we would have preferred not to derogate, and the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) was right when he said that this is not a subject to be taken lightly as a matter of convenience. We continue to look for a judicial mechanism; the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) gave a fair account of that quest. I cannot add to the information that I gave him on the subject last week. I said that there were three jurisdictions and that we could not have consulted judges on a hypothetical basis. Had we done so, we would probably have gone well astray, because the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights was not the simple rejection of the use of a power, but was on the proviso that I have mentioned.
      The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook argued that in some way we should have held up the Bill until the position was clear. I entirely accept that the timing is awkward for the Government and the House, but the right hon. Gentleman left out of account the fact that, unless the Bill containing the detention power passes into law by 21 March, the present Act will expire and the power will fall. That could not be justified.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West dealt in some detail and quite legitimately with the grounds of article 15. His argument was somewhat torpedoed by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. I am leaving out the question about a time of war, because I agree with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). There are many reasons why it is a mistake to discuss this situation as a time of war, and we are not required to do so under article 15 of the convention. The relevant phrase is:
      "public emergency threatening the life of the nation".
      66
      We are all one nation and one people. Although the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West derogated for Northern Ireland alone, since the terrorist campaign began there have been in Northern Ireland nearly 3,000 deaths and over 30,000 injured and in Britain, nearly 100 deaths and over 1,400 injured. Recent reported events show the extent of the threat, and that d affects more than just one part of the Province or one part of the kingdom.
      On the central point, it is our firm and considered view that in some cases—a small number—the police should have more time than the maximum available under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) was right on that. Terrorist investigations tend to be considerably more complex than the cases dealt with normally under That Act. I need not repeat the argument of Lord Colville on this point, and the different examples that he gave, or those given by my hon. Friend the Minister in Committee. However, those examples made the point, and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has not addressed them.
      I can give two more examples. On 29 April 1986, the police arrested five people in a flat in Strabane and a search of the premises revealed two grenade launchers, two grenades, three rifles and a quantity of ammunition. An extension of detention was authorised to enable the police to await the results of forensic and ballistic tests and to question each man in detail about his involvement. On the fifth day of detention, as a result of this work, the police were able to charge all five men with a variety of terrorist offences. They were later convicted and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment.
      My second example came within my time in office. We received information of the presence in this country, and in this part of the country, of people planning terrorist attacks on behalf of the Abu Nidal terrorist organisation. I allowed three days of extended detention. This led to further arrests. I authorised further detentions in respect of six of the suspects for the full five days permitted by the Act, and as a result, I was able to authorise deportation orders, on national security grounds, of all six people concerned. That is a clear example, for only by the use of the extension of detention power in the Act were possible acts of terrorism averted by the proper use of deportation procedure. It could not have been done without that information.
      The case is clear, and it is reasonable to require that people detained in this way should have safeguards. They exist under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in this part of the kingdom. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh spoke about the situation in the Province, but as he knows that there are safeguards in place—there is not much secret about that—following the action taken after the Bennett report in 1979.
      Mr. Mallon: I thank the Home Secretary for pointing out that there are technical safeguards. What safeguards for people held in Northern Ireland under emergency legislation are written into codes of practice or statute?
      Mr. Hurd: I am talking about what is in place as a result of changes made after the Bennett report. There has been widespread discussion about the extent of those, and I believe that the situation is adequate.
      The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, and The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, made the point—that

      67
      the legislation is essentially pre-emptive. It is designed to prevent acts of terrorism, and its powers are often exercised while terrorist crimes are being prepared. The fact that a terrorist is not charged does not invalidate the grounds on which the detention was made. In answer to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, there has to be an intention on the part of the police to develop their suspicion to the point where they have evidence to jusify charges or to consider applying for exclusion or, as in the Abu Nidal case, deportation orders. He was unfair in his quotations from my immediate predecessor, because my predecessor was talking, quite clearly, about the possible results, and not the purpose, of such investigation.
      If I thought that there was no purpose beyond gathering intelligence, I would not authorise an extension of a period of detention. Often, the discussions that take place on a request for an extension revolve around that point. In some cases, preparations may not have gone far enough for charges to be brought, or the information available to the police may be too sensitive to be brought before a court, or it may not be admissible in evidence. The case for this power, which was not introduced by the Conservative party, remains valid. Under the law, such a power could not be and should not be used widely. It should be used sparingly, but because of the nature of terrorism, it is needed. I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland on that point.
      If we did away with this power, which would be the effect of the amendment, we would in a small number of cases, but a small number of important cases, be imperilling the public. We are not inventing this power—we are simply trying to prevent the Opposition from removing it. The amendment would put citizens at risk. Arguably the prime purpose of Government is to provide the necessary protection for our people, who are looking to us for that protection. We should not do anything that would withdraw or weaken that protection. Therefore, I advise the House not to accept this amendment.
      Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary has been kind enough to leave me three minutes to offer our comments on his justification for his proposal, and I do so in the form in which I began the debate. First, I shall discuss the principle. The Home Secretary is at best ambivalent in his attempt to describe the real meaning and purpose of the powers. He said that detentions were made only when the police officer had a genuine wish to proceed, and the genuine intention of proceeding, with criminal charges. If that is the case, there must be many frustrated and disappointed police officers, for they are constantly making detentions under these powers which do not lead to prosecution. It is only reasonable to assume that, time after time, detention is made without any real expectation that a prosecution will follow in the case of the man who is arrested.
      It is all very well for the Home Secretary to say that we did less than justice to his predecessor, but the quotations from that person were exact in every particular. The Home Secretary of the day, in introducing the extension and continuation of these powers, said that it was wholly legitimate, and approved by the courts, that these powers should be used either as a deterrent or in order to trawl for information. Mr. Barry Porter indicated assent. Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr.
      68
      Porter) nods, honestly and honourably, as he should, because he advocated use of these powers for exactly that purpose.
      The Home Secretary must not, or at least should not, tell the House that the powers exist but will not be used in a way that most people regard as reprehensible, because if the powers are there and can be used for that purpose, there may one day be a Home Secretary less reasonable than the right hon. Gentleman. Who knows, Sir Leon Brittan may be rehabilitated and repainted back into the Cabinet photograph from which he has been removed, and may again adopt the view that he was open in adopting when he commended these powers to the House.
      I am disappointed with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who is always on the side of liberty, but not enough to vote for it. In many ways, he demonstrated the position of a reluctant Liberal—a reluctant Liberal with a capital L and, today, a reluctant liberal with a small one—anxious to show that he has the libertarian qualifications, but unwilling to express them in the Division Lobby.
      Much more important than the hon. Gentleman is the attitude taken by the Home Secretary to our reputation in the world. I did not make any point concerning public relations. Public relations in these matters are unimportant. However, I did refer to the general political reputation of this country as a genuine democracy, which applies the rules of democracy even when it is inconvenient to do so. That applies to our success in fighting terrorism as well as to our general reputation in the world. It is assumed that, by taking such draconian and arbitrary powers, the war against terrorism will be won.
      It seems to us that, time after time, we are losing battles against terrorism. Genuine, honest and decent-minded people are worried about our real commitment to liberty and democracy. Unless we convince the law-abiding population of Northern Ireland that we are on the right side, we will not win the battle and, for that reason, we press the amendment.
      It being Seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant, to the order [23 January) and the resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the amendment be made.:—
      The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 241.

      Division No. 60]

      [7 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Campbell, Ron (Blylh Valley)

      Allen, Graham

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Canavan, Dennis

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Battle, John

      Clay, Bob

      Beckett, Margaret

      Clelland, David

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

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

      Cohen, Harry

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Corbett, Robin

      Blair, Tony

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Boateng, Paul

      Cousins, Jim

      Boyes, Roland

      Crowther, Stan

      Bradley, Keith

      Cryer, Bob

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Cummings, John

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Darling, Alistair

      Buchan, Norman

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Buckley, George J.

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

      Caborn, Richard

      Dixon, Don

      Callaghan, Jim

      Dobson, Frank

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

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

      Alexander, Richard

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Amess, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Colvin, Michael

      Ashby, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Baldry, Tony

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Batiste, Spencer

      Cran, James

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Critchley, Julian

      Bottomley, Peter

      Curry, David

      Brazier, Julian

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

      Bright, Graham

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

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

      Day, Stephen

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Devlin, Tim

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Durant, Tony

      Burns, Simon

      Dykes, Hugh

      Burt, Alistair

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Butcher, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Butler, Chris.

      Fearn, Ronald

      Butterfill, John

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Forman, Nigel

      Carrington, Matthew

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Carttiss, Michael

      Franks, Cecil

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Freeman, Roger

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      French, Douglas

      Chapman, Sydney

      Fry, Peter

      Chope, Christopher

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Doran, Frank

      Mallon, Seamus

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Marek, Dr John

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Martlew, Eric

      Eadie, Alexander

      Michael, Alun

      Eastham, Ken

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Flannery, Martin

      Morley, Elliott

      Flynn, Paul

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Foster, Derek

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mullin, Chris

      George, Bruce

      Murphy, Paul

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Nellist, Dave

      Gordon, Mildred

      O'Brien, William

      Gould, Bryan

      Patchett, Terry

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Pike, Peter L:

      Grocott, Bruce

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Prescott, John

      Haynes, Frank

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hinchliffe, David

      Radice, Giles

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Reid, Dr John

      Home Robertson, John

      Richardson, Jo

      Hoyle, Doug

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Robertson, George

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Illsley, Eric

      Short, Clare

      Ingram, Adam

      Skinner, Dennis

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

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

      Lamond, James

      Soley, Clive

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Spearing, Nigel

      Leighton, Ron

      Strang, Gavin

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Wall, Pat

      Loyden, Eddie

      Wareing, Robert N.

      McAllion, John

      Winnick, David

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Worthington, Tony

      McLeish, Henry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Madden, Max

      Mrs. Llin Golding and

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Mr. Frank Cook.

      Gill, Christopher

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mills, Iain

      Gorst, John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gow, Ian

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Moate, Roger

      Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Gregory, Conal

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Ground, Patrick

      Moss, Malcolm

      Grylls, Michael

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Mudd, David

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Neubert, Michael

      Hannam, John

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

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

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Harris, David

      Norris, Steve

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hayes, Jerry

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Hayward, Robert

      Paice, James

      Heddle, John

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Pawsey, James

      Hind, Kenneth

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Holt, Richard

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Portillo, Michael

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

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Price, Sir David

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Raff an, Keith

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Hunter, Andrew

      Redwood, John

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Renton, Tim

      Irvine, Michael

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Jack, Michael

      Riddick, Graham

      Janman, Tim

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rost, Peter

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Rowe, Andrew

      Kennedy, Charles

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Key, Robert

      Ryder, Richard

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knapman, Roger

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Knowles, Michael

      Shersby, Michael

      Knox, David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Latham, Michael

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Speller, Tony

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lightbown, David

      Squire, Robin

      Lilley, Peter

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Steen, Anthony

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Stern, Michael

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Stevens, Lewis

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Sumberg, David

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Summerson, Hugo

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Maginnis, Ken

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Malins, Humfrey

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mans, Keith

      Thurnham, Peter

      Maples, John

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Tracey, Richard

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Trotter, Neville

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Walden, George

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Wood, Timothy

      Waller, Gary

      Woodcock, Mike

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Yeo, Tim

      Warren, Kenneth

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Watts, John

      Wells, Bowen

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wheeler, John

      Mr. David Maclean and

      Whitney, Ray

      Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 4, in clause 15 in page 10, line 5 leave out 'if necessary by force'.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

    Schedule 5

      PORT AND BORDER CONTROL
      7.15 pm
      Ms. Mowlam: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 47, line 43, at end insert
      `and may not be a strip search (that is, a search involving the removal of more than the outer clothing.)'
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 26, in clause 22, page 15, line 15 leave out 'one-third' and insert `one-half.
      Ms. Mowlam: We shall speak briefly on amendment No. 24, as we went into the subject at some length in Committee.
      Opposition Members consider that strip searching as practised in Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales is humiliating and degrading to women. We do not believe that it fulfils any meaningful security purpose. We do not wish to change the nature of intimate searches or to stop the security forces from being able to examine clothes; we understand the need for specific items of clothing to be examined when someone is going into or out of prison. We see no point, however, in strip searching as it now exists. We do not think that a visual examination of an unclothed man's or woman's body serves any valid security function, and we should like to know why the Government consider it necessary. Opposition Members would argue that there are alternatives such as rub-down searches, and that many mechanical instruments can be used without inflicting the humiliation of a strip search.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I do not want to be difficult, but I am
      sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate that amendment No. 24 is limited to examining officers under the port and border controls in schedule 5. The broad issues that the hon. Lady is discussing do not fall under the amendment.
      Ms. Clare Short: I understood that we were talking about a right for examining officers to strip-search any visitor to the United Kingdom from anywhere else, or anyone leaving the country or crossing the border in Ireland. The general question of strip searching for anyone crossing those borders is what is at issue.
      Ms. Mowlam: That is exactly the point that I am making. The Minister was correct to point out that the amendment relates specifically to port of entry, but we want to get across the fundamental arguments that we discussed in Committee, while—as my hon. Friend says—relating them particularly, on this amendment, to entry at ports into Northern Ireland or the mainland. It is the
      72
      principle with which Opposition Members are concerned.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is scandalous that men are prepared to use women to carry bombs, knowing full well that those women will be blown up? We must do something to protect such women against themselves.
      Ms. Mowlam: It is scandalous for men, women or children to carry bombs, but I do not agree that this kind of strip searching deals with the problem. We accept the need for rub-down searches, examination of clothing and, when there is reasonable suspicion, intimate examinations. Can the hon. Lady explain how a bomb can be carried by a woman whose clothes have been taken off? It is the visual examination to which we object. We understand the need for searches when there is reasonable suspicion, but strip searches merely allow the humiliation and degradation of women.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman indicated dissent.
      Ms. Mowlam: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) shakes her head, but the present arrangement is ridiculous. An individual will be examined, but a pram containing a baby will not be. The Government's position is illogical and inconsistent. We are asking not only for consistency and logicality, but for the rights of women placed in such a position to be defended.
      Mr. Hunter: Can the hon. Lady explain why a strip search is more humiliating for a woman than for a man?
      Ms. Mowlam: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but if he reads the records of women who have been strip-searched in Northern Ireland he will understand why it is so humiliating. Six or seven male prison officers—in the main, prison officers are not female—will stand around a woman who has been asked to take her clothes off, chatting, gossiping and making rude comments about her body. It is not a question of security, as the hon. Member for Lancaster tried to suggest, but of degradation—and that is what we object to. We understand the nature of security but that is not what strip searching is about.
      Ms. Short: As I understand it, the amendment applies to the strip searching of men and women. I say to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) that there is no question but that women find the idea of being strip searched deeply offensive. Men make less fuss. I do not know whether men do not mind running around naked in front of each other and having their bodies examined, but most women find the idea deeply repulsive.
      Ms. Mowlam: I am sure that the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) will respond when he wants to.
      Alternatives are available. I am sure that Conservative Members will remember that when the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) was directly concerned with Northern Ireland affairs, he said that he would investigate and consider alternatives to strip searching. The time to do that is now here.
      There has been an improvement in security instruments, and if they are good enough for the House of Commons and airports they should be applied to prisons. There is no need for strip searching as it is done now.

      73
      Opposition Members are not alone in pressing such an argument. Many organisations that have studied the matter in detail also call for strip searching to be abandoned or changed. Those organisations include Amnesty International, A Christian Response to Strip Searching, the TUC, the Student Christian Movement of Ireland, the Irish Information Partnership, the National Council for Civil Liberties and the Government's own advisory body, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. The Prison Officers Association has called for a review of practices in prisons, both in Northern Ireland and on the mainland.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I hate to be tiresome but the amendment has nothing to do with strip searching in prisons. It is exclusively related to strip searching by examining officers under the port control powers.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I shall tell the hon. Lady when and if she is out of order.
      Ms. Mowlam: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister's point highlights my argument. We are particularly concerned that the port powers can be administered by a customs officer or an examining officer. There is a host of individuals who may not have the training, experience or knowledge of prison officers. We are even more worried that such individuals may be involved in strip searching. We oppose strip searching in prisons; in relation to port powers it is even more worrying and threatening.
      I am sure that the Minister will well remember the discussions we had in Committee about the standard of facilitie and rooms at many of the ports. We are anxious about the standard of facilities in prisons—I am sure that the Minister can stretch his mind to the anology—and even more concerned about those at ports. We are more worried when people are less protected and more open to abuse by people seeing what is happening.
      Ms. Short: I am surprised that the Minister protests so much. We are talking about the power of examining officers—without needing to have reasonable suspicion—to take the clothes off any individual who comes into or leaves our country. The examining officers are entitled to strip-search anybody to find out whether he or she might have done something in breach of this legislation. "Welcome to Britain," we say to tourists. "We might force you to take off your clothes completely if we feel like it, if we spot you and pick on you."
      We know that, when we give these powers to examining officers—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Lady and her hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) are taking this to extremes. The amendment refers to the "removal of more than the outer clothing."
      People have to take off rather more than a mackintosh—there is nothing about stripping naked
      Ms. Short: I am afraid that the hon. Lady has not followed this subject closely. I shall describe a strip search. A woman is required to take off every article of clothing, including her underclothing, which is examined piece by piece by the examining officer. If she is menstruating she is required to remove her sanitary protection and have it examined, too. That is what we continually do in prisons in this country.
      74
      The amendment would prevent us from doing this to people who visit our country, or cross the border between the Six Counties of Northern Ireland and the 26 counties of the South, which is what many people who live in those parts do all the time. It is unbelievable that the amendment is unacceptable. It is serious enough to take the power to strip-search if there are reasonable grounds for suspicion, but I can see a case for the Government doing so. Strip searching without reasonable grounds is giving examining officers a blanket power.
      As I said, we know that the officers will not strip-search everyone. They will suspect certain categories of people—for instance, younger people of Irish origin. There are 80 million people of Irish extraction in the world, 40 million of them Americans. Examining officers tend to be suspicious of younger people from the Arab world—obviously, there has been a history of terrorist action in that region. They tend to suspect young people from Africa who might be sympathetic to the ANC and its struggle in southern Africa.
      This power enables examining officers to instruct people to take off all their clothes without those officers needing to have reasonable cause for suspicion. I cannot believe how complacently the Minister interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) to say that, as this was not about prisoners, she should not be so concerned. It is even more intolerable that people visiting our country should potentially be subjected to this kind of treatment, and that there should be no restraint on Government powers.
      I have studied strip searching is some detail. I visited Armagh gaol, where it started, but it is now spreading through all our gaols, and it particularly affects women prisoners. I must tell the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) that I do not know why men do not find strip searching as objectionable as women do. However, we know from the protests that women find it deeply offensive, and that other women are offended by the thought of women being treated in this way. Remand prisoners are treated like this twice a day—it is a continual process of humiliation.
      A woman who is determined to smuggle an object can smuggle it internally. We are given all sorts of assurances all the time by prison governors that they will never move to forcible internal searches. We now have technology that is capable of detecting anything dangerous—for instance, the bomb referred to by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). It would be more efficient to use sensitive detection equipment to pick up something that might be carried internally than to force people to take off their clothes and have their underwear and sanitary protection examined.
      Strip searching is unnecessary. There are better ways, using the available equipment, of ensuring that nothing is being smuggled, than putting people through this humiliation.
      The Government stress the money that can come into the United Kingdom from tourism, but with the value of the pound moving up so quickly we may hear less of that. In any event, the message will be something like this: "Welcome to Britain. If we feel like it, we can force you to take off your clothes before you come in. We can do so without having any reason to suspect you of anything. We are entitled to look to see whether you may be committing an offence under the Bill. After your holiday we can do it to you again before you leave the country."

      75
      7.30pm
      Many hon. Members do not appreciate that, because the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic is not a natural or historical one, there are those who live near the border who cross it constantly. They cross it when they go to church. Some farmers have fields on both sides of the border. That is true of many members of my family. The Bill takes the power to strip-search any woman who lives in the border area. That could be done daily if the authorities chose to do so. None of us thinks that the situation has deteriorated to the extent that the powers would be used constantly on everyone, but they are being taken in the Bill. Unless the Minister is willing to accept the amendment—it should be acceptable to him—the warning is that our officials will be entitled, if they feel like it, to strip-search any man or woman who enters or leaves the country, or crosses the border between Northern Ireland and the 26 counties. They will be able to do that whenever they feel like it to search for information.
      Mr. Kenneth Hind: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said that strip searches are unpleasant and that they should be avoided at all costs. There is something in what she says, but she must consider allowing strip searching within the context that we are discussing, which is not the ordinary one. The schedule provides for examination on arrival or on departure. The second paragraph sets out the situations in which someone can be searched on entering the country or leaving it. It is clear that those who may be searched will have given rise to suspicion among officers of Customs and Excise, the police and the security services. If they have given rise to the suspicion that they are involved in terrorism, the issue will have to be pursued.
      We are talking of those who have not been able to give a satisfactory explanation of their movements to an officer who is responsible for the security of the people of the United Kingdom. That is why he will possibly proceed to a strip search. It is an extraordinary power to deal with an extraordinary set of circumstances. Terrorism is not a normal activity. If someone is suspected of terrorism, surely there are circumstances in which the power of strip searching, which the hon. Member for Ladywood dislikes so much, can be exercised. I am sure that no one would advocate that it should be exercised unless he or she feels that its use is absolutely necessary.
      Ms. Short: Unless I have misread the schedule, the hon. Gentleman appears to have misdescribed the Bill. Irrespective of whether an examining officer has grounds for suspicion, he will have the power to proceed to a strip search. That is one of my complaints. There do not have to be reasonable grounds for suspicion. The examinig officer will have the power to subject anyone to that sort of examination.
      Mr. Hind: This is where common sense enters into it. Paragraph 2(1) of schedule 5 provides:
      "Any person who has arrived in, or is seeking to leave, Great Britain or Northern Ireland by ship or aircraft may be examined by an examining officer for the purpose of determining—
      (a) whether that person appears to be a person who is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".
      76
      The paragraph then refers to exclusion orders. Sub-paragraph (c) refers to:
      "grounds for suspecting that any such person has committed an offence under section 8 of this Act."
      The power that we are discussing must be built on top of all the other powers that have been given to the police and the immigration officers at the ports. It applies especially to those who come into the United Kingdom as immigrants who might be illegal or who might be bringing in drugs, arms or whatever. No officer will search someone for the sake of doing so. He will proceed to strip-search only if a suspicion is raised in his mind.
      Ms. Short: Then let us put that in the Bill.
      Mr. Hind: It is a bit late to do that.
      Ms. Short: Ask the Minister.
      Mr. Hind: We are talking of a power that is being given to deal with terrorism. It is there for all to see.
      Under the Bill, an officer must satisfy himself that the person with whom he is dealing is not involved in terrorism. Under other legislation he has the same power to search. He will be able to search for drugs, for example. Is the hon. Lady saying that we should not allow strip searches in other circumstances such as those which involved drugs, for example? Is she saying that no member of the security services and no police officer will be allowed to strip-search for anything?
      Ms. Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of common sense. He has developed an argument, however, and reached conclusions that lack common sense. He says that no officer would embark on a strip-search without having sufficient evidence that it was necessary. Is he arguing analogously that, of the 38,178 who were arrested in the past four years under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, there was specific information in relation to them all? Since the beginning of the PTA, 344,650 houses have been searched. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there was reasonable evidence in relation to each of those houses? That would appear to be the logic that he is deploying.
      Mr. Hind: With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall try to stay within order.
      The hon. Lady advances a good argument, and she has put her finger on one of the extraordinary features of terrorism. The power to strip-search in certain circumstances is an extraordinary one that is intended to deal with extraordinary circumstances. It is not easy to secure evidence against alleged terrorists that will stand up in court. Witnesses are intimidated. They are frightened and they will not come forward. The consequence of that is the power to place exclusion orders. They are used where we know that there is evidence and that if the witnesses would come forward it would stand up in court. In dealing with straightforward criminal law, as with terrorism, a person who is arrested may be interviewed by the police to ascertain whether he will pass on information, under caution, that will assist in building a case against him. That is entirely normal. No one complains about that procedure when the police use it in dealing with ordinary crime.
      When someone is arrested under the 1984 Act and he says nothing, and as a consequence there is no evidence against him other than that of witnesses or complainants who will not come to court because they are likely to be

      77
      intimidated, there will be complaints from Opposition Members if the accused person is released. We must examine our procedures within that context.
      If we exclude the power to strip-search at our ports—it relates specifically to terrorism—we shall create an anomally. In some circumstances, we shall allow strip searches when there is a suspicion of drug carrying, for example, and in others, especially those related to terrorism, we shall not.
      May I go on to show why, in some circumstances, we cannot allow that to happen? People who wish to bring in items or papers relating to terrorism will use a great deal of ingenuity to conceal them. It may be necessary to ask them—men or women—to remove their clothes so that their ingenuity can be discovered. The explosive Semtex is an interesting example. It is odourless and non-metallic and cannot be detected by the machines about which the hon. Member for Ladywood talked. If it was placed underneath clothing, or sewn into clothes so that it could not be detected by touch, a strip search would have to take place to discover it.
      There are many similar examples. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has served with me on many criminal law Bills, could give examples of people concealing items—often drugs—in the body, either internally or in the body orifices.
      Ms. Short: How is that relevant to a strip search?
      Mr. Hind: That is the only way in which such items can be discovered.
      Ms. Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. Our amendment would not avoid intimate searches, so it would be possible to search body orifices. The amendment does not argue that clothes should not be examined. We have allowed for clothes to be passed out so that officers can look, for example, for items sewn into hems. We are trying to stop men's or women's bodies being visually examined, which we believe is illogical, irrational and counter-productive.
      Mr. Hind: This is at the root of the problem. If someone conceals something within the orifices of his body, how else will it be found? The amendment would create a farce. A full strip search would be allowed under ordinary legislation, perhaps in relation to drugs. Does the officer at the port say, "Under the amendment to the schedule, I cannot search for anything related to terrorism"? Suddenly he will become interested in drugs and say, "I am strip-searching this person to look for drugs." If the port authorities are as devious as the Opposition suggest, they could do that without difficulty. The amendment would create inconsistency and, at the end of the day, nonsense.
      Ms. Short: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would choose his words more carefully. Items that are carried internally are not caught by a strip search, so the hon. Gentleman has wasted much of his case on the possibility of people smuggling items internally. A strip search is not part of an internal examination. If people are determined to smuggle something, they can do so internally, so that making them take their clothes off will not be effective. Of course, if they are carrying nothing, it is humiliating.
      Mr. Hind: I disagree forcefully with the hon. Lady. I have been involved in drugs cases where Customs officers, by strip-searching the courier coming through the port,
      78
      were able to remove drugs from inside the body orifices. Those drugs were seen as soon as the clothing was removed. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is talking about a full internal search, but I am not. I am talking, from hard experience of dealing with similar cases, about the common-sense way of doing it, and I believe that it is necessary to have a strip search.
      7.45 pm
      As the hon. Member for Ladywood said, the border between the Six Counties and the Republic is not a natural border. It is very long and impossible to police adequately, and people do not always cross it using roads. They go down many of the cart tracks that criss-cross the border. But the majority of the arms, explosives and equipment used by the IRA is brought into Northern Ireland via that border. Many of them are brought into the Republic from all over the world. People who cross the border immediately come under suspicion, and they are the sort of people whom sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 2(1) are designed to catch. They must explain their movements—
      Ms. Short: They live there. They go there in the ordinary course of their lives.
      Mr. Hind: I appreciate that.
      People who have an honest and legitimate explanation for their movements have nothing to fear. Anyone who is carrying on his business normally has nothing to fear from the schedule. But if people cannot give an adequate explanation, there must be further investigation. Common sense applies very much in this regard. It is nonsense for the hon. Lady to say that the people who live there and who cross the border regularly should be exempt from strip searches. Those are exactly the people who should be searched, if they cannot give a reasonable explanation. They must be asked, "If you have nothing to fear, why do you not go through the normal check points? Why do you cross fields or use cart tracks?"
      This is an unusual power to deal with a difficult problem. Had it not been for the horrors and the disasters caused by terrorism, I am sure that the House would. not even consider such a power. But it is necessary, and I urge my hon. Friends to vote against the amendment.
      Mr. Steve Norris: Having heard the speeches of the hon. Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), one would have to be extraordinarily insensitive not to appreciate their argument. I do not know whether there is any value in pursuing the question whether men are less offended than women by intimate searches and strip searches, but I speak for most men when I say that I would find it a degrading experience which I hope never to undergo. I cannot believe that it is probably reasonable to say that it would be even worse for women.
      We must start from that point. I have always believed that if someone is innocent, the sense, not just of shame and embarrassment, but of sheer outrage on being subjected to such an examination would be greater than almost any other experience at the hands of the Executive arm of the Government.
      That is the inevitable prelude to my next point, which is that we must consider what the Bill exists to do and under what general power the power of search exists. The Bill provides the framework within which to deal with the

      79
      extraordinary and unique situation in the United Kingdom. Of necessity we convey to officers under schedule 5 wide powers to enable them to deal with an adversary who, on any logical interpretation, will use whatever processes, devices, tricks and methods of concealment are available to help him or her to achieve an evil and detestable object—the maiming of innocent people.
      It is significant that the Bill never mentions intimate searches or strip searches, but simply gives officers the power to search. The hon. Member for Ladywood knows that well, because she knows the subject better than I do and I defer to her experience. Paragraph 4(2) of schedule 5 says that an examining officer may
      "search that person and any baggage belonging to him"
      in accordance with the powers and responsibilities vested in that officer under paragraph 2. That power must, deliberately, be wide and my first concern about the amendment—I do not say "objection", because the amendment does not justify that word; whatever else, it is clearly proposed in a spirit of humanity and concern for the rights of women—is that as soon as one qualifies a search and says that only certain parts of the body may be searched, or certain items of luggage or clothing, one immediately gives the terrorist—the only person with whom we are concerned—the avenue he seeks. The terrorist will know that he or she has the right not to be subjected to a particular type of search and, bearing that in mind, will devise an appropriate method of concealment.
      The hon. Member for Ladywood mentioned the searching of a pram but she knows of the diffidence and reluctance of members of the security services about searching a pram and making a mother take her baby out of the pram and throw the clothing to one side to see what is underneath the pram. But she also knows it is a matter of great sadness to millions of women in this country and in the Province—that such diffidence has resulted in devices being carried in prams and those devices have caused death to innocent mothers and babies. My anxiety is that, the minute the power of search is qualified, in the way the amendment seeks, we tie the hands of the officers and that is inconsistent with providing the necessary power to ensure that a thorough search is carried out when it is needed for the examining officer's inquiry.
      Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a fundamental frame that we have used in law when talking about restricting people's liberties or locking them up is to give power to the Executive to carry out those actions when there is reasonable cause. Would it not be better, if we are giving officers the power to strip off people's clothes, to provide that there must be some grounds for suspicion before that power can be used?
      Mr. Norris: The hon. Lady has made a good point about the width of the powers given to examining officers. Were it not for the exceptional context of this legislation, the House would be well advised to examine that power in great detail.
      Mr. Greg Knight: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Norris: I shall give way when I have finished my reply to the hon. Lady.
      I do not believe that under the power given by the Bill to search to determine
      "whether that person appears to be a person who is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this paragraph applies",
      one can start with sufficient evidence for a prima facie case before one is allowed to search. We all know that in the context of normal customs investigations, customs officers who are experienced in such matters look at a queue of people passing through the green and red channels and occasionally they will ask a person in the green channel to stop and they will ask a few more questions than usual about his trip and what he is carrying. They do so for a combination of reasons, one of which is that such a random search shows others that it is not worth while to abuse the privilege of ease of passage that the green channel gives.
      Another reason is that the officers have built up years of experience from which they can identify tell-tale signs that lead them to say: "I don't know what it is, but something about the person worries me. I may have seen him before and he is acting in a way I regard as suspicious." That is the basis on which an experienced investigating officer works. To define that in law other than in the broadest terms is genuinely difficult and we should be careful about that when drafting. None the less, that power is a necessary one to give to officers.
      Mr. Hind: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as dealing with Irish terrorism, which is the main stream of the Bill, the schedule also refers to other types of terrorism? We are dealing not only with Northern Ireland, but with international terrorists who come through our airports in situations such as my hon. Friend has outlined. That is why the powers are necessary.
      Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend made that point when he raised the subject of drugs and the necessity for officers to have wide powers to search for drugs. The issue is the same, and the Bill is concerned with the prevention not only of Irish terrorism but of terrorism generally.
      I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) for not having given way to him. However, I am delighted and flattered that he is taking such an interest in my speech. I trust that he will stay for the end of it, which will arrive shortly. I want first to make the point that the hon. Member for Ladywood knows that the Bill requires that a search of the person may be carried out only by a person of the same sex. I regard that to be as necessary as the hon. Lady considers it to be. It provides some protection from prurient interest and from exploitation of an intimate examination to which the hon. Members for Ladywood and for Redcar have both rightly referred. We should be adamant in ensuring that that provision continues.
      The Bill is almost unique in our current parliamentary framework, in that Parliament renews annually powers that, wisely, it has not taken to itself in perpetuity. The rationale for that is that the situation in the Province changes each year, so each year the House endeavours to ensure that the restrictions we put on freedom of the individual and freedom of passage to and from the United Kingdom and across the sea is only as severe as is appropriate to the threat to the peaceful order of the country at the time.

      81
      The hon. Member for Ladywood introduced the idea that perhaps the searches could be carried out by machine. My understanding is that, sadly, that is not the case. I say "sadly" because I assure her that if satisfactory evidence were available that machines that could be applied externally were utterly foolproof and that examination for substances or objects could take place without the necessity for anyone to take off any article of clothing—inner or outer—I would want this provision removed from the Bill. However, sadly, I do not believe that that is the case.
      Mr. Greg Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that the main point is that most law-abiding people are prepared to accept some embarrassment if that means that the risk of them, their neighbours or relatives being killed is diminished?
      8 pm
      Mr. Norris: We all accept the intellectual logic of my hon. Friend's argument. He makes a reasonable point which, I hope, is the reaction of most honest people who are asked where they have been on holiday when they arrive back in this country with their perfectly lawful duty-free allowances.
      I am prepared to accept that the hon. Members for Ladywood and for Redcar have reflected the genuine sense of outrage which not only women, but men, feel if an examination goes further than merely cross-questioning or further than a cursory examination such as one has every time one travels on an aeroplane, and involves taking off clothing and so on. I accept that that process involves indignity and that it is one to which we should never subject people without overriding reasons. Those overriding reasons exist in the context of the prevention of terrorism. As there is not at this stage a satisfactory technical alternative, those powers must remain until that technical alternative is available.
      Ms. Mowlam: Our point followed a statement made by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) when he was a Minister at the Northern Ireland Office. He said that he would review the procedures in relation to alternatives. Does the hon. Gentleman know whether the Northern Ireland Office has carried out such a review? We are concerned because sometimes words are cheap, but the actions cost a little more.
      Mr. Norris: I am not answerable for the promises or undertakings given now by my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who expresses exactly the point that I am seeking to make, although more succinctly.
      Our aim is to prevent terrorism and to examine people who enter this country to determine whether they are bringing in with them explosives, weapons or any other items that they might use in the commission of terrorism. The aim is not gratuitously to offend either women or men. Although I cannot speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), I repeat that if I were satisfied that a satisfactory technical alternative existed which would mean that it was clearly and demonstrably unnecessary for anyone to remove any item other than rainwear, I should be the first to say, "Let us thankfully take the power out of the Bill." I believe that there would be unanimous support across the House for that view. However—when the hon. Member for Redcar reflects on this, I am sure that
      82
      she will agree that this is the case—there is at best equivocal evidence that such a technical facility exists, and at worst the suspicion that our technical expertise in that area is not up to the dangerous task in hand.
      Mr. Heffer: I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) since his return to the House. Having listened to some of his hon. Friends, it is a real pleasure to listen to him because he has a somewhat different and more humane approach. I take on board his honesty in this matter. I do not believe that he wants to see strip searching or any other type of searching that could cause humiliation. I believe that he is genuine about that, and I understand the dilemma that he is in—and frankly we are all in—on this matter.
      Let us examine what happens in relation to stopping terrorists or potential terrorists from getting into other places. Nowadays it is clearly vital that we have measures of protection at party conferences. That is obviously the case for the party in government, but we in opposition also do the same—although up to a point I cannot understand why. We prevent, for example, people entering the hotels at which the hierarchy are staying. However, as far as I know, no one who enters the portals of the Conservative party conference is strip-searched. Of course, they are searched effectively, as we are. In fact, I get a bit fed up with it at times because the security people look under one's fingernails, under one's coat, up the bottom of one's trousers and goodness knows where else. To say the least, it can be slightly annoying, but one understands that it has to be done. However, as I have said, nobody is strip-searched.
      Day after day, people enter the House of Commons. I well remember some events in the House before 3ecurity was tightened. I remember somebody throwing a smoke bomb—thank God it was not a real bomb.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That happened twice.
      Mr. Heffer: Yes, there were two. I also remember a farming gentleman throwing something other than a bomb. It landed over here and made quite a mess. Rightly, efforts were made to protect Members of Parliament somewhat more effectively than they had been protected before, but nobody who comes to the House of Commons is strip-searched.
      Those are three places where, despite strict protection, nobody is strip-searched—
      Mr. Greg Knight: I have listened carefully to the lion. Gentleman's argument, and I am not sure whether he is making a good point. First, will he accept from me that each delegate who attends the Tory party conference must produce a security pass which has a photograph appended to it? That is a little different from encountering a couple of people dressed as farmers in a country lane in Ireland.
      Secondly, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that police dogs enter the House before the House sits, and that they not only sniff out the Chamber for explosives, but go upstairs.
      Dr. John Reid: The dogs come in when no one is here.
      Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) has made a good point. The dogs come in when nobody is here—apart from a few people walking about.

      83
      I agree that people coming to this country must have a passport, but if such people come from Northern Ireland, they are United Kingdom citizens. Although people may come here from another country by way of Northern Ireland, people from Northern Ireland are citizens of this country.
      This is a difficult problem. I am not saying that it is easy. I am not arguing that we should do nothing because this issue is of no consequence; it is of consequence. However, I have always had a dreadful image of strip-searching. I have seen photographs and films—thank God I have not seen it done myself, although I was in the forces—of what we all know happened to the men and women who were stripped naked by the Nazis. We know of their terrible humiliation. The first thing that is done to humiliate a person is to strip him. There is nothing worse than being naked in front of several people. Dreadful things are done. We live in a civilised society. We do not use the methods of uncivilised people. If we did, we would cross the Rubicon from civilised behaviour. That is not acceptable.
      It is about time we spent more money on getting machines to do searches. We remember the dreadful, horrible business of the plane being blown up. People from several companies came to me saying, "We have had machines for some time that would find that sort of thing, but they have not been used. They have not been taken on board." I do not know enough about the matter, but we should examine it and put some money into research to ensure that we create the appropriate machines. If we can go to the moon, we can surely do something to stop such humiliation.
      Mr. George Walden: I apologise for not being in the Chamber for the beginning of the debate. I am struck by one of the hon. Gentleman's points. He started speaking with perfectly humane motives. However, such motives can easily lead to sentimentalism and a confusion of categories. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Nazi analogy applied to us, whereas the problem is that we are dealing with people who have Nazi instincts. They are the killers, and we are trying to prevent them from killing. We must not allow one's justified concern about strip-searching to lead to a fundamental confusion of categories.
      Secondly—I do not want to try the hon. Gentleman's patience—if we were to say "No, this is too abhorrent; let us stop strip-searching," what would be the practical result? It would be that people would take advantage of that to camouflage their terrorism more effectively.
      Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman has reduced the argument to a simple matter. It is not a simple matter. I do not agree with the methods of terrorism and violence to solve political questions, but we cannot say that, in all circumstances, people who conceal weapons necessarily have Nazi tendencies. For example, the people in Europe whom we supported and provided with arms to fight the Nazis did much the same thing. The Nazis called them terrorists. We regarded them as freedom fighters. It depends on what angle one takes.
      We are talking about methods that are used now. Whatever happens, the ultimate solution to the problems of Ireland—North and South—is a political settlement.
      84
      Violence by anybody on any side will not solve the problem—after all, we have had it for a long time. We must examine the problem from that angle.
      I ask the House to support the amendment—perhaps with some reservations—because of the humanity involved and the fact that it will prevent humiliation. Many innocent people are affected. Powerful arguments have been advanced on that point, and they should be supported.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Sumberg: This has been one of the best debates on the matter that I have listened to. Some hon. Members have discussed this topic for a considerable time, both in Committee and in the House. I enjoyed the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). I was crouched forward because I had not heard him speak in the House since before the last election. It was good to see him back and to hear his speech.
      All decent instincts have come to the fore in the debate. None of us can be entirely happy that we are to pass a piece of legislation that will allow strip searching. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, there is a history to the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said that it would not be right to be sentimental, but images of the past and of the present make one frightened that such things must happen. There can be nothing more humiliating for a man or a woman—I make no distinction between the sexes—than to be stripped before others, or even before one other person, to prove his or her innocence. I have never experienced it, and I hope that I never will.
      Throughout the Bill's proceedings, I have said that civilised society faces a great challenge to all things that we believe in. Hon. Members have referred to many of them in this debate. All civilised values are under threat from terrorists. The hon. Member for Walton was right to say that there must be a political settlement. However, until there is a settlement of peace and until law and order are established, such a settlement cannot happen.
      Ms. Short: I put that point to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) whose return to the House I, too, enjoy. The hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) agrees that making someone strip off their clothes in front of uniformed individuals is oppressive and that none of us would like it. Does he agree that, if the power is necessary in some circumstances, there should be a requirement to show reasonable cause to do it? Under the Bill as it stands, an examining officer can do it to search for information. Does the hon. Gentleman consider that that goes too far?
      Mr. Sumberg: That promotes various difficulties. If reasonable cause must be shown, it can be challenged. We are dealing with an emergency in which a decision must be taken immediately. We are relying on the good faith and good sense of the officer involved.
      As I said, society faces a challenge. Over the past 10 years, terrorism has increased. More and more people are being killed and maimed. Examples are invidious. The fact that we must contemplate this legislation means that the terrorist has achieved some form of victory. That is the price that we have to pay.
      Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman has discussed at some length and in the abstract the principles involved in some

      85
      of these issues. As a relative newcomer to the debate, may I ask him with no mischief intended to consider to what practical end strip searches are carried out? I ask in all innocence. Have any of the maimings been prevented by dangerous weapons and substances, detonators and so on being found during such strip searches? If so, to what extent? If not, to what end are we insisting on strip searches?
      Mr. Sumberg: I do not have all the figures, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister does. Even if I could say that nothing has been found, it would still be reasonable to include strip searching, because it acts as a deterrent. It is a preventive measure against people taking the chance of importing explosives or other materials that can maim and kill. It works on the same principle as customs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest mentioned, when we may try to smuggle in something less dangerous. Not everyone is checked, but each of us knows that if we go through the green channel we may be challenged, searched and found out. As in other matters, I believe in the deterrent effect, although perhaps some Labour Members do not. Strip searching acts as an aid to fight terrorism.
      I hope that we can look forward to the day when these measures are not necessary and when we have the technicality and science to avoid them. I hope that we are working on that. For a variety of reasons unconnected with Northern Ireland it is essential that people can travel safely. Until that day arrives measures of this sort are needed. I hope that it will not be long before they are redundant.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: First, I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who is unwell and in bed. He is sorry not to be here to reply to this and a subsequent debate. Nevertheless, I am glad that the Northern Ireland Office is represented by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
      This has been a good and far-ranging debate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) said. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), I well understand the anxiety and distress articulated by the hon. Members for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). Those fears are more theoretical than real, but to the extent that they are real they may require further consideration.
      I shall focus on the rather narrow amendment No. 24 which requires careful consideration.
      Ms. Short: That is what we have been considering all along.
      Mr. Hogg: I heard that remark. I said that this had been a wide-ranging debate involving discussions on strip-searching in prison and elsewhere. We are talking about the exercise by examining officers of their powers at the port controls and it is on that that I wish to focus.
      It is plain that many of the circumstances described are covered either by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act codes of practice, particularly by code C, annex A, or by sections 54 and 55 of PACE. Where a person has been arrested by the police and brought to a police station, which could happen under paragraph 6(4) of schedule 5, or where a person is arrested by the police under clause 14 and brought to a police station, the safeguards contained in sections 54 and 55 apply. For that matter the provisions
      86
      in annex A of code C also apply where a person is detained by the police in a police station. That is a power of detention which arises under the schedule, but which falls short of the exercise of a power of arrest.
      As the hon. Ladies will know, page 64 of the code deals with strip searching and states:
      "A strip search (that is a search involving the removals of more than outer clothing) may take place only if the custody officer considers it to be necessary to remove an article which the detained person would not be allowed to keep."
      So in many of the circumstances that we have discussed, the position is already safeguarded either by sections 54 or 55 of PACE or by annex A of PACE code C.
      There remains a gap. If a person is detained riot by a police officer and not in the police station, the position is not covered by either of those two sections or by the codes. The same is true if a detention or an arrest is made by an examining officer who is not a policeman because, as the House knows, examining officers, although usually policemen, are not always policemen. There is a gap which has been identified.
      Dr. Reid: As the Minister is discussing the difference between the theoretical and the real position can he answer my question to the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg)? In reality, rather than in theory, what has been the result of strip searches in terms of discovering anything that could be regarded as remotely dangerous?
      Mr. Hogg: I am afraid that I do not have with me a detailed summary of the result of searches, and I would not wish to try to summarise what is clearly a large subject. I shall not try to answer that question because I do not have the factual information to enable me to do so.
      Dr. Reid rose—
      Mr. Hogg: No, I have answered that question and I cannot clarify it further. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I did answer the question. I said that I did not have any information. It may not be the answer that the hon. Gentleman wanted, but it is a perfectly clear answer, it is the best that I can give, and I give it.
      A gap that requires further consideration has been highlighted. It is unattractive that, in the certain narrow circumstances that I have described, strip searching could take place without any of the safeguards that would have applied had the person been arrested by a police officer. Therefore, I should like to reflect on the matter to consider the extent to which further safeguards should and could be incorporated in the Bill. I will arrange for that to be done.
      Ms. Mowlam: I appreciate the Minister giving way and acknowledging the obvious loopholes and weaknesses in this section of the legislation. When he refers to the PACE provisions, can he further reassure the House-he has already explained the weaknesses that exist about controls at ports—that the PACE provisions for Northern Ireland contained in statutory instruments currently before the House will include exclusions in relation to the prevention of terrorism as they have done in the past? May I assist the Minister by answering the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid)? If the Minister had read the Hansard of the Standing Committee he would be aware that all that had been found from strip searches was perfume, £5, a couple of letters and a key.
      Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will consider very carefully the hon. Lady's first point. I am grateful for the information that the hon. Lady gave about searches.
      Amendment negatived.

    Schedule 5

      PORT AND BORDER CONTROL
      Amendments made: No. 15, in page 47, line 45 leave out
      `if need be by force'.
      No. 16, in page 48, line 3, leave out
      `if need be by force'.
      No. 17, in page 48, line 6, at end insert
      `and he may, if necessary, use reasonable force for the purpose of carrying out his functions under this paragraph.'
      No. 42, in page 48, line 9, at end insert
      'and may, if necessary, use reasonable force for the purpose of performing those functions'.
      No. 18, in page 48, line 35, leave out from first 'him' to end of line 36.
      No. 19, in page 49, line 22, leave out
      `if necessary by force'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

    Schedule 7

      TERRORIST INVESTIGATIONS
      Amendments made: No. 20, in page 58, leave out lines 22 and 23.
      No. 21, in page 61, leave out line 36.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

    Clause 20

      INTERPRETATION
      Amendment made: No. 5, in page 13, line 32, at end insert—
      '(1A) A constable or examining officer may, if necessary, use reasonable force for the purpose of exercising any powers conferred on him under or by virtue of any provision of this Act other than paragraph 2 of Schedule 5; but this subsection is without prejudice to any provision of this Act, or of any instrument made under it, which implies that a person may use reasonable force in connection with that provision.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

    Clause 22

      RESTRICTED REMISSION FOR PERSONS SENTENCED FOR SCHEDULED OFFENCES
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Archer: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 15, line 15, leave out 'one-third' and insert 'one-half.
      The purpose of the amendment is to retain the existing position with regard to the remission of sentence under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, so that by definition it relates almost exclusively to people serving sentences in Northern Ireland. If it will assist the Minister when he replies, I accept at once that on reflection, as the amendment is intended only to retain the existing position, we might have done better to move to delete the clause. I am sure that the Minister will not take refuge in draftsmanship, because the draftsmen will have ample opportunity during the discussions on the Bill to take it away to whatever dark recesses they inhabit, turn it into classical English and return it to us.
      88
      The Government are proposing to change the maximum period of remission from one half the sentence to one third. No doubt a casual reader of the Notice Paper—not the Minister, because he will have read it carefully—might say that that is the position in the rest of the United Kingdom because in the rest of the United Kingdom, give or take a few exceptions, the maximum period for remission is one third. "Why," a casual reader may ask rhetorically, "should it be different in Northern Ireland?"
      The answer is to be found in the parole system. In the rest of the United Kingdom, normally a prisoner serving more than 12 months may earn remission up to one third of the sentence and then serve a further one third on parole. He may actually serve only one third of his sentence in custody. There is no parole system in Northern Ireland, and that is the reason for the difference in remission.
      When my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was Home Secretary, he introduced the provision for half remission in Northern Ireland. On 4 November 1975 he referred to a
      "prison population unnecesarily high because of the absence of a parole scheme".—[Official Report, 4 November 1975; Vol. 889, c. 238.]
      That was true, and it will not be a blinding revelation to the House if I state that the effect of the proposal in the Bill will be to increase the prison population at a time when we all agree that there is a crisis of overcrowding in the prisons.
      If the Minister knows anything about the situation in Northern Ireland, I am sure that he will agree that it is not unreasonable to try to get prisoners, particularly young prisoners, out of prison in Northern Ireland as early as is reasonably possible. I cannot speak with knowledge of the present position because I am a little out of date. However, when I knew anything about the prisons in Northern Ireland, they were operating as the Sandhurst of the paramilitaries. Young people in prison received training by the paramilitaries in the techniques of paramilitary activity. It is not unreasonable to want to get them out of prison.
      An extraordinary aspect of the proposal in the Bill is that it runs completely contrary to the recommendations of the Carlisle committee. It recommended in paragraph 274 of its report that those serving sentences of less than four years should be eligible for parole after they have served one half of their sentence.
      I would be the first to admit that we got this wrong in Committee. When the asymmetry was pointed out by Justice, at the suggestion of Justice we tried to restore symmetry by proposing the introduction of a parole system in Northern Ireland. On reflection, I accept that that was not the right solution. It would impose an impossible strain on the probation service, particularly when it is dealing with people who in many cases regard themselves as political prisoners. It is perhaps ironic that, when the present one half sentence remission was introduced, it was expressly stated that it heralded the end of the special category status. It was said that the two went arm in arm.
      It cannot be said that the present system has been outstandingly unsuccessful. The reconviction rate for adult male offenders in Northern Ireland is 42 per cent. as against 57 per cent. in England and Wales. The reconviction rate for those convicted of scheduled offences

      89
      is only one in five. It is perhaps worth remembering that the crime rate overall in Northern Ireland is lower than anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Ken Maginnis: When the right hon. and learned Member quotes percentages of those reoffending in terms of scheduled offences, does he accept the difficulty facing the authorities in convicting people of scheduled offences? Does he recall that, of the 177 murders committed by the IRA in my constituency, 92 per cent. have not been resolved through the courts by the due process of law? Therefore, he should recognise that percentages can be deceptive.
      Mr. Archer: Of course I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Statistics must be viewed with some reserve. I have always had a suspicion of statistics since I saw a document headed "The House of Commons broken down by age and sex." But I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that arithmetically the same problems of conviction apply at both ends of the equation; just as it may well be true that there are people who commit scheduled offences and are not convicted a second time, there are those who have not been convicted the first time. Arithmetically the statistic evens out; and it is still significant and worth quoting that only one in five of those convicted a first time are reconvicted a second time of a scheduled offence when we consider the reconviction rate of 53 per cent. across the board for the United Kingdom.
      No case has been made by the Government for the proposal in the first instance.
      Mr. Norris: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to establish a disparity between arrangements in the United Kingdom and those in Northern Ireland. Will he comment on the effect on his argument of the 1983 announcement by the Home Secretary on policy towards remission on sentences for crimes of violence which, in effect, established that such criminals would serve a minimum of two thirds of their sentence? Would not the acceptance of his amendment mean that a prisoner on the mainland would serve longer for a terrorist offence than he would in the Province? Would that not be a worse disparity than he is suggesting currently exists? Does not the Bill make logic out of what is at present a rather illogical situation?
      Mr. Archer: I accept that it is an illogical situation, and that the most logical way of dealing with asymmetry would be to have the same situation on both sides of the water. If we cannot do that, the best that we could do would be to have the same provisions for remission. It may be that we have set ourselves an insoluble problem, but what we would like to hear—I do not want to take up too much time because this is an abbreviated debate, the reason for which is to be laid squarely at the door of the Government's business managers—is the case for the Government's proposals. We discussed this in Committee, and I am bound to say that the reasons for the proposal were never made clear to us. Perhaps the most helpful course I can adopt is to sit down and invite the Minister to intervene at a fairly early stage to tell us the Government's case for their proposal and then we can debate that case.
      Mr. Mallon: I believe that a most fundamental mistake will be contained within this Bill. for a number of reasons. Anyone who knows anything about the history of Ireland knows the potency of the gaol situation. Anyone with only
      90
      a cursory knowledge of Irish history will realise the way in which it has been changed not in the streets, not in the fields and not in the roads, but in the gaols.
      I do not have time or the inclination to go back over the past, but I believe that we would all ask the question: if the action taken in 1916 had been different, would things be different now on the island of Ireland? If, in the recent past, a broad view had been taken within the prison service, would we have had the trauma of the hunger strike and the effect that that had and is still having in Northern Ireland and throughout Ireland? When we talk about prisons, we are talking about probably the most sensitive area of life in Northern Ireland, which has had and no doubt will have a substantial bearing on what happens in future. I believe that one of the keys to a solution to this problem lies within the prisons and the approach to them.
      8.45 pm
      I spend quite a bit of time talking to young people in the prisons, be they Loyalists or Republicans, and invariably the same sort of attitude comes through. They say, "What are we doing sitting here for 15 years when other people are out enjoying themselves? Why have we become the martyrs for spurious ideologies when, in effect, the world is still going on outside?"s
      I have no doubt that, rather than keeping people in gaol, getting people out is the way in which we should be moving. It has been seen since the early 1980s that, when people have been released back into the community in a spirit of consideration, that permeates its way down through the community—right down into that person's family and street. It has had a remarkable effect, as I have seen in my constituency. It is for that reason that the godfathers of violence—the people who run the paramilitary organisations—are afraid of the situation in the prisons being eased. It is there that we are making the fundamental and crucial mistake.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) asked what the Government's reasons are for the Bill. The only reason given in Committee was that it would act as a deterrent. If anything has been proved over the years, it is that prison does not deter those people who are highly charged and motivated ideologically. The given reason does not stand up.
      I should have thought that what happens on the streets, in the towns, and in the villages in Ireland shows that if, one treats the prison situation in a hamfisted way, we will end up with trouble.
      Sir Leon Brittan, the former Secretary of State, made mistake after mistake about prisons and was told time after time that he was building up something which would have disastrous effects. Arrogance, however, got in the way of his powers to listen, and we ended up with the most traumatic situation, one for which we are still paying. Many of the young people in prison today would not be there had it not been for that terrible period surrounding the hunger strikes and deaths in prison.
      I again ask the Government to listen to the view of the people who live in Ireland—because they know instinctively and see it in their everyday lives—that this is the wrong path to take.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West pointed out that the parole situation in Ireland is not the same as in the rest of Britain or the Republic of Ireland. The parole system does not exist, because the probation board would not be in a position to fulfil the functions that

      91
      such a board does in other places. People are sentenced against a background of emergency legislation, such as the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and the Diplock courts. It has been sought to put a normal face on an abnormal type of process, which leads to conviction and a process which of itself is doing damage to the cause of finding a solution in Northern Ireland.
      Another anomaly is that of scheduled offences, which were discussed at great length at Committee. There are unlimited examples of people who commit a scheduled offence being convicted under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 for an offence which was patently nothing to do with paramilitary activity are unlimited. This clause takes no cognisance of that and makes no allowance for it, but simply ploughs along a mistaken road.
      Probably the most damaging part of the clause is the problem that it creates for young offenders. Northern Ireland has at present a large number of young offenders, because of the socio-economic situation in which they must live. We shall see a situation developing where young people who are sentenced are committed for civil offences to a young offenders centre, but, if they come under the heading of this clause, will find themselves serving their sentences out—for an offence which patently was not a scheduled offence in the first place and which was being served in a young offenders centre—under the temporary provisions Act. For that reason, the clause is a great mistake.
      Unless we can reach the stage at which young people are convinced that the system of law and justice not only punishes them but protects them, we are fighting a losing battle. The problems will simply demand another piece of legislation next year, or in five or 10 years. Where does that lead? Unfortunately, the unholy spiral continues.
      Presently, the prison population in the North of Ireland is going down. That is one of the remarkable things about the Bill; that, at the time when the prison population is going down, we are about to extend the length of sentences to keep more people in prison. It is clear from the treatment of life-sentence prisoners and Secretary of State pleasure cases, how an imaginative, charitable approach, which is based on good judgment tempered by that quality of mercy necessary when dealing with prisoners, has had an effect. We are curtailing that effect in a brutal, unthinking manner.
      During the past eight years, how many people committed to young offenders centres have subsequently been charged and sentenced for scheduled offences under the emergency legislation? I asked that question in Committee, but I did not get an answer. I hope that I shall today, because this is a crucial point. I do not think it is good enough to say that the Northern Ireland Minister is not here so the figures are unavailable. I put that question on record in Committee, and it is the Government's job to provide those figures. Unless we have those figures, we will make a decision in the absence of the necessary information.
      Mr. Norris: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) will be aware that, in the United Kingdom, the peak age for offending is 15 years for both sexes. A third of all reported crimes are committed by people under the age of 16. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that
      92
      those 5 per cent. who commit 70 per cent. of the crimes for which conviction has been obtained—the recidivist element—almost inevitably had an early association with the criminal justice system. His argument that more should be done to keep people out of prison would find favour in all quarters of the House. It is welcome that the prison population in Northern Ireland is reducing and that, in the United Kingdom, the total of reported offences is reducing.
      It is a fatal admixture to go on to deduce from the oft-quoted theory that prisons are merely universities of crime that we should not deal severely with sentences for terrorism.
      Mr. Mallon indicated assent.
      Mr. Norris: I note that the hon. Gentleman is nodding, so I will not labour the point. Suffice it to say that the public would be outraged if they felt that those convicted of crimes of violence and crimes demanding sentences of more than five years were not to be kept in prison, on the grounds that their continued detention would allow them to practise their criminal skills.
      Everybody who deals with crime and the judicial system accepts that, to some degree, prison is a university of crime. I do not believe that any serious attempt should be made, however, to exclude serious crimes of violence from the due process of the law and the due sentences of the court.
      In the absence of parole, the real inequity is that since the announcement in 1983 by the then Home Secretary, Sir Leon Brittan, a terrorist convicted of an offence in the United Kingdom will serve two thirds of his sentence in prison, whereas in the Province it is possible that he will serve only one half of his sentence. Surely that is inequitable. The Bill will rectify that omission.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: For much the same reasons as have been advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), I cannot commend the amendment to the House. We need to be clear about the nature of what we are doing.
      First, the provisions are not retrospective; they are prospective only. Secondly, they apply to scheduled offences in respect of which sentences of five years or more have been imposed. It will be helpful to remind the House of the classes of crime that fall within the list of the scheduled offences. They are murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated burglary, robbery, membership of a proscribed organisation, and explosives, firearms and hijacking offences. One can understand at once that they are offences that are capable of being the most serious kind. For the purposes of the Bill they must attract a sentence of five years or more.
      The purpose of the Government's change in the law, as set out in the Bill, is to reduce remission from 50 per cent. to one third. In answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), that brings the situation in Northern Ireland broadly in line with that in Great Britain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest rightly said, the position on parole has changed substantially as a result of the statement made in 1983 by the then Home Secretary, Sir Leon Brittan. He made it plain that, normally, parole will not be granted to offenders who are convicted of offences of drugs or violence which have attracted sentences of five years or more. As a general rule in such cases, parole will not be

      93
      granted. Consequently such people must serve either two thirds or nearly two thirds of the sentence imposed by the courts.
      If we accepted the amendment and left the present situation unchanged, we would have a bizarre and unacceptable state of affairs. People convicted of terrorist-type offences in Great Britain would serve longer than those convicted of similar offences in Northern Ireland. That cannot be right. It is against that background that the Government have introduced the proposals in the Bill which will make persons convicted of offences in Northern Ireland serve, broadly speaking, the same period of imprisonment as will be served by persons in Great Britain convicted of like offences. That is right.
      I have a personal regard for the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). We served on the Standing Committee for a long time and I know his personal integrity. However, in this matter I cannot agree with him. We are dealing with people who have been convicted of abominable offences, for which long sentences have been imposed by the courts. The idea that people convicted of such offences should leave prison after having served only half the sentence that the court thinks appropriate makes no sense and is abhorrent to most people who reflect on it. I make no apology for saying that the criminal law is, at least in part, about punishment. That is a perfectly proper part of the criminal law.
      Ms. Mowlam rose—
      Mr. Hogg: I shall not give way, because we must finish by 9 o'clock. Deterrence and retribution are also perfectly proper parts of the criminal law. I see no reason why we should not say to people convicted of serious terrorist offences for which they have been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment, "You will have to serve a substantial part of the sentence imposed by the court." To tell them that they will have to serve only 50 per cent. of the sentence makes no sense. Two thirds is wholly right and anything less would be wrong.
      It being Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [23 January] and the resolution this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Amendment negatived.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on the remaining amendment moved by a member of the Government.

    Schedule 8

      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 22, in page 64, line 4, at end insert—
      '(4) In section 14—

      (a) in paragraph 5, for the words "section 12(1)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984" there shall be substituted the words "section 14(1)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989"; and

      (b) in paragraph 6, for the definition of "the terrorism provisions", there shall be substituted—

      '"the terrorism provisions' means section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and any provision of Schedule 2 or 5 to that Act conferring a power of arrest or detention.".'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

      Order for Third Reading read.
      9 pm
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      In commending the Bill to the House I propose to be brief, not least because the Bill and its predecessors have been scrutinised in considerable detail in this Session and on previous occasions. If time permits, and with the leave of the House, I shall seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if any points require further clarification.
      We need to try to define the truth of the matter. The plain truth from which the debate must start is that we are likely to face the threat of terrorism for some time to come. That threat is most acute in Northern Ireland where more than 3,000 people have been killed since the troubles began. However, as the tragedy of Lockerbie reminds us, the threat is not confined to Northern Ireland or to the affairs of the Province. Terrorism threatens us all and no person, however young or innocent, can be said to be safe.
      We should be failing in our duty if we did not take such steps as we properly can to meet this assault on democracy. That was the view of the Labour Government in 1974 and 1976 and in 1978, when they passed the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. It remains our view today. I entirely reject the idea, now apparently the official policy of the Labour party, that the ordinary powers of Law are sufficient to meet the exceptional challenge and threat of terrorism. Nobody who has had or now has direct responsibility for these matters believes that the ordinary powers of the criminal law are sufficient. That fact may be regrettable, but it is true.
      The reputation of the Labour party is on the line. Opposition Members proclaim their hatred of terrorism. They must give us a practical expression of that assertion. They must give us the statutory powers that every Government since 1974 have deemed necessary. If they will not or cannot, they will be judged by their failure.
      9.3 pm
      Ms. Mowlam: There has not been any disagreement on the need for a firm stand against terrorism. There has been no disagreement on the need to protect the people of Northern Ireland and Great Britain from the threat of political violence or on the need to bring the paramilitaries to justice.
      In moving the Third Reading the Minister in some ways misled the House, because there has been clear agreement on the goals. However, there is a fundamental difference—we heard it on Report and in Committee—about the most effective method of attaining those goals. I ask my hon. Friends to vote against Third Reading not because there is any disagreement on the ends or the goals but because there is disagreement on the means.
      We oppose the Bill for many reasons, and in view of the many arguments that we have heard, I shall comment on only three. The first is that the Bill is ineffective in tackling terrorism. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary told the House that this is a prevention of terrorism measure, rather than a punishment of terrorism measure, which is what the Minister suggested it is. In that case, the Home Secretary must justify the 1,784 deaths that have occurred in Northern Ireland since the temporary provisions Act came into force. It is unacceptable for the Government merely to point to the existence of terrorism as the justification for the Bill. The test of any legislation must be its effectiveness and what is the evidence for the

      95
      effectiveness or the success of this legislation? All we have is the level of deaths—1,784—that have not been prevented.
      In previous debates, the Government's argument, backed by Tory Members, has been that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act works like preventive medicine. We believe that the Government's medicine is far from preventive. We would argue that it seems to make the patient's disease worse. Far from effectively combating terrorism, its major achievement has been to alienate large proportion of the Northern Irish population. Far from being effective, it is counterproductive.
      Under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act a total of 30,178 people have been arrested and released without charge in the past four years. Over 344,000 house searches have been carried out since the Act was introduced, and they increased by 29 per cent. between 1986–87 and by 100 per cent. in the first half of 1988. Those figures suggest not prevention of terrorism, not winning over the population of Northern Ireland to the cause of peace, but alienating people—achieving the exact opposite of what the Act set out to achieve. Terrorism can be effectively defeated only by undermining support for terrorism in the community.
      With this legislation, the Government are trying to out-terrorise the terrorists. We must instead try to understand people's motives for supporting the terrorist force, however weak. Is it hard to understand why a family who have had their front door smashed in with a pick axe and their sitting room floor taken up with a pneumatic drill by the Army in a fruitless search will be less than co-operative with the security forces? Is it difficult for Tory Members to appreciate why children who have seen their parents searched in a reasonably rough fashion by the RUC grow up being distrustful of or doubting the system of criminal justice? The Act has been high on repression and low on results. Therefore, it is not working effectively.
      The second reason for our opposition to the Bill is that it represents an unacceptable erosion of civil liberties. I understand that in a democratic society a balance has to be struck between individual rights and the power of the state to fight terrorism. I accept that that is a difficult balance for the Government to achieve. However, under the Act, it is far too easy for the Government to suspend the normal workings of the criminal justice system, to reduce the rights of citizens and to heap more and more exceptional powers on to the security forces. It is far more difficult, but far more effective, to address the fundamental causes of terrorism—something that the Government are not doing with this legislation. The Minister acknowledged that a military solution in itself is not sufficient. We have to address the root causes of the problems of Northern Ireland.
      The Government have fallen into the trap of dealing with the symptoms of terrorism without properly and effectively tackling its causes. We argue that the Government fail to understand that terrorism can be defeated only by winning the hearts and minds of the overwhelming majority of the population in Northern Ireland. Every time the Government tighten the screw of security, every time there is a further act of suppression against the majority of people and every time that
      96
      democratic rights are denied, we argue that support for the solutions to the Northern Ireland problem becomes more and more difficult and the defeat of terrorism all the less likely.
      Mr. Barry Porter: The hon. Lady suggests that the rights of the majority are being suppressed. Will she expand on that assertion?
      Ms. Mowlam: Given the numbers of house searches and of people detained without charge, the legislation appears to be working in the opposite direction. The majority of people believe that their democratic rights are being denied and that the ways in which they could be defended are in fact working against them. An Act designed to prevent terrorism is therefore creating an alienating environment and the opposite situation to that which it was intended to achieve.
      Mr. Timothy Raison: Surely the hon. Lady is not suggesting that the majority of people in Northern Ireland believe that their rights are being denied?
      Ms. Mowlam: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point. The prevention of terrorism legislation affects both communities and both sides of the sectarian divide in Northern Ireland. Those people can be stopped and searched day in, day out, and can be stopped on entering Northern Ireland. The community does not want to live in those conditions. There may be some satisfaction with the present legislation, but the impact on daily life affects the majority of the community.
      Conservative Members will acknowledge that it is difficult to strike a balance between liberty and security. It is difficult, for example, to tell a woman whose husband has been shot dead by terrorists that the people suspected of the murder must have their rights protected. That may seem a heartless response which it is impossible for the wife to comprehend. However, Conservative Members should not lose sight of the fact that there is a two-way process. Civil rights include both sides of the community. If we care about the mother whose husband has been shot dead by terrorists, we must also care about the mother of Michael Tighe who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was shot by the security forces. Unless we accept that civil rights are a two-way process, we shall not acknowledge the importance of civil rights and of the need for the criminal justice system to be seen to give legal redress to both sides of the community.
      Mr. Maginnis: I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would clarify the point that she was making a moment ago. I agree that we should have sympathy with victims' families irrespective of which side of the community they come from and of whether they are victims of terrorist killings or of accidental killings or misjudgments by the security forces. Will she explain what she meant when she illustrated her argument by quoting the case of Michael Tighe and explain the connection with the prevention of terrorism Act?
      Ms. Mowlam: I gave two examples to try to prove my point. First, we can feel sympathy with a woman whose husband has been shot dead by a terrorist. Our hearts go out to her immediately, and we realise that it is difficult for her to understand when Opposition Members talk about civil liberties. But we should also consider the mother of Michael Tighe, against whom there seems very little

      97
      evidence. It appears that he was in a barn, in the wrong place at the wrong time, and was shot by security forces. Out hearts must also go out to that mother, who may find it equally difficult to accept that Conservative Members are willing to sell his civil liberties down the line. We must take into account that civil liberties are a two-way process, regardless of the origins of the case.
      I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be thinking of the parents of the Army lads killed at Ballygawley, who had to spend Christmas without them. But, whether we think of them or of the mother of someone killed by a terrorist, we should legislate not on the basis of emotional stories or historical prejudice but on rational fact. We are here to prevent terrorism, but the Bill will not do that. It is ineffective, it erodes civil liberties and it may have the opposite effect to that which is intended.
      My final objection is to the way in which the Government are making the existing Act permanent. That clearly signals to the people of Northern Ireland that the Government lack a precise or positive strategy for their future, and that what has been acknowledged since 1974 as a temporary suspension of normal democratic conditions has now become long-term legislation. We are sending a public message to the Irish people that the current level of violence is here to stay. What clearer message could there be that it is no longer the United Kingdom Government but the men of violence who are setting the agenda for Northern Ireland?
      I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will live to regret the time when we made the prevention of terrorism Act permanent. It is no good the Minister saying that there will be an annual review. Opposition Members know what that means: Northern Ireland business will be debated late on Thursday night, marginalised, and there will he no requirement for a Committee stage and debates such as this in the House as would happen if the legislation were renewed every five years. Surely that is the least that we can do in view of the lives that are lost in Northern Ireland.
      In Committee, the Minister acknowledged that when a Bill goes on the statute book it becomes far more difficult to change or to repeal. In the 1984 debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said prophetically:
      "Can the House really be sure that when the new Act expires, some time in 1989, it will not immediately be replaced by yet another version, which may be scheduled to last even longer or may even be intended to be permanent, but which may still be called temporary? A six-month Act was finding a permanent place on the statute book for powers which the Home Secretary"—
      it was the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) at the time—
      "describes as wholly unacceptable and inimical to our tradition of civil liberties."—[Official Report, 25 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 1013.]
      We have outlined three of the many reasons why we consider that the Act will not achieve the goals that both sides of the House would like to see.
      The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) put it clearly in an earlier debate when he said that, if we wanted to evaluate the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, we must ask, "Does it prevent terrorism? Does it work towards peace in Northern Ireland?" It fails on both counts, so we shall vote against it.
      9.20 pm
      Mr. Hind: I find it sad to follow the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlem), who said that the Labour party would vote against the Bill. The public will find that difficult to understand.
      This is one of the most important Bills that I have discussed in Standing Committee. It makes Britain a safer place in which to live, and protects the public from those who would take up arms against the state and kill and maim for political purposes. That is an honourable cause which should commend itself to all hon. Members and the public.
      I shall take up one point made by the hon. Member for Redcar. She said that we should not introduce legislation to prevent terrorism because one group in the community in Northern Ireland will feel that it works against it. That is a fatuous argument that falls to the floor when closely examined, because that group is as protected against terrorism as every other section of our community.
      If we take the line that we should not legislate because one group will feel offended or aggrieved, those who kill and maim will be able to hide among the legitimate, honest, straightforward members of the community and not be brought to justice for their terrible crimes. We have a duty to protect those innocent people and ensure that the terrorists are brought to book.
      Terrorism is extraordinary. I agree with the hon. Lady and many of her hon. Friends who opposed some aspects of the Bill. We are forced to take extraordinary measures to protect the community in which we live. The Bill is designed to last only five years because the House recognises that it contains extraordinary measures. In the past, temporary provisions Bills were introduced because of the serious nature of the measures that they introduced into the law of the United Kingdom.
      I say to hon. Members representing Northern Ireland that the Bill does not deal only with Northern Ireland. When the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill was introduced in 1974, hon. Members probably thought that it related only to Northern Ireland. However, circumstances are different today.
      Since the early 1970s we have seen the rise of international terrorism. It was brought home to us forcefully in the recent Pan Am disaster at Lockerbie that we must take international terrorism seriously. For the British public, this legislation has not merely an Irish dimension, but an international one.
      The Bill provides the police with extraordinary powers to outwit, outmanoeuvre and uncover the terrorist whenever possible. Recently, careful policing probably resulted in saving the life of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Clearly, a jury at the Old Bailey thought that a group of people were setting out to assassinate him. That is a typical example of legislation being used to detain them and provide for forensic examination of their clothes and hands to produce the necessary evidence to convince the jury that they were guilty of conspiracy to assassinate the Secretary of State.
      Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends were in the Grand hotel in Brighton when a bomb exploded that was designed to assassinate the entire Government. Again, the PTA was used to uncover a series of cells and terrorists who were actively trying to operate a bombing campaign in our seaside resorts. The Brighton explosion was an example of the campaign working in part.

      99
      We have seen the searches that have been carried out at airports. The finest example of that was provided by the El Al jet at Heathrow airport, where a middle eastern terrorist was happy to give a bomb to his pregnant girl friend, which he know would blow her and 300 other passengers to smithereens in a Boeing 747, irrespective of his feelings for her or his child. He was prepared to take that course for the simple reason that there was a political advantage to be gained. Extraordinary circumstances demand extraordinary responses from the House, and I believe that the Bill is adequate to deal with such circumstances.
      The powers of arrest and detention for seven days are important provisions, but I have no doubt that we shall re-examine them in the light of the comments of the European Court of Human Rights. All members of the Committee considered the provisions extremely carefully.
      The relevant powers of checks at our ports include detention for 12 hours, examinations and strip searches. These are important provisions to ensure that terrorists who enter and leave the country are detained and necessarily brought to justice. Exclusion orders prevent the IRA from organising cells and continuing its bombing campaign againt the mainland population. I support exclusion orders without shame, in the knowledge that I am carrying out my duty in protecting my constituents. For confirmation of that it is necessary only to ask the relatives of the victims of bombing campaigns on the mainland whether they consider it necessary that there should be exclusion orders. Such orders are not made by Cabinet Ministers because they do not have information that individuals in Northern Ireland are involved in terrorism. They know, however, that the witnesses who could convict them will not come forward because they fear persecution and threats of violence to them and to their relatives.
      We must satisfy ourselves that we can prevent terrorists from coming over to the mainland. It is not a satisfactory approach but, unfortunately, it is the only one that is available to us to deal with the problem. Again, it is an extraordinary measure to deal with an extraordinary problem. I hope that all my hon. and right hon. Friends will vote to secure the Bill's Third Reading.
      For the first time, we have a Bill that will enable us to attack in their pocket the terrorist, his banker and all those who are involved in collecting and retaining money for the propagation of terrorism. If we attack the terrorist's pocket, he will not have the means to buy guns and bombs to perpetuate his campaign. In that way we shall restrict the activities of the IRA and like organisations and of international terrorism when we catch their representatives on the mainland.
      This is probably the most important Bill with which we shall deal during this Session in seeking to ensure the safety of our fellow citizens. Let us vote for it against the background of the Battersea bomb factory and the tragedy at Lockerbie. I am sure that such happenings will remind us of the importance of what we are doing when the House divides. I am sure also that my right hon. and hon. Friends will proceed in the full knowledge and satisfaction that they are doing the right thing. They will feel that in their
      100
      hearts when they think of those who died and their relatives, especially those at Lockerbie. I commend the Bill as a move forward in the fight against terrorism.
      9.29 pm
      Mr. Mallon: We are running out of time and many other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall be brief.
      I hang my two arguments on the debate about derogation under article 15 on the grounds either that we are at war or that there is an emergency threatening the life of the nation. Have we ever considered the effect on the morale and psyche of the people against whom the Bill is aimed of stating that they are waging war or creating an emergency that threatens the life of the nation?
      It is a matter of concern to those of us who live in the north of Ireland and know those people for what they are that we are telling them that they are capable of waging a war against Britain or of creating an emergency that would threaten the life of the nation. It is not just any old war but one that has gone on for five times as long as the second world war. Is it any wonder that people are saying—this is part of Provisional IRA support—"Look at how the lads have kept it going for longer than Hitler, longer than the Kaiser, longer than Korea, or Vietnam, or Afghanistan or the Iran-Iraq war"? That is the type of morale booster that is given to the very people against whom the Bill is aimed. That is what they need.
      The irony is that, despite everything, what the IRA is short of on the ground in the North of Ireland are street issues. This issue suits them down to the ground. They are telling the people of Northern Ireland on both sides of the political divide that they can go on for another 20 years—that would be eight times longer than Hitler kept the war going. How many times longer than Korea or Vietnam would that be? That is a massive booster for the morale of those engaged in violent activity for their own political ends.
      Not only is derogation central to clause 14, but it is central to the search for peace in the north of Ireland. For that reason alone, it is a massive mistake.
      My second argument is that the measure of any society is its ability to retain its high standards in justice and legal practices, in the police service, in the Army and in its dealings within that society so that not only does it punish the person who has transgressed but it protects the innocent person as well. By passing the Bill and other such legislation, we throw away those high standards. Instead, we work to the hidden agenda written by those who organise the paramilitaries. We are being led by the nose down a path where those high standards, which many people have fought to preserve, are being thrown out at the whim and according to the strategy of the people against whom the Bill is aimed.
      Let us not forget that that is nothing new. Since partition in 1921, when the North of Ireland was formed there has never been a day when emergency legislation has not been in force. If, after so many years, we are still doing the same thing and still trying to solve the problem in the same ways—ways that have failed since the state was formed—it is time to ask the fundamental question: is there another way?
      I believe that there is. If we continue in this way, and if we could transport ourselves to a Monday night 10 years from now in the House when matters have not improved, violence has continued and the war that the Goverment

      101
      have now determined is taking place is still taking place, we would ask what would happen then. What will the Government do then? How much further will they go down the rake's progress of trying to make legislation be what it was never intended to be? If we go further down that road, what steps shall we introduce then? The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) will advocate internment without trial, but that has been done and has failed, too.
      Shall we reach the stage when the Provisional IRA and the men of violence bring the Government to the point where they have nowhere to go in terms of legislation, the Army or the police, or will the Government, or a Minister, shout "Stop!" before it is too late and think again about whether there is a way other than the one that has failed consistently since the state was formed? We have had the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, Diplock courts, internment, the supergrass system, the removal of the right to silence and the removal of the freedom of the press, and the open electoral system has been tampered with. Those are only a few of the actions that have been taken, so where do we go now?
      I make a prediction—which is always dangerous in politics—that in 10 years' time this war will still be continuing, because the right weapon is not being used. The right weapon is not repression and legislation like the Bill because it is clear as a pikestaff to anybody who wants to see clearly rather than to indulge in the self-righteousness and attitudinising that we have seen from Conservative Members day after day and the posturing and indulging in squelchy sentimentality, however sincere, about what is happening in the North of Ireland, that the Government should take a cold, hard, clear look and ask themselves "Where do we go in 10 years' time?"
      The Government have exhausted all the measures that can be used. The Under-Secretary shakes his head; no doubt he will tell us about further measures. They will probably include hanging, and there will probably be more mistakes. I beg hon. Members to think before they go any further down that path. Somebody will have to put the North of Ireland together again, and it will not be hon. Members but the people who have to live there—people of whatever political or religious persuasion. They will not achieve that on the basis of the Bill because the north of Ireland cannot be put together again on that basis. We must create a north of Ireland based on peace, justice and compassion. It must bind wounds rather than make them, it must integrate our society rather than alienate it and it must build a new society rather than more new prisons.
      9.39 pm
      Mr. Barry Porter: It appears that we are all against terrorism—so I am told. It appears that our ends and goals are all the same and that we all want to take a firm stance against terrorism. I am sorry to say that I have heard little from the Opposition tonight that leads me to understand what they mean by a firm stance. I apologise for having missed part of their contributions, but I was told that their first objection to the Bill was that it was ineffective. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) said that 1,784 people had been killed in Northern Ireland since the Prevention of Terrorism (Emergency Provisions) Act 1984 came into force. That is clearly true. She went on to assert that the Bill had made the disease worse. What evidence is
      102
      there for that, apart from a belief? She went on to say that the Bill and the Act were counter-productive. How can she assert that without evidence? Has it not entered her mind that the position could be—and in my judgment will be—worse?
      Ms. Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman seems to have missed my point. He can assert what he wants, and I can assert what I want. He cannot disprove my statement. The legislation has been on the statute book for 14 or 15 years, and if it is not working, surely it is time to look at it afresh.
      Mr. Porter: I cannot prove a negative any more than the hon. Lady can. I am asking her to consider that, on all the evidence available, it is certainly a possibility from her point of view, and a probability from mine, that without the powers that are available under the current legislation, the position could have been a good deal worse—
      Ms. Mowlam: Prove it.
      Mr. Porter: If the hon. Lady is willing to accept that as a possibility, can she and her hon. Friends take the risk of allowing the police and the security services only the ordinary powers available under the law in that extraordinary situation? I have no responsibility in this matter and with the greatest possible respect to the hon. Lady, neither has she, except in an alternative role. It is not a risk that I would wish to take.
      When I think of the intelligence and information available to successive Secretaries of State and other Ministers, not one—from any party—has been willing to surrender the powers that they now have. That information is not available to me, and that intelligence is not available to the hon. Lady. However, perhaps she might think—as I think—that if people as intelligent, honest, decent and honourable as those who have held such positions in the past are not willing to take the risk, that she should advise her hon. Friends that they should not take that risk either.
      The hon. Member for Redcar went on to say that the Bill is an unacceptable erosion of civil liberties. Certainly, the legislation would be an erosion of civil liberties in an ordinary and normal United Kingdom and in a normal and peaceful Ulster, but neither of those situations exists. There is murder and mayhem in Ulster and on the mainland. The erosion of civil liberties is a matter of judgment. It is there for those who care to look, but to me it is not unacceptable if it helps in any way to deal with the problem.
      I repeat what I said in one of our earlier debates: by voting against Third Reading, the Labour party will give a message to the men of violence which is simply that the alternative Government of the United Kingdom have thrown in the towel and do not wish to take a "firm stance" against terrorism. I have not heard tonight that there is anything more to be done about terrorism or that there are any more methods to employ against terrorism. The Opposition have merely attacked the Government's stance.
      In conclusion, as the hon. Member for Newry arid Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, of course this is not the only way to deal with the problems of Northern Ireland, and of course political arrangements can be made and political persuasion used. Although he and I would probably disagree about the arrangements—the hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that—not everything has yet been

      103
      tried. However, whatever those political activities may be, they must be paralleled by a clear determination on the part of the United Kingdom Government, backed—I hope—by every Member of the House, that terrorists must be deterred and defeated. If that takes the 10 years that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, so be it. In the meantime, he and others in Northern Ireland, with the proper backing of everybody who is interested in the Province and in the unity of this kingdom, should give any talks and negotiations their full backing. In the meantime, the terrorists—the minuscule minority within the Province—must be shown that the House is intent on their defeat.
      9.44 pm
      Mr. Maclennan: The Labour party's opposition to the Bill seems to be based upon the fallacy that, because it cannot of itself prevent terrorism, it is not necessary. Alas, every time the House has considered such measures since the original legislation was introduced by a Labour Government in 1974, it has come to the unpalatable conclusion that, although they constitute an erosion of normal civil liberties, they are necessary. The House will come to the same conclusion tonight, and it will do so on the best evidence available to it, which is not the speculation of individual hon. Members but the careful scrutiny of the provisions of the Bill by a man who has been slighted by Opposition Members. I refer to Lord Colville. He has looked closely at all the provisions of the Bill and their working. Although he has differed from the Government in certain respects, notably in regard to the continuance of exclusion, he has recommended that the measures be retained.
      It is right that the legislation be put on a new footing. It is a reversion to an earlier arrangement that prevailed when the Labour Government were in office, that the Bill be subject to annual renewal. It has not been helpful that the Bill has been wrongly presented as a piece of permanent legislation. It is not permanent legislation. It is subject to positive renewal by a vote of the House. It must have continuing scrutiny. I am glad that Lord Colville has agreed to do in future what he has done in the past. The House will not accept the continuation of the measures for one day longer than they are seen to be necessary.
      It is unfortunate that the Government have not been able to respond more promptly to the judgment of the European court in the Brogan case. As with the Labour Government, the present Government's position has been greatly strengthened by the fact that the measures had not been held to run counter to the provisions of the European convention on human rights to which we are a party. That has helped to buttress international understanding of the necessity for what we are doing.
      It is possible to take the necessary step to provide judicial interposition to scrutinise the detention beyond two days of those who are held under the provisions of the Bill. It is the Home Secretary's intention to seek such a measure as quickly as may be. We shall look to him to be as good as his word.
      I take some satisfaction from the fact that the Bill is capable of being amended in part by statutory instrument. If certain provisions which we shall agree tonight are no longer seen to be necessary, they may be dropped. It is
      104
      right to look at all aspects of the Bill separately and in the round. We shall have carefully to consider each year the operation of the exclusion and detention provisions.
      It cannot be said that the general background of terrorism has greatly improved in this country or in the rest of the world since we last debated these measures. Alas, the case for again implementing these exceptional measures is no less strong than it was the last time we considered them. The attitude of the Labour party is no more comprehensible against the background of continuing terrorism and the need for a response which cannot be provided by the provisions of our ordinary law.
      That being so, I hope that the House will give the Home Secretary and the Government the support that they seek, for the greater the strength and resolution of the House in the face of these threats to our civil order and civil liberties, the greater the impact of a unified response to it.
      9.50 pm
      Mr. Norris: I shall be brief, because I should like to allow others to have their say.
      I was singularly ineligible to take part in the earlier stages of the Bill, but I have welcomed the opportunity to engage in these deliberations at this late stage. I should like to place on record during a debate on legislation involving the Province of Northern Ireland the respect and affection in which the House held my predecessor in the constituency of Epping Forest, the late Sir John Biggs-Davison. He was that unique combination of Catholic and Unionist. He was a man of many contradictions, of firm principle and unshakeable integrity; he lived as a member of the late Airy Neave's shadow team in Northern Ireland under the constant shadow of terrorism and terrorist violence, and he faced it bravely and with his accustomed sincerity.
      The new powers in the Bill significantly improve our ability to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland, particularly the financial powers. Let no one underestimate them. The House has deliberated on the merit of attacking the drug pusher and drug runner where it really mattered—not just imprisoning those who were caught, but getting at the funding of that evil empire. The powers in this Bill will allow that power to be used against terrorists.
      I am as concerned as the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) that a Bill of this sort should be for an indefinite period. It is not, as she asserts, a piece of indefinite legislation. She knows well that the Bill is subject to a regular annual review wholly or in part. [Interruption.] I have both preceded and followed the hon. Lady in this House and if she believes that the House will ever consider amending the Bill late on a Thursday night when there is no interest and everyone has gone home, as she described it, she severely under-estimates the House of Commons and the importance that it will attach to dealing with the crucial affair of the security of Northern Ireland. She said, "Let us not trade emotional stories about Northern Ireland." Many Conservative Members greatly regret that the Labour party's early clear commitment to the prevention of terrorism, as evidenced by its introduction of the temporary provisions Act and support for it in 1976, has been diluted into a rather emotional reaction to the reality of terrorism.

      105
      I commend the Bill to the House as providing the Government with the necessary powers to deal with these exceptional circumstances and this exceptional evil.
      9.53 pm
      Mr. Maginnis: I find little in the Bill to which I or my party would object. Living as we do in Northern Ireland at the coal face, we recognise the effect that the prevention of terrorism Act has had on reducing the ability of the terrorist to operate there.
      The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) referred to 1,784 people who have died in the 15 years since the prevention of terrorism legislation was first introduced. I have not had an opportunity to check that figure, but I accept it. It means that on average more than 100 people have died at the hands of terrorists each year over the 15 years. However, the hon. Lady failed to point out that, before the introduction of the prevention of terrorism legislation, 1,100 people died in just three years. Therefore, I must assume that some good has come from the prevention of terrorism legislation over the past 15 years because the rate of deaths has been reduced by about one third.
      It is important that I record the aspects of the Bill about which I am concerned. My first point must always bother someone living in Northern Ireland. It relates to the exclusion element in the Bill. We tend to see that element as a discarding of the threat from this part of the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland. It there is reasonable suspicion about someone entering Great Britain, the vast resources which can be concentrated on trying to detect that person's motivies should be utilised instead of simply shipping the problem back to Northern Ireland which has has to endure the brunt of terrorism for nearly 20 years.
      I am also worried that there is a vague suggestion—and I hope that it is only a vague suggestion—that the Government may not continue to derogate from the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. That would be a mistake. It is necessary to be able to detain suspect terrorists against whom there is reasonable suspicion for a period which will allow the police to carry out inquiries—for example, forensic inquiries—which are often necessary to ensure that prosecution can be pursued successfully through the courts.
      The most disturbing feature of the Bill is that we have not looked carefully enough at schedule 1. I am sorry that we have not had a chance in Committee or on Report to debate it—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) spoke for quite a while. I hope that he will realise that I have less than two minutes to speak. Perhaps he will allow me to put my case.
      In so far as we vaguely define the Irish Republican Army as one of the relevant organisations under schedule I, we do the Bill a disservice. The Irish Republican Army refers to the Official IRA and the Provisional IRA. If we are serious about encouraging people to adopt a political position, we should have eliminated the Official IRA from the list in schedule 1.
      For almost 15 years they have not been involved in terrorism, but they have formed themselves into a political party—one with which I disagree, but I am a democrat—called the Workers party. I believe that it is wrong that the Government should be entertaining them one day in Stormont castle and the next day proscribing them under schedule I to the Bill. I would ask the Minister, when the
      106
      Bill becomes law, to consider de-proscribing that organisation and thus encouraging terrorists to move to use of the ballot paper only.
      It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [23 January] and the resolution this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 134.

      Division No. 61]

      [10 pm

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Grylls, Michael

      Amess, David

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Ashby, David

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Baldry, Tony

      Hannam, John

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

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

      Bottom ley, Peter

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Harris, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Bright, Graham

      Hayes, Jerry

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

      Hayward, Robert

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Heddle, John

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv'NE)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Burns, Simon

      Hind, Kenneth

      Burt, Alistair

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Butcher, John

      Holt, Richard

      Butler, Chris

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Butterfill, John

      Howard, Michael

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

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

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Cash, William

      Hunter, Andrew

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Irvine, Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Jack, Michael

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

      Janman, Tim

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Cran, James

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Critchley, Julian

      Kennedy, Charles

      Curry, David

      Key, Robert

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

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Day, Stephen

      Knapman, Roger

      Devlin, Tim

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Dover, Den

      Knox, David

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Latham, Michael

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Fallon, Michael

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Fearn, Ronald

      Lightbown, David

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Li I ley, Peter

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Livsey, Richard

      Forman, Nigel

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Franks, Cecil

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Freeman, Roger

      McCrindle, Robert

      French, Douglas

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Fry, Peter

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Maclean, David

      Gill, Christopher

      Maclennan, Robert

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Gow, Ian

      Maginnis, Ken

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Malins, Humfrey

      Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

      Mans, Keith

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Maples, John

      Gregory, Conal

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Ground. Patrick

      Maude. Hon Francis

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Allen, Graham

      Boateng, Paul

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Boyes, Roland

      Ashton, Joe

      Bradley, Keith

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Battle, John

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

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

      Buchan, Norman

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Speller, Tony

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Moate, Roger

      Squire, Robin

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Steen, Anthony

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Stern, Michael

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Moss, Malcolm

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Sumberg, David

      Mudd, David

      Summerson, Hugo

      Nelson, Anthony

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Neubert, Michael

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Norris, Steve

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Thurnham, Peter

      Paice, James

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Tracey, Richard

      Pawsey, James

      Trippier, David

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Trotter, Neville

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Viggers, Peter

      Portillo, Michael

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Price, Sir David

      Walden, George

      Raffan, Keith

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Waller, Gary

      Redwood, John

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Renton, Tim

      Warren, Kenneth

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Watts, John

      Riddick, Graham

      Wells, Bowen

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Wheeler, John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Whitney, Ray

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Rost, Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Rowe, Andrew

      Wood, Timothy

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Woodcock, Mike

      Ryder, Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

      Sims, Roger

      Mr. Sydney Chapman.

      Buckley, George J.

      Janner, Greville

      Callaghan, Jim

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Lamond, James

      Canavan, Dennis

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Leighton, Ron

      Clay, Bob

      Lewis, Terry

      Clelland, David

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Loyden, Eddie

      Cohen, Harry

      McAllion, John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Corbett, Robin

      McGrady, Eddie

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      McKelvey, William

      Cousins, Jim

      McLeish, Henry

      Crowther, Stan

      McNamara, Kevin

      Cryer, Bob

      Madden, Max

      Cummings, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Mallon, Seamus

      Dalyell, Tam

      Marek, Dr John

      Darling, Alistair

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Martlew, Eric

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

      Meale, Alan

      Dixon, Don

      Michael, Alun

      Dobson, Frank

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Doran, Frank

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Morley, Elliott

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Eadie, Alexander

      Mullin, Chris

      Fatchett, Derek

      Murphy, Paul

      Fisher, Mark

      Nellist, Dave

      Flannery, Martin

      Patchett, Terry

      Flynn, Paul

      Pike, Peter L.

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Foster, Derek

      Prescott, John

      Fvfe, Maria

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Galbraith, Sam

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      George, Bruce

      Radice, Giles

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Reid, Dr John

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Richardson, Jo

      Gordon, Mildred

      Robertson, George

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Grocott, Bruce

      Sheerman, Barry

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Short, Clare

      Haynes, Frank

      Skinner, Dennis

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Hinchliffe, David

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

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Soley, Clive

      Holland, Stuart

      Spearing, Nigel

      Home Robertson, John

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Wall, Pat

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Worthington, Tony

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Hume, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Illsley, Eric

      Mr. Ken Eastham and

      Ingram, Adam

      Mr. Allen McKay.

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

House of Commons Services
Mr. Speaker: I have selected amendments (a), (b), (e) and (1). I suggest that we have a general debate, and then I will call the hon. Members concerned to move their amendments at the end of it.
10.15 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move:
That the Second Report of Session 1987–88 from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) on Access to the Precincts of the House (House of Commons Paper No. 580) be approved.
Towards the end of 1987, the House passed a resolution which invited the Services Committee to consider control over access to the precincts of the House, and in particular to consider whether the numbers of Members' personal staff with such access should be reduced, bearing in mind the pressure on the capacity of the facilities of the House.
The catalyst for this resolution was the suspension, at the end of the previous summer recess, of Mr. Ronan Bennett, a research assistant employed by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). But the inquiry conducted by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee, which has led to the report that we are debating tonight, was not directly concerned with that issue. As the House will be aware, the Sub-Committee has considered with great care and in great detail a wide range of proposals for controlling access to the House and has made a number of nicely judged recommendations.
I should like to thank the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and his Sub-Committee for their work. I fully support their report, which was unanimously agreed by the Services Committee, and I commend it to the House. If the right hon. Gentleman is lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I know that he will wish to outline the detailed recommendations of the report and the reasons behind them. I shall be brief, therefore, particularly as I know that a number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak in this short debate.
Broadly speaking, the report's recommendations can be divided into two categories: those that are merely advisory and recommend that the security authorities should consider possible courses of action; and those which would, if the report is approved tonight, mean tangible changes in practice in the near future.
The advisory recommendations in the report ask the security authorities to consider such points as the possible introduction of machine-readable passes, random physical screening of pass holders, requiring pass holders to wear passes, and the designation of the area around the Chamber as restricted to Members and House staff. Traditionally, Mr. Speaker, the security of the House is your responsibility, but the Committee felt that it might be profitable to study the suggestions that I have outlined. Whether or not they should be implemented is entirely a matter for you.
The other, more tangible recommendations in the report fall into four main categories. The first is those limiting the numbers of research assistants and the use of Table Office and Library facilities by research assistants and temporary secretaries. The second is those designed to limit the activities of commercial lobbyists. The third is
110
those concerned with freezing the number of passes in circulation and making more effective the control of them, making sure that passes are returned promptly by those who no longer need them, and ensuring a regular change of design.
Finally, there are recommendations on arrangements for Members' staff, most notably that the number of Members' staff who may hold photo passes should be limited to three, with the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee able to recommend to the Services Committee any increase for individual Members where exceptional circumstances justify it. I should like briefly to comment on this recommendation, which I know some Members would find irksome.
Let me say at once that the Committee is not proposing a limit on the number of staff employed by a Member, merely on the number that can possess photo passes. If a Member has more than three staff in his or her employment, those without passes could still, of course, visit the House on a temporary day pass or accompanied by a photo pass holder. I would envisage that the right hon. Member for Salford, East, in his capacity as Chairman of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee, would look sympathetically on the claims of those members with particular responsibilities, including Front-Bench spokesmen, some senior Members, and minority party leaders, for photo passes in excess of three.
If the House approves the report tonight, I envisage, in accordance with paragraph 60, that the recommendations concerning the number of photo pass holders would come into effect at the beginning of the coming financial year. This would leave a period of two months in which hon. Members should make any arrangements necessary, although, as I have explained, employees in excess of three would still be able to visit the House on the terms for those without photo passes.
The beginning of April would also seem to be a good time to introduce the other concrete recommendations, if approved, on research assistants and lobbyists. I am prepared, however, for a measure of flexibility if there are good arguments in favour of it. The ending of the agreements with intern-sponsoring organisations, for instance, might take place in the summer, once this academic year's crop of interns, who may already have made arrangements to come, have gone. I shall listen to hon. Members' views.
I do believe, however, that there should be no unavoidable delay in implementing the measures proposed by the Committee. There is general agreement in the House that there are too many photo passes in circulation and they are insufficiently controlled. There is, moreover, too much pressure on facilities primarily designed for Members' own use. The measures before us tonight offer a realistic package which achieves what I think is a happy medium between an over-relaxed and an over-rigorous approach. For different reasons, either approach would be to the detriment of hon. Members, and I urge the House to support the Committee's recommendations, which strike the right balance.
I shall say just a few words on the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw). I have long believed that, if we are to facilitate access to this House by Members of the European Parliament, it would be best to proceed with general agreement in all parts of the House. I am pleased to see

111
that the amendment has indeed attracted such support. I believe that there really can be very little objection to an amendment which is so modest in scope. If I understand it correctly, it would, if approved, merely allow MEPs access to that part of the House to which members of the public also have access, except that their photo pass would entitle them to come in at St. Stephen's entrance without having to explain themselves to the police or undergoing a bag search and scan for explosives.
We are talking about giving these very limited rights of access to a very limited number of people—81. They already enjoy these rights, and more, in another place, and I do not believe that any useful purpose is served by opposing this modest concession to our Strasbourg colleagues. They will not, under the terms of this amendment, be entitled to use any of the hard-pressed facilities of the House, and there can be no objection to it. I shall support the amendment, together with the original motion.
I shall not be supporting the other amendments you have selected, Mr. Speaker. The Sub-Committee considered most carefully the restrictions on access to the Table Office by research assistants and on the number of Members' staff who may hold photo passes, and their recommendations were endorsed unanimously by the Services Committee. To reject them now would, especially in the case of the limit of three staff photo passes per Member, substantially alter the nature of the report and even frustrate a large part of its purpose.
As for the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) dealing with those who are refused a pass, I have nothing to add to what I said on the subject in the debate on 10 November 1987. Security is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, and you base your decisions on confidential advice from the appropriate authorities. I do not believe that it is possible to reveal details of confidential security advice without compromising that same security. I invite the House to reject this amendment.
10.23 pm
Mr. Stanley Orme: I thank the Lord President for his comments and support for the role of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee in the preparation of the report, apart from his remarks about European Members to whom I shall refer later. I accept full responsibility for the contents of the report and stress that the Sub-Committee approved its proposals unanimously.
As the House is aware, the report has been compiled following instructions from the House that access to this place and the lack of facilities, as well as security, should be fully investigated. I stress that, with over 10,000 passes to the Palace of Westminster, we are reaching breaking point with our facilities and that makes security even more difficult.
For a number of years there has been a steady increase in the number of individuals who have acquired a more or less unlimited right of access to the Palace of Westminster and its outbuildings, and to the various facilities available in the House, while accommodation, library and refreshment service facilities have expanded at a much slower rate.
112
Only two months ago the House was debating a report produced a few days earlier by the New Building Sub-Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). The report emphasised the appalling lack of accommodation available to Members and their staff, even after more than 20 years of development both inside the Palace of Westminster and in the outbuildings. According to the report:
"in round numbers, 500 backbenchers presently have access to only 150 single rooms."
Even in 1990, when the present new buildings are in use, only 85 further rooms will be available for Members.
Accommodation and facilities for Members' staff are at least as bad. Our report points out that the House is at present providing only about 400 desks for more than 1,300 secretaries and research assistants of Members. Although the number of desks will have increased by about half in 1990, the number of staff continues to increase.
There are constant complaints from hon. Members on both sides of the House and their staff about the overcrowding of refreshment facilities at all times of the day and night, about the preoccupation of Library staff in dealing with demands for basic information from relatively and sometimes totally inexperienced research assistants, about queues in the Post Office and about the difficulty of getting advice from the Table Office. At the same time Members, often the same Members, insist that services should be improved—that we provide other facilities such as swimming pools, creches, shops and hairdressers, in the already overcrowded buildings.
Let me make it clear at once that I am one of those who regard the demand for better facilities as wholly legitimate.I regret and deplore the failure of the House and of successive Governments of both parties to make proper provision for accommodation and services for a Parliament facing the entirely proper demands of the latter part of the 20th century. The overriding priority must be the provision of infinitely better accommodation and other facilities for Members. The pace of development on the Bridge street site is still dreadfully slow, and the Government must realise that Members on both sides of the House are no longer prepared to tolerate such conditions.
The sooner that financial control of our new buildings programme is taken out of the hands of a Government agency and placed firmly in those of the House, the better.[Interruption.] If my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) looks at the record he will see that I have been advocating such proposals for the last 20 years, but we must face the facts as they are now. Paragraph 42 of our report states categorically:
"Members' accommodation remains our absolute first priority, and pressure from Members' staff must be viewed in that light."
The same must be said equally of all facilities in the House. Members must have first priority in the Library, the Table Office and the Refreshment Department. If facilities are limited—and they are—we have to make our priorities clear. For this reason we have concluded, some of us very reluctantly, that a limit should be placed on the number of individual staff to whom Members may grant complete freedom of access to the House and its facilities.
Paragraph 54 of our report recommends that no hon. Member should normally be allowed to apply for photo passes for more than three members of his personal staff.

113
That does not prevent him from employing more staff; he can employ as many as he likes. We say that, given the pressures on facilities of all sorts, a limit must be imposed on those who can freely enter the building, use the Library and monopolise the photocopiers and telephones. So if additional members of staff enter the building they will need day passes or they will need to be accompanied. They cannot claim a right of free access to all the facilities.
The limit of three is not draconian. The latest available figures show that only 66 of the 650 Members hold passes for more than the proposed limit. Between them, they account for 360 of the passes issued to Members' staff—that is, for 25 per cent. of all staff employed in the Palace or outbuildings by hon. Members. A minority of hon. Members on both sides of the House now hold more than three and up to 12 passes each. That cannot continue—
Mr. George Robertson: The Leader of the House said that in certain cases exceptions to the limit of three could be made—for instance, for Front Bench spokesmen and senior Members. Of the 66 Members who hold more than the proposed limit, how many will qualify for the exemptions proposed by my right hon. Friend and the Leader of the House and by how much, therefore, will the limit they are laying down be exceeded?
Mr. Orme: Only a small minority will qualify as exceptions. I will willingly show my hon. Friend the list of passes held now, from which he will see that leaders of parties, and so on, hold more. I shall come on to how we intend to deal with that.
Initially, these proposals will hit some hon. Members hard. Even with the limit that has already been proposed, an increase of almost 50 per cent. in the number of Members' staff is possible, and the strain of that would be intolerable. We must tell colleagues who need more staff with passes that we do not have the facilities to cope with them in this building or in the outbuildings. If every hon. Member exercised the right that some hon. Members have had, we should be walking on the tops of people's heads here.
The limit that we propose is a good deal higher than that preferred by many hon. Members. The right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has frequently argued that Members should be restricted to only one pass holder. Although I do not think he would press that view, it illustrates the fact that some senior Members are far from convinced that it is necessary or desirable for Members to have more than the number of passes that we recommend.
Our proposal seems, on all the evidence, a sensible balance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) pointed out, however, there may be exceptions. Our recommendations provide for the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee to consider individual requests for exemptions from the rule. We shall certainly consider them, but I warn that good arguments will have to be used. Every case will be judged on its merits, regardless of which hon. Member puts it.
I should add that the proposed—
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is my right hon. Friend not worried that the system that he proposes would produce, for the first time in the House, a prefect-first system? A minority would be able to present a special case. Those Members would be treated in one way and the rest of us would be treated in another. This is a place where,
114
basically, hon. Members have had the same resources and the same freedoms. Is my right hon. Friend not leading us down a dangerous path?
Mr. Orme: We have a prefect-first system now, because a minority of hon. Members are taking advantage of the majority. If my hon. Friend studies the figures, he will understand that I am correct.
The proposed limit on Members' staff is only a part of a package that is designed at least to slow the rate of growth in the number of pass holders of all categories in the Palace. We propose in paragraphs 47 and 48 that the limits on the number of temporary overseas research assistants—inevitably, we are now calling them interns—which were imposed in 1985 should be rigorously enforced and that the loopholes should be closed.
These assistants are mainly American students who visit us each year. They impose a disproportionately heavy demand on services, especially those that are provided by the Library and the Refreshment Department. For that reason we endorse the recommendations of the Librarian that there should be a further and marginal tightening of controls on the use of Library facilities by temporary staff. I refer the House to paragraph 36 of the report. The limit on the overall number of Members' pass-holding staff may make colleagues think twice before accepting an intern replacement.
We propose what could be the most far-reaching restriction on the growth of pass holders in general. Many organisations, including Government Departments and the media, have been steadily increasing the number of their officials who carry passes to permit them access to this building. We note that about 2,200 civil servants held temporary passes to the building last year, even though many of them were individuals who needed only occasional access to Parliament. Their passes are called temporary, but in practice each one may be held for many years. That is completely unreasonable. The system certainly does not work in the opposite direction.
The media have slipped into the same practice. Most notorious is the BBC, which already holds more than 200 passes. What will happen when television comes into the Chamber, whether it is organised by the BBC or any other organisation? We must take that into account.
The trends to which I have referred must stop. In paragraph 59 we propose that the total number of passes held by any outside organisation should be frozen at the present level. If the motion is agreed, it will be possible for outside organisations to increase their allocation of passes only if the Sub-Committee approves. The allocations for new organisations, such as the new television organisations, will require the specific approval of the Sub-Committee. In that way, and for the first time, the right of unimpeded access will be policed and controlled by Members and not merely by officials.
If we are imposing controls on our own staff, the House will agree, I think, that we should have the power to impose similar control on other bodies. That should and would include Departments of the Executive and of the Government.
Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman said that the BBC will continue to hold 200 passes. Cannot some effort be made to diminish the number?
Mr. Orme: As a start, we shall freeze the number, but then we shall examine the position in more detail. We do not say that that number must remain for ever. We shall want some justification from the organisations for having so many passes. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who is an authority on the media, will advise the Sub-Committee on the best way to organise the matter.
On the growth of covert lobbying in the House, I am sure that I carry with me hon. Members on both sides of the House. The matter has been examined in detail by the Select Committee on Members' Interests, and I hope that the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) will soon produce constructive proposals from his Committee. But there is too much evidence of abuse at present for us not to take whatever action is open to us now. My Committee has heard of frankly shocking examples of commercial lobbyists trying to infiltrate themselves into the building under many guises.
Hon. Members need look no further than appendix 7 on page 44 of the report to see the example of a lobbyist who, with refreshing naivety, tried to infiltrate himself into the House in the guise of a research assistant to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I should have thought that that was the last hon. Member on whom to try that. The lobbyist's letter hints that the House of Commons is easy game for poachers from the world of public relations.
That practice must be stopped, and our recommendation in paragraph 52 will enable the Services Committee to recommend to Mr. Speaker the immediate withdrawal of a pass where the holder is clearly primarily engaged as a lobbyist. I hope that the House will endorse the proposal, and I should welcome information that will assist my Sub-Committee in carrying it out.
The latter part of the report deals with controls over the number of pass holders for the building. It is one thing to limit the number of pass holders, but quite another effectively to decide how the pass-holding system is maintained. There are two objectives. First, no individual should be issued with a pass giving unlimited access to the building unless there is reasonable certainty that he is suitable to hold such a potentially valuable document. Secondly, our procedures for checking passes must be adequate to ensure that only legitimate pass holders can move freely in the non-public areas of the Palace.
The checking of pass holders has already given rise to great controversy, and is the reason why the Services Committee inquired further into the matter and came up with the present proposals. It is clear that at least some checking is required before the right of access is granted to those who do not have that right by reason of being elected here. All permanent staff of the two Houses are fully checked before taking up their jobs, as are civil servants and the agents of public corporations working in the building. The same rules should apply to all.
I was surprised to discover that overseas staff employed by Members are often subject to no checking. Paragraph 11 of the report recommends that appropriate clearance always be obtained before a photo identity pass is issued to foreign nationals.
Sir Jim Spicer: Excluding the question of the overseas students being employed by Members of Parliament, would it not be proper for the parties to look
116
carefully at the practice of employing overseas students? I understand that quite a number of them wandering round the building have been employed by parties.
Mr. Orme: When we examined that issue we found that it was controversial. We said that there must be some right of access, but that it must be properly controlled. In our opinion it had not been controlled. The intention now is to control it. The best way to deal with the issue—my hon.Friend the member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has tabled an amendment on the matter—is through the security authorities, so we did not examine the matter. Individual security is a matter for Mr. Speaker and, as the Leader of the House pointed out, we did not discuss that in detail.
The Sub-Committee looked closely at various possibilities that might help and has recommended that they should be seriously examined by the appropriate authorities and introduced if they think fit. Those possibilities concern only checking people coming in and not vetting. The proposals include the use of machine-readable passes, the introduction of mechanised barriers at the main entrances to the Palace and the underground car park, the occasional screening of pass holders, as well as the public entering the building, and the possible wearing of passes inside the building. I hope that those proposals will be considered seriously. Some of them are highly controversial, but there is no reason why we should not consider them. If we do not like them, we can reject them, but we should consider them.
The report is, in many ways, a compromise. It is designed to put a modest brake on the number of people with an unqualified right of entry to the Palace and its precincts and it suggests some ways in which the enforcement and policing of the pass system could be improved. It leaves some discretion to the Services Committee which may help to iron out the problems that will, inevitably, arise from its implementation. The report does not pretend to solve all the problems for all time. It is inevitable that the Committee and the House will have to come back to the issues before long, but I strongly urge all hon. Members to give the proposals a chance. It is the nearest that we have come to a comprehensive review.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: Is it not a pity that some provision was not made in the report for former Members of Parliament? Is it not shameful that although many people can come and go in the House, people who have served honourably for many years do not have access even to the Strangers' Cafeteria? Private companies such as Marks and Spencer and ICI at least give their retired employees better recognition.
Mr. Orme: We have had representations on that, but we have not had time to discuss them. We have also not had time to discuss the question of Members of the European Parliament. As a result, until the matter comes before us we are not in a position to make recommendations, although I note what my hon. Friend has said. Again, the problem is one of pressure on the building and its facilities, rather than of any hon. Members being opposed to such suggestions.
The report does not pretend to solve all problems for all time, but it is the nearest we have come to a comprehensive review of access to the building and the attempts to deal with the problems of overcrowding that we now face. With any luck, some of the proposals may be relaxed in the

117
future when the accommodation available to the House is significantly improved. But for the time being, some restrictions must be imposed.
I want to comment briefly on the amendments. Amendment (a) seeks to remove our recommendation that the research assistants of hon. Members should not have access to the Table Office during the period of peak activity on weekday afternoons. I have no strong feeling on that, but I must point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North that the Table Office made the proposal and it was supported by the Sub-Committee not only because there have been complaints from other hon. Members of overcrowding in that busy office, but because we desired to stop the overcrowding during the times when hon. Members themselves most needed the advice of the Table Office.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) is far more significant. Access by Members of the European Parliament was hotly debated in the Services Committee during the previous two Parliaments, but no applications have been made to my Sub-Committee since the general election of 1987.Frankly, I was surprised and amazed to hear the Leader of the House lend his support to what is proposed, because the case for and against providing facilities for MEPs should be properly considered in the Sub-Committee before being submitted to the House.
The amendment is an attempt to carry a decision on a matter of some importance on the coat tails of a quite different debate. I cannot support it. I advise the House that if we are concerned about facilities and overcrowding and if we grant 81 passes, that will be only the beginning. There will be pressure for the use of other facilities and for the staff of MEPs to enter. What special right do European Members of Parliament have for unfettered access to this building? It is completely wrong.
Mr. John Marshall: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) does not ask for any facilities to be given to European Members of Parliament? Does he accept that my hon. Friend's amendment proposes much less than is offered by other national Parliaments in the European Community to their MEPs?
Mr. Orme: Other European Parliaments have facilities that are superior to ours. Has the hon. Gentleman not heard the saying about the thin end of the wedge? That is what we are talking about. This is not a personal matter about individual Members of the European Parliament; it is about our facilities in the House of Commons.
I turn finally to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) which seeks to increase the limit on the number of an hon. Member's pass-holding staff from three as we propose to five. That runs a coach and horses through our main recommendation. We are concerned, for the time being at least, to limit staff to meet the accommodation and other facilities that are available. The amendment would allow a possible further 1,300 pass-holding staff and, if agreed, would undermine the main intentions of our report. I advise—
Mr. Stuart Holland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the staff that some of us employ are
118
part-time? His figure of 1,000-plus is simply not relevant in the case of part-time staff because the full-time equivalent may amount only to three persons.
Mr. Orme: If they have permits to enter, that is all right. It is a matter for my hon. Friend. We are talking about permits that allow people, whether full-time or part-time, access to this House at any time of the day or night.
The report stands well without the proposed amendments. I ask the House to support our modest but important proposals, in the interests of those who work here—both Members and staff.
10.54 pm
Sir Michael Shaw: I support the report and agree with much of what the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) said, many of his remarks about the amendment are mistaken. Should the amendment be agreed, people will do no more than what they can do now, but they will be able to do it without going through the screening and questioning process that they now must undergo.
We joined the Common Market and confirmed that we meant to take a positive role. We confirmed our act ion by a referendum. Today, we are more than ever committed to playing our full part in the development of the Community. The Council of Ministers meets regularly. Our own Government are robust in not only seeking what is best for the Community but in safeguarding our national interests. It is equally important that hon. Members lose no opportunity to keep in touch with United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament with the same purposes in mind. It is to that end that I have tabled amendment (b).
When I was in the European Parliament, before direct elections, I was strongly urged to become a directly elected Member of the Parliament in 1979. In the end, I decided against it, first, because it would have meant my giving up my Scarborough constituency of which I am fond. Secondly, it became clear that the House was not prepared to offer a helping hand to encourage newly elected Members of the European Parliament to gain access to hon. Members and to their Committees. With an obvious denial of any gesture of welcome, I cannot blame any Member of the European Parliament who concludes that he would rather not come here at all. To say the least, I found our attitude discouraging and frustrating.
The present position is not only discourteous to United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament but harmful to our own interests, whether we are keen Europeans or have hesitations about the way in which the EEC is developing. It must be in our interests that our point of view is put forward in discussions with our colleagues in the European Parliament. Equally, we should seek to understand their point of view.
Many Back-Bench Committees have already welcomed visits by United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament, but their interest in coming to us is greatly lessened by the unwelcome restrictions that are placed upon their access to this place.
To say the least, my amendment is modest. However, it would give United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament an important right—the right of access to the Central Lobby, the Lower and Upper Waiting Halls, and the Committee Corridors. Such a right to come to meet us

119
would show them that they are welcome, that they have direct political access to us, and that they are not expected to undergo the searches and questioning that now take place.
My amendment would remedy a disadvantage from which, at present, only our own Members of the European Parliament suffer in their national Parliament. I hope that the amendment will receive full support from hon. Members. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for his kind words about it. If it is agreed, my amendment will encourage closer relationships between ourselves and our European colleagues. It is in the interests not only of the Community as a whole but of this country within it.
10.59 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief because many wish to speak.
I am disappointed in the report, its tenor and what it seeks to do. A report on access to Parliament should be better debated on a more important basis than the number of research assistants Members of Parliament can have.
The public are forced to wait outside, often in the rain, for many hours and then in Central Lobby often for a long time before Members can be found. If they succeed in getting a ticket for the Gallery, they cannot leave the Gallery other than for a short time, they cannot get refreshments on their own and there are no facilities for changing children or leaving them—[Laughter.] I do not know why Tory Members find that funny. Many of my constituents are appalled at how they are treated and the image that the House presents. They are better received and treated at most town halls than here.
Mr. Holland: Since these considerations do not occur to Tory Members, may I inform the House that today my six-year-old child was ill and could not go to school, so in the middle of the afternoon I was in a dilemma about whether I could attend a committee meeting in the House because I could not leave the child alone in the family room. If there were a creche, I could without question have known that I could attend.
Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention because it illustrates my point. He is talking about Members' children, whereas I am talking about how the public are treated. I wish that Tory Members would not find this so funny. Some Members are more concerned about keeping an excessive number of passes, possibly for commercial lobbying purposes, than about whether people in the House can do their work properly and the public can enter the place.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: It should be put on record that we are served by as courteous a group of people as exists anywhere. When the public come to this House, they are treated by the police, security staff and others with great courtesy and complete consideration, often under extreme provocation.
Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to what I said. I was talking about the facilities, conditions and lengthy waiting periods for members of the
120
public. I was not criticising the actions of the police or anybody in their treatment of the public. I am talking about the image that the building presents to the public.
Delegations from the Islington Disablement Association and other groups have come here to see me and it is a humiliating disgrace that to get someone in a wheelchair to Central Lobby to lobby a Member, as is the inalienable right of everyone, he must be dragged all round the car park, put in lifts where wheelchairs will not go, and made to feel exceptional and different. If we in Parliament demand that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 is put into operation in every local authority and that there should be access for the disabled to every public building, that should apply here in exactly the same way.
There are a large number of dining rooms on the ground floor. They are hired out at great cost for lunches and dinners provided that they are for the benefit of commercial lobbies and firms. There is nowhere that any member of the public can get any refreshment other than from one machine, which often does not work, in the Upper Waiting Hall, if they can find it, unless a Member is available to take them into the Strangers' Cafeteria for a cup of tea. Why can we not have Westminster Hall as a waiting area and provide proper refreshment facilities for the public there?
Anyone who cares to walk around the building and to have a look at staff working conditions would be appalled. It is a disgrace. During the recess I went into the Vote Office and was appalled to see paper stacked up to the ceiling. If I had been a shop steward for them, as I have been in the past in the public sector—[Laughter.] I fail to see what is so funny about a serious fire risk right underneath this Chamber. The working conditions are Dickensian, to put it mildly. We have low ceilings and a lack of emergency escape facilities because the building has Crown immunity and health and safety regulations do not apply here. However, we demand, quite rightly, that they are applied everywhere else. It is wrong that our staff are expected to work in these appalling conditions.
I want to raise also the question of creches and nursery facilities. In many workplaces—not necessarily only those run by progressive employers—nurseries are provided because employers understand that enployees have children and that the nursery facilities provided by most local authorities are appalling. Therefore, employers have tried to make some facilities available to their staff. As there are 10,000 staff working in this building, ranging from catering staff to staff in your office, Mr. Speaker, there must be an enormous demand for creche and nursery facilities. However, we seem to have our priorities all wrong. We are more interested in dining rooms where private lobbying can take place than in facilities for the public who come here to see Parliament in operation. We are more concerned to continue the privileges of hon. Members rather than about the needs of staff employed by hon. Members and by the House.
I hope that those matters will be considered seriously. They may have been ignored by the second report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) which we are considering today. I hope that the Select Committee will consider these points properly in future. It is an absolute scandal that Crown immunity denies workers in this building the same rights that they would receive anywhere else under a different employer.
Mr. Orme: I can assure my hon. Friend that his points are not ignored in the Select Committee's report, nor are they ignored in the new building report prepared by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). We are aware of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and we want to implement them as soon as possible. However, it is a matter of facilities and of getting on with that wretched building over the road.
Mr. Corbyn: That may be so. However, I have been a Member of the House for nearly six years—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Thanks for that. I have heard for so long all this stuff about looking into the question of access for the disabled and into the provision of creches and nurseries. Why does this Parliament have to operate in terms of the last century? The conditions are appalling and they should be improved.
I have drafted several amendments which I hoped would encourage the House to consider these problems seriously. That may be a vain hope, but one lives in expectation. I will move my amendment later, as you instructed, Mr. Speaker.
My amendment (a) reads:
"Line 3, after 'be', insert, 'with the exception of the recommendation in paragraph 33 relating to access to the Table Office by research assistants,'."
I have tabled it for a simple reason. As I understand the proposal, research assistants will not be allowed into the Table Office after 2 pm. I understand—if I am wrong, I stand to be corrected—that the restriction would not apply to staff of Ministers or to the staff of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. It would apply only to the staff of Back Benchers. We will have a system of privilege for questions to be planted on Ministers' behalf or whatever else they want done and the same for the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, but Back Benchers would be denied the right to have a research assistant table a question on their behalf. I do not mind what rules exist, but they should be absolutely the same for everyone.
My other amendments relate partly to my experience concerning the withdrawal of a pass from my former researcher, Dr. Ronan Bennett. If the House accepts the Select Committee report without question, I hope that hon. Members will consider very carefully what they are doing. Implicit in the recommendation on security is that an unnamed person giving unknown information about an application for a research assistant's pass can cause that pass to be refused without the applicant knowing what he is suspected of or guilty of and without the hon. Member knowing what is happening. If we believe in a system of justice, that system must be open and above board. We cannot allow a secret organisation to condemn someone out of hand without any power of redress or that person even knowing the charge against him.
Dr. Bennett was told by the House and the Murdoch press that he was unfit to receive a pass to enter the building. At no stage was he or I told anything about the nature of the suspicions or allegations against him. It has happened to me with one of my staff. Would any hon. Member like to have an application for a pass withdrawn and refused with no reason given? If it had happened to any Conservative Members, they would think more carefully—or at least I hope they would—about the points that I am making.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman asked whether Conservative Members would like it to happen to them. I make it clear that, if a member of staff whom I wished to employ did not pass the security services' test, I should be grateful to them.
Mr. Corbyn: It is an unquestioning hon. Member who would accept such action without being given any reason.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The intervention of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) was interesting. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) identified six Conservative Members of Parliament in 1979 as being unsuitable for office. Would he apply his comments to them as well?
Mr. Corbyn: The House should not pass a report that takes power away from itself and hands it over to the unelected and the unaccountable. It is a serious issue, and I hope that, when we come to amendment (e), which you have agreed to call, Mr. Speaker, the House will recognise that what I am proposing in this amendment is that the reasons for refusal should be made known to the applicant and to the sponsoring hon. Member. That does not appear to be an unreasonable request.
I believe that this House has an awful lot of catching up to do. The conditions under which most hon. Members work are appalling. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who has been here since June 1987, received his desk only this week. [Laughter.] I do not find that funny. I find it disgraceful that, with all the privileges and special rooms in this place, hon. Members can be denied a desk. All of us should be concerned that, when elected to Parliament, we should have the physical conditions to do the job properly. As with every other building, there should be facilities for access of persons of disabilities. This House should be made welcoming rather than daunting to the public, and it should be seen as an open Parliament to which people can come, to watch, to listen and perhaps to understand something of what goes on here. Instead we are secretive, we set up barriers, and we seem more interested in privileges for ourselves than in facilities for the staff or the visiting public.
I hope that the Services Committee will reconsider all these issues and decide that it is time that this Parliament was brought into the second half of the 20th century and made the public place that it should be.
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that this debate will end at 11·44 pm. I ask hon. Members to bear that in mind when making their speeches.
11.13 pm
Mr. Hugh Dykes: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said that he would be brief, but then went on somewhat. What he possesses in verbosity, he clearly lacks in a sense of humour, because he kept saying that he did not find the response of hon. Members funny. Of course, when he said that, hon. Members regarded his remarks as even more avant garde and over the top. What he did not realise was that the House is concerned about the congestion of our physical facilities and the need to have proper control.
All hon. Members will be grateful to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) for the way in which he and his colleagues on the Sub-Committee presented the

123
report. It has emphasised the need for control, especially over the issuing of passes. That is welcome. The proposals proceed from no limit—a situation which has developed in an evolutionary and unsatisfactory way—to a proper fixed limit, on which the House needs to agree. At present, the proposal, endorsed by the Leader of the House, is for a limit of three years.
I shall refer briefly to one or two other aspects of the report, which I regard as excellent and to which I shall be glad to give my wholehearted support, as, I imagine, will most hon. Members. In paragraph 7 on page vi, one sees that there are 72 different categories of photo-identity pass holders, which is excessive. Again, one commends the Sub-Committee's attempts to achieve a rational control over the entire panoply of passes.
I wonder about the five-year limit on validity of an individual pass for Members contained in paragraph 8. Perhaps that pass should be valid for longer. There are many excellent parts to the report and if previous speakers had not taken up so much time one could refer to them. I am particularly delighted to support the proposals for Members of the European Parliament, which were advanced with a characteristically courteous and gentlemanly approach by my hon. Friend for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw).
Apart from a couple of small details, that is the only area with which I take issue with the right hon. Member for Salford, East. I hope that I will not offend the right hon. Gentleman if I say that I thought that his attitude in this respect rather curmudgeonly. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough would agree that his proposal was a modest first step and to describe it as the thin end of the wedge is embarrassing to our distinguished colleagues of all parties who are hard-working Members of the European Parliament—although I am aware that this does not affect the alliance. We should be more positive about the proposal and I am glad that the Leader of the House demonstrated some enthusiam for it.
I and other hon. Members from all parties have tabled amendments dealing with a slight revision of the limit on the number of passes. Some hon. Members may consider that the maximum number of six passes, as opposed to three, is on the high side. In your wisdom, Mr. Speaker, you have selected the amendment that sets the limit at five—the other amendment proposed four passes—in a word, the middle of the range.
I understand that hon. Members from all parties wish to reassure themselves that they will no longer see strange people wandering around the Corridors and wonder who they are, and that they will not see such people on Corridors that were previously the preserve of Members of Parliament. They understand, however, that it is necessary to exercise a rational and durable control.
The physical restrictions that we intend to place on people are welcome. No access to the Table Office after 2 o'clock on Monday to Thursday is an excellent idea. The quid pro quo must be try to reach the right compromise figure for the number of passes to be issued for all staff members of any hon. Member. Some hon. Members have no such staff—presumably they have a secretary, but they may not have a research assistant. Some may have a, part-time research assistant. Conservative Members rightly feel some resentment when it appears that
124
Members of the smaller parties overdo it by issuing far too many passes to their assistants. We acknowledge that they have to cover many more portfolios than the Members of larger parties, but they overdo it and that causes resentment. That does not gainsay the need to try to get the balance right, which is a difficult judgment.
I plead with hon. Members to consider seriously amendment (1) which suggests five passes, I believe which is the right compromise. To opt for no limit affords the maximum discretion. Some hon. Members do not want to have research assistants with passes, but others do. We must consider the tapestry of differential requirements. Would it be right to go from no limit to the low figure of three, and, on page xiv, paragraph 54 (iii), build into that limit the dubious idea that the Sub-Committee should recommend to the Services Committee
"an increase in the limit in respect of an individual Member where they are satisfied that exceptional circumstances apply"?
I hope that the right hon. Member for Salford, East is not offended by that reference and I am sure that the Committee would honourably and faithfully try to ensure that it was satisfied about those circumstances. Nevertheless, I believe that such a principle is problematical and almost a reprehensible one to attempt to build into the limit. If that increase were limited to leaders of parties perhaps the House could support it, but would that happen?
More and more approaches would come from institutional and semi-institutional quarters on behalf of Members who have particular duties—many Members have duties on one kind or another. What about Chairmen of Select Committees or someone who for an operational requirement has three part-time research assistants and one and a half secretaries to cope with the work load? What about those who may be between appointing assistants whose passes may overlap, or long-distance Members who may need an extra person to stay here permanently? London Members might want people in a local office to come here frequently and have proper access to the House. In such cases, the limit of three passes would not be adequate.
It is not right for hon. Members to make the House excessively nervous by saying that, automatically, all hon. Members would go for the maximum limit that we would decide and that three times 650 would be a 50 per cent. increase on the existing figure. If we went to five, as is suggested in amendment (1), that does not mean that there would be 650 times five staff pass holders of one kind or another. Many hon. Members would continue with the existing number of passes. Equally, for all sorts of reasons other hon. Members would have to go above the limit and would be entitled to do that in the pursuance of their work. I know that the House wishes to exercise proper control and that is why the slightly higher compromise limit of four, five or six—in this case five, according to the terms of the middle-of-the-range amendment—should be seriously considered.
11.21 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) who is not here. As I have told the Leader of the House, he is on a constituency engagement and I am deputising for him.

125
My hon. Friends and I advocate a limit. The report was precipitated by a security matter and we accept that there should be security in the building. It is right that the House should ensure that people going about their business are strictly protected. For those reasons, we do not contest the ground that restrictions are needed on the huge number of passes that are presently given to nearly 10,000 people in many different categories to allow them to come and go in the House and in the other place.
So far there has been no breach of the rules by hon. Members or by others, and no limits have been applied. There can be no allegation of impropriety, because there has been none. The issue before the House is about the appropriate way to equip hon. Members, primarily, to do the job that they need to do in the House. There is a fundamental question related to the legislative part of the constitution rather than to the Executive sector. We have an excellent Library, but for those of us who have to shadow Departments and for many others with specific duties in the House, there is a need for adequate support to begin to take on the Executive. We need that support in order to do the job properly.
I support the proposal by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and commend to the House the proposition that to move from no restriction to a tight first restriction will pose a problem. I remind the House that that is distinct from what we propose in the other categories. As the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said, the other categories are to be frozen and not restricted. Members are to be restricted, while Ministers are not. I understand the concern of the right hon. Member for Salford, East that, if we all exercised the right to go to the limit, things would be impossible. The argument against that stands on the basis of the facts of the moment. Many Members have three or fewer pass holders, and only a few have more than the maximum. The hon. Member for Harrow, East and other hon. Members suggested a low maximum, and the likelihood of a coach and horses being driven through a proposal to restrict limits is invalidated by the experience of the House. People choose the number of passes to reflect their circumstances.
Mr. David Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman still have nine research assistants? That was the figure that he gave, to his credit, in his evidence to the Committee. Does he not agree that nine is a ridiculous number for any hon. Member to have?
Mr. Hughes: We proposed a maximum of six, and I have six at the moment. However, two are part-time, and are never here at the same time. All the people who work for me are paid from the Fees Office, and I use my salary to pay people. This is an important issue. If hon. Members choose to use their office costs allowance to employ three or four staff, they have the right to that flexibility, and not to have the number of staff on whom they choose to spend their money restricted by an arbitrary limit.
Mr. Cranley Onslow rose—
Mr. Hughes: No, I will not give way again.
This should not be a party political issue. The majority of members of my party have three or fewer pass holders. I hope that we shall not impose restrictions on Members of Parliament when lobbyists and others still have access to the House.
126
The hon. Member for Harrow, East argued for the sensible balance, and I ask the House to support that and to realise that there are many occasions when flexibility, and hon. Member's right to flexibility, is appropriate. I can cite two further examples. One is when a hon. Member has a private Member's Bill. That will inevitably, for a short time, impose extra work. He may need to have somebody here permanently for that time, and may need to have a number of appropriate passes.
Mr. Cormack rose—
Mr. Hughes: No, I must continue.
Another factor is the hours that people can come in. It is not sufficient to say that they can have a day pass. The Member of Parliament may not be here to enable them to get in, or to sign the day pass. There may not be anybody in the office to authorise their arrival when they come. There are many practical reasons why hon. Members should give themselves the flexibility that the alternative proposal of a maximum of five would give.
Many Members of Parliament sponsor three pass holders—well over 100. Well over a quarter of Members of Parliament sponsor three or more pass holders. The evidence of the current practice of the House is that there needs to be flexibility for those who might want to increase the number by one, but find that the motion, if passed unamended, would not allow that. There should be a limit—there is no argument against that—but to restrict that limit to three would inhibit the performance of the duty that is, above all, the principal responsibility of Members of Parliament—to spend our money and meet our needs appropriately, within a properly secure system of allocating passes. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support amendment (1)
11.27 pm
Mr. Cranley Onslow: I hope that the House will do no such thing. Although the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) produced a soft-soapy argument for increasing the number to five or six, every hon. Member who exceeds the limit trespasses on the generosity of his colleagues. If the hon. Member thinks about it for a moment, he will see that that is so. We are not seeking to limit the number of research assistants who may be employed by the Democrats, individually or collectively. We are saying that there must be a limit on the number of people who come into the building. That is entirely different, and I deeply resent the hon. Gentleman's attempt to confuse the issue; it is not worthy of him.
There are a number of good reasons for us to pass the motion. It is a beginning. I agree strongly with the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). There is plenty of work to be done, but we must stop the rot at this point. The House is becoming liberty hall. There are people roaming around whom none of us know by sight and whom we cannot identify. The police do not know them. Passes are issued to newspaper delivery people who come to the House once a day to deliver two copies of a provincial paper to the Library. That is utterly ludicrous and there must be ways of better arranging our affairs—
Mr. Dykes rose—
Mr. Onslow:—for security and practical purposes.
I see no objection to the extremely modest proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough, (Sir M.

127
Shaw) that Members of the European Parliament should be put on the same footing as our own staff who have permanent passes. What is wrong with that? We are not suggesting that they be given elaborate facilities, creches, bathrooms or whatever else maybe in store in the new building. We are simply asking that they should be able to come in here without having to hang about for an interminable period at the entrance. As most of us know, they can already come in, by permission of the other place, through the House of Lords entrance and it demeans us that we do not accord them the same courtesy.
Mr. Dykes rose—
Mr. Onslow: I hope very much that we shall pass this motion with my hon. Friend's amendment and that the other amendments will be rejected.
11.30 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: The real problem is the appalling conditions in which the House of Commons is expected to work. I can go back to 1950, when I had to wait for a locker. It was 14 years before I had a room, and that was because I was a Minister, and 29 years before I had a room as a Back Bencher. Conditions are appalling for both Members and the staff of the House. When people say that the Executive gets away with things that they should not, it is in part because this legislature—the House of Commons—has neglected to provide itself with facilities to develop. Schoolchildren come round the House in a morning, but it is a disgrace because, when we talk to them afterwards, they do not have the slightest idea what the House of Commons does; all they know is that Mr. Speaker wears a wig, or that the Mace was dropped in a certain place, or that something happened to King Charles I along the street; and, in the evening, the Harcourt corridor is full of lobbyists paying money to get their case into the House.
I oppose the report. I am sorry to disappoint my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), but it is a disgrace for the High Court of Parliament to say that Ronan Bennett was denied a pass, as a security risk, when he had not been tried. I met that man once after the case had come to light. He was convicted—no doubt you will correct me, Mr. Speaker, if I am wrong—and you thought it your duty to take the judgment of the Sergeant at Arms. I do not believe that any elected Member saw the security case. That judgment should not be endorsed by the House, because it could be applied in many ways.
The links with the public are the lifeblood of the House of Commons. I have always found it offensive that we talk about the Strangers' Gallery; it is the "Electors' Gallery." We still say and think in the House, "I spy Strangers"; it might be better to say, "I've seen an elector." It is the contact with the public that makes this place relevant.
We now have the absolute obsession with security. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East served in Northern Ireland, but he must know that security is not a new problem. There was Guy Fawkes. There was the murder of Spencer Percival, but it is incredible to hear hon. Members say that everyone should have a pass and be body-searched. The murders of Airey Neave and Spencer Percival did occur in this place, but are we really describing
128
ourselves as if we were working at Windscale or in one of the high-security defence establishments? We make ourselves ridiculous by talking about that level of security.
We need a new look. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) rightly said that it is awful to see pensioners queueing in the cold when Westminster Hall is empty and only available for a special exhibition for some lobbyist who wants to get his case across to the House. When television comes, I hope that there will be open-circuit television so that they can watch the House while they wait. We should treat them as what they are—our employers.
The work of Members has expanded considerably. I suppose that it all began with the welfare state and the Liberal Government of 1910. My dad once told me that after the Lloyd George insurance Act—the National Insurance Act 1911—he was in the Members' Post Office and a Conservative Member came in, threw three letters on the table and said, "Look at that. That is a product of your Government." He also told me that, when women got the vote, the House stopped sniggering about women's issues.
With the expansion in case work, letters and surgeries, how can we keep any Government—Labour or Tory—under control unless we have the facilities? How can it be said that women are under-represented in Parliament when creches are not available? That does not apply only to women Members: as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) pointed out, men too have responsibilities for their children. Librarians have such responsibilities. But we dismiss them, while letting out the Dining Rooms so that the Refreshment Department can make a profit.
The truth is that we are not a serious Parliament. If Members have not enough room in the House, we should give them grants so that they can have offices elsewhere. I do not work in an office here: I could not get a tenth of my papers into my little room. I got a window about 18 months ago, however.
Members must be given the funds to do their job. My only complaint about interns is that British youngsters are not allowed to come to Parliament. The Americans realise its importance, or at least they go back knowing something about it.
The report is another step towards the subordination of the legislature to the Executive—I say that to my right hon. Friend with deep respect. We are saying that we will let the security services decide who can come in. It is wrong for a Parliament to do that: the security services are employed by the Government of the day, and we know a little about them from recent legislation. We are saying that, because political work has expanded, we will restrict facilities instead of expanding them. But we need not wait for the new building. There are an awful lot of things that we could do. I have always thought that the House of Lords should be put to better use. After all, if we are to let MEPs in on the ground that they have been elected, what about keeping other people out on the ground that they have not been?
I shall vote for the amendment, although not for MEPs, who can come and see Members if they want. There is no reciprocal facility in the European Parliament—not that that matters, as I doubt whether many Members would wish to go there. I think that the amendments of my hon.

129
Friend the Member for Islington, North are amendments of substance, but that the report is inward-looking, restrictive and dangerous. I advise the House to reject it.
11.37 pm
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The Sub-Committee—consisting of members of the Government party, the Opposition and the Social and Liberal Democrats—has, in its unanimous report, done a workmanlike rather than a doctrinaire job for the House of Commons. I am very grateful to its Chairman and members for the care with which they took the evidence and produced the report.
Let me first refer to amendment (a). There are certain times which are crucial in the Table Office. If a Member has not succeeded in getting to the front of the queue to put down a question or motion by then, it is delayed by a day. If it is an amendment, it will become a starred amendment and will probably not be selected for that reason.
In general, research assistants have not the knowledge of procedure that Members have, and if they have unlimited access to the Table Office they are likely to take up far more of the two Clerks'—sometimes one Clerk's—time than a Member who, knowing far more about procedure, comes in to table a question or a motion. It is important that Members should not lose a crucial day when they wish to table an amendment or question because inexperienced research assistants want to engage the attention of the duty Clerks to find out whether what they want to do is in order.
It is well known that the Library has been grossly abused by visitors who want to use the services of the Library to enable them to write theses for their examinations. It is quite right that the Sub-Committee has drawn attention to that.
The Sub-Committee's report does not deal with an ideal solution in unlimited facilities. It is to do with priority in very limited facilities. It has done a workmanlike job in that context, and it will have my support. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for putting down a motion that we approve, rather than taking note of the report. I hope that the response of the House will encourage him to do the same for other reports of Committees of the House, which yet await decision by the House.
11.41 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I have a larger than usual number of research assistants, but it must be said that several of them are part-time and come in only once a fortnight or once a month. The decision on how many of them I need to do my job is mine, and no one else's. There are many different concepts of what our job is. Are we laymen, specialists, or constituency representatives? It is wrong to impose other Members' views of what the job is on me. I want to do this job and serve Great Grimsby in the way that I think appropriate. I need the staff that I think are appropriate to help me do that job—
Mr. Michael Jopling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mitchell: No.
130
Secondly, if the House in its wisdom does not provide the necessary resources and money to allow me to do the job in the way I think appropriate, I should be free to take help from outside, wherever it is available.
Mr. Jopling rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the hon. Member is not giving way.
Mr. Mitchell: If the facilities are strained, it is the responsibility of the House to improve them, not to cut down on their use. By excluding people from obtaining passes, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) will not get the facilities improved. That will be used as an argument for not improving them. The argument that people are not excluded if they cannot use the the House's facilities is wrong; they will be effectively excluded, with the exception of those working for the wealthier Members with offices in other parts of town. For us, they will be excluded.
My final point is simple: the trend of the times is that the House is becoming more open, more specialised and more interesting to the public. That means more access for more people and more help to do our job. We cannot stand in the way of that progress. If we do, we shall make ourselves look stupid and be knocked over by it.
This is a petty, prejudicial motion; I hope that the House will oppose it.
11.43 pm
Mr. William Cash: With reference to amendment (b), I must say that co-operation and exchange of information between this Parliament and the European Parliament have become increasingly important in the light of the single European Act and our involvement in the Community.
Having welcomed these provisions in principle, I must add a reservation. This is a one-way arrangement. Access is to this House. The problem is how to gain access to the information that we need about what is happening in the European institutions—information that we need to be able effectively to exercise our judgment on behalf of our constituents. We should seriously consider improving the manner in which we get over to Europe from time to time.
It being one and a half hours after the motion was entered upon, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [27 January] , to put forthwith the Questions on amendments selected by him which were then moved.
Amendment proposed: (a), after 'be', insert
with the exception of the recommendation in paragraph 33 relating to access to the Table Office by research assistants,'.—[Mr. Corbyn.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 36, Noes 201.

Division No. 62]

[11.44 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Gordon, Mildred

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Hinchliffe, David

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Hughes, Simon (Southward)

Clay, Bob

Janner, Greville

Cohen, Harry

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Cousins, Jim

Kennedy, Charles

Dalyell, Tam

Maclennan, Robert

Duffy, A. E. P.

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Fisher, Mark

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Flynn, Paul

Nellist, Dave

131

Patchett, Terry

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

Pike, Peter L.

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Primarolo, Dawn

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Ruddock, Joan

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Salmond, Alex

Sheerman, Barry

Tellers for the Ayes:

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Mr. Stuart Holland.

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Alexander, Richard

Hampson, Dr Keith

Alton, David

Hannam, John

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

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

Amess, David

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Harris, David

Ash by, David

Haynes, Frank

Baldry, Tony

Hayward, Robert

Bottomley, Peter

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Heddle, John

Boyes, Roland

Hind, Kenneth

Bright, Graham

Hood, Jimmy

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

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

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Buckley, George J.

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Budgen, Nicholas

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Burns, Simon

Hunter, Andrew

Burt, Alistair

Irvine, Michael

Butterfill, John

Jack, Michael

Callaghan, Jim

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Carrington, Matthew

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Carttiss, Michael

Kirkhope, Timothy

Cash, William

Knapman, Roger

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Chapman, Sydney

Lamond, James

Chope, Christopher

Lawrence, Ivan

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

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Lightbown, David

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Lilley, Peter

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Livsey, Richard

Cope, Rt Hon John

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Cormack, Patrick

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Cran, James

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Cryer, Bob

McAvoy, Thomas

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Macdonald, Calum A.

Curry, David

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

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

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Maclean, David

Day, Stephen

McLoughlin, Patrick

Devlin, Tim

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Dixon, Don

Maginnis, Ken

Dobson, Frank

Mans, Keith

Doran, Frank

Maples, John

Dover, Den

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Durant, Tony

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Dykes, Hugh

Maude, Hon Francis

Eastham, Ken

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Emery, Sir Peter

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Meale, Alan

Fallon, Michael

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Fearn, Ronald

Miller, Sir Hal

Fishburn, John Dudley

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Foster, Derek

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Fox, Sir Marcus

Morgan, Rhodri

Franks, Cecil

Morrison, Sir Charles

Freeman, Roger

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

French, Douglas

Moss, Malcolm

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Gill, Christopher

Neubert, Michael

Glyn, Dr Alan

Nicholls, Patrick

Golding, Mrs Llin

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Gow, Ian

Norris, Steve

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Gregory, Conal

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Paice, James

Ground, Patrick

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

132

Patnick, Irvine

Sumberg, David

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Summerson, Hugo

Pawsey, James

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Porter, David (Waveney)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Portillo, Michael

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Thurnham, Peter

Powell, William (Corby)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Raffan, Keith

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Redwood, John

Trippier, David

Renton, Tim

Twinn, Dr Ian

Rhodes James, Robert

Viggers, Peter

Riddick, Graham

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Walden, George

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Waller, Gary

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Ryder, Richard

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Warren, Kenneth

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Wells, Bowen

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Wheeler, John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Whitney, Ray

Sims, Roger

Widdecombe, Ann

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wiggin, Jerry

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Speller, Tony

Winterton, Nicholas

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Wood, Timothy

Squire, Robin

Stern, Michael

Tellers for the Noes:

Stevens, Lewis

Mr. Stephen Dorrell and

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Mr. Tom Sackville.

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: (b), at end add
'provided also that United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament may be issued with photo-identity passes allowing them access to the Central Lobby, the Lower and Upper Waiting Halls and the Committee Corridors.'—[Sir Michael Shaw.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 62.

Division No. 63]

[11.56 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Devlin, Tim

Alton, David

Dorrell, Stephen

Amery, Rl Hon Julian

Dover, Den

Amess, David

Durant, Tony

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Dykes, Hugh

Baldry, Tony

Emery, Sir Peter

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Fallon, Michael

Bottomley, Peter

Fishburn, John Dudley

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Flynn, Paul

Boyes, Roland

Fox, Sir Marcus

Bright, Graham

Franks, Cecil

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Freeman, Roger

Burns, Simon

French, Douglas

Burt, Alistair

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Butterfill, John

Gill, Christopher

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Glyn, Dr Alan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Carrington, Matthew

Gregory, Conal

Cash, William

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Chapman, Sydney

Ground, Patrick

Chope, Christopher

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclifte)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hannam, John

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

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

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Harris, David

Cope, Rt Hon John

Hayward, Robert

Cormack, Patrick

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Cran, James

Heddle, John

Curry, David

Hind, Kenneth

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

Home Robertson, John

Davis, David (Boothferry)

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

Day, Stephen

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Rhodes James, Robert

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Hunter, Andrew

Robertson, George

Jack, Michael

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Janner, Greville

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Ryder, Richard

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Salmond, Alex

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Shaw, David (Dover)

Kennedy, Charles

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb1)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lawrence, Ivan

Sims, Roger

Lee, John (Pendle)

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

Lightbown, David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lilley, Peter

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Speller, Tony

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Macdonald, Calum A.

Squire, Robin

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Stern, Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stevens, Lewis

Mans, Keith

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Maples, John

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Sumberg, David

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Summerson, Hugo

Maude, Hon Francis

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Miller, Sir Hal

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mitchell, Andrew (GBdling)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Thurnham, Peter

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Moss, Malcolm

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Trippier, David

Neubert, Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Nicholls, Patrick

Viggers, Peter

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Norris, Steve

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Walden, George

Paice, James

Waller, Gary

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Patnick, Irvine

Warren, Kenneth

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Wells, Bowen

Pawsey, James

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Wheeler, John

Porter, David (Waveney)

Whitney, Ray

Portillo, Michael

Widdecombe, Ann

Powell, William (Corby)

Wiggin, Jerry

Quin, Ms Joyce

Wood, Timothy

Radice, Giles

Raffan, Keith

Tellers for the Ayes:

Redwood, John

Mr. David Maclean and

Renton, Tim

Mr. Tom Sackville.

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Haynes, Frank

Ashby, David

Hood, Jimmy

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Buckley, George J.

Irvine, Michael

Budgen, Nicholas

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Callaghan, Jim

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Knapman, Roger

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Lamond, James

Carttiss, Michael

Livsey, Richard

Cohen, Harry

McAvoy, Thomas

Corbyn, Jeremy

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Maclennan, Robert

Dalyell, Tam

Maginnis, Ken

Dixon, Don

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Dobson, Frank

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Meale, Alan

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Eastham, Ken

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Nellist, Dave

Fearn, Ronald

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Foster, Derek

Patchett, Terry

George, Bruce

Pike, Peter L.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Gow, Ian

Primarolo, Dawn

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Riddick, Graham

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Skinner, Dennis

Winterton, Nicholas

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Spearing, Nigel

Tellers for the Noes:

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse and

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mr. Bob Cryer.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendment proposed: (e), at end add
'but that this House resolves, with respect to paragraphs 10 and 11 thereof, that any persons refused a pass shall have the opportunity to know the reasons for such refusal, and an opportunity to challenge any information, other than convictions, held on them by the police, and that the nature and source of the information against the applicant be made known to them and their sponsor.'—[Mr. Corbyn]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 47, Noes 177.

Division No. 64]

[12.7 am

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Lamond, James

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Livsey, Richard

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

McAvoy, Thomas

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Macdonald, Calum A.

Buckley, George J.

Maclennan, Robert

Callaghan, Jim

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Nellist, Dave

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Patchett, Terry

Corbyn, Jeremy

Pike, Peter L.

Cousins, Jim

Primarolo, Dawn

Cryer, Bob

Ruddock, Joan

Dalyell, Tam

Salmond, Alex

Duffy, A. E. P.

Sheerman, Barry

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Skinner, Dennis

Eastham, Ken

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Fearn, Ronald

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

Fisher, Mark

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Holland, Stuart

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Home Robertson, John

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Hood, Jimmy

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Mr. Harry Cohen and

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Mr. Bob Clay.

Kennedy, Charles

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Alton, David

Curry, David

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

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

Amess, David

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Day, Stephen

Ashby, David

Devlin, Tim

Baldry, Tony

Dixon, Don

Bottomley, Peter

Dobson, Frank

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Dorrell, Stephen

Bright, Graham

Dover, Den

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Durant, Tony

Budgen, Nicholas

Dykes, Hugh

Burns, Simon

Emery, Sir Peter

Burl, Alistair

Fallon, Michael

Butterfill, John

Fishburn, John Dudley

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Flynn, Paul

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Foster, Derek

Carrington, Matthew

Fox, Sir Marcus

Carttiss, Michael

Franks, Cecil

Cash, William

Freeman, Roger

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

French, Douglas

Chapman, Sydney

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Chope, Christopher

Gill, Christopher

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

Glyn, Dr Alan

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Gow, Ian

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Gregory, Conal

Cormack, Patrick

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Cran, James

Ground, Patrick

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Pawsey, James

Hampson, Dr Keith

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hannam, John

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

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

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Portillo, Michael

Harris, David

Powell, William (Corby)

Haynes, Frank

Raffan, Keith

Hayward, Robert

Redwood, John

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Renton, Tim

Heddle, John

Riddick, Graham

Hind, Kenneth

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

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

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Ryder, Richard

Hunter, Andrew

Shaw, David (Dover)

Irvine, Michael

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb1)

Jack, Michael

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Sims, Roger

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Knapman, Roger

Speller, Tony

Lawrence, Ivan

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Squire, Robin

Lightbown, David

Stern, Michael

Lilley, Peter

Stevens, Lewis

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Sumberg, David

McKay, Allen (Bamsley West)

Summerson, Hugo

McLoughlin, Patrick

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Maginnis, Ken

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Mans, Keith

Temple-Morris, Peter

Maples, John

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Thurnham, Peter

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Maude, Hon Francis

Trippier, David

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Viggers, Peter

Meale, Alan

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Miller, Sir Hal

Walden, George

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Waller, Gary

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Warren, Kenneth

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Wells, Bowen

Moss, Malcolm

Wheeler, John

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Whitney, Ray

Neubert, Michael

Widdecombe, Ann

Nicholls, Patrick

Wiggin, Jerry

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Norris, Steve

Winterton, Nicholas

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Wood, Timothy

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Paice, James

Tellers for the Noes:

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Mr. David Maclean and

Patnick, Irvine

Mr. Tom Sackville.

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: (1), at end add
'with the exception that the maximum number of photo-identity passes for the Palace of Westminister for which a Member should be entitled to apply for individual members of his or her personal staff, as referred to at paragraph 54, should be five'.—[Mr. Dykes.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 56, Noes 175.

Division No. 65]

[12.18 am

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Boyes, Roland

Alton, David

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Ashby, David

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Clay, Bob

136

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Cohen, Harry

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Nellist, Dave

Cousins, Jim

Pike, Peter L.

Dalyell, Tam

Porter, David (Waveney)

Doran, Frank

Primarolo, Dawn

Dover, Den

Quin, Ms Joyce

Dykes, Hugh

Radice, Giles

Fearn, Ronald

Riddick, Graham

Fisher, Mark

Robertson, George

George, Bruce

Ruddock, Joan

Golding, Mrs Llin

Salmond, Alex

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Sheerman, Barry

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Holland, Stuart

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

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Spearing, Nigel

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Squire, Robin

Janner, Greville

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Waller, Gary

Kennedy, Charles

Wells, Bowen

Lawrence, Ivan

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Livsey, Richard

Macdonald, Calum A.

Tellers for the Ayes:

Maclennan, Robert

Mr. Simon Coombs and

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Mr. Matthew Taylor.

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Gow, Ian

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Amess, David

Gregory, Conal

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Baldry, Tony

Ground, Patrick

Bottomley, Peter

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Hannam, John

Bright, Graham

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

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Harris, David

Buckley, George J.

Haynes, Frank

Budgen, Nicholas

Hayward, Robert

Burns, Simon

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Butterfill, John

Heddle, John

Callaghan, Jim

Hind, Kenneth

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Home Robertson, John

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hood, Jimmy

Carrington, Matthew

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

Carttiss, Michael

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Cash, William

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Chapman, Sydney

Hunter, Andrew

Chope, Christopher

Irvine, Michael

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

Jack, Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Cran, James

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Cryer, Bob

Kirkhope, Timothy

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Knapman, Roger

Curry, David

Lamond, James

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

Lee, John (Pendle)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Lightbown, David

Devlin, Tim

Li 1 ley, Peter

Dixon, Don

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Dobson, Frank

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Dorrell, Stephen

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Duffy, A. E. P.

McAvoy, Thomas

Dunnachie, Jimmy

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Durant, Tony

McLoughlin, Patrick

Eastham, Ken

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Emery, Sir Peter

Maginnis, Ken

Fallon, Michael

Mans, Keith

Fishburn, John Dudley

Maples, John

Flynn, Paul

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Foster, Derek

Martin, Michael J. (Springbum)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Maude, Hon Francis

Franks, Cecil

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Freeman, Roger

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

French, Douglas

Meale, Alan

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Gill, Christopher

Miller, Sir Hal

Glyn, Dr Alan

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

137

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Morrison, Sir Charles

Speller, Tony

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Moss, Malcolm

Stern, Michael

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Stevens, Lewis

Neubert, Michael

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Nicholls, Patrick

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Sumberg, David

Norris, Steve

Summerson, Hugo

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Paice, James

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Temple-Morris, Peter

Patchett, Terry

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Patnick, Irvine

Thurnham, Peter

Pawsey, James

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Trippier, David

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Porter, David (Waveney)

Viggers, Peter

Portillo, Michael

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Powell, William (Corby)

Walden, George

Raff an, Keith

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Redwood, John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Renton, Tim

Warren, Kenneth

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Wheeler, John

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Whitney, Ray

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Widdecombe, Ann

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Wiggin, Jerry

Ryder, Richard

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Shaw, David (Dover)

Winterton, Nicholas

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Wood, Timothy

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Tellers for the Noes:

Sims, Roger

Mr. David Maclean and

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Tom Sackville.

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Question accordingly negatived.
MR. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the order [27 January], to put forthwith the main Question, as amended:—
The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 25.

Division No. 66]

[12.29 am

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Alexander, Richard

Curry, David

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Dalyell, Tam

Amess, David

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

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Ashby, David

Day, Stephen

Baldry, Tony

Devlin, Tim

Bottomley, Peter

Dixon, Don

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Dobson, Frank

Boyes, Roland

Dorrell, Stephen

Bright, Graham

Dover, Den

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Duffy, A. E. P.

Buckley, George J.

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Budgen, Nicholas

Durant, Tony

Burns, Simon

Dykes, Hugh

Burl, Alistair

Eastham, Ken

Butterfill, John

Emery, Sir Peter

Callaghan, Jim

Fallon, Michael

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Carrington, Matthew

Flynn, Paul

Carttiss, Michael

Foster, Derek

Cash, William

Fox, Sir Marcus

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Franks, Cecil

Chapman, Sydney

Freeman, Roger

Chope, Christopher

French, Douglas

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

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcllffe)

Gill, Christopher

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Cope, Rt Hon John

Gow, Ian

Cormack, Patrick

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Cran, James

Gregory, Conal

Cryer, Bob

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

138

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Ground, Patrick

Patnick, Irvine

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Pawsey, James

Hampson, Dr Keith

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hannam, John

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

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

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Portillo, Michael

Harris, David

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Haynes, Frank

Powell, William (Corby)

Hayward, Robert

Primarolo, Dawn

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Quin, Ms Joyce

Heddle, John

Raffan, Keith

Hind, Kenneth

Redwood, John

Home Robertson, John

Renton, Tim

Hood, Jimmy

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Hunter, Andrew

Ryder, Richard

Irvine, Michael

Sackville, Hon Tom

Jack, Michael

Shaw, David (Dover)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Sims, Roger

Kirkhope, Timothy

Skinner, Dennis

Knapman, Roger

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lamond, James

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lawrence, Ivan

Speller, Tony

Lee, John (Pendle)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Lightbown, David

Squire, Robin

Lilley, Peter

Stern, Michael

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stevens, Lewis

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

McAvoy, Thomas

Sumberg, David

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Summerson, Hugo

Maclean, David

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Maginnis, Ken

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mans, Keith

Thurnham, Peter

Maples, John

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Trippier, David

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Viggers, Peter

Maude, Hon Francis

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Walden, George

Meale, Alan

Waller, Gary

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Miller, Sir Hal

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Warren, Kenneth

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Wheeler, John

Morrison, Sir Charles

Whitney, Ray

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Widdecombe, Ann

Moss, Malcolm

Wiggin, Jerry

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Neubert, Michael

Winterton, Nicholas

Nicholls, Patrick

Wood, Timothy

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Norris, Steve

Tellers for the Ayes:

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Mr. Alan Howarth and

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

Paice, James

NOES

Alton, David

Holland, Stuart

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Kennedy, Charles

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Livsey, Richard

Clay, Bob

Maclennan, Robert

Cohen, Harry

Patchett, Terry

Corbyn, Jeremy

Pike, Peter L.

Fearn, Ronald

Robertson, George

Fisher, Mark

Ruddock, Joan

George, Bruce

Salmond, Alex

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Sheerman, Barry

139

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Tellers for the Noes:

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

Mr. Simon Hughes and

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Mr. Matthew Taylor.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Second Report of Session 1987–88 from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) on Access to the Precincts of the House (House of Commons Paper No. 580) be approved, provided also that United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament may be issued with photo-identity passes allowing them access to the Central Lobby, the Lower and Upper Waiting Halls and the Committee Corridors.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may have been drawn to your attention that, when the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) was put to the vote, Tellers for the Government were counting, and it appeared to many hon. Members that the payroll vote was put into the Aye Lobby. As you know, that is contrary to the traditions of the House. When a Select Committee is reporting to the House in general terms, it is a matter for Members and the Government should not allow their influence, attitudes and ideas to be imposed on the House. It is clearly a case of the Executive taking away the rights of the House. I thought that I should draw that to your attention, although your room for manoeuvre on this issue is somewhat limited.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. He will know that the Government put in Tellers for all the amendments.
Mr. Don Dixon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. To put it on the record, the Government put in Tellers only for the Ayes on the amendment to which my hon. Friend referred

Litter
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
12.41 am
Mr. David Amess: The word "Rubbish" is often uttered and muttered by hon. Members when they disagree with the remarks of other hon. Members. Unfortunately, discussion of the subject in a more literal sense does not take place often enough in the Chamber. The subject of litter is not taken seriously enough and it is about time that it was. It should be given a high priority. However, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who is to reply and who has taken a positive interest in this subject, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister can certainly be absolved from any criticism in this matter. The agenda has been set to clean up our towns and make them litter-free. We now have to look at practical ways of achieving that end.
The problem of litter is self-inflicted. By and large, people are responsible for creating the problem in the first place. Dropping litter is anti-social behaviour and it is certainly not the fault of children. In Basildon last year, we launched a campaign called, "I love Basildon". The object was to say that we were creating a fine town and wished to make sure that we kept it that way. It specifically dealt with the problems of litter, graffiti and vandalism. There was an excellent response to the launch from the general public and particularly from schoolchildren. A number of them embarked on projects researching the control and eradication of litter. They have also decided to help in a practical way by carefully controlling litter within school confines and then helping with clean-up schemes in their locality.
I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that only today I received two letters on this subject. The first said:
"We have saved an amount of milk bottle-tops to keep Basildon tidy. We do not know how many we have saved but we all hope it is over 200. We are still going to save them and we hope they will be useful to you. Yours sincerely, Mary, Karen, Jo-Anne and Emily".
Those children are in class 12 of Lee Chapel primary school at the Knares, Basildon.
The headmistress of Briscoe county junior school informs me that one of her classes will clear litter from a pond as their contribution to make Basildon beautiful. I certainly applaud that.
The reason why the "I love Basildon" campaign is so important is that, as my hon. Friend probably knows, we have the largest covered shopping centre in Europe—a good litter control model for the rest of the country to follow. I have said that I intend to appear all over the town at various times of the day and evening to see at first hand the job that is being done. If I am not satisfied that it is being done properly, I shall make sure that the agencies responsible for litter control respond positively.
I mentioned the positive response from young people because I am appalled by the poor example set by those who are supposed to be their elders and betters. How often we see people walking along the road, casually dropping litter in front of their children and allowing them to do the same. It is all too common to see people walking along eating food and then dropping the paper or packaging. Chucking drink cans into areas containing shrubs or plants is also a popular pastime. Another appalling

141
example is that of people driving along in their cars, winding down windows and throwing their rubbish on to the road, whence it is then blown into the countryside.
Those people are, of course, the first to complain when their rates are increased to cover rising refuse collection costs. The nerve of some of them, dumping large, unwanted objects on our highways and byways, is limitless. Cars, furniture, carpets and the like are often dumped anywhere by people who just cannot be bothered to take their rubbish to the municipal tip.
I am delighted to say that in Basildon the Commission for the New Towns is treating litter control as a high priority and supporting the joint estate management committee in its work. Skips are sited on each estate so that residents can dispose of all unwanted rubbish, and leaflets are being delivered informing them of dates, times and locations. The JEMs are being allocated money to use as they wish for estate improvements—extra litter bins, for example. A capital fund is also provided by the CNT so that JEMs can take on major projects to improve their estates—for instance, cleaning and landscaping areas that have become neglected and consequently attract extra litter. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate the JEMs on their excellent work, and to emphasise that those who serve on them are volunteers.
All that is in stark contrast to what is being done in Basildon by those who should be responsible for keeping it clean and tidy. Basildon is supposed to be a hung council, with the Conservative chairman having the casting vote. In fact it is nothing of the sort: it is a Socialist council, and has been so in all the time that I have represented the town in Parliament. Recently a Liberal councillor declared himself an independent—independent, that is, to vote overtly with the Labour party while not actually joining it. That will not wash. It is rightly seen as a cynical ploy technically to avoid the Labour party's being seen to have a majority on the council, taking control and then having to accept the consequences of its irresponsible spending policies.
If it is not a Socialist council, the suggestion is that the officers are running the council—and that clearly cannot be the case in Basildon. How else can one explain the constant barrage of anti-Government propaganda being put out on the rates? The council is good at claiming credit for things in which it had no hand, but not at accepting responsibility for its actions. It is now unfairly criticising private enterprise for the lack of litter control in the town centre. I have met the management company and I am impressed with what it is trying to do. For instance, it is installing anti-vandal litter bins and employing high-suction cleaning equipment to try to sort out the litter problem.
I am asking all the fast food outlets in the town to sponsor litter bins, and the management company to play a looped tape welcoming shoppers to the town centre and asking them not to drop litter. I am also asking for similar action to be taken in another shopping centre, in Laindon.
In the battle against litter, I will accept no defeatist talk. There are those who question the use of litter bins, on the grounds that they are not used or emptied. They ask why we should plant young trees or shrubs, which will be vandalised. They ask why we should display signs showing the penalties for dogs fouling the footpaths, because the owners take no notice of them and the dogs seem unable to read them. If we adopt that sort of attitude, Parliament
142
itself will become unnecessary and eventually anarchy will result. There is much that we can do, and the Government and the keep Britain tidy campaign are doing a great deal.
The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) had hoped to be here tonight; unfortunately, they are in Strasbourg on Council of Europe business. The hon. Member for Wallsend, who last raised the subject a year ago, has campaigned vigorously to cut down litter in this country, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East.
I should be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister thinks about the City of Westminster council campaign to tackle litter. A constituent has written to me to say that he thinks Basildon needs an enforcement patrol similar to the zone improvement patrol in Westminster. He says that he is a founder member of the team, and adds that with a combination of education, persuasion and, if all else fails, prosecution, the team has made a great impact on the city. After covering an area for two weeks, a great improvement has been noted, and I am informed that since the launch of the team in July 1988, more than 70 people have been taken to court and another 250 are awaiting court proceedings.
That experience encourages me to support fines for litter offences. My hon. Friend will know that many local authorities, including Bournemouth, are watching the implementation of the Westminster Act with great interest because they are poised to introduce private Bills seeking similar powers. But so many private Bills would clog our legislative process. Primary legislation is necessary to enable the authorities to implement their schemes.
I do not suggest that punishment is the whole answer. I lay even more stress on a public awareness and education campaign being launched. I hope that it will include television advertisements about beautiful litter-free Britain. We must also extol the virtues of recycling and tell people that there is money to be made out of rubbish. The Basildon Waste Paper Company is prepared to purchase rubbish. I am encouraging voluntary organisations in the constituency to take advantage of that offer to boost their funds. I know that the local scouts will do so. The cash incentive will lead to an overall improvement.
My hon. Friend the Minister may be interested to know that the Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment is extremely concerned about the litter problem and has made some useful observations that are worth airing. It says that it has been shown repeatedly that members of the public are often ready to add to existing piles of litter when they would be reluctant to be seen as the first offenders. In other words, the council believes that frequency of clean-up is essential.
The packaging council believes that if we are to tackle litter effectively, a properly organised litter collection by local authorities is paramount. Bins must be large enough and emptied sufficiently frequently so that they do not overflow. Domestic refuse must be collected on the appointed day so that rubbish bags are not left in the street to be overturned and the contents scattered by scavenging animals.
Clear lines of responsibility for cost-effective litter control should be established within local authorities, which would include a proper analysis of local sources of litter so that resources can be concentrated where they are most needed. The packaging council also supports a vigorous and continuous public education campaign.

143
Packaging represents a statistically smaller proportion of litter than is usually realised; its visual effect is disproportionately large. Packs that are designed to stand out on supermarket shelves obviously stand out in hedgerows. The organisations to which I have referred would like to lend their support to Westminster city council's fixed penalty system.
I am proud to be British. I am proud of my country and I am certainly proud of the Government. Tomorrow, I am launching in my constituency a campaign that will be called Buy British in Basildon. I am sure that 1992 will provide splendid opportunities for us all. I want visitors to Britain to leave with a good impression of how clean and tidy we all are. We should all feel guilt and embarrassment when we drop litter. The solution to the problem lies with the British people, and I am confident that we can cure it.
12.57 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on raising an extremely important issue at this late hour. No one could rightly describe his remarks as rubbish. He has made an encouraging and informative contribution to our discussions on litter. Many of his remarks will be echoed as I reply to the debate. For example, he has shown a determined and optimistic approach. He believes that we must harness many different groups within society if we are to tackle the problem, including the business community and the voluntary sector. We must encourage a higher public profile and analyse carefully the sources of litter. We must take a rigorous and thorough approach to refuse collection generally.
The public debate in which we have all been participating about environmental problems in recent months has focused largely on the serious threat to our future on the planet that is posed by damage to the ozone layer, the greenhouse effect and climatic change. Much of this was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in her address to the Royal Society. It is hard to think, however, of an environmental subject that affects us more directly and more regularly than litter. It is an issue in which the ordinary citizen has an essential and central part to play.
Without the co-operation of ordinary people, no Government, no local council and no environmental pressure group will make any headway in the battle to clean up our streets, and it is an important one for many reasons. Dirty streets in our major cities create a dreadful impression on tourists from abroad. It is hard to return from a holiday in Britain with a positive view of Britain if one has been confronted throughout by piles of rubbish in every street. Shopkeepers, for example, have a direct interest in ensuring that the areas around their stores are kept clean. People can easily be put off shopping in an area that is covered with filth.
Perhaps most important of all, concentrations of rubbish in some of our bleakest inner-city council estates can play a large part in depressing the morale of those who have to live or work in that environment.
Like my hon. Friend, I take litter very seriously. We have a beautiful country in which we should be able to take pride. The countryside and the townscape are just as much
144
a part of our heritage as are historic buildings and the royal parks and palaces. They deserve and need the same amount of protection from pollution and litter.
The evidence of our own eyes is sufficient to show that standards are certainly not improving, and may sometimes be falling. The Royal Fine Art Commission's report, "A New Look for London", graphically illustrates the disgraceful appearance of many parts of our capital city.
What we can and must do is to encourage a climate of opinion in which litter dropping is seen for what it is—offensive, boorish and selfish behaviour. That is why we must ensure that our children start life by understanding their responsibilities as future citizens of their country. I welcome the fact that schoolchildren in my hon. Friend's constituency have so enthusiastically joined his "I Love Basildon" campaign. The experience will remain with them throughout their lives, and I have no doubt that they will go on to set a good example to their parents. But it is not just a matter for teachers. We cannot expect children to behave well if their parents set bad examples. Schools must play an important part in the process, as they do in my hon. Friend's constituency.
That is why I am especially delighted that the Tidy Britain Group, with which we work closely and which is our agent in the litter campaign, has an education programme for use in schools. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science is gathering information from Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools on the severity of the litter problem there. I urge headmasters in every school to work with us in ensuring that their pupils understand the importance of showing respect for their environment. I was especially impressed by a recent example of that: the initiative of a headmaster in a Windsor school, who encouraged his pupils to tidy the premises at the end of each working day. There are many similar examples throughout the country.
I make it clear that I fully recognise the responsibilities of the Government to help to create a cleaner Britain. We intend to carry them out vigorously and effectively.
The Tidy Britain Group acts as the Government's agent in litter matters. It is a voluntary, non-profit making registered charity that was started more than 30 years ago and has developed professionalism and expertise in litter problems. As a sign of how much we value the group, the Government nearly doubled its funding for this year and will more then double it again next year. The group has set up 27 projects, with the assistance of additional grant, in which different approaches to litter problems are being undertaken and assessed. The projects fall under five broad headings: transport, commercial areas, local government, tourism and special events. Many of their lessons are similar to those learnt in Basildon.
The objective of the projects is to enlist the support of all sections of the community through the development of civic pride. The projects are at various stages of development. I am happy to report that there is widespread support for them not only in principle, but in practical, active commitment and in financial backing. Nearly £4 million has been pledged in cash and kind to support the projects, which is an extremely encouraging augury for the future. The important task is to complete the formal assessment of which experiments have worked well and which have not. We shall receive those reports in the next few months. The objective then will be to develop as soon as possible the most promising approaches. The Department will make available additional funding to the

145
group over the next financial year so that we can press ahead in drawing lessons capable of wider application and building on successful contracts.
Local authorities have a vital role to play. I was sorry to hear my hon. Friend's remarks about his local authority. They are, of course, litter authorities and there is power under the Litter Act 1983 to levy fines of up to £400. Many local authorities are already pursuing community environment programmes in co-operation with the Tidy Britain Group. Those programmes involve many sectors of the community in cleaning up their areas. Local publicity is used to help attain the objective of keeping them clean.
I should particularly like to comment on the approach, to which my hon. Friend referred, in the city of Westminster. As the House will know, it has been given the power to levy on-the-spot fines. Last Friday, I learned about it at first hand. I was greatly impressed by the commitment and determination with which it is clearing up our capital city. It is worth remembering that Westminster obtains excellent value for money. Its cost per tonne for litter collection is one of the lowest in London, comparing very favourably with neighbouring boroughs. We are monitoring the practical effects of the implementation of the Westminster scheme and we shall be looking at the results it has achieved at the end of May. We shall then consider the lessons that can be learnt and how matters should develop.
Another experiment involving local authorities is being undertaken by the Tidy Britain Group. Three counties and their district councils are drawing up, on a voluntary basis, countywide litter plans. We shall study the results of those projects closely to see whether the value of such plans justifies the effort and cost of drawing up and implementing them. We shall then be able to judge whether it would be right to implement section 4 of the Litter Act 1983, placing a duty on local authorities to draw up litter abatement plans.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this vital matter. He has provided an opportunity for us to set out Government policy. We want to do everything we can to work within the existing legislative framework. We should like to build on the good will and support of local communities and local government. My hon. Friend's experience is not unique. If individuals are committed and enthusiastic and determined that their district or constituency will be cleared up, others follow. There is great concern and enthusiasm for constructive, committed and enthusiastic schemes such as those my hon. Friend has described. I can assure the House that the Government will not hesitate to come forward with further legislation should that be seen to be necessary.
In the short term, we hope and believe that the valuable experience gained by the Tidy Britain Group will give us a clear understanding of where we should best direct our efforts and resources in the future. We shall be looking at the results of using fixed penalties, which my hon. Friend described and which are being used in Westminster. It is worth noting that, although the maximum fine for dropping litter is £400, the average fine is only £32. One of the Tidy Britain Group's schemes is to study enforcement, talking to local magistrates and the police in various parts
146
of the country about the importance of litter and considering whether it is possible to impose more severe fines.
It seems clear that success breeds success. People lend not to throw litter in clean areas. On the other hand, where a street is filthy, an extra bit of litter does not seem to matter. That is why my hon. Friend's remarks about the strategic placing of litter bins and about litter bins looking empty, attractive and available are important. There are 500 litter bins in Oxford street alone, such is Westminster's commitment to ensuring that litter is removed. When hitter bins are available, they must be emptied. Nothing is more likely to attract litter than an overflowing, scruffy litter bin. These and other lessons about the effective and efficient management of refuse collection, raising enthusiasm and a determination to tackle the problem are matters to which we, the Tidy Britain Group and, clearly, my hon. Friend are committed.
We should not leave the responsibility for keeping streets clean to other people; they may be leaving it to us. We should all take responsibility for our environment, and we should urge our friends and neighbours to do the same. It is time for local communities to declare war against the litter louts and to shame them into reforming their ways. Many communities are making excellent progress. I went on a litter pick in Farnham park, in my constituency, a year or so ago. There are myriad examples of scouts, brownies, voluntary groups, chambers of commerce and Rotary clubs working together to co-operate, assist and play their part. If the Government, local authorities and local people work with a common will, we can and we will win the battle against litter and create a tidy Britain of which we can all be proud.
I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon, because many of us can follow his example. He referred to hon. Members who have also been long-standing campaigners in the Tidy Britain campaign. The Tidy Britain group has tried experiments in different areas and not only like those in Basildon, where my hon. Friend clearly faces difficulties with the largest shopping centre in Europe.
We are also looking at transport, commerce, local government, tourism and special events. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic has been particularly helpful in assisting the Tidy Britain group in some of its motorway service area projects. The group monitors its projects professionally, takes details of the project areas before the schemes start and assesses the value of the various contributions with an analytic approach to the methodologies used so that the best practice guidelines can be achieved and be generalised around the country.
There is no doubt that as we in Britain look to a future in which we can be proud of our country and of all that we have achieved, we want to take a pride in our physical surroundings. Litter is offensive, unnecessary and costly. We all have a part to play in ensuring that we get rid of this scourge once and for all.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past One o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Security and Co-operation in Europe
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will invite Soviet Jews and refuseniks to attend the information forum to be held in London in April following the conclusion of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe meeting in Vienna.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In accordance with the Vienna concluding document, access to the open sessions of the London information forum will be assured, upon request, to any private individuals whether national or foreign, as well as to representatives of the media, non-governmental organisations and religious groups.

  Vietnamese Refugees
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received in the last year in regard to the problem of Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have received representations on all aspects of this problem, from Members of both Houses of Parliament, the voluntary agencies, members of the public, from a number of individuals in Hong Kong and from representatives of the Vietnamese community in the United Kingdom.

  Namibia
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Namibia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We look forward to implementation of the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia, which is due to start on 1 April. This will enable Namibians to take part in free and fair elections to decide their own future.

  West Germany
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there are any plans for an Anglo-West German summit meeting.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Plans are under consideration, and an announcement will be made soon.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what special programme will be arranged for the state visit of the President of Nigeria; and how he will seek to promote a fruitful exchange of ideas and of trade.
  2
  Mrs. Chalker
  The details of the programme for the state visit of the President of Nigeria are still under discussion. The visit should provide ample opportunity to strengthen the full range of our bilateral relations.

PRIME MINISTER

  Government Departments (Insurance)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Prime Minister which Departments do not insure(a) their vehicles, (b) their buildings and (c) their employees with an insurance company but instead carry their own risk.

  The Prime Minister
  Normally, Government Departments do not insure unless it would be more economical for them to do so than to carry the risk themselves. Departments are responsible for reviewing their own arrangements, and there is no central record of all the cases where commercial insurance has been taken out. A number of Departments, including the Ministry of Defence and the Crown Suppliers, insure against third party motor risks; and the Ministry of Defence insures against employer's liability risks. As a general rule, Departments do not insure their buildings.

  War Pensions
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to her reply of 26 January to the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) concerning war heroes,Official Report, column 1178, she will end the means testing of war pensions.

  The Prime Minister
  War disablement pensions and war widows' pensions are not means-tested, except in the case of an officer's widow who is widowed following remarriage. War pensions paid to dependants other than widows of which there are about 3,000 currently in payment may be means tested, and there are no plans to change this. The provision of such pensions predates the introduction of the present social security scheme, which has generally made the need for them obsolete.

  "Death on the Rock"
  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Prime Minister what briefing her press officer gave to journalists(a) prior and (b) subsequent to the screening of the television programme "Death on the Rock", and if she will name the journalists and newspapers concerned.

  The Prime Minister
  The practice is not to comment on lobby briefings.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Scottish Affairs Committee
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he plans to have any further discussions on the setting up of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he intends to have any further discussions on the establishment of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what further steps he has taken to establish a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
  3
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what further efforts he is making to bring about the formation of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in the current Session.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Members to what I said on 19 January at business questions in reply to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), at column 484. I am not very hopeful about this matter—at least not in the immediate future—but I am having a meeting shortly with some of the hon. Member's hon. Friends in order to discuss the position and to see if there is any scope for progress.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Civic Amenities Act 1967
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the total number of successful prosecutions for offences committed under the Civic Amenities Act 1967 for each year of its operation in England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is not possible from the information held centrally to identify prosecutions under this Act.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes are now known to his Department; and how many of these have been established in the last year.

  Mr. John Patten
  There are now some 64,000 neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales, with approximately 20,000 having been established in the last year. The scale of this increase is very encouraging and reflects the public's growing commitment to the cause of crime prevention.

  Crime (Greater London)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department is making against crime in Greater London.

  Mr. John Patten
  Data for notifiable offences recorded by the police for the 12 months to September 1988 show a fall of 1 per cent. in London (MPD/City). In the two largest categories, theft/handling and burglary, the fall was 4 per cent. and 3 per cent. respectively.

  Greater Manchester Police Authority
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the aplication by Greater Manchester police authority for an increase in establishment.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend has announced today that he has approved an increase of 45 police posts in the establishment of the Greater Manchester police.

  Police Federation
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met officials of the Police Federation; and what subjects were discussed.
  4
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend last met officials of the Police Federation at a social function on 10 January, when conversation ranged over a number of police matters.

  Cambridgeshire Police Department
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has concerning the employment of additional civilian staff by the Cambridgeshire police department to deal with the administration resulting from the implementation of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. As I indicated in reply to a question by the hon. Member on 23 January at column 391, this is a matter for individual chief officers of police in the exercise of their responsibility for the administration of the Firearms Acts.

  Guardian Angels
  Mr. Tony Banks
  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 activities in London of the group known as the Guardian Angels.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on 27 January.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ascertain how many United States citizens, belonging to the group known as Guardian Angels, have been permitted to visit the United Kingdom in the last year to date.

  Mr. Renton
  As far as we are aware, three Americans representing the group 'the Guardian Angels' arrived at Heathrow on Sunday, 16 October 1988 and four at Gatwick on 24 January 1989. Others may, of course, have entered the United Kingdom as United States citizens coming here for visits.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will use his powers to deport those United States citizens belonging to the group known as Guardian Angels on the grounds that their presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good.

  Mr. Renton
  No. I am not aware of any justification for the use of the powers.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether any of those United States citizens belonging to the group known as Guardian Angels and recently admitted to the United Kingdom have been convicted of criminal offences(a) in the United Kingdom or (b) elsewhere; what evidence was presented to show that they were not likely to have recourse to public funds in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement;
  (2) by whom the United States citizens belonging to the group known as the Guardian Angels and recently admitted to the United Kingdom are to be employed; and whether they have been issued with valid work permits.

  Mr. Renton
  The persons in question were admitted as visitors with a prohibition of employment. Work permits were not required for the purpose of the visits as stated. I
  5
  am not aware of any reason for excluding these passengers under the immigration rules on the ground that they might become a charge on public funds, or on grounds of criminal record.

  "Death on the Rock"
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of Lord Windlesham's inquiry report into Thames Television's programme "Death on the Rock."

  Mr. Renton
  The inquiry into the making of the programme was commissioned by Thames Television and not the Government. We are not in a position, therefore, to place a copy of the report in the Library of the House.

  Metropolitan Police (Identikit Pictures)
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about the use of a photograph of Mr. Nigel Benn, the Commonwealth middleweight boxing champion, by the Metropolitan police in connection with trying to identify someone who had committed a criminal act;

  (2) whether he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to whether there was any racist motive involved in the release of an identikit picture of Mr. Nigel Benn;

  (3) whether he will set up an immediate inquiry into the release of an identikit photo of Mr. Nigel Benn; and whether he will make the findings of the inquiry public.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Metropolitan police have accepted that the publication of the photograph was a serious mistake, and have apologised to Mr. Benn. Steps are being taken to ensure that this regrettable incident does not recur. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has already initiated an urgent inquiry into the circumstances of the case, and he has been asked to let my right hon. Friend know the outcome.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions photographs of white or black persons have been used previously by the Metropolitan police to make up identikit pictures; on what dates this occurred; and what was the racial breakdown of the persons involved.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that it is not normal police practice to use photographs of particular individuals to make up identikit pictures. Standard identikit packs, comprising photographs of specific facial features, are used.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of printing and distributing identikit pictures of Mr. Nigel Benn.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Metropolitan police that it was £28·53.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has assessed the consequences for race relations of the sending out of thousands of identikit pictures of Mr. Nigel Benn by the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am confident that this regrettable error will not be seen as undermining the Metropolitan police's firm commitment to good race relations.

  Police Establishments
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is able to announce his decisions on increases in police establishments for 1989–90.

  Mr. Hurd
  I announced to the House on 14 November at columns 397–98 that I was able to approve 800 additional police posts for provincial forces in 1989–90 and that provision had been made for 300 additional police officers and 250 civilian staff for the Metropolitan police, subject to my being satisfied that earlier increases had been used effectively. That would make a total of 1,100 extra police officers for England and Wales. In addition, I can approve up to 130 posts where satisfied that the full cost would be reimbursed by a third party.

  Applications from police authorities outside London have exceeded the number available for allocation and I have therefore had to set priorities. With advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, I have approved increases in police establishments with effect from 1 April 1989 as shown in the following table. The table also shows posts which I would be prepared to approve for stage II probationer training for constables, due for introduction in mid-1989, provided the police authorities apply formally for these posts and guarantee their readiness to meet their share of the costs.

  Force

  Posts approved

  Training posts yet to be formally approved

  Avon and Somerset

  20

  —

  Bedfordshire

  16

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  15

  3

  Cheshire

  8

  —

  Cleveland

  9

  6

  Cumbria

  9

  3

  Devon and Cornwall

  15

  4

  Dorset

  22

  —

  Durham

  14

  4

  Essex

  15

  8

  Greater Manchester

  45

  —

  Gwent

  5

  7

  Hampshire

  20

  —

  Hertfordshire

  20

  —

  Humberside

  20

  —

  Kent

  27

  —

  Lancashire

  8

  7

  Leicestershire

  18

  9

  Merseyside

  22

  —

  Norfolk

  24

  —

  Northamptonshire

  12

  3

  Northumbria

  30

  —

  North Wales

  —

  4

  North Yorkshire

  10

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  16

  8

  South Wales

  18

  10

  South Yorkshire

  16

  11

  Staffordshire

  16

  6

  Surrey

  6

  4

  Sussex1

  17

  —

  Thames Valley

  44

  —

  Warwickshire

  7

  4

  West Mercia

  28

  —

  West Midlands

  62

  —

  West Yorkshire

  20

  12

  Wiltshire

  7

  4

  1 Includes approval for three posts at Gatwick airport, where the costs are reimbursed and which were previously held supernumerary to establishment.

  Seventy per cent. of the posts approved will be deployed on operational duties identified by chief constables, mainly

  7
  at constable level. I have also retained 20 posts for allocation to regional crime squads specifically for their work in connecton with drugs. I await consideration of the results of a review of the manpower needs of the drugs wings of the regional crime squads before I decide on their specific allocation.

  In a number of cases, my approval of extra police posts for forces is conditional either on the police authority's confirmation that their share of funding is available or that the posts specifically identified for training will be so deployed by the chief constable. In some cases I require confirmation on both points.

  I hope to be able to confirm the Metropolitan police posts before Easter.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what amounts are included within the estimated outturn public expenditure figure for the Overseas Development Administration in 1987–88 in Cm. 288-II for(a) aid by way of grants and (b) aid by way of loans.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In terms of the standard economic categories used for the analysis of public expenditure, the estimated outturn of £1,277 million in 1987–88 comprised £1,070 million of grants; £165 million of net lending and investment abroad and to the Commonwealth Development Corporation (including drawings from United Kingdom contributions to international lending organisations); and £42 million of other expenditure (mainly Overseas Development Administration running costs and associated capital items).

  Nearly all our bilateral aid is provided as grants; gross expenditure from existing bilateral aid loans in 1987–88 was only £14 million.

  Nicaragua
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much official aid has been given to Nicaragua via non-governmental organisations in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Precise details are not available on a year-by-year basis before 1986–87. Amounts provided to non-governmental organisations through the joint funding scheme are as follows:

  Financial Years

  £'000

  1980–81–1985–86

  137

  1986–87

  24

  1987–88

  47

  We have also provided some emergency aid to Nicaragua through non-governmental organisations. Total amounts provided for this purpose are:

  Year

  £'000

  1985

  100

  1986

  83

  1987

  Nil

  1988

  180

  8
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing in ranked order the per capita contributions made by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member countries to Nicaragua for the latest year for which figures are available including the total aid given by each Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country for that year.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on 19 May 1988 at column 516. Figures for later years are not yet available.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much bilateral development aid and how much emergency aid has been given to Nicaragua in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information is as follows:

  £'000s

  Bilateral Aid

  of which Emergency Aid

  1983

  64

  34

  1984

  9

  Nil

  1985

  116

  100

  1986

  86

  83

  1987

  Nil

  Nil

  Official figures are not yet available for 1988, but Her Majesty's Government committed £260,000 in emergency aid to Nicaragua following hurricane Joan.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much development aid and how much emergency aid has been given to Nicaragua by the European Community in each of the last five years; and what the United Kingdom contribution to the aid has been.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Net official development assistance to Nicaragua, as reported by the European Community to the development assistance committee of the OECD in the last five years for which figures are available, is as follows:

  £ million

  1983

  4·52

  1984

  10·99

  1985

  9·76

  1986

  6·19

  1987

  8·72

  Expenditure on emergency aid is included in the preceding figures and is not available separately. However, the European Community has indicated that commitments made were as follows:

  £ million

  1983

  Nil

  1984

  0·089

  1985

  Nil

  1986

  0·268

  1987

  Nil

  1988

  0·78

  In each case, the United Kingdom contribution was around 20 per cent.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxation Reform
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer in(a) 1989-90 and (b) a full year if (i) the starting point for national insurance were raised from £43 a week to £55 a week, (ii) the starting point for the 7 per cent. rate of national insurance were raised from £75 a week to £85 a week, (iii) income tax thresholds were raised by 10 per cent., (iv) the standard rate of income tax were reduced to 24 per cent., (v) each individual's capital gains tax free allowance were doubled, (vi) the threshold for inheritance tax were raised to £300,000, (vii) stamp duty on securities were halved but extended to gilt-edged securities, and (viii) any adult were allowed to save £1,000 free of tax each year.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Estimates are as follows:

  Direct revenue effect, at 1989–90 levels of income

  £ million

  1989–90

  Full year

  (i) Lower earnings limit for National Insurance Class 1 contributions raised from £43 per week to £55 per week1

  +80

  +90

  (ii) Starting point for 7 per cent, rate of National Insurance Class 1 contributions raised from £75 per week to £85 per week

  -70

  -80

  (iii) Income tax thresholds23 raised by 10 per cent.

  -1,970

  -2,540

  (iv) Basic rate of income3 tax reduced to 24 per cent

  -1,400

  -1,530

  (v) Capital Gains Tax exempt amount doubled for single people and married couples

  0

  -150

  (vi) Inheritance tax threshold raised to £300,000

  -350

  -800

  (vii) Stamp duty on securities halved but extended to gilt edged securities

  4 + 200

  4 + 200

  (viii) Every adult allowed to save £1,000 free of tax each year

  5___

  5___

  1 Produces revenue yield because savings on contracted out rebates (which are paid on earnings between the lower earnings limit and the upper earnings limit) are greater than the cost of contributions forgone from those earning between £43 per week and £55 per week.

  2 Main personal allowances and the basic rate limit.

  3 Estimates are partly based on a projection of the 1986–87 Survey of Personal Incomes. They are provisional and include the consequential effect on capital gains tax.

  4 Highly uncertain.

  5 Cost would depend on take-up.

  Tax Avoidance and Evasion
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has been lost to the Exchequer each year since 1979 because of tax avoidance and evasion; and how many prosecutions have resulted(a) nationally and (b) in the tax area covering Nottingham.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is not possible to say how much revenue is lost through tax avoidance and evasion.

  The numbers of criminal prosecutions nationally for tax fraud in each year since 1979 are as follows.
  10

  Year

  Number of prosecutions

  1979–80

  150

  1980–81

  188

  1981–82

  175

  1982–83

  142

  1983–84

  159

  1984–85

  238

  1985–86

  320

  1986–87

  325

  1987–88

  213

  The Inland Revenue does not keep records of tax prosecutions by locality and separate figures are not available for the Nottingham tax area.

  Departmental Staff (Child Care)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what child care provision his Department provides for pre-school children of employees; what child care provision, for school holiday or after-school care, is provided for employees' children aged five and over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  Mr. Brooke
  My Department is taking part in a holiday play scheme for a number of Whitehall departments organised by the Westminster play association for children between 5 and 12. The scheme will run in the Treasury building in Parliament street.

  Apart from small departmental contributions to start-up costs, the scheme currently in operation is self financing. Consideration is also being given to a similar scheme being operated at the Chessington computer centre.

  Tobacco Tax
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised from taxes on tobacco and tobacco products in 1987–88.

  Mr. Lilley
  It is estimated that £5,766 million revenue was raised from taxes (excise duty and VAT) on tobacco products. Of this, £1,000 million is estimated to have come from VAT (based on consumers' expenditure on tobacco) and the rest from excise duty.

  Bingo Duty
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what figures the threshold for small-scale bingo duty would need to be increased to take full account of the rate of inflation since the tax was introduced.

  Mr. Lilley
  The small-scale bingo exemption limits would need to be increased to around £420 (daily) arid £1,400 (weekly) to take full account of inflation since the exemptions were introduced.

  Duties and Taxes (Yield)
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate for the tax yield for 1988–89 of(a) vehicle excise duty, (b) fuel duty, (c) new car tax, (d) value-added tax on new vehicles and (e) value-added tax on petrol and dery sales.

  Mr. Lilley
  Following is the available information:
  11

  £billion

  Tax Yield 1989–89

  (a) Vehicle excise duty

  2·8

  (b) Hydrocarbon oil duty

  8·6

  (c) Car tax

  1·3

  Estimates of the VAT yield from (d) value added tax on new vehicles, and (e) value added tax on petrol and dery sales are not available.

  Written Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his practice when answering certain questions by reference to previous written answers to attach the answer so referred to.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Reference to written answers that have not been published in the Official Report will continue to be copied to hon. and right hon. Members.

  Calendars (Germany)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when and why duty was imposed on calendars sent from Germany as gifts to persons living in Britain; and at what rate duty is charged.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 24 January 1989]: All goods imported into this country, including gifts, may be subject to duty or value added tax. This is because similar goods bought in the United Kingdom bear these charges, and different treatment for imported goods would be unfair on businesses making or selling competing products. Under EC law, which we are obliged to implement, calendars that originate in the EC or have acquired free-circulation status are not liable to import duty but are liable to value added tax at the standard rate of 15 per cent. Gifts between private persons may qualify for relief from import charges by post, but business presents sent to private persons are chargeable unless the import value is £7 or less.

  Income Tax
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current estimate of tax revenue expected to be raised by the higher rate of income tax in 1988–89; and what were the comparable amounts raised by the higher rates in respect of the years 1987–88, 1982–83, 1978–79, 1974–75 and 1970–71.

  Mr Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]: Information is given in the table.

  Tax liability at the higher rate income tax

  Year

  Tax liability at higher rate £ billion

  Tax liability at excess over basic rate £ billion

  1970–71

  —

  10·3

  1974–75

  1·5

  0·6

  1978–79

  1·8

  0·8

  1982–83

  3·4

  1·4

  1987–882

  8·2

  3·9

  1988–892

  38·8

  33–2

  1Between 1928–29 and 1972–73 Surtax, a deferred instalment of income tax charged at rates additional to the standard rate, was payable.

  12

  2Estimates are based partly on a projection of the 1986–87 Survey of Personal Incomes and are provisional.

  3Includes estimated liability to Capital Gains Tax.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the cost of reducing the higher rate of income tax from 40 per cent to(a) 35 per cent., (b) 30 per cent. and (c) 25 per cent. in 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]: Available information is given in the table. Estimates include the consequential effect on capital gains tax. They are partly based on a projection of the 1986–87 survey of personal incomes and are provisional. The base for the comparison is the tax regime for 1988–89 indexed to 1989–90 by 6·8 per cent., the increase in the retail prices index for the year to December 1988. Receipts of tax in 1989–90 would be reduced by about half of the full year cost. Further information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Full year cost at 1989–90 levels of income and gains of reducing higher rate of tax.

  Higher rate of tax reduced to

  £ million

  (a) 35 per cent.

  1,200

  (b) 30 per cent.

  2,400

  (c) 25 per cent.

  3,600

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  University Funding
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response he has given to the proposals from university vice-chancellors to decentralise funding of universities and retain the links between university research and teaching.

  Mr. Jackson
  There is currently a wide-ranging debate on the funding of higher education, to which various vice-chancellors have contributed. The Government are watching with interest to see how this debate develops and matures.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if the liability to pay 20 per cent. of the applicable community charge will be taken into account in assessing the level of student grant from 1989–90 onwards.

  Mr. Jackson
  The rates of student grant for 1989–90 were announced on 16 December at column 755. Students' discounted liability for the community charge was one of the factors considered in reaching decisions about those rates.

  Examinations (Northamptonshire)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list in the Official Report the proportion of pupils in each Northamptonshire school who, in 1988, achieved GCSE grades A, B or C, listing the schools in descending order of proportion from the highest to the lowest;
  13
  (2) if he will list if the Official Report the number of A level examinations sat in 1988 by pupils at Northamptonshire schools and the percentage passed, listing schools in descending order of percentage pass rate.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of pupils at Northamptonshire schools obtained in 1988 GCSE grades(a) A, (b) B and (c) C.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information is not yet available centrally.

  School Rolls
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many maintained(a) primary and (b) secondary schools, other than special schools, have 200 or more pupils on their rolls.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  In January 1988, there were 9,279 maintained primary schools and 4,010 maintained secondary schools, excluding special schools, in England with 200 or more pupils on roll. The number of pupils in primary schools includes those attending part-time.

  Schools (Funding)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much additional funding his Department is providing to local education authorities in 1989–90 and subsequent years for introducing local management of schools in respect of(a) training of heads, governors and officers, (b) developing computerised information systems and (c) additional support staff for schools.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Targeted support for expenditure by local education authorities on activities relating to the introduction of local management of schools is channelled through education support grants and LEA training grants. The 1989–90 education support grants programme includes support for £4·9 million of expenditure on the training of school governors, including training on local management. It also includes support for £25 million of expenditure specifically to help LEAs with the introduction of local management of schools through the purchase of computerised management information systems, the appointment of central teams and the training of non-teaching staff. The precise division of expenditure between these heads is for LEAs themselves to decide. It is my intention that support should be maintained at least at this level for a further two years. Training for heads and senior teachers to implement LEA schemes of local management of schools is a specified element of a £10 million national priority area under the LEA training grants scheme. It is for LEAs to determine what additional support to devote to the implementation of the education reforms from block grant or from their own resources.

  Science (Policy Statement)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn on 12 December 1988,Official Report, column 390, he is now ready to publish a policy statement on science in the light of discussions on the document "A Strategy for the Science Base" by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils.
  14
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have nothing to add at present to my answer of 12 December 1988. at column 390

  Teacher Recruitment
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to encourage people to come into teaching from careers in industry and business; what initial support he has received for his proposals from the industrial and business sectors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  My Department's action campaign on teacher recruitment has boosting the number of mature entrants from industry and business as one of its main aims. The teaching as a career unit—TASC—targets older people from other careers with special publications, and in its national and local advertising. In conjunction with ICI, we are running a well-subscribed programme of taster courses for older people who are considering a career in teaching. We have funded special teacher training courses designed with those making a career change in mind. We also encourage and support partnerships between education and industry on teacher supply, notably with BP and British Telecom. In addition we have sponsored seven regional conferences to stimulate co-operation between education and industry over alleviating teacher shortage.

  Single European Market
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science to what extent the further education sector is preparing for the impact of 1992 and the single European market; what resources are being allocated to it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Employers need an adaptable skilled work force to increase their competitiveness in international markets. The Government have introduced a number of reforms which aim to increase the responsiveness of the further education service to labour market needs. As the message about the single European market is increasingly heard by employers, they will be seeking appropriate provision from the further education sector.

  A growing range of initiatives, at both national arid local level, are being taken in further and higher education to prepare for 1992. For example, a network of language export centres has been set up to support specific business needs by providing language training, briefings on culture and trade, and export consultancy. And several agencies are promoting exchange visits between students here and in other member states. Such exchanges allow students to pursue their subject interests while practising their foreign language skills and learning about another cultural context. It is not possible for me to quantify the resources allocated to the many relevant activities.

  History Syllabuses
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about the content of history syllabuses in use in secondary schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Various representations have been received over recent months mainly on issues such as bias and empathy. These will be further considered where
  15
  appropriate by the national curriculum history working group whose establishment my right hon. Friend announced on 13 January.

  Incentive Allowances
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the specific requirements for teachers to receive incentive allowances; and how many teachers applying for such allowances have had their applications rejected.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  School teachers do not apply for incentive allowances. Under the school teachers' pay and conditions document 1988, a local education authority has the discretion to pay an incentive allowance if it is satisfied that a teacher fulfils at least one of the following criteria:

  (a) he undertakes responsibilities beyond those common to the majority of teachers; or

  (b) he has demonstrated outstanding ability as a classroom teacher; or

  (c) he is employed to teach subjects in which there is a shortage of teachers; or

  (d) he is employed in a part which is difficult to fill.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers receive one of the five incentive allowances in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On the basis of a recent sample survey of LEAs undertaken by the local authority conditions of service advisory board, we estimate that about 140,000 school teachers in ordinary schools are currently in receipt of an incentive allowance.

  GCSE
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will call for a report from the GCSE boards on their methods of marking GCSE papers in order to establish which boards use criterion referencing as the basis for marking papers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The GCSE incorporates criterion-referencing to a greater degree than the former o-level and CSE systems. The School Examinations and Assessment Council, which is responsible for advising my right hon. Friend on such matters, is charged with ensuring that GCSE syllabuses approved under section 5 of the Education Reform Act 1988 conform to the objectives of GCSE, and that GCSE assessment arrangements are designed to provide consistent measurement of the standards achieved. We look to the SEAC to take forward work to improve the basis for awarding GCSE grades. My right hon. Friend has also asked for the SEAC's advice in due course on the incorporation of the GCSE within national curriculum assessment arrangements, which require criterion-referenced assessment.

  Teachers' Working Hours
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what systematic information his Department gathers about the average working hours of teachers in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information on the average working hours of secondary school teachers (including work outside the classroom) was collected for the first time in the 1988 secondary school staffing survey. Results from this are expected to be available in the spring. Comparable data for primary school teachers are not available.

  Medical Schools
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which medical schools are currently providing lectures alerting medical students to the dangers of benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Jackson
  As for other subjects, details of the medical curriculum are for individual institutions to determine. However, the framework for those curricula are set by the General Medical Council's recommendations on basic medical education, which draw particular attention to the need for teaching about adverse drug reactions.

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

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [pursuant to the reply, 23 January 1989, columns 382–83]: My hon. Friend's oral question when tabled referred to student library provision and was correctly answered on this basis. I regret that the Department failed to note when the question was unstarred that the word "school" had been substituted for "student". On this basis the answer is as follows:

  The level of funding and organisation of school library provision are matters for local decision by LEAs and schools. In recognition of the importance of libraries in supporting the school curriculum, the Department's expenditure plans for 1988–89 allow for LEAs to spend an additional sum of £10 million on improvements in secondary school libraries.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  European Single Market
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish in ranked order the latest available figures for the level of public awareness of the establishment of the single European market in 1992 among EEC member states.

  Mr. Maude
  Our single market campaign is targeted at business in the United Kingdom. The DTI does not therefore undertake regular monitoring of general public awareness of the single market. Limited research on the Department's behalf last August indicated that the general public's awareness of the single market at that time was over 60 per cent.

  Marshall Aid Fund
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will raise with the EEC Commission the operation of the fund operated by the West German authorities known as the Marshall aid fund with a view to ascertaining whether the terms offered by the fund are consistent with the EEC rules on industrial aids; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The operation by the West German authorities of a Marshall aid fund, known as the European recovery programme, was noted as an existing aid by the European Commission at the time of the creation of the
  17
  European Community. I understand that the Commission has since policed the programme as an existing state aid which is subject to the state aid provisions of the EEC treaty.

  Toyota
  Sir Hal Miller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the possibility of an investment in manufacture in the United Kingdom by the Toyota motor corporation.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 26 January to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), at column 667.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is considering the introduction of a Privatisation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  No decision has been taken to bring forward such a measure.

  Assisted Management
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of his Department's assisted management were in place by 31 December 1988 on a regional basis.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 27 January 1989]: By the end of December 1988, 11,487 applications for assistance under the consultancy initiatives had been referred to independent scheme contractors for the appointment of consultants, as follows:

  Numbers

  North East

  602

  North West

  1,946

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,128

  West Midlands

  1,174

  East Midlands

  747

  South West

  922

  South East Cambridge area

  751

  London area

  1,279

  Reading area

  688

  Reigate area

  656

  Wales

  647

  Scotland

  947

CIVIL SERVICE

  Scientific Collaboration
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what arrangements exist, or are planned, to give training to United Kingdom civil servants in the methodology of European scientific collaboration.

  Mr. Luce
  Arrangements for any necessary training are the responsibility of the departments involved in European scientific collaboration. No training is provided centrally.

  Secondments
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether there has been secondment by members of the Civil Service to the equivalent services in the member states of the European Community, and vice versa.

  Mr. Luce
  For a number of years, a small number of exchanges between the United Kingdom Civil Service and the Civil Services of France, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Ireland have taken place. Some of these have been under formal bilateral agreements between Her Majesty's Government and the governments of those other countries. A number of other exchanges have taken place outside the scope of the formal agreements.

  Squash Racquets Club
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will ensure that adequate provision continues to be made for the Civil Service squash racquets club when Thames house north is transferred to the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Luce
  Departmental occupancy of Thames house north is not yet fully settled, but the building is to be refurbished and the squash courts will cease to be available. No others are currently available on Departmental premises in central London, but possible alternative arrangements are being studied: I place importance on the availability of satisfactory sporting and recreational facilities for civil servants.

  Pensioners' Alliance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley,Official Report, 13 January, columns 773-774 when the Civil Service Pensioners' Alliance can expect to receive the new payable order for £35,000; and if he will take steps to ensure that its repayment is treated as a matter of urgency.

  Mr. Luce
  My officials will authorise payment £35,000 awarded to the Civil Service Pensioners' Alliance from the RPI error funds immediately Parliament approves a Supplementary Estimate that has been submitted for the funds.

THE ARTS

  Museums (Admission Charges)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will publish in the Official Report a list of all national museums, showing for each the adult admission charges in (a) 1978 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 26 May 1988 at column 260. Since that date, the science museum introduced in October 1988 an adult admission charge of £2 (with concessionary charge of LI) at the museum in South Kensington.

  In 1978, admission charges were made by the following museums:

  19

  Imperial War Museum:

  HMS Belfast

  Duxford Airfield

  Victoria and Albert Museum:

  Apsley House

  Ham House

  Osterley Park Museum

  Music
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on what support he is giving to(a) classical music and (b) popular music.

  Mr. Luce
  I do not seek to make a distinction between classical and popular music; some classical music is extremely popular. The Arts Council's direct expenditure on music in 1987–88 was £23,708,211. The Scottish Arts Council spent £5,581,580 and the Welsh Arts Council spent £2,296,500. The regional arts associations also funded music organisations. Additional funds were made available for touring and festivals.

  British Theatre Association
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many new texts have been purchased by the British Theatre Association library in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Luce
  I am advised by the BTA that it purchased the following numbers of new texts in the past five years: 1,398 (1987–88), 755 (1986–87), 979 (1985–86), 1,088 (1984–85), and 1,131 (1983–84). Donations over the same period were in excess of 7,500 volumes.

ENVIRONMENT

  Newmarket (Boundary Transfer)
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 20 December 1988 to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds,Official Report, column 186, what is the estimate of the additional cost of converting the space released from the canteen that is to be remodelled at Brookslands avenue, Cambridge, for new offices to be occupied by staff transferred from Newmarket.

  Mr. Chope
  Plans are not yet fully developed, but the estimated cost is about £350,000. However, the anticipated income from the sale of the offices in Newmarket will be more than sufficient to fund this, as well as a refurbished canteen for 1,100 staff.

  Housing Action Trusts
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the arrangements will be for the ballot in a housing action trust; whether each household will have one vote; and, in the case of joint tenancies, which of the joint tenants will be invited to cast vote.

  Mr. David Trippier
  We propose to ask the Electoral Reform Society to arrange for the conduct of ballots under 20
  the terms of section 61(3)(a) of the Housing Act 1988. Each secure tenant, including each joint tenant, living within an area proposed for designation will have a vote.

  Customs and Excise (King's Reach)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the rental for the Customs and Excise building at King's Reach, Bermondsey, SEl.

  Mr. Chope
  The rental charges for privately owned buildings leased by the Property Services Agency are a strictly commercial and confidential matter.

  Shopping Developments, Broadstairs
  Mr. Aitken
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his decision on planning appeal numbers, Department of the Environment reference numbers, SE2/5283/219/3, SE /5283/182/1 and SE2/5283/219/4, relating to shopping developments at Westwood road/Margate road, Broadstairs proposed by the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society, Sainsburys and Argyle Stores (Properties) Ltd., following the public inquiry at Broadstairs in June 1988.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend hopes to issue his decisions shortly.

  House Purchase (Interest Rates)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the impact of current interest rates on the rate of house purchase.

  Mr. Trippier
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Parkway Stations
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the criteria which would need to be satisfied before he would entertain a public inquiry into a proposal to establish a parkway station with its attendant car park in an area in which no railway exists at present.

  Mr. Chope
  If such a proposal were to come before my right hon. Friend by way of appeal or call-in, the scale and impact of the development, and the likely degree of public interest, would be among the factors considered in deciding whether to hold a public local inquiry, rather than by proceeding on the basis of written representations.

  Local Government Staff
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer of 25 January, he will set out for each available category of local government staff the numbers in(a) 1968 and (b) June 1988, showing the net and percentage change in each case.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information is as follows:
  21

  Numbers of Staff Employed in Local Authorities in England

  June figures

  Change

  Local Authority Service

  1968

  1988

  Number

  Percentage

  Education (Lecturers/Teachers)

  488,749

  650,651

  + 161,902

  + 33·1

  Education (Other)

  461,184

  650,105

  + 188,921

  + 41·0

  Construction

  105,346

  103,130

  -2,216

  -2·1

  Transport Services

  63,654

  2,934

  -60,720

  -95·4

  Social Services

  215,275

  335,632

  + 120,357

  + 55·9

  Other General Services

  528,284

  579,404

  + 51,120

  + 9·7

  Police (All ranks)

  85,746

  118,084

  + 32,338

  + 37·7

  Total

  1,948,238

  2,439,940

  +491,702

  + 25·2

  Note: There is likely to have been seine reclassification of staff between service categories over this period, so the figures for the two years may not be entirely comparable. Local authority functions have also changed over the period.

  Water
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the locations of water quality sampling undertaken by South West Water for every day from 6 July 1988 until the latest available date.

  Mr. Ridley
  It is the responsibility of the South West water authority to take samples throughout its region in connection with its drinking water supply function: I am advised that it takes samples:

  1. At raw water sources;

  2. At treatment works at different stages of the treatment process;

  3. Treated water at the exit from treatment works;

  4. At service reservoirs;

  5. Water in the distribution system at hydrants and customers' taps.

  Between 6 July 1988 and 25 January 1989, a total of 25,544 samples were taken and analysed.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what discussions he has held with the Water Authorities Association about stake-building by water authorities in statutory water companies; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what proportion of the Southern water authority's announced need for an increase in charges is accounted for by the necessity to fund the purchase of stock in statutory water companies;

  (3) if he has reviewed the agreement between the Southern water authority and AIPF Ltd.; and if he has assessed whether they are in the public interest;

  (4) how much has been committed by the Southern water authority to the purchase of stakes in statutory water companies;

  (5) what steps he is taking to assess whether the Southern water authority's acquisition of stakes in the Eastbourne, West Kent and Mid-Essex water companies are in the public interest;

  (6) what discussions he has had with the Southern water authority about its acquisition of stakes in the Eastbourne, West Kent and Mid Sussex water companies; and if he will make a statement;

  (7) what steps he has taken to (a) regulate and (b) influence the use of public money by water authorities to acquire (i) majority and (ii) minority stakes in statutory water companies;

  (8) if he has discussed with the Southern water authority the rate of return on its recent investment in the Folkestone water company; and if he will make a statement;

  (9) if he has discussed with the Southern water authority the purpose for which it recently acquired a
  22
  minority stake in the Folkestone water company; if he has taken steps to assess whether the acquistion was in the public interest; and if he will make a statement;

  (10) what criteria water authorities are required to observe in the application of public moneys to the purchase of (a) majority and (b) minority stakes in statutory water companies;

  (11) what discussions he has held with the Southern water authority about its accountability for stake building in statutory water companies; and if he will make a statement;

  (12) what place the acquistion of minority stakes in statutory water companies have occupied in the discussions on performance aim, financial targets, and external financial limits for the Southern water authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly meets water authority chairmen, including the chairman of Southern water authority, to discuss all aspects of water policy. The general question of share purchase in statutory water companies has arisen on a number of occasions. It has been made clear to chairmen that there are three constraints: their statutory powers; their external financing limits; and mergers policy, including the special provisions for water mergers announced by my right hon. Friend on 11 January. It has also been made clear that we shall not increase external financing limits to accommodate purchases of water company shares. Against this background, it is for each water authority to decide whether, and under what arrangements, to purchase water company shares; and to justify its actions.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Southern water authority about its external financing limits.

  Mr. Howard
  None.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what direction he has given to the Southern water authority to reduce pollution to Chichester harbour.

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend has issued no direction to the Southern water authority in respect of pollution in Chichester harbour. Effluent discharges by the authority are controlled by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, and the inspectorate has powers to vary and tighten discharge consent conditions where appropriate.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what investments in statutory water
  23
  companies have been made by, or on behalf of, any pension fund to which water authorities contribute public money; if he is satisfied that any such investments produce a satisfactory rate of return for that pension fund; what instructions he has given to investment managers of such pension funds in connection with the purchase of water company stocks; and if he will place a copy of such instruction in the Library.

  Mr. Howard
  Investments by or on behalf of pension funds are the responsibility of the managers of those funds. Consequently, it is for them to determine, with reference to the appropriate regulations, whether a particular investment forms an appropriate part of their portfolio. The Secretary of State has no information, beyond what is publicly available, about such investments of this kind which may have been made.

  Rates
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the level of increase in expenditure which could be set by the Leeds city council in 1989–90 if the increase in the rates was kept within 5 per cent. and the council made the same use of balances as in 1988–89.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is estimated that, with a 5 per cent. increase in rates next year, Leeds city council could increase expenditure in 1989–90 by about 5 per cent. (£17 million), if it made the same use of balances as in 1988–89.

  Development Plans
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to make an announcement about the Government's proposals for the development plan system.

  Mr. Ridley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have today published a White Paper setting out our proposals for the future of the development plan system in England and Wales (Cm. 569). These proposals, which reflect the outcome of the consultations undertaken in 1986–87, will improve the effectiveness of the development plan system by simplifying its structure and streamlining procedures for the adoption and review of plans. The strategic role of the counties will continue, but the present county structure plans will be replaced by statements of county planning policies, dealing with the key issues. The main feature of the new system will be a single tier development plan at district level. All district councils will be required to prepare development plans for the whole of their areas, consistent with national and regional guidance and with county policies. Similar arrangements will apply in the national parks. The necessary legislation will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time permits. The White Paper proposes a five-year timetable from commencement to full implementation of the new system.

  A sound planning system is essential if we are to make realistic provision for homes and business while meeting the growing concern for protection of our environment in town and country. I believe that these proposals are a further significant step towards getting that difficult balance right. They will enable the planning system to serve the needs of the nation in the 1990s.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on his Department's public expenditure plans, following publication of the White Paper setting out the Government's expenditure plans for 1989–90 to 1991–92 (Cm. 609).

  Mr. Ridley
  The White Paper explains in more detail my Department's plans for expenditure for 1989–90 to 1991–92, announced in summary at the time of the Autumn Statement, and gives comprehensive information about what we have achieved through our programmes in past years, and about our targets for the future.

  Housing

  The Autumn Statement announced gross provision for housing capital expenditure in 1989–90 £441 million (12 per cent.) higher than previously planned. This increase has been made possible by the considerable success of the Government's right-to-buy policy. Receipts from the sale of local authority housing and land are on course to reach over £3,000 million, their highest level ever, with right-to-buy sales up by nearly 40 per cent. on last year, to an estimated 150,000.

  This year's White Paper continues the trend established in previous years of offering more detailed information about the Government's housing programme. Particular emphasis has been placed on setting future targets for individual components of the programme, an emphasis which will be continued next year when the effects of new legislation have been absorbed. Information on the outputs already achieved has also been further developed, and should assist the reader in assessing public sector performance in the housing field.

  Housing associations

  Within the overall increase in housing expenditure, a major feature of the Government's plans is the increasing role of the Housing Corporation in supporting the provision of new rented accommodation by housing associations. Approvals for rented accommodation are set to rise from the current level of 16,000 to over 24,000 in 1991–92. The resources available through the Housing Corporation are being increased by £75 million in 1989–90, with further increases planned in subsequent years to reach over £1·3 billion in 1991–92 (80 per cent. up on the original provision for this year). This increased investment will be further augmented by injections of private capital. Details of the corporation's approved development programme were given by my noble Friend the Minister for Housing on 14 December. The increased resources being made available over the next three years together with the expanding use of private finance will allow many more homes to be provided for those in need.

  Local authority programmes

  The local authority programme is focused on renovation of their stock. In 1988–89 some 160,000 local authority dwellings will undergo improvement compared with 150,000 in 1987–88. The 1986 English house condition survey, published recently, confirms the successful use of housing investment programme resources to the extent that 92 per cent. of the local authority-owned housing stock is in good repair. Planned expenditure by local authorities on their own housing capital programmes in 1989–90 will be £353 million (13 per cent.) higher than provided for in previous plans. After taking account of the substantially increased spending power available to local authorities from higher levels of receipts, HIP allocations

  25
  for 1989–90 have been set at £920 million. Individual local authority allocations were announced by my noble Friend the Minister for Housing on 8 December 1988. Local authorities continue to spend an increasing proportion of their resources on the renovation of their housing stock, in line with Government policy.

  Estate Action

  Estate Action's budget has been increased by 36 per cent. to £190 million in 1989–90. This programme continues to promote renovation and improved management, encouraging innovative solutions to the problems of physically run-down and difficult-to-let estates. Over 100,000 dwellings are now benefiting from Estate Action treatment.

  Housing action trusts

  Last year, the Government announced a proposal to establish a number of housing action trusts as a pilot programme to tackle the worst areas of local authority housing. Following the identification of six potential HAT areas, consultants were appointed to report on their feasibility. The Government are now considering the consultants' reports. Net provision for HATs in 1989–90 is £68 million.

  Other environmental services

  Inner cities

  My Department's inner cities programmes remain a very high priority. The key to successful inner cities regeneration is partnership between the public and private sector. Both the urban development corporations and the city grant programme are having considerable success in attracting private sector investment in their areas.

  Urban development corporations

  There are now 10 urban development corporations in England, Bristol being the latest to be set up this year. Public expenditure provision for UDCs is over £250 million in each of the next three years. Total resources available to UDCs will be even higher as increased receipts from the disposal of completed properties and sites are reinvested in the programmes. Priorities for 1989–90 have been set for the first and second generation UDCs. For example, in 1989 a start is planned on the Limehouse link road, the eastern extension of the London docklands light railway and on the development of Newcastle business park at Elswick. New measures will also be undertaken in other UDCs to further progress in housing, commercial and industrial development.

  City grant

  Since 1982, some £200 million of city grant and its predecessors have generated more than £800 million of private sector investment in the inner cities creating over 34,000 jobs and some 9,000 homes. To build on the momentum already achieved. City grant resources will increase by £23 million in 1989–90 and £28 million in 1990–91.

  Urban programme, and derelict land grant

  Despite the increased emphasis on UDCs and city grant, planned expenditure by DOE on the urban programme and derelict land grant amounts to well over £200 million a year. In 1988–89 local authorities' inner area programmes supported by government grant, are forecast to create or preserve about 37,000 jobs and support about 55,000 training places. Since 1982 over 7,000 hectares of derelict land has been reclaimed with the aid of derelict land grant. The programme will continue to concentrate on the regeneration of urban industrial land thus also
  26
  relieving development pressure on open land. Some 2,700 hectares of urban land are planned to be recovered for productive use in the next three years.

  New towns

  The new towns programme in England is now moving into its final stages. The three remaining corporations are making good progress with the development of their towns and target dates for their wind up have been set. The disposal of commercial and industrial properties is continuing successfully and capital receipts now exceed gross capital expenditure by a substantial margin. Compared with last year's White Paper (Cm. 288) some increase has been provided in the resources available for capital investment in 1989–90 and over the plan period to facilitate wind-up and the increased disposals programme.

  Countryside, recreation and environment

  The Government is providing substantial resources for countryside agencies to further the process of creating a healthy rural economy, an attractive environment and to conserve wild life. The support for the Rural Development Commission will enable it to continue to help in the provision of a suitable range of viable job opportunities and services to meet the needs of rural communities. Additional resources have been provided for the Countryside Commission to continue its tree planting programme over the next three years. There are also extra resources to help start up in April 1989 the new Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Authority. The support for the Nature Conservancy Council will help protect valuable peatland habitats in Caithness and Sutherland, and enable NCC to conclude further 465 new management agreements with farmers and land owners to protect sites of special scientific interest. Continued support for the groundwork initiative will help extend the community based environment improvement schemes to other priority regions. Support for the Tidy Britain Group experimental clean-up projects has been more than doubled. The modest increase for the Sports Council will enable it to increase the range and quality of opportunities to participate in sports and physical recreations at all levels and to seek ways of attracting private sector investment into sports.

  Environmental research

  My Department's environmental research programme will be increased by £2·5 million in 1989–90 and 1990–91. The additional provision will support in particular research into the North sea marine environment, waste disposal, climatic change and water metering trials.

  Heritage

  Planned expenditure on the heritage will be increased by £8 million in 1989–90, and £11 million in 1990–91 mainly for continued restoration of Hampton Court following the fire; the first phase of Albert memorial restoration; additional provision for Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission grants programme, and to provide for the cost of maintenance of the growing number of churches vested under the redundant churches scheme.

  Local environmental services (current and capital)

  An additional £110 million has been included in local authority current expenditure provision for 1989–90 for the costs of preparing for the implementation of the community charge; this will be supported by a specific grant of £55 million with the remaining expenditure supported by block grant in the usual way. Provision for capital expenditure by local authorities for 1989–90 has been increased by £192 million to £819 million This includes a further provision of £135 million in addition to

  27
  £110 million mentioned above to enable local authorities to prepare for the community charge. Capital receipts generated by local authorities on LES are buoyant, and forecast receipts for 1989–90 have been revised upward by £203 million to £745 million.

  British Waterway Board

  The BWB's external financing limit is increased to £48·3 million. The four-year action plan which the board has drawn up in line with its first and second responses to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on engineering operations will change BWB to a regionally managed, business-orientated organisation, seeking greater private sector investment.

  Water authorities

  As announced in the Autumn Statement, before the privatisation of their water supply and sewerage functions, the water authorities' responsibilities for the water environment will be taken over by the National Rivers Authority. £40 million has been allocated to the NRA in 1989–90 and £71 million in 1990–91. It is anticipated that increased receipts from direct charges will reduce the NRA's need for the Department's support to £65 million in 1991–92. The nine English regional water authorities will continue to require external finance in 1989–90 and provision of £10 million has been made, but their requirement will depend on the timing and cost to them of the establishment of the National Rivers Authority and of the privatisation itself. Investment by the regional water authorities has increased in constant price terms by over 50 per cent. since 1980–81 and is currently running at £1·1 billion. Further growth is assured to meet higher environmental and drinking water quality standards required by United Kingdom and EC legislation. The Water Bill will establish an independent director general of water services to protect the interests of consumers by ensuring proper standards of service and controlling prices. Provision has been made for the running costs of the water services offices of £2 million in 1989–90 and £4 million each for the following two years.

  Property services agency

  The PSA's civil accommodation programme is planned to increase by a net £8 million in 1989–90 and £9 million in 1990–91 compared with previous plans. Extra spending of £65 million and £109 million will be offset by increases in capital receipts from disposals, in rents and in payments by other Departments through the property repayment services system. The agency's provision reflects the need to meet unavoidable rent increases as well as to maintain its new building programme and the increased level of maintenance activity agreed last year. It has also been given additional funds to prepare for the change to fully commercial operation in 1993. On PSA's separate parliamentary works programme additional funds have been provided for restoring the Victoria Tower, and for various minor improvements to the Palace of Westminster.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Evironmnt whether he has any changes to announce to his Department's cash limits for 1988–89.

  Mr. Ridley
  Yes. I propose the following changes, subject to parliamentay approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates.

  The cash limit for class X, vote 2 (central environmental services, etc) will be increased by £3·013 million to
  28
  £253·196 million to cover increased grant in respect of the new towns development corporations' roads programme. This will be partly offset by savings within the vote.

  The cash limit for class X, vote 4 (royal palaces, royal parks, historic buildings, ancient monuments and the national heritage) will be increased by £14·055 million from £91·201 million to £105·256 million mainly to cover a payment to the National Trust to terminate my Department's obligations under leases in relation to Ham house and Osterley house. This expenditure will be partly offset by savings within the vote.

  The cash limit for class X, vote 5 (Department of the Environment: administration) will be increased by £0·733 million from £129·337 million to £130·070 million to take account of a receipt which will not arise in 1988–89 as originally expected. The Department of the Environment's running costs limit will be reduced by £0·182 million from £159·862 million to £159·680 million. This reduction reflects transfers of £0·017 million to the Cabinet Office: Office of the Minister for the Civil Service (class XX, vote 1) for the costs of recruitment under the direct entry grade 7 competition 1988, and of £0·165 million to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (class XX, vote 16) for increased expenditure by OPCS on services provided to my Department. The reduction in the DOE's limit will be offset by increases in the gross running costs limits for the other two Departments.

  The cash limit for class X, vote 9 (Sale of shares in the water services public limited companies, etc) will be increased by £0·300 million from £5·140 million to £5·440 million to cover increased costs of advisors.

  The non-voted cash limit for the new towns (DOE/NTI) has been reduced by £90·257 million from minus £389·743 million to minus £480 million to take account of disposals of property which are higher than previously forecast. This reduction offsets the increases above which will therefore not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Capital Spending
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 24 January 1989]: The following figures relate to the Department of the Environment's public expenditure programmes, housing and other environmental services. The figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 are rounded to the nearest £10 million. Expenditure by public corporations is not shown.

  2. DOE—Housing

  £ million

  1988–89 estimated outturn

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  1991–92 plans

  A. Central Government and local authority capital expenditure in cash terms

  Central Government

  Gross

  874

  969

  1,200

  1,500

  Receipts

  -100

  -116

  -120

  -120

  Net

  774

  853

  1,080

  1,380

  Local Authority

  Gross

  3,245

  3,153

  2,800

  2,650

  Receipts

  -3,150

  -3,490

  -3,100

  -3,000

  29

  1988–89 estimated outturn

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  1991–92 plans

  Net

  95

  -337

  -300

  -350

  B. Central Government and local authority capital expenditure 1987–88 prices

  Central Government

  Gross

  823

  869

  1,040

  1,260

  Receipts

  -94

  -104

  -100

  -100

  Net

  728

  765

  940

  1,160

  Local authority

  Gross

  3,054

  2,810

  2,420

  2,230

  Receipts

  -2,965

  -3,128

  -2,680

  -2,520

  Net

  89

  -302

  -260

  -290

  3. DOE—Other environmental services

  £ million

  1988–89 estimated outturn

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  1991–92 plans

  A. Central Government and local authority capital expenditure in cash terms

  Central Government

  Gross

  326

  441

  440

  440

  Receipts

  -1

  -3

  —

  —

  Net

  324

  438

  440

  440

  Local Authority

  Gross

  1,462

  1,058

  860

  860

  Receipts

  -825

  -745

  -840

  -840

  Net

  637

  312

  30

  20

  B. Central Government and local authority capital expenditure 1987–88 prices

  Central Government

  Gross

  307

  396

  380

  370

  Receipts

  -1

  -3

  —

  —

  Net

  305

  393

  380

  370

  Local authority

  Gross

  1,376

  948

  750

  720

  Receipts

  -776

  -668

  -720

  -700

  Net

  600

  280

  20

  20

  Housing Action Trusts
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he plans to set up a housing action trust in the North Peckham and Gloucester Grove estates in Southwark.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to proceed with his announced plans for a housing action trust scheme for the Loughborough and Angell town estates.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 26 January 1989]: When he has had an opportunity to consider the findings of the consultants studying the proposed housing action trust areas, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will decide the next steps.

  Government Offices
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans are there(a) to move Government offices to the north and west of the United Kingdom and (b) to relocate some central London office staff to docklands or south of the river.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under the Government's relocation policy which I announced on 31 March 1988, at columns 610–611,
  30
  Departments are reviewing the location of their work with a view to finding locations offering easier labour markets and other advantages. Departmental Ministers announce the outcome of such reviews after decisions have been taken, and since last March firm plans to transfer 1,800 posts from London and the south-east to the north and west of the United Kingdom have been announced; target locations include Glasgow, Belfast, Wigan, Bath and Swindon. No similar announcements regarding moves within London to docklands and south of the river have been made.

  In addition, a further 160 posts are due to be transferred to Glasgow under the earlier dispersal programme.

DEFENCE

  United States Submarines (Discharges)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the release of coolant from United States Navy submarines into the waters of Holy Loch in Strathclyde;

  (2) on what dates United States Navy submarines, moored at Holy Loch, released coolant from nuclear reactor systems into the waters of the Holy Loch; what was the total quantity of coolant released; what was the average amount of radioactivity per litre of coolant released; and whether any radioactive gases were released by United States Navy submarines on these occasions.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) on 24 January at column 555.

  Royal Navy Submarines (Discharges)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any Royal Navy submarine had ever discharged any coolant from nuclear power systems directly into the sea.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) on 24 January at column 554.

  New Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what substitutions for nuclear weapons withdrawn under the intermediate nuclear forces treaty are planned for both British and United States forces within the United Kingdom, on land and on ships based or calling at our ports; and when it is intended to introduce these new nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no plans to substitute for the missiles withdrawn under the INF treaty, which only covered certain specific categories of missiles. The process of modernising and restructuring NATO's nuclear forces, to ensure that they remain effective, responsive and survivable, will not undercut in any way the real reduction in the Alliance's land-based nuclear weapons resulting from the treaty. NATO will continue to maintain only the minimum level of forces consistent with credible deterrence. NATO's nuclear stockpile in Europe is now at its lowest level for 20 years, having been reduced by some
  31
  35 per cent. since 1979; it will reduce even further when the INF treaty is fully implemented. Decisions on modernisation and restructuring will be taken as and when necessary.

  New Ships
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many new ships the Royal Navy will order in the current year.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Members for Newcastle-upon-Tyne East (Mr. Brown) and for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) 29 November 1988 at column 217 regarding frigate orders. The Government also expect to place an order for SSBN-07 later this year.

  In addition, although orders are not envisaged for this year, tenders have also been invited for an aviation support ship and we are in the process of evaluating the results of competitive feasibility studies for a possible replacement for the assault ships Fearless and Intrepid.

  Ships (Scrapping)
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will delay the scrapping of HMS Arethusa and HMS Euryalus while HMS Penelope and HMS Southampton are out of action.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The repair of HMS Penelope is expected to be completed before the disposal of Arethusa and Euryalus. As to Southampton, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 10 January 1989 at column 675.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in the Official Report the precise amounts paid by his Department in the year 1985–86 to (a) The General Electric Co. plc., (b) Rolls-Royce Ltd., (c) British Telecommunications plc., (d) Lucas Industries plc., (e) BTR plc., (f) Austin Rover Group Ltd., (g) Dunlop Holdings plc., (h) United Scientific Holdings plc., (i) Courtaulds plc., and (j) Massey-Ferguson Holdings Ltd.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The payments made to each of these companies in the year ended 31 March 1986 in respect of headquarters contracts were as follows:

  £ million

  The General Electric Co. plc.

  800·0

  Rolls Royce Ltd.

  435·0

  British Telecommunications plc.

  8·5

  Lucas Industries plc.

  62·0

  BTR plc.

  19·0

  Austin Rover Group Ltd.

  60·0

  Dunlop Holdings plc.

  14·0

  United Scientific Holdings plc.

  21·5

  Courtaulds plc.

  9·0

  Massey Ferguson Holdings Ltd.

  3·5

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the figures for the value of headquarter contracts awarded to United Kingdom based Ministry of Defence contractors which were used to compile the list shown on page 15 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988" (Vol. 2) included any payments made by the Ministry of 32
  Defence for goods and services which were exported from the United Kingdom; and whether these figures represent the value of contracts signed or the value of goods and services delivered.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The figures in table 2·10 of volume 2 of the 1988 "Statement on the Defence Estimates" are based on an analysis of payments made directly by MOD to contractors in 1986–87.

  The analysis takes into account payments for many goods and services exported from the United Kingdom. For example, it includes payments for equipment taken abroad for operations or training by the United Kingdom armed services; however, these exports (and the corresponding imports if the items are returned to the United Kingdom) are specifically excluded from the official trade statistics.

  The workshare agreements for collaborative equipment projects invariably involve a considerable amount of international exchange of components and assemblies. Where the arrangements provide for HMG to make purchases on behalf of a foreign Government—as is the case for certain items of equipment for the Harrier GR5/AV-8B project. for example—the payments made by MOD to contractors are included in the analysis. However, where funds for collaborative projects are routed through international agencies, the amounts are not included in the analysis of direct payments.

  Payments made under sales arrangements, where no MOD money is involved, such as those with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, are separately accounted for, and are not included in the analysis.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in the Official Report the precise amounts paid by his Department in the year ended 31 March 1988 to (a) Jaguar Cars Ltd., (b) Sandvik Hard Materials Ltd., and (c) Kalmar Climax Ltd.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The payments made to Jaguar Cars Ltd. and Kalmar Climax Ltd. in the year ended 31 March 1988 in respect of headquarters contracts were as follows:

  £ million

  Jaguar Cars Ltd.

  1·0

  Kalmar Climax Ltd.

  1·3

  We have no record of any headquarters contracts having been placed with Sandvik Hard Materials Ltd.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in the Official Report the total value of headquarters contracts handled by his Department in each of the five years up to 31 March 1988.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The value of headquarter contracts placed in each of the four years up to 31 March 1987 is shown at table 2–9 of volume 2 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988", (Cmnd. 344-II). The value of headquarter contracts placed in the year ended 31 March 1988 was £6,541 million.

  Accommodation Charges
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, further to his reply of 23 January,Official Report, column 452 (a) when he expects the armed forces pay review body to report on accommodtion charges for

  33
  1989–90 and (b) what information his Department has provided to the board as to elements of rates within existing charges for Scottish accommodation.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury during the public expenditure debate on 24 February 1988, at column 312. No evidence was submitted which related specifically to Scotland, although Scottish data were included in overall figures.

  Opinion Polls
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department or any of the armed forces have conducted opinion surveys of service personnel on matters of general public interest.

  Mr. Neubert
  Attitude surveys relating to conditions of service are conducted as required, but I am unaware of any which might he regarded as of general public interest. If the hon. Member is concerned about a particular survey, perhaps he would let me know and I will be pleased to write to him.

  Gibraltar
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to change the United Kingdom force levels in Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Younger
  All force levels are kept under regular review, and as part of the continuing drive for cost-effectiveness, we are considering restructuring and rationalising our forces in Gibraltar and their supporting infrastructure. In particular, subject to the outcome of detailed studies, we plan to withdraw in due course all or the major part of the infantry battalion stationed there.

  Low Flying
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the low flying regulations permit farm buildings to be used as simulated targets during low-flying training sorties.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 December 1988]: The regulations for the conduct of low-flying training in the United Kingdom do not specify particular types of features at ground level which might be used as simulated targets.

WALES

  Departmental Staff (Child Care)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what child care provision his Department provides for pre-school-age children of employees; what child care provision, for school holiday or after-school care, is provided for employees' children aged five and over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh Office does not at present provide any child care facilities directly, but the advice of welfare officers, flexi-time, part-time working, job-sharing and special leave are available to staff who have difficulties 34
  in arranging for the care of their children. A holiday play scheme is planned for summer 1989 and staff would be expected to contribute towards the costs.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report, on a district basis, the sites in Wales used for the disposal of hazardous waste; and if he will indicate whether they are council operated or operated by a private contractor.

  Mr. Grist
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has a record of 286 waste disposal facilities in Wales. These are listed by local authority area in the following table. Very few of these sites receive special waste. Details of the waste which each facility is licensed to receive can be obtained from the appropriate waste disposal authority, which is required to maintain a public register.

  Type of site

  Public

  Private

  1In-house

  Waste disposal authorities

  Aberconwy

  1

  0

  2

  Alyn and Deeside

  2

  10

  3

  Arfon

  1

  2

  0

  Blaenau Gwent

  1

  0

  1

  Brecknock

  6

  3

  0

  Cardiff

  2

  12

  2

  Carmarthen

  1

  0

  0

  Ceredigion

  5

  1

  2

  Colwyn

  2

  2

  0

  Cynon Valley

  1

  1

  1

  Delyn

  2

  6

  2

  Dinefwr

  1

  0

  0

  Dwyfor

  3

  2

  16

  Glyndwr

  4

  0

  0

  Islwyn

  3

  0

  0

  Llanelli

  0

  1

  3

  Lliw Valley

  2

  3

  1

  Meirionnydd

  4

  0

  2

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1

  0

  0

  Monmouth

  3

  1

  0

  Montgomeryshire

  1

  2

  0

  Neath

  I

  1

  1

  Newport

  1

  12

  13

  Ogwr

  1

  6

  0

  Port Talbot

  1

  1

  1

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  2

  9

  4

  Radnor

  2

  1

  0

  Rhondda

  3

  2

  0

  Rhuddlan

  1

  0

  0

  Rhymney Valley

  5

  3

  0

  South Pembrokeshire

  0

  2

  6

  Swansea

  4

  10

  10

  Taff-Ely

  3

  6

  0

  Torfaen

  2

  1

  5

  Vale of Glamorgan

  2

  6

  4

  Wrexham Maelor

  1

  9

  1

  Ynys Môn

  3

  1

  2

  Totals

  78

  126

  82

  1Site used for producers own use only.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report a list of those waste disposal authorities that have completed their plans and deposited a copy with his Department.

  Mr. Grist
  The following district councils have completed their waste disposal plans and deposited copies with the Department:

  Aberconwy

  Arfon

  Alyn and Deeside

  Blaenau Gwent

  35

  Brecknock

  Montgomeryshire

  Cardiff

  Neath

  Carmarthen

  Newport

  Ceredigion

  Ogwr

  Colwyn

  Port Talbot

  Cynon Valley

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  Delyn

  Rhondda

  Dinefwr

  Rhuddlan

  Dwyfor

  Rhymney Valley

  Glyndwr

  South Pembrokeshire

  Islwyn

  Swansea

  Llanelli

  Taff-Ely

  Lliw Valley

  Torfaen

  Meirionnydd

  Vale of Glamorgan

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Wrexham Maelor

  Monmouth

  Ynys Môn—Isle of Anglesey

  Nursery Education
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report figures to show the percentage of three and four-year-olds in (a) nursery schools, (b) nursery classes and (c) infant classes in each local education authority in Wales in rank order of provision for three and four-year-olds as a whole.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information is not collected centrally in the form requested. However, data in respect of the percentage of three and four-year-olds in nursery schools and in primary schools is in the following table:

  Nursery schools

  Primary schools

  West Glamorgan

  2·4

  85·2

  Mid Glamorgan

  8·6

  67·5

  Clwyd

  2·7

  73·0

  Gwent

  10·4

  56·1

  Dyfed

  3·1

  60·9

  South Glamorgan

  7·2

  48·8

  Powys

  —

  50·8

  Gwynedd

  —

  49·2

  Pupil Numbers
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the percentage of pupils in primary schools in Wales in classes of over 30.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  During a particular teaching period of an enumeration date in January 1988 11·6 per cent. of secondary school children were taught in single-teacher classes of more than 30 children and 12 per cent. were in classes of more than 30 taught by more than one teacher. Comparable figures are not available for primary schools. However, in September 1987, 16·9 per cent. of ordinary classes in maintained primary schools had more than 30 children.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the percentage of pupils in primary and secondary schools in Wales in classes of 35 and over in each local education authority in rank order.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  For secondary schools, the percentage of pupils who were being taught in a class group of more than 35 pupils during a particular teaching period on the enumeration date in January 1988 was as follows:36

  Classes taught by one teacher

  Classes taught by more than one teacher

  Mid Glamorgan

  1·2

  16·7

  Gwynedd

  0·8

  14·8

  Dyfed

  0·5

  13·0

  South Glamorgan

  0·6

  11·9

  Gwent

  0·3

  11·6

  West Glamorgan

  0·3

  9·6

  Powys

  0·5

  8·0

  Clwyd

  0·7

  3·6

  Comparable information is not available for primary schools. However, the percentage of ordinary classes in maintained primary schools which had more than 35 children in September 1987 is as follows:

  Percentage

  Clwyd

  4·8

  Dyfed

  1·2

  Gwent

  1·1

  Mid Glamorgan

  1·1

  South Glamorgan

  0·9

  Powys

  0·7

  Gwynedd

  0·6

  West Glamorgan

  0·6

  EC Structural Funds
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the areas of south Wales which he has submitted for consideration to the European Commission under its review of the European Economic Community's structural funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Decisions on the eligibility for support under the EC structural funds are being taken by the European Commission on the basis of criteria set out in the governing regulations. Her Majesty's Government have recommended to the Commission cases for all four south Wales counties and for the Llanelli travel-to-work area in Dyfed. The whole of the industrial south Wales area is also covered by an integrated development operations programme bid which seeks assistance for the period 1988–92 and transitional arrangements, also included in the funds' regulations, provide for this to be considered by the Commission as planned.

  Welsh Water Authority (Land)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make a further statement about the current total land holding of the Welsh water authority.

  Mr. Grist
  Land owned by the Welsh water authority is a matter for that authority.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State of Wales how much land currently held by the Welsh water authority is surplus to its requirements.

  Mr. Grist
  The Welsh water authority informs me that it currently has 4,421 acres of land in its ownership which it considers is surplus to requirements.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much land currently held by the Welsh water authority he expects to become surplus to its requirements during the next five years.
  37
  Mr. Grist
  Such estimates are a matter for the Welsh water authority.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will take steps to ensure that any future sale of lands currently held by the Welsh water authority is at prices which reflect their full potential value.

  Mr. Grist
  These are matters for the management of the Welsh water authority.

  Advertising
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the amount of money spent by the Welsh Office on advertising for each year since 1978; and how much of that was spent on newspaper advertisements in(a) the Western Mail, (b) the Daily Post, and (c) other newspapers.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 24 January 1989]: The total spending on newspaper, television and radio advertising and other promotional activities (literature exhibitions and so on) is as follows:

  £

  1979–80

  61,000

  1980–81

  62,000

  1981–82

  100,000

  1982–83

  99,000

  1983–84

  108,000

  1984–85

  121,000

  1985–86

  227,427

  1986–87

  406,965

  1987–88

  576,500

  The spending from 1979–80 to 1984–85 on newspaper advertising is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The sum spent on newspaper advertising from 1985–86 and subsequent financial years is as follows:

  £ thousand

  1985–86

  98

  1986–87

  110

  1987–88

  140

  The principal areas of advertising for each of these financial years is:

  £ thousand

  1985–86

  Transport and Highways

  72

  Establishments Group (Recruitment/Public Notices)

  10

  Miscellaneous publicity (all other divisions)

  16

  98

  1986–87

  Transport and Highways

  97

  Establishments Group (Recruitment/Public Notices)

  5

  Miscellaneous publicity (all other divisions)

  8

  110

  1987–88

  Transport and Highways

  101

  Establishments Group (Recruitment/Public Notices)

  10

  Miscellaneous publicity (all other divisions)

  29

  140

  38
  More detailed information on spending in individual newspaper titles is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  Food Poisoning
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made as to whether the 184 per cent. rise in notified cases of food poisoning between 1980 and 1987 results from(a) contaminated food; (b) poor kitchen hygiene, or (c) any other significant reason; and what is the estimated proportionate responsibility of these factors.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  In the majority of cases of reported bacterial food poisoning the suspected vehicle or source of infection is not identified. Comprehensive data are available only from 1970 to 1982 on a number of outbreaks where a food vehicle was identified by the investigators. Some of main contributory factors were preparation of food too far in advance, storage of food at ambient temperature, inadequate cooking of food, inadequate reheating of food, inadequate thawing and under cooking of food. All these factors would have encouraged the growth of food poisoning organisms present in the food. My advisers believe that these contributory factors remain important.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what foodstuffs, other than eggs, were attributed to the cases of food poisoning notified in 1987.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  In the majority of cases of reported food poisoning the suspected vehicle or source of infection is not identified. In 1987, in those reported outbreaks where the food vehicle was identified, the following foods were involved:poultry or poultry mixed with other foods; beef; pork/ham; lamb; mixed meats and meat pies; fish/shellfish; rice; milk and desserts.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the cases of food poisoning attributable to chicken and eggs in 1988 required some form of medical attention or treatment from the National Health Service.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  This information is not available.

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

  Mr. Mellor
  The information the hon. Member requested has now been placed in the Library.

  Psychiatric Patients (Accommodation)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken into the relative standards of in-patient psychiatric hospital' accommodation and that available to discharged former patients.
  39
  Mr. Freeman
  Several research projects about alternative provision to mental hospitals have been funded by the Department, and I will send the hon. Member a list and place a copy in the Library when this is ready.

  In addition, Ministers have recently set in hand work to get a clearer picture of the development of services across the country for people with a mental illness. The objective is to provide Ministers with a properly informed basis for considering whether there are any steps it would be right and practical to take to improve the care of mentally ill people.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many junior hospital doctors work(a) more than 80 hours a week, (b) more than 104 hours a week, and (c) more than 112 hours a week (i) in the Nottingham district health authority and (ii) in the Trent regional health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. D. H. White, the chairman of Nottingham health authority and Sir Michael Carlisle, the chairman of Trent regional health authority.

  Mental Illness
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether his Department has conducted or is conducting research into the reasons for the disproportionate numbers of blacks in mental hospitals;

  (2) whether his Department has conducted or is conducting research into the disproportionately high incidence of diagnosed schizophrenia among blacks.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department of Health directly commissions a range of research into mental illness pertaining to the general population. The Department is not funding research specifically into reasons for the occurrence of mental illness in ethnic minorities; but since 1985 it has been supporting NAFSIYAT, a voluntary organisation active in the field of ethnic psychiatry, to evaluate the effectiveness in providing a treatment service in the community aimed at ethnic minority populations. The Department has made available about £1 million in 1988–89 for research into the care and treatment of mentally ill people, including schizophrenia.

  In 1987–88 (the latest year for which figures are available) the Medical Research Council, the main Government agency for the funding of medical and related biological research in the United Kingdom, allocated £10·4 million to research into mental health.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department intends to review mental health care among ethnic minorities in light of the particular problems faced by such groups.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for health and social services authorities to identify and take account of the needs of all sections of the community when reviewing, planning and funding local mental health services. The importance of mental health care was emphasised at a seminar on ethnic minority health, held in November 1987 for health authority chairmen and managers, chaired by the then Minister for Health. The Minister drew attention to the difficulties which needed to be overcome when mentally ill 40
  patients and those treating them had different cultural backgrounds. In addition, where appropriate, Ministers are raising questions on improving health services for ethnic minorities through the review system.

  AIDS
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review his decision not to place Waltham Forest in category A or B with respect to funding for AIDS treatment as set out in circular LAC (89) 1; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. Our main aim in distributing the support grant for social services for people with AIDS is to help those local authorities that face the most immediate pressures in 1989–90. Category A authorities are those that are estimated to have by far the greatest concentration of people with AIDS and people at risk of infection. Category B includes those authorities which have smaller numbers and those which have fewer cases but which have located in their areas major regional treatment centres associated with which is an additional workload for local authority social services. The London borough of Waltham Forest does not meet these criteria, but, along with all other social services authorities in England, is eligible to bid for funds to assist the planning of services for the future. The Department will continue monitoring the distribution of cases nationally and keep the situation of all authorities under review.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial contribution is being made to his AIDS campaign by organisations other than his Department.

  Mr. Mellor
  Health Departments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have provided £495,000 for specific work to be conducted by their respective health education agencies and as a contribution to the National AIDS Helpline which provides a service to the whole United Kingdom.

  Other Government Departments have financed specific initiatives related to their fields of responsibility. These include the provision by the Department of Education and Science of educational material for teachers and for use with secondary school pupils; development by the Home Office of educational material for use in prisons; and provision by the Department of Employment and the Health and Safety Executive of an information booklet for the workplace.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many AIDS patients are currently being treated in each London hospital where AIDS is treated; and if he will give his best estimate in each case of the number of foreign nationals involved.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated average annual treatment cost and total eventual treatment cost of(a) each AIDS patient from the time of being identified as HIV positive and (b) each drug addict seeking treatment.

  Mr. Mellor
  On current evidence, our best estimate is that the average cost of treating a person with AIDS from diagnosis to death is between £20,000 and £30,000.
  41
  Because of the wide variety in the amounts and types of treatment given to drug misusers, it is not possible to estimate average treatment costs.

  Genito-urinary Clinic (Waltham Forest)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will direct North East Thames regional health authority to approve a genito-urinary clinic to be located in Waltham Forest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Planning of health services within a particular area is a matter for the health authority concerned, which is best able to judge priorities in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Departmental Staff (Child Care)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what child care provision his Department providesfor pre-school age children of employees; what child care provision for school holidays or after school care is provided for employees' children aged five years and over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next live years; and how are these to be funded.

  Mr. Freeman
  At present no provision for the child care of the pre-school age children of staff is made in this Department, although preliminary discussions on such facilities have taken place. A holiday play scheme has been organised for the forthcoming Easter holidays for the children of staff working in HQ buildings in central London. Additionally staff working in the Whitehall area can make use of the centrally organised holiday play schemes.

  Child care provision is one of the areas being examined in a review of opportunities available to women employees in the Department. We hope to base any further holiday play schemes on the experience we are gaining.

  The schemes are intended to be self-supporting, but the Department has provided funding to prime them.

  Cancer (West Ham)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will order an inquiry into the causes of the cancer cluster now identified in West Ham in the London borough of Newham.

  Mr. Freeman
  Research into the epidemiology of cancer is undertaken by a number of cancer registries and research organisations funded both by Government and independently. Department of Health officials will ascertain whether any study into the incidence of cancer in West Ham has been or is being undertaken, and will discuss the matter with the district health authority.

  Region

  Hospital haemodialysis

  Home haemodialysis

  Intermittent peritoneal dialysis

  Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis

  Northern

  243

  57

  18

  206

  Yorkshire

  177

  100

  2

  195

  Trent

  177

  233

  2

  309

  East Anglian

  121

  70

  0

  47

  North West Thames

  128

  82

  7

  141

  North East Thames

  204

  178

  3

  298

  South East Thames

  172

  137

  6

  271

  South West Thames

  11

  47

  0

  96

  Wessex

  70

  42

  0

  113

  Oxford

  105

  119

  0

  120

  Departmental Expenditure
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amounts are included within the estimated outturn public expenditure for his Department in 1987–88 in Cm. 288-II for(a) expenditure by way of grants or other forms of non-recoverable expenditure and (b) expenditure by way of loans.

  Mr. Mellor
  Estimated outturn expenditure for 1987–88 as detailed in Cm. 288-II included the following amounts for:

  £ million

  (a) Current and capital grants

  152

  (b) Net lending to public corporations

  12

  Note:

  The amount shown at (b) represents the external borrowing limit for the General Practice Finance Corporation guaranteed by Treasury stock.

  Kidney Transplants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have received kidney transplants in each year since 1982.

  Mr. Freeman
  According to information provided by the United Kingdom transplant service, the number of cadaveric kidney transplants performed in the United Kingdom for patients entitled to NHS treatment was:

  Year

  Number

  1982

  1,033

  1983

  1,144

  1984

  1,443

  1985

  1,336

  1986

  1,493

  1987

  1,485

  1988

  11,544

  1 Provisional figure.

  Kidney Dialysis
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by region, the number of patients undergoing dialysis treatment.

  Mr. Freeman
  According to information supplied by the European Dialysis and Transplant Association, the number of patients receiving dialysis by regional health authority, on 31 December 1987 was as follows:
  43

  Region

  Hospital haemodialysis

  Home haemodialysis

  Intermittent peritoneal dialysis

  Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis

  South Western

  92

  159

  5

  180

  West Midlands

  193

  126

  0

  424

  Mersey

  128

  45

  8

  52

  North Western

  150

  156

  6

  271

  Note:

  There is no waiting list for renal dialysis, because it is an essential treatment for a life-threatening condition.

  Hoffenberg Report
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which of the various bodies concerned to progress the ideas combined in the Hoffenberg report have been consulted in the last year; and what was the outcome of those negotiations;

  (2) which initiatives to promote organ donation were extended following discussions with the National Health Service;

  (3) if he will list those district health authorities which now have an operational policy for organ donation; if he will list the number of potential donors identified in each district health authority in England; and if he will estimate the percentage increase which this represents on the previous year's figure;

  (4) if he has any plans to introduce a system of required request so as to increase the number of organ donors.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following publication of the report of the working party chaired by Sir Raymond Hoffenberg, we prepared a draft circular containing guidance to health authorities on organ donation. After consulting extensively with health authorities, medical bodies and other interested parties we issued health circular HC(88)63 copies of which have been placed in the Library in December 1988. For further details I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) on 13 December 1988 at column 555. The working party advised us against the use of required request legislation. The health circular asks district health authorities to draw up operational procedures for organ donation by 30 June 1989. Authorities have also commenced a survey which will enable us to assess the number of potential donors; it is too early to form estimates at this stage,

  Organ Transplants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information his Department has about organ transplants undertaken in(a) private hospitals and (b) National Health Service pay beds; and what action he will take against hospitals and consultants who transplant organs which have been sold;

  (2) if he will consider introducing legislation to outlaw the sale of organs for transplants;

  (3) if he will initiate a compulsory register of all imports and exports of transplantable organs and tissue into and out of the United Kingdom and of all transplant operations.

  Mr. Freeman
  We do not at present collect information centrally on transplants carried out in private hospitals, or on the use of pay beds by transplant patients. On the subject of the register of organs, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow 44
  (Mr. Hayes) on 26 January at columns 711–12. When investigations by Bloomsbury and Barnet health authorities are completed shortly, we shall consider urgently what action to take, including the relevance of legislation.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many elderly people within each health authority in England and Wales were awaiting placement in geriatric hospitals or in residential homes in the local authority voluntary and private sectors at 1 January; and what is the breakdown of numbers in each sector in each health area.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information about patients awaiting admission to hospital is collected according to the specialty of intended treatment, not by hospital type. Regional and district summaries of hospital in-patient lists at 31 March 1988, the latest available centrally, have been placed in the Library. Information about the numbers of elderly people seeking placement in residential homes in the local authority voluntary and private sectors is not collected centrally.

  Tranquillisers
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many psychiatric hospitals within the National Health Service have special units to enable people to withdraw from benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are at present withdrawing from benzodiazepines in psychiatric hospitals within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not have this information centrally.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many working days were lost in 1987 as a result of people withdrawing from benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of all prescriptions given in 1987 by National Health Service's doctors was for benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not have information in the form requested. In Great Britain in 1987 community pharmacists dispensed almost 399·7 million prescriptions. Of these, about 25·5 million, or almost 6·5 per cent., were for benzodiazepines.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the total number of children under the age of 16 years currently being prescribed benzodiazepines.
  45
  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect this information centrally.

  Imported Food Regulations
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which public bodies are responsible for collecting information on the number and nature of prosecutions made for breaches of the Imported Food Regulations 1984.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  This information is held by the local authority which has undertaken the prosecution. Such prosecutions are rarely necessary, since imported food which is found not to comply with the requirements of the Imported Food Regulations is normally dealt with by the port health authority in co-operation with the importer.

  Listeria
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what temperature of refrigeration is recommended by his Department to prevent the growth of listeria.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Appropriate storage temperatures for chilled food depend on factors such as the length of and the type of food. We are satisfied that the times and storage temperatures recommended in our guidelines on pre-cooked chilled food in catering produce a microbiologically sound product. In addition, as I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) on 27 January, we are preparing separately guidelines for retailed chilled foods which will be issued as soon as possible.

  Cook-chill Meals
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield,Official Report, 23 January, column 411, how many of the consultant microbiologists or control of infection officers in the Yorkshire area were consulted before the Yorkshire regional health authority made the decision to implement cook-chill catering across the whole region in September 1988.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the Yorkshire regional health authority.

  The hon. Member may wish to contact its chairman for the information he is seeking.

  Hereditary Conditions
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent the new National Health Service register will help in tracing the medical records of those who suffer from hereditary conditions such as glaucoma and diabetes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The NHS central register exists to facilitate the transfer of medical records when patients move from one family practitioner committee area to another. It is not used to record whether people suffer from hereditary conditions; this and other clinical information is contained in the individual medical records which are confidential. No change in the scope of the register is planned, but computerisation in 1990 is intended to speed up considerably the tracing and transfer of the medical records of all patients.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any changes will be made in the cash limits of his Department for 1988–89.

  Mr. Mellor
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for Class XIV Vote 3 (Miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England) will be increased by £4,995,000 to £424,256,000. The increases are made for an additional £3,697,000 to implement, from 1 April 1988, the recommendations of the review bodies in respect of doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives and professions allied to medicine as announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21 April 1988, £100,000 for nurses' and midwives' pay as announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on 1 November 1988 at column 601, £5 million for a grant to the Motability 10th anniversary trust fund and £250,000 for the "Eggs: The Facts" advertising campaign. These increases are offset by a surrender of £3,236,000 in respect of a grant to the independent living fund and of £250,000 in respect of grants to organisations serving the interests of persons affected by an error in the calculation of the retail prices index. These sums represent that portion of those grants which will not be paid at the level planned in the current financial year. The increases are further offset by a reduction of £566,000 to the sum announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 21 July 1988 at column 726 to reflect a reduced carry forward of capital underspends allowed under the end-year flexibility scheme.

  The net effect of these changes has been charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Dietary Sugars
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, pending the report of the COMA panel on dietary sugars, he will request the Health Education Authority in planning its pilot campaign to promote dental health in the north-west to have regard for the conclusions and recommendations contained in two reports referred to by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) in reply to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 19 October 1988,Official Report, column 917.

  Mr. Freeman
  In planning its pilot campaign to promote dental health in the north-west, the Health Education Authority is taking into account all relevant scientific information, including the two reports quoted. The COMA panel on sugars in the diet will take account of these two reports, among others, in reaching its recommendations.

  Medical Students
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many students entered medical training each year from 1976 to 1988; and how many qualified each year from 1982 to 1988.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The following information was supplied by the University Grants Committee from a special medical return. The intake of pre-clinical medical students to United Kingdom medical schools was as follows:

  47

  Academic year

  Numbers

  1976–77

  3,809

  1977–78

  3,944

  1978–79

  3,979

  1979–80

  3,987

  1980–81

  4,010

  1981–82

  4,072

  1982–83

  4,154

  1983–84

  4,108

  1984–85

  4,125

  1985–86

  4,093

  1986–87

  4,119

  1987–88

  4,125

  11988–89

  4,177

  48
  1 Provisional

  The number of students who obtained a first registrable medical qualification was as follows
  who obtained a first registrable as follows:

  Academic year

  Numbers

  1981–82

  3,545

  1982–83

  3,742

  1983–84

  3,640

  1984–85

  3,636

  1985–86

  3,628

  1986–87

  3,762

  1987–88

  3,744

TRANSPORT

  Severn River Crossing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the progress towards a new Severn river crossing;

  (2) when he proposes to begin the construction of a new Severn river crossing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A number of groups of firms interested in bidding for the second Severn bridge have responded to the Department's invitation to submit proposals. These are now being assessed.

  We hope to announce by the end of February the groups selected to submit full tenders. We remain on course to provide the bridge by the mid-1990s, if traffic levels justify this.

  Promoters will be asked to indicate possible completion dates and the toll levels associated with them.

  Lorries (Loose Bulk Loads)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents over the most recent period for which figures are available have(a) involved or (b) been caused by lorries carrying loose bulk loads; and how many (i) deaths and (ii) serious injuries have been caused as a result of spillage of loose bulk loads.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information is not available. The Department does not record causes of accidents. Cause is often disputed or unclear.

  The Department does have available the following figures taken from police reports of personal injury accidents:
  In 1987, there were 246 accidents in which a dislodged vehicle load in the carriageway was recorded. In these accidents there were 334 casualties, of whom seven were killed and 78 seriously injured.
  Heavy goods vehicles were involved in only 86 of these accidents, which resulted in 135 casualties, including four fatalities and 42 serious injuries.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any representations from people directly or indirectly damaged as a result of spillage from lorries carrying loose bulk loads; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are aware of 14 such representations during the last five years covering a widely differing range of incidents.

  It is important for lorry loads to be properly and safely secured. Drivers should follow carefully the guidance set out in the code of practice "Safety of Loads on Vehicles" prepared jointly by the Department, the road transport associations, vehicle and equipment manufacturers and the police.

  It is also important to avoid diesel spillage which causes severe danger to motor-cyclists.

  Aircraft Safety
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had or proposes to have with the Civil Aviation Authority concerning the safety in use of twin-engined jet aircraft on transatlantic crossings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Civil Aviation Authority has the statutory responsibility for the safety regulation of civil aviation.
  50
  I am advised that the safety record of extended range operations by twin-engined aircraft is such that there has been no need for discussions with the CAA.

  NATO
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the posts, ranks and responsibilities of United Kingdom representatives designated to form part of the staff of the NATO agencies in transition to war and in war for(a) the Defence Shipping Authority (East), (b) the Interallied Insurance Organisation, (c) the Agency for the Co-ordination of Inland Surface Transport in Central Europe and (d) the NATO Civil Aviation Agency.

  Mr. Portillo
  Details of the United Kingdom representatives designated to form part of the Defence Shipping Authority (East), the Interallied Insurance Organisation, the Agency for the Co-ordination of Inland Surface Transport in Central Europe and the NATO Civil Aviation Agency are classified.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the posts, ranks and responsibilities of United Kingdom delegates to the sub-committee on rail transport of NATO's planning board for European inland surface transport.

  Mr. Portillo
  The United Kingdom's delegates to the sub-committee on rail transport of NATO's planning board for European inland surface transport are:One officer at grade-level from the Department of Transport;
  A representative from British Rail;
  A Ministry of Defence major; and a lieutenant-colonel or major from the British Army of the Rhine.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the title of the sub-committee of NATO's planning board for European inland surface transport (PBEIST) which deals with ports, beaches and inland waterways; and what are the posts, ranks and responsibilities of United Kingdom delegates to this sub-committee.

  Mr. Portillo
  The title of the sub-committee of NATO's planning board for European inland surface transport (PBEIST) which deals with ports, beaches and inland waterways is the permanent sub-committee for ports, beaches and inland waterways transport (PBIWT). The United Kingdom is currently represented on this sub-committee by one officer at grade 7 level and one officer at SEO level from the Department and one officer at HEO level from the Ministry of Defence. The proceedings and further details of attendees are classified.

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what economic assessment his Department has made of the impact upon the east midlands of electrifying the midlands main line and of not doing so.

  Mr. Portillo
  The commercial opportunities for developing the line are a matter for British Rail.

  Addingham Bypass
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects construction work to commence on the A65 Addingham bypass.
  51
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We plan to start construction on Addingham bypass this summer.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what amounts are included within the estimated outturn public expenditure for his Department in 1987–88 in Cm. 288-II for(a) expenditure by way of grants or other forms of non-recoverable expenditure and (b) expenditure by way of loans.

  Mr. Portillo
  The outturn public expenditure for my Department in 1987–88 as estimated in Cm. 288 included £240 million net repayments of loans. The remainder of the estimated expenditure of £4,721 million was not recoverable except for about £15 million port severance grants which may become recoverable in certain circumstances. The figures for 1987–88 now show a total expenditure of £4,592 million, including £362 million net repayments of loans.

  Coastguard
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in the Official Report those incidents in 1988 requiring assistance from each coastguard rescue station in Scotland.

  Mr. Portillo
  Figures for 1988 are not yet available. The number of incidents where assistance was co-ordinated by coastguard rescue centres in Scotland during 1987 are as follows:

  Number

  Aberdeen

  53

  Clyde

  167

  Forth

  66

  Moray

  71

  Oban

  140

  Pentland

  56

  Shetland

  65

  Stornaway

  42

  Income received by London Regional Transport (1987–88 prices)

  11984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  21988–89

  31989–90

  Total income(£ million)

  1,203·7

  1,070·3

  1,046·5

  997·4

  957·5

  1,086·9

  Source

  Traffic Income(£ million)

  802·0

  683·3

  693·5

  710·6

  726·4

  778·7

  Per cent. of total

  66·6

  64·3

  66·3

  71·2

  75·9

  71·6

  Other Income (£ million)

  39·4

  33·8

  45·9

  47·8

  51·9

  51·0

  Per cent. of total

  3·3

  3·2

  4·4

  4·8

  5·4

  4·7

  Grant (including GLC grant in 1984–85)(£ million)

  362·3

  348·2

  307·1

  239·0

  179·2

  257·2

  Per cent. of total

  30·1

  32·5

  29·3

  24·0

  18·7

  23·7

  Grant recovered from levy on London ratepayers(65·63 per cent. of total grant)

  n/a

  228·5

  201·6

  156·9

  117·6

  168·8

  1 15 month accounting period 1 January 1984 to 31 March 1985. Audited figures for the fiscal year 1 April 1984 to 31 March 1985 are not available.

  2 Estimated outturn (as published in Annual Business Plan for 1989–90), deflated using an inflation rate for the financial year 1988–89 based on the 1988 RPI and an average of independent forecasts for 1st quarter 1989.

  52
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received against the proposed closure of the Moray coastguard rescue centre.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department has received a number of representations including 13 letters from hon. or right hon. Members.

  Heavy Lorries
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of Transport if he will list the number and type of local authority control schemes to restrict heavy lorry movements which have been implemented since the coming into force of the Heavy Commercial Vehicles Act 1973.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department does not keep a record of such schemes.

  Bus Doors
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the safety of bus doors since the answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston on 19 May 1988,Official Report, column 524.

  Mr. Portillo
  Good progress has been made in our discussions with the bus operators and manufacturers. I hope to make an announcement shortly.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will tabulate in the Official Report income received, or estimated to be received, by London Regional Transport from (a) fares, (b) the Exchequer, (c) rate levy on London boroughs and (d) other income, for each of the years 1984–85 to 1989–90 at constant prices, together with the percentage of income arising from each source for each year, respectively.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is as follows:
  53
  3 Forecast (as published in Annual Business Plan for 1989–90), deflated using an inflation rate for 1989–90 based on an average of independent forecasts.

  Source: Annual Report and Accounts except as stated in notes 2 and 3 above.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to develop a primary road network in Suffolk and Norfolk suitable for the advent of the Channel tunnel and the European single market.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A primary route network, consisting of trunk roads and principal local authority roads, is already firmly established for the Department's eastern region, which includes Suffolk and Norfolk. We monitor its operation through a joint committee with the seven county surveyors for the region. The effects of predicted traffic growth and road developments on the network are taken into account at each annual review. This would include any increase in traffic to and from Europe through the east coast ports. The Channel tunnel is not expected significantly to influence traffic flows in Suffolk and Norfolk.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the financing of a new railway line between the Channel tunnel terminal area and London can be carried out with public funds.

  Mr. Portillo
  Under section 19(2)(a) of the Transport Act 1962, British Rail has the power to borrow public funds for capital investment.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether there is any requirement for a specified minimum rate of return to be achieved if the financing of the construction of a new railway line between the Channel tunnel terminal area and London is to be carried out with public funds.

  Mr. Portillo
  If the new line were to be financed by British Rail, the board would need to demonstrate that the project would produce a commercial return. The discount rate used to test this (currently 7 per cent.) will be agreed between BR and the Department. It will need to reflect the Treasury's required rate of return, which is intended to ensure that commercial public sector investment programmes (such as BR's) provide a rate of return which is broadly equivalent to that which could be achieved in the private sector. The required rate of return was set in 1978 and is reviewed from time to time.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the circumstances in which he will not give his approval to a proposal from British Rail to construct a new railway line between London and the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  We will not give our approval if the board's proposals (which will need to include environmental protection measures) fail to establish a commercial case for the construction of a new line.

  Road Traffic (Tax Yield)
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much tax yield the Treasury would gain from each 1 per cent. increase in the volume of road traffic.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Tax receipts do not relate directly to traffic volume. The gain would vary according to how 54
  much of the growth came from increased vehicle mileage and how much from increased numbers of vehicles on the road, and on their fuel consumption. Increased motoring taxes would be partly offset by the costs of the extra wear and tear caused by the extra traffic.

  Underground Stations (Fire Brigade Reports)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, in the light of the recommendations in the Fennell report, he will place in the Library the annual reports put forward in 1988 by the London fire brigade on each deep underground station.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that London Underground will, in the light of the Fennell recommendations, place in the Library of the House copies of the annual reports by the London fire brigade together with its responses. This procedure will be implemented starting from the inspection reports received in 1989.

  M20
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to let the contract for the construction of London-Ashford section of the M20 motorway.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We expect to let the contract for the Lenham to Ashford section of the motorway this spring.

  Settle-Carlisle Railway
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has decided upon a date on which to announce his decision on the future of the Settle-Carlisle railway.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend will reach his decision when he has considered all the evidence before him.

  Guardian Angels
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the British transport police on the activities on the London Underground system of the organisation known as the Guardian Angels.

  Mr. Portillo
  I see no need for such a report. The Government have made it clear that we are opposed to private citizens adopting a policing role except as special constables. There can be no objection to any persons travelling on the Underground if they do so in an unprovocative manner as fare-paying and law-abiding citizens. If, however, they act unlawfully or engage in conduct likely to provoke a breach of the peace, their presence will not be welcome and in that event they could not expect to be exempt from the ordinary processes of the law. The British transport police committee is considering the changes that would be necessary to the British transport police scheme to allow the force to recruit special constables and the Government look forward to their proposals.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the amount collected in tolls on the Severn bridge since it opened to the latest available date.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A total of £48,547,086 to 31 March 1988.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the present debt on the Severn bridge.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The latest available figure is £85,469,667 at 31 March 1988.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the proposed doubling of toll charges on the Severn bridge takes place in September 1989, when he expects the debt on the bridge to be finally discharged.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In 2006.

  Road Traffic (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will tabulate in the Official Report the

  Summary of radial traffic movements in London Combined 24 hour flow—thousands of vehicles

  Mode

  1983

  11987

  per cent. change

  per cent. share

  A. Vehicles crossing the London boundary cordon

  Buses and coaches

  19

  16

  -16

  1

  Private cars

  1,565

  1,705

  +9

  79

  Taxis

  6

  9

  +50

  —

  Goods vehicles:

  light

  159

  206

  +30

  10

  medium

  111

  111

  0

  5

  heavy

  77

  52

  -32

  2

  Motor cycles

  46

  39

  -15

  2

  Pedal cycles

  15

  16

  +7

  1

  TOTAL

  1,998

  2,154

  +8

  100

  B. Vehicles crossing the Inner London cordon

  Buses and coaches

  35

  35

  0

  2

  Private cars

  1,535

  1,606

  +5

  75

  Taxis

  40

  40

  0

  2

  Goods vehicles:

  light

  196

  216

  +10

  10

  medium

  116

  110

  -5

  5

  heavy

  40

  34

  -15

  2

  Motor cycles

  77

  58

  -25

  3

  Pedal cycles

  31

  24

  -23

  1

  TOTAL

  22,070

  2,123

  +3

  100

  C. Vehicles crossing the Central London cordon

  Buses and coaches

  39

  34

  -13

  2

  Private cars

  1,071

  1,086

  +1

  67

  Taxis

  125

  131

  +5

  8

  Goods vehicles:

  light

  134

  173

  +29

  11

  medium

  91

  90

  -1

  5

  heavy

  32

  17

  -47

  1

  Motor cycles

  81

  65

  -20

  4

  Pedal cycles

  47

  30

  -36

  2

  TOTAL

  1,620

  1,626

  +0·4

  100

  1 Estimates extrapolated from 1986 survey. See Statistics Bulletin (88) 39—London Traffic Monitoring Report for 1987.

  2 Estimates extrapolated from surveys conducted in 1981 and 1984. See Statistics Bulletin (88) 39—London Traffic Monitoring Report for 1987.

  The question asks for results expressed in the form of passenger car units. This measurement is used by traffic
  56
  number of vehicles of different categories crossing the three London traffic cordons in a combined 24-hour flow for the years 1983 and 1987 together with the total vehicle flow at each cordon in passenger car units for the period together with the percentage change for each category and total as set out in Table 4 of his recent publication "Statement on Transport in London".

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information on flows in passenger car units is as follows:

  Summary of Radial Traffic Movements in London Combined direction 24 hour flows—thousands of passenger car units

  1983

  1987

  per cent. change

  London Boundary cordon

  2,133

  2,257

  +6

  Inner London cordon

  2,144

  2,203

  +3

  Central London cordon

  1,660

  1,664

  +0·3

  The remaining information is set out in table 3 of the "Statement On Transport in London", reproduced as follows:

  engineers to express the demands of different vehicle types as a single value, usually in connection with traffic control at signalled junctions.
  57
  The following values are commonly used by the transport and road research laboratory to convert other vehicle types to their equivalent in passenger car units.

  Passenger car units

  Bus or coach

  2·0

  Private car

  1·0

  Taxis

  1·0

  Light goods vehicle

  1·0

  Medium goods vehicle

  1·5

  Heavy goods vehicle

  2·3

  Motor cycle

  0·4

  Pedal cycle

  0·2

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to ensure that those advising him on British Rail's preferred route for a new railway line between London and the Channel tunnel do not live on or near any of the routes in question.

  Tonnes

  STC Division code

  1985

  1986

  1987

  00

  Live animals chiefly for foods

  44

  38

  55

  01

  Meat and meat preparations

  441

  957

  216

  02

  Dairy products and birds' eggs

  117

  131

  113

  03

  Fish, crustaceans and molluscs and preparations thereof

  70,638

  70,807

  63,972

  04

  Cereals and cereal preparations

  644,165

  307,847

  706,142

  05

  Vegetables and fruit

  586

  846

  374

  06

  Sugar, sugar preparations and honey

  128

  103

  41

  07

  Coffee, tea, cocoa, spices and manufactures thereof

  1,927

  1,300

  2,135

  08

  Feedingstuff for animals

  1,122

  2,260

  2,331

  09

  Miscellaneous edible products

  2,410

  315

  342

  Section 0

  Food and feed

  721,578

  384,604

  775,721

  Total value of these food and feed exports (£ million)

  81·516

  43·502

  54·149

  NATO Central Supply Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the posts, ranks and responsibilities of United Kingdom representatives designated to form part of the staff of the NATO central supply agency in transition to war.

  Mr. Ryder
  Information on the posts, ranks and responsibilities of the staff of NATO central supplies agency is subject to NATO security classification, and I am therefore unable to provide this information.

  Food Hygiene
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, 1 December,Official Report, column 319, when the major national campaign on food hygiene will be launched; which people and which organisations have advised on its content; at whom it is aimed; what form it will take; and what the cost will be.

  Mr. Ryder
  The campaign was prepared by my Department in collaboration with DOH, the Health Education Authority, the public health laboratory service and the Institution of Environmental Health Officers and will be launched this spring. The campaign will be based on an educational leaflet "The Recipe for Food Safety"
  58
  Mr. Portillo
  Members of the Department are required to disclose any personal interest they may have in matters for which they are responsible in an official capacity.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Eastern Europe (Food Sales)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the foods and quantities sold to countries in Eastern Europe in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Ryder
  The following information on United Kingdom exports to Eastern Europe is derived from the "Overseas Trade Statistics". It covers exports to Albania, Bulgaria, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland and Romania. Data for the whole of 1988 are not yet available.

  which will advise the general public on how to prevent food poisoning in the home. The leaflet will be distributed through supermarkets, doctors' surgeries and other outlets. The campaign will cost initially £50,000.

  Slugs
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has made any estimate of the size of the slug population; and what evidence he has of its rate of growth in recent years.

  Mr. Ryder
  Whilst I have no estimate of the size of the slug population, long-term monitoring shows no indication of a population explosion. Recent weather conditions have, however, encouraged greater slug activity which has caused local problems for cereal and oilseed rape growers in particular.

  Bottled Water (Nitrate Content)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and food what are the nitrate levels in the five most popular bottled waters sold in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ryder
  My Department does not keep records of the composition of all individual brands of bottled waters. Information on levels of nitrates in natural mineral waters should be available from the authority which has
  59
  "recognised" the water under the appropriate European Community rules. It may also be available from the exploiter of the water source.

  EC Produce (Chemical Treatment)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department takes to ensure that produce from other EEC states which has been treated with chemicals banned in the United Kingdom does not enter the United Kingdom market; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The United Kingdom now has over 1,000 statutory pesticide maximum residue levels (MRLs) under the Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Food) Regulations 1988. Some of these MRLs are set at levels designed to preclude use of certain pesticides and they apply to imported as well as home-produced food and crops. Other member states, like the United Kingdom, are free to approve pesticides not already banned in all member states under directive 79/117/EEC. Many pesticides approved for use here and elsewhere do not give rise to residues in food. However, if imported food were thought likely to contain undesirable residues of pesticides not approved in the United Kingdom, appropriate MRLs could be introduced and enforced under the regulations.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions during 1988 salmonella enteriditis was confirmed in egg-laying flocks and on which occasion he used his powers to prevent poultry or eggs from such units from being sold for human consumption.

  Mr. Ryder
  The provisional figures for 1988 show that salmonella enteritidis was isolated in 20 table-egg laying flocks. Where salmonella enteritidis has been isolated a veterinary investigation has been carried out and advice given. I announced last Friday in a parliamentary reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) that notices will be issued under the Zoonoses Order 1975 to egg producers with flocks known or suspected of infection with salmonella enteritidis or other similar types of salmonella. These notices will prevent the sale of eggs in a raw state direct for human consumption.

  Farmers (Direct Aid)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what information he has about the intention of EEC member states to introduce new direct aid schemes for farmers;

  (2) which European Economic Community member states currently operate direct income aids for farmers.

  Mr. Ryder
  None. The Council reached agreement on the Commission's income aid proposal on 24 January. Member states wishing to implement this optional regulation have four years in which to submit their proposals to the Commission.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take steps to introduce a direct income scheme for farmers.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have no plans to do so.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the total volume of each commodity held in the United Kingdom in storage under the common agricultural policy intervention regime.

  Mr. Ryder
  A note setting out the volume of United Kingdom intervention stocks of agricultural commodities is deposited in the Library of the House and updated monthly.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the level of expenditure incurred in the United Kingdom during 1988, for each commodity, in(a) common agricultural policy intervention buying and (b) storage.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ thousand

  1987–88 Outturn

  1988–89 Forecast

  Beef

  Intervention purchases

  100,759

  50,340

  Intervention sales

  -52,850

  -43,470

  Net cost of intervention buying

  47,909

  6,870

  Storage costs

  18,356

  10,190

  Cereals

  Intervention purchases

  5,470

  72,460

  Intervention sales

  -93,993

  -55,060

  Net cost of intervention buying

  -88,523

  17,400

  Storage costs

  59,560

  35,276

  Butter

  Intervention purchases

  133,837

  2,490

  Intervention sales

  -23,342

  -32,450

  Net cost of intervention buying

  110,495

  -29,960

  Storage costs

  18,309

  4,750

  Skimmed Milk Powder

  Intervention purchases

  363

  2,490

  Intervention sales

  -18,092

  -32,450

  Net cost of intervention buying

  -17,729

  -29,960

  Storage costs

  243

  4,750

  Oil-seeds

  Intervention purchases

  0

  7,240

  Intervention sales

  0

  -7,560

  Net cost of intervention buying

  0

  -320

  Storage costs

  0

  240

  Beef Producers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much financial support was available to British producers of beef for each of the last three years for which figures are available; and what is his estimate for the next full financial year in the light of the new regime announced on 24 January.

  Mr. Ryder
  Total expenditure in support of beef production in the United Kingdom in the last three financial years was as follows:

  £ million

  1985–86

  404·2

  1986–87

  312·0

  1987–88

  292·2

  61
  These figures comprise intervention purchases and sales, intervention storage costs, export refunds, beef variable premium, suckler cow premium, calf premium and the beef element of hill livestock compensatory allowances.

  In 1988–89 expenditure on the beef variable premium has been reduced as a result of firmer beef prices flowing from reductions in beef from the dairy herd. In 1989–90 expenditure will depend in particular on uptake of the special premium, the rate to be decided for the suckler cow premium and the extent to which the new system for intervention is activated.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the financial effect on the United Kingdom of the decision announced by the European Economic Community Council of farm Ministers at their meeting on 24 January.

  Mr. Ryder
  We are still assessing the financial consequences of the decisions reached at the Agriculture Council on 24 January. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Export Subsidies
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department takes to verify the notice of quantity of agricultural products exported from the United Kingdom with the aid of EEC export subsidies.

  Mr. Ryder
  Physical control of United Kingdom exports and imports, including those of agricultural products, is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Agriculture Industry
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when, further to his reply of 5 December, column 30, to the hon. Member for Daventry, he plans to publish data on the state of the agriculture industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. MacGregor: "Agriculture in the United Kingdom: 1988" has been published today by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I have made copies available in the Library of the House. As indicated in my earlier reply, this document is the successor to the annual review White Papers which have been published in previous years. The new publication contains enhanced information on commodities and on the general financial situation of the industry and provides a compendium of statistics, generally continuing the series which has been running for many years, and providing valuable data for all those with an interest in the industry.

  The document notes that 1988 was a year in which major policy developments took place in the United Kingdom and in the European Community generally. In the EC, the most significant development was the agreement reached at the European Council in February 1988, introducing budgetary discipline in the common agricultural policy and improving its management. Last year also saw the introduction of a number of United Kingdom schemes offering farmers the opportunity to
  62
  engage in commercially viable alternatives to surplus production. Set-aside, the farm woodland and farm diversification grant schemes were all introduced. The number of environmentally sensitive areas was increased and the reorientation of the capital grant scheme was announced.

  The different sectors of United Kingdom agriculture fared very differently during 1988. The situation of the industry reported in the document is therefore a complex one, but the following are among its main features.

  Cereal and oilseed rape yields were low due to poor weather and because of this and lower prices the value of output was significantly reduced. The value of output of potatoes fell sharply as a result of lower prices. Horticulture had a relatively good year, with most parts of the sector recording a higher value of output.

  Within the livestock sector, higher beef prices and increased production of lamb maintained the output value of these meats, but lower prices for pigmeat meant that this sector was depressed for much of the year. Milk production was further reduced by the quota arrangements, but the value of output was maintained by price increases. Production of poultrymeat continued to expand, but lower prices reduced the value of egg production. The forecasts exclude the effects of the recent disturbance in the egg market.

  There was little change in the overall quantity, average price or value of the industry's output, but with higher input costs its net product fell by nearly 7 per cent. which, after providing for labour and interest costs and net rent, was reflected in a 25 per cent. fall in farming income. However, no single measure can fully reflect the situation in such a diverse industry, and a variety of different compilations of the aggregate statistics, both United Kingdom and EC, can give different results. It is for that reason, among others, that I have recently suggested that we need a more sophisticated analysis of what is happening to farm incomes than a single aggregate measure can give. The document provides other indicator's of farming prosperity which show smaller falls. It also shows that there were considerable income variations among farm types. While the arable and intensive livestock sectors did less well, net income from dairying and hill and upland livestock farms showed marked increases in all parts of the United Kingdom, and net income from lowland livestock increased in England and Scotland. Overall, England fared less well than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  For the first time Inland Revenue sample data are included in the document. They indicate that income from farming has accounted for 50 to 60 per cent. of total taxable income in recent years. Other earned income has contributed a further 15 to 20 per cent. It is the Government's policy to encourage farmers to find ways of generating an increasing proportion of their income from activities which respond to market demand, including alternative employment of assets and business skills on the farm.

  These are sample data relating to earlier years. Further research and surveys are needed to get a more precise and accurate picture of the income position of farming households, and we are undertaking these.

SCOTLAND

  Rating Reform
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest estimates for the cost of collecting the poll tax in Strathclyde region.

  Mr. Lang
  Strathclyde regional council will have included an estimate of the cost of community charge collection in the budget which it has now set, but the council has not yet provided the Scottish Office with details of that budget.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what guidance he issues on the circumstances in which information used for the maintenance of the community charge registers may be disclosed to(a) other departments of Government, (b) the police and (c) public utilities;

  (2) what guidance he issues on the use of personal data collected by the community charge officer for community charge purposes as a general information resource for the charging authority to use for other purposes, and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  We have made no provision for personal data to be disclosed for the purposes or to the organisations mentioned by the hon. Member. Section 20(2)(b) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, as amended, provides that the extent to which a local authority shall be entitled to inspect the register shall be an entitlement to inspect such part of the register as relates to premises within their area for the purpose of determining, levying or collecting any community charge. I do not consider that specific guidance is required .in relation to either of these issues.

  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many responsible persons, as so described for the purpose of the community charge, had failed to complete properly the community charge inquiry forms in relation to their date of birth; on how many the £50 civil penalty had been imposed for this reason; and if he will give the information also for each regional council on 31 October 1988 and on the most recent convenient date.

  Mr. Lang
  The processing of community charges inquiry forms and the imposition of civil penalties are matters for individual community charges registration officers and the information requested is not held centrally.

  NHS Grading
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff from each of the old grades have been assimilated to each of the new grades in the recent clinical grading structure in each health board.

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

  Departmental Staff (Child Care)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what child care provision his Department provides for pre-school age children of the employees;64
  what child care provision for school holidays or after-school care is provided for employee's children aged five years and over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  Mr. Ritkind
  My Department does not provide child care facilities and has at present no plans to provide any. It has, however, publicised such facilities provided by others as have come to notice. The provision and funding of facilities for child care are being considered servicewide and my Department will review the situation in the light of developments.

  Hospital Waiting lists
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures for people waiting for hospital treatment in(a) Aberdeen, (b) Dundee, (c) Edinburgh, and (d) Greater Glasgow.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on waiting lists is collected centrally only for health board areas. The latest available information on hospital in-patient and day case waiting lists is published in statistical bulletin 1/88, "Waiting List Figures for 31 March 1988", copies of which are held in the Library.

  Area Conservation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Caerphilly of 24 January, he will list those schemes under which he makes payments to facilitate the conservation of certain areas.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Under the provisions of the environmentally sensitive area scheme and the agricultural development programme for the Scottish islands my right hon. and learned Friend may make payments to farmers and crofters who are prepared to undertake certain conservation measures.

  Ross Hall Hospital (Orthopaedic Operations)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many orthopaedic operations at National Health Service expense have been carried out at Ross Hall hospital to the latest available date; when this practice started; what is the total cost to date for the National Health Service; and what would be the bed requirement if these operations were carried out within National Health Service hospitals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of patients admitted to Ross Hall hospital for orthopaedic procedures as part of the waiting list initiatives is 52. The first of these patients was admitted in early 1988.

  The total cost to the National Health Service has been £154,144. The operations were carried out in order to shorten waiting times for the operations concerned. I visited Ross Hall hospital and learned at first hand how much this initiative by the board was appreciated by the patients concerned.

  School Leavers (University Courses)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of school leavers
  65
  entering full-time degree courses at university in each of the years from 1982–83 to 1987–88, inclusive, and from each local education authority, including 16 subdivisions of Strathclyde; and if he will express these figures as a proportion of the number of students in s4, s5, and s6 in each authority.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information in the form requested is not readily available centrally. The table shows the participation of young Scots in full-time university courses.

  Under 21 Scots entrants to full-time undergraduate courses at universities in the United Kingdom

  Column (1) expressed as a percentage of 17 year olds the previous year

  (1)

  (2)

  Session

  1982–83

  8,000

  8·5

  1983–84

  7,700

  8·4

  1984–85

  7,800

  8·7

  1985–86

  7,400

  8·4

  1986–87

  7,400

  8·5

  1987–88

  7,700

  9·2

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of people unemployed in each of the travel-to-work areas in September 1988 and September 1984.

  Mr. Lang
  The total number of unemployed claimants in each of the travel-to-work areas in Scotland in September 1988 and September 1984 was as shown in the table.

  Unemployed claimants

  Travel-to-work area

  September 1988

  September 1984

  Aberdeen

  10,073

  9,518

  Alloa

  2,767

  3,468

  Annan

  849

  1,241

  Arbroath

  1,455

  1,625

  Ayr

  4,899

  6,787

  Badenoch

  394

  517

  Banff

  838

  733

  Bathgate

  6,639

  10,210

  Berwickshire

  507

  629

  Blairgowrie and Pitlochry

  994

  1,272

  Brechin and Montrose

  1,312

  1,449

  Buckie

  459

  527

  Campbeltown

  586

  723

  Crieff

  345

  386

  Cumnock and Sanquhar

  3,735

  4,022

  Dumbarton

  4,799

  6,150

  Dumfries

  2,037

  2,547

  Dundee

  13,017

  16,919

  Dunfermline

  6,510

  7,476

  Dunoon and Bute

  1,184

  1,309

  Edinburgh

  28,850

  34,356

  Elgin

  1,551

  1,655

  Falkirk

  7,443

  10,959

  Forfar

  929

  1,018

  Forres

  599

  574

  Fraserburgh

  597

  770

  Galashiels

  851

  1,088

  Girvan

  640

  804

  Glasgow

  94,724

  114,805

  Greenock

  8,607

  9,140

  Haddington

  1,149

  1,065

  Hawick

  508

  798

  Huntly

  288

  313

  66

  Travel-to-work area

  September 1988

  September 1984

  Invergordon and Dingwall

  2,154

  3,057

  Inverness

  3,972

  3,908

  Irvine

  8,600

  12,013

  Islay-Mid Argyll

  515

  532

  Keith

  475

  576

  Kelso and Jedburgh

  327

  422

  Kilmarnock

  5,461

  6,002

  Kirkcaldy

  9,488

  10,276

  Lanarkshire

  24,806

  33,936

  Lochaber

  966

  1,263

  Lockerbie

  374

  501

  Newton Stewart

  532

  658

  North East Fife

  1,544

  1,761

  Oban

  660

  746

  Orkney Islands

  729

  707

  Peebles

  414

  517

  Perth

  2,677

  3,022

  Peterhead

  1,271

  1,628

  Shetland Islands

  626

  638

  Skye and Wester Ross

  776

  846

  Stewartry

  792

  957

  Stirling

  3,557

  4,900

  Stranraer

  1,135

  1,271

  Sutherland

  602

  822

  Thurso

  682

  718

  Western Isles

  2,105

  1,884

  Wick

  681

  779

  Note: Due to changes in the compilation of the statistics during the period these figures are not directly comparable.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of employees in employment by travel-to-work areas in September 1988.

  Mr. Lang
  The latest available figures, from the 1984 census of employment, are given on pages 28 and 29 of "Scottish Economic Bulletin" number 36 (December 1987), which is available in the Library of the House.

  Job Creation
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number and categories of jobs which have been created by the Inverclyde initiative since the date of its inception in 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Inverclyde initiative does not in itself directly create new jobs. Its aim is to stimulate local economic activity and create opportunities for employment.

  The initiative records show that between March 1985, when the initiative was launched, and December 1988, 2,613 new jobs have been created by companies in the area. Of these, 1,034 were in manufacturing and 1,579 in the service sector.

  Teachers (Working Hours)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what systematic information his Department gathers about the average working hours of teachers in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The timetabled working hours in school in a normal working week subdivided by time in contact with pupils and time out of contact with pupils is collected biennially from each teacher in education authority primary and secondary schools. Due to industrial action in schools, the most recent comprehensive data available relate to September 1984.

  Whole Body Monitoring
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now consider extending the programme for whole body monitoring on a systematic basis to the whole of Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government have funded a programme of research into whole body monitoring covering Scotland as a whole which has been undertaken by the Scottish universities research and reactor centre at East Kilbride. The final report of that work has been prepared and will be published shortly.

  Education Reform
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total spending in his Department on press, public relations and advertising on education in 1986–87 and 1987–88 and the projected expenditure for 1988–89.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 17 January 1989]: Expenditure was £5,000 in 1986–87 and £20,000 in 1987–88, and is estimated to be about £26,500 in 1988–89.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Fund
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the percentage of the annual social fund budget allocated for each month of 1988–89 for grants and loans(a) in the Edinburgh, Leith local office and (b) in each of the other local offices in Lothian region; and what social fund claims and payments have been made to date, broken down into (i) the number of social fund claims issued and returned for each of grants, budget loans, and for crisis loans, (ii) the number of awards, partial awards and refusals for both grants and loans, (iii) the average payment and (iv) the number of awards successful on review; and if he will give the loans for claimant group 'E', 'A' and pensioners.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Details of the numbers of applications for social fund loans and grants processed and awarded, listed by local office, including information on annual budget allocations and expenditure, are in the Library. Local offices do not, however, have monthly budgets. To assist local office management, there is a national profile of anticipated monthly expenditure which may be adjusted to reflect local demands. Details of the national profile were given in my predecessor's reply to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 11 July 1988 at column 61.

  No statistics are maintained on the number of application forms issued to potential social fund applicants and their representatives.

  Details of the number of awards successful on review and the numbers of loans awarded to each social fund client group in the offices requested for the year to the end of December 1988 are shown in the tables.

  A. The number of social fund awards successful on review

  Local office

  Number

  Amount awarded (£)

  Bathgate

  143

  25,882·19

  Edinburgh City

  9

  1,558·55

  Edinburgh East

  127

  21,041·69

  68

  Local office

  Number

  Amount awarded (£)

  Edinburgh North

  21

  3,138·40

  Edinburgh South

  75

  12,381·78

  Edinburgh West

  53

  6,609·64

  Total

  428

  70,612·25

  Loans awarded to social fund client groups

  Client group

  Loans awarded

  Amount granted (£)

  01

  74

  12,876·29

  02

  76

  14,245·38

  03

  318

  53,948·25

  04

  64

  12,152·46

  05

  593

  85,311·48

  06

  436

  69,063·44

  07

  4,108

  726,898·36

  08

  59

  10,945·05

  09

  224

  26,402·86

  10

  1,509

  288,461·74

  11

  4,159

  384,959·82

  12

  82

  13,399·53

  13

  1,294

  100,298·40

  15

  638

  32,433·82

  C. List of social fund client group codes.

  Code

  Client Group

  01

  Aged over 80 with higher pension premium

  02

  Aged 60 to 79 disabled with higher pensioner premium

  03

  Aged 60 to 79 with ordinary pensioner premium or over 60 without pensioner premium

  Applicant and partner aged under 60

  04

  Lone parent with disability premium

  05

  Family with disability premium

  06

  Other with disability premium

  07

  Lone parent without disability premium

  08

  Unemployed with family premium—signing quarterly

  09

  Unemployed without family premium—signing quarterly

  10

  Unemployed or with training allowance—with family premium

  11

  Unemployed or with training allowance—without family premium

  12

  Others with family premium

  13

  Others without family premium

  15

  Applicants not receiving Income Support

  Benefits
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the amount of benefits to which people are entitled but which is not claimed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No precise estimates of total unclaimed benefits can be provided and those figures which the Department does publish give no more than the broadest orders of magnitude. I refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 21 to 25 and table 15.17 on pages 272 to 273 of Cm. 288 (the 1988 public expenditure White Paper) for details of the latest available take-up estimates for the main income-related benefits. Take-up estimates for 1985 should be available shortly.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the levels of statutory sick pay and of sick benefit and invalidity benefit; whether they are earnings related; and if there is a minimum and a maximum sum.
  69
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Statutory sick pay is payable at one of two rates, depending on an employee's average weekly earnings. The present rates are £49·20 where average weekly earnings are £79·50 or more and £34·25 where they are between £41 and £79·49. SSP is subject to deductions for tax and national insurance contributions, where appropriate.

  Sickness benefit is a flat-rate payment of £31·30 per week for persons under minimum pension age and £39·45 per week for persons over that age. These sums are increased by £19·40 and £23·65 respectively where there is entitlement for an adult dependant.

  The basic invalidity pension is a flat-rate payment of £41·15 per week with increases of £24·75 for an adult dependant and £8·40 for each dependent child. Two other increases may be payable with invalidity pension. An additional earnings-related pension is payable based on the claimant's earnings since 1978. The maximum increase payable in 1987 was £29·11, but the average amount in payment was £4·30. An invalidity allowance is payable at one of three rates where the claimant's incapacity began more than five years before pension age. The rates are £8·65 per week (under 40); £5·50 (40–49) and £2·75 (50–59 (men); 50–54 (women)). But where there is entitlement to both increases, invalidity allowance is offset against the additional pension, so in effect the higher of the two sums is payable. Neither sickness benefit nor invalidity benefit is taxable.

  Where the claimant has been in hospital for six weeks, sickness or invalidity benefit is reduced by £8·25 a week if the claimant has a dependant and £16·50 if not. After a year in hospital there is a further reduction of £8·25 where the patient has a dependant. If he has no dependant the benefit payable is reduced to £8·25 a week.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many payments have been made under the cold weather payments scheme for each of the weeks in 1989 in(a) Nottingham and (b) the country as a whole.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None.

  Maternity Benefits
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report the most recent available figures showing (a) the number of maternity payments from the social fund made to women on income support and the take-up rate for this benefit, (b) the number of awards of free milk and vitamins made to pregnant women on income support and the take-up rate for this benefit and (c) the number of pregnant women on income support.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is as follows:

  (a) 95,700 social fund maternity payments were made to women on income support between 11 April 1988 and 31 November 1988;

  (b) information is not yet available on the number of awards of free milk and vitamins to women on income support. The May 1987 annual statistical inquiry showed 47,000 such awards to women receiving supplementary benefit;

  (c) pregnant women are not separately identified for income support purposes.

  It is not therefore possible to provide information about take up for either maternity payments or free milk and vitamins.

  Benefits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people over pensionable age in Great Britain have had their total social security benefits reduced to less than £1 per week as a result of changes to the housing benefit regulations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret this information is not available.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of(a) claimants and (b) dependants on supplementary benefits income support for each year since 1979 for Great Britain, England, Wales and Scotland.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is as follows:

  Number of claimants in receipt of Supplementary Benefit or Income Support

  Great Britain

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  1979

  2,855,000

  2,396,000

  172,000

  286,000

  1980

  3,118,000

  2,627,000

  186,000

  304,000

  1981

  3,723,000

  3,131,000

  221,000

  371,000

  1982

  4,267,000

  3,590,000

  253,000

  423,000

  1983

  4,349,000

  3,649,000

  260,000

  440,000

  1984

  4,609,000

  3,866,000

  275,000

  468,000

  1986

  4,938,000

  4,141,000

  291,000

  506,000

  1987

  4,896,000

  4,073,000

  287,000

  535,000

  1988

  4,354,000

  3,596,000

  259,000

  499,000

  Number of partners and dependent children of claimants in receipt of Supplementary Benefit or Income Support

  Great Britain

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  1979

  1,516,000

  1,256,000

  95,000

  164,000

  1980

  1,745,000

  1,465,000

  104,000

  177,000

  1981

  2,399,000

  2,013,000

  149,000

  237,000

  1982

  2,803,000

  2,348,000

  173,000

  281,000

  1983

  2,888,000

  2,438,000

  178,000

  273,000

  1984

  3,119,000

  2,618,000

  198,000

  304,000

  1986

  3,353,000

  2,821,000

  207,000

  326,000

  1987

  3,309,000

  2,789,000

  194,000

  327,000

  1988

  3,018,000

  2,510,000

  182,000

  327,000

  Source for both tables:

  1979–1987 Annual Statistical Enquiry.

  1988 May Quarterly Statistical Inquiry.

  Notes:

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

  2. There was no Annual Statistical Inquiry in 1985: the one due in December that year was deferred until February 1986.

  Incomes
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the average growth in incomes in each of the last 10 years of(a) households in the sixth decile group and (b) pensioners' households in the sixth decile group of pensioner households;

  (2) what was the average growth in incomes in each of the last 10 years of (a) households in the seventh decile group and (b) pensioners' households in the seventh decile group of pensioner households.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 23 January at column 414.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest figures for family credit take-up in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales, (d) the United Kingdom and (e) Greater Glasgow.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  For the figures for Great Britain as a whole, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 13 January 1989 at columns 781–82. No breakdown of this figure between countries or areas is available. The family credit scheme in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will immediately undertake an in-depth study of the high extra costs of disability, as advocated by the Disablement Income Group in its recent report entitled, "Being Disabled Costs More Than They Said", in order to supplement the information on extra costs derived recently from the survey of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Mr. Scott
  In view of the differences in size, scope and method between the OPCS and Disablement Income Group surveys, we are not persuaded that further research is needed to explain the apparent discrepancy in findings. However I can assure the right hon. Member that we shall take careful account of the DIG report in our consideration of the OPCS findings.

  Benzodiazepines
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are at present receiving sick or invalidity benefit as a result of withdrawing from benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that this information is not held.

  Income Support
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow can expect a reply to his letter, dated 30 December 1988, regarding income support for unemployed young people.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 27 January.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications have been made to date for social fund(a) community care grants, (b) budgeting loans and (c) crisis loans; and how many have been refused in each category.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information for the period to 30 November, the latest date for which firm figures are available, is in the national summary tables in the Library.

  AIDS
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated average annual benefit 72
  cost and total eventual benefit cost of (a) each AIDS patient from the time of being identified as HIV positive and (b) each drug addict seeking treatment.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department does not collect statistical information about benefit claims by AIDS patients and drug addicts. It is therefore not possible to make such estimates.

EMPLOYMENT

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current weight in the retail prices index for(a) mortgage interest payments, (b) rents, (c) rates and (d) other housing costs; and what information he has to the equivalent weights in the consumer price indices for other European Community countries.

  Mr. Lee
  The weights (per thousand) for the components of housing used in the retail prices index are: mortgage interest payments 42, rent 33, rates 43 and other housing costs 42 (water and sewerage charges, repairs and maintenance charges, do-it-yourself materials, dwelling insurance and ground rent).

  Housing costs are not similarly defined in other countries, and detailed comparisons are not possible. The weights assigned to the shelter element of housing costs in the consumer price indices of EC countries involve different coverage and concepts, and comparisons should be treated with caution. The figures are as follows:

  Weights for Shelter costs in consumer price indices Countries including owner occupiers cost and rents

  Weights per 1,000

  Weights

  United Kingdom

  75

  Germany

  148

  Holland

  164

  Ireland

  37

  Denmark

  166

  Spain

  127

  Countries including rents only

  Weights

  France

  69

  Italy

  40

  Belgium

  64

  Greece

  54

  Channel Tunnel (Death)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will call for a report from the Health and Safety Executive on the circumstances in which a teenager was killed in an industrial accident in the Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive are carrying out an investigation into the circumstances of the accident in the Channel tunnel on 23 January 1989.

  Mines (Safety)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those people and organisations he consulted before making the regulations regarding the safety of exit from mines.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Consultations on proposed regulations to govern health and safety at work are undertaken by the Health and Safety Commission before proposals are made to my right hon. Friend for approval.

  The organisations listed were formally consulted by the Health and Safety Commission before the proposed regulations on safety of exit from mines were submitted to my right hon. Friend:

  Confederation of British Industry

  British Coal

  Cornish Chamber of Mines

  Federation of Small Mines of Great Britain

  Gypsum Mining Association

  Mining Association of the United Kingdom

  British Ball Clay Producers Association

  Other Miscellaneous Mines interests via relevant Mines and Quarries Inspectors in charge of districts

  Trades Union Congress

  National Union of Mineworkers

  British Association of Colliery Management

  National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shot-firers

  Transport and General Workers Union

  General Municipal and Boilermakers' Union

  Department of Employment

  Department of Energy

  Department of the Environment

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Scottish Office

  Welsh Office

  Northern Ireland Office

  Northern Ireland Department of Economic Development

  Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland

  Institution of Mining Engineers

  Institution of Mining Electrical and Mining Mechanical Engineers

  Institution of Mining and Metallurgy

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has of the number of accidents involving men employed by contractors in mines in 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table below lists actual recorded accidents to men employed by contractors:

  Fatal

  Major Injury

  Plus three day1

  1986

  1

  44

  162

  1987

  1

  58

  183

  1988

  2

  85

  319

  Source: British Coal.

  1 The introduction of the RIDDOR regulations on 1 April 1986 broadened the categories of reportable accidents. Figures for other mines are not readily available.

  Radiation Overdoses
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what records are kept of incidents of radiation over/dosage within the National Health Service; and how many such incidents have been recorded in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive keeps a record of all over/exposures of employees and other 74
  persons, and also of medical exposures of patients that are much greater than intended because of malfunction of or defect in the radiation equipment used, that are required to be notified under the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985.

  Since 1 December 1986, the earliest date for which such records are centrally available, the number of overdose incidents within the National Health Service which have been reported to the Health and Safety Executive in each year are as follows:

  Number

  1986

  5

  1987

  8

  1988

  4

  Workers' Charter
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will be seeking in the context of the single European market to introduce a workers' charter with particular reference to mergers and closures of companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on Tuesday 17 January 1989 Official Report, column 186.

  Tourism
  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to encourage the tourist industry in Suffolk and Norfolk to take advantage of the Channel tunnel and the European single market.

  Mr. Lee
  The British Tourist Authority (BTA), which is sponsored by my Department, is doing a great deal both to identify and publicise the measures the tourist industry, including that in Norfolk and Suffolk, need to take. The BTA is co-sponsoring a major conference on 1 and 2 February on the impact on tourism of the completion of the single European market at which my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I will speak.

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the progress of the tourism review that he announced on 18 July 1988.

  Mr. Fowler
  As the public expenditure White Paper makes clear, the Government's expenditure plans provide for my Department's total spending on tourism to be maintained at the current level, pending decisions following the review of tourism policy I announced in July.

  A scheme of financial assistance has been operated for nearly 20 years now by the English tourist board under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969. Commitments have already been made to provide over £ 10 million in assistance through the scheme in 1989–90, and some £3 million in 1990–91 and 1991–92. The scheme offers grants, and other assistance, and was introduced and maintained against a background of difficulty in attracting investment for tourism projects. Tourism is now one of Britain's largest and fastest growing industries. The confidence of the industry has been reflected in continuing high levels of investment. In England, almost £2 billion

  75
  was invested in major tourism and leisure projects completed or under way during the first six months of 1988. In these circumstances, I have decided to suspend the scheme to fresh applications until decisions can be taken on the fully range of matters covered by the review.

  I have asked the chairman of the English tourist board to close the scheme to further applications and to make no more offers of assistance subsequent to those approved at the meeting of the board already arranged for 14 February until I have had the opportunity to consider the future of Government support for the tourism industry.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many men and women over 50 years of age have been without work for one year or more within the following occupational groupings; and what percentages these represent of the total number of unemployed people over 50 years(a) managerial and professional, (b) clerical and related, (c) other non-manual, (d) craft and similar, (e) general labourers and (f) other manual.

  Mr. Lee
  Estimates are available from the labour force survey for unemployed people who left their last jobs less than three years ago, as follows:

  Unemployed people1 aged 50 or over who left their last job less than three years ago2

  Occupational grouping

  All in group Thousands

  Those who left their last job a year or more ago

  Thousands

  Per cent.

  Men and women

  Managerial and professional

  67

  31

  46

  Clerical and related

  30

  14

  45

  Other non-manual

  14

  3—

  3—

  Craft and similar

  61

  27

  45

  General labourers

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Other manual

  104

  52

  50

  All occupational groupings

  280

  131

  47

  Men

  Managerial and professional

  51

  24

  47

  Clerical and related

  10

  3—

  3—

  Other non-manual

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Craft and similar

  57

  26

  45

  General labours

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Other manual

  73

  38

  52

  All occupational groupings

  201

  95

  47

  Women

  Managerial and professional

  16

  3—

  3—

  Clerical and related

  20

  3—

  3—

  Other non-manual

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Craft and similar

  3—

  3—

  3—

  General labourers

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  General index

  5·0

  6·1

  3·4

  4·2

  4·9

  General index excluding housing

  4·3

  4·9

  3·0

  3·3

  4·0

  One-person pensioner index

  5·0

  4·9

  3·2

  2·3

  3·7

  Two-person pensioner index

  5·1

  4·9

  3·2

  2·6

  3·8

  Advertising
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the subjects of his Department's
  76

  Occupational grouping

  All in group Thousands

  Those who left their last job a year or more ago

  Thousands

  Per cent.

  Other manual

  31

  15

  47

  All occupational groupings

  79

  36

  45

  1Based on ILO/OECD measure of unemployment.

  2Information about last occupational grouping was not sought from unemployed people who had not been employed within the last three years.

  3Less than 10,000 in cell: estimate not shown.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the level of achievement of the Christmas guarantee for school leavers; and what is the average period of payment of bridging allowance for those awaiting YTS.

  Mr. Cope
  The previous "Christmas guarantee" of an offer of a YTS place for the previous summer's school leavers has been extended to a general guarantee of an offer of a YTS place to all 16 and 17-year-olds not in full-time education or employment whenever they apply. This guarantee is being fulfilled; there are more than sufficient YTS places available in all areas of the country for any young person who applies.

  Information on the average period of payment of bridging allowance is not available.

  Discrimination
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will take steps to ratify ILO convention No. 111 on discrimination in employment and occupation (1958).

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. The Government have no plans to introduce legislation to effect the changes that ratification of this convention would entail.

  Cost of Living
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the increase in(a) the general index of retail prices and (b) the indices for one and two-person pensioner households during the last five calendar years; and what proportion of the difference is accounted for by differing treatment of housing costs.

  Mr Lee
  The percentage increases are given in the following table. Housing costs are not covered by the pensioner indices and data is not available to estimate what their effect would be if they were. However, a like-with-like comparison can be made between the pensioner indices and the general index excluding housing, and the percentage increases for this are also given in the table.

  advertising campaigns in each of the last three years; how much was spent on each; what subjects are projected for advertising in the year 1988–89; and how much expenditure is planned for each.
  77
  Mr. Cope
  The amount spent by the Department of Employment on advertising campaigns in each of the last three financial years, together with the subjects, is contained in the tables:

  £ million

  1985–86

  Action for Jobs

  0·04

  Career Development Loans

  0·03

  Part Time Job Release and Job Splitting Scheme

  0·03

  Total

  0·10

  1986–87

  Action for Jobs

  12·2

  Career Development Loans

  0·2

  New Workers Scheme

  0·3

  Total

  12·7

  1987–88

  Action for Jobs

  5·4

  Job Share

  0·1

  Job Release/New Workers Scheme

  0·1

  Career Development Loans

  0·1

  Small Firms Service

  0·3

  Other

  0·1

  Total

  6·1

  The amount committed to advertising campaigns in the financial year 1988-89, together with the subjects, is contained in the following table:

  £ million

  1988–89

  Action for Jobs

  0·6

  Career Development Loans

  0·3

  Fit for Work/Disabled Persons

  0·1

  Jobclub

  1·1

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme

  0·6

  Better off in Work

  3·0

  Small Finns Service

  0·5

  Total

  6·2

  This total includes expenditure by the employment service in its first full financial year within the Department. Other publicity activities to promote Departmental

  Accidents1

  Annual incidence rate per 100,000 trainees

  Period

  Average number in training

  Fatalities

  Major injuries

  Minor injuries

  Fatalities

  Major injuries

  1 April 1985 to 31 March 1986

  263,748

  42

  2220

  1,891

  0·8

  283·4

  1 April 1986 to 31 March 1987

  296,298

  59

  2315

  1,728

  3·0

  2106·3

  1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988

  3375,844

  67

  2505

  2,604

  1·9

  2134·3

  1 Training Agency accident figures for YTS are compiled on a similar basis to those prepared by the Health and Safety Executive on employed persons. However, Training agency figures will include a number of accidents, in particular road traffic accidents during scheme time and accidents to trainees in educational establishments, which may not have been reportable to the Executive had the individuals been employed.

  2 The figures on major accidents and the incidence rates on major accidents in 1985–86 are not comparable to those in 1986–87 and in subsequent years due to a reclassification of major injuries effective from 1 April 1986. The reclassification means that some injuries, in particular broken wrists and ankles, which were classified as minor injuries before that date, are now classified as major injuries.

  3 These figures are provisional.

  4 This figure includes 1 road traffic accident.

  5 This figure includes 4 road traffic accidents.

  6 This figure includes 2 road traffic accidents.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish details, as soon as they become available, of(a) compensation paid to YTS trainees because of accidents in 1988, (b) the amount paid
  78
  objectives are under consideration, within published expenditure limits. All the figures in the tables include production costs and VAT.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will name the sites referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Elmet on 25 January, and specify the modifications to existing methods of work which have been agreed in each case.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The sites and action taken are as follows:

  (a) Godkin Opencast Coal Quarry, Derbyshire—owned by Northern Strip Mining plc—Mineral: Coal. Immediate prohibition notice issued preventing planned development in the area of a dam wall within the site. Subsequent investigation has produced a method of safe working which complies with the requirements of the notice.

  (b) Station Road Opencast Coal Quarry, Derbyshire—owned by Northern Strip Mining plc-Mineral: Coal, and

  (c) Dixon Opencast Coal Quarry, Derbyshire—owned by Coal Contractors Ltd.—Mineral: Coal.

  At both the above sites, action was taken to redirect the river Rother into purpose-built main river courses, which included flood plains and banks.

  (d) Blindwell Opencast Coal Quarry, East Lothian—owned by Fairclough Parkingson of Wakefield—Mineral: Coal.

  The proposed stand-off distance between the highwall and the main Edinburgh-London railway line was increased and the slope of the highwall redesigned to increase the safety margin.

  Youth Training
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many fatalities, major injuries, and minor injuries occurred to those in training on YTS programmes during(a) 1 April 1985 to 31 March 1986, (b) 1 April 1986 to 31 March 1987 and (c) 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988; and what was the incidence rate for fatal and major accidents per 100,000 at risk during each of these years.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 27 January 19891: The following table sets out the YTS accident figures and incidence rates per 100,000 trainees on YTS for fatal and major accidents.

  to families whose daughter or son died whilst on a YTS during 1988 and (c)j the lowest and highest payment made in relation to (a) and (b) above.
  79
  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 25 January 1989]: Payments made to YTS trainees or their families in these circumstances are not intended as compensation.

  Managing agents and training managers are contractually obliged to obtain insurance cover for any claims for compensation or damages.

  Until 11 April 1988 the Training Commission paid industrial death grants under its analogous industrial injuries scheme to ensure that trainees' families received the same amount of benefit as families of employees would have received under the (then) Department of Health and Social Security scheme. Death grants were payable at the standard rates of £52 for single parent and £78 for two parents. During the period 1 January 1988 to 10 April 1988 there was one death for which a death grant was claimed and a payment of £52 was made. The Training Commission grant was discontinued from 11 April 1988 when the equivalent grant in respect of employees was abolished by social security regulations.

  The Training Agency continues to pay industrial injuries benefit to trainees on the same basis as that paid

  Date of death

  Circumstances of death

  Training Agency area office

  Youth opportunities programme

  24 October 1980

  Road traffic accident

  Wrexham

  1 December 1980

  Clothing caught fire

  Grampian and Tayside

  27 January 1981

  Electrocuted

  Wrexham

  13 March 1981

  Struck by gas cylinder

  Birmingham

  16 June 1981

  Trapped between vehicles

  Swansea

  1 October 1981

  Road traffic accident

  Lancashire

  2 October 1981

  Struck by load which fell off fork lift truck

  Nottingham

  24 November 1981

  Road traffic accident

  Highlands and Islands

  11 December 1981

  Collapsed while clearing snow

  London

  8 January 1982

  Fell from rope hoist

  Humberside

  14 May 1982

  Drowned while swimming during lunch break

  High Wycombe

  16 July 1982

  Tractor overturned

  Devon and Cornwall

  20 July 1982

  Drowned while swimming during lunch break

  Glasgow

  14 October 1982

  Clothing caught fire

  Lanarkshire

  2 December 1982

  Trapped in machinery

  Cardiff

  20 December 1982

  Hit by moving machinery

  Sheffield

  1 April 1983

  Road traffic accident

  Beds and Cambs

  16 April 1983

  Tractor accident

  Coventry

  12 July 1983

  Drowned while swimming during lunch break

  Lanarkshire

  Youth training scheme

  27 June 1983

  Road traffic accident

  Leicester

  7 September 1983

  Fell down mine shaft

  Newcastle

  12 October 1983

  Fork lift truck accident

  Lanarkshire

  1 March 1984

  Tractor accident

  Gloucester

  27 July 1984

  Road traffic accident

  Lothian and Borders

  22 August 1984

  Road traffic accident

  Horsham

  24 September 1984

  Dumper truck overturned

  Avon

  12 February 1985

  Clothing caught fire

  Cheshire

  26 February 1985

  Trapped under vehicle when jack collapsed

  Ayrshire, Dumfries Galloway

  29 July 1985

  Electrocuted

  Lancashire

  20 August 1985

  Road traffic accident

  Greater Manchester Central

  7 May 1986

  Road traffic accident

  Wrexham

  14 May 1986

  Fall from ladder

  Avon

  30 June 1986

  Road traffic accident

  Chatham

  3 October 1986

  Loading materials—trapped neck

  Grampian and Tayside

  11 November 1986

  Trapped between trailer roof and workshop roof beam

  Wrexham

  26 November 1986

  Electrocuted

  Gloucester

  23 December 1986

  Road traffic accident

  Wakefield

  4 March 1987

  Fell into grain silo on farm

  Wrexham

  18 March 1987

  Road traffic accident

  Ipswich

  14 April 1987

  Road traffic accident

  Dudley/Sandwell (b)

  17 August 1987

  Trapped under tractor wheels

  Derby

  23 October 1987

  Struck by material falling off fork lift truck

  Leeds/North Yorks

  16 November 1987

  Tractor accident

  Devon/Cornwall

  14 December 1987

  Trapped in silage machine

  Gwent

  12 January 1988

  Road traffic accident

  Renfrew, Dumbarton and

  Argyll

  13–15 January 1988

  Lost at sea

  Devon/Cornwall

  (exact date not known)

  80
  to employees. The total amount paid out in 1988 was £534,092. Details of the highest and lowest amounts paid could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list in the Official Report, the (a) date, (b) cause of fatality, (c) parliamentary constituency and (d) amount of compensation received for each death on youth opportunities programme and YTS since the schemes' inceptions, to the latest available date.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 25 January 1989]: The available information for fatalities on the youth opportunities programme and YTS is provided in the table. Information on the location is available only by Training Agency area. The Training Agency and its predecessors do not pay compensation, but under YTS managing agents and training managers are contractually obliged to obtain insurance to cover any claims to compensation or damages. Until 11 April 1988 the Training Agency paid an industrial death grant equivalent to the payments received from DHSS had the young people been employees.
  81

  Date of death

  Circumstances of death

  Training Agency area office

  5 August 1988 (c)

  Explosion in garage

  Cardiff

  17 August 1988 (c)

  Fall from ladder

  Marches

  18 August 1988 (c)

  Struck by arm and bucket of mechanical digger

  Grampian and Tayside

  14 September 1988 (c)

  Road traffic accident

  Staffs

  6 October 1988 (c)

  Road traffic accident

  Central and Fife

  2 November 1988 (c)

  Road traffic accident

  Merseyside

  2 November 1988 (c)

  Flash during fire at paint manufacturers

  Humberside

ENERGY

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest estimate available to him from the South of Scotland electricity board and the Central Electricity Generating Board of the cost of(a) doubling and (b) trebling the carrying capacity of the interconnector between Scotland and England.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what meetings or representations he has recently had on the potential transmission of spare electricity generating capacity from Scotland into England and Wales.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I understand that the industry announced today that it will, in the near future, proceed with preparatory work which will involve a full environmental study and discussions with local authorities and other interested bodies with a view to upgrading the interconnector to 1·6 GW by 1994. The cost of upgrading the interconnector and the decision to proceed beyond preparatory work will be a matter for commercial negotiation.

  Berkeley Power Station
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has received any representations from the Central Electricity Generating Board on the financial implications for privatisation of its most recent estimate of the cost of decommissioning Berkeley nuclear power station.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No.

  British Gas
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the British Gas Corporation; and what matters he discussed.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of British Gas plc in November, when a range of issues of mutual interest were discussed.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has received from housing authorities and associations concerning the insulation of domestic properties as part of the energy efficiency programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Housing authorities and associations deal mainly with the Department of the Environment, with which my Department has regular contact.

  Energy Efficiency Office
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has plans to restore the budget of his Energy Efficiency Office to the level allocated in 1985–86.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The budget of my Energy Efficiency Office for 1989–90 is £15 million.

  European Fast Reactor
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had about the European fast reactor programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in the European collaborative programme on the development of fast reactor technology; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is now discussing with our partners in the European collaboration the details of an integrated programme of research on fast reactors. The implementing agreements, which provide the framework for this work, should be signed shortly.

  North Sea Oil
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give(a) the estimates and (b) the actual amounts of recoverable oil resources obtained from the North sea for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer my hon. Friend to the forecasts and actual levels of oil production published annually in the Brown Book, my Department's report to Parliament on the development of United Kingdom oil and gas resources; following is a summary.

  Million tonnes of oil produced in United Kingdom from 1984–1988 (includes condensate and gross natural gas liquid output)

  Year of Brown Book forecast

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1983

  95–125

  95–125

  85–120

  —

  —

  1984

  110–130

  110–130

  100–125

  85–115

  80–115

  1985

  —

  120–135

  110–130

  95–125

  85–120

  1986

  —

  —

  120–135

  110–130

  100–125

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  115–130

  105–125

  1988

  —

  —

  —

  —

  105–125

  Actual

  126

  127

  127

  123

  —

  Note: Forecasts may vary from year to year, as new information on resources becomes available and as companies' plans develop. Actual production for 1988 is not yet available. Non-North Sea production accounts for about 0·5 mt of production a year.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the costs of abandoning oil installations in the North sea.
  83
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) on 12 December 1988 at column 482.

  Energy Demand
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his assessment of the impact of the introduction of the European Commission directive on energy information in buildings on the level of energy demand in the United Kingdom by the year 2000.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  No such assessment has been made. In its present form, the draft directive would require energy audits to be carried out on a mandatory basis; as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) on 9 November 1988, I consider that, while the Government encourage consumers to take energy efficiency into account, it is entirely a matter for the seller and the buyer and one in which it would not be appropriate for the Government to intervene.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the total cost to public funds of the consultancy fees for advice on the sale to the private sector of the electricity supply industry in each of the years 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Estimate provision for 1988–89 for expenditure associated with the sale of shares in the electricity supply industry in England and Wales is for £6 million, mainly for advisers. Latest forecasts of requirement for 1989–90 will be published as part of the Supply Estimates in March.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the United Kingdom's total national energy needs he estimates will be met by the private sector following privatisation of the electricity industry.

  Mr. Parkinson
  If the market shares held by the various fuel producers stay unchanged, some 87 per cent. of final energy consumption will be met by the private sector after electricity privatisation, compared to 73 per cent. in 1987.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the total cost of advertising the proposed sale to the private sector of the 17 parts of the electricity supply industry in each of the years 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–91

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The total costs of advertising, public relations and publicity will not be determined until much closer to the date at which the successor companies to the electricity supply industry are offered for sale.

  Independent Electricity Producers
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of electrical capacity likely to be provided by new independent producers who have so far indicated proposals.

  Mr. Parkinson
  We know of nearly 20 proposed independent generation projects with a total capacity of some 7 GW.

  Neighbourhood Energy Action
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on progress with the neighbourhood energy action community insulation programme.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  In the current financial year to end December an estimated 105,000 homes have been insulated by community insulation projects, bringing the total number of homes insulated under this programme to more than 580,000. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy informed the House on 13 January at column 772, uptake of places for unemployed people has been slow under employment training. My Department is therefore in discussion with the Training Agency on initiatives to increase the number of filled places.

  Offshore Trade Unions
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the representatives of the offshore trade unions.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I will be meeting the EETPU on 27 February and the TUC on 28 February. On 5 April, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be chairing a meeting of the offshore industry liaison committee which includes representatives of the oil industry, suppliers, and trades unions.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are his responsibilities in relation to energy conservation.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Under the Ministry of Fuel and Power Act 1945, the Secretary of State for Energy is charged with promoting economy and efficiency in the supply, distribution, use and consumption of fuel and power. Under the Gas Act 1986, the Secretary of State has a duty to promote efficiency and economy on the part of persons authorised to supply gas through pipes and the efficient use of gas supplied through pipes.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his target for energy conservation in the Government estate and the progress of interdepartmental co-ordination.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Plans are being drawn up for a fresh campaign to improve energy efficiency in the public sector.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will state the number of jobs that would be created in a programme of domestic energy conservation, namely draught proofing and the insulation of homes, to displace the equivalent energy supplied by one large power station.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  There is no straightforward relationship between energy efficiency programmes and displaced electrical energy.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what expenditure is going into research into energy conservation and implementation of an energy conservation strategy; and if he will make a statement.
  85
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The 1988–89 estimate provision available to the Energy Efficiency Office of my Department is £20·8 million, of which £5·4 million is for research and development, including the monitoring and targeting programme, and £7·1 million for the demonstration programme.

  Burgoyne Committee
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he intends to implement the recommendations of the Burgoyne committee on safety in the offshore oil and gas industry.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 12 December 1988, at columns 477–78.

  British Coal
  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the level of employment in British Coal in 1990 and 1995.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) on 12 December 1988 at column 477.

  Electricity Council
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Electricity Council. and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I meet the chairman of the Electricity Council regularly to discuss a variety of issues of mutual interest.

  Wind Energy
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what target he has set for the percentage of electricity to be generated by wind energy by the year 2000 in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No targets have been set for the year 2000. Renewable energy technologies are at an early stage of development and there is great uncertainty about future projections. Energy paper 55 estimated that by the year 2025 wind energy might provide up to the equivalent of 10 per cent. of current electricity requirements if the technology can be proven and applied commercially. It is Government policy to encourage the maximum exploitation of renewable energy sources wherever they have prospects of being economically viable and environmentally acceptable.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the contribution made to the west Cumbrian economy by British Nuclear Fuels plc at Sellafield.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  British Nuclear Fuels plc makes a major contribution to the economy of west Cumbria, and the capital investment programme for Sellafield will 86
  amount to some £4 billion by the end of the century. The company currently employs some 7,200 people at the site, while those employed there by contractors is expected to rise from the current level of some 6,000 to some 8,000 by 1991. In recent years, BNFL spent an average of £1 million a year on major schemes to help the local community. The company has recently committed itself to contribute £1 million a year over the next 10 years to a fund with local authorities and other local companies to promote new and expanding businesses in the area.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the statistics for nuclear discharges into the Irish sea from the British Nuclear Fuels site at Sellafield for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Discharges to the Irish sea from Sellafield between 1983 and 1987 (the latest year for which figures are currently available) were as follows:

  Alpha (terabecquerels)

  Beta (terabecquerels)

  1983

  14

  2,489

  1984

  14

  1,190

  1985

  6

  587

  1986

  4·4

  118

  1987

  2·2

  89

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has regarding the likely growth of nuclear power generation worldwide over the next 15 years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Department of Energy does not forecast total world nuclear power generation; but the IAEA has recently published a range of estimates to 2005. These are shown in the table:

  Total World Nuclear Generation (TWh)

  1987

  1,652

  1995

  2,362–2,461

  2000

  2,813–3,081

  2005

  3,205–3,695

  Source: International Atomic Energy Agency. Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for the period up to 2005. July 1988 Edition.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has as to the proportion of energy needs which are currently met by nuclear power generation in(a) Britain, (b) France, (c) West Germany, (d) Belgium, (e) Spain, (f) Japan and (g) the United States of America for each of the last two years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The proportions of nuclear generation to total primary energy requirement for 1985 and 1986, the latest full two years for which figures are available, are shown in the table:

  Proportion of Nuclear Electricity to total primary energy requirement

  Country

  1985

  1986

  United Kingdom

  6·7

  6·4

  France

  25·2

  28·3

  West Germany

  10·5

  9·9

  87

  Country

  1985

  1986

  Belgium

  17·9

  19·8

  Spain

  8·3

  11·1

  Japan

  10·5

  11·0

  United States of America

  5·0

  5·4

  Source: International Energy Agency Energy Balances of OECD Countries 1985–86.

  British Coal (Scotland)
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current levels of output and manning, both deep mined and opencast, related to British Coal's operations in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am advised by the British Coal Corporation that, in the nine months to December 1988, British Coal's deep-mined output in Scotland was 1,444,822 tonnes and opencast output was 2,709,067 tonnes. There were 2,918 men on colliery books at the end December 1988, and 1,053 contractors' industrials at opencast sites at end November 1988.

  Leicester Combined Heat and Power Project
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations or meetings he has had recently concerning the Leicester combined heat and power project.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has had discussions with the general manager of Leicester Energy Ltd. and my Department is also in regular touch with the company. Officials keep Ministers informed of progress on the Leicester combined heat and power district heating scheme.

  Restart
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received on the effects of the restart scheme on beneficiaries of the redundant mineworkers payments scheme.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) at Question Time today.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he intends to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the pension rights and concessionary coal entitlements of former miners who have been directed to fill out restart job forms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Barrage Schemes
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has made estimates of the future contribution to United Kingdom energy needs from barrage schemes.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Feasibility studies of major barrages are currently under way. If they could be constructed, the Severn barrage would provide the equivalent of around 6 per cent. of today's electricity 88
  requirement and the Mersey around 0·5 per cent. Energy paper 55 provided a maximum estimate equivalent to 10 per cent. of current electricity requirement by the year 2025.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the maximum proportion of United Kingdom energy needs that could be derived from(a) wind power, (b) wave power, (c) solar power and (d) geothermal power over the next 50 years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Estimates of the contribution that could be made by each renewable energy source in the year 2025 have been published in energy paper 55, copies of which are in the Libraries of both Houses. It is Government policy to encourage the maximum exploitation of renewable energy sources wherever they have prospects of being economically viable and environmentally acceptable.

  Electricity Supply Industry
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date estimate of the employment level in the electricity supply industry in England and Wales, in 1990 and 1995.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The planned staffing level in the electricity supply industry in England and Wales for March 1990 is 129,580. Any estimate for 1995 will be a matter for the industry.

  Drax Power Station
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what reductions in sulphur emissions are expected from the proposed sulphur removal plant at Drax power station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The flue gas desulphurisation plant which will be installed at Drax power station is designed to remove at least 90 per cent. of the sulphur dioxide in the flue gases. When fully completed, it is expected to eliminate about 10 per cent. of the board's current sulphur dioxide emissions.

  Electricity (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to encourage area boards to improve the supply of electricity to rural areas.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Consumers in rural areas in particular will benefit from our proposals. For the first time, all owners or occupiers of premises will have a right to require a supply of electricity from the area boards' successors, the public electricity suppliers. This right applies irrespective of the distance from the premises to the main. The suppliers will be under a statutory duty to comply on reasonable terms with all such requests, if it is technically practical to do so.

  NATO Wartime Oil Organisation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the posts, ranks and responsibilities of United
  89
  Kingdom representatives designated to form part of the staff of the NATO wartime oil organisation in transition to war and in war.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The information requested is classified.

  Fusion Research
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what advantages will be gained for United Kingdom fusion research by the planned reduction in programme funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Fusion, like any other new technology, will need to win its place in competition with the other sources of energy expected to be available over the next century. On present prospects, we have decided that there is no justification for continuing as broad a programme of fusion research as we have had in the past. However, we are continuing to fund the most promising line of research in our own programme and have also agreed with our Community partners that we shall maintain the present level of support to JET, whose total expenditure is around £75 million a year, through to its scheduled completion in 1992.

  CEGB (Research)
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has reviewed the continuation of Central Electricity Generating Board research as a requirement of the privatisation programme; arid if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Advisory Council on Research and Development will be considering the CEGB's plans for research in the run up to privatisation and conveying its views to me.

  After privatisation, the nature and level of the successor companies' research programmes will be matters for them to decide.

  Power Stations (Employment)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will state the total number of jobs created by(a) the design and construction and (b) the operation of (i) nuclear power station, (ii) fossil fuel power station and (iii) tidal power barrage, and indicate for each set of data the proportion of spin-off jobs thus created.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information he has requested as soon as possible.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
align="center"Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I have accepted an invitation to attend a luncheon at the Guildhall in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the mayoralty. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Wednesday, 8th February.

Historic Vehicles
Lord Blyth Lord Blyth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have received from old vehicle enthusiasts concerning the reported intention of the European Commission to introduce regulations necessitating alterations to the fixtures and fittings of such vehicles; and what steps they intend to take to ensure that inauthentic equipment will not have to be fitted to old vehicles and that no restrictions are placed on the use of such vehicles on the road.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Government have received a number of representations. Reports of the European Commission's intentions have been misleading. The Commission has made no proposal to restrict the use of historic vehicles nor to apply retrospectively the legislation which applies to new vehicles. There is no sign that the Commission has any such plans. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport is to meet the new EC Commissioner for Transport very soon and will mention the concern which has been expressed to him.
Lord Blyth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reassuring reply. I have nothing to add.

Natural Gas Reserves
2.37 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to preserve the United Kingdom's diminishing natural gas reserves and to discourage their use by new privately-financed power stations unless a corresponding amount of natural gas is obtained from Norwegian reserves.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the United Kingdom has ample gas reserves to supply needs well
870
into the future. The Government see no reason for discriminating against power station use of gas. Generation from gas is both environmentally more acceptable and thermally more efficient than generation from other fossil fuels. Any decisions to import gas will rest on the merits of doing so in the market circumstances of the time.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, he surely acknowledges that our own gas supplies are strictly limited compared perhaps with those of the Norwegians.
Noble Lords: Question!
Viscount Hanworth: This may be of great importance in the not too distant future to our balance of payments and to much else. Will the Minister confirm that the Government have powers to restrict the use of natural gas for generating power if it appears that it is becoming excessive?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the Government certainly have powers to restrict the use of natural gas if its depletion became excessive. However, I can assure the noble Viscount that we have ample reserves. There is no need to embark on a depletion policy. Indeed, he will appreciate that the development of deep-sea oil and gas reserves requires large up-front investments. Making such an investment, with the possibility that the Government might limit flows from the development field, would add a substantial clement to the already considerable risks and therefore inhibit development prospects.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that energy conservation is still important and that it is not in the best interests of energy conservation to burn a premium fuel—which can be burnt directly at at least 80 per cent. overall thermal efficiency—in generators, turbines and boilers, which reduce the overall thermal efficiency to 35 per cent? I hope that he will consider that aspect.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for touching on that theme. However, I should point out to him the environmental advantages of gas, which are substantial. Gas has a low sulphur content. Combustion can be controlled to ensure low emissions of nitrogen oxide. Carbon dioxide emissions per unit of electricity are below half the level for coal-fired stations.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that although we have considerable natural gas supplies, natural gas provides a particularly important back-up to our country's long-term energy reserves? Is it the view of Her Majesty's Government that the current price of natural gas truly reflects its long-term value to the economy?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I do not think that it would be wise for any of us to attempt to look too far into the future in predicting how the price of gas will behave. Indeed, if we were to do so we might move from sensible

871
discussions on the substance of gas to rather difficult, if related, deliberations on the subject of hot air.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I accept that we must treat our valuable natural gas to best advantage. However, does the noble Earl agree that there is merit in diversifying to some degree the sources of primary energy for electricity generation; for example, to combine heat and power, to the use of waste materials and in other ways? If so, it is possibly difficult to discriminate against one particular fuel.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, yes. I wholeheartedly support what the noble Lord has just said. The more that we can diversify with fuels the better.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the noble Earl's consideration include any work that is going on on the apparently enormous reserves of methane as methane hydrate in Arctic waters?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I shall pass on his remarks.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, what does the noble Earl mean by "ample reserves"?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I believe that these are reserves which are considerably to be distinguished from those which might be regarded as minimal.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, how will this matter affect our coal industry? Does it mean that many of our collieries will have to shut down?
The Earl of Dundee: No, my Lords. I can assure the noble Lord that he does not have to make a pessimistic inference.

Cinema Industry: Funding
2.43 p.m.
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
By how much their funding of the cinema industry is likely to increase by 1991 and whether they are satisfied with the state of the industry.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, under the provisions of the Films Act 1985 the Government support the film industry through payments to British Screen Finance Limited. Annual sums of £1.5 million for feature film production and £500,000 for script development and short film production are available for the five-year period beginning 1st January 1986. The Government maintain the view that current economic conditions offer a sound framework for the British film industry to operate successfully on a commercial basis.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Has he any information about how the
872
cinema industry is progressing by way of attendances?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend and other noble Lords will be pleased to know that there has been a substantial upturn during recent years in the fortunes of the cinema business. After a consistent decline for a number of years to a low of 53 million cinema admissions in 1984, the figure rose steadily to 75 million in 1987, and 1988 looks set to register a further rise.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Films Act 1985, to which he referred, reduced considerably governmental assistance to the British film industry and that this has had an adverse effect? Does he not agree that although British film makers are among the best in the world the industry is suffering? One has only to look at the awards made last night to see that the British film industry consistently gains international awards. Is it not time for a whole re-think of the financial support to an industry that pays great dividends?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we had a re-think in 1985. The film industry is doing extremely well. There have been a number of recent critical successes—"The Mission", "Wish You Were Here", "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" and many others, made either with British money or with British expertise which is renowned throughout the world.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that from the film makers' point of view, London is now one of the most difficult places in which to get the necessary permission for location work? This deters film makers for whom locations are as important as studio facilities. Is there any way the Government can provide some guidance to local authorities so as to achieve some uniformity of response to film makers?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I suspect that that is a question for local authorities. I shall however take note of it and ask my noble friend the Secretary of State to look at it.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how much of the British film industry is British in the sense of being owned and financed by British people? Is it not overwhelmingly foreign-financed? Is not one reason for that the less than generous tax advantages given in this country for film production?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord any figures on ownership of the film industry in Britain by foreigners or British nationals. On the question of tax incentives, I do not believe that it is for the Government to make this country particularly attractive to films. That must be based on commercial necessities decided by film makers themselves.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, can my noble friend give some indication of the export returns we

873
receive from the cinema industry and its attendant technologies?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the film industry's exports remain at a high level and reached £264 million in 1987,25 per cent. up on the previous year. Likewise, exports of television programmes have shown a welcome overall increase in recent years; they amounted to £118 million in 1987.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister says that it is not up to the Government but up to the industry to look after itself. Why do not the Government take into account the support other countries give to their indigenous film industries? Is not the Minister concerned about imports of second-rate and rubbishy films which fill our screens and are shown on television when considered in the light of developments in the film industry?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I believe that it must be up to the consumer to decide what he wants to watch on his television screen. Therefore, if people want to watch second-rate films that is up to them. The British film industry makes some extremely good films£
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Then why not support them?
Lord Strathclyde:£which are supported in a minor way. Other countries have problems because they wish to support their own languages. We do not need to do that because English is world-renowned.
Lord Peston: My Lords, may I take the Minister back to his answer to the previous question but one? Was he saying that we are running a positive balance of payments surplus on film and television activities? I heard him quote the export figures. Can he quote the import figures and the differences between the two?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not able to do so at the present time. I shall write to the noble Lord and let him know.
Baroness White: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether he makes any distinction between the English language and American?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, for the sake of today I believe that any film which is made in Britain for export is in the English language and that any imported from America is American.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the noble Lord tells us that the British people are those who decide what is seen on their televisions screens, what is the purpose of the Rees-Mogg commission?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is an entirely different question. There are organisations which oversee what is shown on television as regards obscenity and so forth—for example, the British Board of Film Classification, local authorities and, ultimately, the courts.
Lord Marley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a recent British film, "A Fish Called Wanda", has won two important awards? Should not note be taken of that?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord has brought that to our attention.

Industrial Action Balloting
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they anticipate that consultation on the draft code of practice on industrial action balloting will be completed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Slkelmersdale): My Lords, any representations on the draft code should be sent to the Department of Employment to arrive no later than 3rd February 1989
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the code, as at present drafted, contains no fewer than 22 steps which unions are expected to take before they can call an industrial dispute, and that some of those steps go far beyond the provision of legislation? Is that part of the Government's step-by-step approach to industrial action, possibly rendering it illegal at some point in the future, and is it their view that employees with a grievance should simply "put up and shut up"?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, of course it is not: we do not have that intention in mind at all. Four broad principles were followed in the Government's approach. The first was that the code would be most helpful if it contained within the same set of covers the infomation needed about the relevant law and good practice. I believe that both those conditions are clearly identified within the code. The second was that the detailed recommendations on how the balloting process should be conducted ought to take account of existing guidance on good practice for the conduct of balloting. The third was that once the proposal to take power to issue such a code was known particular ideas should be drawn upon that had been put to the Government. The fourth was that the code's recommendation should be based as far as possible on what was known about how unions had conducted industrial action ballots. I believe that that condition is also fulfilled within the code.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, can the noble Lord assure the House that, in dealing with ballots on industrial action affecting different places of work, the wording of the code will be less difficult for managers and trade union representatives to understand than is the section of the Employment Act 1988 which relates to that matter? In the light of his response to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, may one take it that the requirements of the code in its final form will be no more prescriptive than those of the Act?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the answer to the second supplementary question put by the noble Lord is: yes, he may certainly take it that the contents of the code will be no more prescriptive than the Act.
The code is already far less obscure in its drafting than is Section 17 of the Act. If the noble Lord has not seen that section I shall willingly furnish him with a copy later this afternoon.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the code is admissible in court proceedings under Section 3(8) of the Act which introduces it? If he is so aware, can he look at it again to decide whether it is fairly suitable for that purpose by reason of its indulgence in a mass of exhortation and want of simplicity?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I had thought that that point might be raised so I have made investigations. The legal status of the code is that it is not prescriptive but it is admissible in evidence in the field of general employment law. However, as my noble friend has asked me to look further at the matter I shall do so.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if, when applied, the code makes it more difficult for a verdict on an official dispute to be reached by the members of the union, and also extends the period before it can be reached, unofficial action may result which no one wants and which is often to the disadvantage of everyone concerned?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no, I do not believe that that is so. The noble Lord will remember that the same criticism was directed towards the various legislative steps taken by the Government since 1979. We now have the lowest record for industrial stoppages for many years. I do not believe that the previous legislation, or the final code when it is issued, will lead to damaging industrial relations.

Business
2.55 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Ferrers will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the dispute at Wandsworth Prison.

Civil Aviation (Air Navigation Charges) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should like to express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for taking the Bill through Second Reading at such short notice while I was unavoidably absent. I should also like to thank other noble Lords for their support of this most useful measure.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
876
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Petroleum Royalties (Relief) and Continental Shelf Bill
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Commitee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hooper, that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
2.58 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Introductory]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 106, which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Peston.
We are at the start of what may prove to be a long Committee stage. Speaking from the Opposition Benches generally, I wish to say that I shall try to deal with the business as quickly as possible. I am sure that I speak for my noble friends in that regard.
The present situation under the Companies Act 1985 is that directors must state in their report contributions made for political purposes and also for charitable purposes. The report, together with the company's accounts, is laid before shareholders at a general meeting and approved or otherwise. It is approved in its totality because, under the present legislation, shareholders do not have the ability to select bits and pieces from the report, to vote against one sentence rather than another, or to vote in favour of one paragraph rather than another.
So that if any shareholder or any group of shareholders wishes to object to contributions for political or charitable purposes, they have to disapprove; that is to say, in general meeting they have to vote against the ordinary resolution to approve the report and accounts as a totality; in other words, they stand or fall in their entirety.
There is no record in my experience—and I have attended one or two general meetings in my time—of shareholders voting against an ordinary resolution to approve the report and accounts solely because they disagree with one possibly minor item. There is an obvious reason for that. The rejection of the report and accounts, even the rejection of the directors' report were that to be possible, would amount to a rejection of the commercial management of the company. If that company were a listed company that would amount to a serious effect and possibily a catastrophic fall in the share price, which would undoubtedly suffer from that vote.
No shareholder who is presumably an investor for commercial reasons in a company has any interest in such a course of action because no shareholder will willingly vote to reject the whole of the directors' report and/or the accounts of the company simply because he objects to one item in it. That is the financial equivalent of turkeys voting for Christmas. Therefore, my amendments seek to isolate the decision on what are non-commercial payments from the decision on whether or not to approve the directors' report and accounts, which is basically a report on the commercial conduct of the firm.
I accept and willingly accept that the logic of our position is that a similar arrangement should be made for charitable contributions. I should not stand in the way if the Government wish to come forward with such an amendment. Nevertheless, I believe that provision should be made along the lines of the amendment for what I have in mind.
Specifically, my proposals are contained in Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 which are paving but introduce the concept that boards of directors should not, without separate shareholder approval, spend shareholders' funds on non-commercial purposes without that specific resolution of shareholders in ordinary general meeting. Amendment No. 106 is the substantive amendment which explains how, in our view, that could be done. It provides for a section of the directors' report to be left unsigned, that is, the section on contributions for political purposes, and framed in the form of a proposal to shareholders. Obviously, if directors decide to make such a proposal, they will recommend that. It is perfectly proper that the board of directors should recommend such a proposal to shareholders and the resolution, in consequence, will be proposed in general meeting in the proper form.
These proposals are simple and, in our view, necessary to bring the law up to date. First, we are not trying to discriminate against any political party. Those companies which wish to contribute to the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, the Social and Liberal Democrat Party, the Social Democrat Party, the Communist Party, the National Front or
878
whichever party it may be, will have to follow the same procedure.
Secondly, over the years we have had a number of measures passed by this Chamber designed to ensure that trade unions abide by a process of ballot and approval of their members both on the principle of the political levy and on the question of contracting out.
Thirdly, and more importantly, over the years I accept—however much some of us may deny the figures—that there has been an extension of share ownership. As a result of many factors such as privatisation issues, publicity, and now possibly the conversion of building societies into plcs, share ownership has become much wider and will continue to follow that course. There are millions of new shareholders. We hope that the Government are supportive not only of the fact of wider share ownership but also of the responsibilities implied in that. In other words, we hope that the Government will encourage a form of shareholder democracy in a way in which they have encouraged democracy on a wide front elsewhere in the trade unions.
Shareholders should be allowed to have their say in how funds are spent by their boards of directors in other than commercial matters. The central issue here is that extension of shareholder democracy. How can we possibly approve of a wider spread of share ownership if new shareholders are to be presented with a fait accompli in the way in which their money is spent for other than the purposes for which they invested and on causes to which they may, in their own political lives, he deeply opposed? Should they not have a chance to register a vote on the subject? If directors can persuade them that that is right, then that is perfectly fair and logical. If not, the shareholders should have the right to oppose without, in doing so, bringing their company crashing down, as in the present situation, around their ears.
I believe that this is in line with what the Government have been trying to do over the past few years and I very much hope that the Government will support our amendment.
3 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: We on these Benches support the amendments so ably presented to the Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. It seems to us to be clearly in the public interest that, whichever party is being considered for those sort of financial proposals, the law should be changed to include these amendments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It was pleasant to hear the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, applauding the increase in wider share ownership. It was particularly pleasant to hear it from those Benches because that has not always been the theme of the Labour Party. However, when one comes to the specific proposals which he is putting forward, I believe that he is probably somewhat exaggerating the significance of the subject matter.
Generally, compared with the sums involved in the report and accounts of almost any company, the

879
political donations to be given, if any, are absolutely trivial. However, to pick them out for a separate resolution which requires the full paraphernalia to be put to the general meeting seems extraordinarily disproportionate. I take the noble Lord's point that some shareholders may object to political contributions being made to any political party by the company in which they are shareholders.
However, under the present system there is nothing to prevent them from saying so at the annual general meeting. Those of us with experience of being on company boards know perfectly well that if, at a company's annual general meeting, there were serious criticisms of political contributions being made by the company by any appreciable number of shareholders, the board would carefully review the situation in respect of them for the following year. Equally, if there are very few shareholders who object it is absolutely pointless to go through the whole machinery of putting a special resolution, which would on that hypothesis be heavily voted down after a considerable waste of time and energy.
One can rest content with the present situation. I speak from some experience of company boards. I know that if there is any suggestion of a political contribution, boards look very carefully into the practical position as to whether the success or failure of a particular political party will be in the interests of or detriment to the company. That is the test which is in general applied. As a board is elected to apply its general judgment to the affairs of the company, including matters of much greater significance to the company than the relatively trivial amounts involved in political contributions, it seems to be straining at a gnat to insist that this one small point should be separated out for the purposes of a separate resolution.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in a sense gave that case away when he admitted that he was not proposing any amendment in respect of the often much larger charitable donations which are made; yet the test that these are payments not directly for the purposes of the company but perhaps indirectly applies just as much to these charitable donations as to political contributions. One cannot help wondering why the noble Lord is so much more interested in picking out political contributions than he is apparently in dealing with the, on the whole, much larger problem of charitable donations. One can perhaps speculate as to the reasons.
However, I do not think that there is a problem here. As I have said, the experience of any of us who have served on boards is that, if there is a serious objection to a political contribution being made by a company and that objection is voiced at all substantially at the annual general meeting, that contribution will be looked at very carefully for the following year. There is always a sensible sensitiveness of boards of directors on this subject as to whether such a donation would be acceptable to shareholders.
The attempt to separate out political contributions from charitable contributions and from every other expenditure of a company is highly artificial. Many
880
company contributions—for example, contributions to trade associations—are not of very direct interest to a company but may well, particularly in the case of political contributions, be of considerable indirect and future interest. However, there is no hard and fast line, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, seemed to suggest, between political and charitable contributions, on the one hand, and all other company expenditure on the other. If the noble Lord is to be logical he would have to separate out several other items for example, contributions to trade associations—for a separate resolution. Whatever else that would do, it would have the effect of unduly prolonging company annual general meetings to an intolerable extent.
I hope that the noble Lord will not feel that he is on to a particularly important argument or a right one. On the whole, the present law under which political donations have to be disclosed—and it is absolutely right—is perfectly adequate to deal with the situation and we should leave it alone.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said that he was perfectly prepared to include charitable contributions; indeed, I think that it would be highly desirable to do so. The Government never stop saying that industry should make a contribution to every conceivable good cause in the country. I often wonder when this free market, capitalist Government will realise that the purposes for which money is put up to industry is the development of industry, the reduction in prices and the payment of dividends and of wages. If the Government have their way a great deal of the money would go to all sorts of extraordinary places. If the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is saying that he will support the amendment if charities are included with political contributions, I am sure that most of us on this side of the Committee would be only too pleased to agree with him.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Morris: Not for the first time I am sure that Members on this side of the Committee will be grateful for the extremely clever way in which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has marshalled his arguments and, indeed, his very clever debating points. We should also be grateful for the moderate way in which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has argued this point.
At the heart of the argument, to use the language of the Income Tax Act, runs the point about expenditure which is both wholly necessary and exclusively for the use of the business. The characteristics of this particular type of expenditure—namely, political contributions and charitable donations—are that the direct link with the normal expenditure of the company can always be construed as somewhat tenuous.
The characteristic that boards of directors and governments have in common is that they are both highly suspicious of the democratic process in that it can so often inhibit the directors' view of the right progression and growth of the company and indeed growth in the view of the government.

881
The point missed by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is this. How can he possibly hold the view that he does—I am sorry if I am bringing in a boring political point which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, was far too nice to raise —about political contributions by the unions and the way that that is done and at the same time object to this amendment? I cannot see how he can possibly square that circle.
Lord Rochester: I should like briefly but strongly to support this amendment. Speaking on behalf of my noble friends at the Second Reading of the Trade Union Bill 1984, I said that we considered there was an urgent need to find fairer ways of financing political parties in this country. In Committee I tabled an amendment which if it had succeeded would have had the effect of delaying the operation of Part III of the Act dealing with trade union political funds until such time as alterations had been made to the Companies Act 1967 much in line with the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has proposed.
Recent revelations concerning the clandestine way in which contributions from certain large companies have allegedly been made to the Conservative Party make an amendment more urgent than ever. There is a need for a much more even-handed approach as between contributions from individuals to trade union funds and from companies to political parties. I am well aware of the distinctions that can be drawn between the two cases, but I do not think that they are of a kind to invalidate the principle underlying this amendment. I hope that the Committee will support it.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Williams, in his opening words said that we were starting a long Committee stage and he is correct. However, I hope that at the end of our deliberations we will have a better Bill from the Government's point of view. Unfortunately, we do not seem to have started particularly well with Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 106.
The effect of the amendment to Clause 1 would be to make provision for the second amendment which would provide that where a political contribution has been disclosed in the directors' report, that part of the report should not be signed but be put to the annual general meeting for approval by ordinary resolution.
The Government are opposed to these proposals. It may more readily help Members of the Committee to understand the reasons for our opposition if I explain the provisions of the existing Companies Act that relate to the disclosure of political contributions. Very briefly, companies have been required since 1967 to disclose in the directors' report any gifts of money for political purposes that exceed a specified sum, currently £200. In each case the amount of the donation must be shown, as must the name of the recipient. The directors' report is part of the documentation that must be sent to shareholders before the company's annual general meeting.
While there is no obligation under the Companies Act for companies to request the prior approval of shareholders for such donations, it is possible for
882
shareholders who are concerned at the nature or scale of such donations as are revealed in the report to raise the subject in discussion of the accounts at the annual general meeting. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made this point in what I thought an excellent speech. Moreover, shareholders have the right to have an ordinary resolution put to the general meeting under the normal procedures for such resolutions thus enabling them to express any more general concerns that they may have on the subject of political donations. The Government accordingly consider these existing safeguards of the shareholders' interests to be wholly adequate and view the proposed amendments as wholly unnecessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and my noble friend Lord Morris made what I believe was an unfortunate comparison between commercial companies and trade unions. That is a false analogy. It is like comparing apples and bananas. A commercial company is there to take people's money and to invest it in order to create a profit and a dividend at the end of the year. It is not for me to lecture Members of the Committee opposite on what a trade union is all about; but it must be something entirely different, financed by subscriptions rather than through people's investments. I hope that Members of the Committee opposite will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to Members of the Committee who have participated in this short debate. It has been extremely useful. The problems raised by my amendment do not seem of a kind that will easily go away. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that I did not find the Government's answer wholly convincing.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, applauded my appreciation of wider share ownership. I was very careful in choosing my words. I personally applaud wider share ownership by employees; I am neutral on the question of wider share ownership in general. I am opposed to privatisation by bribe. However, I leave that aside. It is a political point, and we are not having a political discussion.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, continued by saying that he did not see why these small amounts of relatively little significance should go through the full paraphernalia of what he called a special resolution. I am not arguing for special resolution but an ordinary one at the general meeting. If they are so very small why should they not be approved quite easily at a general meeting? Furthermore, it is my experience, possibly contrary to that of the noble Lord—both of us have experience of these matters—that drafting another ordinary resolution is not the end of the world. There are ordinary resolutions put to shareholders by company secretaries. They are easily drafted. The format is quite simple, consisting possibly of two or three extra lines of printing on the document that summons the shareholders to a general meeting. I do not see that I am trying to create a great bureaucracy of some kind.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred to a possibility that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, picked up; namely, that those shareholders who

883
object to such contributions can stand up and speak or write in. To use the expression of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the following year the directors will take those representations into account. The noble Lord explained in full exactly as I did the existing situation. We are dealing with companies nowadays which have millions of shareholders. If the Abbey National becomes a plc the estimate is that there will be more than five million shareholders. They may be spread up and down the country. They will not be arriving at the Plaisterers Hall, the Goldsmiths Hall, or wherever the function is held, to badger the board of directors. But they still have an equal interest of one share for one share in the conduct of the company. I do not see that that is a very serious point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, supported my logic. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, did not move a manuscript amendment to my amendment arguing for the inclusion of charitable contributions. If such an amendment had been moved I would have willingly accepted it, as I said at the outset. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, was right in saying that there is a hard and fast line between political and charitable contributions and those to trade associations. The hard and fast line is drawn by the Companies Act 1985. It is already there. I am not trying to change any aspect of that basic legal principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, responded to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on the question of trade unions. I must say a word on the subject since it has been raised. I address my appeal to Members of the Committee opposite and to those on the Cross-Benches, who, over a number of years. have vociferously—if I may say so without offence—advocated the democratic process in trade unions. That is the process of ballot. I wholly accept that they have done so in good faith. I may have disagreed with the effects of what they were supporting, but I do not challenge the good faith of what they were intending.
I say to those Members of the Committee quite frankly that one either supports democracy in all its forms and in all of its extensions or one does not. There is no halfway house about it. Democracy, like freedom, is indivisible. If Members of the Committee support democracy, as I believe they do, they will recognise that I am only trying to extend to the shareholders of a company the same right that trade unionists now have; namely, the right to decide at the end of the day how their money is spent. In the case of shareholders, it is a right to decide without bringing the whole company down around their ears. That is an important point.
If Members of the Committee opposite and those on the Cross-Benches who constitute the majority in the Committee, do not support this proposition, then we accept that they are happy that decisions will be taken in smoke-filled rooms and presented as a fait accompli to shareholders at a general meeting. One or two shareholders may rise to complain, but that is not going to get them anywhere. I like to believe that all Members of the Committee have a sense of fairness that transcends party politics and unites us. I believe
884
this to be one of those issues that impinges on fairness. I hope that the Committee will support me in that belief.
3.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 106; Not-Contents, 93.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kearton, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Amherst, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Banks, L.

Leatherland, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bottomley. L.

Lockwood, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair. L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Mais, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff. L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carter. L.

Mishcon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris, L.

Craigavon. L.

Mountevans, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Mulley, L.

David. B.

Northfield, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Oram, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge. L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Donoughue, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Phillips, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ezra, L.

[Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Reilly, L.

Flowers, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Foot. L.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher. L.

Sainsbury, L.

Galpern. L.

Seear, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gregson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Somers. L.

Grimond, L.

Stallard, L.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hanworth. V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strabolgi. L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hayter, L.

Taylor of Mansfield. L.

Hirshfield, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hooson. L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunt, L.

Williams of Elvel. L.

Jacques, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Jay, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham,

Jenkins of Putney, L.

E.

John-Mackie, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Lord Strathclyde: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

Wandsworth Prison
3.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat the Answer to a Private Notice Question on the dispute at Wandsworth Prison which has just been given in another place.
"At 7.30 a.m. yesterday about 100 uniformed staff at Her Majesty's Prison Wandsworth went on strike. Fourteen uniformed staff worked normally. At about 9.30 a.m., under contingency plans, 60 staff in managerial grades from around the prison service were deployed in Wandsworth to maintain order and prison routines. There were inevitable delays and arrangements could not be made for prisoners to take exercise but meals were served and visits took place normally.
"This morning at seven o'clock 197 police officers went into Wandsworth to assist the governor and to work alongside prison staff.
886
During the normal working week many more staff are needed than for the Sunday routine. Although 34 uniformed prison staff are working normally today, peace and order could not have been maintained in the prison without the use of police officers.
"Naturally these events have led to heightened tension in the prison and there have been one or two incidents but loyal prison staff and the police have managed to keep the prison running as near normally as possible.
"Since last November prison officers at Wandsworth have been refusing to take a full number of prisoners. As a result about 50 prisoners have had to be kept unnecessarily in police cells. Talks at national, regional and local levels have taken place over many months in an effort to resolve the dispute. The new working systems introduced yesterday are intended to make more effective use of staff resources and contain no unusual or threatening features. The action of the POA branch at Wandsworth in going on strike is completely unjustified. I call on them to go back to work under the governor's authority forthwith."
My Lords, that completes the Answer which was given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, before the action of calling in the police this morning was taken, had the appropriate dispute procedures been carried out between the Home Office and the prison officers which normally call for continuance of the status quo and then negotiation? Further, is it the case that the prison officers were told that new rotas would not be imposed, as proposed by the governor, for 15 days if the prison officers accepted another 50 prisoners from police cells? If that suggestion had been made, and had been accepted, would not that have aggravated the already dangerous situation which arises in Wandsworth where the official prison population is 1,259 and where in fact there are 1,505 prisoners?
Therefore was not the action this morning of calling in the police in those numbers—men who are, in any event, worthy, but who are not qualified to carry out prison officers' duties—somewhat reckless in all the circumstances?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for repeating the Statement in this House, is he aware that many of us have become increasingly concerned about the apparently never-ending disputes in a limited number of London prisons? Can the Minister confirm that the consequence of those disputes has been to increase the number of prisoners being held in police cells, in both London and elsewhere? Does he agree, in the situation which he has outlined today, that it is essential to give firm support to prison management because otherwise this continuing anarchy in a limited number of prisons will continue?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, raised the matter of

887
negotiations with the prison officers. The introduction of the new shifts had already been delayed for two weeks while more discussions took place. At a meeting last Thursday a further postponement of two weeks was offered, provided that the POA lifted its action of imposing a ceiling of 1,505 prisoners and returned to the occupation ceiling of 1,555. The POA refused that offer.
Following the Home Secretary's meeting with the POA national executive committee on 9th September last, the POA at Wandsworth lifted its industrial action on 18th October. That was in return for a regional manpower review of the staffing levels at the prison taking place. On 11th November industrial action was again imposed to limit the prison population to 1,505. I think that the noble and learned Lord will see that there has been every conceivable negotiation with the POA in order to bring the new system into operation. However, the POA has consistently refused to go back to the occupation ceiling of 1,555.
The noble and learned Lord asked whether the action to call in the police was reckless. I am bound to tell him that it was not a reckless act; it was a proper one which was agreed upon in order to ensure the safety of the prisoners in Wandsworth and that the gaol, as a whole, operated properly. It would have been unreasonable to have allowed the staff to leave without having taken proper action to ensure the correct running of the gaol.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that many people were fed up with disputes of this nature. I entirely agree with him. Prison officers have a responsibility to run the prisons under the direction of the governors of the prisons. Much effort has been expended to allay their fears and to enable their work to be properly carried out. Therefore when such action is taken, which jeopardises not only the prisons but the prisoners themselves—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, rightly says, those people who are remanded in police cells—I think that most people would agree that it is unacceptable. Quite clearly because the prison officers have consistently refused to return to the normal ceiling of 1,555 people in Wandsworth, 50 other people have been obliged to remain in police cells which is not the right place for them.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the executive of the POA is in the middle of organising a ballot of its members urging that the dispute, which has lasted for a long time, should be called off? Is he further aware that the executive of the POA has spent many weeks trying to urge its branches to accept the proposals? With that knowledge, is it not therefore extraordinary that the Government have connived at the situation in Wandsworth where a new governor has come in and sought to impose arrangements on the local branch which were the subject of negotiation with the old governor?
Does the Minister recognise that there are many ways in which the Government could be seen to stand accused of being deliberately provocative at this
888
time? Further, will he also urge upon the new governor that the way out of this impasse is to work with the POA so that when the national dispute is called off such matters may then be dealt with sensibly?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord asked whether the action taken was provocative, in view of the fact that a ballot is going to be held on 6th February. I do not agree with him. The POA's national executive committee has recommended members to vote in favour of lifting the national industrial action. We welcome that fact. However, the dispute at Wandsworth has nothing to do with that; it is specific to that prison.
The noble Lord said that he thought the action was provocative. He then asked whether the governor should not learn to work with the POA—if I may have the noble Lord's attention for half a minute, when he has finished discussing the matter with the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip. It would be helpful. I am trying to answer his question, but I am quite happy to defer the matter until his attention is released. I am happy to see that I now have his attention. Unfortunately, during that time I have forgotten the question which I was trying to answer.
If I recall correctly, the noble Lord asked whether it would be proper for the new governor to work with the POA. The noble Lord will know perfectly well that this is a dispute which need not have taken place. As I explained to his noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, a great deal of work and effort has gone on between the governor and the POA to ensure that this would not be necessary. The fact that the POA has called the dispute is one of considerable regret. Of course the governor will work with the POA—as all governors do—but it is also up to the POA to accept its responsibilities.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may respond briefly. As the Minister is aware, I represent the interests of prison officers. I must declare that interest. Surely he is aware that this dispute, which has national implications, also has local implications at Wandsworth. Part of the reason for the ballot which will be held is to call off the national dispute, with local arrangements being made satisfactorily. Can the Minister confirm that the police have said that they are horrified at the action of the Government as this is the first time that the police have been called into prisons since 1919?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall not confirm the remarks made by the noble Lord. Of course it is undesirable to bring the police into the prisons. I am sure that the noble Lord will be the first to realise that, if by the action of the POA those prisons have become unsafe, then it is up to the governor to take action to ensure that the prisons are made safe. It is for that reason that the police were sent in. They were sent in in support of the governor and to work with him; not to take over the prison.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords—
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the noble Viscount had his head bowed when I was getting up—a rare

889
posture, if I may say so—so perhaps we could delay for a minute returning to the Bill. Going back to the question of numbers, is not the official prison population at Wandsworth 1,259? An addition to that figure up to 1,505 was already aggravating an almost intolerable position. The addition of 50 more made the situation worse. Were those factors taken into account when the so-called negotiations were taking place?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the occupation ceiling, which is the figure that the prisons are expected to keep and upon which negotiations have been taking place, is 1,555. Recently, the POA has objected to the ceiling being above 1,505. Whereas in October there were 284 prison officers for 1,505 prisoners, there are now 311. There are more prison officers now for the population than there were way back in October.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is not the proper occupation figure 1,259? Is that not the number that should be there, and not the number that is there and will be increased?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know how long we can go on bandying figures about. The noble and learned Lord asked whether that was not the proper figure. My understanding is that that is not the proper figure and that the proper figure is 1,555.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I apologise for not having read the Statement, but will the noble Earl clear up one point? He mentioned the figure of 34 members of the prison staff who remained in post at Wandsworth. Are those members of the Wandsworth Prison staff or are they members at governor grade who have been drafted in to replace those who have come out on strike?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand that there may be some of each. About 60 officers on governor grades went in to help yesterday. Some officers have remained at their duty today: some on governor grades and 34 are prison officers.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, is this not a service in which we should seek to have conciliation or abitration and a ballot of the members before industrial action? The Japanese can get it; why cannot the Government get it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, a ballot before industrial action is a matter for those taking or contemplating industrial action. This is not a case for arbitration if by that the noble Lord means an official arbitration. He may be aware that there have been a great many discussions over the implementation of Fresh Start, which was generally accepted, by which there would be general alterations in the way in which prison officers' time was used, both for overtime and elsewhere. That was agreed nationally. Obviously locally there have to be discussions between the prison governor and the prison officers. The point here is that the prison officers have of their own volition rendered Wandsworth in a state likely to cause trouble. That being so, police action had to be taken.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the criticism made from the Benches opposite of the introduction of the police, is my noble friend aware that most people will feel that where one has a prison with a large number of dangerous people in it, if the Government in that situation had not called in the police they would rightly have been subject to censure?
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend is right. This is a thoroughly disagreeable situation which no one likes and no one wishes for. We wish to see the dispute concluded as quickly and as reasonably as possible. Until it is concluded, the Government are right to take the action that they have taken.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
3.55 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1. line 13, at end insert ("and
(c) inserting a new provision to modify the presentation of company accounts so as to allow shareholders, to consider contributions for political purposes separately from other business in general meeting").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Accounting records]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) The directors of a public limited company shall take all such steps as are resonably open to them to ensure that a satisfactory system of internal control over the accounting records, registers and assets of the company is in operation.").
The noble Lord said: We propose this change to assist in the prevention of fraud, especially by those who happen to be working in companies. The Committee will know that well managed companies already have an adequate system of internal control. The Committee will also know that in the Banking Act, the Building Societies Act and the Housing Act similar wording is included to enjoin upon all those companies which operate within the purview of those Acts the obligation to have some form of internal control.
There seems to me and my noble friends no particular reason why what is enjoined on banks, building societies and certain housing associations should not also be enjoined on companies. As I said, properly managed companies already have this system. I have no complaint that the concept of internal control is not perfectly well understood by good managements.
I limit the amendment to plcs because I do not wish to impose burdens on private companies. Here I join with the Government in not wishing to impose a statutory burden upon those companies which may not be able to cope with it. The amendment also

891
reinforces the obligation imposed on directors of plcs to ensure that their companies are properly managed. The Opposition feel that the amendment is desirable. I hope that the Government will agree with it. It will bring plcs in the non-banking and non-building society sector—if I may use that rather inelegant expression—into line with those sectors. It will reinforce the obligation of directors of plcs to ensure that their companies are properly managed. This is a system which should now extend right across the range of the public company sector. All I am trying to do is to bring all plcs in line with what banks and building societies have to do at present. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: The Government do not believe that it is appropriate for companies legislation to prescribe such obligations for the internal management of companies. Perhaps I may explain why company law sets out to ensure that companies deal properly with their shareholders' assets and that they are accountable to shareholders. It does not set out to make them efficient. That is the function of markets. In the interests of accountability the law requires companies to keep adequate accounting records and auditors to check that proper accounting records are kept before making their report. That is quite right and proper. In practice, auditors frequently report to companies about their systems of internal control before making their report. That, too, is all to the good. But to make the maintenance of a satisfactory system of internal control a statutory requirement, in the Government's view, crosses over the line dividing propriety from efficiency.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned the prevention of fraud and in particular banks and building societies. As he knows, these are subject to a system of regulation under their own statutes because they are responsible for sums deposited. It is therefore not appropriate to apply such a regime to the generality of companies.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord but I find his argument somewhat lacking in logic. I do not want to name any names, but major companies nowadays handle large sums of cash. They are responsible for operating, perhaps not in the same way as banks—but they are operating in the money markets to an extent much greater than a number of banks.
Further, I argue to the noble Lord that if a building society converts itself into a bank it still has to adhere to the regulation that it has to have an internal control system which meets the Banking Act. If it then tries to convert itself from a bank into something else by being taken over perhaps or taking over other organisations—to turn itself into a chemical company, just to name an example —it seems under this Bill, to escape the provision that existed under the Banking Act.
I find it very odd that a company which may have a bank as a subsidiary but itself is a plc is not required to adopt the same internal controls as its subsidiary bank. Perhaps I may refer back to previous Acts. The
892
Companies Act 1947, the Companies Act 1985 and the general note in the Companies Act 1947 make reference to registers, the index, minute books and accounting records to be kept by companies in making entries in bound books, and all the rest of it. I am trying to reinforce this by making sure that that principle, which was enunciated a long time ago and carried right through into the Companies Act 1985, is extended to make sure that the comparison between banks, building societies and other plcs is not vitiated. That is the point of the amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord will reply.
Lord Strathclyde: I am still not sure that it is appropriate to apply the regime of banks and building societies to companies overall. I can understand why the noble Lord believes that it makes sense that all companies should have a satisfactory system of internal control. I think it is pointless to impose such a requirement without having an accepted view of what is and what is not a satisfactory system of control or at least an accepted means of testing a system. In practice the testing would become the responsibility of the auditors themselves.
I believe that there is a risk that under a statutory system auditors would devise a series of standard tests which would not provide sufficient scope for innovation and diversity by company managements. If a company turns into a bank, as the noble Lord suggested it might do earlier, or has a subsidiary bank, it does or should come within banking supervision. Therefore I think that the example the noble Lord gave that it would be able to bypass these provisions would not come into effect.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I still do not follow the noble Lord. I am afraid. The Banking Act and the Building Societies Act contain provisions which require auditors to make sure that internal controls are in place. So with the argument about auditors, why do we not have a similar provision in the case of industrial companies which are plcs?
As regards the point the noble Lord tried to answer about building societies turning themselves into banks, he did not answer my second point, which was that plcs of any description can have banks as subsidiaries but they themselves are not required under any legislation to have proper internal controls. It is only the banking subsidiaries that are required to do that. This seems to be an extraordinary way to go about matters. I should like to see something in the legislation which would ensure that all plcs should have internal controls which are vetted by the auditors. Everybody knows that that happens. It happens in the case at the moment, as I know as somebody who has been in charge of a plc. Auditors will always look at the internal controls. I cannot see any reason why this should not be written into the Bill.
Lord Strathclyde: I still have to say what I said in my opening remarks, that company law sets out to ensure that companies deal properly with their assets. But it does not set out to make them efficient. Therefore the internal running of the management systems must be up to companies themselves. There

893
should be no question, I believe, that these should be brought into legislation.
As for the point about auditors and banking, to widen auditors' responsibilities would raise a whole variety of questions. These are under discussion in the profession but there are some very deep implications in what the noble Lord proposes. I do not think that they are necessary, and nor would they produce the effects that he wants.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for telling me that there are deep implications in what I propose. I hope very much that he will set out to me in writing exactly what those implications are before Report stage. It seems to me to be a perfectly logical amendment that I am producing; it does not seem to me that the noble Lord has advanced any great arguments against it. I hope very much that before the Report stage we shall have a considered government view of what these deep implications are.
As far as I am aware, any competent auditor will look at the internal control mechanisms of the company which he or she audits. It does not seem to me to be very deep at all. However, no doubt the noble Lord will be writing to me before Report stage letting me know exactly what he has in mind. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) A parent company having a subsidiary undertaking which is not a body corporate incorporated in Great Britain shall take all such steps as are reasonably open to it to ensure that that subsidiary undertaking shall keep accounting records in relation to itself which are sufficient to show and explain the matters referred to in section 221 (1) above.").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 4 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Peston. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendment No. 6.
The new definition of "subsidiary" in the Bill before the Committee includes further entities which are not subject to the present Companies Act. Foreign subsidiaries are of course already in this position. The change that I am proposing is primarily aimed at UK partnerships. In our view, all components of a group should have suitable underlying records and accounts to enable preparation of true and fair group accounts giving the required information under the statute. If I may say so, the amendment also clarifies the responsibilities of directors. Amendment No. 6 goes a little further and makes sure that the directors have an obligation to ensure this rather than being enabled to compile group accounts. Well managed groups can already do what we have in mind. While overseas companies, which are mentioned in the Bill in extenso, may be subject to audit and therefore have adequate records, this, in our view, is less likely to arise with partnerships. It is that small loophole in the Bill that we hope to close by this amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: I, too, shall speak to Amendments Nos. 4 and 6. The noble Lord will be
894
pleased to hear that the Government have some sympathy with the first of these amendments. It would serve to remind companies of their responsibility to get adequate information from subsidiary undertakings which are not Companies Act companies to enable the proper preparation of consolidated accounts. But it would not impose an unreasonable requirement. We would, however, like to consider further whether it would have an effect in practice and return to the point at a later stage. I hope the noble Lord will therefore feel this is a sufficient basis on which he can withdraw his amendment.
The second amendment does not seem to add anything to the existing requirements of new Section 226 in Clause 4 that companies should prepare accounts and that those accounts shall comply with the Act. I hope that we shall be able to return to that at a later stage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his assurance on Amendment No. 4. I hope that he will look again—I understand that it is without commitment—at Amendment No. 6, as I feel that it strengthens the obligation on directors. That is something we should like to see. However, in the light of the noble Lord's undertaking to come back at a later stage with the Government's view, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 4.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 39, leave out ("honestly") and insert ("with due care and attention").
The noble Lord said: The word "honestly" occurs in the Companies Act 1985. When statutes are repeated in the Chamber in the form of a Bill, I think the Committee will agree that the original words of the statute are not necessarily sacrosanct. In other words, we can have further debates about what was originally accepted in the statute.
The word "honestly" has, I think, been understood over the years as meaning without intention to fraud or to criminality. On the other hand, we are dealing with a Bill that seeks to upgrade the responsibilities of directors. Our amendment which specifies the words,
"with due care and attention"
goes beyond the word "honestly". The expression,
"with due care and attention"
subsumes the word "honestly". I do not see how anyone can act.
"with due care and attention"
who is acting dishonestly. It is also consistent with measures taken elsewhere in the Bill to upgrade the behaviour of directors. This is a modest amendment. I am not claiming that it is earthshattering, but I think it would be useful. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I support this small amendment. The word "honestly" has often caused trouble in interpreting statutes. But the words "without due care and attention" are becoming increasingly well known for other reasons. I support the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: New Section 221(4), the subject of the amendment, reproduces the existing offences in the 1985 Act. It makes it an offence to fail to keep proper accounting records. The offence is committed by any "officer in default"—meaning an officer who knowingly and wilfully authorises or permits the default. It is however a defence under Section 730(5) of the 1985 Act for the officer to prove that the default was committed honestly and was excusable in the circumstances in which the company's business was carried on.
We have carried forward the structure of the offence provisions in the 1985 Act. We do not consider, at present, that there is any significant inconsistency in the wording of these offence provisions which is not merited by their different contexts. We hope therefore that the noble Lords, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran and Lord Williams of Elvel, will not feel that they need press this matter further.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. However, I do not think he has answered the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that the words,
"with due care and attention"
or the opposite, "with undue care and attention" are now becoming more and more recognised as a quality to which directors must pay attention. While I am quite happy that the words,
"with due care and attention"
should be used as a defence, we want to improve on the word "honestly". I hope the noble Lord will comment on what I have said.
Lord Strathclyde: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for saying that. Perhaps this is an occasion where we could consider the points that have been made in Committee and look at them at greater leisure than is possible today.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3. line 23, after ("company") insert ("including a single member company").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 124, 126, 127, 243 and 244. I first wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for his recent letter to me. I must also thank his advisers. The letter was most helpful. It dealt with a number of points that I raised on Second Reading.
As I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, last week, these amendments are of a probing nature. Their objective is to introduce into UK company law provisions for the setting up of single member private limited companies. The amendments reflect the subject of a directive from Brussels last summer, known as the twelfth council
896
directive, on provisions for a single member company. The provision would give access to company status to individual entrepreneurs and would generally promote enterprise.
Many member states of the Community allow single member companies to be formed. Denmark has had them since 1973, Germany since 1980, France since 1985, the Netherlands since 1986 and Belgium since 1987. I am instructed that draft legislation is before Parliament in Luxembourg and Portugal.
The amendments cover the initial formation of a single member company and also enable a single member private limited company to arise when one individual acquires all the shareholdings in the company. There are obvious advantages, which I do not propose to deal with at great length, in enabling a small business to be a single member company. Often in the UK, small companies have only one owner. The present requirement that there should be more than one member for private limited companies means that the individual business man or woman, or the sole trader, must secure the co-operation of a second member, who is often nothing more than a front man. That, of course, adds to the cost and complication of running a small business.
The sole trader would by these amendments be encouraged to take the risk of setting up a business in company form and not merely as a sole trader. Safeguards are obviously necessary, particularly regarding disclosures and dealing with accounts which would allow the company's funds to be kept separate from the sole member's private assets and liabilities. Thus a single member company whose sole member is a legal person could not be the sole member of another company.
I have also suggested in the amendments that the section of the Companies Act with the well-known Tables A, B, C and D should be amended to include a Table F which should deal only with regulations in regard to single-member companies. As the amendments are probing amendments I have not prepared an amendment to cover a draft Table F.
There are clear advantages to UK industry in having single member companies with proper safeguards and subject to many of the regulations governing small private limited companies. It seems to me that the proposals would in principle conform with the Government's general policy of encouraging private enterprise and harmonise with the views of the European Community in this limited but useful field.
As I have said, the amendments are of a probing nature. I fully accept that much redrafting would be necessary if the general principle were acceptable to the Government. I hope that the Government can express some sympathy for the theme of the amendments which is to introduce into UK law the concept of a single member private limited company. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for thanking me for the letters I wrote to him last week. It is nice to know that they arrived and that they did some good.

897
I shall speak to the same amendments as the noble Lord. The effect of the amendment to Clause 2 would be to emphasise that private companies with only one member were required, as are all private companies, to keep accounting records for three years from the date on which they were made. The effect of the amendments to Clause 12 would be to extend to single-member companies, whatever their size, certain exemptions given to small and medium-sized companies under Schedule 8 to the Companies Act 1985 and also to make provision for a new Part IV in Schedule 8 relating exclusively to single-member companies.
The Government are opposed to the proposals. It may help the Committee more readily to understand the reasons for our opposition if I explain very briefly what is happening in connection with a related initiative that has been taken by the European Commission, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, also referred.
Last year the Commission published a draft twelfth directive on single member companies. The effect of that directive, if it were eventually accepted by the Council, would be to oblige each member state to provide for the formation and operation of private limited companies with a single member, subject to any safeguards against abuse which would be contained in the directive. That would result in some significant changes in the UK's company law because at present at least two members are required to form a company and when the membership of an existing company falls to one that company and its member will normally lose the privilege of limited liability after a period of six months.
The Commission's proposal was considered last year by the Select Committee on European Legislation which concluded that it raised questions of legal and political importance. As a result the committee recommended that the directive should be debated by the House, most suitably in a Standing Committee on European documents. I am pleased to be able to inform Members that the arrangements for that debate are now well in hand. The Government are of the view that such a debate, devoted specifically to that one topic, would provide a better opportunity than this present debate for the consideration both of the underlying principles involved and of the safeguards which it might be considered desirable to apply to such companies if they were permitted.
Moreover, discussions on points of detail contained in the draft directive are only now beginning in the Council's working group. It is therefore possible that if we legislate now on the formation and conduct of such companies we shall shortly find that we have approved measures that are incompatible with the directive, thus necessitating additional legislation in the near future. We believe that it makes sense to have just one bite at the cherry and to wait until we are clearly in the picture before we do so.
I hope that this explanation gives the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, some succour and that he is clearer in his own mind as to where we should now go. The noble Lord described amendments as merely probing amendments. I hope that if he has not
898
followed everything that I have said it will become clear when he reads Hansard tomorrow.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am obliged to the Minister. Can he say when the debate to which he referred is to take place? Will it be in the near future? Will it be before Report stage? Is he indicating, without commitment, that the matter can be reconsidered at Report stage?
Lord Strathclyde: I hope that the noble Lord will feel that we do not need to raise the matter again at Report stage. The Government do not feel that it is worth raising the subject again until we know what is happening at the European level. I am afraid that I cannot offer the noble Lord any information at the moment as to the date of the debate. I sincerely hope that it will take place before too long.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am rather confused. Did the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Bruce of Donington: No, thank you.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: In view of what the Minister has said it seems that there is some hope of harmonisation with Community law on this important matter. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Individual company accounts]:
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 8
Page 6, line 14, leave out second ("the").
The noble Lord said: The Minister will be able to dispose of the next amendment very speedily. In the accountancy profession we have always been accustomed to refer to "a state of affairs". When it comes to liquidations we always refer to the "statement of affairs" that is required to be made in certain circumstances.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland wrote to me to inquire whether there was any special reason why the word "the" should be inserted. I am bound to say that the word "the" already appears in the Companies Act 1985 at Section 523. So it is not new. However, if the noble Lord can satisfy my curiosity as to why the word "the" should be inserted I shall have no difficulty in withdrawing the amendment in due course with the leave of the House. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is very interesting. We do not consider that whether or not the Bill at this point refers to "the state of affairs" or "the state of the affairs" is of consequence. Moreover, although the amendment brings the provision in new Section 226(2) in line with that in new Section 227(2)(a) it puts it out of alignment with the reference in new Section 227(3). I hope that this explanation is sufficient.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Yes, that is quite satisfactory. I ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 6, line 17, at end insert—
("(2A) The profit and loss account shall also show the expenditure on research and development which has been charged against profits.").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 9 I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 15. As the Committee will see, Amendment No. 9 has wide cross-party support. This is in no sense a political point. The objective of the amendment is to ensure that the accounts of companies do indeed give a fair and true view and to remove a disincentive to R&D investment which I believe tp be of very great importance.
Where research and development expenditure is charged to the profit and loss account and is significant, or has been in previous years, any change in the charge is, I submit, very relevant information if the accounts are to show a true and fair view. Such information is of particular importance to analysts and others who draw conclusions from the accounts and act upon them. Where no disclosure is made, declared profits can give a misleading impression of strength. For instance, suppose a company decides to cut back on its research and development expenditure. Profits will rise in the short term but in the long term the prospects are pretty poor because there will not be any new products to carry the company forward.
Perhaps even more serious is the effect of undisclosed increases in R&D expenditure. The profits then fall, and all too often in the United Kingdom the share price also falls, making companies vulnerable to takeover in the current circumstances. That substantially discourages directors from investing, particularly in the development of new products, which involves both high cost and risk although it is of the utmost importance to the future strength of the company. It is also of the utmost importance from the national standpoint if the massive deficit that we now have on our overseas trade of manufactured goods is to be corrected.
In the United States of America disclosure of R&D expenditure of that type is mandatory. There is clear evidence in the United States that when R&D expenditure is increased analysts see that the company is investing for the future and the share price tends to rise rather than fall, as it does in this country. So there is no disincentive to investment.
Some Members of the Committee may say, "But there is nothing to prevent directors disclosing this information in their company reports". That is true, but it is seldom done because if one company does it, particularly a single-product company, it confers an advantage on its competitors. Of course that would not be the case if all companies must disclose that type of expenditure.
Very recently a Statement of Standard Accounting Practice, SSAP.13 was agreed and it is shortly to be issued. It requires the disclosure of R&D expenditure in company accounts. I believe that that is a real step forward. It also has the advantage that R&D expenditure is clearly defined in that SSAP. I submit that disclosure of R&D expenditure is so important, for the reasons I have given, that is should be made statutory. We should take this opportunity to make that simple addition to the Companies Act, for it will be a long time before we shall have another opportunity to do that if it so happens that SSAP.13 does not appear to be effective.
Lastly, it may be said that other information is of equal importance to the future strength of a company. I certainly agree that that is the case as far as training is concerned. I should be very happy to see that type of expenditure included on a mandatory disclosure basis, but there may be problems with definition. I believe that it would be wise in the present circumstances to confine the amendent to the specific and important issue of the disclosure of R&D expenditure as it is set out in SSAP.13.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister who is to reply will accept the amendment because, in paragraph 25 of the Government's response to the first report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Civil Research and Development, Command Paper 185 of July 1987, the Government state:
"It is for companies to ensure that their bankers and major shareholders understand the advantages of investing in R&D. The reporting of R&D expenditure in annual accounts will promote this understanding".
I entirely agree with that. I beg leave to move the amendment.
Lord Sherfield: I rise to support the two amendments. As the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, has indicated, this is a subject which has been before the Select Committee on Science and Technology for a number of years. In its report on research and development in the engineering industry, which was published in 1983, the recommendation was first made that companies should disclose their research and development expenditure in their annual accounts. In 1987 the committee's report on civil R&D reiterated that recommendation and said that since the voluntary system had not resulted in much progress in the matter it should be made compulsory and legislation should be introduced for that purpose.
The noble Viscount has indicated the nature of the Government's reply. They did not rule out legislation. They said they hoped that the new SSAP.13 might achieve the objective. A few weeks ago the matter came up in evidence again before the committee when we were having a discussion with Sir Francis Tombs, the chairman of the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology. He said that the need for disclosing the accounts on R&D expenditure was overdue and should now be made statutory.
There has thus been a consistent record of advice and recommendation. As the noble Viscount has said, this seems to be a most opportune moment to

901
give effect to the recommendation by introducing these amendments into the Bill. I therefore support them.
Lord Tordoff: I am speaking deliberately from the Back Benches since this is not a party issue, as the noble Viscount has said, but as a retired member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology I should like to offer my support to the amendment.
One of the great problems in British industry is the degree of "short-termism" which is inflicted on it by the City. There is very considerable pressure for the short-term considerations. I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, had been able to be in his place this afternoon—he, too, has his name to this amendment —he would have told the story of the chief executive of a well-known engineering company in this country which is dear to the heart of the right honourable lady the Prime Minister who told him that on the day that they first published their research and development costs in their accounts two things happened: their shares went up on the American stock exchange and down on the London stock exchange. That seems to exemplify the position that we find. It is a ridiculous situation. If we believe in restoring industry to long-term profitability, and if there is any belief by the Government in long-term enterprise in industry in this country, R&D is the fundamental cornerstone of that development.
Therefore I hope that the Government will accept not only that the amendment is worthwhile but that it should be encouraged.
The Earl of Limerick: In speaking for the first time on this Bill, perhaps I may express my regret that I was unable to he present on Second Reading. I speak very briefly in support of the amendments.
Two points have very rightly been made. The first concerns the way in which the publication of an R&D figure can act in rebuttal to short-term pressures which so often arise when cashflow or earnings per share come under pressure. The second point is that if we are looking for truth in accountancy, expenditure on R&D being of a capital nature is very different in quality from other forms of revenue expenditure which would he lost in the profit and loss account. It is right and proper that those seeking to evaluate the worth and progress of the company should have a chance to see the investment that it has made in the past in the vital area.
As is known, when a company comes under pressure one of the first and easiest things to do is to cut R&D expenditure. If that is going to happen it should be seen to be happening.
Lord Peston: On the Opposition Front Bench, we warmly support the amendment. In particular, we support the arguments that have been put forward in favour of it. I believe that there is no difference between any of us on the importance of research and development, and I fully accept that the Government have taken a very strong and positive view on the desirability of encouraging research and development. There is no argument between any of us on that matter. This is very much a matter of what
902
ought to appear in the company's accounts and what is relevant to a Companies Bill as we have it before us. We share the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, first, that this is overdue and that there is nothing original about it; secondly that this is the opportunity to act. We hope for a sympathetic and, if possible, full acceptance of the amendment by the Government. If not now, when would we ever get around to doing something of this sort?
Some of us would argue that research and development is the most valuable part of a company's assets. That ought to be made abundantly clear. Sometimes the emphasis put on physical equipment is less significant than that placed on research and development because ultimately it is upon new products and new processes that the long term survival of the company depends. Again, there is nothing between us. The survival of the nation depends on long-term survival of companies. It has been previously argued that our future depends on science and technology. It depends on industry in which there is enormously high value-added as the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, in his reference to the balance of payments makes clear. That point, major though it is, is minor compared with one's fears about the long run future.
Clearly we must take every opportunity to emphasise the desirability of research and development. Equally, if I might put it negatively, companies that do not engage in research and development, in which little will appear on that account, might well he asked by one or two interested parties—not least the shareholders—why there is this vacuum. I do not see it simply as a positive incentive. We can all agree that we see it as the kind of pinprick that we should like to have the companies feel.
The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, mentioned training. There are many other aspects of the company that we could refer to. I would argue that of all the things that we are talking about, research and development is the most important. Therefore, the general view: why not this and why not that? I do not think that that is an apposite argument at this time. The important thing is to concentrate on the enormous value of research and development and the advantages of placing that in the accounts. I agree that there are problems of definition, and that there are many matters that we could go into. If the noble Lord in reply says that he agrees but that he has worries about detail, we would all accept that there may be details that we could adjust to. The important thing is for the Government to take this opportunity either to accept the amendment or to say that it would lay before the Committee in due course a better-worded amendment. Having said that, on behalf of my noble friends, we strongly support the amendment.
Lord Ezra: As the contributions from noble Lords who have spoken have shown, there is a degree of ambivalence about research and development. While in general virtually everybody supports the concept, in practical terms, so far as concerns individual companies various reticences often emerge. As the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, has pointed out, there is

903
an obsession with earnings per share upon which (for very good reason no doubt) company chairmen and their boards concentrate.
There have been many cases in recent times when those companies which have ventured into major research and development situations have found themselves disadvantaged. The company which comes most readily to mind is Pilkingtons which, at a particular time, allocated a substantial amount to its research and development (for which it is renowned). That weakened its share price and it was made the subject of an unwelcome bid. It was a pretty close-run thing, but it managed to stave off that bid. If however the amendment were carried and all companies had to indicate the amount of resources they put into research and development, that situation would not arise. This amendment would make it very clear that those who invested most in that area would be likely to succeed most in the long term.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: It has been an interesting and far-ranging debate on the subject. I am grateful to my noble friend and others who have raised it.
The Government are well aware of the importance that noble Lords, particularly those connected with the Select Committee on Science and Technology, attach to the disclosure of expenditure on research and development in company accounts. The Government share the view that such disclosure is desirable and could lead to greater understanding of the importance of research and development by shareholders, managers and others. However, the Government's preferred method of achieving this end is not through legislation, but by encouraging the accounting profession to provide for disclosure through a revision to Statement of Standard Accounting Practice 13 (Accounting for Research and Development). The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, mentioned that point.
I am pleased to say that such a revised standard has been agreed by all six major accounting bodies in the United Kingdom, and was published on 26th January 1989. The new standard will require all public limited companies, and very large private companies, to disclose their expenditure on research and development in their accounts. That meets the Government's objectives, particularly as we believe that the case for disclosure of expenditure on research and development by non-public companies other than very large private companies, is outweighed by the burdens that disclosure is likely to involve for them.
While accounting standards do not have the force of law, compliance is monitored by the accounting profession, and a departure from the terms of a standard may lead to the qualification of the relevant accounts by the company's auditors. the Government therefore regard the outcome in respect of achieving disclosure of expenditure on research and development in company accounts as satisfactory and believes there to be no need for legislation.
904
I hope that what I have said will put noble Lords' minds at ease. It is important to point out that we do not feel that this requirement needs to be on a statutory basis; that it is best monitored by the accountancy profession.
Viscount Caldecote: I am grateful to the Minister for his support for the principle of this amendment in that he says that it is important that this information should be disclosed. I simply cannot understand why, if it is so important, that there is an objection to making it statutory. The Minister did not mention that at all. Perhaps he could help us by saying what is the objection to making it statutory.
Lord Strathclyde: Making it statutory simply adds another regulation, which we are keen not to do. We feel that the revised standard of accountancy will improve the situation and that therefore there is no need to make that statutory. However, as I take it that noble Lords feel very strongly about this matter, perhaps I could take it away and come back at Report stage; then we could discuss it further.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Can we have an assurance that when the noble Lord takes it away, he will come back with an amendment along the lines that the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, has moved?
Lord Strathclyde: No, I cannot give that assurance.
Lord Tordoff: May I urge the Committee to consider this matter very carefully before deciding what to do? Frankly, the Minister's reassurance is not of very great reassurance at all to me, particularly in the light of the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. We have not had a satisfactory answer as to why the Government do not wish this to go on the statute book.
There is general agreement all round that firm steps should be taken to make sure that this happens. Having listened to noble Lords, I would encourage the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, to divide the Committee if he does not get greater reassurance.
Lord Strathclyde: To pre-empt the noble Lord, the amendments are not, as I am sure he will realise, technically correct. I hope that the noble Lord does not feel the need to press them at this stage. We will look at what he has said and discuss it when we get to Report stage. Accounting standards have a role to play. If one brought all disclosure requirements into statute one would have a very unwieldly statute book. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that there were many special cases that one would wish to bring in and that this was a special special case. However, I believe that the accounting standards that we have provided for deal with this matter very effectively. But that does not pre-empt what I have already said. We shall take this away and look at it extremely closely in the next few weeks.
Viscount Caldecote: It is rather a red herring to say that if you have one SSAP made statutory, you have to have them all made statutory. We are not asking for that. We are asking for the principle of one SSAP to be made statutory.

905
Perhaps I can give the Minister a way out. Would he agree at Report stage to bring in an amendment on the lines of my amendment? I fully accept that it is not in the exact form that it should be but I am advised that that is for the Government to settle if they accept the principle of the amendment. Will he agree either to propose an amendment on these lines or one which gives delegated power to the Secretary of State to bring in the principle of this amendment if it is found that the SSAPis not effective in making companies disclose R&D in their published accounts?
Lord Strathclyde: Before I reply to that point, the proposed amendment would apply to all companies. I believe that this goes too far. The case for disclosure by small companies is not made out; the case for disclosure by public companies is considerably stronger. This needs to be considered further.
We shall look at this again before Report stage. I am afraid that I cannot promise any more than that. I am not sure that the Government will be able to bring in their own amendment. Perhaps we can wait and see what amendment my noble friend will put forward.
Viscount Caldecote: With regard to small companies, if it would help the Minister I am perfectly happy to agree that my amendment should apply only to plcs. There is no problem about that. That is what we should like the Government to consider and to bring in as an amendment at Report stage, either on the lines of this amendment or to give delegated power to the Secretary of State.
Lord Strathclyde: We shall consider what the noble Viscount has said, including the idea of bringing in a power for the Secretary of State. However, I cannot confirm that the Government will put forward an amendment at the next stage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Is the Minister saying that he can make no commitment whatsoever to his noble friend on the Government's procedure at Report stage?
Lord Strathclyde: There already is a power to amend disclosure requirements assuming that Clause 18 is passed. I hope that that makes a difference. I can certainly give an undertaking that we shall consider using that power if the standard proves ineffective.
Lord Peston: I apologise for intervening yet again. I am at a loss as to why the Minister is unable to be more positive. I can well understand, if he were to go away and then to discover on reflection that we were all wrong, that he would come back and say, "You didn't really understand and we can explain it". I doubt that any of us would be churlish if we were all wrong. However, for the noble Lord to have considered this amendment with advice and to have discovered that we are entirely right, then to be told that in a Bill of this size the Government cannot find room for such an amendment seems very far fetched. I can find 50 things in the Bill that I should be happy for him to take out. All we ask is that he considers the points that the noble Viscount is making. If he
906
discovers that they are valid and appropriate in the form in which he puts them, will he come back with an appropriate government amendment? That seems a moderate request on the part of Members of the Committee.
Lord Strathclyde: What the noble Lord suggests is moderate and, yes, we are happy to do that. What I felt was being proposed earlier was that we should take this amendment away and simply bring it back at Report stage. I cannot confirm that. We shall look at it very closely and discuss it with the relevant officials and all parties who are involved. We shall make a point of looking at it very thoroughly indeed. I hope that that goes far enough.
Viscount Caldecote: To avoid all possibilities of misunderstanding, is the Minister saying that the Secretary of State now has power under the Companies Act, as it will be amended by this Bill, to bring in by delegated legislation amendments to what needs to be disclosed in company reports and in particular that he could bring in delegated legislation to meet the point in this amendment?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes. My noble friend is quite correct. As I said earlier, there is a power to amend the disclosure requirements by a statutory instrument, assuming that Clause 18—to which we shall come in the next few days—is passed. I can give an undertaking that we shall consider using that power if the standard that we are going to introduce proves ineffective. Perhaps that is what he wished to understand some time ago.
Viscount Caldecote: On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerranhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 10:
Page 6, line 17, at end insert—
("2A) The profit and loss account shall also show the expenditure arising out of the use of gas, electricity and oil which has been charged against profits.").
The noble Lord said: Having regard to the interesting debate on the previous amendment, this amendment will not be moved.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Lord Peston moved Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 6, line 19, after ("Schedule 4") insert ("and all applicable statements of Standard Accounting Practice").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 11, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 22, 24 and 110 with the permission of the Committee. Amendment No. 11 is a technical accounting amendment. We introduce it in order to probe the Government's intentions and to listen to the reply of the noble Lord by way of clarification on a matter that I raised at Second Reading.
The purpose of the amendment is to strengthen reporting practice. It is not unconnected with the debate that we have just had. It strengthens reporting practice by requiring observance of the relevant SSAPs. It raises again the issue that has just been

907
raised about how far we can rely on voluntary compliance with those SSAPs.
The noble Lord knows that I am as inexpert in this field—I was about to say, as perhaps he is, but perhaps we are equally inexpert. I am advised of two matters. There are precedents for this move elsewhere. I am also advised that in practice no additional burden will be placed on companies behaving in the way that would then be laid down in statute. As I understand it, the Dearing Committee on page 43 of its report also indicated that we ought to be moving in this general direction. This will give the Minister an opportunity, to say a word or two about the Government's view of the Dearing Committee in this matter. I am aware that we have a logical paradox here. It is one that has troubled me a little. One could say that the whole point of the standard accounting practices is that they are standard accounting practice and that they ought to be obeyed voluntarily. In a sense one can logically argue: why have a statutory back-up for them? I quite understand that. I can turn the argument on its head; on the assumption that this is the correct way to behave, it seems to me that the minimum the Government ought to do is to give them a statutory back-up. I have been pondering backwards and forwards on this matter.
My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and I have put down the amendment mostly to seek clarification so that we may understand the Government's mind and so that the accounting profession can hear what the noble Lord has to say and can understand where the Government think the profession ought to be going.
5 p.m.
Lord Benson: The accounting profession, on behalf of whom I speak, is foremost in wanting statements of standard accounting practice to be observed both by companies and by the profession. We wholly support the principle. My doubt is whether this is the right time and place to introduce this provision. I am not privy to this, but I understand that discussions are already taking place with the Government on the outcome of the Ronald Dearing Report, which will be wide and comprehensive and is likely to require some form of statutory backing. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be able to tell us or give some indication of what is likely to happen. But in its present form it would be unwise to put in a provision of this kind. The principle we wholly support.
There is one other minor matter. If we are to have hacking for standard accounting practice we also ought to have backing for international accounting standards which are equally important to international companies.
Lord Strathclyde: I entirely appreciate the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to give accounting standards greater force by making compliance with them a statutory requirement. There has been growing concern in recent years about the effectiveness of accounting standards in dealing with new and not always welcome developments in accounting practices. The concern has focused on
908
various aspects of the standard-setting arrangements, not least on the enforcement of standards—and it is that problem which I assume that these amendments are intended to address.
As noble Lords may be aware, the accountancy profession itself shared the general feeling of unease and for that reason set up a committee, as we have heard, under Sir Ronald Dearing late in 1987 to review the whole standard setting process. The Dearing Report was published in November. Interestingly, the Dearing Committee considered the question of giving legal backing to accounting standards, but concluded—I hope I am not repeating things that noble Lords already know, but it is worth putting on the record—
"We do not recommend a general move towards incorporating accountancy standards into law because this inescapably requires a legalistic approach and a reduction in the ability of the financial community to respond quickly to new developments. So far as possible, we recommend that the development of accounting standards should be the responsibility of auditors, preparers and users of accounts."
The Government share that view.
The Government welcome the Dearing Report and we shall very shortly be issuing a consultative document to seek views, particularly on those recommendations which could involve legislation. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Benson, welcomes that. We shall be seeking views in time to propose amendments to this Bill if consultation shows that the recommendations command a measure of support from those most directly affected. Even at this stage, however, and without seeking to pre-empt that public consultation, I can say that the Government are broadly sympathetic to the range of the Dearing conclusions.
I therefore ask the Committee to await the outcome of those wider consultations, and in the meantime I invite the noble Lord to withdraw these amendments.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I apologise to the noble Lord for intervening in the debate because I was not present at the beginning, but he read an extract from paragraph 10.2 of the Dearing Committee Report. If he were to go on to paragraph 10.3 he would see the words:
"While we attach importance to avoiding a legalistic approach, we recommend that government introduce legislation along the following lines in order to facilitate the work of the financial community in monitoring and promoting compliance with accounting standards and in order to help provide a sound basis for financing the work of developing and implementing accounting standards. In the case of all large companies, as defined in 15.6, directors should be required to state in the notes to the annual accounts whether these are drawn up in accordance with applicable accounting standards and to draw attention to any material departures explaining the reasons for the departures. This is in addition to the present provisional, but non-statutory requirement upon auditors to note any departures from accounting standards that do not have their support."
Is the noble Lord saying that the Government support paragraph 10.3 of the Dearing Committee Report as well as paragraph 10.2?
Lord Strathclyde: What the noble Lord has just said is all very well, but the form of words that I used earlier was that the Government welcome the Dearing Report. I do not believe that I need to add

909
any more to that except to say that we are issuing a consultative document to seek everybody's views on it.
Lord Peston: Briefly, I just wish to clarify something. As I understand it, what the noble Lord has said is that it is too early to decide along the lines of this amendment but that he will consult and if in due course, as the noble Lord, Lord Benson, pointed out, it became abundantly clear that a statutory back-up would be required, the Government in following Dearing would not at this stage turn their face against that idea. Before withdrawing the amendment I should like to be clear in my own mind that that is what the noble Lord is saying.
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, we shall consult. The Dearing Committee recommends that, although accounting standards should not be incorporated into the law, there should be a statutory requirement on companies to disclose whether or not their accounts comply with accounting standards and to explain any departures. The Government are sympathetic to this recommendation, although they do not wish to take a final view of it until the consultation procedures that I have already mentioned have been completed.
Lord Peston: Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Williams and myself.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, line 24, leave out ("that") and insert ("this").
The noble Lord said: This amendment simply corrects a wrong reference. The relevant statute being referred to is the Companies Act 1985. It might be convenient, with the agreement of the Committee, to take with this amendment, Amendment No. 23 which stands in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Peston. Without wishing to prejudge what the noble Lord opposite has to say, Amendment No. 23 offers to have a similar purpose in mind, but I think that noble Lords will find on careful consideration that the existing reference to "this Act" in that context is correct. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I also shall speak to Amendment No. 23, with the leave of the Committee. The noble Lord has correctly anticipated my reaction to the Government's amendment. It is rare, but I accept that the Government's wording is more correct than our wording. I shall not be moving Amendment No. 23 when we come to it. I am happy to agree to government Amendment No. 12.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 33, at end insert ("to the extent necessary to give a true and fair view").
The noble Lord said: It may be convenient also if I were to speak to Amendment No. 25. This is in the nature of a probing amendment because we wish to ascertain the Government's intentions.
The present drafting appears to be unclear and to give directors wider discretion than is intended in ignoring the statutory provisions. It appears to be more relaxed than the wording in the fourth directive—Article 2.5 dealing with individual companies—and in Section 22 of the 1985 Companies Act. It is not qualified by a reference to "a true and fair view".
What is the purpose in rewriting the act in that way? It is a sensitive area in which changes can have unexpected results. In particular, do the Government not consider that the reformulation will enable controlled non-subsidiaries—that is, off balance sheet financing vehicles—to be brought into consolidation?
If Members of the Committee wish I can read extracts from the fourth directive and from Section 22(8) of the Companies Act. However. I shall not burden the Committee by doing so because I hope that the department has taken the point and that the noble Lord will be able to respond. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: It was interesting to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Willliams. We do not consider that the amendments make a change of substance to the Bill. They are not strictly necessary. This is another case where people feel more comfortable with something close to the wording of the existing Act and look for a change of substance wherever words have been used slightly differently. That said, these particular amendments are not objectionable and the Government can accept them.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am bowled over by the noble Lord's surprising assent to my amendment and I am grateful to him.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Form and content of company accounts]:
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 131, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) In sub-paragraph (3)(b) "capitalisation", in relation to an amount standing to the credit of the revaluation reserve, means applying it in wholly or partly paying up unissued shares in the company to be allotted to members of the company as fully or partly paid shares.").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 are technical amendments to Schedule 1 of the Bill dealing with the form and content of company accounts. The first inserts a definition of "on capitalisation" to prevent a possible abuse of a company's revaluation reserve. The other two amendments correct wrong cross-references contained in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Can the Minister indicate an instance where there are partly paid capitalisation issues? Should not all capitalisation issues be fully paid?
Lord Strathclyde: On capitalisation is one of the permitted ways in which a company can reduce a

911
revaluation reserve. Essentially it is intended to allow a reduction for the purpose of an issue of bonus shares to members.
It has been suggested to us that the use of the term "capitalisation" in this context, without a definition, could be abused. We agree with that. The introduction of a definition therefore is intended to prevent exploitation of any ambiguity as to its meaning. Some companies have shown that they are keen to use the revaluation reserve for purposes for which it is not our intention that it should be allowed and which in our view are not permitted under the relevant European Community directives.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 18 and 19:
Page 131, line 27, leave out from ("2") to end of line and insert ("8(3), 16, 21(4) and (5), 22(4) and (5), 24(3) and (4) and 27(3) and (4)").
Page 131. line 29, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 30 and insert ("Parts II and III of Schedule 6 (loans and other dealings in favour of directors and others)").
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Group accounts]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 7, line 7, leave out from first ("The") to end of line 11 and insert ("consolidated accounts shall give a true and fair view of the assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss of the undertakings included therein taken as a whole.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment intended to ask the Government why in the proposed new subsection (3) of Section 227 of the 1985 Act they sought to deviate from Article 16.3 in the seventh directive from which it is derived. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the issue. Of course it is important to give proper effect to the directive in our domestic law. That is our Community obligation. However, our obligation under the Treaty of Rome is not to repeat the directive word for word.
Lord Mottistone: I am grateful to my noble friend. It is the first time that I have received that reply. On other occasions when Members opposite were sitting on these Benches I remember being shot down because we were not repeating the provisions word for word. No doubt circumstances have changed over the past 10 or 12 years and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved].
Lord Williams of Elvelhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 23:
Page 7, line 18, leave out ("this") and insert ("that").
[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 7, line 28, leave out ("its") and insert ("a quantification of its financial").
The noble Lord said: The amendment stands in the names of my noble friends Lord Williams and Lord Peston. I believe that to eliminate the word "its" and substitute the more precise term "a quantification of its financial" makes the provision a good deal clearer. The subsection will then read:
"Particulars of any such departure, the reasons for it and a quantification of its financial effect".
The word "its" is too general and we are trying to help the noble Lord in this regard. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I thank the noble Lord for raising the point. I have not had an opportunity to welcome him to the Committee and I do so now. I hope that he will be with us for a while.
The noble Lord suggested that these amendments are intended to confirm that the effect of the departure in these cases is the financial effect. We find it difficult to see that there is a need for the clarification. There does not seem to be an effect other than a financial effect which could be inferred from the present wording.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Is there any reason why the wording of the seventh directive should not be followed in this respect, in view of the noble Lord's known devotion to it?
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I could refer the noble Lord to the answer which I have just given to my noble friend Lord Mottistone.
Lord Morris: Does the Bill as drafted have precisely the same effect as the intended effect of the original drafting of the directive?
Lord Strathclyde: I hope that my noble friend Lord Morris is not confusing the word "effect" with the word "effect" as in the Bill.
Lord Morris: Oddly enough, I mean precisely what I asked.
Lord Strathclyde: This deals with the effect of the departure in these cases, whether or not it is the financial effect. We find it difficult to see any need for the clarification. Therefore, I do not believe that there is any more to say.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I do not press the point any further and I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 7, line 48, at end insert ("in the case of a public company, or
(iii) 10 per cent. of the total shares in the company in the case of a private company.").
The noble Lord said: Article 8 of the seventh directive states that the exemptions should be not more than 10 per cent. for plcs and 20 per cent. for

913
other types; that is to say, private companies and perhaps partnerships. This is a probing amendment to ask why the Government chose the figure of 5 per cent. rather than going a bit further in the direction of the directive, and also why they have made a distinction between plcs and private companies. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: There is no great point of principle here. This is a matter of judgment as to the precise circumstances in which minority shareholders should be able to require consolidated accounts to be prepared, notwithstanding the exemptions from that requirement provided for in new Section 228 for certain intermediate holding companies; that is, for parent companies which are themselves a subsidiary of someone else. The seventh directive, from which this protection for minority shareholders derives, would allow either what the Bill provides at present or the scheme envisaged by this amendment. In our judgment there is no real reason to make a distinction between private and public companies in this context, although I acknowledge that the directive refers to the possibility of such a distinction.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us what other countries in the Community are doing in this respect. Are they making a distinction between private and public companies?
Lord Strathclyde: I am advised that other countries do not make a distinction.
Lord Williams of Elvel: And in implementing this directive, they are not proposing to do so?
Lord Strathclyde: Since there is no point of principle involved for the Government and the noble Lord feels strongly about this, perhaps I can take back this amendment and consider it further.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord. At the outset I mentioned that this was a probing amendment. I do not necessarily wish the Government to bring forward an amendment along the lines I suggested so I shall not hold the noble Lord to any commitment which he might have just made.
However, I ask him to look at this matter and to write to me on how the Government see the interpretation of the directive and what other countries in the Community are doing to implement it. Understandably without commitment, I hope that he will be able to assure me that there is no great merit in my probing amendment and that other countries are quite happy about this. If he can do that, then I shall be quite satisfied.
Lord Strathclyde: I believe that the noble Lord is quite right. This is a probing amendment and I shall write to the noble Lord in the next few days.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Perhaps we could have a copy of this kind letter explaining the position.
Lord Strathclyde: By all means.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I understand that we are going to receive rather voluminous correspondence. Nevertheless, as with all letters from the noble Lord, we shall read them diligently. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 8, line 42, at end insert ("or traded on the Unlisted Securities Market").
The noble Lord said: The companies whose shares or other securities are traded on the Unlisted Securities Market do not qualify as "listed". That is the definition of the Unlisted Securities Market. The disapplication to the USM, if I may use that expression, of companies seems to be desirable given the public interest in such companies. It seems to me wrong to confine this entirely and solely to listed companies. I believe that we should extend this to companies whose securities are traded on a market which, although it does not have to comply with all the listing requirements of the official markets, has its own rules and therefore should be included. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The formulation in the Bill simply follows the directive. This refers to securities admitted to official listing on a stock exchange in a member state. I understand that that term does not include companies whose shares are traded on the Unlisted Securities Market. In any event, I cannot see that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord would have a significant effect. There cannot be many companies listed on the Unlisted Securities Market which are themselves subsidiaries of someone else. Therefore, I cannot really see the point of the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not have in my head all those companies whose securities are listed on the Unlisted Securities Market, but my impression is—and it is only my impression—that there may be a number of companies on the USM which are subsidiaries of other companies. Indeed, a common way of realising the cash value of the equity in a company is to float off a minority on the USM. I may be quite wrong about that. It may be that what was practised when I was dealing in these sort of matters a year or two ago is no longer practised and that all USM companies have become majority owned by the shareholders whose shares are traded on the market. However, if so, that is a development about which I did not know.
On the substantive point about the directive, we have always agreed, and I hope that the noble Lord is not going back on it, that the United Kingdom can go further than the directive. Clearly, we have to do all which the directive states but there is no reason why we should not go further than the directive. As we all know, the United Kingdom market is much richer, not in the monetary sense but in terms of diversity of securities which are traded, than the Frankfurt, Milan or Paris markets. We have a thriving USM market which is to be encouraged. I see no reason why the Government should not go further

915
and put USM companies in the same category as the directive requires us to put listed companies.
Lord Strathclyde: Everything which the noble Lord says is very interesting. However, in this instance we believe that we may be bound by the directive. It may be possible to introduce a more stringent regime. Therefore I suggest that we discuss this with companies first before going any further.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps the noble Lord will clarify what he meant by that last comment. Clearly we cannot discuss the matter with companies in this Chamber. Are the Government taking away the amendment to look at it and will they perhaps come back with something along the lines of my suggestion?
Lord Strathclyde: There are two points here. First, we believe that we may be bound by the directive and its terms. Secondly, we should like to discuss the matter with the companies involved before going further. To that extent, yes, we should like to have an opportunity to discuss the matter further on Report.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I do not mean to be offensive, but I cannot understand why the lawyers in the Department of Trade and Industry have not yet made up their minds on whether or not this amendment is contrary to the directive. I should have thought that it is a relatively easy view for the lawyers to take. As regards consulting the companies which may be on the USM, I take entirely the point made by the noble Lord and I am sure that such consultation will prove fruitful. I do hope that when we put down amendments in proper and due time we shall not in future be told that the Government cannot make up their mind on whether an amendment is contrary to the directive or is covered by the directive. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 8, line 48, leave out ("or voting rights").
The noble Lord said: This amendment removes three redundant words. Do noble Lords wish me to explain why? I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: We should be grateful if the noble Lord could give us his original thinking behind the words as they now stand in the Bill. Perhaps he can give us some information about his attitude towards the exemption in Article 7.1.b of the directive.
Lord Strathclyde: For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I shall endeavour to bring a little original thought to this amendment. These words are redundant because new Section 228(1)(b) to which subsection (5) refers makes no reference to voting rights. I hope that explains the situation.
Lord Bruce of Donington: What about Article 7.1.b of the directive?
Lord Strathclyde: I am not sure where the noble Lord finds that reference.
Lord Williams of Elvel: In Article 7.1.b of the directive there is exemption for those companies whose shares are 90 per cent. held by the parent company and other shareholders agree. That does not appear in the Bill at present. It appears to be obligatory in the directive, but it may be an option.
Lord Strathclyde: Article 7.1.b of the directive is not relevant in this context as we have decided to implement Article 8. The question therefore does not arise.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Is the noble Lord sure?
Lord Strathclyde: That is what I am advised. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 9, line 26, after ("material") insert ("for the purpose of giving a true and fair view").
The noble Lord said: I should like to take Amendments Nos. 68 and 172 at the same time. These are related minor technical amendments. The general definition of "material" is not appopriate for certain uses of the term in the Act and the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: We support the amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 9, leave out lines 35 to 37 and insert—
("(b) it would involve expense or delay out of proportion to the value to members, or").
The noble Lord said: The wording of the Bill gives no indication as to the meaning of "disproportionate". The word "disproportionate" must be disproportionate to something. The amendment is calculated to clarify that position and we hope that the noble Lord will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I am sympathetic to the thinking behind this amendment, and I recognise that it may be sensible to make a change here. We are certainly willing to consider the point carefully and report back.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am grateful to the noble Lord. In those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 9, line 38, leave out ("was acquired and").
The noble Lord said: The existing wording of subsection (3) in the proposed new Section 229 to the Companies Act 1985 reads:
"the interest of the parent company was acquired and is held exclusively with a view to subsequent resale."
We suggest to the noble Lord that perhaps that is being extremely strict—stricter, in fact, than the Seventh Directive, Article 13.3.c, which refers to "held" for resale not "acquired" for resale. It is also somewhat tougher than SSAP No. 14 which refers to "temporary control". In our view, it could lead to consolidation of companies which ought properly to be excluded from consolidation. We ask that the noble Lord consider this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I find myself again grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. We recognise that there is an important point here and we see considerable attractions in the noble Lord's amendments, taken as a package. I cannot accept them today; but I agree to consider them most carefully and to report back.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am grateful to the noble Lord and ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 10, line 27, after ("that") insert ("the notes to").
The noble Lord said: This is another small, technical amendment. There is a requirement in new Section 230 that a company show its profit and loss for the year in its individual balance sheet where it enjoys concessions for its individual profit and loss account. These amendments allow this amount to be shown in the notes to the accounts rather than on the face of the balance sheet. In the UK the notes are the appropriate place for such disclosure. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 10, line 28, leave out ("shows") and insert ("show").
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 10, line 31, after ("company's") insert ("annual").
The noble Lord said: These parallel amendments are purely for clarification and I hope I do not need to say any more than that. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I have only one small question. Why is it "annual"? A company's accounts are not necessarily annual. There are certain periods called accounting periods. They are not necessarily always annual accounts, as the noble Lord will be aware.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord is quite correct. But in these provisions the phrase "company's accounts" is used. This is not a defined term in the Bill. Therefore it is not entirely clear what is being referred to. By contrast "company's annual accounts" is defined in the new Section 262(1) and
918
encompasses the individual accounts and any group accounts required to be prepared.
Lord Bruce of Donington: What happens when there is a change in the year end?
Lord Strathclyde: I am not sure that that necessarily makes any difference. From time to time a company may well change its annual year. Whether its annual reports are for nine, 12 or 18 months, they are still called annual accounts.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Are the Government seriously suggesting that if a company reports every 18 months it should be called an annual account?
Lord Strathclyde: I gather that is the situation under existing legislation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): I wish to make a correction, with the leave of the Committee. I erroneously moved Amendment No. 23 into the Bill. In fact that amendment was not moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. He agreed not to move it when the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was moving his previous amendment. Therefore I move that Clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill, omitting Amendment No. 23.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Form and content of group accounts]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 133, line 2, after ("valued") insert ("or otherwise determined").
The noble Lord said: With this I shall also speak to Amendment No. 38. They are both minor technical amendments once more. They are needed to ensure that the amounts of assets and liabilities arc adjusted to conform with the accounting rules used for the consolidated accounts. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am still not entirely clear as to why these words should be used; namely, "or otherwise determined". All assets are valued and there is no other determination in so doing. One may be valuing on one basis or another, but one is essentially placing a value upon the assets. The words or amounts that are inserted after "values" in line 3 give rise to exactly the same observations. It may well be that the directors consider that the value of something is a figure already in the books. This is a valuation and they are required to value. How can one determine otherwise than by value?
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord makes a valid point. It has been pointed out to us that strictly speaking one does not value assets by historical cost accounting rules. They are recognised at cost. Paragraph (3) of Schedule 2 to the Bill implements Article 29(3) of the seventh directive which refers to "valuation" and "valuation method". We have

919
interpreted the reference to valuation methods as a reference to accounting rules in Schedule 4 to the 1985 Act. These provide for historical cost accounting rules and alternative accounting rules.
Lord Bruce of Donington: The noble Lord has used the term "value". The assets are either valued or they are not. There may be a variety of methods of determining value. In a much wider context one can value a business on a net asset basis; one can value a business on a net asset basis with the assets brought up to current values; one can value a company on the basis of a capitalisation of its future earnings. Essentially one values. There is no "otherwise determined". A valuation by whatever method is surely the term to use. It does not need further qualification.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: We are dealing here with a very specialised interpretation of words. Perhaps it will help if I write to the noble Lord to let him know exactly what it is that we mean.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am always very grateful to receive communications from the noble Lord. We are dealing with an interpretation of English as it is generally perceived and understood. Because the noble Lord and the Government do not like complicated legislation with an unnecessary use of words, and one should always be economical with them, I believe that the Minister can leave matters as they stand. It may be that his original instinct was right but it was the second doubt that caused the difficulty. However, we shall await his communication with very great interest.
Lord Whaddon: Will the noble Lord place a copy of that letter in the Library so that the rest of us may be informed?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before the noble Lord responds to the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, the Government have produced a Bill. In producing it they are meant to write into it what they mean. If they do not know what various provisions mean, the Government should not produce the Bill. If they know what a certain provision means, the Minister should be properly briefed to explain to the Committee what it means.
Lord Strathclyde: I object to that. It is nothing to do with whether the Government do or do not know what is written in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is trying to put another interpretation on the meaning. I have explained what the Government think the provision means, but the noble Lord simply does not agree. On that basis I am willing to write to him to explain it. It has nothing to do with my briefing, my knowledge; how much my officials know or whether the Government know what this Bill means. Of course they do.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It is not a question of what the Government think it means but a question of
920
what the Bill means. We know from the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor the other day that it does not matter what the Minister believes a Bill to mean. What matters is what the courts think the Bill means and what Parliament intended. That is the problem.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I do not wish to increase my correspondence unduly but obviously it is going to be an interesting letter that the Minister will have to write. I should like to have a copy.
Lord Strathclyde: I made the point that we shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and copy letters will be sent to all Members of the Committee who participated in this debate.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 133, line 3, after ("values") insert ("or amounts").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with the last one. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 134, line 12, leave out paragraph 10 and insert—
("10.—(1) The conditions for accounting for an acquisition as a merger are—

(a) that at least 90% of the nominal value of the relevant shares in the undertaking acquired is held by or on behalf of the parent company and its subsidiary undertakings,

(b) that the proportion referred to in paragraph (a) was attained pursuant to an arrangement providing for the issue of equity shares by the parent company or one or more of its subsidiary undertakings,

(c) that the fair value of any consideration other than the issue of equity shares given pursuant to the arrangement did not exceed 10% of the nominal value of the equity shares issued, and

(d) that adoption of the merger method of accounting accords with generally accepted accounting principles or practice.

(2) The reference in sub-paragraph (1)(a) to the "relevant shares" in an undertaking acquired is to those carrying unrestricted rights to participate both in distributions and in the assets of the undertaking upon liquidation.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is largely of a technical nature but is of some importance. Following comments made by the accountancy profession and the Law Society, the Government have reconsidered the conditions written into the Bill which have to be met before what is known as the merger method of accounting can be used. The present text has caused some perplexity and, on reflection, we believe that the best course is to reflect the minimum conditions in the seventh directive more closely.
The Government have also long made it clear that it is open to accounting standards to set a tougher test. The present accounting standard is presently under review. Noble Lords will see that the amendment also restricts the use of the merger method to cases where its use accords with generally accepted accounting principles of practices. We believe this provides a useful peg for a revised accounting standard. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I agree with the noble Lord when he says that the amendment is clearer than the original version of the Bill. I also believe that it tracks the wording of the directive rather better than the original wording. Nevertheless, as in all these matters, there are some difficulties because merger accounting is one of the great problems, financially speaking, of the day.
The problems which I shall outline relate, first, to the definition of "relevant shares"; and, secondly, to the definition of "fair value" of the consideration in respect of the outstanding 10 per cent. In subsection (2) of the amendment "relevant shares" is defined as those,
"carrying unrestricted rights to participate both in distributions and in the assets of the undertaking upon liquidation".
It refers to unrestricted rights in distributions and in the liquidation of assets. We must ask about voting power in respect of such shares. What about preferred shares which are convertible at any time into ordinary shares with full rights? Are they relevant shares? There are other devices such as preferred shares, subordinated shares, second preferred shares, third preferred shares, preferred shares cum dividend and so on. I need not continue. A variety of instruments are used. At what point do we have to draw the line and say that these are not relevant shares?
Paragraph (c) of the amendment says:
"the fair value of any consideration other than the issue of the equity shares … did not exceed 10 per cent. of the nominal value of the equity shares issued".
That is an extraordinary expression. The "nominal value" of the equity shares issued could be one penny a share but the shares themselves could have a market price of £5. I do not understand how this will work and correspond with current practice. When applying merger accounting in the United States it is 10 per cent. not of the nominal value but of the market value of the equity shares issued for the other 90 per cent. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could clarify that point.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may offer some background information on the amendment. The rules set out in the schedule reflect detailed consultation with outside bodies, in particular on the issues raised by the two methods of accounting for business combinations. Acquisition accounting and merger accounting are the source of much debate within the accounting profession. In the light of this the department consulted particularly carefully on the legislative changes which might be made in the context of implementing the directive rules in Article 19, acquisition accounting, and Article 20, merger accounting. The department put forward deliberately wide-ranging options for discussion at the end of December 1987. At about the same time the Accounting Standards Committee announced that it would embark on a review of the relevant accounting standards.
The department announced in July 1988 that it would be wrong radically to change permitted accounting treatments for mergers and acquisitions at a time when views within the accounting profession differed and the relevant accounting
922
standards were under examination. However, the consultation revealed widespread agreement on the need for much improved statutory disclosure. The July announcement therefore said that the next Companies Bill would, first, give effect to the seventh directive rules on acquisition accounting; secondly, would make provision for merger accounting as permitted under the directive; and, thirdly, would introduce improved statutory disclosure rules. The announcement went on to make clear that the department would reconsider the possibility of making further changes once the outcome of the ASC review was known.
The noble Lord asked one or two questions. On the definition of "relevant shares", voting rights are not of any relevance in this context. The wording comes from the directive which excludes preference shares and all those shares listed by the noble Lord.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that answer so far as it goes but I must ask some consequential questions. The directive may eliminate the other types of shares which I mentioned. However, it refers in Article 21 to shares but does not mention the voting rights of those shares. Presumably they could be shares with no vote, with a full vote or with a partial vote. I say this in the context of a general Roman law provision that all ordinary shares carry the same vote. Non-voting ordinary shares in countries with Roman law provisions—France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Spain and Portugal—are not generally allowed. It may be that the directive is influenced by that, whereas nonvoting ordinary shares are allowed under United Kingdom law. I am unclear as to what the noble Lord means in his response to me.
Secondly, in Article 21(a) the directive says that merger accounting is allowed in cases where the shares held represent at least 90 per cent. of the nominal value, or, in the absence of a nominal value, of the accounting par value of the shares of that undertaking other than shares of the kind described in Article 9 of the directive. In United Kingdom company law we do not have any par value shares. Shares must have a nominal value. Are we to take it that in countries which have shares with no par value there can be an accounting par value which is established by reference to the net asset value per share, and that companies established in those countries will have an advantage over United Kingdom companies which do not have any par value shares? Some countries follow the United States' example where there are no par value shares. If the country law allows no par value shares, are those companies to have an advantage over United Kingdom companies where a par value or a nominal value for a share is required by law?
I am sorry to weary the Committee with such complex technical points but the Government have written a Bill and have now written an amendment to their Bill. They owe us an explanation on this point.
6 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: We are always delighted to offer explanations on our own amendments to the Bill. The noble Lord asked a question earlier about fair values.

923
The directive refers to cash payments not exceeding 10 per cent. if the nominal value of shares is used. We have interpreted that as referring to the fair value of non-cash elements to ensure effective operation of the directive. There is also no accounting for values in the United Kingdom. The general definition in the new Section 259(3) is expressed as where a target is in a country where such a concept exists. The question of advantage is, I believe, too complex to resolve on the spot.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he said. I really think that he is doing his best in the matter. However, as he said, it is a most complex question. There are countries in the world which have no par value shares. Therefore, if one looks at the directive one can see that the accounting par value must equal, on any rational interpretation, the net asset value per share. That is the standard which is set for the "90%". In the case where there is a nominal value, then apparently we must look at the nominal value to set the value of the "90%", which, as I said before, could he Ip a share, whereas the asset value per share could be £100 or £500. Indeed, I do not know what it is.
Are we therefore saying that countries which have a no par value system will support their companies over countries which have a par value system, as we do? If I may say so, all the talk about the extra 10 per cent. is irrelevant to the question I raised.
Lord Strathclyde: In the light of what the noble Lord has said I think that the best action to take at this stage would be to withdraw the amendment so that we may look at it again.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, I think that that is the right course of action at this stage. We look forward to further debate on this interesting subject on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 134, line 30, leave out from ("year") to first ("the") in line 31 and insert ("including").
The noble Lord said: I should like to take Amendments Nos. 41 to 44 together. These are all minor amendments. The first two remove ambiguities in the present wording. The last two are technical amendments which seek to ensure that the correct amounts are used when making the set off required by paragraph 11(5) of Schedule 2. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I should like to speak to this grouping of amendments also. I do not wish to knock out the Government's amendments one by one as they come forward, but, again, I have some problems with the amendments proposed.
Amendment No. 41 seems to me, if I interpret it right, to say exactly the opposite to what is contained in the Bill as drafted. It also gives rise to the question: what is the period before acquisition? Further, what if the financial year of the acquired company is different to that of the acquirer? Is there to be a reconstruction of the acquired company's accounts
924
to match the accounting year of the acquirer? If that is the case, is it not an extremely laborious exercise to impose on the acquiring company the necessity to realign all the acquired company's accounts, together with all the problems involved with reauditing, and so on, in order to match up with the financial year? That is a situation which happens the whole time.
Amendment No. 42 at first sight makes almost as little sense as the original Bill. If the year ends are different, what happens then? I simply cannot understand what the consequences of these amendments are if the year ends are different. I believe that it will impose an enormous load on accountants.
As regards Amendment No. 43, I am rather baffled to see that the Government propose to leave out the word "equity". The word was mentioned in Amendment No. 40—an amendment which has since been withdrawn—but they now propose to leave out something which seems to be integral in the whole question of merger accounting.
I turn now to Amendment No. 44. Again, what is the treatment for paper consideration for shares with restricted rights? I am sorry to impose all these technical questions on the noble Lord, but he has moved the amendments and I must respond to them.
Lord Strathclyde: As I said earlier, we are always delighted to discuss the Government's amendments. I shall attempt once more to explain exactly what the Government mean. I take first Amendment No. 41. It is designed to remove an ambiguity about the term, "without any adjustment", which appears at line 30. The amendment makes it clear that income and expenditure should be included for that part of the financial year before the acquisition.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps the noble Lord would be kind enough to stop there. He said, "For that part of the financial year". If I interpret rightly what he is saying, that means that the accounts of the acquired company have to be reworked in their entirety for the period of "that part of the year before acquisition". That period could be six months, seven months, eight-and-a-half months, nine months, or it could even be three weeks. Is that really what the Government propose?
Lord Strathclyde: On a different year entry the financial year of the parent is the important financial year, not that of the subsidiary. That is the point of the amendment. As regards Amendment No. 42, that is also to remove an ambiguity about the term "at all material times". The amendment makes it clear that group accounts must show corresponding amounts on the assumption that the undertakings had been merged throughout the previous year.
Finally, I turn to Amendments Nos. 43 and 44. They are to ensure that the book value of any shares issued in exchange for shares in the acquired undertaking can be used for the purposes of the set off involved when the merger method of accounting is used. The term "book value" covers both "fair value" and "nominal value". That is important to cover a situation when merger relief is available. As I said, the amendments are technical but they are also

925
important. I hope that what I have said now explains the issues raised by the noble Lord.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord has explained that the financial year which is relevant in the case of Amendment No. 41 is the financial year of the new parent; that is, the acquiring company. I fully accept that fact. However, perhaps I may read out to the Committee what sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 says, including the Government's amendment—assuming that Members of the Committee accept it. It reads:
"The income and expenditure of the undertaking acquired shall be included in the group accounts for the entire financial year, including the period before the acquisition".
This means that if the acquisition does not match the financial year of the acquiring company—if, for example, the acquired company's year end is in June and it is acquired in September, but the new parent has its year end in December—then all the accounts of the acquired company have to be reworked for the process of making group accounts. If that is what the Government want, I am happy that they should want that. However, I cannot put any interpretation on the provision other than the one I have given.
Lord Strathclyde: I know that it sounds confusing and looks awkward and as though it is more complicated than it needs to be, but the amendment covers adjustments on lines generally accepted in accounting practice.
Lord Williams of Elvel: With great respect, the amendment does not cover such adjustments. It is perfectly proper for companies to ask their auditors to rework accounts and to make comparisons; but they are not being accused of a criminal offence if in some way they get it wrong. It is not written into statute. I know from my experience that it is an enormous burden on companies which have to try to adjust merger accounting procedures to their own year-end. It can be worthwhile for companies to do that. I am not saying that is necessarily something which companies do not wish to do. I take the view that if merger accounting is to be allowed in the statute, it should not be the easiest thing in the world for companies to do because people have got away with a lot of tricks on it. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the amendment imposes an extraordinary burden on acquiring companies and auditors who will have to audit those accounts. To have to go back over three or five months and have a month end! I must say that the noble Lord is pushing us a bit hard on that point.
Lord Strathclyde: What the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said is fair enough; but this practice is carried on at present. The need for proper disclosure does not seem to be an intolerable burden.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 42 to 44:
Page 134, line 34, leave out ("at all material times") and insert ("throughout that year").
Page 134, line 38, leave out ("equity").
Page 134, line 39, leave out ("relevant").
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 135, line 10, leave out first ("the") and insert ("each class or).
The noble Lord said: I hate to say again that this is a minor technical amendment, because I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has other plans for it. It is intended that companies need only disclose information about the book values and fair values of each class of assets and liabilities. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He correctly anticipated that I have problems with the amendment. Will he answer two questions? First, how is a class to be defined? Secondly, will there be netting-off within a class?
Lord Strathclyde: I am sorry that the noble Lord does not know the answer to those two questions. I shall endeavour to get them for him as quickly as possible. The effect of the amendment is to clarify the fact that companies in this context need only disclose that information about each class of assets and liabilities. When he asks what each class is, I am not sure what he is trying to say. Presumably he seeks to know what each class is. I can now tell him that class is to be defined by professional guidance. Guidance will also cover netting-off. I hope that that will please him.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for providing that answer so quickly. Perhaps he can tell me whether there will be any professional guidance which is consistent with other professional guidance; in other words, will there be an SSAP or some steer from the accounting profession? Secondly, when we talk about netting-off, will he be clear that we understand each other; that if there is a substantial good will element in one class of assets, it is only within that class—if there is negative goodwill—that it can be netted-off? It cannot be netted-off against goodwill in another class of asset, however defined.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord again asks two pertinent points. As I said before, class is to be defined by professional guidance. There is a draft standard by the profession already in existence. We shall be seeing it at any moment now.
Lord Williams of Elvel: When?
Lord Strathclyde: Very soon.
Lord Williams of Elvel: As I understand it, we are discussing legislation. Does the statute take account of the fact that there will be an SSAP on this matter? Can we have some view on when it will be with us and whether the accounting profession and others who will be deeply affected can look at the statute in the light of the SSAP that will be produced?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, the statute can be carried out in the light of what I have just said. As for the noble Lord's other problem on netting-or, the Bill, as amended, could not net-off between classes. The other things left have to be defined specifically and therefore do not play a part.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment 46:
Page 135, line 23, leave out ("subsequently").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 46. The effect of the amendments is to clear up an ambiguity in that the disclosure required by paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 2 is after deducting any goodwill attributable to disposals prior to the balance sheet date and not after it. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I too shall speak to Amendments Nos. 46 and 47. I understand paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 2, as amended; what I did not understand was the, original version. I can understand that at a balance sheet date a company would eliminate from its calculations its assets and the goodwill relating thereto on those properties that had been disposed of prior to that balance sheet date. What I could not understand was that in the original clause the figure should be shown net of any goodwill attributable to subsidiary undertakings and businesses subsequently disposed of. I am happy to assent to the Government amendments. I would be happier if I knew what the Government originally intended, and what they are now trying to amend.
Lord Strathclyde: I understand that the problem is that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, did not understand what we meant before we amended the provisions, and that now he does. The Government are in the same situation. That is precisely why we amended the provision.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for explaining that the Government did not understand their own Bill. When the Government present a Bill before this place, they should try to understand it.
Lord Strathclyde: I must say again that Bills are often published, and that we have to make minor technical amendments here and there to clarify what we meant and occasionally to change one or two things. It is the Opposition who are trying considerably to change the Bill. The Government are trying to make it easy for everybody to understand. That is what they have just done in these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 135, line 23, after ("of') insert ("prior to the balance sheet date").
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 135, line 24, leave out paragraph 14 and insert
("14. Where during the financial year a subsidiary undertaking which significantly affects the figures shown in the group accounts has been disposed of, there shall be stated in a note to the accounts

(a) the name of the undertaking, and

(b) its profit or loss for the period up to the date of the disposal.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with disposals of subsidiary undertakings. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am quite sure that the noble Lord and ourselves are at one in trying to get
928
the legislation right so that everyone knows exactly what is meant and that it is capable of proper legal interpretation, even though it may involve the occasional indignity, which one knows Parliamentary Counsel do not like, of having the original wording altered. Paragraph 14, line 24, page 135 says:
"Where there has been a disposal of a material subsidiary undertaking during the financial year, there shall be stated in a note to the accounts its profit or loss for the period up to the date of the disposal".
As far as I am concerned that appears to be a very clear statement.
When we come to the proposed amendment, we find that it leaves out the entire paragraph and substitues the words on the Marshalled List which the Committee will observe say:
"Where during the financial year a subsidiary undertaking which significantly affects the figures shown".
The word "material" is well understood in legal terms; it has often been the subject of numerous learned judgments. However, why substitute "significantly", which can mean anything according to the time of day, the subjective condition of the person reading the words and a whole series of other possibilities? The substitution of this word for "material" in the original wording of the small subsection is what it is desired to put forward.
One agrees that there is a valuable addition in the proposed amendment which requires a note in the accounts to state the name of the undertaking. This was not originally included in paragraph 14 and that is an improvement. Would it not have been much simpler to have left paragraph 14 where it was and added the condition that the name of the undertaking should be shown? I should have thought that that would have met the position quite satisfactorily without having to introduce the term "significantly" into the argument. If the noble Lord disagrees then we shall have to accept that. We are only trying to help him. He may agree however that on this occasion we are probably right.
Lord Strathclyde: I am always delighted to discuss such issues with the noble Lord. At the beginning of the debate I was going to say that the amendment was a minor technical one but that never seems to be the case. What we have done here is to make it clear that disclosure is only required where a subsidiary is disposed of in respect of those subsidiaries which significantly affect the figures in the group accounts. It also requires the name of the subsidiary to be stated. The noble Lord is well aware of that.
The reason we changed the word "material" to "significantly" was because "significantly" was chosen to align with and mirror paragraph 12(2). It is purely a matter of judgment which of the two is better. The Government have chosen "significantly". So be it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: The noble Lord has said it. So be it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 135, line 41, after ("1,") insert ("either after item J or").

929
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 51 together. These are three relatively technical amendments. Amendment No. 49 gives companies a choice of two phases where they can show the item "minority interests" on their balance sheets. Amendment No. 51 ensures that minority interests are shown on the face of the balance sheet. Amendment No. 50 merely improves the wording in line 44 by referring to the:
"capital and reserves attributable to shares in subsidiary undertakings".
I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am grateful to the noble Lord for having given that explanation. As regards Amendment No. 49, we accept it as being a technical amendment. As regards Amendment No. 50, we entirely sympathise with the insertion of the words after the amount "capital and reserves". However surely that requires a further consequential amendment in the same line. In its amended form it would read:
"that item shall he shown the amount of capital and reserves attributable to shares".
Would it not be better to put "equity" instead of "shares"? The noble Lord has used "equity" before and possibly it makes the wording a little clearer if that is used.
Lord Strathclyde: I am delighted that the noble Lord is quite happy with Amendment No. 49, and, I presume, with Amendment No. 51 as well. I am sorry that he is not quite so happy with Amendment No. 50 but I understand that his suggestion would create difficulties which appear to be unforeseen. Therefore we cannot accept it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: It would be helpful if the noble Lord could give some account of what the "unforeseen" difficulties are or may be conceived to be. I do not want to tax the noble Lord at this stage but perhaps he would be kind enough to leave the wording as it is at the moment and come back with a further explanation. The point appears to be one of substance. It reads far better and makes greater sense if one uses the term "equity" there.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may take advantage of what the noble Lord has said and withdraw these amendments in order to look at them at a later stage.
[Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 136, line 25, leave out first ("included")
The noble Lord said: This is a simple drafting amendment; an extra "included" should be deleted. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: May we have the noble Lord's assurance that the omission does not involve a matter of substance?
Lord Strathclyde: Absolutely, this is genuinely a drafting error.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Am I right in thinking that this is a drafting error, or is it a printing error? There is a distinction there. Perhaps I can raise a general point, although I do not wish the noble Lord to respond to this at the moment. I have received advice that when we put down amendments which are designed to rectify what the clerks regard as printing errors that is not in order. In other words, there is a latitude granted to the printer.
The distinction between a printing error and a drafting error is one which I have to date failed to grasp. By putting that on the record, I hope that we shall obtain some guidance on which is which. I should have regarded this amendment as dealing with a printing error. I think that the word "included" has been printed twice in the same line. I think it is a printing error rather than a drafting error.
Lord Strathclyde: I take the noble Lord's point. I shall make sure that he is informed as regards what the guidance is.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 136, line 35, leave out ("capital") and insert ("assets, liabilities, income or expenditure").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Peston. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendment No. 54.
The object of these amendments is in the case of Amendment No. 53 to clarify the nature of what is constituted by a qualifying interest to permit a somewhat wider range of entity to be consolidated where it is appropriate. We believe that the present definition is rather restrictive and may well be open to abuse.
Amendment No. 54 is consequential on Amendment No. 53; in other words consequential in the effort to allow a wide range of entity to be consolidated where appropriate. To clarify Amendment No. 54, I should bring in evidence the arrangements that are made for sharing assets, liabilities or expenditure in extractive industries—for instance, oil or coal industries where one venturer may provide a rig or dig a mine and where another may provide manpower, technical expertise, assistance or technological help. That might not mean an equal share in the capital or the results. A joint interest need not be an equal interest, taking the venture as a whole. We believe there are problems here which the Government may wish to look at. I do not necessarily insist on the wording of the amendments, but I hope that the Government will pay attention to the arguments we are putting forward. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: As the noble Lord said, the amendments appear to restrict joint ventures to non-corporate bodies such as partnerships. We have some sympathy with this. We wish, however, to look again at the whole definition of a joint venture in this context in the light of comments we have received

931
from a number of experts in this highly specialised area. I undertake that the Government will return to this subject at a later stage if the noble Lord is willing to withdraw the amendments.
Lord Mottistone: If I may intervene, I was provided with an amendment to this part of the Bill this very morning but it was too late to put it down. But in view of what my noble friend has just said, I should be most grateful to see the comments. I shall send him a copy of my amendment which would have been tabled if we had been a little sharper off the mark.
Lord Strathclyde: We would be delighted to receive my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. This is an important point and I am glad that the Government will have another look at it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 137, line 4, after ("exercises") insert ("or has the ability to exercise").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 55 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Peston. Again this is a relatively technical amendment. We are seeking to give a rather broader definition to the expression "exercises". We believe that the insertion:
"has the ability to exercise",
has a closer relationship to SSAP 1 and indeed to current practice. We believe it would also permit account to be taken of influence, even if not actually exercised during the period in question.
This test is somewhat less artificial than the actual exercise test that we have in front of us at the moment but is consistent with the logic behind the definition already included in the expression exercisable at any time "during the period". That appears on page 137 at line 22 of the Bill. We think it is consistent with the presumption of significant influence which is included in the seventh directive, Article 33. So, all in all, we would prefer our amendment to the Government's wording. I accept that this is a fairly technical discussion and that the noble Lord may wish to look at it further. I believe we are on slightly stronger ground than the Government, although we recognise that this is a difficult point.
Lord Strathclyde: The amendments are intended to align the definition of "associated undertaking" in the Bill more closely with the definition in accounting standards. I understand that wish. However, the wording in the Bill reflects Article 33 of the seventh directive. We are constrained by the wording of the directive, the main principle of which is to achieve a greater harmonisation of accounting treatment within the European Community. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will see that there is not a great deal we can do. In the light of that, I ask him to withdraw the amendments.
Lord Williams of Elvel: There is of course a dispute between us about the significance of Article 33 of the seventh directive. The text states:
"An undertaking shall be presumed to exercise a significant influence over another undertaking where it has 20 per cent. or more of the shareholders' or members' voting rights in that undertaking".
There is therefore a presumption. It seems that the Government's wording is not dictated by the seventh directive and that our wording is permitted by that directive. But if the noble Lord's legal advisers feel strongly that that is not the case, I shall pay attention to that.
Lord Strathclyde: My legal advisers do feel strongly about that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Very well, people can obviously take a different view of the meaning of the directive. Other legal advisers take a somewhat more relaxed view. Nevertheless, if that is what the Government's lawyers say, we must accept that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 137, line 10, at end insert ("and where an undertaking does not hold 20 per cent. or more of the voting rights of another undertaking it shall not be presumed to exercise, or have the ability to exercise, such an influence over it unless the contrary is shown").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 57 stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
The amendment seeks to clarify the definition by providing what is known as a mirror image test. It allows a presumption which is rebuttable either way. It is in line with current accounting practice and, we believe, with SSAP1. In our view, being in line with SSAP1 it has the merit of giving consistency to companies operating under that accounting standard. We believe that the Government may wish to pay attention to those arguments because consistency with current practice is desirable, as long as it is allowed by the directive. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The amendment would change the burden of proof in determining whether one undertaking is an associate of another where 20 per cent. of voting rights are not held by that other undertaking. I understand that, as the noble Lord outlined, there is a similar presumption in the relevant Statement of Standard Accounting Practice. The presumption may have been included in the standard because the definition of an associate in that context is wider than that used in the Bill.
The standard's definition is based on the investing group being in a position to exercise a significant influence. Arguably, therefore, it was considered necessary to cover specifically cases where less than 20 per cent. of voting rights are held. The Bill, in contrast, requires that the investing group actually exercises a significant influence over the operating and financial policy of that other undertaking. I therefore do not believe that the amendment is appropriate.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that response. I think that the amendment concerns somewhat more than just a technical point: it relates to who can exercise influence and on what grounds some form of accounting procedures should apply thereto.
I cannot quite understand why the Government are departing from SSAP1. I think that we agree that SSAP1expresses what my amendment seeks to put into the statute. The Government seek to depart from that practice, but I have not yet heard from the noble Lord why the Government are asking companies to do something other than what they have done hitherto. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could explain the reason.
Lord Strathclyde: The answer is that we have followed the scheme in the directive and stuck to it. The presumption contained in the noble Lord's amendment is not included in the directive, and therefore the same is true of the SSAP.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I understand that it is not in the directive. Nevertheless we have all agreed—and I continue to believe and I am sure that the noble Lord accepts—that it is up to the United Kingdom Government to decide whether or not they wish to go beyond the directive. There is nothing to stop the Government going beyond the directive. Up till now companies have been used to operating on the basis of SSAP1. The Government now seem to be retreating from that position, because SSAP1 is stronger than the directive. If the Government now say that I am wrong and SSAP1 is weaker than the directive—although I do not believe that to be the case—then I shall withdraw. I wonder why the Government are not following SSAP1 when they are allowed to do so by the directive.
Lord Strathclyde: We do not say that SSAP1 is either stronger or weaker than what is proposed in the Bill. It is slightly wider. We have sought to follow the directive and that is exactly what we have done. We have not gone beyond the directive. We are happy with the position.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is obvious that we shall not get much further on the point. Perhaps he could write to me and let me know the answer to that question.
Lord Strathclyde: I shall write to the noble Lord on that point in any case. I think that I ought to say that the directive is primarily a harmonisation directive and we cannot depart from the substantive intention of the directive. Therefore the argument about whether we can go further than the directive seems irrelevant. However, I shall write to the noble Lord to make clear exactly what we mean.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I have endeavoured to follow the directive from time to time. Is the noble Lord now saying that the Government are not accepting amendments which go beyond his interpretation of what the directive says? Is that the Government's position? If that is so, it will save quite a lot of time.
Lord Strathclyde: To paraphrase what the noble Lord said, he asks whether we are willing to accept amendments which go beyond what the directive states.
Lord Willams of Elvel: That is not paraphrasing, that is what he asked.
Lord Strathclyde: The answer to that question is that, where the directive makes a requirement, we cannot go beyond it. However, the noble Lord is of course entitled to put down as many amendments as he wants.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I know that I can do that. I was not considering the matter from that point of view but from the point of view of whether the directive is purely a harmonising directive and therefore the Government, for certain reasons—political or otherwise—are not going beyond the directive in amending the law. I am not threatening to put down amendments, I just want to know what the position is.
Lord Strathclyde: I hope that that is a point which I can clarify for the noble Lord very soon. I shall let him know the answer in the very near future.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It is a fundamental point. If the Government are saying that they will resist all amendments that go beyond the directive then some of our labours will be in vain. Can he formulate an answer this evening, because otherwise we do not know where we stand?
Lord Strathclyde: That is precisely what I meant by "the very near future". I shall let the Committee know the answer this evening.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am not nit-picking, I am trying to be helpful. If we knew that that was the position a lot of us could go home earlier than we had intended.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 137, line 16, leave out ("controlling the exercise of") and insert ("holding").
Amendment No. 58 is a drafting amendment. The concept of controlling the exercise of voting rights is not used in this paragraph; "holding voting rights" is used, and it is to that concept that the provision should apply. The amendment corrects a drafting error.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I warmly welcome the amendment.
On Question amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 137, line 19, at end insert (", that is, shall not be regarded as held by any person or as forming part of the voting rights in the undertaking").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 160. These amendments are technical and are tabled in response to points put to us by outside bodies. They seek to explain what is meant by leaving voting rights out of account. This is a concept used in paragraph 19(3) of Schedule 2 in the context of the definition of associated undertaking and in new Section 258(2) in the context of the definition of a subsidiary undertaking. The purpose is to make it clear that when voting rights of an undertaking are left out of account they are to be regarded as not being held by any person and as not thus forming part of the overall voting rights in the undertaking. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I studied this amendment during the weekend, and I have listened to what the noble Lord has said. I feel that I am no further forward. However, I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that he is satisfied with it—or perhaps he is not satisfied with it—and therefore I shall read very carefully what the noble Lord has said in explanation. I regard it as a complicated amendment, and if we have any problem with it we shall come back at a later stage.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I have had some difficulty in understanding the amendment. It does not seem to be the practice to have the words "that is"—that is some explanation—in the Bill. Nevertheless, I have heard what the Minister has said. I shall take it away and think about it.
Lord Grantchester: It is very difficult to understand the amendments, and this one in particular. If you are entitled not to require voting rights to be exercised but you do not exercise the right not to so require, then all those votes are not to be regarded for any purpose even though your right not to require the exercise of those votes is not exercised. The whole thing seems to be rather odd. Perhaps the Minister could explain how these matters work.
Lord Strathclyde: If the noble Lord would like a further explanation, for the purposes of paragraph 19(3) of Schedule 2, associated undertakings, and of new Section 258(2), subsidiary undertakings, we are trying to explain exactly what is meant by leaving voting rights out of account. That is precisely what the amendments seek to do.
I know that the amendments are very complicated and technical, but I am advised that they remove a possible ambiguity in the present wording of the relevant provisions which was pointed out to us by our consultees. To be more specific, the voting rights are left out of account for this purpose only.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord has not taken us much further in our understanding. In the light of comments made by Members of the Committee in this very short debate, I wonder whether the noble Lord could have a further look at the wording and try to translate it into something
936
that is comprehensible to the average human being whose mother language is English.
Lord Strathclyde: In the light of what Members of the Committee have said, perhaps I should indeed take this away and get further explanations, or possibly even rewrite it for a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 137, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
("(4) Voting rights which are exercisable only in certain circumstances shall be taken into account only when the circumstances have arisen, and for so long as they continue to obtain, or when the circumstances are under the control of the person having the rights.").
The noble Lord said: This is another technical amendment. I should like to take with it Amendment No. 164. Both amendments are intended to resolve the same ambiguity in the provisions to which they relate. They make it clear that, when rights held by a person are exercisable only when certain circumstances exist, they are only to be counted for the purpose of determining whether one undertaking is an associate or subsidiary of another when and for as long as those circumstances exist. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: This may be marginally more comprehensible than the previous amendment, but I wonder whether the noble Lord could explain what sort of circumstances he has in mind that might arise and what is meant by circumstances continuing to obtain. In what circumstances may circumstances be "under the control of the person having the rights"?
Lord Grantchester: Does this amendment cover cases of voting rights not being exercisable by persons being dead and the shares not being registered in the name of anyone who can vote?
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may explain a little further. The present provisions, which the amendments replace, are ambiguous where it has to be determined whether one undertaking is an associate or subsidiary of another during a period. It is not clear whether the rights have to be exercisable at some point only during that period or must be exercisable throughout it, before the relationship is recognised for that period. The amendments adopt a slightly different approach in that under them the relationship will only be recognised for that part of the period during which the voting rights are exercisable. An example of a case covered is voting rights on preference shares where a dividend has passed.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Where a dividend has passed or has been passed? It is a cumulative preference share?
Lord Strathclyde: Where it has been passed.
Lord Williams of Elvel: And it is a cumulative preference share?
Lord Strathclyde: I am not sure that that question really arises.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Perhaps I may make what I hope is a helpful suggestion. I was very worried about subparagraph (4) and wondered why it could not have been deleted altogether. But to be quite fair to the Minister I will accept the wording of the amendment because I am assuming that there are certain circumstances arising, as indicated in the amendment. I would be prepared to accept this as an improvement on the original subparagraph (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 137, line 27, leave out from ("the") to end of line and insert ("purpose of determining whether an undertaking holds 20% or more of the voting rights in another").
The noble Lord said: I should like to take this amendment with Amendments Nos. 62 and 63. The drafting amendment is designed to make it clear beyond doubt that subparagraph (5) only has effect for the purposes of the presumption in subparagraph (2) and not also for the underlying test in subparagraph (1).
Lord Williams of Elvel: We have to accept the noble Lord's word that this is in a sense a drafting amendment and that it is designed to clarify what is seen to be a problem in the initial wording of the Bill. I find this an odd amendment because in paragraph 19(2) there is the clear expression:
"Where an undertaking holds 20 per cent. or more of the voting rights in another undertaking it shall be presumed to exercise".
Then the whole definition contained in subparagraph (5) is a definition of the whole of paragraph 19, which is the definition of an associated undertaking. However, the government amendment goes back to the question of the 20 per cent. I do not quite understand why the Government have seen fit to introduce this amendment. The original wording was more coherent.
Lord Strathclyde: All we are trying to do is clarify beyond doubt. Perhaps we have taken it too far. It is only a drafting amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will accept it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I understand what the Minister says, but, if I may say so, this is what happens when one tries to put these very difficult concepts into statute. There are bound to be misunderstandings and difficulties. This is one of the problems with this schedule.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 62 and 63:
Page 137, line 29, after ("(a)") insert ("voting").
Page 137, line 32, after ("(b)") insert ("voting").
Lord Hesketh: Perhaps I may suggest that this is a suitable moment at which to break for dinner and that we resume at eight o'clock. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.1 to 8 p.m.]
House again in Committee on Schedule 2.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 137, line 44, at end insert ("or their nominees").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 64 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Peston. Insertion of the words "or their nominees" clarifies the definition in the Bill and is consistent with the specific reference in the seventh directive, Article 2.3. Perhaps for the benefit of the Committee I should explain what I think Article 2.3 means. It reads:
"The total of the shareholders or members voting rights in the subsidiary undertaking must he reduced"—
I take that to he obligatory—
"by the voting rights attached to shares held by that undertaking itself by a subsidiary undertaking of that undertaking or by a person acting in his own name but on behalf of those undertakings".
It seems to us that the Bill does not quite reflect the point that is made in paragraph 3 of that article in the directive. We think that the amendment clarifies it.
I hope that it is for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendment No. 166. It is a consequential change and is consistent with the change that we are discussing to Schedule 2. I hope that this introduces a certain clarification and that the Government will be able to accept the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: I too should like to speak to Amendment No. 166 with this amendment. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for these most helpful suggestions. Without repeating everything that he has said, I accept Amendment No. 166 and would like to think further about the wording of Amendment No. 64 and bring forward our own amendment to the same effect at a later stage as well as to the equivalent provision in new Section 736, Clause 95, if that is acceptable to the noble Lord.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I accept that we are not here to draft the Bill. If the Government can come forward with better drafting than ours, I am only too happy to accept it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 138, line 11, after ("accounting") insert ("in accordance with the applicable Statement of Standard Accounting Practice").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 65 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Peston. This amendment seeks to clarify the equity method of accounting which is not defined in the Bill as drafted. Our definition is to make it consistent with the various SSAPs—if I may use that acronym—which are in operation at the moment. We endeavour to make it consistent with the policy of accounting elsewhere, for instance in the second schedule, in acquisition merger accounting and the amendment defining proportional consolidation. Furthermore, the SSAP to which I have referred is based on a widely accepted practice—for instance, in SSAP 21.
We hope that the extension that we propose in this schedule would be acceptable because it puts in in concrete form an accounting practice that we should like to see incorporated in the Bill. I have a doubt in

939
my mind whether the Government will accept this because it is a question of accepting accounting rules that are put forward by bodies which are not yet supervisory bodies. Nevertheless, if the Government would accept the basic thrust of what we are trying to do and produce amendments of their own at a later stage, I should be perfectly happy with that.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord's doubts are indeed well founded. The amendment would require companies using the equity method of accounting to follow the relevant accounting standard. While this is a laudable aim in itself, for the reasons that I gave in speaking to an earlier amendment we agree with Sir Ronald Dearing's conclusions that it is not appropriate to give statutory effect to statements of standard accounting practice. We are therefore unable to accept this amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord confirms my doubts. They arise from his previous remarks about the Dearing Report. Nevertheless, there is a case for trying to put into a legislative framework the recommendations or the provisions of the appropriate statement of standard accounting practice.
If the Government have as their aim to try to put as much as possible with clarity into the schedule, we believe that they should follow the SSAP that is appropriate in these circumstances. If the noble Lord is saying that he has sympathy with this amendment but that the amendment itself is not acceptable, I am happy to withdraw it on the basis that the thrust of the amendment might be a matter that the Government will consider. Perhaps they will put it into the appropriate form when they come back at a further stage.
I wonder whether the noble Lord would consider what I regard as a fair compromise between his position and mine. I understand that "statement of standard accounting practice" is an expression which is laid down by the institutes at the moment. We are moving on to a different system now. Nevertheless, the Government are trying to put as much as possible into the schedule, as I understand it. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could clarify the Government's intention in this respect.
Lord Strathclyde: As I said briefly earlier, what the noble Lord suggests is a laudable aim, but we do not agree in principle to giving statutory effect to SSAPs, notwithstanding what it says in the Dearing Report. Without specific reference to accounting standards equity accounting, it would be interpreted in line with generally accepted accounting practice, but not standards binding in themselves. We are happy to consider a specific reference to generally accepted accounting practice, but not to making it statutory. I hope that that helps to clarify matters.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord raises a point which I intended to raise later, which is that of generally accepted accounting practice or, as the Americans call it, generally accepted accounting principles, known as GAAP in the United States. While SSAPs are generally understood in this
940
country and GAAP is understood in the United States, I believe that we want to avoid confusion between the two. I should be very reluctant to have written into statute a provision for GAAP. I would rather have something which was differently worded relevant to our situation rather than to that in America.
If the noble Lord can assure me that the Government will take account of what I have said—and perhaps we can have a further discussion at a later stage on that—on that assurance, if that is what the noble Lord is prepared to give, I think I should be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: We shall take account of what the noble Lord has said. That is an important area. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that he can withdraw his amendment now.
Lord Williams of Elvel: On the basis of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 66 and 67:
Page 138, line 16, leave out ("amount") and insert ("amounts").
Page 138, line 17, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I take Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 together. These are minor drafting amendments. They change the word "amount" from singular to plural. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I accept that these are drafting amendments, but why were they not properly drafted in the first place? I cannot quite understand it. Are these amendments consequential or were they incorrectly drafted in the first place?
Lord Strathclyde: No, I gather that they were incorrectly drafted when the Bill was first published. There is nothing unforeseen or untoward in them.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 138, line 17, after ("material') insert ("for the purpose of giving a true and fair view").
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
8.15 p.m.
Clause 6 [Additional disclosure required in notes to accounts]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 11, line 12, at end insert ("any provision of").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will find it convenient to take Amendments Nos. 69, 70, 72 and 74 together. They make minor changes to Clause 6, either for clarification or to correct drafting errors. Amendments Nos. 60 and 70 slightly change new Section 231(4). This new section re-enacts an existing provision and allows directors to leave out of the accounts information which is of excessive length and which is otherwise required by Schedule 5, and instead attach the information to the annual return. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I accept that these are drafting amendments to Clause 6. We have no problems with them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 11, line 13, after ("compliance") insert ("with that provision").
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 11, line 19, after ("company's") insert ("annual").
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 11, line 23, leave out ("26") and insert ("29").
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 11, line 27, after ("company's") insert ("annual").
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 11, line 36, leave out ("made") and insert ("delivered to the registrar").
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 12, line 2, after ("company's") insert ("annual").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Disclosure of information: related undertakings]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 140. line 47, after ("shall") insert ("also").
The noble Lord said: I shall, with leave of the Committee, speak to Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 with this amendment. These three amendments are exact parallels which apply in slightly differing contexts of Schedule 3. They make it absolutely clear that information required to be disclosed under Schedule 3 in respect of holdings over 20 per cent. in another undertaking is in addition to, and not in place of, information required in respect of holdings over 10 per cent.
Lord Williams of Elvel: There is obviously no problem with this amendment. I have heard the noble Lord's explanation. I wonder whether that is necessary, having heard what he has said. I thought that the original text reflected his opinions. But if he insists on putting that into the Bill, we have no particular difficulty.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The amendment cannot do any harm and therefore I support it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 143, line 23, at end insert ("and the address of the principal place of business").
The noble Lord said: The amendment concerns the particulars of subsidiary undertakings and Clause 15 lays down certain particulars which must be stated. Subsection (3)(a) provides that there shall be stated:
"if the undertaking is incorporated outside Great Britain, the country in which it is incorporated".
We believe that our amendment is necessary and that after the end of that subsection there should be inserted the words:
"and the address of the principal place of business".
We believe that those words make the provision more transparent and therefore more acceptable to a government ostensibly committed to open government and openness in general. It would make easier for creditors and others with a legitimate interest in the accounts of the subsidiary company the obtaining of information about that company.
Similar considerations apply to Amendment No. 78. The existing provisions of subsection (3)(b) state:
"if it is incorporated in Great Britain, whether it is registered in England and Wales or in Scotland".
Such territorial designations may be highly interesting and amusing, and may even have an element of colour. However, they are of little use to anyone. In order to make it easier to obtain information, we wish to add the words:
"and either the address of its registered office, or its registered number".
As before, it will then be easier to obtain information. The disclosure of the registered number will facilitate a company search at the companies' registries in the United Kingdom.
The two amendments are simple and I am sure that they will commend themselves to the Government. In order to save time later I point out the fact that the same principles are incorporated in Amendments Nos. 81, 82, 85, 86. 88, 89, 93 and 94. We trust that the noble Lord will find the amendments acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: In the interests of open government I accept the amendments, unless the Government believe that it is too onerous to include such matters. I should like to back the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. He has had so many winners today that I think I should back him on these amendments.
Lord Strathclyde: It is true that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has done rather well today. I am not sure whether his winning run will continue in this series of amendments. They would require companies to give the address—or, in some cases, the registered number—of the various classes of related companies on which disclosure is required by Schedule 3 to the Bill. I recognise that the intention is to give additional information to the users of accounts. But let us pause for a moment and consider whether the value of such additional information warrants the extra burden and costs, which may in some instances be considerable. The present requirement is to give the country of incorporation —which this Bill re-enacts. In the vast majority of cases this enables the reader, if he so wishes, to obtain the information about the company which is on the public register in the country of incorporation. In cases where access to the

943
public register is not easy, or the contents of the register are defective, I find it hard to believe that imposing a requirement to give the principal place of business would be much more effective.
Moreover, we must take account of the paradoxical but real possibility that the amendment might actually reduce the amount of useful information appearing in the accounts. That is because the law permits directors, where they can reasonably conclude that the information required by a particular provision of Schedule 5 is of excessive length, to restrict the information in the accounts to just the principal related bodies. The rest is delegated to a company's annual return. These amendments would almost inevitably increase the number of cases where the directors could legitimately conclude that the information was of excessive length. Perversely, therefore, one effect could be to diminish the usefulness of accounts.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked a particular question about England and Scotland. The purpose of disclosing whether a company is registered in England or Scotland is that there are separate registers for each country and therefore it is easier to discover where the company is.
I began by saying that there was something in what the noble Lord was saying. However, I hope that, after having heard my explanation, he will realise that his amendment is not entirely compatible with what we are trying to achieve in the Bill. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I have been a Member of this House for quite a time and I have never heard a more extraordinary explanation or reply in my life. To suggest, for example, that incorporating on one's stationery and so forth as required the principal place of business involves an onerous cost is stretching the imagination so far that the mind boggles. Similarly, it is not difficult to state the address of the registered office or the company's registered number. It requires only a sentence; five seconds or less on a pc computer with a daisy-wheel printer. What extra expense is involved in that operation?
On the grounds of cost the noble Lord invites the Committee to omit a few words of information. For reasons which do not concern the Bill but which may concern the taxation statutes, let us suppose that the subsidiary's offices were in Lichtenstein—Vaduz to wit—or the Netherlands Antilles or the Cayman Islands. Does the noble Lord believe that the person interested in the subsidiary should go to the colossal expense of making enquiries in those places in order to discover the required information? Really!
If the noble Lord had produced a more complex argument involving grave and deep difficulties which would be dealt with in correspondence hereafter, I should have understood his logic. However, he has put it in this way and, knowing that I am a simpleminded person, he must believe me to be credulous to the point almost of imbecility to have invited me to accept his explanation.
I ask the noble Lord and the Government the straight question: what is to be lost by such necessary
944
information being given straightforwardly without any further qualification? As regards the excuses that have been given, I point out that I have seen "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister". I know that in those programmes the rejection of the amendment would be described as involving "a considerable degree of political courage on the Minister's part." Surely the Minister has enough common sense, or if that is not sufficient, his Secretary of State (who has been so long and regrettably absent from these proceedings) should have, to know that he cannot get away with nonsense of this kind.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: All afternoon I have been berated for giving answers to some of the noble Lord's amendments which are too complicated. In this case, when I come out with a fair, simple and honest answer, he suggests that I should make it more complex.
Of course that was only one answer which I gave. I also said that one perverse effect of these amendments would be to diminish the usefulness of accounts. Now I can go even further by saying that these amendments require a company to give addresses of all its subsidiaries. Times have changed. In some cases there could be several hundred subsidiary and related companies with considerable cost involved in having all the names and addresses printed out.
Secondly, I must point out that the Bill as drafted reproduces existing law which we have had for quite a time. I am informed that no evidence has ever been quoted that there is a problem in practice. Therefore, I suspect that the arguments put forward by the noble Lord do not amount to much and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I must decline the noble Lord's invitation. I shall certainly not reproach him for his honesty, which I sincerely admire. He has been extremely open with the Committee. He may believe that he perhaps could have been helped by the guile of the Secretary of State, who is very skilled in such matters. However, he has been completely honest with us.
The answer that a company may have 100 subsidiaries does not impress me at all. It is very nice to see that these companies have hundreds of subsidiaries. Only then can we know the true ramifications of the concern. Certainly if a parent company has that number of subsidiaries, on the assumption that those subsidiaries do not have sub-subsidiaries and sub-subsidiaries of sub-subsidiaries tucked away in the various tax havens, it is still a fact that a parent company of that magnitude and those resources would not find the extra printing costs very burdensome. They could probably be encompassed within the annual rate of increase which such companies award to their chairmen in addition to stock options. Therefore, I do not believe that the question of cost arises.
I must ask why the Government are so keen on and so coy in preserving anonymity to the point where a company must be described as roughly in the area of the world in which it is without any hint as to where

945
it can be contacted. The noble Lord does not do himself justice. As he says, he has been engagingly frank about it; but the more engagingly frank and honest you are, as I have found out to my cost, the more you put your foot in it. That is common knowledge in Parliament. Normally speaking, Parliament favours those with guile, and here are the noble Lord and I quite naked in our honesty about this matter.
Surely the noble Lord cannot ask me to withdraw amendments of this sort. If he says to me, "Look, there are questions of principle in this and we should like to take a look at them again with a view to seeing whether we can meet the requirements of transparency on which my Government set such great store. We shall have a look at this to see what can be done", I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. Otherwise, I see no logical reason, and nor have I heard any explanation, which enables me to withdraw the amendments, particularly in the light of the support of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, whose devotion to transparency in all these matters is well known to the House. I invite the noble Lord to reconsider this.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps the noble Lord may believe that he is making something of a mountain out of a molehill. Perhaps he believes that this is a good opportunity, as there is hardly anybody in the Chamber, to waste the time of Committee as much as he likes.
The point at issue is one which I have experienced over many years. One does not have all these details provided. One has to find them out for oneself. One does not find them presented as the Bill will require them to be presented if the noble Lord's amendment is accepted. He seeks something new. However, I suspect that he is trying to make a great issue of this because it is a good opportunity. There are many amendments involved. Rather than pressing my noble friend on the Front Bench, I should have thought it better to say that he is not happy with the answer and he will reserve the right to come back on Report. He can do that, as do most of us. We do not press the Government on little matters but on major issues. If the noble Lord is going to say that this is an important matter, why has it not been so before? I believe that he is making too much of an issue of this. We have spent 17 minutes on it. We have many amendments to discuss. I should think it would be much better if he would give in for once—although I know he does not like to—and say that he will take back the amendment and reserve the right to come back to the matter on Report if it is worth pressing.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. Perhaps I can be helpful. The Committee will see that paragraph 15(2) of Schedule 3 to the Bill states:
"The name of each undertaking shall be stated".
Therefore, I could not understand it when the Minister said that it will be terribly difficult to supply the further information because there might be hundreds of such undertakings. If the parent company knows the name of the undertaking, it must know something more about it. Therefore, for the
946
purpose of ordinary transactions and business affairs it is sometimes useful to know where is the place of business of an organisation.
I agree that there are precedents for dealing with these matters, but in this modern age it is useful for a company—and I speak with some experience of these matters—to know where its place of business is so that it can be easily contacted instead of messing about going from place to place to try to find out the place of business and very often being fobbed off. One amendment which I have tabled comes to that point about the difficulty which companies now have of finding out the precise details of an undertaking for the purposes of business transactions, particularly companies abroad.
Lord Bruce of Donington: The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, reproaches me for the time I have spent on this this evening. If he has been here all day, which I assume he has, he will have noted the unparalleled brevity with which I have dealt with previous amendments that have come before us and the number of times I have sat down within a couple of minutes of moving an amendment.
The fact that I have remained on my feet for a certain time is because I think that the matter is important. The noble Lord says that many of us—I assume he was speaking for those on his side of the Committee—have often pressed amendments. Well, the number of amendments that the noble Lord has pressed on Government legislation has been remarkably few.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening. I am speaking for Back-Benchers.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am sure the noble Lord is speaking for Back-Benchers, but I am bound to say that I shall await with interest the onset of Back-Bench spine in rebellion against any Government legislation brought forward in this Chamber. I shall welcome it, particularly from the noble Lord.
Dealing with this amendment, the point has been clearly made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. If there are 200 subsidiary companies the printing of the names of those companies will occupy a fair space, since I assume the company will have the courtesy of listing them. It will only be a few words at the end so the cost will not amount to anything considerable. There is no reason why it should not be done. I invite the noble Lord to reconsider this matter and give an assurance that it will be dealt with fully on Report; otherwise I may have to divide the Committee.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has been extremely frank so I shall be earnest with him. He said many things in the past few minutes about this matter, as has the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, but neither has brought a single piece of evidence or proof to show that this has been a problem in the past.
It is not simply the cost, which for each subsidiary may be very little, but for many hundreds of subsidiaries it is also the cost of obtaining, verifying—the noble Lords did not mention

947
verification—printing, and setting out all this material which could amount to a substantial figure for very little benefit. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, understands that.
Our debate has covered some time. I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will actually bring the amendment to a Division, but I am happy to look at the matter again. I cannot promise that we will come back with an amendment to the effect desired and perhaps the noble Lord will wish to raise the matter again on Report. However, we shall consider what has been said in the light of the strength of feeling and on that basis I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: On the basis of that assurance I am only too happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 144, line 8, after ("given") insert ("if the group's investment in the undertaking is included in the accounts by way of the equity method of valuation or").
The noble Lord said: This amendment corrects a small defect in the structure of Schedule 3. It is not the intention that parent companies should have to give details of the capital and reserves, and profit and loss, of subsidiaries excluded from consolidation where the group's interest in that subsidiary undertaking is accounted for by means of the equity method. That, I understand, would be to require the same information to be reflected twice in different guises. Clearly, that is not suitable. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: We accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 145, line 11, after ("into") insert ("by").
The noble Lord said: This amendment corrects a small grammatical error. I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 83.
Page 145, line 36, leave out from ("based") to end of line 37.
The noble Lord said: This amendment removes an overlapping disclosure requirement in Schedule 3. Subparagraph (6) of paragraph 21 of that schedule requires substantially the same information on the proportion of shares held in a joint venture as subparagraph (5) of that paragraph. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 145, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) Where in the opinion of the directors the disclosure of any information required by this paragraph would be seriously prejudicial to the interests of the undertaking, that information need not be disclosed, but the fact that any such information has not been disclosed must be stated.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that joint ventures have the same protection as single companies in withholding from consolidated accounts "information" which would be seriously prejudicial to the interests of the undertaking.
At the moment there is still some doubt whether the Bill gives that relief, which is granted in the seventh directive. According to Schedule 2 it applies only to subsidiaries included in the consolidation. Joint ventures are subject to proportional rather than full consolidation and therefore are not included in the consolidation according to the definition in Clause 20.
We believe it is important to establish whether or not joint ventures qualify for this relief as they may be established in sensitive areas. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: It is difficult to see that the amendment does much more than the similar but more general provision in new Section 231(3) in Clause 6. That provision allows a reporting company not to disclose the names of certain related undertakings which are established or carry on business outside the United Kingdom where the directors conclude that to do so will be seriously prejudicial to the company's interests. There is therefore a considerable overlap between this amendment and a quite separate provision already in the Bill.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am not fully satisfied with that reply but I should like to have an opportunity of studying if further. On the basis that we may, if necessary, seek to raise it again on Report I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 146, line 15, leave out from ("Schedule") to ("materiality)") in line 16.
The noble Lord said: This amendment removes an incorrect reference. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: We accept the amendment.
[Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 146, line 45, after ("shall") insert ("also").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 147, line 39, after ("shall") insert ("also").
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 149, line 3, leave out ("the parent undertaking of') and insert (the parent undertaking of the company which heads").
The noble Lord said: This is also a minor technical amendment. Paragraph 30(1)(b) of Schedule 3 should require disclosure in relation to the consolidated accounts of the parent of the reporting company. As

949
presently drafted it will always relate to the reporting company's own consolidated accounts. That is because the reporting company is a parent company, and is the parent company of the smallest group of undertakings of which it is itself a member and which draws up consolidated accounts. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington: We accept the amendment.
[Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 not moved.]
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Disclosure of information: emoluments and other benefits of directors and others]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 150. line 21 at end insert ("; or
(c) his appointment as a director of the company, or any of its subsidiary undertakings").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 96, 97, 98 and 99 although I confess I am unaware of what the Government will say in justification of their Amendment No. 99. I shall try to anticipate what they are going to say.
We embark here on an important issue: the question of what should be disclosed by way of information on the recruitment or appointment of directors. As Members of the Committee will know, in the fairly recent past a number of devices have been used to lure people to become directors of companies. They are known as "golden hellos". There are transfer fees and other matters of that kind. The object of Amendment No. 95 is to make sure that disclosure of any benefit received by directors on taking up a post with a company or any of its subsidiaries should he disclosed.
Amendment No. 96 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 97. It asks for disclosure of the estimated money value of any benefits received by third parties that are known as transfer fees. It may not be a common practice outside the square mile, but it is a relatively common one in the City of London that fees or money are paid to third parties to persuade them to release their executives or directors from employment with them for employment with the company in question. We believe that that should be disclosed.
Amendment No. 98 embraces benefits in kind which may not be cash but the estimated cash value of any benefits which the director may receive on his appointment. As regards Government Amendment No. 99, I anticipate what the Minister has to say, but it does not seem to us to cover all these points. It does not cover the third party question, which is transfer fees. It may be drafted in order to catch the "golden hellos" in terms not only of cash benefits but benefits in kind. But it does not cover transfer fees and we wish to see them covered.
This is a complicated issue but one that is very much in our minds on these Benches because we are aware of this practice in the City of London. It may have spread beyond the City of London. Practices have developed and they are inconsistent with the normal practices that have prevailed hitherto. In our
950
minds—how can I say this delicately?—they prejudice the ability of normal citizens, employees and people who work in ordinary businesses to regard them as being fair and reasonable. We are not asking for a prohibition of these practices because I think that would be impossible. We are asking for full disclosure on a reasoned and legal basis. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: At this late hour perhaps I may merely say that I support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for the reasons that he so ably presented to the Committee.
Lord Benson: I hope that the Minister will accept Amendments Nos. 95 to 98. My profession strongly supports these proposals. It has been pressing for them for some time. They are necessary in order to give proper information to shareholders. I entirely support everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in that respect.
Lord Strathclyde: There seems to be a lot of agreement as regards these amendments. This group of amendments has a common theme; namely, blocking two loopholes for unscrupulous boards who seek to evade disclosing to shareholders certain payments made to directors upon joining the board.
The first loophole concerns the so-called "golden hello". This payment is paid to a person in order to receive his services as a director. At present, if that payment is made before the director joins the company and without any obligation to take up the appointment, it could be argued that the payment is not within the present definition of emoluments, and therefore does not need to be disclosed in the notes to the accounts. We have no information on whether this practice is at all common, but it has been represented to us as a weakness in the present disclosure arrangements. Clearly Members of the Committee opposite also believe that it is a loophole that should be blocked. I hope that they will agree that Amendment No. 99 meets their concern too, and will not press their own Amendments Nos. 95 and 98, which seem to me to cover the same ground.
The second loophole is the one dealt with in Amendment No. 97. This is not a problem that has previously come to our notice. I recognise that there may be a loophole here that could be exploited to the detriment of shareholders. I will read with interest what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has said on the subject. The Government would like to give this further thought. If the Members of the Committee opposite, having registered their concern, would care to withdraw the amendment, we might return to this topic at a later stage when we have had an opportunity to reflect further.
9 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran and Lord Benson, for their support of the amendments. I have yet to be convinced that government Amendment No. 99 covers what we have set down in Amendments Nos. 95, 96, and 98. However, the noble Lord says that it

951
does. We shall read Hansard carefully to make sure that it does cover those points.
As the noble Lord pointed out, it certainly does not cover my Amendment No. 97. I hope very much that he and his department will consult carefully on this point. The practice does arise and we believe that it should be covered in disclosure. On the basis that that will happen, and that the noble Lord will come forward at Report with the appropriate amendment to his amendment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 96 to 98 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 150, line 33, at end insert—
("; and emoluments in respect of a person's accepting office as director shall be treated as emoluments in respect of his services as director.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the proceedings. I understood from our previous discussion that the Government would reconsider their Amendment No. 99 in the light of my Amendment No. 97 and perhaps come forward with a new formulation. It was on that basis that I withdrew my amendments. The noble Lord has now moved his Amendment No. 99 and I ask him courteously whether he would care to withdraw it.
Lord Strathclyde: Yes. My purpose was to move Amendment No. 99 and then seek to amend it later on. However, having given my word to the noble Lord that I shall look at his Amendment No. 97, I withdraw Amendment No. 99 and undertake to look at the position again at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Approval and signing of accounts]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 12. line 29, leave out ("a director or the secretary of the company") and insert ("two directors of the company, or, if there is only one director, by that one").
The noble Lord said: It may be convenient if I speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 101, 102, 105, 107, 108, and 109. Most of the amendments in this group are consequential upon the main amendment. We are not wholly happy about the issue of who signs accounts. We believe that the signature of company accounts is too important to be left to the company secretary and that directors should be reminded of their duties in this respect.
There is no problem about the present position. I cannot see why the Government seek to change it. I can see difficulties in a secretary of a company whose duties are as yet undefined—at this point I serve notice on the Government that I shall be attempting to define those duties as we go forward with the Bill—being allowed to sign accounts for which the directors are responsible. At present, a committee is
952
normally appointed to sign the accounts. That is sufficient. However, the appointment is made by directors sitting as a full board and it is not written into statute. The directors will be entitled to make that provision if their articles of association so allow. However, to write into statute that a company secretary by himself can sign the accounts seems to be imposing too much of a burden on the company secretary, whose job is not defined in the same statute.
If the Government insist on the amendment I shall consider their position. However, I wish to define the company secretary's duties. If they accept my amendment and go back to the original position, then the question of what the company secretary is meant to do remains as it is under the present Companies Act. But if they want the company secretary to do something on his own brief we shall have to have more in the Bill about the duties of the company secretary. I beg to move.
Lord Benson: It is extremely important that the amendment should be approved. I speak from some experience of this matter over 63 years. In 99 cases out of 100 the secretary has no responsibility either for preparing or presenting the accounts of the company. It would be quite wrong to ask him to sign the accounts, about which, on the whole, he knows little. It is important that the Bill should not be passed in its present form.
We must remember that the secretary is the servant of the directors. The directors could order him to sign accounts for which he has had no responsibility and about which he knows very little. We oppose this proposal tooth and claw. It is extremely important that the secretary should not be identified with signing the accounts or the directors' report.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I wonder whether the noble Lords, Lord Benson and Lord Williams of Elvel, have perhaps gone a little too far in this matter. I entirely agree with them that the secretary alone should not be permitted to sign the accounts. Perhaps the position should be that instead of having, for instance, two directors in a company signing the accounts, it would be sufficient if one director and the secretary were brought in to sign the accounts. That is not an amendment which is before the Committee at present; but I wonder whether that suggestion would find some sympathy with the Government, or even the noble Lords, Lord Benson and Lord Williams of Elvel.
Lord Benson: I do not think that that arrangement would be suitable. The secretary has no responsibility and in practice takes no part in preparing or presenting the accounts. Further, he is usually not an accountant; he is usually a lawyer. Indeed, his secretarial duties are quite different from preparing and presenting accounts to the public. It is quite wrong to allow his name to go on the document, and apparently carry his signature and his authority, when he has had nothing to do with it. That approach is absolutely wrong when compared to what happens in practice. Therefore I hope that the law can be made to comply with what actually happens in practice.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I too should first comment on Amendments Nos. 100 to 102 which concern the signature of company accounts. I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting the case for retaining the requirements of the existing Act, as indeed did other noble Lords who have spoken. There is no great point of principle here on the part of the Government. But, nevertheless, I am not at all persuaded by the arguments that they have brought to bear that the existing requirement for signature by two directors (or one where there is only one director) has a vital role in making the directors of a company take more seriously their responsibilities in connection with the preparation of accounts.
The signing of accounts by directors does not on its own have an enormous significance. It is separate from the statutory requirement that the accounts should be approved by the board of directors. That important requirement remains. Some commentators tend to regard the signature as the formal approval itself; but it is not. It is rather confirmation that the board of directors has carried out its task. That seems to me to be something which can sensibly be done by the secretary or by a director.
There are sound practical reasons for the change provided in the Bill. All too often the accounts of small companies delivered to Companies House have to be returned by the Registrar of Companies to the company because they bear the signature of only one of the directors. As a result there is unnecessary delay in putting information on the public record, which I think noble Lords would agree is undesirable. The change makes it easier for companies to submit documents in time—for example, where a director is abroad on business. It is a very small piece of deregulation without, in our view, any undesirable side-effects.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I wholly disagree with what the noble Lord has said, I find that the noble Lord's approach to the whole problem—one of deregulation—to be frankly frivolous. The job of the company secretary is undefined; it is not defined in the law. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Benson, said, he normally has a legal training and is probably a member of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries. He has no feeling of responsibility for accounts. He cannot be asked as a servant of the company, which he is—and, moreover, an employed servant of the company—in his present undefined capacity to sign accounts; that is the job of directors. I think that the noble Lord said that the signature of accounts is a small matter, or even an inconsequential matter—although I cannot remember the exact expression that he used. My goodness! I have signed one or two accounts in my time, and I regard it as a very consequential matter indeed. Therefore I hope very much that the noble Lord will think again about what he said, and perhaps he will consider whether the Government are right in their position, and whether they should not come back with something rather different, after consultation with the noble Lord, Lord Benson, and perhaps other people, at the next stage of the Bill's proceedings.
Lord Benson: I agree with that. I thought I heard the Minister say that the signature by the directors
954
was not of great significance, or something to that effect. It is of profound significance. Indeed, putting your name to any document is a matter of the most grave importance. Therefore to suggest that it does not really matter whether it is signed by a director or a secretary totally misunderstands the responsibilities which attach to the presentation and the preparation of annual accounts. I find that argument incomprehensible coming as it does from the Government, who propose a Bill on company law and practice. I hope that they will take this matter in hand and realise that what is proposed is impracticable and does not place responsibility where responsibility lies.
Lord Strathclyde: I am disappointed with the views of the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Benson. It is sad that this point of minor deregulation, which is what it is, on the signing of accounts should raise such deep concern with them. I have listened to their remarks. I do not believe that it is worth pressing this point. I shall read what has been said, and consult the various people who need to be consulted and we can perhaps look at this matter again on Report.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful 10 the noble Lord for tending to the arguments that have been put forward by the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and, above all, by the noble Lord, Lord Benson. I hope that he will take seriously what the noble Lord, Lord Benson, has said, because these are not party political points; they are points about the operation of companies, the duties of secretaries and the responsibility of directors who sign accounts. I hope that in giving that undertaking the noble Lord will take account of what has been said in Committee and come forward with something more sensible on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Directors' report]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 13, line 24, leave out ("asset values") and insert ("fixed assets").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. I seek to ask the Government to explain whether the descriptive change to the contents of Part I of Schedule 7 to the Companies Act 1985 has any underlying significance attached to it. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said in support of the amendment. I did not see that it made any change to the Bill. As he pointed out, it is a probing amendment and no doubt the noble Lord will be able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, with his reply.
Lord Strathclyde: Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, we were slightly puzzled by the amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation of the thinking behind it. We had not previously seen its purpose. If my noble friend wishes, I am willing to undertake to consider the point more carefully.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend. I do not know whether he feels that he has something else to say. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 13, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) In the case of any failure to comply with the provisions of any applicable Statements of Standard Accounting Procedure, the directors of a public company shall provide particulars of any such departure from it, the reasons for it and a quantification of its financial effect").
The noble Lord said: The amendment addresses the question of the requirement to explain significant departures from SSAPs. The regulation at the moment is that listed companies are required, by continuing obligations as it is known, to explain significant departures and that is extended by the Stock Exchange to USM companies.
The amendment provides further support for the Accounting Standards Committee by a statutory requirement for a suitable explanation from any plc —I emphasise plc -which does follow the applicable SSAP. Recent debates in the business community suggest—the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, may be able to comment upon it from the CBI point of view—that further measures need to be taken to ensure compliance with SSAPs, which are an important part of the present reporting framework.
As we found out this afternoon, they have a somewhat ambiguous status in the light of the Bill which is before the Committee. The phrase "continuing obligations" is a term of art, if I may put it like that. It is expressed in LA Note No. 39 of the Accounting Standards Committee that the Committee supports the policy of the principal professional accountancy bodies of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland in formulating and publishing accounting standards for the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, and of the International Accounting Standards Committee in formulating and publishing international accounting standards. The committee expects the accounts of listed domestic companies to comply with the United Kingdom accounting standards approved by the principal professional accountancy bodies in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Companies should also normally have regard to statements of recommended practice issued by such bodies.
The amendment tries to ensure that any public company which departs from the relevant SSAP should explain why it does so, the reasons why it has done so and the quantification of its financial effect. This seems to us to be wholly in line with the thrust of the Bill. If it is designed to put into statute a lot of the standard accounting practices, we hope very much that the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: This amendment picks up one of the recommendations of the Dearing Committee, though it goes further than Dearing in suggesting that the financial effect of departures from accounting standards should be quantified. Dearing proposes that in the case of all large companies, the director should be required to state in the notes at the
956
end of accounts whether these are drawn up in accordance with applicable accounting standards and to draw attention to any material departures, explaining the reasons for the departures. The Government are sympathetic to this.
However, it is a feature of our approach on a subject such as this that we usually proceed only after consultation with those involved. The accountancy bodies, which, to their credit, set up the Dearing Committee, have not yet come to a concerted view on its recommendations. Moreover, the report was not published until November, so there has been only limited time for public debate on the important issues which it covers. For our part, the Government welcome the report and are keen not to lose the opportunity which this Bill affords to make any changes in the law which flow from the report and which command general support. The Department of Trade and Industry will therefore shortly be sending out a public consultative document seeking views on the Dearing Report and particularly on those recommendations that involve legislation.
In advance of that consultation, which we aim to conclude in time for any resulting amendments to be tabled at a later stage, the Committee will no doubt understand if I reserve the Government's position and invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He could have saved us a great deal of time if he had said that earlier on in the proceedings. Nevertheless I do not want to be difficult at this time of night. Can I take it that the noble Lord is saying that before the Report stage of this Bill in your Lordships' House we shall have some amendments from the Government which are consequential on the report of the Dearing Committee and subsequent studies?
Lord Strathclyde: No, the noble Lord cannot take that. We shall bring amendments at a later stage, but that later stage will be as soon as possible after we have consulted. There is no point in bringing amendments before we have done that.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Will the later stage be in this House?
Lord Strathclyde: Either way, the amendments will have to come to this House at some stage. I really cannot say whether or not we shall have amendments brought to the House before or after they have been dealt with in another place.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord knows perfectly well that if amendments are produced in another place and then sent back to us as Commons amendments, there is very little we can do about it or indeed discuss. There is no chance at that point for amendment of the Government's amendments.
Lord Strathclyde: The accountancy profession will not come back until April. We might just get the amendments in time for Third Reading, but if not we shall have to deal with them—even if the noble Lord, Lord Williams, disapproves of them—as Lords' amendments to Commons' amendments when we receive them towards the end of the year.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Is the noble Lord saying that I have a special dispensation, when Commons' amendments come back here, to amend them? That, I am afraid, is contrary to our standing orders. I hope that the noble Lord will he able to say that by Third Reading in this Chamber amendments will be produced on this issue.
Lord Strathclyde: We shall bring amendments when we have gone through the consultation process. We shall bring them as quickly as possible. I do not know why the noble Lord is making such a fuss about this because, generally speaking, the amendments we are likely to bring forward will be of the kind that he wants to see—for instance, the amendment with which we have just been dealing.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am very glad to hear that. I make a fuss about everything; that is my job. I am glad to hear that the noble Lord is prepared to bring amendments along the lines that I have been suggesting. We shall wait in eager anticipation for government amendments along the lines of the amendments that I have proposed. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 105 to 109 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Auditors' report]:
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 14, leave out line 34 and insert ("without prejudice to the foregoing, whether in their opinion a true and fair view is given—

(i) in the balance sheet, of the state of the company's affairs at the end of the financial year.

(ii) in the profit and loss account (if not framed as a consolidated account), of the company's profit and loss for the financial year, and

(iii) in the case of group accounts, of the state of affairs and profit and loss of the company and its subsidiary undertakings dealt with by these accounts, so far as concerns members of the company.").

The noble Lord said: We are dealing here with the question of a "true and fair view". My amendments probe government policy. The amendments that I am moving restore the present wording in the statute. The question that is posed by these amendments is: does the redrafting which the Government have adopted run the risk of altering the subtle meaning of present requirements? The present statute is reasonably well understood. The redrafting poses one or two problems; for instance: does the wording in the Bill require an auditor to report in terms set out in Clause 9, or in the terms set out in Clauses 4 and 5? Would it not be easier if constant cross-reference could be avoided? I believe our amendment achieves those things. I beg to move.
Lord Benson: I support this amendment. There seems to be in the Bill a change for change's sake. It has no valuable effect whatever. The words set out in Amendment No. 111 are well established, well understood and have been in existence probably since
958
the 1948 Act. It is extremely important to keep the emphasis exactly right in the auditors' report. The words have stood the test of time.
Perhaps I can explain why it is particularly important to keep the previous wording. In civil claims and criminal actions the precise responsibility of auditors and exactly what they have to do and report about should be defined with absolute accuracy. That was done years ago. That is set out in Section 236(2)(b) of the Companies Act; it has been there for a very long time and should remain. It is an enormous pity to tamper with something that has stood the test of time and is needed for the purpose of civil and criminal actions which take place every day of the week.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has explained, the amendment seeks to reinstate the wording used in the 1985 Act. In drafting the Bill the opportunity has been taken to restructure certain provisions. As a consequence the wording of new Section 235(2) refers more simply to the "annual accounts" and a "true and fair view", both terms being defined at the end of Part I of the Bill. While the wording is different, we see the change as having no effect on the present coverage of the auditors' report. We do not believe that the amendment is necessary and I hope that the noble Lord will not press the point.
Lord Benson: I can only repeat what I said. This is change for change's sake and is damaging. I seem to have been unable to convince the Minister that the precise emphasis of what the auditor has to report is important, has been important for years and is vital in the conduct of civil and criminal claims. I do not comprehend how the Government can possibly say that it is not important. I do not think that they have considered the point. From what has been said by the Minister I do not believe that he has known or taken into account the effect on civil and criminal claims. if he had done so, if he had followed the cases which have taken place in the courts, he could not possibly have made the statement that he has made to the Committee. I beg him to reconsider his view.
Lord Mottistone: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Benson, should be listened to. As my noble friend knows, I am only too keen to protect him from attack from the other side. However, I think that when the noble Lord makes remarks of that nature, that is something that the Government should consider. I do not believe that a change of phraseology the implications of which have not been tested in practice let alone in the courts should be undertaken lightly. I think that it would be wise to take the matter hack and think again about it. That does not commit the Government to anything.
Lord Strathclyde: Again this has been a wide debate. The noble Lord, Lord Benson, has come in with some powerful arguments. The Government have consistently tried with various pieces of legislation to renew, to progress, to look forward and therefore to restructure certain provisions. However,

959
the noble Lord has argued very persuasively. I feel that perhaps we should look at this aspect again, read what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and my noble friend Lord Mottistone have said and discuss the point again at Report stage when we have studied what has been said.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his consideration and am happy to accept it.
I should say that I failed formally to move Amendment No. 106 in Clause 8, which was consequential upon Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. I apologise to Members of the Committee. I spoke to the amendment in the first debate. I shall of course move the amendment on Report as appropriate. The principle is set out in Amendment No. 2 and it will therefore be a consequential amendment. Having spoken to Amendment No. 106 in the opening debate, I apologise for failing to move it formally.
In the meantime I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 111.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 15, line 24, leave out ("annual") and insert ("individual").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the House I should like to deal with Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 together. These are minor technical amendments of the kind that we have already had. They ensure that the provisions of the Bill do not go further than the existing Act in one small respect. They restrict the auditors' duty for consideration of whether the company's individual accounts are in agreement with its accounting records. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 15, line 31, leave out ("annual") and insert ("individual").
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Amendment No. 113 has been spoken to by the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 15, line 47, leave out ("information and explanations") and insert ("records, information and explanations whether oral or in legible form").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 114 standing in my name and that of my noble
960
friend Lord Peston. For the convenience of the Committee I shall also speak to Amendment No. 115.
We are dealing here with the question of information, and we wish to widen the scope of auditor access in line with modern methods of recording of data. We should like to make sure that directors of a holding company take reasonable steps to make original evidence available to auditors rather than just provide information or explanations which could be filtered, adjusted or recorded through hearsay.
Access to original records is important with that type of subsidiary because they may not have been examined by other auditors who have the approval of recognised bodies or the Secretary of State, as would normally be the case with incorporated subsidiaries.
We feel that the present drafting of the Bill does not go far enough and if it is unaltered it could lead to audit qualifications, for instance in the case of significant partnership subsidiaries where auditors did not have access to original material. This would be no substitute for proper and accurate reporting.
These are technical auditing points, and we very much hope that the Government will bear them in mind.
Lord Strathclyde: I listened to the noble Lord with interest. We are not aware that the new Section 237(1), which repeats Section 237(3) of the existing Act, has given rise to any problems. Nor are we persuaded that the detailed changes would alter in any significant way auditors' existing rights to information and explanations.
I do not know what else I can add. I am not sure that this changes anything at all, and I cannot accept the amendment.
Perhaps I may briefly go further and say that auditors have rights of access to companies' books. They do not accept amendments to that extent.
The noble Lord raised the question of subsidiaries, and perhaps we should consider that point further.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for saying that I had absolutely no reason for moving this amendment and agreeing finally to have another look at it. On that basis I am very happy and beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 114.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment, No. 115 not moved.]
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Laying and delivering of accounts and reports]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 19, line 8, leave out ("not").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 116, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Peston.
We believe that the Bill as drafted allows a director honestly and properly to refuse to lay accounts that he knows to be defective, unless the "not" is left out. The problem is that we have the difficulty of knowing quite what the director's responsibilities are. We should like to be absolutely certain that a director who knows that accounts are defective does not have the obligation, other than resignation, to lay accounts.
This is again a very minor point. It is not something on which I am going to insist; but I wonder whether the Government have their drafting quite right in order to cover that eventuality. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The effect of this amendment would be to reverse the present position whereby it is no defence for directors charged with a failure to lay accounts before the general meeting to claim that they are not liable as the accounts did not exist or were defective. This would he quite unmeritorious because it would give them a defence in such circumstances. For that reason, I must resist this particular amendment and would ask the noble Lords to withdraw it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I think that we should look to see what the noble Lord is saying and what the problems are. We may return to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 20, line 26, at end insert—
("If the accounts appended are required by law to be audited, a copy of the auditors' report shall also be appended.").
The noble Lord said: With leave of the Committee I should like to take Amendments Nos. 118 to 122 together. They make a very minor change. Amendment No. 118 requires the auditors' report of an excluded subsidiary undertaking to be attached to the parent company's group accounts in certain circumstances. The auditors' report is an important document and should be included. The other amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: The amendment presents a considerable improvement and we entirely accept it.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 119 to 122:
962
Page 20, line 30, leave out ("comprised in the accounts") and insert ("required to he appended").
Page 20, line 42, leave out ("the accounts of an undertaking") and insert ("a document").
Page 20, line 43, leave out ("they") and insert ("it").
Page 20, line 46, leave out ("the accounts") and insert ("it").
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 21, line 7, leave out ("to") and insert (", (4) and").
The noble Lord said: This is another minor and very technical amendment which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will approve of.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Small and medium-sized companies and groups]:
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 22, line 27, at end insert ("exempt from the obligation under section 384 to appoint auditors and is").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 128 and 139. These amendments concern relief to small and medium-sized companies M relation to auditing. Amendment No. 125 is a paving amendment. It refers to the companies exempt from the obligation under Section 384 to appoint auditors.
Amendment No. 128 suggests in effect that the accounts should be audited or looked at by an authorised accountant. Perhaps it would be better if I read the amendment rather than make a speech about it. Amendment No. 128 states:
"Where a company is, at the end of the financial year, a small or medium-sized company"—
and that is defined in the Bill—
"and exempt by virtue of section 246 from the obligation to appoint auditors"—
that is my Amendment No. 125—
"it shall appoint an authorised accountant".
Subsection (2) then sets out that this person eligible for appointment as an authorised accountant:
"shall fulfil the requirement in one (or the requirements in each) of the paragraphs in subsection (3)".
Subsection (3) sets out the requirements in relation to this authorised accountant. He has to be,
"a member of one or more bodies of accountants established in the United Kingdom and approved for the time being by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section",
and he should hold,
"an approved qualification under section 28(1)(c) or section 28(2)".
That provision would be a great relief to small companies and would give the protection that is necessarily needed, as is so well known.
The name, status and qualification of the "authorised accountant" would be declared and personal liability would arise if a certificate was

963
deemed to have been given recklessly or negligently. This reporting requirement would thus be as vigorous as that currently required of auditors.
Audit is a time-consuming and costly exercise that often duplicates management effort. Its removal would mean that small company accounts could be prepared in a management context and therefore contribute to business efficiency.
I am instructed in these matters by the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants. I understand that these views have the support of several authorised and well known institutions.
Amendment No. 139 is consequential on Amendments Nos. 125 and 128. If auditors are not required but merely a certificate from an authorised accountant, then subsection (8) would not be required, as I have indicated in Amendment No. 139. I hope that the Government will deal sympathetically with the basic theme of these amendments. I agree that the drafting could possibly be very much improved. However, the basic intention is in keeping with the EC regulations and with the policy of the Government to assist small and medium-sized companies. I feel that these amendments would be of great assistance and would increase the efficiency of small and medium-sized companies. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the intention behind these amendments. The Government accept that the statutory audit requirement imposes costs on small companies, and during the last few years we have looked carefully at possible ways of reducing these costs. We have concluded, however, that the involvement of an independent qualified accountant is necessary to safeguard the integrity of accounts, and as a protection against fraud. And after careful consideration we have decided that the statutory audit requirement is, overall, the best way of securing that involvement.
The question is asked: why? In a sentence, it is partly because the audit requirement is already up and running and is widely understood, and partly because no alternative has been found which successfully avoids the twin risks of either being ineffective as a safeguard, or of re-imposing the costs of the audit under another name. I therefore hope that after this explanation, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: We on this side must, I am afraid, on this occasion support the Government in the stand that they have taken on the amendment. The last people to be exempted from a proper statutory audit are precisely small companies. Small companies are those who are often in considerable peril, as those who have been involved in receiverships and liquidations know perfectly well, and they suffer because of the lack of discipline in having to prepare annual accounts. Experience has shown that the responsibility for appointing auditors in the normal way by small companies is in their own best interests.
964
There is the question of the discipline that the directors of the company must perforce obey if they are to present accounts to the auditors in any event. The discipline is important. In so many cases, as many of us in practice have found, failed companies have failed because they have neglected the preparation of annual accounts that the discipline that a statutory order requires. There are other reasons too, which I shall not go into at any length. But it is well known that for taxation purposes annual accounts have to be prepared anyway. Normally speaking, with a small concern it is the accounts that have to be prepared for taxation purposes for the appropriate accounting period that are used in the normal audit sense of the term. So there is very little duplication of work.
It would be a matter of great regret if this loophole were permitted. I know that the initial thoughts of the Government and indeed those of some of the larger firms in my own profession have very little truck with small firms. They were disposed to say: "Yes, let us have the deregulation". But if one looks at the original document put out by the DTI, Burdens on Business, one would find that among the causes of complaint, or among the burdens on business, any question to do with the preparation of annual accounts occupied a minuscule proportion, under 1 per cent., of the observations made in the survey that was commissioned by the DTI.
With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, whose views on this I profoundly respect and whose support is so very frequently accorded to us, I am sorry that on this occasion I have to support the stand that the Government have taken.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: In my experience whenever anybody says to me in the epilogue of his speech, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that he speaks with great respect to me I know that something very heavy and difficult will be put before me. The Minister has expressed sympathy for the health of small and medium-sized companies. I am deeply disappointed and surprised that such a distinguished member of the Labour Party as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is and has been for so many years in so many places—in the other place and abroad—on behalf of the Labour Party on this occasion at this late hour should not in any way have the slightest sympathy for the difficulties of small and medium-sized companies. I express my surprise with great diffidence at this time of night, but I thought it necessary to have it on record.
I shall read what the Minister has said. I do not think it is necessary for me to read what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has said because it is very well impressed upon my mind. With great disappointment, I do not propose to read his speech; but I shall read the Minister's speech to see whether this is a matter that can be taken up later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 126 to 128 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 24, leave out lines 37 to 40.
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 130. These amendments make a relatively minor change to Clause 12. New Section 248 gives certain exemptions for small or medium-sized groups from the requirement to prepare group accounts. Subsection (3) of the new section as first drafted required disclosure in a parent company's individual accounts where the directors take advantage of this exemption. On further reflection we have decided that the auditors should have to express their opinion on whether or not the directors are entitled to take advantage of the exemption. These amendments therefore make it a condition of taking advantage of the exemption that the directors obtain a special auditors' report and that this is included with the company's annual accounts. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 24, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) If the directors of a company propose to take advantage of the exemption conferred by this section, it is the auditors' duty to provide them with a report stating whether in their opinion the company is entitled to the exemption.
(4) The exemption does not apply unless—

(a) the auditors' report states that in their opinion the company is so entitled, and

(b) that report is attached to the individual accounts of the company.").

Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 25, line 4, at end insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: For the sake of consistency this amendment makes a minor drafting change. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 132 not moved.]
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Exemptions for small and medium-sized companies]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 154, line 44, leave Out from ("by") to ("only") in line 45 and insert ("Part III of Schedule 4 (information to be given in notes to accounts if not given in the accounts themselves)").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 134. These are technical amendments. Amendment No. 133 limits exemptions from disclosing information to certain requirements of Part III of Schedule 4 to the existing Act. Amendment No. 134 is consequential on Amendment No. 133. Both amendments are necessary correctly to implement the fourth directive. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 155, line 3, at end insert—
("paragraph 42 (fixed assets), so far as it relates to those items to which a letter or Roman number is assigned in the balance sheet format adopted,").
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 135 to 138:
Page 155, line 14, leave out ("5 or 19") and insert ("4").
Page 155, line 15, leave out ("6 or 20") and insert ("5").
Page 155, line 16, leave Out ("7 or 21") and insert ("6").
Page 155, line 18, leave out ("or 27").
The noble Lord said: The Committee may find it convenient ifI speak also to Amendment No. 140. All these amendments make minor changes to Schedule 5 to the Bill either to correct wrong cross-references or to omit references which have no effect. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am grateful for the amendments. In the course of trying to tease out those various numbers in the notes we were presented with a somewhat tortuous task. We are glad that the Government have simplified it.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 139 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 156, line 36, leave out ("9") and insert ("8").
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
10 p.m.
Clause 13 [Dormant companies]:
On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill'?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Clause 13 deals with dormant companies. I find it very difficult to see how a dormant company can still be registered as a hank or as an authorised person under the Financial Services Act. I should have thought that if a company is dormant it should be deregistered both as an authorised person and as a bank. I may be quite wrong but that seems to me to be an odd provision. It is a provision which is introduced in this Bill which is not in the Companies Act. Perhaps the noble Lord will explain how a company can he a dormant company and still be authorised under the Financial Services Act or the Banking Act.
Lord Strathclyde: This clause re-enacts with very minor amendments Sections 252 and 253 of the Companies Act 1985 dealing with dormant companies. Companies are defined as dormant if, during the accounting period, no significant accounting transactions take place. The dormant company may exempt itself from the obligations to appoint auditors by passing a special resolution and filing it with the registrar of companies.
The provisions for dormant companies were generally welcomed when they were first introduced by the Companies Act 1981. The Government take the view that their continuation will avoid the necessity and expense of appointing auditors for companies not acting in financial terms. Dormant companies will continue to be required to deliver

967
annual returns and their unaudited accounts to the registrar who will make them available for public inspection.
These provisions could mean that dormant companies could continue to deliver accounts consisting only of a balance sheet provided that they state above the directors' signatures that the company was dormant throughout the financial year. They make it possible for dormant companies to continue to avoid the unnecessary burden and expense of appointing auditors. The exemption is widely used. In 1987-88 accounts were filed in respect of almost 50,000 dormant companies.
The noble Lord asked about financial services companies. A company cannot be a financial services company and dormant.
Lord Williams of Elvel: If they are dormant, how are they in the Bill? If it is dormant, it cannot be a financial services company. I should have thought that dormant companies would be de-authorised, if I may use that vulgar expression, by whoever is required to authorise them under the Financial Services Act and similarly under the Banking Act.
Lord Strathclyde: It is not necessary for companies to be de-authorised; they can simply be dormant. I do not understand the noble Lord's objection to that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My objection is simple. The noble Lord has said that these are minor amendments but they may be major. If a company is dormant, in other words if it is not active, then it cannot be a bank. If a company is dormant it cannot be authorised under the Financial Services Act. Therefore, why does the Bill amend the Companies Act to make provision for those companies which are dormant under this legislation?
Lord Strathclyde: I hope that I have not misled the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in what I said. The point is that if a company is already authorised then it cannot declare itself dormant. Therefore, I do not believe the question arises. That is what the Bill states.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Under those circumstances, if the Bill said that the registration or authorisation would be removed from the companies, then we have a meeting of minds. However, to say that dormant companies may not pass such a resolution if they are banking or insurance companies or an authorised person under the Financial Services Act—and this is a deliberate amendment to the present Companies Act—seems to be otiose.
Lord Strathclyde: The question as to whether a financial company which declared itself dormant would lose its authorisation simply does not arise because, if a company is already authorised, it cannot declare itself dormant. I hope that that explains the slight confusion.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Can the noble Lord explain what the Government have in mind? Subsection (3) states:
"no significant accounting transaction occurs".
What is meant by "significant accounting transaction"? It is important that we should know. A company may be dormant in the sense that it has slowed down its activities to a point of near immobility. For example, would it be able to pay sums of money to its directors out of accumulated funds? Would a payment to a director of, say, £30,000 in respect of salary be regarded as a significant transaction? Has the department fully considered the taxation position that arises? Taxation does not take into account any question of being dormant. Assessments are raised in the normal way, as the noble Lord well knows. Even if there is only one transaction of 50 pence, the accounts will have to be prepared.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord makes an interesting point. However, I stick to banks and insurance companies. They are already covered by statute on dormant companies. We are merely treating financial services companies in exactly the same way. De-authorisation, as we all know, is for the relevant bodies under the Financial Services Act.
As for the pertinent point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, as to what is a "significant accounting transaction", he will see that clearly defined in the new Section 250(3), which I hope will put his mind at ease.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Public listed companies: provision of summary financial statement]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 27, line 19. at end insert ("and provided any conditions so specified are complied with").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I speak to Amendments Nos. 141, 142, 143, 145 and 147, which are all government amendments. I understand that noble Lords opposite are happy that we should also discuss Amendments Nos. 144 and 146.
The government amendments seek to leave open the options within the proposals in Clause 14. As noble Lords are aware, this proposal is novel in company law. For the first time it would allow listed public limited companies to send shareholders a summary financial statement instead of the bulky, full report and accounts.
When the Government undertook consultation on the principle of this proposal we found a large measure of support. First, companies with a large number of shareholders may be able to make economies if they no longer need to print and dispatch full sets of accounts. Secondly, shareholders who are not interested in the detail given in the full report and accounts and, indeed, may even be deterred by that very detail, may instead receive a document in more easily digested form.
However, let me make it clear that there is absolutely no intention to deprive shareholders of their existing right to receive full sets of accounts, free of charge. It is simply that in the future listed plcs will he able to give their shareholders a choice between the full report and accounts and a new summary financial statement. That leaves two important matters to be decided; namely, the contents of the summary financial statement and the mechanism for making it available. The Bill envisages that both these matters will be dealt with in secondary legislation.
It is a traditional aspect of legislation in the company law field that we generally proceed only after full consultation with those affected or likely to be affected. We have already discussed this point with regard to numerous other proposals this evening. As regards the content of the summary financial statement, we sketched out some ideas when we went to consultation but that was more by way of illustration.
Members of the Committee opposite in their amendments seek to fix some or maybe all of the contents in the primary legislation. The Government's preference remains to leave this matter entirely for regulations. As I said, this whole proposal is a new concept in company law. We shall watch with interest how companies and shareholders get on with it. I urge Members of the Committee to consider that the more we can leave to secondary legislation on this topic the easier it will be to make subsequent changes in the light of practical experience of the schemes.
Apart from the content, the other matter that the Bill leaves to be settled by regulations is the mechanism for making summary financial statements available to shareholders. That is the other aspect of the proposal on which the Opposition and the Government do not see entirely eye to eye. The sole purpose of the government amendments is to leave open all the options so that decisions may be taken in the light of the public consultations that we intend to conduct later this year. As far as I can see the Opposition want to lay down in primary legislation the circumstances in which a shareholder will receive a summary financial statement.
I believe that these amendments illustrate the basic difference in our respective approaches to this kind of detailed company law legislation. For example, the opposition amendments would rule out the option whereby a listed plc—
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but which opposition amendment is he referring to?
Lord Strathclyde: I shall get to that if the noble Lord will wait for a moment. One of the opposition amendments which I shall name soon would rule out the option—
Lord Williams of Elvel: Which opposition amendment?
Lord Strathclyde: I have already said which. I will not let the noble Lord interrupt me again until I have finished because I have to get through this. The opposition amendment would rule out the option
970
whereby a listed plc could send its shareholders a summary financial statement accompanied by an invitation to say whether or not they would like to receive a full set of accounts. That may strike many Members of the Committee as being an entirely reasonable option which listed plcs and their shareholders should at least be invited to consider. The government amendments would leave that option in play but opposition Amendment No. 104 seems designed to exclude it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Is the noble Lord referring to our Amendment No. 144?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, that is what I thought I said. I am sorry: Amendment No. 144. In a nutshell, the government amendments reflect our preference to leave open options for detailed implementation of this new proposal until we have had the opportunity for full consultation with those concerned. I commend them to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I remind the Committee that the noble Lord has also spoken to many subsequent amendments. If Amendment No. 143 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 144.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I shall try to address the amendments that the noble Lord has spoken to; namely, Amendments Nos. 141 to 147, though I believe that he strayed slightly beyond that limited number. Indeed, he gave us a party political blast on the question of deregulation.
Lord Strathclyde: Nonsense!
Lord Williams of Elvel: Did the noble Lord say "nonsense"? If I may, I shall continue. Our Amendment No. 144 seeks to establish how those shareholders who elect to receive a summary financial statement (in the words of the Bill) should elect. We believe that the expression "do not wish" is insufficiently strong. I should like to see a positive expression rather than a negative one. Amendment No. 146 makes the same point. The noble Lord treated us to a rather long disquisition. I shall not say —
10.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: Excellent.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord says "excellent". I thought it was party political. He is entitled to make his interventions from a sedentary position if he so wishes. However, for the moment I am speaking from the Dispatch Box, and I should like the opportunity to do so. We are trying seriously to discuss Clause 14. This is an important point. I hope that he will pay attention and not shout and scream—
Lord Strathclyde: I must protest. I was interrupted by the noble Lord on numerous occasions. I am listening carefully to what he is saying and I shall be delighted to continue doing so until he has finished.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am glad to hear it. The issue of how people elect not to receive full financial statements and to receive summary financial statements is one of considerable importance. We believe that it should be positive rather than negative. Shareholders should be asked to sign a form, or whatever is the appropriate mechanism, to say that they do not wish to receive a full financial statement. They should not be presented with some forms asking them to consult the bank manager or to seek professional advice with an option saying, "If you do not fill in a form saying that you wish to receive the full financial statement, you will not receive it". Our amendment addresses that point. The Bill as drafted does not. The Bill refers to,
"those members of the company who do not wish to receive them".
That is an ambiguous statement. We should like to see written on the face of the Bill that the provision of summary financial statements should be on the positive election of shareholders and not on the negative election of simply not responding to a form. That is the thrust of our Amendments Nos. 144 and 146.
The rest of the government amendments are on the lines of what we would generally wish to see, but they do not address the major problem of how shareholders express their view. I hope that the noble Lord will respond to that point. In his original speech on the amendment he went on to discuss content. We shall come to that in the next group of amendments. This is a question of how people should elect.
Lord Strathclyde: I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, provides a serious argument against what we are trying to do. The Government say that if shareholders do not wish to receive their report and accounts they should not have to. The noble Lord seeks what he calls a positive election not to receive them. But if we are already leaving so much to be decided by regulation, after consultation with the people who will ultimately he carrying this out, I think that we are creating a strait-jacket for companies.
When the regulations come out it may well be that we shall ask shareholders very precise questions about whether they want to receive the report and accounts. But I think it best at this stage to leave the matter as wide as possible when we are very often talking about millions of people. Perhaps I may explain by way of example. It is not an entirely justified example because it is imperfect, but it is an example. I was interested to learn that one of the biggest building societies dispatched over 6 million summary financial statements. The society received only two complaints and only 280 requests for its full accounts. Moreover, most of those requests came from analysts, merchant banks and so on.
It is easy to imagine that everyone else shares one's own passion for reports and accounts, but the truth may be otherwise. I believe that what we have been discussing over the past few minutes is a straight difference of view. I feel that the options about which we have been talking should be left open for the regulations set out in the Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: That is all very well, but the noble Lord and the Government have insisted upon contracting out for trade unionists—and quite rightly. Indeed, that has been accepted. If shareholders wish to contract out of receiving full information, they should be entitled to do so. I have no problem in that connection. However, it must be a positive decision and not a negative one.
Lord Strathclyde: I am not quite sure what I can add to the debate. I am at a little bit of a loss as to what else the noble Lord wants. I have offered him the possibility of what he said.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I can reply to that by saying to the noble Lord: accept my amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not think that the noble Lord has fully justified the reasons for accepting the amendment. I do not see why he does not withdraw it and look at what has been said. Indeed, he mentioned earlier that I made a substantial opening speech, which I did. If he reads carefully what I said and speaks to some of his advisers, he may see that there is a lot in it which is commendable and which points to the approach which we are taking on this most important question. I hope that he will now see that it is worth withdrawing the amendment and he can bring it back at a later stage.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Surely the point we sought to make was a simple one. There is a principle involved. Irrespective of what form any regulation putting the principle into action may take, we agree, albeit reluctantly, that that is probably the correct vehicle for doing it—to state the manner of election by way of regulations. However, my noble friend is concerned with a principle. We are firmly of the view that regulations are not the place for the principle to be decided; the principle should be decided in the Bill. There is a genuine difference here. In view of what my noble friend said about contracting in and contracting out in another context, I should have thought that his logic was quite irresistible.
I am at a loss to understand why the Government cannot put this simple principle into the Bill. What are they afraid of?
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is confusing two different principles. The basic principle about which I am talking is whether we should legislate for shareholders to receive summarised reports and accounts. The principle about which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is talking is whether shareholders either do not wish to receive or clearly elect not to receive summarised reports and accounts. The principle should be decided after a considerable amount of discussion and consultation with the relevant people.
I still maintain that the noble Lords who have spoken have not provided one shred of evidence to show that what they are saying will clearly be better than what we are offering under the Bill. What they want should be left to be decided by regulation. I repeat—see what has been said and consult the

973
people whom they will undoubtedly consult over the rest of the Bill. If the noble Lord wants to bring the matter back on Report, let us discuss it then.
Viscount Chandos: The noble Lord does not understand what concerns noble Lords on this side of the Committee. He suggests that consultations with professional and outside advisers are essentially more relevant than the views of the Committee and, for that matter, the views of another place when the Bill goes there. That is the issue in question on this clause and many others.
Lord Strathclyde: No.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, is right. I accept that the noble Lord is tired and that we must move on. I do not think that we shall make much progress. The noble Lord has not understood our arguments. We shall have to do what we can when the Bill comes to Report. I shall not be moving Amendments Nos. 144 and 146.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 142 and 143:
Page 27, line 21, leave out ("those").
Page 27, line 21, leave out ("who do not with to receive them").
[Amendment No. 144 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 27, line 27, leave out ("The") and insert ("Copies of the documents referred to in section 238(1) shall, however, be sent to any member of the company who wishes to receive them; and the").
[Amendment No. 146 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 27, leave out line 30 and insert ("them").
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 27, line 37, after ("only") insert ("not more than").
The noble Lord said: We now come to the problem of what is contained in the short report, if I may put it like that. In view of the time and the burden which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has carried, if I may say so, elegantly and with distinction throughout the day, I do not wish to engage in what would otherwise be a long discussion on the amendment. I would merely say that I beg to move it on the grounds that we believe—the noble Lord has undoubtedly read the amendment—that the short report should contain certain basic material, and that is not covered in the Bill as at present drafted. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I hope that the noble Lord will not seek to press the amendment any further. I have already spoken to a certain amount of it.
As to the content of the summary financial statement, we sketched out some ideas when we went
974
to consultation. But that was more by way of illustration. The Opposition, in their amendments, seek to fix some or maybe all of the contents in the primary legislation. The Government's preference remains to leave the matter for regulations.
As I have said, the whole proposal is a new concept in company law and we shall watch with interest how companies and shareholders get on with it. I urge the Committee to consider this. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: As I said, I am grateful to the noble Lord: he has had a hard day. We shall certainly not press the amendment, but I hope that in the intervening stages the Government will look at what should be spelt out in the Bill as the content of the short report. I hope they will consider the text of the amendment and what we have said and act accordingly. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 149 not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 28, line 13, at end insert—
("(7) Section 240 (requirements in connection with publication of accounts) does not apply in relation to the provision to members of a company of a summary financial statement it accordance with this section.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 150 corrects a small defect in the provisions on summary financial statements which we have just been discussing. It ensures that where they are published, 'they need not be accompanied by the statement a kind of "health warning"—required by the new Section 240(5). It is not appropriate in the case of summary financial statements because it will be clear on the face of such a financial statement exactly what it is. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee and, I hope, the noble Lord, Lord Williams—if he is still awake at this stage of the evening—I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Would the noble Lord like to withdraw his last remark?
Lord Strathclyde: There was no rudeness implied at all.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It was very rude.
Lord Strathclyde: It was not meant to be rude at all. As I have just said, the noble Lord simply looked slightly tired after the exertions of today and I was offering him some comfort; that is all.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Banking and insurance companies and groups: special provisions]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 30, line 22, leave out ("this purpose") and insert ("the purposes of paragraph (b)").
The noble Lord said: Clause 17 contains accounting provisions for banks and insurance companies. This amendment makes a very minor change to those provisions. It ensures that the tailpiece to the new Section 255(2) relates only to subsection (2)(b) rather than subsection (2) as a whole. This is to prevent any confusion that it might have some meaning in relation to subsection (2)(a), where the word "banking" is also used. I beg to move.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Accounts and reports of banking and insurance companies and groups]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 158, line 11, at end insert—
("9A. Omit paragraph 27.").
The noble Lord said: We come here to an important part of the legislation, which is the preservation of the exceptions for banking companies to present a true and fair view of their accounts. Because the hour is late I do not wish to embark on this debate at the moment because it is a matter of principle. Therefore I simply put down, if I may, a marker that on Report we shall come back to the matter.
In the interests of proceeding with the Committee stage of this Bill, I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 152. I do not believe, and I have never believed since the 1948 Act, that banking companies should have the right to transfer to inner reserve on an unlimited basis. This has been a matter of tremendous controversy. I believe the time has come to make sure that all banking companies declare a true and fair view of their accounts without hidden transfers which are not disclosed to their shareholders. Having said that, I do not propose, if the Minister will permit me, to go further.
Lord Strathclyde: I thank the noble Lord for saying that he was putting down a marker on this to bring it back on Report. I shall reply to him as briefly as possible. These reserves are now maintained in the UK by a relatively small number of merchant banks and discount houses. In effect they allow disclosed profit in any year to be increased or reduced at the option of the directors. As a result, hidden reserves limit the usefulness of the profit figure in the accounts as an indicator of performance. The Government have been giving thought to this in the context of the European Community's Bank Accounts Directive. We are required to enact this directive in our law by the end of next year.
One of the options in the directive would allow us to continue to permit banks to maintain hidden reserves. As I have already indicated, this would be inconsistent with attempts to allow creditors and shareholders to make informed assessments of a bank's financial strength, short-term performance and long-term trends. That is why we announced last year that we are not inclined to exercise the option in the directive to continue to permit banks to have hidden reserves.
976
Nevertheless, this is a matter which we believe should properly be decided after consultation with those most directly concerned. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful for the noble Lord's remarks. They go no way at all to satisfy my ambitions of getting this whole business out into the open. I do not believe that the number of banking institutions that take advantage of this is small. I do not believe that the old Leach-Lawson rules, which the noble Lord, Lord Benson, will remember very well, are at all adequate. I believe that banks ought to show in their accounts a true and fair view. That means full openness in transfer to reserves and full provision for their debts. But I do not believe that this is the time of night and the right occasion to pursue this particular argument. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 159, line 16, leave out paragraph 4 and insert
("4.—(1) In paragraph I of Schedule 4A (application to group accounts of provisions applicable to individual accounts), the reference in sub-paragraph (1) to the provisions of Schedule 4 shall be construed as a reference to the provisions of Schedule 9; and accordingly—

(a) the reference in sub-paragraph (2) to paragraph 59 of Schedule 4 shall be construed as a reference to paragraph 20 of Schedule 9, and paragraph (a) of that sub-paragraph shall be omitted; and

(b) sub-paragraph (3) shall be omitted.

(2) The general application of the provisions of Schedule 9 in place of those of Schedule 4 is subject to the following provisions.").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. It adapts certain cross-references in Schedule 2 in order to ensure that they are applicable to banking and insurance groups. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The question is that this amendment be agreed to—
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to disappoint the Deputy Chairman, but I wish to make one or two comments. The provision is technical but it reflects on the schedule and introduces a certain number of modifications to the schedule as drafted. I hope that the Government will consider, in the light of events and the time of night, whether the wording in Amendment No. 154 is precise enough to carry the approval of the Committee at a later stage.
I do not think that the Opposition should let this amendment go by without making some observations about the extent of the government amendments that have been produced on this first day of the Committee stage, which may now be coming to its end. We have dealt with any number of government amendments. If I may say so from the Opposition Front Bench, I think it rather depressing that the Government produce a Bill and then seek to amend it extensively in the first day of Committee in this Chamber. That is regrettable, and I wish that from time to time the Government would produce a Bill which is based on what they really think should

977
happen and then accept opposition amendments. After all, in this Chamber debate is really intended for the Opposition to say to the Government what we should like and not for the Government to use the House as a sausage machine for putting amendments into legislation.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may reply very briefly to those remarks. I think that the noble Lord will find when he reads Hansard tomorrow that the amount of time taken up by government amendments has been very small by comparison with the amount of time that we have spent listening to the Opposition.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 154A:
Page 160, line 18, at end insert ("only").
The noble Lord said: This is, I hope, the final technical amendment for this evening. I beg to move.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and to be printed.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  ETHIOPIA: ALLEGED ATROCITIES
  ETHIOPIA: ALLEGED ATROCITIES
  LISTERIA: CONTAMINATION SOURCES
  LISTERIA: CONTAMINATION SOURCES
  LOCKERBIE WRECKAGE EXAMINATION: ISRAELI PRESENCE
  LOCKERBIE WRECKAGE EXAMINATION: ISRAELI PRESENCE
  EC TRAVELLERS' ALLOWANCES ON TAX-PAID GOODS
  EC TRAVELLERS' ALLOWANCES ON TAX-PAID GOODS
  EXTRADITION FROM FORMER COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES
  EXTRADITION FROM FORMER COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES
  LIFE SENTENCE LICENSEES: RECALLS
  LIFE SENTENCE LICENSEES: RECALLS
  LIFE SENTENCE LICENSEES: RECONVICTIONS
  LIFE SENTENCE LICENSEES: RECONVICTIONS
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS: POPULATION CRITERIA
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS: POPULATION CRITERIA
  FLUORIDATION OF WATER SUPPLIES: EFFECTS ON DENTAL HEALTH
  FLUORIDATION OF WATER SUPPLIES: EFFECTS ON DENTAL HEALTH
  FLUORIDATION OF WATER SUPPLIES: INDEMNITIES
  FLUORIDATION OF WATER SUPPLIES: INDEMNITIES
  POLICE ESTABLISHMENTS: INCREASES
  POLICE ESTABLISHMENTS: INCREASES