Sitting of 8 November 1989

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

    Lead
    Mr. David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the reduction of lead in the atmosphere over Britain since 1985.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The report by the Warren Spring laboratory on airborne lead concentrations in the United Kingdom 1984–88 shows a decrease from 408 nanogrammes of lead per cubic meter of air (ng/m3) in 1985 to 190 ng/m3 in 1988—that is a decrease of 53 per cent.
    Mr. Davis: May I be the first to welcome my hon. Friend to his first Question Time and to say how glad we all are to see that his Trappist vows from his previous job as a Whip have not reduced his customary eloquence'? I am pleased to hear the figures that he cites because they reflect a marvellous performance. Does he agree that that is a first-class demonstration of the effectiveness of the policy of light regulation, combined with price and tax incentives, as a way of protecting the environment? What does he expect to see in the future in this area?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind welcome. The figures on airborne lead are, indeed, encouraging, but we continue our efforts to persuade motorists to switch to unleaded fuel. Already the switch to unleaded fuel is preventing 65 tonnes of lead per month from being emitted into the atmosphere. That shows the importance of our continuing campaign. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a first-class example of co-operation between the Government, the trade and the public.
    Mr. James Lamond: In joining the welcome to the new Minister, I wonder whether the Prime Minister is aware of his appointment because this week she wrote to me telling me that inquiries about textile matters should be addressed to Mr. Alan Clark, the Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, although he was moved from there in the reshuffle before last.
    Many motorists are still uncertain whether the instructions that they have read in the booklet issued by the Department are correct or whether the instructions suggested to them by the agents for the motor cars are
    978
    correct. It is sometimes suggested that motorist should use an occasional fill of leaded petrol. Does the Minister have any views on that point?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome. On his point about advice from the trade, it is true that in certain instances new cars designed to run on unleaded petrol can benefit from small doses of leaded fuel during the running-in period, but that is highly incidental. To clear up any misunderstanding, my Department has just reprinted more copies of the excellent booklet, "Adjust to Unleaded", which I commend to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and the public. It will remove any confusion or misunderstanding about the importance of unleaded fuel.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: I, too, welcome the Minister to his new job, but why have questions been planted by his hon. Friends on the Back Benches only on the issue of lead pollution in the atmosphere when the other pollutants from motor cars are far more significant factors in the pollution of the environment and there has been an increase in them, not a reduction? About 3,000 tonnes of lead and 1,031,000 tonnes of nitrogen dioxide are emitted annually from motor cars, and there has been an increase of 33 per cent. in the amount of carbon dioxide—the major greenhouse gas—emitted by cars in the past 10 years. Two Budgets ago the Government said that they would cut subsidies to company cars, yet 6,000 new cars per day come on to our roads, 50 per cent. of them company cars with Government subsidies. When will the Government switch resources to support public transport and actually reduce emissions of carbon dioxide?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman apparently belittles our campaign to persuade motorists to switch to unleaded fuel. We also have in train measures to reduce other forms of harmful emissions. They will be dealt with by the introduction of catalytic converters, which will greatly reduce emissions of carbon monoxide, unburnt hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides. I remind the hon. Gentleman that catalytic converters require unleaded fuel.

    Acid House Parties
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to extend the powers of local authorities to regulate the holding of acid house parties.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): My Department is currently consulting local authorities about the possible need to extend their powers to prevent or control acid house or similar parties. We will consider further action in the light of that consultation.
    Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying that he is having consultations. Given the genuine danger of death or serious injuries at such parties, particularly when they might move indoors during the winter months, will he try, for the benefit of environmental health officers, to clarify the existing regulations further? Will he also do his best to extend them as the difficulty arises from the fact that the organisers use secrecy to evade anticipation by local authorities, which makes prevention extremely difficult?
    Mr. Chris Patten: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said. I also agree with the chief constable of Surrey who said that uncontrolled parties represent a disaster that is waiting to happen with the possibility of fire risk, blocked exists, blocked roads and so on. At the moment we are consulting local authorities and I have no doubt that we must give them greater guidance on the powers already open to them. It is, of course, for the courts to decide ultimately, but I want to issue that guidance as soon as possible.
    Mr. Skinner: If there are so many dangers attached to the possibility of holding acid house parties in this enterprise culture, and if the Minister agrees with his hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) that the consequences could be disastrous, would it not make sense for the Government to get their act together and for the various Departments, including the Department of the Environment, to make it plain to the Secretary of State for Health that, in the event of such a disaster and the need for ambulance crews to get to that disaster, those crews should be paid the money instead of being kept out on the streets?
    Mr. Patten: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like me, was able to hear the wholly convincing answers to that question made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health yesterday.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the success of the police intelligence unit in Gravesend, which co-ordinates with local authorities to deter acid house parties such as that suffered in Meopham in September? What hope is there of extending outside Greater London the penalty of imprisonment for those organisers whose actions represent non-compliance with local government licensing of such events?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right that proper co-ordination between the police and the local authorities is vital. At the moment we are considering with the Home Office, which is in the lead, the issue of penalties as well as guidance for local authorities. We shall make a statement as soon as possible.
    Mr. Michael: Is it not ironic that the Minister is having to respond positively to a request from a Conservative Back Bencher for the extension of local authorities' powers when the Government of which he is a member have spent the past 10 years trying to undermine the authority of those local authorities in all sorts of ways, including on planning and licensing matters?
    Mr. Patten: We have consistently tried to support and to strengthen responsible local government action and to deter irresponsible local government action. Unlike the previous Labour Government, we believe that the party was over for local authorities in the mid to late 1970s and that they should behave as responsibly and prudently as possible.

    Unleaded Petrol
    Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much sales of unleaded petrol have increased since the 1988 Budget.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: In the month to mid-October, unleaded petrol accounted for nearly 26 per cent. of the market. Demand has increased more than 250-fold since March 1988 when uptake stood at less than 0·1 per cent.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is extremely good progress, which has been partly brought on by this year's excellent Budget changes? How many more cars could be converted to take unleaded fuel?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We estimate that there are still about 9 million cars on the road which are not run on unleaded fuel and could do so with minor adjustment or in some cases with no adjustment.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency of Gedling only three garages were selling unleaded petrol at the start of the year, but now virtually every garage in my constituency sells it? Is not that a tribute both to the wisdom of using the market mechanism to achieve this important environmental objective, and to the wisdom, good sense and responsibility of my constituents?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have heard about my hon. Friend's campaign for unleaded petrol in his constituency and I am glad that he has succeeded. Throughout the country, unleaded fuel is available in about 80 per cent. of petrol stations.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: We all welcome the large number of people who have transferred to unleaded petrol, but will the Minister accept that the price cut was an effective weapon in persuading them? If so, has he considered the possibility of persuading the Chancellor to introduce similar incentives to encourage people to buy ozone-friendly household goods such as furniture polish?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Further tax changes are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the hon. Lady is right to point to the success of the price difference of about 12p between leaded and unleaded petrol. The average motorist, who travels about 10,000 miles per year, will save £40 a year by using unleaded petrol, which is much more than the cost of adjusting the car.

    Tenancies
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the operation to date of the assured tenancy and shorthold tenancy schemes.
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): The new schemes have been in operation for less than a year, but there are already encouraging signs—for example, more than £350 million has been invested in business expansion scheme companies letting homes on assured tenancies.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Does he agree that in the short term the new scheme is unlikely to do a lot to help young people who come into London looking for low-cost digs and end up sleeping on the streets? Is he aware of what happened in Sweden, where there were similar problems of a shortage of accommodation for young people? A conscious decision was taken to make new property coming on to the market

    981
    entirely free from restrictions. That has produced a flood of accommodation and, therefore, the Swedes have solved the problem without Government intervention or spending.
    Mr. Howard: I do not share my hon. Friend's pessimism about the effect of the changes that the Government have already made. In particular, I hope that she will join me in publicising the extent to which last Session's Act, the Housing Act 1988, has made it easier for people to let rooms in their houses. Under the Act, the charge is purely a matter of agreement between the parties and when the lodger shares accommodation with the owner, the owner no longer needs a court order for repossession.
    Mr. George Howarth: Does the Minister accept that the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is the opposite of the truth? No matter how much deregulation the Government bring into the rented housing market, the problems related to the expansion in that market lie elsewhere, as he well knows. How many additional units of rented accommodation does he expect to come on to the market in the next 12 months?
    Mr. Howard: The business expansion scheme investment to which I referred could provide 6,000 to 7,000 extra properties. We are prepared to look at a range of initiatives to improve conditions in the housing market, unlike the hon. Gentleman and his party who are interested only in turning back the clock.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that many private owners of empty property are still put off renting it because they have heard the scare stories about people losing accommodation in the past due to the regulations brought in by Socialist Governments? Could we do more to publicise the excellent changes that we have made to the housing regulations to get so many empty properties back on the market?
    Mr. Howard: I am certainly looking at the possibilities of giving additional publicity to the changes that have been made. It is a sad fact, as my hon. Friend so correctly points out, that the Opposition's only contribution to the debate has been an irresponsible one.
    Mr. Soley: Given the decline of 500,000 homes for rent in the private rented sector since 1980, and given that the rate of decline in that sector has accelerated in the 1980s, can the Government explain why their policy has failed so consistently and has accelerated the decline? If not, will the Minister take a walk round to just opposite Downing street and talk to the Shelter workers and the people sleeping rough there, who will tell him what I have been telling him in the House for more than two years?
    Mr. Howard: As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), the changes about which she has asked have been in force for less than a year. One cannot reverse long-seated trends in as short a time as that. When will the hon. Gentleman join us in looking at new initiatives to deal with the problem rather than adopting this negative attitude? The changes that his party would introduce, if it were ever returned to Government, would undoubtedly aggravate the problem.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the outcome of his recent discussions with representatives of the local authorities on the introduction of his recently announced amendments to the community charge arrangements.
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. David Hunt): Officials are discussing operational aspects of the community charge transitional relief scheme with the local authority associations. In addition, individual local authorities have been invited to make representations. In the light of the response from local government a paper setting out full details of the scheme will be issued shortly.
    Mr. Jack: If Labour's control of Lancashire county council results in its exceeding his spending limits for next year while Conservative-controlled Fylde spends within its limits, would the county's action deny pensioners and other vulnerable groups the full benefit of the package of measures that he has just described?
    Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend raises a serious problem —that of the prudent district council and the spendthrift Labour county council, but I give him this pledge. I shall bring regulations before the House prescribing the form of the bill and that bill will make it absolutely clear to every chargepayer which council is the overspender.
    Mr. Madden: As the Minister visits Bradford with the frequency of a revolving door, does he agree that it would be a disgrace if my constituents living on the Lower Grange estate had to pay the poll tax before Bradford council kept its promise to build new homes for rent on that estate? In the unlikely event of question No. 80 being reached, will the Minister give a commitment to agree to the grant so that those houses for rent can be built before he introduces his poll tax charges?
    Mr. Hunt: The poor hon. Gentleman! To continue the revolving door analogy, whereas in Bradford the Conservatives are well on the way in, he is well on the way out.
    Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most helpful transitional arrangement that he can discuss to overcome the despair of community charge payers in counties such as Avon is community charge capping?
    Mr. Hunt: I would greatly regret having to do that, but we shall not hesitate to cap overspending councils.
    Mr. Gould: Does the Minister agree with Mr. Roy Thomason, the Tory chairman of the Association of District Councils, that his notional average poll tax figure will lead to "false expectations"? Will he or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State undertake to revise that figure upwards when the Chancellor in his Autumn Statement concedes, as he must, that his inflation forecast was too low? If the Government persist in using the bogus figure, does he agree that the so-called safety net will not save many people from paying more than the £3 extra once the poll tax arrangements take effect?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman quotes Mr. Thomason out of context. The real victims of the fact that Labour councils generally overspend will be those unfortunate

    983
    charge payers who live in those local authority areas, who are having false expectations thrust on them by spendthrift Labour councils.
    Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend will know that Cleveland has some of the highest rates in the country. When considering the arrangements, will he examine the possibility of putting law into practice so that the recommendations of the Audit Commission, which in Cleveland has identified savings of £307,000 in the highways department alone, will have the backing of law and will not be flouted by the Labour-controlled Cleveland county council?
    Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend, with characteristic accuracy, has identified a serious problem. The independent Audit Commission has recognised that in addition to the savings that my hon. Friend has mentioned there exists for local government a savings potential of £900 million of which only £350 million has so far been brought into effect. That is the challenge presently facing Labour local government.

    Countryside (Access)
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about what provisions for access to the countryside will be included in the proposed green Bill.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): The Government have stated their intention to legislate on a wide range of environmental issues as soon as parliamentary time allows, but it would be premature at this stage to confirm detailed proposals for the forthcoming Session.
    Mr. Bennett: I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities. He will agree that may people enjoy walking as a leisure activity. However, over the past 20 years opportunities to get out into the countryside have been reduced because of house building, motorway extensions and other such matters. We need far more land to which people can gain access. Will the Government give careful consideration to including in the green Bill a walkers' charter which will allow people to have access to all mountain and moorland without having to go through the present complicated procedures?
    Mr. Trippier: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his initial remarks. I welcome what he says and recognise that access to the countryside is an important recreational pursuit. We have asked the rights of way review committee to examine certain proposals that the hon. Gentleman has discussed with my colleagues in the Department. They will report by the end of the year and we hope to take the matter forward. I also welcome initiatives that are being taken by the Countryside Commission to try to draw together the sometimes conflicting interests of land owners and land users.
    Mr. Knapman: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the man on the Clapham omnibus has no more reason for walking around the average farm than the average farmer has for walking around the back garden of No. 879 Tottenham Court road?
    Mr. Trippier: I touched on the very point that concerns my hon. Friend when I said that occasionally there can be conflicting interests between land owners and land users
    984
    That is precisely why I welcome the initiative taken by the Countryside Commission in relation to the setting up of local liaison groups to reconcile the differences between the two. Conciliation and not confrontation is by far the best way to resolve the dispute over rights of way.
    Ms. Short: The Minister must know that the Countryside Commission and people throughout the country are desperately worried that some of our most beautiful land will be disposed of after water privatisation. What does he intend to do to protect our rights to use that land?
    Mr. Trippier: I reject the hon. Lady's suggestion. We went to enormous lengths to introduce into the Water Act 1989 powers to ensure de facto access to water authority land. Water authorities have an excellent record for providing for that kind of public access and the Act has carried forward and improved those duties.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that far from our country being covered in housing as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) suggested, 87 per cent. of the south-east of England is still green land or green belt, and the percentage in other parts of the country is much greater? The Conservative party is doing all in its power to preserve that situation.
    Mr. Trippier: I welcome the opportunity to confirm that since the Government came to power in 1979, the extent of the green belt has more than doubled, and this is widely welcomed. I give my assurance that the Government are committed to continue to protect public access to the countryside, through any means possible, but principally through rights of way.

    Product Labelling
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress was made towards the adoption of a Communitywide eco-labelling system at the meeting of Ministers on 19 September.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I am pleased to say that the Environment Council on 19 September asked the Commission to bring forward proposals for a Communitywide scheme of eco-labelling as soon as possible.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is some danger that in their rush to appear environment friendly, retailers are either over general or misrepresenting in their labelling, as manifested by a sign that I saw outside a garage in Southwold in Suffolk when I was on my holiday, which said, "Environmentally free food for sale"? Given that we need accurate information, can the Secretary of State assure us that the Government will take the view that we need specific rather than general information, and that it should be substantiated by fact, and that the Government will not continue their opposition to the inclusion of food and drink in the system of European Communitywide eco-labelling?
    Mr. Patten: As the hon. Gentleman will concede, the consumer can move forward the environment cause far more effectively in many ways than regulation is able to do, although regulation also has its part to play. We put out a consultation document in the summer, and we are looking at the responses to that. We have also suggested,

    985
    which I am sure is right, that we should have an eco-labelling scheme on a Communitywide basis, particularly with the single market in 1992. It is important to protect people from the rip-offs to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As to whether food and drink should be included, there are, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, initiatives covering organic food. In the next few weeks, we shall be discussing whether we should go beyond that.
    Ms. Quin: Will the Secretary of State confirm that while it would be a good idea to get European agreement on an environmental labelling scheme, there is nothing to prevent the Government from introducing one here as early as possible, along the lines of those in West Germany and Canada? Is it not essential to do something along these lines quickly? Otherwise, consumers will continue to be conned by bogus green claims.
    Mr. Patten: I agree with both the points that the hon. Lady has made. We want to get ahead with the scheme, but if we can have a Europewide scheme, so much the better. We need to deal with bogus schemes. There are some criticisms made of the German scheme—for example, that it does not take matters from cradle to grave—but it has set the pace in many ways.

    Environmental Groups
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list any official engagements he has between the present time and the end of November with environmental groups.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I regularly meet a wide variety of environmental groups. My next such meeting will be with the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on 16 November.
    Mrs. Ewing: Has the Secretary of State considered meeting CAND—Caithness Against Nuclear Dumping —an environmentally conscious group? Will he take congnisance of the fact that yesterday, the people of Caithness voted three to one against nuclear waste being stored at Dounreay, thereby ensuring that the people, the district council and the regional council all come out on the same side of the argument? Will he take a more positive attitude than that of Nirex and recognise that the views of the people are ultimately the most important aspect of this debate?
    Mr. Patten: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland meets many groups, that he has met many of the individuals referred to by the hon. Lady, and that he has given them effective and robust answers.
    Mr. Squire: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announced willingness to meet a considerable range of environmental groups. Does he agree that his critical role is to ensure that the environmental option is considered in each and every decision, rather than that it should invariably be the option adopted when sometimes other issues will overtake that issue and so make it better for it not to be adopted?
    Mr. Patten: That was an interesting question, which I am still following as best I can. I think that my hon. Friend was making the reasonable point that we must be
    986
    increasingly aware of the environmental impact of every decision that we make both as a Government and as individual consumers. To that extent it is obvious that a sensible environment policy does not stop at the front door of the Department of the Environment. It affects all Government Departments, and that is something to which we shall be drawing attention in our White Paper next year.
    Mr. Morley: How does the Secretary of State react to criticisms from environment groups about the Government's reaction to the conference in Holland on global warming? Other European countries are willing to accept target limits for a reduction in emissions from cars, factories and power stations but the British Government, along with the United States, have refused to join other European countries in dealing with the matter. Does this not give the claim that the Government are leading the campaign on global warming a somewhat bogus front?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question might have been difficult to answer if it had been based on the truth. We accepted emission targets at the Netherlands conference. My hon. Friend the Minister of State played a leading role in brokering a consensus on emission targets at the conference, and he deserves the congratulations of the House rather than uninformed criticism.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: When my right hon. Friend meets environment groups, does he find that they share the views of my constituents that he was wise to say that planning considerations should be left to democratically elected local authorities and should find their way to his desk and the desks of his inspectors only as a last resort?
    Mr. Patten: It remains one of my ambitions to take fewer planning decisions myself. I want to see local planning authorities taking decisions as far as possible. Obviously they need to take account of regional and national interests when they are drawing up local plans For example.

    River Soar
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the River Soar within the city of Leicester.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): No representations have been received specifically concerning the River Soar within the city of Leicester. However, a total of 44 representations have been received as a result of advertisements by Severn Trent Water of applications for time-limited discharge consents for certain sewage treatment works which discharge into the Soar upstream of Leicester. These are to allow the completion of capital improvement schemes to raise effluent quality standards.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the River Soar, which runs through my constituency and our beautiful Abbey park is becoming an eyesore? Does he understand that it is clogged with weeds, mud and filth? Will he as a rower, albeit a cox, appreciate the complaints that have been made by Leicester rowing club, fishermen and boatmen and by the general public about the state of the river? Will he take steps to have it cleaned up now?
    Mr. Moynihan: As a cox I would have to avoid many floats on the River Soar not least because it is one of our leading cyprinid waters.
    Mr. Skinner: What?
    Mr. Moynihan: I am sure that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) knows all about cyprinid waters. He will inform the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) that as a result of this it is recognised to be a fine, pure river and one that has extremely effective coarse fishing that is among the best in Europe, and is designated as such by the European Commission.

    Litter
    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much he intends to increase the fines for dropping litter.
    Mr. Trippier: We propose to increase the maximum fine for littering under the Litter Act 1983 from £400 to £1,000. We propose also to allow district and borough councils to operate fixed penalty schemes for littering, similar to that currently operating exclusively in Westminster.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for the information that he has given the House. I and others, I am sure, will welcome the increase in fines. Does he agree with me that there is no question but that Britain has become a filthy, mucky place where public places are like rubbish tips? The increase in fines is a long overdue measure and we welcome it. Will he consider extending the Westminster scheme in a way that would enable traffic wardens and others to exercise the powers that it provides? In that way we would restrict more thoroughly the activities of litter louts.
    Mr. Trippier: Until litter louts can be persuaded to give up their dirty, inconsiderate and unsocial behaviour, the problem will remain. That is precisely why we are introducing legislation that will include very tough proposals to deal with the problem. We are also hoping to replicate the example set by the City of Westminster so that local authorities can appoint litter wardens, who will be responsible for fixed penalty fines.
    Ms. Armstrong: Are not local authorities concerned about the way in which the Government are tackling the problem? Would it not be much better to enable local authorities to employ people in villages for example who could work with the local people to prevent the dropping of litter and to ensure that the whole area is cleaned? Have not the Government caused part of the problem because they have cut the resources of local authorities so that they have had to sack those who could have done the job?
    Mr. Trippier: I wholly reject the hon. Lady's suggestion. I could take her to two local authorities in the north that are both controlled by the Labour party, but where the difference in their efficiency and their attitude towards litter collection is absolutely stark. Unless many local authorities take a different attitude, the position will not improve.
    I could make some suggestions about areas in which local authorities could save resources. Many of them would do well to abandon their wasteful expenditure on campaigns and nuclear-free zone signs and instead concentrate more on litter-free zones.
    Mr. Tracey: Has my hon. Friend considered the low fines imposed for dropping litter? Is he aware that the heaviest possible measures that the Government might take would be welcomed by the public and would encourage magistrates to impose heavy fines?
    Mr. Trippier: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. I hope that magistrates will take note of the growing public anger about litter when they are considering imposing fines. Paltry fines will send out the wrong message.
    Mr. Gould: Are not the filthy streets and the litter-strewn public places, which are now the daily depressing experience of millions of people, in many ways the most visible evidence of what has gone wrong in Thatcherite Britain? Does the Minister understand that that malaise will not be cured by silly slogans or fiddling with fines? Unless the Government provide real resources so that local authorities can tackle the job, the Minister might as well take his green Bill and bag it and bin it.
    Mr. Trippier: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. I am sure that I speak for all my colleagues in saying that I hope that he remains an Opposition spokesman for a very long time.
    It is interesting that there have been two questions about resources for local authorities. Is it not amazing that Westminster, Canterbury and the London boroughs of Sutton and Wandsworth are showing that determination coupled with efficiency can produce excellent results within existing budgets? I give notice to the hon. Gentleman that during the passage of the so-called green Bill, I shall be looking to him for 100 per cent. support. He will ignore that caution at his peril.
    Mr. Hill: As my hon. Friend has explained that some local authorities are not dealing with the litter problem, should there not be a reverse system of fines? Not only the public but local authorities do not fulfil their duties. It is often the case, especially in the south coast resorts, that local authorities do not empty the litter bins. Should there not be a system of fines for local authorities and, perhaps, even a list of the worst offenders?
    Mr. Trippier: I am glad to say that I can give my hon. Friend the comfort that he seeks. We shall introduce powers in the forthcoming legislation which will allow any individual citizen or collection of individuals to take the local authority to court if they are not satisfied with the standard of cleanliness in its area and that is precisely what my hon. Friend is asking for.

    Pollution
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many prosecutions have been initiated this year against companies responsible for pollution; and what is the total of fines imposed.
    Mr. Trippier: Information on prosecutions in respect of offences under legislation controlling polluting activity is published annually in the Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics and other sources. Comprehensive information for 1989 is not yet available centrally. I understand, however, that since one regulatory agency, the National Rivers Authority, fully assumed its

    989
    responsibilities on 1 September this year, 53 court cases in relation to pollution offences have been heard and 83 similar cases are pending.
    Mr. Alton: If the principle is that the polluter should pay, does the Minister agree that the fines that have been imposed during the past decade, and the number of prosecutions, have been derisory? Does the Minister agree that it is not right to allow 200 companies to pollute the River Mersey? That is crazy. For example, Shell recently discharged 150 tonnes of crude oil into the River Mersey. Does he agree that his Department should have initiated a public inquiry? The failure to do that showed that, in the face of big companies, although the Department talks green, they haul up the white flag.
    Mr. Trippier: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's earlier comments. That is why we are toughening up legislation in the forthcoming green Bill and the powers we are giving to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. We are also giving greater powers to local authorities. I am sure that they will assume them responsibly.
    The hon. Gentleman is sorry that we did not have a public inquiry, but I remind him that we had a full investigation by the Department of Energy and a full investigation by the National Rivers Authority, which decided to take legal action against Shell. I understand that, from Monday, the case has been transferred to Liverpool Crown court. Those are tougher measures than a public inquiry. In addition to that, Professor Bradshaw, an eminent scientist and expert in nature conservation from Liverpool university will study the effects of oil spillages, not only on the Mersey but in a wider brief. We shall all learn from that study. The combination of those three measures is effective and, in many ways tougher than the measures the hon. Gentleman is suggesting to the House.
    Mr. Brazier: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government have implemented the bulk of the clauses relating to water pollution in the Control of Pollution Act 1974, in sharp contrast to the last Labour Government which introduced the law and did nothing with it?
    Mr. Trippier: I could not agree more. If we in the Department of the Environment discover that some gaps remain in the COPA legislation, we hope to close them with the forthcoming Bill.
    Mr. Loyden: Is the Minister aware that people on Merseyside felt that the Government's action, or inaction, over the pollution of the River Mersey by an oil spill left a lot to be desired? Should we not congratulate the local government workers who responded immediately to that problem and who probably reduced the effect of what must be the worst environmental problem that Britain has faced since the Secretary of State came into office? I was surprised that the Secretary of State did not make himself available on day one to make a proper assessment of the situation on the Mersey, and I have to agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who said that the oil company ought to pay the maximum amount of money necessary for clearing up the oil spillage for the damage and for the money that has already been spent on cleaning up the Mersey basin.
    Mr. Trippier: I would be the first to compliment not
    990
    only the local authorities—both elected representatives and officers—but the workers, whom I had the opportunity of meeting, who cleaned up the oil spillage caused by the fracture of the pipe owned by Shell. Their.
    Two Ministers of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) and myself, paid speedy visits to the site. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, we were effective in bringing about Professor Bradshaw's inquiry. As a result of the spillage, the National Rivers Authority decided to take the action that has now put Shell in court. I do not know what more the Government could have done we responded very positively.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in England since May 1979.
    Mr. Howard: From April 1979 to June 1989 almost 1·1 million tenants bought their homes from English local authorities and new towns.
    Mr. Knox: What is my hon. and learned Friend's assessment of the potential for future council house sales?
    Mr. Howard: I believe that there is significant potential for an increase in the trend, and we are doing all that we can to encourage that.
    Mr. Winnick: What about allowing local authorities, in financial terms, to build council houses? Is it not the case that more people will be homeless this Christmas than at any time since the end of the war? Are not the Minister and the Secretary of State disgusted that so many people should be living in squalid accommodation, homeless—or virtually homeless—in bed-and-breakfast dwellings? That state of affairs arises directly from Government policy.
    Mr. Howard: Planned public spending on housing this year and over the next two years amounts to nearly £13 billion. Of course we are aware of the problems, anti we are mounting a tremendous effort to overcome them.
    Mr. William Powell: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the figures that he has announced are marvellous news for the country as a whole, as well as for those who purchase their council houses? Is he aware that there are still many thousands of people with applications in the pipeline who are looking forward to purchasing their homes as soon as they can, and that the trend is accelerating in many parts of the country?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. The advantages of home ownership are apparent to a growing number of people, and, as he has said, the trend is increasing.
    Mr. O'Brien: I have noted the Minister's replies. Will he enlighten the House, however, by telling us how many houses will be built for rent this year? Will he take note of the requests from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of District Councils, housing associations and Shelter, which have said that there is a shortage of houses for rent? Will he allow local authorities to use their receipts from the sale of council houses to build houses which can be let at an affordable rent, so that the waiting lists can be shortened and homeless people can be accommodated?
    Mr. Howard: Some 2 million additional houses have been built over the past 10 years. The budget of the Housing Corporation, on planned figures, will increase by about 60 per cent. over the next three years, and the resources generally to be made available—as I have just said—amount to some £13 billion over this and the next two years. That will enable a large number of houses to be built to deal with the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

    Water Industry (Investment)
    Mr. Carttiss: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what announcements were made during the summer adjournment about the future investment programme of the water industry.
    Mr. Moynihan: My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning anounced a major new capital investment programme over the next 10 years designed to improve our drinking water, to renew sewers and sewage treatment works and to clean up our beaches.
    Mr. Carttiss: My constituency has enjoyed the advantages of a private-enterprise water supply company for the past 150 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that the promising prospect of future investment is possible because of the financial framework that the water industry will have after privatisation? Will he confirm that the much brighter future water investment picture contrasts sharply with the savage cuts in investment made by the last Labour Government?
    Mr. Moynihan: I confirm what my hon. Friend has said. As he will be aware, the 10-year investment programme secures compliance with the regulatory requirements taken into account when setting price limits. It provides a secure framework for achieving service objectives and it will allow the water industry to maintain and extend the operating capability of relevant assets.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister confirm that the announcements made in the summer about debt write-off and the so-called green dowry mean that taxpayers will be net losers to the tune of £1·3 billion in the water sell-off? Does this not mean that 10 years of Conservative Government have left the water industry in such a precarious position that the Government have had to provide the largest bribe ever to get the industry off their hands?
    Mr. Moynihan: The statistics and factors that the hon. Lady brought before the House are not a fair comparison. She will be aware that the Government's 10-year investment programme of £24·6 billion will be a major boon to all customers, not least because they will be aware that only last week the Labour party announced its prospectus estimate of £22 billion. Customers will receive better service, more environmental safeguards and improvements, better sewage treatment facilities and improved bathing water quality. The public would be sold short by the Labour party by £2·6 billion.
    Mr. Trotter: When my hon. Friend considers the investment programme of Northumbria water authority, will he bear in mind the almost unanimous opposition of the people of Tyneside to its proposal to build a toxic
    992
    waste plant at Howdon in the middle of a built-up area? Will he bear in mind that any such proposal should be deleted from the investment programme?
    Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend has worked assiduously on this issue on behalf of his constituents. The Tyne and Wear development corporation refused planning permission for a sewage sludge industrial waste incinerator at Howdon on 11 September. The applicants, Northumbria Water and the International Technology Corporation, have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State against the refusal of planning permission. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that in the circumstances I cannot comment on the proposal, but I understand fully that it has caused considerable local anxiety. That anxiety has been brought to the attention of the House and of the Ministers responsible, mainly by my hon. Friend's assiduous work.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to introduce further modifications to the poll tax regulations; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Hunt: The Government have no plans to introduce further legislative changes in the community charge arrangements beyond the announcement made by my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place on 11 October.
    Mr. Fearn: Does the Minister agree that further modification is needed for people living in sheltered accommodation? If such people still have property, they will be liable for the poll tax in two places, unless the 12-month limit is applied to them. Who will pay the poll tax? Will such people pay twice?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman will know that on the standard community charge, we recently announced that local authorities will not only have discretion over which class is subject to which multiplier, but will be able to separate within a class for different types of property. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question lies with the local authorities.
    Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that the modifications that he has made to the way in which the community charge will operate will make it a wonderful new system for the elderly and disabled, particularly the blind?
    Mr. Hunt: I am very pleased to be able to announce to the House that, following representations that have been made to me by my right hon. and hon. Friends, disabled people will be singled out under the transitional relief arrangements for special treatment and that we have decided that the test should not only be receipt of one of the recognised disability benefits but that it should also include all people who are registered blind.
    Mr. Salmond: Can the Minister explain why it is that although the Government have been imposing this iniquitous poll tax on the Scottish people during the last eight months and have been meeting massive resistance from the population, it was only when English

    993
    Conservative Back Benchers started to squeal about their seats and their majorities that they decided to introduce these panicky changes to the poll tax regulations?
    Mr. Hunt: If the hon. Gentleman would give my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the opportunity, I am sure that he would welcome the chance to explain to the hon. Gentleman how well the community charge is going down in Scotland.

    Green Belt
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much land in England and Wales now has green belt status; and what was the position 10 years ago.
    Mr. Colin Moynihan: In 1979 there were about 1·8 million acres of approved green belt in England. Today there are around 4·5 million acres. There is no green belt in Wales.
    Mr. Cran: My hon. Friend and the Government generally are to be congratulated on the doubling of the
    994
    green belt, in contradistinction to the propaganda that I hear outside the House, according to which one would have thought that the amount of green belt was falling instead of increasing. That said, will my hon. Friend look favourably on any application that he receives from Humberside county council for green belt status, particularly against the background of my constituency of Beverley which now resembles a large building site?
    Mr. Moynihan: I am aware that Humberside county council is discussing the idea with the districts concerned in my hon. Friend's constituency. Subject to the outcome of the discussions, the county council may decide to publish a draft structure plan alteration formally launching the green belt proposal in the spring of next year. My hon. Friend knows that the Department has no formal standing in the matter. I am sure that he appreciates that I cannot express any view at the Dispatch Box today on the merits of the proposal, since that might prejudice my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's position, should a structure plan alteration come formally before him for consideration.

Eastern Europe
3.31 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important issue that requires urgent consideration, namely,
"the effect on the European policies of Her Majesty's Government of the current events in eastern Europe."
A year ago it is doubtful whether anyone would have predicted that Hungary would now be on the threshold of Western-style democracy. Who, six months ago, would have imagined a non-Communist Government in Poland? Who, even one week ago, could have conceived the fall of the politburo in that most orthodox of all Communist states, East Germany?.
The political map of half our continent is melting and re-forming before our very eyes, yet the business of this House goes on as though nothing has changed, as President Mitterrand seeks to drag us in accelerating haste into his version of a federal Europe—a naive and doomed device aimed at preventing the inevitable reunification of Germany. It seems that the more rapidly the European certainties diminish the more manic becomes the barrage of directives to which we are continually being subjected. At a time when we should be considering the future of Europe as a whole, our Ministers are instead daily confronted with coercive pressures to subscribe to the increasingly irrelevant political confetti of the social charter and Delors parts 2 and 3.
There are major movements under the earth's crust of our continent. The final geology is unknown and unpredictable. This is hardly the time to embark on an atlas of new treaties and the transfer of powers to that part of our continent that is centred on the Berlaymont.
Twice a year we debate the last six months in Brussels. Twice a week we powerlessly pore over its latest edicts. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that before we move any further down this narrow road, the House must have an opportunity to debate the historic events that are so dramatically and rapidly unfolding before us.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the effect on the European policies of Her Majesty's Government of the current events in eastern Europe."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20, I have to announce my decision without giving reasons to the House. I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said, but, as he knows, I must decide whether his application falls within the Standing Order and whether the debate should be given priority over the business already set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order, and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Ambulance Dispute
3.35 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the current state of the ambulance dispute."
It would be difficult to conceive a matter more urgent than the grave crisis that confronts the ambulance service in London. Management have withdrawn the emergency cover provided by professional ambulance staff and their 450 ambulances. Emergency cover for London is being provided by 53 police vehicles, which may be joined this afternoon by 50 Army vehicles. Yesterday, the Secretary of State accused ambulance staff of pretending and posturing. Today, it will be he who is pretending if he claims that that represents adequate emergency cover.
There are two questions on which it is vital that the House should have the opportunity of challenging Ministers. First, why have they insisted on calling in the Army when ambulance staff are available at every ambulance station in London? Yesterday, the Secretary of State claimed that the 14 points of the work to rule prevented ambulance staff from providing emergency cover. I have those 14 points here, and nearly all of them relate to non-emergency work. Yesterday, the Secretary of State claimed that the 14 points included a ban on radiophones, but there is no ban on radiophones for emergency use. The text specifically states:
"Crews will now return to ambulance stations for next instructions unless contacted by control to answer an emergency call."
It is not ambulance staff who have suspended emergency calls but management who have decided to escalate the dispute.
The second question to be addressed is how can Ministers be so convinced that 6.5 per cent. is the right award for ambulance staff, yet at the same time be so terrified of putting that case to arbitration? The country knows that this dispute could end today and that full cover could be restored if the Secretary of State would call in the arbitrators instead of the Army.
The budget of the National Health Service, the pay of its staff and the maintenance of the ambulance service are all matters for which Ministers are responsible, yet since the start of the dispute eight weeks ago they have not once met the staff side in an attempt to find a solution. It is the Secretary of State, not Duncan Nichol, who is responsible for the cash limits on the National Health Service, and this House is the place where he must be held to that responsibility. I submit that this is a proper matter requiring urgent debate.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the ambulance dispute."
I am satisfied that the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 20. Has the hon. Gentleman the leave of the House?.
The pleasure of the House not having been signified, MR. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the motion

997
to rise in their places, and not fewer than forty Members having accordingly risen, the motion stood over under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the commencement of public business tomorrow.
3.39 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It might be helpful following your ruling, Sir, if I were to say that the debate on parliamentary pensions, which was arranged for tomorrow afternoon, will need to be postponed. The House will regret the need for doing that, but obviously it follows from the ruling that you have given. I hope to find time for that debate as soon as possible.
Dr. John Cunningham: Further to the point of order Mr. Speaker. Of course we accept that the debate on Members' pensions should be postponed. The Opposition, at least, recognise that, although that matter is important, the dispute in the ambulance service is far more important.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A number of us heard the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), who has chosen to leave the Chamber, say clearly —indirectly addressing you, Sir—"You grant that and you lose your job."
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that I need hear any more. Fortunately, I did not hear that remark.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the hon. Member's application under Standing Order No. 20.
Mr. Marlow: This is on a different point. I was sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) and I did not hear him say anything. What I did hear was the Leader of the Opposition, in his agitated and florid way, inciting his Back Benchers to raise points of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we can now get on with today's business in a parliamentary fashion.

BILL PRESENTED
  STUDENT CHARTER
  Mr. Simon Hughes, supported by Mr. David Alton, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mrs. Ray Michie, Mr. Richard Livsey, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Menzies Campbell and Mr. James Wallace, presented a Bill to provide for the appointment and set the functions of a committee to ensure access to further and higher education establishments; to provide for the welfare of students at such establishments; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 218.]

  National Missing Persons' Register
  3.41 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require police forces to submit standardised information to a national missing persons' register within a prescribed time; and for other purposes.
  Anxiety is growing over the way in which we handle the problem of missing persons. [Interruption.].
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to leave the Chamber quietly if they are not remaining for the submission.
  Mr. Arnold: Research by the Church of England Children's Society shows that, in 1986, 98,000 people were reported as missing. Although this includes individuals who go missing more than once during the year, it is calculated that some 50 per cent. of disappearances go unreported. Although a significant number of people are recovered in days or within a week, many remain missing. Far too many of these head for the bright lights of London. The Central London Teenage Project reports that, although some 40 per cent. of teenagers coming into the capital originated in London and the south-east, 16 per cent. were from the north and north-west and 12 per cent. were from Scotland. These are young people who arrive at King's Cross or Euston, many of whom fall prey to the predators of crime, prostitution or commercial exploitation.
  In the circumstances, the British Transport police do a valiant job in coping with these runaways, but they have to waste an immense amount of time trying to establish the identity of many of the young people whom they pick up. The teenage project, which assists young people in its centre, always makes checks with Scotland Yard's missing persons register and has made the disturbing discovery that only 39 per cent. of runaways are registered as missing and 61 per cent. are not. We should ask, why not?
  We have a haphazard system of recording missing persons. The system has grown like Topsy. We have 53 police forces, each with its own policy. In my county of Kent, missing persons are classified as vulnerable or not vulnerable. These are basically minors, pensioners or those with medical, psychological or suspicious records. The rules require them to be registered as missing within four hours of report and details are forwarded to neighbouring divisions or forces that are thought relevant to the case. They are reported to New Scotland Yard only if the person is thought to have headed for London. All cases are reported to New Scotland Yard after three days.
  I have also looked at the position at my own Gravesend police station. It has had 103 cases of disappearances so far this year. Overwhelmingly, those have been solved within 48 hours. When I made my inquiries, there were only two cases outstanding—one from the previous night and one reported six days previously. To what extent do other forces follow suit? Are they as tight in informing New Scotland Yard? Why is it that the Central London Teenage Project found that 61 per cent. of runaways were not registered centrally? Could it be loose policy by some police forces? One Welsh force, for example, only forwards details of vulnerable people to Scotland Yard after 14 days. Could it be that the two thirds of runaways from home come from families who do not bother to notify the

  999
  police or are scared to do so? One third of runaways come from social services care. Could that reflect the supervision and sense of responsibility of a number of those departments?
  This is not a new problem. Dick Whittington came to London to seek his fortune and in the 19th century, Charles Dickens's Fagin displayed in a genteel fashion the way in which young runaways could be led into crime. However, the scope for the international exploitation of young, vulnerable people is new. With a vast increase in travel, there may be an expansion of white slaving and of the involvement of young people in drug running. Clearly, that motivated the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to recommend the co-ordination of national offices responsible for tracing missing persons. But if international mobility and, possibly, the sophistication of criminal exploitation have increased, so too have the technological aids available to the police.
  Scotland Yard has operated a police national computer at Hendon since 1974. In addition to a variety of registers, it has run an index of wanted and missing persons since 1978. Last year, it held files on 9,951 missing people. They included 495 boys and 425 girls aged under 14, 980 youths and 1,172 girls aged 14 to 18, and 3,696 men and 3,183 women over 18. By the end of the year, 2,156 of those people were still missing. Of those reported missing, 5,000 returned home voluntarily. Nearly one third were found as a result of police inquiries or publicity, 2 per cent. were found dead and 3 per cent. were held by the police because they were accused of offences.
  The police national computer has several hundred terminals held by force headquarters and some divisions. They can be used for viewing and entering data, although only about one half of the forces can interface them with their own computers. The index is essentially a passive and
  1000
  voluntary aid to our 53 police forces. If it were to become a standard requirement to enter specified data within an obligatory time frame, a more complete and systematic response could be achieved.
  We require a framework that establishes an obligation to register all minors, pensioners and those considered vulnerable on medical or psychological grounds. Experience shows that immediate inquiries following clearly established leads tend to produce a contact with the overwhelming majority of missing persons within 48 hours. It is, therefore, reasonable to require notification to the national register within that time limit for those cases whose lack of solution demonstrates potential seriousness. A requirement for cancellation and for frequent case review, perhaps fortnightly by originating forces, is clearly essential to avoid clogging the system.
  Clearly, all this will involve resources, both to operate the enhanced national register of missing persons on the national police computer and to develop methods to take advantage of the wider scope of information. The Association of Chief Police Officers has submitted a report to the Home Office, which has yet to pronounce upon it. I stress to Home Office Ministers the urgency and importance of addressing the matter.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jacques Arnold, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. James Paice, Mr. Frank Field, Sir George Young, Mr. Stuart Bell, Mr. John Marshall, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Ronnie Fearn and Miss Ann Widdecombe.

  NATIONAL MISSING PERSONS' REGISTER
  Mr. Jacques Arnold accordingly presented a Bill to require police forces to submit standardised information to a national missing persons' register within a prescribed time; and for other purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed.—[Bill 219.]

  Local Government and Housing Bill. and Employment Bill (Allocation of. Time)
  3.50 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Local Government and Housing Bill and the Employment Bill:.

  Lords Amendments
  1. The remaining proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Local Government and Housing Bill shall he completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of those proceedings.
  2. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Employment Bill shall also be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of those proceedings.
  3—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2 above—

  (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

  (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

  (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

  (iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and

  (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

  (c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not he interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
  4. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on either Bill.
  5. The proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings
  6. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

  (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair,

  (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

  (ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

  (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals

  Supplemental
  7.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons
  (2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed
  8.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee
  (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings
  (3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall he put forthwith
  (4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), the time at which, under this Order, any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion
  9.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings
  (2) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which proceedings on either Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order
  Last Thursday when I announced the business for this week I told the House that we would spend Monday and Tuesday considering the Local Government and Housing Bill and that today we would deal with the Employment Bill as amended in another place. I hope that the whole House—certainly a large part of it—will regret that it has not proved possible to keep to that arrangement, which was agreed through the usual channels as a sensible division of the time available
  It became clear yesterday that we were not making progress at anything like the pace—a perfectly possible pace—implied by those arrangements. That is why last night I had to inform the House of this revision of the business.
  I recently had cause to remind the House of the Government's entitlement to achieve—after due con-sideration and debate—the passage of its business. We are now at the last stages of that process for both Bills. Both

  1003
  are major parts of our programme on which both Houses have expended much thought and energy. We should not have introduced these Bills had we not been sure that they were necessary and valuable to the country. The House has confirmed that opinion at each stage. It would be a waste of the House's time and a failure in our duty to the electorate not to take sensible steps to safeguard both of the measures.
  There are good, important measures in both of the Bills to increase democratic accountability and freedom. I shall, therefore, leave it to the Opposition to use dramatic and bloody metaphors about guillotines and slaughter. I shall continue to refer to this elegant motion correctly, as a timetable motion, which is absolutely necessary to dispose of the remaining business in a reasonable way
  Let me at this point pre-empt another argument that may be heard from Opposition Members, who usually assure us at this stage of their willingness—indeed, incredibly, their enthusiasm—to stay up all night and half the following day to consider any and every Bill. We all accept that there are times when we have to sit through the night. But neither I nor the country at large think it the most sensible way to give proper consideration to legislation. I see no reason to sit all night for the sake of a few self-proclaimed enthusiasts on the Opposition Benches who feel that spinning out the proceedings instead of allowing the business to be completed in a practical way somehow proves—as they would love to believe—that they have the Government on the run
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House accept that women who are being discriminated against and cannot obtain proper employment and young people who will be affected badly by the Bill will take exception to the way in which he trivialises their concerns and the concerns that some Opposition Members feel on their behalf?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not in the least trivialising real concerns about those real issues. The hon. Lady is right to point out that the second of the two Bills before us is intended to promote equality of opportunity in employment and vocational training and to repeal the discriminatory legislation that exists. There is no argument about the merit, purpose and quality of the Bill and it should be possible to discuss it sensibly along the lines originally agreed or those now foreshadowed.
  I should like to remind the House that following the representations made on a similar occasion not long ago, I was able last night to ensure that we had both a debate on the Adjournment motion and an opportunity to ask questions on the business statement. Since Opposition Members have already had those two opportunities to express their indignation I venture to cherish the hope that we may be able to dispatch this timetable motion in less than the three hours potentially available for it and so get on to the substantive business.
  We have been considering the Local Government and Housing Bill for the whole of the past two days and we should have completed consideration by now. We are not therefore curtailing debate on that Bill but, having reviewed progress made, have added two hours to the time already spent—and on to the more than 210 hours already spent on the Bill here and in another place.
  1004
  Of course, there have been a large number of amendments to the Bill. That is not surprising: it is a major piece of legislation which completes essential reforms to the framework within which local authorities operate. All our efforts in that area have been directed to ensure that every council meets the standards of efficiency, accountability and fairness to which the best councils already adhere. The Oposition have made clear their lack of enthusiasm for that. Even so, on Monday we managed to deal with more than 300 amendments on important subjects such as councillors' allowances and the community charge and still get home not much past midnight. Last night, in contrast, we dealt with less than half that number in five hours, with four and a half hours spent on the first group of amendments,
  Mr. Clive Soley: The Leader of the House has no defence on that. There was a clear understanding that it would be possible to complete the first day's consideration of the Local Government and Housing Bill by midnight because the amendments tabled were largely concessions or changes that we saw as moving in the right direction. The difference is—I pointed it out last week—that the clauses dealing with housing are infinitely more complex and disputed and the Government have not moved at all, and in some cases are trying to reverse the Lords' amendments.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his judgment on these matters just as I am entitled to offer mine. We had fair warning that the rate of progress was not likely to improve although Opposition Members assured us, when we moved to adjourn last night, that all the amendments that really interest them come at the end of the Bill.
  We have not had the chance to hear the House's views on the Employment Bill since it returned from another place but we shall have three hours to do so tonight. I will not pre-empt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by detailing all its manifest merits. However, I will remind the House that the Bill contains important measures to promote equal opportunities, to remove restrictions on young people's employment and to reduce the burden of regulations on employers. Those are entirely beneficient propositions. The Bill has had 85 hours of parliamentary consideration and a further three should be sufficient because there are only two significant fresh propositions among the amendments. The first, relating to Sikhs and safety helmets in the construction industry, was introduced as a matter of urgency and great concern to the Sikh community. The second, relating to industrial training boards, has been discussed extensively with interested parties over the past few months and the general policy was announced as long ago as last December. It was not included in the Bill until the policy detail had been agreed.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Why, then, is the Employment Bill to be timetabled? There was no timetable on it in Committee or during its other proceedings in this House and the other place. The Leader of the House has stated that only two main items remain to be discussed. Those debates could be open ended so that all hon. Members who wish to do so can participate in them, and the Government's disastrous Employment Bill would still be able to progress through the House.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: It might once have been possible to take that charitable and optimistic view, but it is not a view that one could sensibly risk at this stage in the passage of these Bills through the House.
  Mr. James Wallace: Can the Leader of the House cite any precedent for a timetable motion being applied to a Bill on which there has never been any suggestion of filibustering or any timetables applied to its earlier stages, and being applied solely for the convenience of the business timetable as we approach the end of a Session?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: In all these matters precedents develop for the purpose identified by the hon. Gentleman to ensure the efficient management and dispatch of our business in the light of the state of the business timetable when the question arises.
  I realise that we had initially planned three hours for debate on these amendments, but I must have regard to the business that was already laid out for the rest of the week. When I first introduced the motion, I had to have regard especially to the much-awaited and often, postponed debate on parliamentary pensions. That has yet again had to be moved because you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that there is business of even greater importance for tomorrow. We have to manage these measures in a fashion that will dispatch them today.
  Finally, I remind the House, if it needs reminding, that subject to the progress of business the House will prorogue on Thursday 16 November. Any alteration of that would, I am sure, be a great inconvenience to the House. As Leader, I feel a special responsibility for ensuring that hon. Members get a short but not entirely undeserved rest when we have completed another full and successful programme. As a member of the Government, I feel an equal responsibility for ensuring that we secure these two important reforming Bills. For both reasons, I commend this motion to the House.
  4.1 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: When the Leader of the House was appointed to his new post, there were great hopes—I stress that they remain great hopes among Opposition Members—that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be a reforming Leader. However, if he does not mind my saying so, he has sounded more like a recidivist than a reformer this afternoon.
  What the Leader of the House is asking us to accept is baldly and bluntly that a long, complicated and contentious Bill—the Local Government and Housing Bill —should be curtailed to no more than two hours' further discussion, and that the Employment Bill, which is equally contentious in some respects, should be curtailed to a maximum of a further three hours' discussion. We cannot accept that and there is no point in disguising our opposition to what the Leader of the House has suggested.
  I was touched by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's desire to give us all a short autumn break. Coming so soon after a very long parliamentary recess and a relatively short working period of about four weeks, in which he has nevertheless felt obliged to introduce two motions encompassing four different timetables on four Bills, people outside the House—our constituents—will look a little askance at the apparent need for us to have yet another few days off work so soon. Of course, the real
  1006
  reason for the motion has nothing to do with the amount of time that has already elapsed in our discussion of these Bills; it is simply to ensure that the Government wrap up their business—whether or not there has been proper discussion of it—in time for the state opening of Parliament and the Queen's Speech. That is the driving force behind the motion and everybody knows it.
  The Leader of the House will not be disappointed in at least one hope that he expressed as he will not get any foaming blood-red speeches from me about the need for the House to sit day and night to discuss legislation. In the almost 20 years that I have been a Member I have never thought it sensible to sit through the night. I do not believe that the overwhelming majority of our people think that that is sensible. Frankly, they think that it is barmy and I share their view. Although it is not possible to do so on this occasion, I hope that the Leader of the House will give practical effect to what he said about seriously considering a reform of our procedures. I assure him that he will have my support if he does so.
  The Leader of the House has made some play, as he did in the early hours of this morning, about the difference in the rate of progress on the Local Government and Housing Bill between Monday and Tuesday. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has already pointed out that there were significant differences in the issues before the House on those days. At about I am today I gave a rather whimsical smile when the Leader of the House remonstrated with us all and said that on Monday we had managed to get through 300 amendments, as though there had to be some daily quota of amendments of which we should dispose.
  It appeared that, because we had not got through another 300 on Tuesday, our behaviour was outrageous and that was an end to the matter.
  Mr. David Nicholson: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that the introduction of the community charge and the circumstances in which it will be introduced, which we debated at great length on Monday, is not a significant issue between the parties?
  Dr. Cunningham: Of course not. Its more accurate name, however, is the poll tax—certainly that is how it is known outside the House and outside the Conservative party. If any Conservative Members believe that their constituents talk about something called the community charge they are deluding themselves. The poll tax is one of the most controversial issues in contemporary politics, but some of the aspects of the Local Government and Housing Bill which were before the House yesterday are also controversial.
  I remind the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) that 20 groups of amendments—not 20 amendments—remain to be considered on that Bill. That means that 10 groups must be discussed per hour given the timetable laid down by the Leader of the House, which is equivalent to six minutes per group. In total there are about 150 amendments still to be considered. I remind the Leader of the House that, in the main, those amendments are not Opposition ones. It was the Government who came back from the House of Lords with more than 600 amendments to their own legislation. For the Leader of the House to try to convey the impression that, somehow, all this extra parliamentary time is the fault of the Opposition is grossly misleading. We are talking about Government

  1007
  legislation that has been amended 600 times by Ministers, but we are expected simply to acquiesce to those changes. Apparently we are expected to speed the passage of the Bill. Whatever else the duties and responsibilities of the Opposition are, they are not to secure Government legislation—quite the reverse. The Leader of the House was on shaky ground when he advanced that argument.
  The reason why we have had two timetable motions from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in four weeks and four timetables on four different Bills is that he has inherited a business timetable that is in a shambles. The Government's business programme has run——
  The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. David Hunt): The only shambles here is on the Opposition benches.
  Dr. Cunningham: Would the Minister like to intervene?
  Mr. David Hunt indicated dissent.
  Dr. Cunningham: Well he would be wise not to make sedentary interventions or I might just take advantage of him and respond.
  The Government's business programme is in difficulties because large numbers of important amendments have been made against the Government's wishes in the other place. I recognise and admit that we worked hard for and supported some of those amendments, and, therefore, some of them are welcome. However, it is also because the Government brought much of this legislation to the House in such a badly prepared state that it has been necessary over and over again, at every stage of proceedings, for Ministers, in Committee, the other place, and on the Floor of this House, to seek to change, correct and improve their own legislation.
  Slowly but surely, the timetable of Government legislation has run into greater and greater difficulties. That is due to incompetent business management by Ministers as much as, if not more than, the Opposition or deliberate delaying tactics in this House. There has been no sign of any attempt to filibuster any of the legislation. That is why, until now, no timetable has been imposed on it. Therefore, from whichever angle we look at this matter, the Government's irresponsibility and incompetence have led us to this position today.
  We have had 50 local government Bills during the Government's term of office. The one before us today is the fiftieth. Even after 50 attempts to get things right, the Government have come along at the 11th hour with more changes and corrections. They are in such a mess over local government policy because they have no underlying, cohesive principles about it. Therefore, they will never get it right and are unlikely to get much, if any, support from the Opposition on local government legislation.
  As the House knows, I have, inevitably, had less to do with the second Bill affected by the timetable proposal: the Employment Bill. The Secretary of State for Employment. who is present, will know better than I what the major points of opposition to the Bill have been. It has not been thought necessary to curtail discussion on that Bill, which has been strongly opposed at various stages, but has nevertheless progressed. However, now, suddenly and
  1008
  abruptly, discussion of it is being curtailed simply for the convenience of the Government's legislative timetable, and no other legitimate reason.
  If the positions of Government and Opposition were reversed—as certainly they soon will be—and nothing about parliamentary procedure had changed in the interim, Ministers and shadow Ministers would almost be making reverse speeches. An irony of this system is that it goes on and on. The next Government, a Labour Government. will almost certainly find it necessary, because of the arcane procedures of the House, to insist on timetable motions at some time. There is no point in disguising that. It is in the interests of all hon. Members, the Government and certainly our constituents, that we get together to do something about it. Sooner or later, people who, with the advent of television, will have more opportunity than ever before, thank goodness, to scrutinise the affairs of the House, will say that the system has been brought into disrepute.
  I have no reservations about opposing the motion on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, I hope that the new Leader of the House will look at the matter, his own position and difficulties, learn some of the lessons and seek to reform our procedures.
  4.14 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) refreshingly frankly said that if the roles were reversed the same speeches would have been made. There is something of a ritual about these debates——.
  Dr. Cunningham: Unless there was a change of procedure.
  Mr. Wallace: Quite so. Perhaps it falls to me to call down a plague on both Houses—the Government and the Opposition are as bad as each other.
  Although there has always and rightly been some outrage about guillotine motions, I notice that in a speech on such a motion in 1988—on the Education Reform Bill —the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), said that about 20 years ago debates on timetable motions lasted a full day, the House was packed for them and relationships between the usual channels were strained to breaking point. It is a sign of the times that now, when guillotine motions come along, they produce an almost empty House. The ritual speeches of outrage are made, but the usual channels appear reasonably fluid.
  Be that as it may. important issues are at stake. For a change, the Leader of the House did not cite the precedent of the occasion when the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) guillotined five Bills in one day—no doubt that will come up at some stage in the debate. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman responded to my intervention by saying that precedents have developed. Today we are setting a precedent. The right hon. and learned Gentleman could not cite a previous occasion of a timetable motion being introduced on a Bill such as the Employment Bill on which there has been no time wasting or filibustering. I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Bill and spoke on Report and I know that the debates were constructive and, on the whole, good.

  1009
  The timetable motion has been brought in merely because of the deadline of the end of the Session and it will be used as a precedent for similar motions. Thus are the rights of Back Benchers and of the House eroded.
  The motion provides that after certain Questions are put Mr. Speaker will take all the remaining Lords amendments together and ask the House whether it agrees with them. It is breathtaking to ask hon. Members to agree with everything when they might want to disagree with some amendments and agree with others. We will be asked to agree to them on the nod, with no attempt having been made to separate them.
  I also note that the Question on the appointment of a quorum and the membership of a committee to draw up reasons why the House might disagree with a Lords amendment will he put forthwith. Nothing is said about an amendment to that motion being taken forthwith. These committees are usually devised by Front Benchers from both sides without consulting other parties. It is interesting to speculate on what might happen if my right hon. and hon. Friends and I or a member of the other minority parties tabled an amendment to change the composition of the committee. It appears that there is nothing to stop a lengthy debate on such an amendment. I should be grateful if the Leader of the House would confirm that.
  Many of the amendments were tabled at a very late stage in the other place. I understand that the other place resumed business on the Local Government and Housing Bill on Monday 9 October. On 6 October, 192 new Government amendments had been tabled, one of them 17 pages long. Included in the batch were amendments to the poll tax legislation. Many of their Lordships complained bitterly about the lack of time that they had been given in which to consider important Government amendments.
  Not only were amendments introduced on the Employment Bill to deal with the winding up of many of the industrial training boards, but the Bill's long title had to be changed to enable the Government to do that. So another Bill was tacked on at a late stage in the other place; it has been brought here; and it is now being nodded through in only three hours. Far from having the normal proceeding of three Readings plus Committee and Report in the House and a similar process in the other place, we are being asked to pass this important employment measure with the minimum of discussion in the House and in another place.
  The measure deals with the winding up of industrial training boards and will involve consequences, not least about pensions, for the staff of the training boards. It does not enhance the reputation of parliamentary democracy when legislation can be dealt with in such a shorthand and off-hand manner. We are dealing with an unusual case because we are not being asked to deal with legislation that has been considered at great length in another place. There, it was virtually passed on the nod without close examination and we are being asked to do the same.
  One of the most contentious points in the Local Government and Housing Bill relates to staircasing, and in that context the Government have tabled an amendment to disagree with the amendment tabled in another place. Some of today's newspapers have reported that the Government intend to respond to the Lords amendment with a package of measures. That is important, and if the House is asked to disagree with the Lords amendment on the basis of such a package I hope that in the remaining
  1010
  two hours of the debate the Minister or the Secretary of State will put the package on the record. I hope that we do not find that time has run out before we hear about that.
  The amendments are tantamount to tacking a new Bill on to the Employment Bill and we should view that with some concern. Increasingly as Bills go through this House or the other place, some issue arises for which it is convenient to use the legislation that is going through. The result is that the nature of the legislation changes because of the addition of clauses. Insufficient time is then allowed when it comes back to the House for detailed scrutiny. Perhaps we can look at some ways in which such situations can be avoided. I should like to suggest a simple solution, although it is fundamentally different from our constitution. It is that the House should be relieved of all Scottish legislation through that legislation being referred to a Scottish Parliament. That would provide much more time for consideration of other measures in this Parliament.
  Secondly, as the hon. Member for Copeland has suggested, perhaps we should start to look at proper timetabling from an early stage. There could be a legislative committee to do that. I understand the objections to it, not least the advantage that the Opposition could be said to be giving away because they could not exert pressure of time on the Government. However, given the way that the Government have acted, that does not amount to much of a weapon.
  Thirdly, the Government could put their own house in order and not overload the legislative programme. We were always led to believe that the Conservative party came to power committed to reducing the burden of legislation and to rolling back the state. However, year after year more and more legislation seems to tumble out. We have passed legislation that allows Ministers to make orders and other secondary legislation. That must make life difficult for the ordinary citizen, not to mention accountants and lawyers, although in the case of lawyers it possibly also makes life profitable. That does not enhance our reputation. As I have said, it puts more burdens on the citizen who has to try to keep up. If the Government wish to avoid that they should calculate at the beginning of each Session how much legislation they wish to bring forward.
  It is a matter of profound regret that we are being asked to railroad legislation. Again, that damages parliamentary democracy. Before the 1983 general election Lord Pvm said that a large majority often carried some large problems. It has caused a profound problem for parliamentary democracy because with their large majority the Government think that they can do what they like. When it appears that there might be some procedural inconvenience they bring forward a timetable motion and use their large majority to pass whatever they like. These things do not promote the idea or concept of parliamentary democracy. For those reasons, we shall have no hesitation in voting against the timetable motion. I hope that, in another Session, we can arrange our procedures in such a way that legislation is not passed on the hoof as it is now.
  4.25 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: I am not in favour of timetabling Bills from the beginning. Apart from the other arguments, it would deny the Opposition of the day

  1011
  opportunities that they should have. Being a generous sort of person, I have in mind the Tory Opposition that we shall have after the next general election. I would imagine that when the Tories are in opposition, as they will be, they will not be in favour of the kind of reform advocated by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).
  It is often argued that the anger on the Opposition side over a guillotine motion is artificial and does not amount to anything. I assure the House that there was nothing artificial about our anger last night. It was genuine, because we believed that we were debating Lords amendments and our own amendments to an important Bill. No Tory Member could surely deny the importance of the substantive matters that were either being debated, or would have been debated had we been allowed to do so. Instead, at 11.30, the Government decided that enough was enough.
  Nobody has seriously suggested that there was any filibustering. I spent 10 minutes speaking about ring fencing and related housing matters. I have looked at what my hon. Friends have said, and all their speeches were brief and relevant. What is interesting is that not one Tory Back Bencher considered it appropriate to speak, even on these matters of substance such as ring fencing and the way in which council tenants will be faced with even more substantial rent increases on top of those of the past few years.
  We were dealing with the housing crisis and the plight of people who cannot afford a mortgage and so are denied adequate accommodation because over the past 10 years, local authorities in the main have not been able to build. Are these matters that can be considered minor or trivial? Are they not matters that should concern not only the Opposition but the House as a whole?
  What I find surprising is a factor that came up again in Question Time today—the lack of seriousness with which Tory Members regard the homeless. [Interruption.] Some Tory Members are having a laugh, but what is funny about being homeless? What is amusing about the continuous vigil, taking place opposite Downing street, organised on behalf of the homeless by Shelter? What is amusing about so many of our fellow citizens having to spend time, often with children, in bed-and-breakfast hostels? Is it amusing that many will be spending Christmas in such accommodation? Should we dismiss that and say that it is of no great interest?
  What is the House of Commons for if it is not willing to debate such serious matters as the plight of our fellow citizens, whether that is caused by lack of housing or lack of employment? Many people are denied adequate housing because they cannot now, and are not ever likely to be able to, afford a mortgage. These are serious issues, and that is why we believe that it is necessary to debate the other aspects of the Bill on planning, grants, repairs of council dwellings and houses in multiple occupation. We could not debate these issues last night, and we shall not be able to debate them at any length or at all today because of the timetable motion.
  To us, if not to Tory Members, these are matters of great interest. We are not hypocrites. If we say to our constituents, when we respond to letters and to those who come to our surgeries, that these matters concern us, we mean it. When we say it during an election, we mean it.
  1012
  When we say that we shall raise certain issues if we are fortunate enough to be elected to the House of Commons, we mean it. If we did not mean it, there would be no reason and no justification for electing Labour party candidates to this place. We are genuine over these matters. Conservative Members may disagree with us as much as they like, but let them not deny our genuine commitment to housing, employment and other social and economic issues.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said from the Opposition Front Bench—I would not disagree with him for one moment—all Governments try to ensure that guillotine motions are carried. It would be kindergarten politics to pretend that when a Labour Government are in office they never try to carry guillotine motions. It would be wrong to say that a Labour Government would not try to do so in future. All Governments introduce and implement such motions, and they have done so for the past 100 years or so. I would not try to pretend otherwise. If I did, it would be easy enough to go to the Library and find the appropriate copies of Hansard.
  We are arguing that guillotine motions should not be introduced in the way which the Government have adopted. The Government have an ample majority, but they should be more reluctant to act as they are acting. They should show respect for the Opposition's wish to discuss issues.
  There is undoubtedly a difference, even if Conservative Members are not willing to concede it now, between a Government with a majority of five or even fewer be it Labour or Tory, and a Government with a majority of 100 or more. There is a feeling outside this place that this is a Government who have a strong authoritarian approach. It is considered that they are led by a Prime Minister who does not show much respect for democracy. Moreover, it is considered that the Prime Minister does not show much respect for her Cabinet colleagues. It is unfortunate that the Government are displaying those same attitudes when dealing with the House. They are riding roughshod over our rights and privileges.
  I do not mess around with procedure, and last night was the first time that I used the "I spy strangers" device. I did so to ensure that the Government's supporters would remain in this place for another 15 minutes. I do not pretend otherwise. I had no wish that the motion should be carried. The Minister appears to be shocked. He should be shocked when he is confronted with genuine issues. I do not know what the Minister is muttering, but I make no apology for moving such a motion last night for the reasons I have stated.
  I give a warning which follows the concern that I voiced last night to the Leader of the House. If a Government are to show such a dictatorial attitude to the House and show contempt for it, there are ways for Opposition Members —if not those on the Front Bench, certainly those on the Back Benches—to make life extremely difficult for the Government. We all know that Tory Back Benchers are eager to be home at 10 pm, 10.30 pm or midnight at the latest.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Whose homes are they anxious to be in?
  Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend has made an irrelevant comment.

  1013
  I feel certain that many Tory Back Benchers, unlike many of my constituents, have adequate accommodation. They are not the sort of people for whom the vigil outside Downing street is being organised. Many Tories on the Treasury Front Bench and on the Back Benches have more than one home.
  If the Government are to adopt a dictatorial attitude, Opposition Back Benchers will then find ways and means of making life difficult for the Government. The new Session will begin shortly, and my hon. Friends and I are determined, notwithstanding that the Government have an ample majority, to find ways, as far as we are able, to ensure that important issues are debated at reasonable length. We shall not filibuster. We shall engage in proper debate, as we did last night. If the Government seek to deny us the opportunity to do so, we shall find ways and means. It takes only 25 Members—30 at the most—continually to make life extremely difficult for the Government.
  The Leader of the House is not here, but I hope that the Minister will ask him to make that point very clear to all Ministers. We will not be fooled around with or treated with contempt, day in and day out. We have our rights. We were elected to voice our concerns about housing, employment and many other issues and we shall find every opportunity to do so.
  4.35 pm
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: The kindest comment that I can make on the speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is that he failed to deliver it with a straight face, and I can understand why. It is evident from the number of Opposition Members wishing to speak that they intend to prove the rule that speeches expand to fill the time available for their completion. I see no reason why I should not give them a hand in doing so. There is no reason why this debate should be a one-way process, and I very much hope that some of my hon. Friends will also intervene and put the other side of the coin.
  It is clear from what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that he does not consider it to be any part of the Opposition's duty to help the Government get their legislation, and I would have been amazed had he said anything different. However, I am not sure whether he endorses the shrill threats of the hon. Member for Walsall, North to do everything possible to bring the proceedings of Parliament to a standstill. I do not think that that would raise the public's opinion of those on the Opposition Back Benches.
  Dr. Cunningham: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene so early in his speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) did not threaten to bring the proceedings of Parliament to a standstill. He said that this place works by consent, and that if the consensus breaks down, it is easy for a small group of hon. Members to make life very difficult for Ministers. The chairman of the 1922 Committee knows that, because of his long experience in the House. I refer him to my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) who, as Conservative Chief Whip, often did that very successfully during the period of the last Labour Government.
  Mr. Onslow: Some of us have long memories of other Labour Governments and what happened in those days. I
  1014
  do not know whether, ultimately, it did any good for those who set out to keep the House up all night. I first came to the House in 1964, when the Committee stage of the Finance Bill was still taken on the Floor of the House. As I left the House for a shave and a wash at 7 am, following one all-night sitting, I was greeted by one of my colleagues who said, "Well done, you will be glad to know that two of their side had heart attacks during the night." I did not think that that was the way to conduct parliamentary business.
  If the hon. Member for Walsall, North reflects on that, I do not think that he will think it to be a good way to conduct parliamentary business. It is street hooliganism on a parliamentary level—but, of course, the hon. Gentleman is a street hooligan on a parliamentary level. I hope that he is not typical of the new, enlightened and ambitious Opposition leadership. Perhaps the same ritual and synthetic speeches that we hear on such occasions from Opposition Back Benches will be repeated again today——.
  Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are told by the Chair that parliamentary language should be observed. I resent being described as a parliamentary street hooligan; I am nothing of the sort. I make no apology, and neither would my hon. Friends, for doing my job. I am not sure that the term "street hooligan" should be used or even whether it is in order. Perhaps you could guide us on that matter.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I should certainly prefer not to hear that sort of expression, but I have no authority to ask for it to be withdrawn at this stage.
  Mr. Onslow: I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I prefer not to be provoked into using such language —but if I am, I will.
  The Opposition, having filibustered, have been caught out. Having sought to burn up time in a way that has had a predictable result, they are now complaining because their whiskers are being singed. There is nothing strange or new about that. As I do not wish to prolong the proceedings, I shall not make a long speech, and I shall not give way to the hon. Member for wherever it is again.
  I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will assure us that we have not had so many amendments to consider because of a defect in the draftsmanship of the Government's legislation. As an educated man, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will remember the quotation from Gilbert and Sullivan, which says:

  "I'm the parliamentary draftsman,

  I draft the country's laws.

  And of half its litigation,

  I'm undoubtedly the cause."

  That quotation goes back a bit, but I am not sure that things have changed. I do not wish to be unfair to the parliamentary draftsmen, but I wish to be assured that there are enough of them to discharge their duty to present legislation to the House in a form which does not require amendment. I hope that the House can be reassured on that matter by the Minister when he replies to the debate. It is an important issue for all right hon. and hon. Members. It is a great waste of our time to have to go over legislation because it has not been brought before us in a good enough form.

  1015
  Opposition Members may be surprised, but I believe that we are more likely to move towards the timetabling of Bills in Committee than many of them believe. I was not a member of the Select Committee on Procedure that recommended that there should be a Committee timetable for many Bills. Therefore, I cannot claim to have gone through all the arguments which brought its members to that conclusion, and I shall not comment on the Government response to the arguments that were then presented.
  However, the House should consider the likely effect of televising the proceedings of Standing Committees. I believe we will soon come to a point where it will no longer be accepted as the role of Government Back Benchers to sit quiet, while Opposition Back Benchers spin out time, however familiar with that we may have become. Government Back Benchers have also been elected to speak. The hon. Member for Walsall, North does not seem to understand that.
  We shall enter into the debate. We have a precedent for doing that in the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill. A number of my colleagues from south of the border were fortunate enough to be invited to serve on the Committee stage of that Bill. They felt that they might as well enter into the debate and they did. I am glad to say that they trounced the Opposition thoroughly. I heard that in Scotland, so it must be true. That will not be the only occasion when that happens.
  The Opposition should understand that the cherished right to burn up time in Committee will not be theirs for ever. That will be a great disappointment for many Opposition Members whom I see on the Back Benches. We are about to enter a different dimension, and I think that it will be a better one.
  The proposition that we have to endure a battering from the arguments, or non-arguments, of Opposition Back Benchers in Committee before a guillotine can be obtained seems likely to go by the board. In 10 years' time it will be an accepted part of proceedings in the House to ration and allocate time sensibly and to keep speeches short, and I do not suppose that we will get many more debates like this. It will be good riddance to synthetic rubbish.
  4.44 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I deeply resent the assumption that Opposition Members wasted time on the Employment Bill. As my right hon. and hon. Friends know, we wasted no time.
  I was looking forward to a thorough debate on some of the Lords amendments. There are 33 amendments that we have not yet had a chance to debate in the House, and we oppose 23 of them. That is a considerable number. The amendments are concerned with issues which greatly divide the two sides of the House. For example, there are fundamental differences on questions of deregulating health and safety and exploiting young women and young people, and I do not agree with the definition of equality given by the Leader of the House. I am not impressed when a former Foreign Secretary tries to instruct me on equal rights. We have different opinions about that.
  I wanted the House to be able to discuss further the underlying emotion that has been expressed constantly by
  1016
  the Government—the job-at-any-cost mentality. People should not have to settle for jobs regardless of pay, terms and conditions. We need to discuss the health and safety at work provisions for young people in some detail. A longer debate would have given us an opportunity to air that thoroughly and to let the nation know some of the shocking statistics for young people at work.
  Young people are often inexperienced, and they are not fully mature. They receive lower wages than adults. However, the Government are repealing protection for young workers in the Employment Bill. It would end the maximum 48-hour week for young people in factories, abolish compulsory breaks and remove the limit on overtime. As a result of those changes, approximately two thirds of the 900,000 young people concerned will no longer be protected by legislation, despite the undisputed evidence that people under 25 have a greater chance of being injured at work.
  The House could usefully spend time debating these amendments if we had a chance. We oppose many of them, but it is important to discuss them.
  I particularly wanted to discuss our amendment to clause 9, as it would extend help to where it is needed—to many parents on incomes below the Department of Employment's estimate of a full-time employee's earnings for the first month of that financial year. I wanted a long debate on that because I hoped that I could change Conservative Members' minds. I know that that is difficult, because Conservative Members have closed minds, but one lives in hope and it is always worth having a go.
  If we intend to be serious about training people to re-enter the labour market, and to make full use of their talents and abilities, it would have been useful to give that amendment an airing. We have a dearth of trained workers and if we are to respond, it is important to go into the details and to look at the evidence that suggests what a badly trained work force we have. A debate on our amendment would have given us that opportunity.
  The Government have made a mess of both these Bills —although one is more disgraceful than the other. Because of the drafting of the Bill and the large number of amendments, we will not be able to discuss vital issues.
  I do not want a large number of people to be forced into employment training, as it is a dreadful scheme. It is just over one year old and it was hyped up by the Government as a massive investment to train today's unemployed. I have had evidence in my surgeries of some of the distress the scheme has caused.
  The evidence to date shows all too clearly that the employment training scheme has failed to achieve any of its objectives. We could appropriately have discussed that failure had we dealt with a lengthy amendment relating to training. We all know of the scheme's miserable failure to recruit the numbers predicted by the Government, and to provide adequate work experience placements. My hon. Friends and I had hoped to discuss all that in detail. I feel that we have a particular duty to debate the failure of the ET scheme to meet the needs of the unemployed, but clearly no such debate will be possible before the end of the current Session.
  The Government probably slotted in the timetable motion on the Employment Bill with that on the Local Government and Housing Bill to lose us a major opportunity to discuss their disastrous training record. We

  1017
  should have liked to debate the implications for the single market in 1992, particularly those relating to manufacturing industry.
  I also wanted to discuss the new clause dealing with the transfer of assets and staff to the industrial training boards, which has been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott). The Lords new clause on the ITBs is simply another Bill tacked on to this one. It is disgusting; hut, if we are lucky enough to catch the eye of the Chair, we may have five minutes at the most in which to discuss it.
  Many other important issues need to be brought into the glare of publicity, in the interests of democracy—not least the extra powers that yet another Tory Minister has given himself. In employment and training, as in so many other contexts, we are seeing a worrying centralisation of power. The guillotining of two such important Bills is outrageous. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is right: the Government are holding the House and the rights of its Members in contempt, and I wish to add my disgust to that of other Opposition Members.
  4.52 pm
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I wonder why the Opposition tried to delay discussion of the amendments yesterday. The Opposition, along with the House of Lords, have made a tremendously good job of looking after their friends throughout the country. Having lived in Yorkshire for many years, and having been involved in local government through liaison between my association and councillors there, I have had an opportunity to study the twin tracking and double tracking that went on there. The Lords amendments to the Local Government and Housing Bill, which this House has accepted, were clearly designed to ensure that those who currently earn large salaries while supposedly working for one authority can continue to work in another, as elected members. I find it rather upsetting that we allowed that concession.
  I was amazed to hear what was said on Radio 4 by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett): I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber. He described as "minor" the work done by party officials who earned their living in a separate authority. The hon. Gentleman must know a good deal about that, having worked as a lecturer in Barnsley while working effectively full time as a council leader. He knows how the system works. He knows that Derek Hatton. that great militant who was employed for many years as a local government officer, did not attend to his duties—indeed, he hardly knew where his desk was —in the authority that was supposed to be employing him. While being paid by ratepayers in one area, he was engaged full-time in Militant activities in another.
  Mr. Allen McKay: The hon. Gentleman mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who worked as a lecturer for my authority in Barnsley. As a member of the education committee, I was virtually one of his employers. What the hon. Gentleman evidently does not know is that his contract contained a minimum contact time and an arrangement for any money that he earned as a councillor to be paid back to the authority. My hon. Friend was not paid twice.
  Mr. Bruce: I am grateful for that vague assurance. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has produced no figures in regard to the pay-back arrangement, nor has he mentioned the number of contact hours for which his hon. Friend was contracted to work.
  If Opposition Members want to get on to names and personalities, there is a long list of them. If they want to play that game, we shall be happy to do so. We need only take the example of any Yorkshire council, particularly when there were both county and district councils. John Cornwall and Clive Betts are two interesting names from Sheffield district council and South Yorkshire county council. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), speaking as the employer of his hon. Friend the Member for Brightside, has just told us how these things are done: the jobs are in the gift of local authority members, who are able to appoint people and then write contracts allowing them to do all sorts of things.
  Mr. Allen McKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bruce: No, I will not.
  Well over 50 per cent. of Labour members of South Yorkshire county council were also employed either by other local authorities or in nationalised industries: that is a fact. I remember that the Labour leader of the Kirklees authority was supposedly a plasterer working for Leeds city council. Although he did not do a day's plastering in seven years, he retained his salary.
  Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman is indulging in a smear campaign. If he made some of those comments outside the House, he could be taken to court on a libel charge. Let me ask him to respect the fact that people outside the House cannot answer: they cannot come in here and put forward a defence. To say that someone was "supposedly" a plasterer implies that he was deceiving people deliberately, and drawing money from his deceit. That is a serious allegation.
  I also ask the hon. Gentleman to consider what some of his Conservative colleagues in local authorities have said. There is the case, in south London, of a Conservative council leader who offered a job to a Labour councillor because of the possibility that he would lose his job under this legislation. To his credit, that Conservative councillor recognised that what was afoot was a nasty attempt to get Labour councillors out when they were doing ordinary jobs for ordinary people in a perfectly legal and proper way.
  Mr. Bruce: I was challenged to name names; now the hon. Gentleman takes me to task for having done so. I was also challenged to cite more examples. Examples are manifest. It is some years since I was in a position to observe such occurrences, but when they were going on I was not a Member of Parliament, and I spoke to the press outside the House.
  Mr. John Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bruce: No, I have answered the hon Gentleman's point. I am now answering the one that has just been made.
  Mr. Battle: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is in some difficulty. He is making allegations with the protection of the House. He has named people and their jobs—jobs which, for his

  1019
  information, they are still trying to do, although he claims that he speaks of the past. His comments are a slur on the professions of those people.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is attempting to use a point of order for the intervention that he wished to make. It is not a point of order. I remind all hon. Members that they have responsibilities when they speak in the House. We are dealing not with personalities but with a motion on whether there should be a time limit on the legislation that the House is about to enact.
  Mr. Bruce: Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. When we talk about the time that we have to discuss the Bill, we should remember that many issues have not been properly considered, to the great disappointment of many of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches.
  Abuses have occurred within the system, not only in Labour councils, but in Conservative and Liberal ones. One could cite examples—as Labour Members often do —of individuals who will be caught by the legislation. In recent times no one has challenged the fact that civil servants are required by their contracts of employment not to take part in party political activities. I am trying to set the record straight. Real problems occurred which caused real fraud—[Hon. Members: "Fraud?"]—on ratepayers, particularly in Yorkshire. Opposition Members attempted to delay the Bill so that they could make further inroads into the clause designed to deal with that problem.
  Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has just made a serious allegation which casts a slur not only on Opposition Members but on the integrity of the Chair. He suggested that Opposition Members tried to delay the Bill. I am sure that you will not permit that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and nor would any other occupant of the Chair.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I believe there is no slur on the Chair. I remind hon. Members that there must be tolerant language and common courtesy in exchanges during debates.
  Mr. Bruce: It is common currency that we are here to discuss a guillotine motion because the agreement reached through the normal channels to take two days to discuss the Bill was not observed by Opposition Members. Hon. Gentlemen are entitled to take further time, but they should not complain about the guillotine, because they did not get on with the substance of what had been agreed.
  I have made my point. Although the Bill has been amended, it attempts to show that it is wrong for people to engage in twin tracking.
  Mr. Martin Redmond rose—
  Mr. Bruce: No. I am about to finish.
  All parties should acknowledge that twin tracking is wrong. Someone who wishes to represent the community as a member of a local authority should not expect to earn his pay as a senior officer of another local authority, even more so when he or she is not turning up to do that job or, in the case of lecturers, are not in the timetable. I hope that that message will reach such people and that they will start to work in a more moral manner. However, I suspect that
  1020
  the legislation will not be tight enough and that the Government will have to return to the matter in another Bill.
  5.4 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: The speech of the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) was both disgraceful and disreputable. I doubt that he would have the courage or, indeed, the purse to repeat those statements, appending those names to them, as he did, outside the House. If anyone abuses the rights and privileges of the House, it is not Opposition Members but Conservative Members like him, who do great disservice to the House by attacking decent, honest people outside the House who cannot defend themselves.
  It ill behoves the hon. Gentleman and many other Conservative Members to attack local authority councillors who work for other local authorities when so many Conservative Members have directorships. I am surprised that they have the time to come to the House, never mind the nerve. There is more than a whiff of hypocrisy on Conservative Benches and it is whirling round the head of the hon. Member for Dorset, South. He should be ashamed of himself.
  I am disappointed that the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) is no longer in his place. It was inappropriate for him to attack my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I have always regarded the right hon. Gentleman as a fine example of a political thug. When a guillotine motion is moved, he plays his usual role as chairman of the 1922 Committee. He is a Uriah Heep in residence to the Conservative leadership.
  The right hon. Gentleman took no part in the debate. I did not see him here during the debates on the Bill, yet as soon as the guillotine motion was moved he came here saying, "The Opposition waffled, spent their time abusing parliamentary privilege and tried to talk the Bill out." How the hell does he know? He was never here to listen. He just came to play the role given to him. I suppose that he does it fairly well, but his sincerity does not come over to me in great waves. He should have saved us his speech tonight. He did not bother to stick around to hear the rest of the debate on the guillotine motion.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about my right hon. Friend's interest in the Bill. Although I cannot swear to it, my recollection is that my right hon. Friend expressed some interest in it. Has the hon. Gentleman checked Hansard to ensure that his remarks about my right hon. Friend are true?
  Mr. Banks: I would not willingly do a disservice to any hon. Member, even a Conservative Member. I sat religiously through the debate yesterday and on Monday on the Local Government and Housing Bill. There were few Members here and I know who they were. It is no great feat of memory to remember which Conservative Members were present, because so few were here.
  Mr. Jopling: I repeat my question: has the hon. Gentleman checked that my right hon. Friend did not take part in the earlier debates?
  Mr. Banks: I know that he was not present, so I do not need to check. I know because I was here, so there is no need for me to waste my time reading Hansard. The right

  1021
  hon. Gentleman was not here. He may have wandered in and out, treating the debate as a buffet where he could pick up a little nibble here and there.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I reminded the House earlier that the motion does not relate to personalities. It is a serious motion and must be debated seriously. I am sure that the hon. Member will oblige me.
  Mr. Banks: Obliging you, Madam Deputy Speaker, is one of the great things that I want to do in life.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is enormously difficult to oblige me and it is extremely difficult to do so this afternoon.
  Mr. Banks: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. People will start talking about us soon, I am sure. All I want to do is to reply to some of the points that have been made. If hon. Members make comments, I feel that it is incumbent on me to defend my hon. Friends who I believe have been unjustly and unfairly attacked both inside and outside the House.
  I oppose the guillotine motion. I am not worried very much about contempt of the House. I accept that the Government need to get their business through. The position will be reversed very soon, I am glad to say, and then, no doubt, I shall support guillotine motions. I am not, therefore, opposed to guillotine motions as such, but I am worried about the contempt that this motion shows not for the House but for the homeless in London and the nation as a whole.
  We dealt on Monday with a number of issues that did not relate to housing. We dealt with local government issues and the hon. Member for Dorset, South spent a lot of time talking about something that had already been dealt with. What we have not had a chance to debate properly and that we are now being prevented from debating properly are the housing aspects of the Bill, the Lords amendments and our amendments. Many Conservative Members are prepared to close their eyes to the reality of this enormous housing and homelessness crisis.
  It was wrong for the hon. Member for Dorset, South and the right hon. Member for Woking to suggest that the Opposition were deliberately dragging their feet. I could talk with feeling for hours about the plight of the homeless, both in my constituency and in London as a whole. I do not need to feign anger about that. My sincerity is not synthetic. I do not need to drag out the proceedings just for the sake of doing so. I see homelessness on a daily basis and it angers me deeply. I wanted to carry on making my contribution last night.
  I accept that the Government want to get their business through, but there was no need for them to step in as early as they did. We could have sat through the night or into the early hours—until 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning. It is a damned sight more comfortable to make speeches here at 4 o'clock in the morning rather than to sleep on the embankment at that time, so I do not consider that I would have been deprived or that my comfort would have been greatly endangered or impaired if I had had to be here then to debate these important issues. For some reason or another, however, the Government wanted to pull up stumps and get away as early as possible.
  Mr. David Hunt: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was here when his hon. Friend the Member for
  1022
  Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, but he directly criticised the sort of conduct that the hon. Gentleman now advocates. Does he disagree fundamentally with his hon. Friend the Member for Copeland?
  Mr. Banks: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend on virtually everything that I hear him say. I have sat behind him during the proceedings on God knows how many Bills and I have watched him see off so many Ministers of State and Secretaries of State for the Environment that I have lost count. I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to do that. He has already seen off five, and I am sure that he will see off a few Leaders of the House before the next election.
  The Minister said that the time may well come when Bills have to be timetabled. I was not filibustering last night and I am not attempting to do so now. I do not believe that any Opposition Member was filibustering. How, therefore, were we abusing the procedures of the House last night?
  Mr. Hunt: I do not want to make too much of this. I know that the hon. Gentleman could talk and talk. I am in no position to criticise him, because I made one of the longest speeches in the House since the last war. Therefore, I do not want to enter into competition with him. However, I recall that the hon. Member for Copeland directly criticised those hon. Members who felt that one of their duties was to take the House through the night.
  Mr. Banks: But that was only if it was a deliberate ploy just to drag out the proceedings on the Bill. I said that that was not the case. If the Minister had approached us and said, "Let's finish at 4 o'clock in the morning," I feel sure that he would have had a reasonably sympathetic hearing. That would have provided us with an opportunity to discuss at some length and in some detail 650 amendments. It is very difficult to set them aside, just like that. One has to make an attempt to structure the debate around them so that we can understand what is going on and perhaps, even at this late stage, prevent the Government from committing a gross folly by the passing of ill-drafted legislation. It was not a question of talking through the night just for the sake of talking, but if we had had a few more hours we could have used them constructively.
  Ministers, however, did not come forward with that proposal. They decided that things were looking a bit tough and that they were not sure how it was going to go, so they got in very quick last night. Consequently, there is a whole mass of amendments that we shall have to discuss in a miserly two hours. That does not do justice to the terrible housing crisis, nor does it do credit to the way that we conduct our business or to the way in which legislation reaches the statute book. The Minister knows that. I have said before that his is the most acceptable face of extremism that has surfaced in the environment team since 1983. I hope that I have done him no disservice by saying that.
  The Minister was reasonably co-operative in the early stages. That is accepted. It is not that we want to connive with the Government. Wherever possible, however, we want to ensure that debates are held at a time when people outside can hear them. In many cases, what we say in this place falls on deaf ears on the Government side and is never heard outside the House. That is a great shame, not because of the value of what we say per se but because of

  1023
  the importance of these decisions to the homeless, to those who are waiting for a house and to those who are living in sub-standard accommodation. That is what this part of the Bill is all about.
  It is an awful and apposite comment on the attitudes and standards of today's Tory party that virtually no Conservative Members were here last night. A few of them came into the Chamber when they thought that there was to be a Division. The rest of them kept away. I think that some of them kept away because their consciences were troubling them. They did not want to hear the arguments. The feeling abroad in the Conservative party is that, if Conservative Members do not listen to the arguments and if they try to sweep the evidence under the carpet, the problem will solve itself.
  Mr. Richard Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Banks: I will give way to the representative of the Mafia.
  Mr. Holt: To pursue the hon. Gentleman's line of argument, if he is suggesting that the Labour Benches are more frequently occupied than those on this side of the House, and if we were to take a count during every hour that every Bill is discussed in this place, I can guarantee that, although he individually would come out very high on the list—because I, too, am an assiduous Member of Parliament and sit here for long hours—his party would lose handsomely.
  Mr. Banks: I thank the hon. Gentleman for some of his remarks. There are many debates that I do not attend and I do not take part in the proceedings on many Bills, not because I am not interested in them but because they are not necessarily relevant to my constituency. However, on crucial issues such as social security, housing, education and the National Health Service that affect millions of people, including those who have been dispossessed and put in a much worse position, both economically and socially, by this Government's policies, he will find that these Benches are very well filled, because the Opposition concentrate on issues that affect working-class people most particularly. This is one of those issues. That is why, last night, the Labour Benches were well attended, but the Conservative Benches were green acres of emptiness.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I hate to take issue with the hon. Gentleman, but 10 Labour Members are present. The hon. Gentleman told us that the Bill is of much importance to the Labour party. Are we to believe that only 10 Labour Members are interested in it?
  Mr. Banks: We are discussing not the Bill but the guillotine motion, which is intent on allowing only two hours for debate. I hope that when we debate the Bill the hon. Gentleman will make a speech.
  It is noticeable that Conservative Members always debate guillotine motions because they want to use up time. Yesterday, we had an important debate on housing for four and a half hours, yet not one Conservative Member spoke. The Minister had the gall to complain that he had had to listen to Labour Members' speeches for four and a half hours, but that complaint should have been directed at Conservative Back Benchers and not at Labour
  1024
  Members. I was prepared to sit down in the hope that I could tempt the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) into saying something about homeless people in London. Conservative Members are ready to make speeches on the guillotine motion because they want to eat up the time.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend was challenged about whether he had checked Hansard to see whether the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) had spoken on the Bill. I have done some research on my hon. Friend's behalf, and I can tell him that until 10.45 pm yesterday —Hansard is not printed after that—he had not spoken, although he had voted in three of the four Divisons.
  Mr. Banks: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who is an assiduous researcher. I pledge that, when I am a Minister, my hon. Friend will be sitting next me in my ministerial office as my personal adviser. I promise not to sack him.
  Mr. Barnes: It might be the other way round.
  Mr. Banks: That is not very nice. My compliment deserved a better return than that. This is a cruel place, even on the Labour Benches.
  I shall vote against the guillotine motion, and I hope that, if Conservative Members have no great interest in the Bill, they will do what they did last night—sit it out and let us speak for the homeless in this country, who are not represented here and who are not looked after by Conservative Members. We do not want Conservative Members to waste the precious two hours that we have, which will not be long enough to make the case that we want. We shall have years in the future to undo the damage that the Government and this wretched Bill will do to the homeless.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I want to comment on the guillotine motion because I am in two minds about it. I have much sympathy with the Government moving the guillotine motion in view of last night's time-wasting. I spent four years in the House in enforced silence and developed acute sensitivity to time-wasting. Few hon. Members are more alert to it than I am.
  I am sorry that the motion has been introduced because the Government are doing themselves a disservice by causing some Lords amendments not to be discussed and explained. I am thinking of Lords amendment No. 269, which, knowing the ways of the House, I expect will be cut out in the two-hour debate on the remaining Lords amendments, which will follow if the motion is agreed.
  Lords amendment No. 269 deals with the vital matter —I know that this view is held by hon. Members on both sides of the House—of rural housing. It closely follows an amendment that I moved on Report, which caused me to do something that I had not done for many years—to vote with about 20 of my right hon. and hon. Friends against the Government. I was therefore most anxious to speak to Lords amendment No. 269, which is similar to the one that I failed to persuade the House to agree to in June.
  Lords amendment No. 269 deals with the problems experienced by organisations that are anxious to maintain a stock of houses in rural areas for people of modest means who cannot afford to take on a mortgage for 100 per cent.

  1025
  home ownership. The intention of the moves in this House and in the other place was to ensure that such a stock of houses remains available to people of modest means as a first step on the ladder through shared ownership with a housing association or other body.
  I have had a difference of opinion with the Government. At the suggestion of a number of organisations outside the House, I wanted to ban the staircasing of ownership to 100 per cent. We have had arguments across the Floor of the House about maintaining houses for shared ownership, and I have had arguments with the Government.
  When I failed to get my way in June, I gave notice that the Government would hear more about the issue. I said that the battle would be taken up again in the other place, and it was. Three weeks ago, Lords amendment No. 269 was debated in the other place and the Government were defeated by 111 votes to 38—a heavy defeat; hence the Lords amendment.
  If nothing had happened since that vote I should be taking a poor view of the timetable motion and should be encouraging my right hon. and hon. Friends once again to take on the Government and insist that something be done for rural housing. However, that is not necessary because the Government have taken some excellent and most welcome steps to help to ensure that a pool of housing will remain available for people of limited means as a first step to part ownership. The Government do not want to ban staircasing up to 100 per cent., as I do. They prefer that part owners who staircase ownership up to 100 per cent. and wish to sell their house must sell it back to the housing association from which they originally bought it. I found the Government's preference unattractive when it was announced by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State because it was not properly backed by undertakings that sufficient and appropriate sums of money would be made available to organisations to use their pre-emptive right of repurchase rather than to allow the house, as currently happens, to be sold into the open market and therefore lost to the next generation of young couples in rural areas to start on the first step of home ownership. I am glad that the Government have given those clear undertakings that adequate funds will be available. My attitude has therefore changed.
  I warmly welcome the Government's proposal. As I understand it, the cash will be available through a separate budget. I was pleased to hear that the Government have announced that they are inviting the Housing Corporation to propose a significant increase in its special rural programme for rented housing to allow 1,000 approvals next year, 1.200 in 1991–92 and 1,500 in 1992–93. The Housing Corporation is being invited to identify separately, for the first time, a rural element within its low-cost home ownership programme to allow 250 approvals next year, 300 in 1991–92 and 350 in 1992–93. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning said:
  "This will be welcome news for young people in rural areas who want affordable housing without having to move away."
  I strongly endorse that comment.
  Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. Friend knows the strong support that I and other Conservative Members have given him during this period. What have the organisations concerned with rural housing said about the arrangements?
  Mr. Jopling: I thank my hon. Friend and others for their support, and I shall come to that point.
  In view of the Government's welcome change of mind, I have decided that I will not oppose their intention to remove Lords amendment No. 269 from the Bill. I do so on the basis that we try the Government's option for an experimental period of 18 months. I give notice that I shall expect the Government to carry out a review at the end of that period and that, if it has not worked out, I shall return to the matter.
  Mr. Holt: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has noted that, contrary to the parliamentary convention that a Member remains in the Chamber during the speech following his, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is not present.
  Mr. Jopling: That is interesting, but given the hon. Gentleman's attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) without checking the facts, it does not surprise me.
  I come to the point about which my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) asked. I am supported in my view by many of the organisations that first drew the problem of rural housing to my attention. I shall quote only the National Agricultural Centre's Rural Trust which, referring to the period since the Government's defeat in another place, said:
  "In the short time available, we have achieved the maximum possible with regard to guarantees concerning the financing of repurchase. We have therefore agreed that an 18-month trial period will help to ascertain whether Planning Committees and landowners—or their legal advisers—will find these guarantees sufficient."
  I welcome the Government's action. It follows my efforts last year in the debate on the Local Government and Housing Bill to assist rural housing. On that occasion, I was backed by 65 of my right hon. and hon. Friends on an amendment to the right-to-buy provisions to ensure that council houses that had been sold to their tenants and had restrictive covenants placed upon them—whereby they remained occupied by local people—did not get out of that net through a loophole in the law, resulting in those houses being let as holiday homes. We closed that loophole. I am glad to say that this is the second year running when I have been able to do something to promote rural housing for local people.
  Having been able to get off my chest a good many of the comments that I would have made had we not had the guillotine motion, I am glad to support the motion.
  5.35 pm
  Mr. David Clelland: I shall try to observe your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, about not engaging in comments on personalities. I must remind hon. Members that the House began to engage in such matters when the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and suggested that he did not deliver his speech with a straight face. My hon. Friend is a naturally pleasant person and his pleasant demeanour should not be mistaken for joviality. At least my hon. Friends have only one face, which is more than can be said for many Conservative Members.
  The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce), who has left the Chamber, referred to the Local Government and Housing Bill and the activities and employment of

  1027
  councillors. I do not know what other jobs the hon. Gentleman has, but he certainly displayed all the qualities necessary to become a journalist for the Sun.
  The Local Government and Housing Bill is a controversial and massive Bill. It will affect the housing of people in our constituencies and the administration of local government. It will place restrictions on elected members of councils. It will attack democracy by limiting the number of people who hold elected offices and restricting the political affiliation and activities of people employed by local government.
  The Bill is an important piece of legislation on which, as one who has had some experience in local government, I should like to have spoken at length. The Opposition Benches are awash with Members with considerable local government experience and many points on the Bill have already been made.
  Not many hon. Members, even on the Opposition Benches, have experience on the shop floor. Even fewer have spent considerable time as shop stewards for trade unions. In that respect, I consider myself to be part of a small, exclusive group. I shall therefore limit my remaining remarks to the Employment Bill. I support the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House—my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I was congratulating myself on remembering the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Orkney and Shetland when I realised that I could not remember the political party to which he belonged. However, that is by the by.
  I served on the Standing Committee on the Employment Bill. I agree that the debates were constructive and were conducted efficiently and expeditiously. We covered all the clauses and schedules, and Report and Third Reading took place without any time restrictions. As far as I am aware, there were no time restrictions in the other place. It is therefore a bit galling that the passage of the Bill is to be marred by this guillotine motion when there is much more to discuss. It is disgraceful that the Government should seek to curtail debate on a Bill which the Leader of the House conceded was controversial and important. It affects workers' conditions and the welfare of millions of people. The Bill is a further example of the Government's antipathy towards working people in general and the trade union movement in particular. It further shifts the balance away from employees towards employers and is yet another example of the Tory party's master and servant mentality.
  The Bill and many of the Lords amendments are riddled with cynicism. On the pretext of opening up new opportunities for women, for example, the Bill opens up the possibility of women working below ground in the coal mines. Some people might ask why I should criticise that because it is part of equality for women at work. However, the Government have not addressed the fact that conditions underground are not suitable for women and they have no intention of addressing that problem before bringing in this legislation. When taken in connection with the Social Security Act 1989, the Bill provides for women to have their unemployment benefit stopped if they refuse to take employment down the mines—although the conditions are not suitable for them—under the "actively seeking work" rule.
  1028
  On the pretext of opening up new opportunities for young people, the Bill opens up further opportunities for exploitation by employers, which has implications for the health and safety of young people in employment. On the pretext of opening up new opportunities for meaningful training, the Bill destroys the former tripartite arrangements for training and hands total power, and a considerable amount of taxpayers' money, to private employers who are elected by no one and responsible to no one and who represent no interests other than those of employers and business.
  The final insult to add to injury is that it is claimed that the Bill will lift barriers to employment. In practice, it will make it easier for employers to sack workers without having to give them reasons and to avoid paying proper compensation when they are sacking them.
  The Lords amendments, which we are now to consider in a restricted time, cover important issues which deserve more time than we are to be allowed. They include health and safety at work, the administration of safety procedures, and the welfare and conditions of women at work. The time set out in the motion to discuss those important issues is wholly inadequate, so the House should reject the motion.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. David Nicholson: As I said at the time, I greatly welcomed the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and the news he brought to the House. Apart from that speech, this afternoon and last night have been miserable occasions for the House and the conduct of our business.
  I want to talk about the housing aspects of the Local Government and Housing Bill because, as the Opposition recognise, I am interested in these matters. However, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) promised us more "guillotines" if there were ever a Labour Government, I want to reflect on the origin of that word.
  The British historian Thomas Carlyle described the originator of the term as a "respectable practitioner". If he had not been a Frenchman, I suspect that he might have been a member of the British Medical Association. Carlyle reports that Dr. Guillotin brought forward a proposal to improve the ventilation of the hall in which the National Assembly met. Perhaps we could do with his services sometimes in this Chamber. Carlyle continues:
  "but greater far, he can produce his 'Report on the Penal Code', and reveal therein a cunningly devised Beheading Machine … which product popular gratitude or levity christens by a feminine derivative name, as if it were his daughter: La Guillotine!"
  Carlyle concludes:
  "Unfortunate Doctor! For two-and-twenty years he. unguillotined, shall hear nothing but guillotine, see nothing but guillotine; then dying, shall through long centuries wander, as it were, a disconsolate ghost … his name like to outlive Caesar's."
  I fear that we may recall that in future timetable debates.
  I sat through most of Monday's proceedings and spoke on Monday. I can confirm the judgment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House that we debated the issues in an orderly and sensible way on Monday despite the fact that, as I reminded the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), one of the issues was the community charge, which I would have thought was a fairly major issue between the Government and the Opposition.

  1029
  I have shown a considerable interest in the housing aspects of the Bill. I spoke principally on housing on Second and Third Readings and two or three times in Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has dealt with one source of concern on housing. However, another important issue— which, I regret, we shall have a limited time to debate because of the Opposition's antics yesterday—is the preservation of council accommodation for old people in relation to giving them the right to buy.
  I have somewhat conflicting views on that issue and I have had representations in opposite directions from my constituents. The Opposition made a legitimate point in the other place—no doubt it will be made again this afternoon—about the danger of limiting council accommodation by extending the right to buy to that accommodation, especially in areas where council accommodation is limited. I hope that the housing officer of my own local authority, Taunton Deane, will not mind me quoting from his letter. He says:
  "To expose these properties to the Right to Buy would increase the risk of abuse, i.e. the real motivation for purchase may not come from the elderly secure tenant … but instead the prime mover may be a younger relative with an eye on the inheritance … The effect of these proposals will be particularly severe in certain rural locations where a small group of properties (normally bungalows) are specifically reserved for the elderly."
  From my constituency surgery experience, I can testify to the son-in-law situation. On two occasions, elderly constituents have come to me accompanied by their sons-in-law. In one case, an elderly constituent had a flat with stairs and because that person suffered badly from arthritis, it was unsuitable accommodation. The council was able to rehouse my constituent in a ground floor flat which was far more suitable to that person's condition. It was then discovered—I must confess that my authority was somewhat at fault for not having made it clear—that this accommodation was designed for old people and therefore was not subject to the right to buy. My constituent was angry, but the son-in-law was angrier. I am sure that the House will appreciate the concerns and issues involved. There is a danger of abuse if the earlier Lords amendment is sustained.
  Others may ask why we should not extend the right to buy to elderly people. Again I must cite a constituency case. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is not here, because he would be interested in my next point. In my constituency and elsewhere in the south-west, including the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the Secretary of State for Defence, there are a number of properties that were formerly Greater London council homes for retired people. When the GLC was abolished, there were discussions about what should be done with those homes. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has rejoined us.
  At first, the idea was—and this would seem logical—that the local district council should take over these GLC retirement homes. For some reason, which I have never been able to ascertain, the Association of District Councils turned that down. As a result, the homes went to one housing association, which recently sold them to another housing association. There are a number of issues involved.
  A year ago, people asked me, "Why do we not have the right to buy?" I am afraid that even if we carried the earlier
  1030
  amendment passed in the other place, they would not have the right to buy because a housing association owns the properties. Perhaps the Minister will elucidate during our debate on the Lords amendments. It is an important point that I should have liked to have time to explore during our debates on the Bill.
  Mr. Holt: I am not sure where my hon. Friend's sympathy lies. Suppose that one partner is old and the other much younger. Surely the older partner would want to ensure the younger's security and would want the right to buy even if he or she was an old age pensioner.
  Mr. Nicholson: I entirely accept that. The point that I am trying to make is that I am being pulled in different directions because of the housing situation in my constituency and others like it.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Does the hon. Gentleman recall why those seaside and country homes were built or purchased by the London county council, and then the GLC? It was to give elderly Londoners the opportunity to move to more pleasant surroundings in their twilight years. All that has gone now, and the sale of the houses will ensure that there is no future possibility of nominating Londoners to enjoy the benefits of seaside and country air. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that that ought to be taken into account?
  Mr. Nicholson: I do not wish to prolong my speech, although the hon. Gentleman has made a legitimate point. If we had been able to debate these matters properly yesterday, we should certainly have wanted to discuss this point.
  I am in a dilemma, although, on the whole, I welcome the judgment of Solomon that my hon. Friend the Minister has made on the Opposition amendment carried in the other place, which he will put to the House shortly.
  I understand that, as so often on these occasions, the practices in the House yesterday did not represent a sustained attempt by the official Opposition to delay business. When guillotine motions were introduced by the Labour Government of the 1970s, they were, I suspect, the result of sustained resistance by a united Conservative party to a number of controversial measures. Increasingly —we hear this from the more approachable Opposition Members—such occasions are maverick occasions and do not represent official resistance.
  Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Nicholson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not rise to that.
  Mr. Battle: I sat through the whole debate on housing yesterday. The speeches are there in Hansard for all to read. We dealt with very few of the major issues because of the large number of Government amendments on the Amendment Paper.
  Is the hon. Member now telling the House that the debates that we had on rents——
  Mr. Holt: What is the point of order?
  Mr. Battle: It is not a point of order; it is an intervention. Is the hon. Member for Taunton telling the House that the time that we spent on debates on rent levels, on the fact that housing benefit will now be paid out of the rents of other council tenants and on homelessness was not usefully spent? Conservative Members would not join in those debates, but the issues are of major concern

  1031
  and not a moment of that time was wasted. We, too, wanted to deal with the amendments to which the hon. Gentleman was referring.
  Mr. Nicholson: I do not doubt for a moment that the hon. Member made a sensible speech yesterday, as I know of his interest in these matters. I am complaining in general about the actions of Opposition Members, and about maverick resistence.
  I wonder what sort of time a Labour Government would have, if one ever acceded to power, when trying to introduce measures to implement, for example, the economic policies of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and other measures that would be extraordinarily divisive of their ranks. I wonder what sort of resistance they would encounter from those mavericks, who will no doubt have increased in number. I regret that they will probably not have the powerful figure of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) to deal with the matter. Fourteen years ago, he turned on the mavericks in his party and described them as
  "out of their tiny Chinese minds".
  I have never been entirely sure of the etymology of that remark. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity of discussing it with Deng Xiaoping. On another occasion, the right hon. Gentleman described the mavericks in his party in more earthy Anglo-Saxon language. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, would not allow me to repeat what he is supposed to have said. Those mavericks have led us to this timetable motion and restricted debate on the important issues raised by the Bill. I regret the need for the motion, but I shall certainly support it.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: I shall confine my speech to the Local Government and Housing Bill as it relates to Wales. The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) mentioned the importance of Lords amendment No. 269 on rural housing. I share his concern that that amendment will not now be debated. I was especially anxious that it should be debated because rural housing in Wales has been given a completely different flavour by the issue of Welsh Office circular 30/86, "Housing for Senior Management". There is no English equivalent and I want the House to know that I have raised the matter repeatedly and that I am still disturbed that, in general, people in rural areas in Wales must comply with local and structure plans but senior managers do not have to comply fully. An exception has been made in their case, and I feel that that is gross discrimination.
  The Welsh Office issued a further circular, 44/87, which would have modified the original circular, but then claimed that it had not been issued. The original circular still exists. In my constituency of Gower and other Welsh constituencies local people living in rural areas cannot purchase houses because of high prices and cannot build them because of the adherence to local and structure plans while housing for senior management has been made an exception. That is an extremely distasteful and unnecessary intrusion. Young people in rural villages are prevented from building houses in the locality whereas people from outside can come in and do so.
  1032
  Lords amendment No. 291 is also extremely important. I know that the Leader of the House, with his deep Welsh roots—his roots are perhaps deeper than his accent—will consider carefully the separate provisions for Wales which that amendment would allow. It says:
  "Where any provision of this Act which extends to England and Wales confers … a power on the Secretary of State to make regulations, orders, rules or determinations or to give directions or specify any matter, the power may be exercised differently for England and Wales, whether or not it is exercised separately."
  It is a superb amendment because it would allow Wales to be considered completely differently.
  The people of Wales would be delighted if the amendment were carried since it would enable two matters to be excluded from the current provisions on home improvements. First, there is the standard of fitness in terms of home improvement grants. The proposed standard of fitness for mandatory grants is wholly inadequate and falls short of present standards of fitness. A standard of fitness should go beyond that aimed at preventing danger to health and safety. It should aim to ensure a minimum level of comfort and amenity, which all householders of all tenures should be entitled to enjoy before the next century. It is important for the Government to understand that in assessing whether a house is fit or unfit, it will always be necessary to consider whether it is reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition. Specific standards should be set for rewiring, lighting, heating and thermal insulation. The target standard should be at least that of the National House Building Council.
  In Wales we feel strongly that works to the external curtilage of the property should be eligible for grant aid. The present system applies only to the dwelling. In districts such as the Rhondda repair work or renovation to retaining walls is urgently needed. To neglect the fabric of such structures could detract seriously from works carried out to the main structure of the building.
  The second crucial area that we in Wales would like to see changed is the concept of means testing of improvement grants. In 1986 the Welsh Office published its Welsh house condition survey. It showed that in Wales 80 per cent. of grants went to people on low income. Seventy two per cent. of grant recipients had savings of less than £1,000 and 90 per cent. of grants went to dwellings that were unfit, lacked amenities or were in substantial disrepair. Therefore, it is nonsensical to argue that a means test with all the stigma attached to it and the bureaucracy required to implement and check it is needed in Wales. It is a great shame that the amendment cannot be debated.
  In response to the Government's consultation paper on home improvement grants, Swansea city council said:
  "The introduction of means testing will create a system which will involve both applicants, council officers and possibly other statutory agencies in considerable work which in many cases will have no beneficial effect in that grant will not be payable. Although this may appear to accord with ensuring that grant aid is properly targeted, it is of little help to the hapless applicant who will be required to get detailed estimates, provide details of his household financial circumstances and be subject to a financial assessment and then be told that grant aid is not available or only available at a very low rate."
  The means test will deter applications for assistance to the detriment of the long-term quality of the housing stock. Many people would prefer to let their properties deteriorate rather than submit to the examination that the Government envisage.

  1033
  That problem is likely to be evident particularly among older people who form one of the main groups to which grants should be directed. Old people usually prefer to stay put in their existing environment. That preference tends to he most strongly in favour of staying in their existing homes than objective consideration of the conditions of those homes might suggest. The proportion of old people living in under-occupied or otherwise unsatisfactory accommodation who wish to move is consistently, country by country, far below what expert or objective review of the position might suggest.
  In a memorandum to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs inquiry and report into the condition and disrepair of privately owned houses in Wales, page 286 of volume 2 of the minutes of evidence, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors states:
  "Older generations generally do not regard property as an asset and therefore do not carry out repairs to maintain the value of the asset. Most poorly maintained property is occupied by elderly persons who do not have the will to carry out necessary repairs."
  An excellent example of the Welsh house condition survey's usefulness on detail is revealed by the apparent misconception of many householders about the actual state of their properties and especially the data not published in the report. It shows that 70 per cent. of those living in homes that could be classified by the technical appraisal as being in serious disrepair considered their homes to be in good repair or needing only minor repair. In view of such information, it is important that the Secretary of State for the Environment pays heed to the advice of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors when it says that an age limit of 65 should be set, above which people do not have to satisfy a means test. If the Secretary of State does not want to introduce that for England, we should be grateful if he would do it for Wales.
  There are also serious objections to the details of the means-testing proposals. It is not acceptable that the calculation of available disposable income that determines the threshold does not deduct mortgage repayments. That would prejudice young owner-occupiers and first-time buyers.
  Another crucial problem under the proposed system for mandatory grants is that two tests need to be satisfied. The first test relates to the condition of the property. The local authority would need to decide whether the property was fit or unfit, having regard to the proposed standard set down in the Housing Act 1988. The standard appears to be far more flexible than that in section 604 of the Housing Act 1985. On the Government's admission, that would make many more properties unfit. Assuming that a property is established as unfit, the second test is then applied—the resource test to the family. Although the family's resources may be by no means great, grant aid may not be available. The local authority's predicament is that as it is aware that the house is unfit, and irrespective of the availability of grant, there is a duty under the Housing Act 1988 to deal with that unfitness.
  Therefore, the applicant for grant aid could, following a visit, be refused help but be presented with a Housing Act notice requiring him to carry out costly works at his own expense—the very works on which he had sought help in the first place. It will not take long for such circumstances to become known to grant applicants. That will act as a severe disincentive to people seeking help. I cannot but think that in this means-test procedure the
  1034
  Government's intention may be to reduce the total amount of money spent on grants by making it extremely difficult for people either to understand the system or go through the procedure.
  The Institute of Housing summed up the argument in its memorandum to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, stating on page 306 of the minutes of evidence:
  "The means test concept envisaged by the Government, whilst clearly attracting resources towards those most in need, will not secure what the institute sees as a main objective of our older housing policy—improving poor housing conditions and arresting disrepair. There will he an acceleration of the rate of deterioration into disrepair for some of our older housing stock."
  I think that I have said enough to show the great concern in Wales about the fact that the Bill has not been debated properly. Several important amendments remain to be considered and I wish that amendment No. 291 in particular could have seen the light of day and have been examined closely.
  There is alarm in Wales that, while Exchequer contributions to local authorities will remain, the rate for grants is to be reduced to 75 per cent. from the present level of 90 per cent. That change will increase the burden on the community charge payer of this new system which has a powerful potential to do enormous harm to the housing stock in Wales.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: Thank you for allowing me to take part in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in which I rise wholly to support the Government's position on this matter.
  A short time ago, the BBC invited me to take part in the programme "The Week in Westminster". During the interview, which was on the subject of community care and the proposal that local authorities should be given a new responsibility in that area, I was chided by the interviewer, who asked whether I was aware of comments made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) who had ridiculed the Government's willingness to give local authorities that new responsibility, bearing in mind the Government's attitude—as perceived by the hon. Gentleman—towards local government. I responded by saying, "No, this Government have worked hard at reforming local government." Indeed, this Bill, which is the 50th measure that the Government have had to bring forward to try to bring to heel those parts of local government which are not performing as efficiently as they could, will successfully overhaul and bring up to date local government procedures. I said that, upon that basis, I felt that I understood why the Government were to entrust community care to local authorities in future.
  The motion has led me to reflect on why we have needed to bring forward 50 measures on local government. I am minded to reflect on the fact that many local authorities seem to spend more time trying to circumnavigate the Government's attempts to make them efficient and responsive to their ratepayers—soon to he their community charge payers—than they do on concentrating on the delivery of the many services to which the Bill relates.
  The Bill is also a reflection on the conduct of local government. The first part of the Bill deals with the Widdicombe proposals, which were the subject of independent assessments, consultation and vast public debate before coming before the House in the form of a

  1035
  Bill. Sitting through our deliberations on the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, I have found it interesting to reflect on the amount of time that Opposition Members have spent trying to defend what I would term the indefensible—some of the practices highlighted by Widdicombe.
  The root of the problems which have resulted in this motion is the way in which the Opposition conducted their assessment of the Bill in the first place. I could not believe the amount of time that they spent in Committee assessing the Widdicombe proposals. They spent day after day on that element of the Bill. If the Opposition had wanted to spend as much time as they now claim that they want to spend on discussing other aspects of the Bill, such as local government housing, and financial and capital arrangements, I ask whether they did not have the seeds of the solution to their problem in their own hands. They could have spent less time on the Widdicombe proposals in Standing Committee. Indeed, that was the weakest element of their case—and they knew it.
  So why did they do it? Simply because they thought that there was mileage in it, because the county council elections were upon us. The Opposition were so deluded by the inadequacy of their own arguments that they found in Committee that they did not have enough time to debate in detail many of the Bill's other aspects.
  I am also surprised by the uncharitable way in which the Opposition have treated these deliberations—especially what happened in the House last night—because I can remember the sympathetic way in which the ministerial team helped the Opposition. I can remember the time when, because of transport difficulties, Opposition spokesmen failed to make it to the 10.30 am start——
  Mr. David Nicholson: But we made it.
  Mr. Jack: Yes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) so accurately reminds us, we made it. Who helped out the Opposition when they did not have their stream of yellow pieces of paper containing their various amendments from the lobbying bodies? Who came to their aid? The answer is, the Government. If I may say this against my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, there was a mini-filibuster of generosity from the Government, who tried to help the debate forward. The Government fed the Opposition information. I even remember seeing a Minister cross the Floor of the Committee Room to give succour, aid and comfort to the Opposition.
  However, that generosity has not been repaid in the House. We saw that last night when we were kept up because of a discussion that showed that the Opposition had failed to weigh the balance of the needs to discuss different points in the Bill. Their concentration on the delights of procedural effects overwhelmed their previous professed wish to discuss certain measures.
  Mr. Redmond: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the old saying, "Beware of the Greek bearing gifts"? One is always a little suspicious when Ministers give information because they obviously have an ulterior motive in seeking to allay the fears of the Opposition. Opposition Members seek information on various valid points and Ministers attend Committee sittings to give the Opposition information and to explain those points. The trouble with
  1036
  this Bill is that the Minister has clearly not been able to explain those points, judging by the number of amendments that have followed.
  Mr. Jack: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman intervened, because he referred to gifts and I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have been over-generous. They listened most carefully to the Committee debates, which is why, in another place, many of the assurances that they had given in this House were then acted upon. Although we had won the argument about Widdicombe hands down on, for example, the question of salary levels for local government officers, in their new guises my hon. Friends listened to those points. and, even when Parliament was not sitting, presented provisions in another place to acknowledge some of the views—they were certainly not arguments—that had been advanced by Opposition Members.
  Those concessions took up time in the other place and, yes, there was a need to table amendments to seek to enact them, but the charity with which those concessions were made has inevitably put pressure on the time available for our consideration of the amendments. Surely the Opposition could have reflected on that and said, "At least we've won a few points. We'll give ourselves a slight pat on the back"; but they have not done that. They have taken up the time of the House as they did last night. That has led to this situation and to the fact that we are spending three hours this afternoon debating general views about guillotines, instead of spending three hours considering the detail of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), the Opposition spokesman, was as guilty as anyone. In Committee, his local authority entertained us with some extremely devious financial practices, better known as "loan swapping". Those practices were quite beyond my simple mind. The action of that authority highlighted the reason why we need the Bill to control Labour-controlled local authorities which are trying to find ways around the Government's desire to improve the efficiency and financial accountability of local government.
  There are many reasons why we need to get the Bill on to the statute book. I particularly welcome the amendments to the transitional arrangements for the community charge. I pay thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities for helping to bring those amendments before the House. It was a humane and compassionate act, and he listened carefully to the representations made. The sooner the Bill gets on to the statute book the better.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Michael Welsh: I shall be brief, as I know that two of my hon. Friends want to participate before the Minister winds up. I shall speak against the guillotine, the timetable—the chopper—because it is undemocratic. As a Back Bencher, I am entitled to speak against the timetable.
  Approximately 600 Government amendments have been tabled to the Local Government and Housing Bill. We have been unable to discuss them in any depth, and that must be a sign of inefficiency. The Government have a majority of more than 150, but they are inefficient. They have told local authorities to be efficient and have passed Bills to achieve that end. They have told industry to become efficient, to get off its backside and to make

  1037
  exports, but the most inefficient undertaking in the country is this House and the Government. The timetable is a sign of that inefficiency and there is no better word to describe it.
  Mr. Redmond: Overmanning.
  Mr. Welsh: It is about that as well.
  There are two sorts of people in here—Front Benchers and Back Benchers. Usually, those sitting on the Front Benches are educated and those on the Back Benches are intelligent. That is the only difference. Sometimes, however, one questions educated people, but one does not usually question intelligence.
  We are here to do things for our constituents. We let them know what we are doing by voting. I want the right to vote against any amendment I so desire, so that my constituents can see my vote recorded in Hansard. They are entitled to know what their Member does in the House. The only way in which our constituents know what we are doing is by voting against Government amendments. That shows our people that we are totally against Government policy and that things will be changed after the next election when Labour regains power. In all honesty I will not be stood here; another good lad from the working class will be standing where I am now.
  We see the same inefficiency with the unemployment Bill. I do not claim that I want to stand here and speak about everything; I am not that sort of chap. There are lots of hon. Members who want to do that and the best of luck to them. To be fair, hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber do a good job of that. If I want the opportunity to speak, however, I should have that right. Because of the inefficiency of Government, I should not be robbed of that right. I do not always have a strong desire to speak, but every Back Bencher should have the right to do so. The timetable prevents individual Back Benchers from representing their people. That is not playing the game. The House was not meant for that purpose.
  Labour Front-Bench spokesmen have said that, when we take power after the next election, there may come a time when we table timetable motions. I do not agree with that. If we have a majority of 150 and we revert to using timetable motions, it means that we are still being inefficient. It does not matter which party uses the timetable, it is a sign of inefficiency. If I could not run a Government with a 150 majority and get my Bills through I would stand the drop of York.
  Such inefficiency is a disgrace. Fancy the Government having all the civil servants, who feed them all the information, in the palm of their hand. A Bill goes through Committee with that advantage, but 600 amendments are then tabled in the other place. It is impossible to see how that happens; it can be put down only to inefficiency.
  I want the right to vote against amendments, and I ask for that on behalf of my constituents. For that reason and because of the Government's inefficiency, all Back Benchers should vote against the Government on this issue.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) concentrated on a specific amendment and that illustrates the argument against the timetable. A number of hon. Members have spoken about specific items which were due to be debated
  1038
  later, but which have been timetabled. The hon. Member for Taunton and others should have the opportunity to make their detailed speeches. As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) has said, they have the right to have their voices heard and their votes recorded. A section in the timetable appears to timetable not just the debate but the votes as it bundles a number of possible amendments together. That is disgraceful and worrying. It is most dangerous to attempt to stop hon. Members from voting on specific items.
  The Leader of the House, when arguing for the timetable, said that the advantage to Back Benchers was that we could all go home for a couple more days. He said that that break would be of benefit to us. We have just been awarded a 10·76 per cent. wage increase, which is rather like being paid for overtime without doing it. A few night shifts now and again, when the Government are in difficulty with their Bills and when items ought to be debated, should not be beyond us. There are 650 hon. Members, but one does not expect all of them to be here all the time. A number could be present, however, to continue the debate and to scrutinise the issues before us.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that timetabling, of itself, is not something to which anyone can be opposed. I accept that timetabling may be acceptable in certain circumstances, but the circumstances attached to this timetable are particularly worrying. A number of timetables have been introduced towards the end of this Session and they have been used excessively. Those timetables have been moved not to assist the procedure of the House so that business is conducted in an orderly manner, but for the Government's convenience. The Government have got themselves into a mess because of the number of Bills that have been presented. Timetable motions should not be used for that purpose.
  It is disgraceful that we have this timetable and that there are two parts to it. We have had a lot of discussion on the part relating to the Local Government and Housing Bill, but the part relating to the Employment Bill has been stuck into the timetable without any serious reason given for its inclusion. In presenting these measures to us, the Government have not respected their nature. The timetable motion is a symptom of the Government's general undermining of parliamentary democracy.
  We have seen a cut in the franchise due to the poll tax legislation. A voluntary franchise system extending the expatriate vote, about which we should think carefully, has enfranchised extra people who are not part of the political nation. Petitions which are signed by people who are opposed to poll tax measures have been threatened. I have introduced a Bill about petitioners' rights in an attempt to overcome that problem. There have been massive attacks on civil liberties, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North has often referred. Consultation with trade unions and others has been turned into a farce by the Government. Now, parliamentary procedures are being dealt with in a high-handed fashion. The Government have forced through measures without thinking about them or allowing them to be discussed. These are all serious attacks on democratic pluralism.
  The Government insist that they can go gaily ahead and deal with a great number of issues which have some connection with the programme that they put to the electorate at the last election but which contravene traditional Conservative attitudes about the notion of the

  1039
  mandate. They claim that somehow, because they came to power with 42 per cent. of the vote, they have the right to operate a sort of electoral dictatorship over us.
  The Leader of the House did not explain the timetable motion in detail. He did not explain provision 3(b)(iv) about the remaining stages of the Lords amendments being dealt with in a bundle or the problem which arose from the timetabling of the vote as well as the debate. That seems to edge us nearer to fully fledged enabling legislation. All democrats should be worried about the degree to which that legislation may be brought foward, whether it is used by Adolf Hitler or suggested by the Militant Tendency.
  A host of measures have been dealt with in this way in the past few days. These include the Football Spectators Bill—which was subject to a guillotine and had the ways and means provisions stuck in front of it to prevent further discussion—the Children Bill, the Companies Bill, the Local Government and Housing Bill and the Employment Bill. There are also massive abuses in the operation of the private Bill procedure which allows Bills to be continued in the next Session. That affects the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. Many of us believe that if the Government cannot get their business through by normal procedural methods in this parliamentary Session, they should drop the measures and bring them back to start again in the next Session.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: I shall not repeat the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) who opened this debate, although I very much agree with them. I wish to talk about the mess which the Government have got themselves into over this Bill and remind the House why we are debating this guillotine.
  First, the guillotine is about a Government Bill which has no fewer than 606 amendments, the vast majority of which—all but a handful—came from the Government. Secondly, Ministers have used as a defence the fact that only about 70 are major amendments and the rest are technical ones. If we were to follow that argument through, we need not bother with Committees. All we would need to do would be to pick up as many amendments as we wanted and table them on the Floor of this House or the House of Lords. In that way, we could change Bills as much as we liked.
  We have learned, not just during recent years but over the centuries, that a Government who claim that amendments are simply technical must be watched because one person's idea of a technical amendment is another person's idea of a major amendment. The Government also need to be reminded, if only for their own sake, that when they introduce legislation in such a cack-handed way they get themselves into trouble. Some hon. Members have criticised parliamentary draftsmen, but I exclude them from blame. The previous Secretary of State for the Environment proudly boasted that he had drafted the Housing Bill which is now an Act. I have no doubt that he drafted this legislation, because that would explain an awful lot. The Government have drafted this legislation and produced a mess which neither the Committee nor the House of Lords could properly sort out.
  1040
  The previous Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), has much to answer for. I should warn the Government that he was brought up before the courts four or five times, each time as a result of badly drafted Government legislation. He then returned to the House to change the law retrospectively to put himself in the right. As an ex-probation officer, I take a dim view of such procedure and warn the Government that it will have consequences for them in the future. Such action is unacceptable, but that is what they have done and that is why we are in this mess. The previous Secretary of State's drafting of the Bill was ill thought out. In the past that has led to the Government getting into difficulties with the courts and that will happen again, as some of my hon. Friends have said.
  In Committee, I warned the Government that they were in a mess over this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who was acting as a Whip in Committee, and I said that we could manage with two days on the Floor of the House on Report, but only if there were not a significant number of Government amendments. We said that clearly. Following that, I told the Government that two days would not be long enough to deal with the amendments. The Minister will remember that I told him as recently as a week ago that we needed more time. However, that was never conceded.
  Let us consider whether a filibuster took place. Without wishing to cast any reflection on the Speaker, let us consider the facts. The Leader of the House opened the debate and made great play of the fact that we finished at 12 o'clock on Monday. We did so because, although the poll tax was a highly contentious issue, we had already devoted a significant amount of time to debating it and the Government had made a move which, although not acceptable to us in full, was certainly helping out financially. The Government had moved dramatically on the subject of political restrictions and had accepted the Labour amendment.
  However, it was a different business on Tuesday. I warned the Government that there would be no way of predicting when the vote would take place because the main issues of housing revenue accounts, rents and homelessness deserved and needed more time. Despite that fact, the vote on the main group of amendments was still taken earlier on Tuesday than on Monday. Therefore, we were doing well.
  If any Conservative Member argues that five hours is enough time to debate issues such as homelessness, he or she should walk down the road to that group of demonstrators—organised by Shelter—who are protesting about homeless people who are sleeping out, and say to them that he or she believes that a five-hour debate on the issue is enough. It is not enough time, and to say so is an insult to those people. We know, and argued yesterday in great detail, that this Bill will increase homelessness. That is why we made so much of the debate yesterday and would have continued to do so.
  Other issues which are of great significance to people include the emergency and civil disaster orders. A statement was made to the House yesterday about the rail disaster at Clapham. If we had had the time yesterday or today, what we would have said would have been of major importance. The Government are not moving significantly to allow us to give a proper response to emergencies and civil disasters.

  1041
  The Government have legislated in the Bill for Scotland in a way that has not given Scottish Members an opportunity to speak effectively about it. A Scottish Back Bencher did an excellent job in Committee, but in the House of Lords the Government introduced more amendments which affected Scotland and which will be passed without going through the proper Standing Committee procedure. The Government are treating Scottish Members and the Scottish people with contempt. They are taking the Bill through with a Committee stage on the Floor of the House but with none of the safeguards that we usually have when we vote to use that procedure.
  We shall probably not get to the relevant amendment, but the Government are going to wind up local authorities' ability to help people buy houses. The Conservative party is supposed to help home owners; this amendment will receive scant consideration.
  Amendments dealing with houses in multiple occupation are also important. I welcome the fact that the Government have moved on that issue, so we could have dealt with it briefly by picking out the areas on which they need to move further.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland said that all Governments use guillotines. I accept that, and I know that the arguments can be used from time to time by either party. However, this Bill contains no fewer than 606 amendments; the Committee stage was held on the Floor of the House of Lords, and to some extent the same applied here; and parliamentary procedures have been grossly abused in the structure and pursuit of the debate on the Bill.
  The last Secretary of State appeared before the courts four or five times because of bad legislation and then had to change the law retrospectively, and the Government will live to regret their actions. They and others outside will have to pick up the pieces, and that is regrettable.
  This guillotine was not necessary. It is an abuse of the House, and I hope that the way in which the Government have treated the Bill and the debates on it will never be repeated.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. David Hunt: It is a reflection on the procedures of this House that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and several other Opposition Members spent a great deal of time during the three hours of debate expressing outrage that they did not have more time to consider the Bill, yet I am sure that people outside would recognise that we would have arranged our business much better if' the timetable motion had been taken on the nod and we had got down to the business of discussing the Local Government and Housing Bill for five hours—but never mind, let us deal with the debate that we have had.
  It may be helpful if I remind hon. Members briefly of the purposes of these two Bills and of the urgency of putting both measures on the statute book without further delay. To reasonable people it would be plain common sense that we should proceed in that direction.
  The Local Government and Housing Bill provides that senior local government officials should be politically restricted in broadly the same way as senior central Government officials have been for years. It provides that ratepayers who face large increases in their local bills next year because of the transfer to community charges should
  1042
  receive the additional transitional protection of £300 million next year on top of the £2·5 billion already provided in rebates and income support.
  The Bill provides that capital allocation should be concentrated in the areas of greatest need, not in the areas in which council house sales happen to have raised the greatest amount in capital receipts. It provides that regeneration grants should be concentrated on those in greatest need of help with repairing their homes.
  The Employment Bill also embraces a package of sensible and vitally needed reforms. It removes absurd, outdated and unjustifiable restrictions on the right of women and young people to work where and for how long they want. It exempts turban-wearing Sikhs on religious grounds from new regulations on the wearing of safety helmets, and reduces the administrative burden on small businesses. The Bill provides technical changes to the law which are necessary to clear the ground for the proper training of the British work force of the 1990s.
  Both Bills have received detailed consideration here and in another place. The other place spent 25 hours on the Employment Bill and no fewer than 85 hours on the Local Government and Housing Bill. I should like to pay tribute to the proper revising role played by the other place in the consideration of both Bills.
  The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) was wrong to criticise the number of amendments if he wants to encourage Government continually to listen to arguments adduced on both sides of the House—some of the amendments were tabled by the Opposition and many of them resulted from concessions to them. I agree that the Local Government and Housing Bill was the subject of more than 600 amendments but 90 per cent. of them, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith acknowledged that I had said before, are of a technical and drafting nature.
  We made good progress on Monday—more than half the Lords amendments were approved—but progress yesterday was very slow and there was considerable evidence of Opposition Members being unhelpful. For instance, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) had to be warned four times by the Chair to address himself to the terms of the Bill and we were given to understand that the Opposition intended to be equally obstructive during consideration of the Employment Bill.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) may be forgiven for having mentioned the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill in the context of this debate. When he did, there was a roaring crescendo from the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond).
  Mr. Harry Barnes: The final clauses of the Employment Bill and the amendments to them deal with Northern Ireland. There was never any discussion in Committee or on the Floor of the House of those clauses and it now looks as though only the House of Lords will have debated them.
  Mr. Hunt: On Monday we got through 317 Lords amendments and the hon. Gentleman is arguing about whether we shall get through 33——
  Mr. Redmond: Is the Minister telling the House that he has guillotined the Employment Bill because he assumed that someone might want to talk about it? As far as I am aware, until the debate takes place and progress is made one cannot make such assumptions.
  Mr. Hunt: I have always had tremendous respect for the hon. Gentleman but he must give me credit for not having made false assumptions. On reflection, hon. Members should recognise that we heard a good speech from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who was anxious that we should debate staircasing. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to set out the full details of that.
  We have had a good debate, but let us acknowledge how right my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) were to say that there must be a better way of dealing with our business than that on which we embarked yesterday. The hon. Member for Copeland said that it was barmy to sit up day and night, but sadly only nine Opposition Members were here to hear him say it. I should like him to write a letter to reach out to all Opposition Back Benchers expressing his point of view. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) is right that there must be a better way. We all want to say good riddance to synthetic indignation, the like of which we have heard in this debate.
  We must acknowledge that
  "The idea that Opposition Members can press their cause or win advantage or concession by elongating remarks, harrying Ministers and boring the pants off everybody, including themselves, thereby fulfilling the duty of a responsible, thoroughgoing and perceptive Opposition, is absolute nonsense."—[Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1640.]
  Mr. Robert Adley (Chistchurch): My hon. Friend is an eloquent and inventive man and I have been listening carefully to him. I had the vague feeling that the words he used had been heard before in the House. Am I wrong?
  Mr. Hunt: The words to which Opposition Members took such exception were used by the present Leader of the Opposition in the debate on 20 July 1976 when five timetable motions were moved in one day. What a load of hypocrisy we have heard from the Labour party.
  The Bills will remove unnecessary burdens on employers and employees alike, safeguard local democracy against political abuse, and encourage councils to improve the level of service that they provide to their tenants. The country needs the Bills enacted as swiftly as possible and I urge the House to pass the timetable motion so that they can be put on the statute book immediately.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 201.

  Division No. 375]

  [6.52 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Benyon, W.

  Alexander, Richard

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Amess, David

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Amos, Alan

  Body, Sir Richard

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Ashby, David

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Atkins, Robert

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Bowis, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Batiste, Spencer

  Brazier, Julian

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Bright, Graham

  Bellingham, Henry

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  1044

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hayward, Robert

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Heddle, John

  Burns, Simon

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Butcher, John

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Butler, Chris

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Butterfill, John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hill, James

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Carrington, Matthew

  Holt, Richard

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Howard, Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Chope, Christopher

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

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

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Irvine, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Irving, Charles

  Conway, Derek

  Jack, Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Jackson, Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Janman, Tim

  Couchman, James

  Jessel, Toby

  Cran, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Critchley, Julian

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Davis, David (Boothlerry)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Day, Stephen

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dicks, Terry

  Key, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kilfedder, James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Dover, Den

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dunn, Bob

  Knapman, Roger

  Durant, Tony

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Eggar, Tim

  Knox, David

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evennett, David

  Lang, Ian

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Latham, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Favell, Tony

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lord, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Franks, Cecil

  Maclean, David

  Freeman, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  French, Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gill, Christopher

  Mans, Keith

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Maples, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Marland, Paul

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gow, Ian

  Mellor, David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mills, Iain

  Gregory, Conal

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grist, Ian

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Ground, Patrick

  Moate, Roger

  Grylls, Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hague, William

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Hannam, John

  Moss, Malcolm

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

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Harris, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Nicholls, Patrick

  1045

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Paice, James

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thorne, Neil

  Pawsey, James

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thurnham, Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tracey, Richard

  Portillo, Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Trippier, David

  Price, Sir David

  Trotter, Neville

  Rattan, Keith

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Redwood, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Renton, Tim

  Walden, George

  Riddick, Graham

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Waller, Gary

  Rost, Peter

  Ward, John

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Warren, Kenneth

  Ryder, Richard

  Watts, John

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wheeler, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Sims, Roger

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Wood, Timothy

  Squire, Robin

  Yeo, Tim

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr, David Lightbown.

  Sumberg, David

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Allen, Graham

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Alton, David

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Clay, Bob

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Clelland, David

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ashton, Joe

  Cohen, Harry

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Coleman, Donald

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Barron, Kevin

  Corbett, Robin

  Battle, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cousins, Jim

  Beggs, Roy

  Crowther, Stan

  Beith, A. J.

  Cryer, Bob

  Bell, Stuart

  Cummings, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

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

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blair, Tony

  Darling, Alistair

  Bradley, Keith

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

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

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dewar, Donald

  Buchan, Norman

  Dixon, Don

  Buckley, George J.

  Dobson, Frank

  Caborn, Richard

  Doran, Frank

  Callaghan, Jim

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Dunnachle, Jimmy

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Eadie, Alexander

  1046

  Eastham, Ken

  Meale, Alan

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Michael, Alun

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fisher, Mark

  Morley, Elliot

  Flannery, Martin

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Flynn, Paul

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Foster, Derek

  Mullin, Chris

  Fraser, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Fyfe, Maria

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Galloway, George

  O'Brien, William

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Patchett, Terry

  George, Bruce

  Pendry, Tom

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Prescott, John

  Gordon, Mildred

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Gould, Bryan

  Radice, Giles

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Randall, Stuart

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Redmond, Martin

  Grocott, Bruce

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Reid, Dr John

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Richardson, Jo

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Henderson, Doug

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hinchlitte, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Home Robertson, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Salmond, Alex

  Howells, Geraint

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hoyle, Doug

  Short, Clare

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  lllsley, Eric

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

  Ingram, Adam

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

  Janner, Greville

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Snape, Peter

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Soley, Clive

  Kennedy, Charles

  Spearing, Nigel

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Stott, Roger

  Lambie, David

  Strang, Gavin

  Lamond, James

  Straw, Jack

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Leighton, Ron

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lewis, Terry

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Litherland, Robert

  Turner, Dennis

  Livingstone, Ken

  Vaz, Keith

  Livsey, Richard

  Wall, Pat

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Wallace, James

  Loyden, Eddie

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McCartney, Ian

  Wareing, Robert N.

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  McKelvey, William

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  McLeish, Henry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Maclennan, Robert

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wilson, Brian

  McWilliam, John

  Winnick, David

  Madden, Max

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Worthington, Tony

  Marek, Dr John

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Martlew, Eric

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Martyn Jones.

  Maxton, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Orders of the Day

    Local Government and Housing Bill
    [ALLOTTED DAY]
    Lords amendments further considered.

    Local Government and Housing Bill
      Clause 87

        CONDITIONS FOR DECLARATION OF RENEWAL AREA
        Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [7 November] on Lords amendment No. 129.
        Which Question was, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Lords amendments Nos. 130 to 134 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry].
        Lords amendment: No. 271, insert the following new clause—Removal of exception to the right to buy—
        ". —(1) In Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 (exceptions to the right to buy) paragraph 11 (dwelling-house particularly suitable for persons of pensionable age etc.) shall apply to a dwelling-house as thereunder determined by the Secretary of State only where such a dwelling-house was completed before the date of Royal Assent, or such other date thereafter as the Secretary of State may specify.
        (2) The operation of subsection (1) above in relation to paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 does not affect the operation of that paragraph in any case where the tenant's notice claiming to exercise the right to buy was served before the repeal comes into force unless, at that time, no notice in response had been served under section 124 of that Act (landlord's notice admitting or denying the right to buy).
        (3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, no account shall be taken of any steps taken under section 177 of the Housing Act 1985 (amendment or withdrawal and re-service of notice to correct mistakes)."
        Read a Second time.
        7.6 pm
        The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment, after clause 146, insert the following new clause—

        'Exception to the right to buy in case of certain dwelling-houses for persons of pensionable age.
        .—(1) In Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 (exceptions to the right to buy), for paragraph 11 (certain dwelling-houses for persons of pensionable age) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
        "11.—(1) The right to buy does not arise if the Secretary of State has determined, on the application of the landlord, that it is not to be capable of being exercised with respect to the dwelling-house.

        (2) The Secretary of State shall so determine if, and only if, he is satisfied that the dwelling-house—

        (a) is particularly suitable, having regard to its location, size, design, heating system and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and

        (b) was let to the tenant or a predecessor in title of his for occupation by a person of pensionable age (whether the tenant or predecessor or another person).

        (3) The Secretary of State shall for the purposes of this paragraph disregard the presence of any feature provided by the tenant or a predecessor in title of his.

        1048

        (4) An application for a determination under this paragraph shall be made within the period for service of the landlord's notice under section 124 (notice admitting or denying right to buy).

        (5) This paragraph does not apply unless the dwelling-house concerned was first let before 1st January 1990."

        (2) Subsection (1) above does not apply in any case where the tenant's notice claiming to exercise the right to buy was served before the day on which this section comes into force.
        (3) For the purpose of subsection (2) above, no account shall be taken of any steps taken under section 177 of the Housing Act 1985 (amendment or withdrawal and re-service of notice to correct mistakes.'.
        Government consequential amendment (b) to the Bill in, page 146, line 3, after '146' insert
        ( Exception to the right to buy in case of certain dwelling-houses for persons of pensionable age)'

        Lords amendment No. 272 and the Government motion to disagree.

        Lords amendment No. 278.

        Lords amendment No. 279 and the Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment.

        Lords amendments Nos. 280 and 282.

        Lords amendent No. 582 and the Government motion to disagree.

        Mr. Howard: The main issue in the group of amendments beginning with Lords amendment No. 271 is the right to buy as it concerns dwellings particularly suitable for elderly people. Our amendment (a), proposed as an alternative to Lords amendment No. 271, reflects the intention of the Lords amendments that were carried against the Government. They would give my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the task of making determinations to exclude from the right to buy individual dwellings that are not sheltered and that are particularly suitable for people of pensionable age. Such determinations could be made only in respect of existing housing. Housing for elderly people that was first let on or after 1 January 1990 would be within the right to buy unless it was part of a sheltered scheme with special facilities. The amendment also brings within the right to buy dwellings that are suitable for elderly people but have been let for occupation by a disabled person. I stress that the amendments do not affect the position of sheltered housing, which remains outside the right to buy without the need for any landlords to refer individual cases to the Secretary of State.
        Amendment No. 271 and the Government amendment in place of it are before the House because there is evidence that the existing legislation has not been working properly. In England, 519 determinations were made by the Secretary of State from the inception of the right to buy in 1980 until 1987, enabling landlords to retain particular properties. Since January 1987, in less than three years, English local authorities, now relieved of the duty to bring these matters to the attention of the Secretary of State, have denied the right to buy to the tenants of over 6,000 homes on the ground that the homes were particularly suitable for elderly people.
        On any view, the abrupt increase in the number of tenants denied the right to buy for this reason must cause concern. I am ready to be persuaded that it was justifiable to deny the right in all cases, but I should he surprised if that were the position. The Department hears from over 300 tenants each year who have been denied the right to buy on the ground that their homes are elderly persons'

        1049
        housing. In many instances, their homes are not at all special. They might be bungalows or ground-floor flats that are, indeed, suitable for elderly people, but they are not out of the ordinary. It is clear from my post bag that many elderly tenants feel strongly that they are unfairly treated because of the way in which the law currently operates.
        A timely example appeared in my post only this morning. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) wrote to me of a sad case in which a couple who have spent a great deal of money on improving their flat have been told by Brent council that it has decided, a year after the couple applied for the right to buy, that their home is a flat for elderly people. The hon. Gentleman asked me for my advice, the actions of Brent council having greatly distressed the tenants. I would not necessarily have expected the hon. Gentleman to be the strongest supporter of the right to buy, but he clearly recognises the unhappy position in which tenants can be placed under the law as it stands. If the operation of the law makes people feel that they are being treated unfairly, we need to think carefully about whether we have it right.
        Mr. David Nicholson: It is outrageous that a local authority should suddenly step in and designate a home as being suitable for elderly people and, therefore, not eligible for the right to buy, but if there were to be extensive selling off of property which is suitable for the elderly, where would successive generations of elderly people find such accommodation?
        Mr. Howard: There are various provisions. Grants are made by the Housing Corporation and housing associations that would deal with the problem. I recognise that my hon. Friend has expressed a legitimate concern. The difficult task in this area, as in so many others, is to strike the right balance. We think that we have acheived that by accepting the essence of the amendment that was passed, against our judgment, in another place.
        We originally introduced an amendment to bring within the right to buy all elderly persons' housing that did not form part of a sheltered scheme. That amendment, which was carried in Committee in another place, was overturned on Report by what is now Lords amendment No. 271, which represents a compromise. Existing housing especially suitable for elderly people would remain excluded from the right to buy, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would once more, as he did until 1987, have the task of deciding whether a particular property fell within the statutory criteria. New housing for elderly people would be within the right to buy unless it were sheltered housing.
        This subject gives rise to strong feelings. I recognise the sincerity of the views expressed in another place, which have been repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), and we are prepared to accept the compromise. The Government amendment, which would replace Lords amendment No. 271, is designed to improve the drafting of the provision submitted by another place without changing its substance. The consequential Government amendment provides for the new provisions to come into force on a day appointed by statutory instrument. As the Bill stands, it would come into operation on Royal Assent and that would not allow enough time to make arrangements for landlords to apply for determinations.
        1050
        Lords amendment No. 272 concerns housing that is especially suitable for elderly people but has been let for occupation by a disabled person. The Housing Act 1988 repealed provisions under which housing other than sheltered housing specially designed or adapted for disabled people was excluded from the right to buy. A disabled person, however, may still be refused the right to buy on the ground that his or her home is especially suitable for occupation by elderly people. There was general agreement in another place that that was wrong. The Government amendment that is designed to replace Lords amendment No. 271 covers the matter. If the House accepts the Government amendment, there will be no need for Lords amendment No. 272. The remaining amendments concern the right to buy in Scotland. If hon. Members so wish, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will speak to them later.
        7.15 pm
        Mr. Clive Soley: As the Minister rightly said, Lords amendment No. 271 overturns provisions which were sent back to us from another place. It is important to remember that when the vote took place in another place, 94 of their Lordships were in favour and 36 against. Some Conservative Peers and Cross-Benchers voted with the Opposition for reasons that have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson).
        The Government have tried to dig themselves out of a hole by giving the Secretary of State the power to exempt a local authority from having to sell. The problem about that is that we do not really know——
        Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the role of the Secretary of State is something that has been introduced by the Government. It reflects the essence of the Opposition amendment that was passed in another place.
        Mr. Soley: I am talking about the amendment that the Government have introduced in this place. I am anxious to know whether the Government intend to adhere to the spirit of the original Lords amendment. Perhaps they are. That is one of the reasons why I want to explore the issue. There is considerable uncertainty here and in another place about why the Government feel that it is necessary to change the original Lords amendment, which was considered by their Lordships to be clear and satisfactory. The Government have chosen to change it, and there is doubt about the Government's willingness to interpret the spirit of their Lordships amendment. That is, in part, what the debate is about. Whatever I say, I assure the Minister that those in another place will want to return to this issue when they are able to do so.
        Mr. Howard: So that unnecessary misunderstanding does not linger, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the position is exactly as I stated it. The changes to the Lords amendment have been made solely and exclusively for the purpose of curing the technical defects in the original amendment. They have been introduced for no other reason, and they do not change the sense of the original amendment. I thought that I made that pretty clear in my opening observations.
        Mr. Soley: I welcome the Minister's intervention because I think that he has clarified the position. I am sure that the clarification will be welcomed elsewhere.
        The Government have put themselves into difficulties because the right-to-buy policy has always been one legged. There is nothing wrong with the right to buy, be it for ordinary housing, housing for the disabled, housing for the elderly or housing for charitable associations, if it is matched by a duty to replace, and there is a financial structure that enables housing associations, be they charitable or not, to do so. The Government are in trouble —they faced criticism in another place, which has been repeated by the hon. Member for Taunton—because they cannot effectively replace properties that are bought under the right to buy.
        In the debates over the past few years, including our debates yesterday, my hon. Friends and I have been drawing attention to the growing housing crisis. At the sharp end, there has been a diminution of the supply of affordable houses or flats for rent. The entire country is affected and the reason is not hard to find. Leaving aside the collapse of the private sector, which is not germane to the debate, well over 500,000 council houses have been sold. There would have been no problem if those houses had been replaced.
        The Labour party made it clear that the right-to-buy policy could continue if it were matched in housing stress areas with a duty to replace. That duty could be achieved in a number of ways. It could be fulfilled by allowing the local authority or housing association to build another property. I shall deal with financing later. It could be achieved by the authority or association buying another property from the private market. It could be achieved also in a way that I would consider most appropriate, by the authority or association having the right to buy back when the house is put up for resale for the first time. I note that there is a nod of support from at least one Conservative Member, and probably two.
        By simply allowing the right to buy without any duty to replace, in rural and urban areas alike, the Government have cut off the supply of affordable rented houses. It has dropped by at least 500,000 in the council house sector alone, and with housing association and private sector losses the total would be well above 1 million. The Government would not have found themselves in so much difficulty in Committee or in another place—they were forced to accept amendments there, and these changes are a result of that fait accompli—if they had originally introduced what the Labour party has always said was essential—the duty to replace. Their failure to do so has caused all these problems.
        Why do the amendments relate specifically to the elderly? It is because, having introduced the right to buy, the Government suddenly found that the elderly and the disabled also wanted to buy. The same applies to the charitable housing associations. If the elderly and the disabled were given the right to buy, houses that had been specially converted for them would be lost to the rented sector and would not be available for future generations of elderly and disabled people. It has become clear that there would be a growing shortage of such accommodation. To prevent that, the Government would have to say that the elderly and the disabled should not have the right to buy —and consequently the right to buy would not, in effect, be a true right to buy. Indeed, we all know that it is not a
        1052
        fundamental human right; it has been limited to certain groups, and specifically to council tenants in certain types of accommodation.
        Had the Government said initially that the right to buy should be matched by a duty to replace, and had they provided a housing finance system to support that, the position would be very different. The Government could then have said that the elderly and the disabled should have the right to buy. but that the local authority or housing association must replace. That could be done in any of the three ways that I have already suggested. However, if the Government were serious about doing that, the finances would have to be there to support it. That is why I urge on the Government the need to reform housing finance.
        If a tenant is given a discount that comes from local authority funds, there is no way that that authority can replace—not even by buying back, or at least not without losing a great deal of money. The way around that problem would be directly to subsidise the person wanting to buy, but the Government have chosen not to do that. They do not really want to help people to own their homes; they want people to buy their council houses at the expense of other people in that area who are both paying for those houses and in the queue waiting for those houses.
        That means that elderly people who want to move into specially converted accommodation are now less able to do so than previously. As the hon. Member for Taunton and the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) know, because there are fewer places available, those people cannot move into that sort of accommodation. That means a growing problem with elderly people having to stay in inappropriate housing while they wait for the right accommodation to become free, but it is not becoming free because it has been bought and is not being replaced.
        Mr. David Nicholson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman recalls our debates in Committee. He has described with some accuracy the position in rural seaside areas. A number of elderly people have moved to those areas and there has always been a fairly small number of council homes, many of which have now been sold. However, that does not apply to the metropolitan areas where there are large empires of council homes which, on the whole, the elderly are trying to leave for very good reasons. Relatively few of those homes have been sold.
        Mr. Soley: That is an amazing statement. In my neck of the woods it is becoming increasingly difficult to find appropriate housing for the elderly. I am referring to the old Greater London council area. All the seaside homes that had been specially designated for the elderly were sold en bloc to a housing association and have since been resold. That means that those who were intending to retire from London to the seaside, thus freeing a home in London, cannot do so because several thousand homes have been lost. The problem is serious in my area, even if it is not as serious as in some rural areas. There is nowhere for those people to go and that is why they are insisting on the right to buy.
        I have had letters, similar to those sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), described by the Minister, asking, "Why can't I buy my home?" A disabled couple in my constituency are asking why they cannot buy their home. If there were a proper

        1053
        finance system, they could buy their home because the local authority could say that when they sold the property it would want to repurchase it. The finance system would have to allow that to happen. Alternatively, the local authority would have to buy another property and convert it—there is not a great deal of room for building in my constituency. That is what would happen in a rational system. However, because the Government have hooked themselves on to the right to buy alone, and did not think about the replacement of the rented homes that would be lost—whether for the elderly, the disabled or anyone else —they have caused a drastic drying up of supply.
        One problem that is emerging in the current right-to-buy system are the cases—fortunately relatively few, but enough to be worrying—where children of an elderly couple encourage them to buy in the expectation of inheriting that home. I am not suggesting that that is done with any wicked intent; it is often done with the open co-operation of the parents who want to leave the home to their son or daughter. Nevertheless, the danger is that some parents are being increasingly pressurised. That would not need to happen if there were a reformed housing finance system that allowed us to assist those who wanted to buy, while enabling others to rent if they so wanted.
        The reason that I suggested, outside the Chamber, that we would not vote on this group of amendments was that it appeared that the Government were staying within the broad parameters laid down in another place. The Minister has assured us that the changes that he has suggested are purely technical. We, and no doubt those in another place, will seriously consider that. However, I stress strongly that the way in which the right to buy has been operating is having a disastrous effect on the rented sector.
        There are two major disadvantages for the elderly and the disabled. First, it prevents other elderly and disabled people from moving into specialised accommodation because less and less is available, and, secondly, it puts many of them in an unfair position because they think that they should have the right to buy, like everyone else, but they do not have it, either because it has not been conceded, because the local authority does not approve of that, or because the Secretary of State can say, "No, I do not think that you should buy it." Perhaps the Minister will find himself having to write back to my hon. Friend the Minister for Brent, East to say that the council was right and it should not allow them to buy. The Minister has taken on that duty. He will find himself saying the same as some councils—"I am sorry, we know you have the right to buy, but we can't allow it."
        I want the Government to make a root-and-branch reform. We should have the right to buy, but people should be able to move between the rented and the purchase sectors. Many older people do not want to be owner-occupiers, but want to go back to the security of rented accommodation, so that they know who will repair the roof and that they will not be ripped off by the builder. If we worked on that we could turn the right to buy into something positive. It would give people a genuine option between renting and buying and would ensure that housing was replaced, and not lost from the rented sector.
        7.30 pm
        Mr. Bob Cryer: I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the need for replacement. I have a constituent who was forced to leave the marital home last week because of her husband's violence. She has three children and they are now sleeping on the floor, divided between two houses, one of which is a flat which belongs to an elderly person and does not have adequate room I received a letter from the local authority to say that it will be difficult to rehouse them. The mother will have difficulty bringing up her children alone. There is an injunction to stop her husband molesting her. However, the council will have difficulty housing her because of the number of houses that have been sold off in the area in which she wants to live, near friends who will support her. The housing shortage is causing serious difficulties.
        Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is right. If the right to buy had been matched by the ability to replace housing, and the housing finance system had been reformed, that situation would never have arisen.
        It is not common knowledge—I accept that that is Labour's fault—that the Labour party has always provided council houses for sale. We did that in the 1930s to my certain knowledge. Our argument is that we have a duty to replace houses or the best ones are sold at a discount, and people are left to scrabble around for the remaining houses, which tend to be second and third rate homes. That is what has gone wrong with the scheme and what is going wrong for elderly people now. That is why the Government are in this hole.
        I urge the Government to think about the possibilities that I have suggested to give elderly people the right to buy. Not everyone will have automatic access to it, but the right covers all sectors—the private sector, the public sector and housing associations. We could get housing finance right and build in safeguards so that the person who sells the house does not lose out and the subsidy goes to the person who is buying. We would be able to achieve tenure neutrality, and people would be able to move from the rented to the purchase sector and back again.
        It is nonsense to force people to buy as early as possible, and to make them stay when they do not want to. For example, it is not a sensible policy for the elderly. It is ideal for people to rent when they need to, perhaps when they are young, to buy in their middle years, and, when they are elderly, and worried about repairs and maintenance, to be able to return to the rented sector. That is what we want. What we have is a chronic drying up of affordable housing for rent. For the elderly and the disabled the problem is double-edged—they are not entitled to the right to buy as other people are, and they cannot get the houses that they need. That is unnecessary and it is down to the Government to change it.
        Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I welcome the fact that the Government have seen fit to introduce their own amendment in response to the concern expressed in the other place and contained in Lords amendment No. 271.
        I believe that, because of the way in which the Government introduced their original amendment—belatedly, at night during Committee stage in the other place—they had little option but to listen to the reasoned arguments put forth.
        I am happy that the existing housing stock will be given some protection by the Government amendment, which

        1055
        allows the Secretary of State to determine whether an existing property falls within the right to buy. I would be happier if I could be assured that housing will be available to replace the present stock as age takes its toll. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) expressed that in his well-thought-out speech.
        If we lived in a world where we could supply housing on demand, individuals' right to buy or not to buy would be paramount, but we do not live in a world like that. There is a desperate shortage of housing, not least in my area. I used to think it was quite an affluent area. I thought that council housing would be there for ever. The right to buy has interfered with that, and housing is not being replaced. The shortage of suitable homes for pensioners is worse —the supply of suitable flats and bungalows is diminishing rapidly. Lords amendment No. 271 would ensure that the existing stock would remain available for the growing number of people who need it.
        We should not forget that the number of elderly people will increase dramatically. We have been told that time and time again in the context of care in the community. Many of those people will not be able to enter the housing market by buying a house which is suitable for their needs, or to adapt their existing home to meet those needs.
        I am aware that it could be seen as discriminatory to deny an individual or some categories of individuals the right to buy, but to deny many people the right to live in accommodation that is adequate for their needs, and to condemn them to live, in some cases, in squalor is perhaps a greater discrimination.
        Despite what the Minister has said, I support Lords amendment No. 272, which gives the right to buy to disabled persons, because I believe that a different set of criteria apply here. However, I shall add a note of caution. I hope that the right to buy will not lead to disabled people who are less well off having a poor quality of life through lack of access to accommodation which meets their needs. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I shall not follow the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) but will concentrate on the Scottish amendments. All these amendments relate to the right to buy.
        Amendment No. 278 refers to the time spent in the family home by a child who succeeds to the parents' tenancy, and that time automatically counts towards the child's discount. For other members of the family, it is left to the discretion of the landlord—the local authority—whether to include time spent in the family home. The amendment seeks to remove that discretion and puts family members on the same basis as children or their spouses.
        The second part of the amendment deals with members of the family who enter into a joint tenancy with an elderly relative. On their death, the family member becomes the tenant. Not all landlords consider that the discount entitlement should take into account the period of residence prior to the joint tenancy. This is particularly hard in the case of a family member who has put on a formal basis, by means of a joint tenancy, the arrangements made by the family to maintain a home.
        Mr. John Maxton: I accept some of the things the Minister is saying. It is unfair that, if someone has lived for 10 years in a house with his mother, and is a joint tenant, that 10 years is not taken into account. However, what if they moved in six months before their mother died and took out a joint tenancy? It cannot be right for them to get an entitlement that goes back a long way.
        Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If a person has been living in a house for many years, it is perfectly fair. We are widening the right to buy, and we consider that it will be warmly welcomed by those concerned.
        Lords amendment No. 279 relates to the amendment tabled by Lord McIntosh of Haringey in the other place. The amendment was defective as it omitted to delete reference to section 69 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 in the repeals schedule. That amendment also left in place the provisions of subsection (2). That subsection would be relevant only if the provisions of 1979 had been repealed in their entirety. Lords amendment No. 279 seeks to rectify those defects and to clarify which houses will continue to be excluded. It would not overturn the general principle.
        The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) will be interested in Lords amendment No. 280, which relates to the extraordinary circumstances in which some council houses have leases as long as 999 years. The amendment seeks to give a tenant whose landlord is not the heritable proprietor the right to acquire his landlord's leasehold interest in the house that he occupies. Such leases are prevalent in Motherwell, Monklands, Stirling, West Lothian and Nithsdale, and were often granted for periods of at least 900 years. In such cases tenants cannot exercise the right to buy, but the amendment would allow them to acquire a substantial long-term interest in their homes.
        Lords amendment No. 282 would require landlords to inform persons who have applied to purchase their homes of prospective changes in the provisions for calculation of the selling price of a house. A tenant should know if his position has been improved, and if he has not completed missives he can withdraw and reapply. That duty will relate only to applications made up to the point of the enforcement of the change. The landlord is not required to produce any calculations. I therefore do not consider that the new duty will prove onerous.
        Mr. Maxton: The amendments may not be of major, earth-shattering importance in relation to Scottish housing, but they require some comment.
        Yet again—disgracefully—Scottish housing, which in the past has always supposedly been part of the separate Scottish legislation system, is being disregarded and shoved into what is largely an English-Welsh Bill, which makes it difficult for Scottish Members to take account of it and for the public in Scotland to know what is happening.
        The Minister is a difficult man to describe as an obsessional fanatic; nevertheless, the amendments are a product of the Government's complete obsession with the right to buy, which is their only housing policy in Scotland. They entirely disregard all other aspects of public and, for that matter, private housing. Now, in three or four different ways, they are extending that right still further, locating the odd loophole which remains and trying desperately to close it. Oddly enough, I gather that some elderly people's housing is to be excluded from the

        1057
        right-to-buy provisions—or, at any rate, local authorities will be allowed to exclude it. The measure to deal with long leases is certainly of some interest, but that is accidental.
        What the Government always forget is that 85 or 90 per cent. of Scottish council and housing association tenants are simply not interested in buying their houses. What concerns them is that those houses are riddled with damp because they cannot afford to heat them properly, because the houses were badly designed in the first place and because they cannot be properly maintained because the local authority has not been given the money with which to maintain them. Tenants are concerned about the environment in which their houses are placed, and about ever-soaring rents caused by the Government's policy of forcing local authorities to push up rents time and again.
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has pointed out, the houses that are sold are those in the better areas—those that tenants consider to be worth buying. My constituency contains part of one of the largest housing schemes in Europe, the one in Castlemilk. I believe that five houses have been sold, out of a total of more than 1,000. In other parts of Glasgow, such as Mosspark, large areas of housing have been sold.
        In another amendment, which we may not reach, the Government have attempted to close yet another loophole. Glasgow district council may be stretching the law a bit—although it is acting in a way that is morally right—by saying that, having spent thousands of pounds on improving a house, it does not want tenants to turn around and say that they want to buy it. That strikes me as entirely justifiable, however; it is absurd that other ratepayers should spend a fortune on the upgrading of a house, only to find that the tenant has bought it. The court ruled that the council was wrong to take such action, but added that it could rule only in that one case; if another authority did the same, the same process would have to be gone through.
        7.45 pm
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith has said, it is time that the Government came up with housing policies and housing finance systems which concern all Scottish residents—those who own their houses, those who wish to own them and those who wish to remain as tenants. That is what a real housing policy is about, and that is the policy being developed by the Labour party. The sooner that Scotland's tenants have a Labour Government to implement that policy, the better.
        Mr. Cryer: Let me enlarge on what I said in a brief intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley).
        The Government are seeking to introduce a reserve power controlling the selling-off of public housing—that is, certain dwelling houses for those of pensionable age. That reflects the fact that the selling-off policy has begun to reap the disadvantages and difficulties that Labour has always said would arise in the absence of a policy for replacement. The case that I am about to cite does not concern a person of pensionable age; I shall deal with that aspect later. A few days ago, the experience of a constituent with whom I was dealing happened to coincide with my own prejudices.
        I have warned in the past that the selling-off policy implemented by various items of legislation would lead inevitably to the exhaustion of available rented housing
        1058
        stock. The Minister should recognise that a large proportion of the population—it is difficult to determine the exact percentage—simply cannot afford to buy, as they have not the means for even a modest deposit. Rented housing of a decent standard is therefore a necessity if they are to embark on a life of any stability.
        Shortly after the interview with my constituent began, she was in tears. She had been forced to leave the marital home with her three children, having been subjected to violence there. Her husband had pursued her to a flat with which the local authority had provided her: it was some distance from the marital home, so that she could avoid him. Having chased her there, however, he had attacked her, and she had been forced to flee the flat with her children and to hide in a local church—sanctuary, perhaps.
        Having received some help and advice, my constituent had obtained an injunction in court to stop her husband molesting her. Although that had protected her from one danger, she had found herself homeless, and faced with a charge from the local authority for the month in which she had not inhabited the flat. She came to me in desperation, seeking security and assistance. She wanted to return to the area that her husband's violence had forced her to leave.
        I took up the case with the local authority: it is the sort of case with which Members of Parliament frequently deal. The response came back from the local authority that she is on the waiting list. She has paid part of the joint debt that she and her husband had accumulated. She takes responsibility for the children and he does not. I should have thought that that would be taken into consideration.
        The waiting list in Bradford is long, because over several years a considerable proportion of the housing stock has been sold. When I wrote to the local authority about my constituent's needs I was told that such a large proportion of the housing stock had been sold that it would be difficult to accommodate her—even though her application had considerable support—because there were not enough houses for all the people in need.
        Government housing policy has not taken into account the fact that housing stocks are often reduced, as in Bradford, by the discovery of defects. The so-called Boot houses, built in the 1920s by Sir Henry Boot, were held together by metal ties which have corroded. A local authority must either build a new shell around them or demolish them. Limitations on housing capital expenditure are such that few local authorities can tackle such problems on any scale. Most have to accept the alternative of demolition, as in Bradford, where half an estate in my constituency has been demolished. Virtually no houses have been replaced.
        Structural defects have also come to light in prefabricated dwellings. Under the right-to-buy scheme, purchasers have the right to sell back to the local authority if defects subsequently appeared. That protection was not unfair, but it shows that the right to buy has given rise to complications which were not foreseen when the Government embarked on the policy.
        The clause recognises that local authorities sometimes invest extensively to provide for senior citizens homes with special facilities, such as ramps, baths with grab handles and so on. Such facilities cost extra money. Local authorities undertake such expenditure carefully. By and large, they are not lavish. They hit their expenditure targets far more accurately than central Government.

        1059
        They do not equip homes lavishly but simply provide facilities to make life easier for people who find it difficult to move about.
        If such houses are sold, it is difficult to replace them because the necessary adaptations are costly. It is unjust to sell houses with special adaptations and facilities for people in their latter years. Local authorities are faced with extra expenditure when other elderly people justifiably want the same standards as were provided in the specially adapted flats that have been sold.
        The policy of selling housing has reached a point where even the Government see the need to qualify it. The Bill recognises that. It is an outrage that the Government have not required the compulsory sale of private rented property. If a council tenant has the right to buy, so should a private tenant. If the right to buy is so inalienable and has such virtue, why is it given only to local authority tenants? I think that I know why and I shall expatiate on it after I have given way to my hon. Friend.
        Mr. Tony Banks: I know the reason, too. My hon. Friend will agree that it is because public property is considered second-rate and, if necessary, is virtually given away, while private property is sacrosanct. We have seen how the right to buy has been perverted by the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is even more perverse when a specially adapted house is sold to someone who has no need of the facilities and clears them out? They are completely lost to people who could put them to good use.
        The Minister was not in the Chamber earlier when we discussed the GLC seaside and country homes. As those homes have been sold, they are no longer available to old people in London to go and enjoy the seaside and country air.
        Mr. Cryer: At one time the Government recognised the strength of my hon. Friend's argument. They did so in the 1980 Bill, when they decided to exclude all dwellings designated for elderly people. It was only subsequently that they decided to cast the net more widely, with the result that expensive fittings—which we do not begrudge —were lost to local authorities and future generations. My hon. Friend is right when he says that public housing is regarded as something to be looted.
        Mr. Banks: Public assets.
        Mr. Cryer: Indeed, public assets.
        The Labour party has always had a tolerant view of a local authority's right to sell some of its housing stock and has recognised that there is a demand to buy. However, we maintain that it should be at the discretion of the local authority. The Government say that local authorities cannot make the decision because, for doctrinaire reasons, some will not sell off any of their stock. The local authority should judge whether there is a surplus of housing. I was a councillor on Keighley municipal borough council, which had a surplus of housing. The Labour group agreed with the Conservatives that some housing should be sold. Nobody was harmed because plenty of property for rent was available to people on the waiting list, who had the chance to obtain decent quality housing at a relatively low rent, quickly. The position has now completely changed. Part of that change is attributable to the Government's
        1060
        policy to sell public housing and not to allow local authorities to judge what is in the best interests of the community.
        A group of Right-wing extremists is temporarily in control of Bradford council. It will not be there after the next elections in May. It is a matter of pride to them that the council is not building new council houses to replace those sold. A policy of replacement is necessary if we are to retain public-sector housing for rent. Bradford council has no replacement policy because of doctrinaire commitment. Are the Government serious about generating a housing policy that will provide for people who cannot afford the deposit on a house?
        Such people may not have £2,000, £3,000 or £4,000 to hand because they live from week to week, struggling to pay their bills. They do not have surplus capital, not because they are spendthrifts but because they have a poorly paid job, for example in catering, and use all their income to pay their bills. If they have young children, they have to make provision for them, which is very costly.
        The choice that the Government say that they have given to people is not available to those who do not have much money. The more money one has in one's pocket, the wider the choice. If one had £50,000, one could buy any make of car—from a mini or a deux chevaux up to a Rolls-Royce. If one has only £5 in one's pocket, there is no choice. One cannot buy a car.
        It is just the same with housing. If one has £50,000 in one's pocket, it might buy a terraced house in a town in the north, such as Bradford, although prices there have rocketed because of the Government's policies. One could perhaps buy former council houses for £15,00 to £20,000; the price would vary according to the location. However, if one has only £5 in one's pocket, it is impossible to find the deposit to buy a house.
        There is no choice. All one can do is get a rented house from the public sector. I emphasise the public sector because the Government have acknowledged that the quality of private sector housing for rent has diminished. The quality of private sector housing is highly variable. The Government dismantled the fair rent legislation and they are preparing the way for market rents.
        8 pm
        In recognition of the changed circumstances, the Government are seeking powers for the Secretary of State to say to landlords, "You can't sell this property because it does not meet the criteria that have been laid down in the new clause." This is highly specialised property, with the special and expensive adaptations to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred. These circumstances apply to housing in general. Therefore, the provisions should not be confined to housing that is suitable for persons of pensionable age.
        No persons of pensionable age have approached me regarding the possibility of purchasing their flat or bungalow. The reason is that persons of pensionable age would have great difficulty in buying their property. If they are 70, they are unlikely to be given a 20 or 25-year mortgage; it is unlikely that they will be there to pay the mortgage over 20 or 25 years. Most of them do not have much capital. Those who have some capital want to keep it. They do not want their nest egg to be used up on repairing a property that they have had to buy. That can be expensive. The provision of facilities to persons of pensionable age to buy their dwellings is the result of a

        1061
        doctrinaire policy. The Government are divorced from reality. They do not know what people's housing needs are. It is not a question of what people want. People want different things. Most people, however, need a house that is in reasonable condition.
        That must seem a very modest aim to many Conservative Members. It is not, however, a modest aim to the constituent to whom I have referred. She has three children, sleeping on the floor. They are at school temporarily. She wants to move to another area, so she does not want them to settle down in any particular school. The housing shortage leads to uncertainty and difficulties for the children. They are unable to mingle with their peers at school just because the local authority may make an offer to house the family in two, six or 10 months time, depending on the number of houses that are available.
        The modest requirement of decent housing at a fair rent would be very much welcomed by millions of people who cannot afford to buy their homes. I hope that, belatedly, the Government have recognised that their housing policy is leading millions of people into severe difficulties. I hope, too, that even now it is not too late for them to change their policy, which has caused so much despair.
        Mr. John Home Robertson: I apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for missing his speech. I saw his name on the annunciator in my office and came rushing into the Chamber, but he must have made an uncharacteristically brief contribution. He will be aware, however, of my long-standing interest in housing in Scotland, following our fairly lengthy debates in Committee and in the Chamber on the Housing (Scotland) Bill—now the Housing (Scotland) Act—last Session.
        The Opposition have constantly pressed the Government to address the real housing needs and priorities of the people of Scotland. However, there has been no Government response. They have introduced the right to buy and they call that a housing policy. There is a housing crisis in Scotland. About a quarter of the population live in overcrowded accommodation. About 30,000 people become homeless in Scotland each year and have to apply to the local authorities under the homeless persons legislation. There are nearly 200,000 people on local authority housing waiting lists in Scotland. That is a housing crisis, and councillors and Members of Parliament in Scotland come face to face with it in their constituencies, week in, week out. Unfortunately, however, Scotland has a Government who are not elected by the people of Scotland. I suppose, therefore, that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and his colleagues do not realise how important it is to deal with the crisis.
        The homeless, those on low incomes and those in overcrowded accommodation might like to buy their houses but the right to buy will not overcome their serious, immediate problem: the right to rented housing, the right to have a decent roof over their heads, the right to security. In many cases, the Government are taking those rights away from them.
        The right to buy, which we are extending by means of the amendments to which the Minister referred, will encourage more people who might not particularly want to own their own homes to purchase them. I am thinking in particular of former Scottish Special Housing Association tenants, 80,000 of whom are now Scottish Homes tenants.
        1062
        They are worried that Scottish Homes will hand them over to the private sector. In many parts of Scotland there are bad memories of private landlords. However, they feel that because of the incentives that the Government are offering they would be crazy not to buy their houses. In the coming months and years, though, they may find it very difficult to cope with the costs of home ownership, insurance and repairs. They are almost being trapped into home ownership. In many cases that may prove to be a burden in the long term because of the dynamics of the Government's housing policies.
        The right-to-buy policy makes sense for those who can afford to buy their houses, but that is not a housing policy; it is a home ownership policy. The Government refuse to address themselves to the problems of people living in overcrowded and bad accommodation and, above all, to the homeless, who are stuck on local authority waiting lists and have no prospect of obtaining accommodation. The right to buy at a discount, which the Government are pursuing so doggedly, is not a policy but a diversion.
        A responsible Government in Scotland should be addressing the need for housing for our people and ensuring that houses are built, improved and made available to those who need them. We are still awaiting such a policy, and I fear that we may have to wait until a Labour Government take office here or in the Scottish Parliament in due course.
        Mr. Allen McKay: This is part two of the equation that I mentioned yesterday when we were debating rents. It involves the destruction of a good housing policy by the policies of the Government and their ideological pursuit of home ownership.
        I told the Minister yesterday that my local authority promotes home ownership and helps in every way that it can. It protested against the right to buy—the Minister is well aware of its reasons for doing so—but once it became law it sold its council houses.
        Some of the problems that I foresaw when we were debating the Bill in Committee have now occurred. People have bought their homes but, unfortunately, have discovered that they cannot afford them. Once again, they are asking the local authority to rehouse them because of foreclosure on their mortgages. In Committee, I said, "For heaven's sake include provisions in the Bill to ensure that that does not happen. Local authorities should be able to repurchase the houses that they sell." The Government did not take any notice; local authorities have been powerless to repurchase houses and they have had to be sold on the open market.
        About 16 or 17 per cent. of my local authority's housing stock has been sold, but in other areas the figure is as high as 34 per cent. Not surprisingly, the 34 per cent. of the houses that have been sold are the most desirable. If the Minister wants the figures, I have them here.
        The Government are now proposing the sale of aged persons' dwellings. They believe that aged persons should have the same right to buy as anyone else. From their point of view, that is admirable, but once again the policy will cause problems. Every bungalow or aged person's flat that is sold on the open market means that someone will not achieve their dream of having a local authority aged person's bungalow or flat. In the rural areas of my constituency, Airey-type dwellings have had to be pulled down and the local authority has replaced them not with houses but with stone-built bungalows overlooking the

        1063
        Cawthorn Baison, which has one of the most marvellous views of Yorkshire. The value of those bungalows on the open market must be tremendous, and under the Government's policy they will have to be sold off. However, there are insufficient houses in the area and the children of families resident in the area are having to move away as a result. The more houses that are sold off, the worse the problem becomes. Not a single aged person's bungalow should be sold because it deprives someone of the opportunity of such housing, unless enough money is provided for a replacement. The Government made that mistake with council houses, but they should not repeat it with bungalows.
        8.15 pm
        Figures for house building in my local authority show that in 1979–80 449 private houses, 297 council houses and 27 housing association dwellings were built, making 773 in total. In 1987–88, 347 private houses, no council houses —because of Government policy—and 56 housing association dwellings were built, making a total of 403. There has been a 50 per cent. drop in house building, but, at the same time, a 54 per cent. rise in the number of homeless people.
        The Government have not a housing policy but an ideological hatred of council housing. They hate the idea of councils being housing authorities. They wish to get rid of council housing and leave only sheltered accommodation, part III accommodation and accommodation that they can sell off.
        The Government have ruined the history of council housing, the history of housing in general and have hurt hundreds of thousands of people, who will not forget.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Amendment made in lieu of the Lords amendment: (a), after clause 146, insert the following new clause—Exception to the right to buy in case of certain dwelling-houses for persons of pensionable age..—
        —(I) In Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 (exceptions to the right to buy), for paragraph 11 (certain dwelling-houses for persons of pensionable age) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
        "11.—(1) The right to buy does not arise if the Secretary of State has determined, on the application of the landlord, that it is not to be capable of being exercised with respect to the dwelling-house.
        (2) The Secretary of State shall so determine if, and only if, he is satisfied that the dwelling-house—

        (a) is particularly suitable, having regard to its location, size, design, heating system and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and

        (b)was let to the tenant or a predecessor in title of his for occupation by a person of pensionable age (whether the tenant or predecessor or another person).

        (3) The Secretary of State shall for the purposes of this paragraph disregard the presence of any feature provided by the tenant or a predecessor in title of his.
        (4) An application for a determination under this paragraph shall be made within the period for service of the landlord's notice under section 124 (notice admitting or denying right to buy).
        (5) This paragraph does not apply unless the dwelling-house concerned was first let before 1st January 1990."
        (2) Subsection (1) above does not apply in any case where the tenant's notice claiming to exercise the right to buy was served before the day on which this section comes into force.
        1064
        (3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, no account shall be taken of any steps taken under section 177 of the Housing Act 1985 (amendment or withdrawal and re-service of notice to correct mistakes).'.—[Mr. Howard.]
        Consequential amendment made: (b), in page 146, line 3, after '146' insert
        (Exception to the right to buy in case of certain dwelling-houses for persons of pensionable age)—[Mr. Howard.]
        Lords amendment No. 272 disagreed to.
        Lords amendment No. 278 agreed to.
        Lords amendment No. 279 disagreed to.
        Amendment made in lieu of the Lords amendment: (a), after Clause 154 insert the following new Clause—

        Sale to secure tenants of houses provided for persons of pensionable age: Scotland.
        In section 69 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. (Secretary of State's power to authorise refusal to sell certain houses provided for pensions of pensionable age) after subsection (I) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
        "(1A) This section applies only to houses first let on a secure tenancy before 1st January 1990.".'.— [Mr. Howard.]
        Lords amendments Nos. 280 and 282 agreed to.
        Lords amendment: No. 269, before clause 145, insert the following new clause—

  Housing accommodation
  ". —(1) Part II of the Housing Act 1985 (Provision of Housing Accommodation) shall be amended by the inclusion of the following section after section 32—
  "32A—No condition shall be attached by the Secretary of State to the payment of grant to a local housing authority, or to the giving of a consent to:

  (i) the disposal of land, or

  (ii) the use of funds, or

  (iii) the payment of grant to a housing association by a local authority, which would require such authority or housing association to grant occupiers a right to acquire the full equity or any specified share of the equity of any dwelling which is constructed in a rural parish with a population of 3,000 people or less."

  (2) Part II of the Housing Act 1988 (Housing Associations) shall be amended by the inclusion of the following section after section 50—
  "50A—No condition shall be attached by the Housing Corporation to the payment of grant to a housing association or to the giving of consent to the use of funds by a housing association, which would require such housing association to grant to occupiers a right to acquire the full equity or any specified share of the equity of any dwelling which is constructed in a rural parish with a population of 3,000 people or less."
  Mr. Howard: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  We heard repeatedly in the previous debate the accusation that the Government had no housing policy save the right to buy. I said during questions this afternoon that our planned public spending on housing over this and the next two years amounts to nearly £13 billion. Against that massive programme, the allegation that we have no housing policies save the right to buy does nothing save demean political debate and bring our discussion into disrepute.
  Lords amendment No. 269 aims to retain local housing in rural areas for those who need it. We agree with its objective, but we propose to achieve it in a slightly different way. Our policy is that shared owners who own part of their home and rent the remainder should be allowed to become full home owners. The amendment would prevent either the Secretary of State or the Housing Corporation from insisting that publicly assisted shared

  1065
  ownership schemes should give shared owners that opportunity. It applies to rural parishes of fewer than 3,000 people.
  We recognise the strong concerns that have been expressed on both sides of the House about the need to provide and retain low-cost housing for local needs in rural areas. The Government produced a repurchase scheme designed to ensure that housing associations could keep properties in rural areas in the low-cost housing sector, but there was legitimate concern that the proposal might not work satisfactorily. The Department has been working with those most closely involved to see how we can improve the scheme. As a result of those discussions, we have come up with improved arrangements which I shall invite the Housing Corporation to implement.
  We have benefited from the views of a number of colleagues, notably my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). I am sorry that I was not in my place this afternoon during his speech. My right hon. Friend was entitled to claim a considerable victory. I pay tribute to his persistence and to the characteristically resourceful way in which he has pursued his campaign over a lengthy period. We have benefited from the views of many in the other place, in particular Lord Stanley, Lord Carter, and Lord Vinson. I am happy to tell the House that the arrangements that I am about to describe have the full support of the Rural Development Commission, the National Agricultural Centre's Rural Trust, the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association.
  The first point that concerned people was whether the money to pay for the shared ownership property would really be available from the Housing Corporation when it was needed. I can give the House an assurance that the corporation will fund, on demand, housing associations that want to repurchase properties within this scheme. It will do that with the full authority of the Government from its approved development programme.
  Of course, a generalised undertaking needs to be applied to the particular properties in question. The corporation will therefore make it clear in writing, when a property is first accepted into the scheme, that the repurchase arrangements will apply. Therefore, in addition to the general undertakings which I am giving now and which the corporation will give, there will be a site-specific undertaking, indicating that the shared ownership housing on a particular site is subject to the repurchase arrangements that I have described. The amount of Housing Corporation funding will normally be that which is necessary to enable the property to be resold for shared ownership, with the new shared owner buying the same proportion of equity as the first shared owner had originally bought. In appropriate cases, the corporation will be prepared to consider' making additional grant available so that the new purchaser can acquire a lower share of the equity.
  Sir Peter Emery: My hon. and learned Friend has said that the new owner should be able to obtain the same proportion of equity as the previous owner. Will he be able to do so at the same price as the previous owner? Many people are worried about the fact that, although the same proportion may be made available, the price may have escalated, because of the increase in value, to such an extent that cheap housing is no longer available.
  Mr. Howard: That would very much depend on the circumstances in which the housing was made available. It is true that there may have been an increase in the price. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, in all shared ownership schemes, the subsidy goes to the part of the share that is rented and not to the part that is purchased. If the house were originally on land that was made available for a particular scheme at low cost, or at no cost, and were subject to a covenant whereby it should remain available only to local people on low incomes—there are ways in which this objective, which I know my hon. Friend holds dear, can be achieved—although I cannot say that there would be no increase in the price, the price would certainly reflect those special arrangements.
  Mr. Soley: Much of my worry is about the market price. A housing association will, in a sense, lose a certain amount of money and need to make it up when it rebuys the property at the new market price. The Government need to be clear about this point. Will they make sure that the housing association can repurchase at the market price without losing its funds in any way? That is crucial.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate from the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) that the market price reflects all the relevant circumstances. The fact that a property is subject to the kind of covenant to which I referred when dealing with my hon. Friend's point will be reflected in its market price.
  Concern has been expressed that the funds that the Housing Corporation would need to operate the repurchase scheme could reduce the number of projects allowed into the scheme in the first place or could erode the amounts available for rural rented housing. I assure the House that repurchase funds will not be found from the amount set aside within the Housing Corporation's programme for rented accommodation or shared ownership in rural areas—the point on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale placed particular stress.
  The Government strongly support the case for an expanding programme of low-cost housing in rural areas. I am inviting the Housing Corporation to propose a significant increase in its special rural programme for rented housing, to allow 1,000 approvals next year, 1,200 in 1991–92 and 1,500 in 1992–93. I am inviting the corporation to identify separately, for the first time, a rural element within its low-cost home ownership programme, to allow 250 approvals next year, 300 in 1991–92 and 350 in 1992–93. Neither of those approval targets will be affected by the demands for repurchase funds.
  The localities to which the repurchase scheme applies are wider than those proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale when we debated this subject in the summer. The scheme will apply in areas eligible for investment under the corporation's special rural programme. That is primarily targeted on settlements in rural areas with fewer than 1,000 people, but that is not intended to be an absolute cut-off point. It may be appropriate for the pre-emption scheme to apply to properties in rural areas with a greater population. It is important that there should be a measure of flexibility at the margin, and the corporation will consider all such cases on their merits.

  1067
  The scheme will apply also in rural areas other than those within the special rural programme where the site has received planning permission specifically for the development of low-cost housing for local needs and is covered by a section 52 or similar agreement. It will apply also where a private landowner has made a site available on condition that it is retained for low-cost housing—the kind of circumstances to which I referred in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton.
  Some people have been worried by the fact that a housing association has a right to purchase, but not an obligation. They point out quite fairly that if there is a chance of an association not exercising its right, landowners may be reluctant to give land in the first place or local authorities may not feel able to grant planning permission. Where local authorities or landlords are worried about this point, the solution is to enter into a covenant and/or make a section 52 agreement to oblige the association to exercise its right to repurchase. They can do that in the full knowledge that the funds will be available from the corporation to enable the association to meet its undertaking.
  We shall, of course, be monitoring the operation of the scheme. We shall want to review its workings after a suitable period. We believe that the improved repurchase scheme and the substantially increased programme for rural housing are important new elements in the Government's drive to meet local housing needs in rural areas. Those who promoted the amendment believe that as well. With their agreement, therefore, I ask the House to disagree with the Lords in amendment No. 269.
  Mr. Soley: This is an important debate which will predominantly affect hon. Members who represent rural constituencies. My complaint about the Minister's lack of a housing policy is quite correct because the amount that we invest in housing is now one of the lowest in western Europe. We should not be having a debate on the problem in rural areas if the Government had not failed to develop a proper housing policy. It is precisely because of that failure that I have been able to point out consistently over the past few years that our housing crisis is no longer primarily an urban or inner-city crisis, but a national crisis which is hitting the rural areas. I know that some Conservative Members are seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall ensure that they have time to do so by keeping my remarks brief. The fact that they are trying to catch your eye shows the level of seriousness of the housing crisis in rural areas.
  8.30 pm
  When the Government said last year that they planned to increase the number of housing association schemes, it sounded like good news, but when we looked at the small print we found that "schemes" meant only 600 new houses or flats throughout the rural areas of England. No Conservative Member—least of all the Minister—can believe for a moment that that will meet the needs of the rural areas. As I have often said, the Government made the fundamental error of ending council house provision as it used to exist and cutting it back until only 5,000 or 6,000 units per year were being built, without providing an alternative. As I have also often said, the private sector is unable to provide and is continuing to collapse.
  1068
  The Government did a bit of an about-turn a couple of years ago by beginning to put funds back into housing associations, but even now, when additional funds have begun to flow in, the housing association movement is still not providing the same number of homes as in the mid-1970s and is only just beginning to get back to that figure. Even in a few years' time—for the moment, I am sticking to the rural areas—the housing association movement will not be providing enough accommodation to make up for the loss in the council sector. That is why the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), and the hon. Members for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) are in trouble in their areas. That is why people in those areas are saying that their sons and daughters cannot find anywhere that they can afford to rent or buy and that is why the local work force, such as postmen, nurses, teachers and bus drivers, are saying that they cannot find anywhere to rent or buy at a price that they can afford. That is the housing crisis in rural areas. The shared ownership scheme has a small but important part to play. Most—if not all—political parties have always accepted that the shared ownership scheme is useful in helping people to bridge the gap between renting and owning, and we all want to encourage that scheme.
  I note that the Lords amendment refers to
  "the full equity or any specified share of the equity".
  The Government are trying to persuade the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale to accept what for him is a compromise. I must be careful. I accused the right hon. Gentleman on Report of not being prepared to press his amendment to a Division, but in fact he did so and he had my full respect for that. The compromise now concerns the amount of the equity and, more importantly, the small print of the deal, to which both I and the hon. Member for Honiton have referred in interventions.
  There is understandable anxiety that the housing association may not be able to ensure that it receives back the full amount of money to enable it to repurchase at the price that is being asked at that time. In other words, we must allow for house price inflation because, although we are now going through a slight flattening of the inflation curve on house prices, they are still going up and we know that they will probably go up quite steeply from the end of next year. The housing associations will be asked to pay that price at that time. If they cannot do that without drawing on their reserves, as a result of the tight squeeze they are in and the fact that they are being pushed by Government policy towards private sector finance, they will try to find ways of avoiding doing that. They will at least want to hold the Government to their commitment to fund them in some way.
  I notice that the Lords have tied their amendment to rural parishes with a population of 3,000 or fewer. I suspect that the problem goes wider and is affecting all rural areas. I also suspect that the problem for housing associations is the complex relationship that develops on the market price when they come to repurchase and, as the Minister himself acknowledged and as was mentioned in the Lords amendment, the question of the disposal of land price, the use of other funds and the payments of the grant at the time. The housing associations may have a deal, with the land price having an effect on that, but if the Government's price simply takes that into account without giving the housing associations sufficient funds to buy back the property at the price at the time without loss

  1069
  to their reserves, the housing associations will want to avoid such repurchases or, if they are forced to do so, will do so only at the expense of further housing investment in that area.
  Such investment may not necessarily be in new housing because it may be investment through repair and renovation schemes. Housing associations may deal with the problem by making up the money through other people's rents. If they do that there is a danger. Let no Conservative Member think that any extra money that the housing association has to find itself can be lost in rents without causing problems. Housing association rents went up last year by 24 per cent. We all know that they will go up again next year and, almost certainly, the year after, unless the Government change the rules that they have introduced. The housing associations are being asked to operate the shared ownership scheme, which is neither cheap nor an easy option. We must remember that the price people are being asked to pay is closer to a mortgage than a rent in most cases, which is one of the problems for people who get into difficulties changing a mortgage into a shared ownership scheme—which many of us would like to see. The difficulty is that the payments are often close to the amount of a full mortgage. Housing associations cannot pass on any surplus that they have picked up in rent without pushing up rent levels generally.
  I urge Conservative Members who are interested in this subject to think carefully about the wording and to hold the Government tightly to what appears, on paper, to be a tolerably good commitment to fund the associations. When one looks at the small print, one sees that housing associations will either have to find some extra money from their reserves and squeeze their building, repair and renovation programmes or lose the money in a rent increase. If they do not do that, they will try to avoid buying back because they will not receive the funding that they expected from the Government.
  I am deeply disturbed by the Government's proposal and I should have thought that it would have been best to accept the Lords amendment. It is worth reminding the House that some 111 Members of the House of Lords voted for the amendment, with only 38 against; some 10 Tory Members of the House of Lords supported the amendment, as did a significant number of Cross Benchers and a couple of bishops. It would be unwise for the Government to throw out the amendment without bearing in mind the fact that the issue attracted cross-party support in the Lords or without considering the cautionary note I have sounded. I advise the House to agree with the Lords amendment.
  Sir Peter Emery: I understand the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), which many of us have voiced. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Londsdale (Mr. Jopling), who brought this matter to our attention and pursued it in a proper and reasonable manner. We have been able to show the degree of flexibility of Government policy and of Government Ministers, which many of us have always believed to exist, although Governments are frequently not given credit for being flexible. We have certainly got much further with the Government than would have appeared obvious from the then Secretary of State's reply on a certain night, which did not even seem to understand the problem, let alone begin to meet it.
  1070
  The Government's solution has gone through the hoops—it has been closely examined by the Country Landowners Association and by the National Farmers Union. A Minister who can get those two bodies together and persuade them to welcome and agree on recommendations is not doing badly, and I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on having achieved that. As my hon. and learned Friend said, the solution should be monitored. We must make certain that it does what the Government and what those of us who have been pressing them want it to do.
  The decrease in the amount of local housing in agricultural areas is a major worry, as is now accepted by everybody and by the Government. The level of financing suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister slightly concerns me. The Opposition have a point that it may not be enough to meet the problems. One great difficulty is that in some constituencies—Honiton is a prime example—homes which in the past have always been established as agricultural cottages are now being snapped up by people from the midlands and elsewhere for use as retirement homes. A host of housing is being taken out of circulation that would previously never have been used for anything other than homes for those working in agriculture.
  The amount of assistance that may be necessary to sustain homes in agricultural areas needs to be monitored closely and I ask my hon. and learned Friend to give us an assurance that that will happen.
  I have one other question, with which my hon. and learned Friend did not deal, and which goes wider than low-cost agricultural housing. East Devon district council is very concerned about some of the restrictions that have been placed on it. The local authority purchased land a number of years ago at a reasonable price, very much lower than the market value, yet it is being forced to sell to housing associations at market prices. The housing associations then increase the cost of the housing to a level far higher than the local authority would wish. The local authority has applied to the Department, which has told it that it will have to sell in accordance with the market valuation of the land rather than at its purchase price. The ratepayers would in any case have got back the money spent on the purchase and it seems to me foolish that at a time when we are trying to encourage the provision of low-cost housing and starter homes the Ministry should insist that local authorities, which are in a position o provide low-cost land for such premises, should inflate the price of the land and sell it at market value. That may be to the benefit of the ratepayers, but it is of no benefit in trying to achieve what the local authorities and most people in the area would want—the provision of low-cost housing and starter homes. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will pursue that case with me..
  I urge my hon. and learned Friend to express our gratitude to those in the other place for pursuing our ideas and translating them into Lords amendments. Without the Lords, we might not have had such an excellent statement from the Government. I am happy to urge my hon. Friends to accept that statement so long as it is understood that the provision will be monitored over the next two or three years to ensure that it achieves the objectives that the Minister has outlined. If that can be done, we shall have achieved a considerable victory.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Fearn: I am happy to add my own support and that of my party to the support already voiced for Lords amendment No. 269. I should have liked it to apply much more widely. The fact that it refers to rural parishes with populations of 3,000 or fewer makes it a moderate move. I hope that Conservative Members will join many of their colleagues in the other place and agree to the amendment.
  As the House knows, the amendment received overwhelming support from all parties in the other place, whose members are knowledgeable about the provision of low-cost housing in rural areas. Many of their Lordships have spent much of their lives helping to provide homes for those who can least afford them. It is the provision of land —at its agricultural rather than its development value—by some of the Lords that makes some low-cost schemes possible. They have the interests of their community at heart, and we should do well to heed their expert advice. Many housing groups also agree with Lords amendment No. 269. Unfortunately, Ministers do not have a reputation for taking kindly to outside advice, especially if it is given to someone else.
  It may be admirable for the Government to claim that they are standing by the fundamental principle of their housing policy, which is the right to home ownership. But such a policy becomes somewhat dogmatic and foolhardy if it deprives hundreds, if not thousands, of people of the opportunity ever to have a home of their own. The policy is even more foolhardy if it leads to the devastation of whole communities, and that could still happen.
  I note that, by trebling the number of low-cost homes to be built in rural areas, the Government have recognised at least some of the problems, and that they have attempted to alleviate them by giving the housing associations the first right to buy. The fact that that right can only be exercised if they buy at open market prices will, as we heard, result in their being unable to buy, so the use of the houses will be lost to local people on low incomes.
  Claims that funds will be available for that purpose —for all houses once they have been accepted into the scheme—should be taken with a pinch of salt. The scheme is cash-limited. The Government are the least likely people to agree to an open-ended project. Housing associations wishing to apply for a grant from the Housing Corporation to provide rural low-cost housing will still have to compete with all the others.
  Homes will still be sold on the open market to people outside the community, and landowners, including some of their Lordships, the Churches and others, will be reluctant to make the land available, in spite of the Minister's statement about covenants. I did not quite understand that statement, incidentally. That will make it impossible for low-cost housing schemes to get off the ground in the first place.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Surely the whole point of the covenant is that they will be prepared to sell the land with that assurance.
  Mr. Fearn: Being a Conservative Member, the hon. Lady may have understood what the Minister said, but I do not think that it was clear. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that point later.
  Those affected are often vital to the community. They include nurses, farm workers and now even teachers.
  1072
  Unless the House agrees to the amendment as it stands, the housing blight in rural areas will not improve and the House will again preside over the break-up of many rural communities.
  Mr. Jopling: I must be losing my touch for judging the pace of progress of the business of the House. I was convinced during the debate on the timetable motion that there would not be time to discuss Lords amendment No. 269. Hence I made most of my remarks during the debate on the timetable motion, in hopeful anticipation of what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister would say. Now, having heard what he said, I shall add one or two remarks to supplement what I said earlier.
  Mr. David Nicholson: Would my right hon. Friend care to note the pressure on the Labour Benches yesterday during the debate and the pressure now?
  Mr. Jopling: There is one Labour Back-Bench Member present and we are delighted to see him.
  Mr. George Howarth rose——
  Mr. Jopling: I must get on.
  I am grateful for the kind remarks made about me and those who have supported me. I still believe that a better solution would have been that in the amendment. However, I do not intend to press that tonight, because the Government have a perfectly fair point. They have suggested, and it was recommended to me, that their solution should be tried for a little time. Therefore, I am happy to see how it works for 18 months and for us then to come back to it. I am grateful that the Government have said that they will review the matter. We shall have to do that.
  The Government have given us the assurances that they back the scheme which the previous Secretary of State elaborated in June. They have said that there are guarantees of adequate repurchase funds and that the scheme for repurchase will be available in the majority of rural areas. I welcome also the promise of increases in the rural rented and shared ownership programmes that the Minister has explained to us. We have the basis for a helpful experiment. I welcome the efforts that I know that Government have made to meet the strong points that have been made here and in another place. They have worked extremely hard to help us.
  We will have to see how the experiment works over the next 18 months, but the House is aware that I believe that the problems of rural housing amount to a crusade. I shall return to other problem arising on that issue over the months and years ahead. One of the problemss is with local authorities. We may have to return to that but there are other matters that we shall wish to discuss.
  This is one of the most important issues with which hon. Members should be dealing and, on that basis, I have advised all my right hon. and hon. Friends who have been good enough to support me in the past few months not to press our objections to the Government's intentions tonight. Therefore, I recommend that they should support the Government and the motion before us.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: As the sponsor of the early-day motion on rural housing in the previous Session of Parliament, I should like to take this opportunity to say

  1073
  two things to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister. First, I should like to pay tribute to him for listening to the plea from the countryside on this key issue and congratulate him on the concessions that he is making tonight. Secondly, he will not be surprised to hear me say that we shall be wanting to review progress during the next 18 months or so to see that the measure alleviates the problems.
  Mr. Howard: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
  I express my gratitude to my right hon. and hon. Friends for their remarks. I wish to respond briefly to two points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). First, on the availability of resources, it is important to remember that, because the shares that are purchased have to be purchased at market value, whatever that is, the difference between the market value—the funds from which go to the housing association—and the cost of repurchase, is not as great as it might at first appear.
  Secondly, I am looking at the point raised about the desire of some local authorities to make land available to housing associations at less than market price. I understand the problems to which that has given rise, and I and my Department are studying them. I commend the motion to the House.
  Mr. Soley: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
  I should have learnt my lesson. We have just had a clear demonstration that it is always a mistake to be generous to the Conservative party. I said that I would give time to Conservative Members to speak on rural housing as we know that that issue is hurting them much more than the Labour party because of the distribution of seats. Clearly, there will be fewer Labour Members in a debate of this nature because we have fewer rural Members. We need to and shall put that right. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) jumped up to point out that there are few Labour Back Benchers here. What does he expect? Why should I ever again give Conservative Members time to debate the issue? I could have spent much more time on this and future matters, and I will do so if necessary.
  I am troubled also by the way in which the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) said that he wanted to start a crusade on the issue. I welcome that, but I am more than a little puzzled that he is recommending that all his right hon. and hon. Friends should vote with the Government on what he sees as a watered down version of the Lords amendment, which is what he wanted initially. Now he is saying, "Let us make the crusade a bit weaker and lay down our swords for a while." He is urging them to make the crusade weaker in case they win.
  Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman should remember what I said in the timetable debate. The advice from the majority of the organisations which suggested those changes earlier in the year is that we should not object tonight to the Government's proposal and that we should let the experiment run.
  Mr. Soley: If the right hon. Gentleman wants the stronger position recommended by Members of the House of Lords from all parties—including the Conservative party—he will vote with us. It is as simple as that. If the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is
  1074
  going to have a crusade on this issue—I agree that it deserves one—could he widen it to join the crusade on housing in general? If there is a problem with housing in rural areas in terms of shared ownership, by God there is a problem with rented accommodation in all areas.
  There is also a desperate problem for those people who are trying to buy. In the Conservative heartlands such as east Sussex—one of the richest areas in the country—67 per cent. of the people who do not own their own homes◦ at present cannot afford to buy property there. There is a similar percentage—just over 60 per cent.—in Hampshire. In other counties in that area, over 50 per cent. of those who do not already own their own home cannot afford to buy. Furthermore, they cannot afford to rent, for all the reasons that I spelled out earlier.
  The Minister attempted to sell to his hon. Friends the idea that somehow or other the changes that he is making —although less effective than those suggested by the Lords —will considerably help the shared ownership schemes in rural areas. I accept that they will help at the margins, but I do not accept that the Minister has faced up to the problem in both the rented and purchase sectors that I put to him earlier. Until the Minister does something about the housing finance mess that the Government have got themselves into, housing associations will never be able to provide the necessary number of homes in rural areas that are affordable either for renting or shared ownership because they will not have the necessary resources.
  9 pm
  The Government are in difficulties on this point for two reasons. First, they want the housing association movement to use more private sector money and are therefore squeezing Government grants. The House will remember that the Government went through some uncertainty a couple of years ago about whether housing associations were or were not in the public sector. My view is that they are clearly in the public sector, but that does not rule out the possibility that they can, or indeed should, look for private money. I have no objection to that. However, we should not kid ourselves that the housing associations are anything other than in the public sector.
  If we are to enable housing associations to provide for the difference that was lost because of the cuts made in the council sector, we must increase the amount of money available to them and reform housing finance. What one must not do—the Government are busy doing this—is to make housing associations take over existing council housing. When a housing association in a rural area—especially in the south where this practice is now becoming quite common—seeks to take over council housing, usually at the request of a Conservative-controlled council, not one single house is added to the rented or purchase stock. It simply changes the management. However, the cost and the bureaucratic problems involved mean that housing associations spend less time on shared ownership schemes, on providing affordable housing or on doing the land deals that are necessary if they are to get some low-cost land, and that in turn compounds the Government's problem.
  Housing associations are still unable to provide the necessary accommodation. That is why Conservative Members such as the hon. Members for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and for Taunton—the latter of whom I shall try to tempt back on board although he has had the audacity to try to bite the hand that feeds him—are getting into

  1075
  trouble. I advise them that this is the tip of the iceberg. I am aware that that phrase is unfortunate in view of recent history, but this really is the tip of the iceberg.
  Unless the Government deliver a housing policy that provides affordable accommodation in the areas represented by Conservative Members, messing around with shared ownership schemes such as this will not help to solve their problems. Conservative Members will still find many of their constituents knocking on their doors, saying, "Where is my son or daughter going to live? Where are the local workers going to live?" I advise those hon. Members that that will continue.
  Finally, I am struck by a headline that I have seen this evening, which reads
  "Thatcher's plan to save the world".
  Apparently the Prime Minister addressed the United Nations with two people standing by wearing white coats. I wish that she had first directed her attention to the housing crisis that she has created here. If she wants to ignore the homeless kids on our streets and the problems in the inner cities, okay, but she should at least address herself to the Conservative areas where people can no longer afford either to rent or to buy.
  Many of the homeless kids on the streets of London, Birmingham, Manchester or Glasgow have come from rural areas. They are not necessarily inner-city kids. According to the Centrepoint study, about 40 per cent. come from outside London. Many come from areas represented by Conservative Members who, sadly, do not meet such people. Although Conservative Members had an opportunity to do so today, to the best of my knowledge only one Conservative Member went, but all credit to him for doing so. I wish that Conservative Members would talk to those kids, because many of them come from their areas. They have moved to London and to other cities because their local housing associations cannot deliver.
  This vote is important for the rural areas. There is much more about which I would dearly love to have spoken, but I have had to leave those topics out because the Government have chosen not to allow us to do so. That is their choice. On this vote, more than any other, Conservative Members should be in the Lobby with us rather than helping to water down the famous crusade that has been discovered suddenly by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale.
  There is nothing convincing about a crusade when its leaders presumably whip up the troops for action, then, when they are ready to go, turn around and say, "Okay, sit down again, fellas. We have decided not to sail for the Holy Land today; we shall sail in a couple of years when we have seen what the Government have delivered". That is some crusade. It is not convincing and I do not think it will convince the electorate in the rural areas.
  Question put,That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided:Ayes 232, Noes 195.

  Division No. 376]

  [9.05 pm>

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Alexander, Richard

  Ashby, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Amess, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Amos, Alan

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bellingham, Henry

  1076

  Benyon, W.

  Hannam, John

  Bevan, David Gilroy

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

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Harris, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hayward, Robert

  Bowis, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Heddle, John

  Brazier, Julian

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Bright, Graham

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hill, James

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hind, Kenneth

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Holt, Richard

  Burns, Simon

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Butcher, John

  Howard, Michael

  Butler, Chris

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Butterfill, John

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Carrington, Matthew

  Irvine, Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Irving, Charles

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Jack, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jackson, Robert

  Chope, Christopher

  Janman, Tim

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Colvin, Michael

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Conway, Derek

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Key, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Kilfedder, James

  Cran, James

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Critchley, Julian

  Knapman, Roger

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Day, Stephen

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Devlin, Tim

  Knox, David

  Dicks, Terry

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lang, Ian

  Dover, Den

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Dunn, Bob

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Durant, Tony

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Eggar, Tim

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lightbown, David

  Evennett, David

  Lilley, Peter

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fallon, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Favell, Tony

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Maclean, David

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Forman, Nigel

  Malins, Humfrey

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mans, Keith

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Maples, John

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Marlow, Tony

  Franks, Cecil

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Freeman, Roger

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gale, Roger

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Gill, Christopher

  Mills, Iain

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gow, Ian

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Gregory, Conal

  Moss, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Grist, Ian

  Neale, Gerrard

  Ground, Patrick

  Nelson, Anthony

  Grylls, Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hague, William

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  1077

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Thurnham, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Paice, James

  Tracey, Richard

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Tredinnick, David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Trippier, David

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Trotter, Neville

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Pawsey, James

  Viggers, Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Walden, George

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Waller, Gary

  Price, Sir David

  Ward, John

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Redwood, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Renton, Tim

  Watts, John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wheeler, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Whitney, Ray

  Ritkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wilkinson, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stevens, Lewis

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Wood, Timothy

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mr. Stephen Dorrell and Mr. Tom Sackville

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dalyell, Tam

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Darling, Alistair

  Allen, Graham

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Alton, David

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Dewar, Donald

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dixon, Don

  Ashton, Joe

  Dobson, Frank

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Barron, Kevin

  Eadie, Alexander

  Beckett, Margaret

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Beith, A. J.

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Bell, Stuart

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fatchett, Derek

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

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fearn, Ronald

  Blair, Tony

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Boyes, Roland

  Fields, Terry (L pool B G'n)

  Bradley, Keith

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Flannery, Martin

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Flynn, Paul

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Foster, Derek

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fraser, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Fyfe, Maria

  Buckley, George J.

  Galloway, George

  Caborn, Richard

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  George, Bruce

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gordon, Mildred

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Gould, Bryan

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clay, Bob

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clelland, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Cohen, Harry

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Coleman, Donald

  Haynes, Frank

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Corbett, Robin

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Cousins, Jim

  Henderson, Doug

  Crowther, Stan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cryer, Bob

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cummings, John

  Home Robertson, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  1078

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Patchett, Terry

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Illsley, Eric

  Prescott, John

  Ingram, Adam

  Radice, Giles

  Janner, Greville

  Randall, Stuart

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Redmond, Martin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Richardson, Jo

  Kennedy, Charles

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lambie, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lamond, James

  Rowlands, Ted

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Ruddock, Joan

  Leighton, Ron

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lewis, Terry

  Short, Clare

  Litherland, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Livingstone, Ken

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Livsey, Richard

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

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Snape, Peter

  McCartney, lan

  Soley, Clive

  McGrady, Eddie

  Spearing, Nigel

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McKelvey, William

  Stott, Roger

  McLeish, Henry

  Strang, Gavin

  Maclennan, Robert

  Straw, Jack

  McNamara, Kevin

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McWilliam, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Madden, Max

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Turner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Vaz, Keith

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wallace, James

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Martlew, Eric

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Maxton, John

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Michael, Alun

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wilson, Brian

  Morley, Elliot

  Winnick, David

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Worthington, Tony

  Mullin, Chris

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Murphy, Paul

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Tellers for the Noes:

  O'Brien, William

  Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Frank Cook.

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  It being more than two hours after the commencement of The proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order this day, designated those amendments which appeared to him to involve questions of privilege.
  Lords amendment No. 266 agreed to. [Special Entry.]
  MR. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown,That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords amendment.
  Lords amendment: No. 265, after clause 140, insert the following new Clause—Charges: temporary traffic signs.—
  Notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law to the contrary, or the provisions of sections 138 to 140 above, a highway authority may not impose a charge for permitting temporary traffic signs to be placed on or near any road in their area by an organisation representative of road users under section 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended by the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 in its application to Scotland."
  Motion made, and question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.— [Mr. Howard.]
  Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order this day—
  The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 126.

  Division No. 377]

  [9.22 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Alexander, Richard

  Gow, Ian

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Amess, David

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Amos, Alan

  Gregory, Conal

  Arbuthnot, James

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Grist, Ian

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Ground, Patrick

  Ashby, David

  Hague, William

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Hannam, John

  Atkins, Robert

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

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Harris, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Beggs, Roy

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Hayward, Robert

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hill. James

  Brazier, Julian

  Hind, Kenneth

  Bright, Graham

  Holt, Richard

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Howard, Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Burns, Simon

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Butcher, John

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Butler, Chris

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Butterfill, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Irvine, Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Irving, Charles

  Carrington, Matthew

  Jack, Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Jackson, Robert

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Janman, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Colvin, Michael

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Conway, Derek

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Key, Robert

  Cran, James

  Kilfedder, James

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Day, Stephen

  Knapman, Roger

  Devlin, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dicks, Terry

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knox, David

  Dover, Den

  Lang, Ian

  Dunn, Bob

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Durant, Tony

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Eggar, Tim

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evennett, David

  Lightbown, David

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lilley, Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Favell, Tony

  Lord, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Forman, Nigel

  Malins, Humfrey

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mans, Keith

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Maples, John

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Marlow, Tony

  Franks, Cecil

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Freeman, Roger

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gale, Roger

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Gill, Christopher

  Mills, Iain

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  1080

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Moss, Malcolm

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Neubert, Michael

  Thurnham, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tracey, Richard

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Trippier, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Trotter, Neville

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Paice, James

  Viggers, Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Walden, George

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Waller, Gary

  Pawsey, James

  Ward, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Watts, John

  Price, Sir David

  Wheeler, John

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Whitney, Ray

  Redwood, John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Renton, Tim

  Wilkinson, John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Riddick, Graham

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wood, Timothy

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Shersby, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mr. Stephen Dorrell and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Fisher, Mark

  Alton, David

  Flannery, Martin

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Flynn, Paul

  Ashton, Joe

  Fyfe, Maria

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Barron, Kevin

  Gordon, Mildred

  Beith, A. J.

  Gould, Bryan

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

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Grocott, Bruce

  Blair, Tony

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bradley, Keith

  Haynes, Frank

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Henderson, Doug

  Buchan, Norman

  Hinchliffe, David

  Buckley, George J.

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Caborn, Richard

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Illsley, Eric

  Cohen, Harry

  Janner, Greville

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Crowther, Stan

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cummings, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lamond, James

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lewis, Terry

  Darling, Alistair

  Livsey, Richard

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

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dixon, Don

  Loyden, Eddie

  Doran, Frank

  McGrady, Eddie

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McLeish, Henry

  Eadie, Alexander

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  McWilliam, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Madden, Max

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Fearn, Ronald

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  1081

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maxton, John

  Snape, Peter

  Michael, Alun

  Soley, Clive

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Straw, Jack

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morley, Elliot

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Vaz, Keith

  Murphy, Paul

  Wallace, James

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Patchett, Terry

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Pike, Peter L.

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Randall, Stuart

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Reid, Dr John

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Richardson, Jo

  Winnick, David

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Short, Clare

  Mr. Michael Welsh and Mr. Martin Redmond.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Amendment proposed in lieu of the Lords amendment: (a), after clause 140, insert the following new Clause—Charges: temporary traffic signs—
  `(1) In section 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (powers and duties of highways authorities and roads authorities as to placing of traffic signs) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(3A) No charge may be made—

  (a) in England and Wales, by a highway authority which is the council of a county, metropolitan district or London borough or the Common Council of the City of London, or

  (b) in Scotland, by a local roads authority,

  with respect to the exercise of their power under subsection (1) above to permit a traffic sign to be placed on or near any road in their area if—

  (i) the sign conveys information of a temporary nature or is otherwise intended to be placed only temporarily; and

  (ii) the sign is to be placed by a body which is prescribed for the purposes of this subsection as being a body appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of the interests of road users or any class of road users."

  (2) Subsection (1) above does not apply in any case where, before this section comes into force, the payment of a chargehas been agreed.'.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
  Question put forthwith, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided:: Ayes 197, Noes 118.

  Division No. 378]

  [9.34 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Alexander, Richard

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Amess, David

  Burns, Simon

  Amos, Alan

  Butcher, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Butler, Chris

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Butterfill, John

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Ashby, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carrington, Matthew

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Batiste, Spencer

  Chapman, Sydney

  Beggs, Roy

  Chope, Christopher

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Colvin, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Conway, Derek

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Cran, James

  Brazier, Julian

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bright, Graham

  Day, Stephen

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Devlin, Tim

  1082

  Dorrell, Stephen

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Dover, Den

  Malins, Humfrey

  Dunn, Bob

  Mans, Keith

  Durant, Tony

  Marlow, Tony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Eggar, Tim

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Evennett, David

  Miller. Sir Hal

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Mills, Iain

  Fallon, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Favell, Tony

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Forman, Nigel

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Neale, Gerrard

  Franks, Cecil

  Nelson, Anthony

  Freeman, Roger

  Neubert, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Paice, James

  Gow, Ian

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Pawsey, James

  Gregory, Conal

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Grist, Ian

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Ground, Patrick

  Price, Sir David

  Hague, William

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hannam, John

  Redwood, John

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

  Renton, Tim

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Harris, David

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hayward, Robert

  Shersby, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Stevens, Lewis

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Hill, James

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Holt, Richard

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Hunter, Andrew

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Irvine, Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Irving, Charles

  Trippier, David

  Jack, Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Jackson, Robert

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Janman, Tim

  Viggers, Peter

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Walden, George

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Waller, Gary

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Ward, John

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Key, Robert

  Warren, Kenneth

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Watts, John

  Knapman, Roger

  Wheeler, John

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Whitney, Ray

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Knox, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Lang, Ian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Wood, Timothy

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Lilley, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Lord, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  1083

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Alton, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ashton, Joe

  Lamond, James

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Lewis, Terry

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Livsey, Richard

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Barron, Kevin

  Loyden, Eddie

  Beith, A. J.

  McGrady, Eddie

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

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  McLeish, Henry

  Blair, Tony

  McNamara, Kevin

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  McWilliam, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Madden, Max

  Buckley, George J.

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Caborn, Richard

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Martlew, Eric

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Maxton, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Carlile, Alex (Monf'g)

  Michael, Alun

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Cohen, Harry

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Crowther, Stan

  Morley, Elliot

  Cryer, Bob

  Murphy, Paul

  Cummings, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Patchett, Terry

  Dalyell, Tam

  Pike, Peter L.

  Darling, Alistair

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

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

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Dixon, Don

  Randall, Stuart

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Richardson, Jo

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Eadie, Alexander

  Ruddock, Joan

  Eastham, Ken

  Short, Clare

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Fatchett, Derek

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

  Fearn, Ronald

  Snape, Peter

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Soley, Clive

  Flannery, Martin

  Spearing, Nigel

  Flynn, Paul

  Straw, Jack

  Fyfe, Maria

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  George, Bruce

  Vaz, Keith

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Wall, Pat

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Wallace, James

  Gordon, Mildred

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Gould, Bryan

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Haynes, Frank

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Henderson, Doug

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Winnick, David

  Home Robertson, John

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Illsley, Eric

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Janner, Greville

  Mr. Michael Welsh and Mr. Martin Redmond.

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 11

  ENACTMENTS REPEALED
  Lords amendment: No. 582, in page 222, line 55, column 3, at beginning insert—

  "Section 69.".

  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Howard.]
  Question put forthwith:—
  The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 105.

  Divislon No 379]

  [9.47 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Hague, William

  Alexander, Richard

  Hannam, John

  Amess, David

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

  Amos, Alan

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Harris, David

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Ashby, David

  Hayward, Robert

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Hill, James

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Hind, Kenneth

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Brazier, Julian

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bright, Graham

  Irvine, Michael

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Jack, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Jackson, Robert

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Janman, Tim

  Burns, Simon

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Butcher, John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Butler, Chris

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Butterfill, John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Key, Robert

  Carrington, Matthew

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Knapman, Roger

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Chope, Christopher

  Lang, Ian

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Colvin, Michael

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Conway, Derek

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lightbown, David

  Cran, James

  Lilley, Peter

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Day, Stephen

  Lord, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Dover, Den

  Malins, Humfrey

  Dunn, Bob

  Mans, Keith

  Durant, Tony

  Marlow, Tony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Eggar, Tim

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Evennett, David

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Mills, Iain

  Favell, Tony

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Forman, Nigel

  Moss, Malcolm

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Neale, Gerrard

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Nelson, Anthony

  Franks, Cecil

  Neubert, Michael

  Freeman, Roger

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Gale, Roger

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Gill, Christopher

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Paice, James

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Patnick, Irvine

  Gow, Ian

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Pawsey, James

  Gregory, Conal

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Grist, Ian

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Ground, Patrick

  Price, Sir David

  1085

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Trotter, Neville

  Redwood, John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Renton, Tim

  Viggers, Peter

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Waller, Gary

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Ward, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shersby, Michael

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stevens, Lewis

  Watts, John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wheeler, John

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Wilkinson, John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wood, Timothy

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mr. Michael Fallon and Mr. John M. Taylor.

  Tracey, Richard

  Trippier, David

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Alton, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ashton, Joe

  Lamond, James

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Livsey, Richard

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Barron, Kevin

  McGrady, Eddie

  Beith, A. J.

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

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

  McLeish, Henry

  Bermingham, Gerald

  McNamara, Kevin

  Blair, Tony

  McWilliam, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Madden, Max

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Buckley, George J.

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Maxton, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Meale, Alan

  Canavan, Dennis

  Michael, Alun

  Carlile, Alex (Monfg)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Cohen, Harry

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Murphy, Paul

  Cryer, Bob

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Patchett, Terry

  Dalyell, Tam

  Pike, Peter L.

  Darling, Alistair

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

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

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Dewar, Donald

  Randall, Stuart

  Dixon, Don

  Redmond, Martin

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Richardson, Jo

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Eadie, Alexander

  Ruddock, Joan

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Short, Clare

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fearn, Ronald

  Spearing, Nigel

  Flannery, Martin

  Straw, Jack

  Flynn, Paul

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Foster, Derek

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Vaz, Keith

  George, Bruce

  Wall, Pat

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Wallace, James

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Haynes, Frank

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Henderson, Doug

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Hinchliffe, David

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Home Robertson, John

  Winnick, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Illsley, Eric

  Janner, Greville

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Ronnie Campbell.

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  MR. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith, with respect to the amendments designated by him which had not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments.
  The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 98.

  Division No. 380]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Alexander, Richard

  Gregory, Conal

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Amess, David

  Grist, Ian

  Amos, Alan

  Ground, Patrick

  Arbuthnot, James

  Hague, William

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Hannam,John

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

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

  Ashby, David

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Harris, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Batiste, Spencer

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Hayward, Robert

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hill, James

  Brazier, Julian

  Hind, Kenneth

  Bright, Graham

  Holt, Richard

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Burns, Simon

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Butcher, John

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Butler, Chris

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Butterfill, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Irvine, Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Jack, Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Jackson, Robert

  Carttiss, Michael

  Janman, Tim

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Chope, Christopher

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Colvin, Michael

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Key, Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Cran, James

  Knapman, Roger

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Day, Stephen

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Devlin, Tim

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Dover, Den

  Lightbown, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Lilley, Peter

  Durant, Tony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lord, Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Evennett, David

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fallon, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Favell, Tony

  Marlow, Tony

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Forman, Nigel

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Mills, Iain

  Franks, Cecil

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Freeman, Roger

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Gale, Roger

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Gill, Christopher

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir lan

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Neale, Gerrard

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Neubert, Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Gow, lan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  1087

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Thurnham, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Paice, James

  Tracey, Richard

  Patnick, Irvine

  Trippier, David

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Trotter, Neville

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Twinn, Dr lan

  Pawsey, James

  Viggers, Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Waller, Gary

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Ward, John

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Redwood, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Renton, Tim

  Watts, John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wheeler, John

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Whitney, Ray

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wilkinson, John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wood, Timothy

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Alton, David

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Ashton, Joe

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Lamond, James

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Livsey, Richard

  Beith, A. J.

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

  Loyden, Eddie

  Bermingham, Gerald

  McGrady, Eddie

  Blair, Tony

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Boateng, Paul

  McLeish, Henry

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Buckley, George J.

  McWilliam, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Maxton, John

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Meale, Alan

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Michael, Alun

  Cohen, Harry

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Cryer, Bob

  Murphy, Paul

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Patchett, Terry

  Dalyell, Tam

  Pike, Peter L.

  Darling, Alistair

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

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

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Dewar, Donald

  Redmond, Martin

  Dixon, Don

  Richardson, Jo

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Rowlands, Ted

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Ruddock, Joan

  Eadie, Alexander

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fatchett, Derek

  Straw, Jack

  Fearn, Ronald

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Flannery, Martin

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Flynn, Paul

  Wall, Pat

  Foster, Derek

  Wallace, James

  Fyfe, Maria

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Haynes, Frank

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Winnick, David

  Home Robertson, John

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Illsley, Eric

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Janner, Greville

  Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Ronnie Campbell.

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Queston accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords amendments.
  The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 86.

  Division No. 381]

  [10.12 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Ground, Patrick

  Alexander, Richard

  Hague, William

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Hannam, John

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

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

  Amos, Alan

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Harris, David

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Ashby, David

  Hayward, Robert

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Hill, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Hind, Kenneth

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Brazier, Julian

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bright, Graham

  Irvine, Michael

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Jack, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Jackson, Robert

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Janman, Tim

  Burns, Simon

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Butcher, John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Butler, Chris

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Carrington, Matthew

  Key, Robert

  Carttiss, Michael

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Knapman, Roger

  Chope, Christopher

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Colvin, Michael

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Conway, Derek

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lightbown, David

  Cran, James

  Lilley, Peter

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Day, Stephen

  Lord, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Dover, Den

  Malins, Humfrey

  Dunn, Bob

  Mans, Keith

  Durant, Tony

  Marlow, Tony

  Eggar, Tim

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Evennett, David

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Favell, Tony

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Mills, Iain

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Forman, Nigel

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Moss, Malcolm

  Franks, Cecil

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Freeman, Roger

  Neale, Gerrard

  Gale, Roger

  Neubert, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Gow, Ian

  Paice, James

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Gregory, Conal

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Pawsey, James

  Grist, Ian

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  1089

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Trotter, Neville

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Redwood, John

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Renton, Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Warren, Kenneth

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Watts, John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wheeler, John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Whitney, Ray

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wilkinson, John

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Wood, Timothy

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mr. Michael Fallon and Mr. John M. Taylor.

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  McGrady, Eddie

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Beith, A. J.

  McLeish, Henry

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

  McNamara, Kevin

  Blair, Tony

  McWilliam, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburr

  Caborn, Richard

  Maxton, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Meale, Alan

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Michael, Alun

  Canavan, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Carlile, Alex (Monfg)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Cohen, Harry

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Murphy, Paul

  Cryer, Bob

  Patchett, Terry

  Cummings, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Quin, Ms Joyce

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

  Redmond, Martin

  Dewar, Donald

  Richardson, Jo

  Dixon, Don

  Rowlands, Ted

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Ruddock, Joan

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Eadie, Alexander

  Spearing, Nigel

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Straw, Jack

  Fearn, Ronald

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Flannery, Martin

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Flynn, Paul

  Wallace, James

  Foster, Derek

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Fyte, Maria

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Haynes, Frank

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Hinchliffe, David

  Winnick, David

  Home Robertson, John

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jones, leuan (Ynys M6n)

  Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. George J. Buckley.

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Livsey, Richard

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question,
  That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 272, 269 and 582; that Mr. Sidney Chapman, Mr. Christopher Chope, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, Mr. Paul Murphy and Mr. Clive Soley be members of the Committee; that three be the quorum of the Committee; that the committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  The House proceeded to a Division——
  Mr. A. J. Beith(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that now the House has gone through the procedure of voting for huge blocks of amendments without separate debate or even separate vote it is now required to vote on the composition of a committee while the guillotine precludes any amendment to the composition of that committee? Presumably this is the only occasion when the House appoints a committee the membership of which cannot be varied by the House?
  Mr. Speaker: That is the case, but, of course, the House can vote against that committee, as is happening.
  The House having divided: Ayes 164, Noes 24.

  Division No. 382]

  [10.24 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Amess, David

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Amos, Alan

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Arbuthnot, James

  Gow, lan

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Ashby, David

  Gregory, Conal

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Grist, Ian

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Hague, William

  Batiste, Spencer

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

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Harris, David

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hayward, Robert

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Bright, Graham

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hill, James

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Butcher, John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Butler, Chris

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Carttiss, Michael

  Irvine, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jack, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Jackson, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Janman, Tim

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Colvin, Michael

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Conway, Derek

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Key, Robert

  Cran, James

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knapman, Roger

  Day, Stephen

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Devlin, Tim

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Dover, Den

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Dunn, Bob

  Lightbown, David

  Eggar, Tim

  Lilley, Peter

  Evennett, David

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Favell, Tony

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Mans, Keith

  Flynn, Paul

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Forman, Nigel

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Franks, Cecil

  Mills, Iain

  Freeman, Roger

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gale, Roger

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Monro, Sir Hector

  1091

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Trotter, Neville

  Paice, James

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Patnick, Irvine

  Viggers, Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Waller, Gary

  Pawsey, James

  Wardle, Charies (Bexhill)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Warren, Kenneth

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Watts, John

  Redwood, John

  Wheeler, John

  Renton, Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Riddick, Graham

  Wilkinson, John

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wood, Timothy

  Stevens, Lewis

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. John M. Taylor.

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  1092

  NOES

  Alton, David

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Canavan, Dennis

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Wallace, James

  Cohen, Harry

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Cryer, Bob

  Winnick, David

  Fearn, Ronald

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Alan Beith.

  Livsey, Richard

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  Employment Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
Clause 8
  POWER TO EXEMPT DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOUR OF LONE

    PARENTS IN CONNECTION WITH TRAINING
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 7, line 27, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
    "(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide with respect to—

    (a) any specified arrangements made under section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973 (functions of the Secretary of State as respects employment and training), or

    (b) any specified class or description of training for employment provided otherwise than in pursuance of that section, or

    (c) any specified scheme set up under section 1 of the Employment Subsidies Act 1978 (schemes for financing employment),

    that this section shall apply to such special treatment afforded to or in respect of lone parents in connection with their participation in those arrangements, or in that training or scheme, as is specified or referred to in the order."
    10.35 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
    Mr. Nicholls: The purpose of the amendments do not, which were introduced in Committee in another place, is to extend the scope of clause 8 to cover employment and enterprise programmes as well as training schemes. The clause, without the amendments, would have given the Secretary of State the power to exempt, by order, special treatment in favour of lone parents in training for employment from being unlawful discrimination against married persons under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. However, the clause as it stood would not have allowed exemption of similar arrangements which it might in future he thought desirable to introduce in the Department's other programmes, perhaps in the field of employment and enterprise.
    The clause was generally welcomed when it was introduced towards the end of proceedings in this House, as were the Government's amendments aimed at widening the scope of the clause when they were introduced in another place. The amendments are designed to cover the whole range of the Department's current and possible future employment and enterprise measures, including activities such as the enterprise allowance scheme, job clubs and job share. But they do not give the Government a blank cheque. The Secretary of State would have to make orders specifying the special treatment for lone parents and the particular arrangements or scheme to which the exemption would apply. The orders would be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The amendments do not represent a commitment by the Government to extend special help for lone parents to other areas of the Department's activities. We have no immediate plans to do so. We shall first need to see what happens in employment training.
    1094
    However, the amendments provide the necessary flexibility to allow for future developments in provision for lone parents and for that reason I commend them to the House.
    I want to say a word or two about the attitude that some Opposition Members may have to these provisions. I said that they were generally welcomed, but I am aware that there is a feeling that they perhaps should have been extended more widely and that instead of merely being targeted on lone parents they might have been extended to couples, on a means-tested basis. Inevitably money is always limited and the Government had to decide what they could do to help the most significantly disadvantaged group to come forward for employment training. There is no doubt that lone parents are significantly disadvantaged and they consist overwhelmingly, although not exclusively, of women. So the Government thought it right initially to introduce this scheme to help lone parents. However the debate may have proceeded since, at the time the proposals were welcomed.
    Ms. Jo Richardson: As the Minister said, amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 extend the application of clause 8 from training schemes alone to other employment and enterprise programmes. The new areas that he mentioned which would be affected by the amendments are the enterprise allowance scheme, job share and job clubs and the like.
    We supported clause 8 in Committee and on Report, albeit with reservations about the non-application to married people. However, several developments have come to light since then and they have changed our welcome to dismay; indeed, they force us to divide the House over the amendments.
    We are now in possession of the full facts—I am surprised that the Minister did not mention them—about the implications of the industrial tribunal decision to which the then Minister obliquely referred in Committee on May 17. We have spoken to the woman who took the case against the Government, and several times this week we have spoken to the Equal Opportunities Commission which represents the woman and supports her claim.
    I apologise to the House for listing the fairly complicated scenario of that case, but the case is extremely important. The facts are that lone parents can have child care costs of up to £50 a week paid when they take up a place on employment training. As the Minister has said, married women did not have that entitlement. Kay Jackson, the woman in question, is married with three children under five. She had been offered a place on employment training but was unable to take up the offer because her allowance and her husband's salary would not have been sufficient for three lots of child care.
    Much as she wanted to, Mrs. Jackson could not go on the training scheme. Therefore, on 5 January she took the Government to the tribunal on the ground that they had discriminated against married women. The tribunal upheld that claim on 19 January. The Government have just appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal, but the decision has not yet been made known. In any case, clause 8 and the three Lords amendments circumvent the decision. As the Minister has said, they allow the Secretary of State to make an order after Royal Assent that will make legal discrimination against married women in the

    1095
    provision of child care. That means that the Government are changing the law retroactively to cover what they would have to put in place if they lost their appeal.
    The discrimination does not apply just to employment training because with the three Lords amendments the Government have extended the discrimination to the areas that I have mentioned—the enterprise allowance scheme, job share, job clubs and the like. Lord Strathclyde somehow managed to avoid all mention of the industrial tribunal when the matter was debated in another place. However, he said:
    "An extension of such help to all parents training on the scheme would be hard to justify."—[Official Report, House of Lords,16 October 1989; Vol. 511, c. 676.]
    He estimated that 20 per cent. of employment training entrants taking up child care costs would add an extra £100 million to the cost of the scheme.
    We now know that because of the low take-up of employment training there are sufficient funds to pay for that. In other words, the £100 million could be found without going outside the amount set aside. I understand that about £3 billion was allocated for an employment training programme with 600,000 people over a year. When the Government failed to reach the target they reduced it from 600,000 to 540,000. They are still 100,000 entrants short. Money has been allocated for that and could be used to cater for married women who wish to take up employment training or enter one of the other schemes and apply for child care.
    Many women do not go in for employment training either because they cannot afford to do so or because they are not eligible. The Government cannot fill all the places. Quite by chance last Friday I visited a training agency in my constituency. I am pleased to say that it is managed largely by women and has a good equal opportunities policy. The people in the agency complained bitterly that married women could not take up the places in the agency because it could not give them money for child care.
    Why do not the Government kill two birds with one stone? The solution is here for all to see, except for those who do not want to see it. In the past few months, even the Government have claimed to notice the importance of women to the labour market. We are constantly hearing, and I am glad to hear it, of notices from the ministerial committee on women's issues saying that women will be required in the workplace in the 1990s, but here we have the opportunity, and apparently the money, to extend these schemes to allow married women to take them up and to have child care, but the Government will not do it.
    10.45 pm
    In the White Paper of December 1988, the Government told employers, in paragraph 1.8, that they
    "must recognise that women can no longer be treated as second-class workers."
    I echo that, and I hope that every hon. Member does. I am infinitely grateful for this change of heart. Many employers, aided and abetted by the Government, have treated women as second-class workers for the past decade and even longer. They have removed protection for part-time workers, the majority of whom are women, reduced the jurisdiction of wages councils for the lower paid, the majority of whom are women, and taxed workplace nurseries as a perk—a perk for whom? The majority of those affected in that case are also women. It
    1096
    sticks in my throat when the Government say that women should be treated like first-class citizens when they do no: take the legislative action that would enable them to be so.
    Let us take the Government at their word and see what remedies they propose. The White Paper suggests broadening company training policies, flexibility of work and hours, and job sharing. This is specifically
    "to facilitate the employment of women with families."
    In that case, why is there nothing about child care, possibly the single most important facility for women wanting to start work or return to work, and why does that not apply to married women?
    I shall recap the argument briefly because I want it to be clear in my mind and the minds of my hon. Friends. When a decision of the European Court goes against the Government, they always say that they are bound by British law and do not want to take any notice of European law—at least, that is the general impression that they give. When British law does not suit them, as it apparently does not in this case, they change the law, as the amendments do.
    The Government appear to be awaiting a decision on ET. Assuming that they lose their appeal, and Mrs. Jackson wins, will they honour that decision, or will they use the provisions in these amendments to overcome what Mrs. Jackson has so rightly won in her long case? What will happen to the other six or seven cases that are continuing?
    I strongly disapprove of the Government introducing changes on the basis of a negative order. Such important changes should be subject to the affirmative vote of both Houses of Parliament. I should like an answer from the Minister, but I have a strong feeling that he will resist extending the provision to married women. Therefore, I shall invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the amendments.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: The amendments raise certain issues which I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider. We talk about the family, and we all have a concept of the family. Many of us think of happy children being brought up in a household which gives them the support, love and care that they need all the time. Yet the reality is that many children are brought up by lone parents. They are the children of divorced parents, parents who have never married or widowed parents. Such children have a much tougher life, perhaps, than those who are brought up in the sort of family that I described initially.
    The Government have been scorned for some time for supposedly failing to recognise that the pattern of the family has changed dramatically from the old-style paterfamilias family with a head of household who works, who is undoubtedly a man, with a non-working wife and with children at home growing up extremely nicely. The truth is that the Government have recognised that the pattern has changed. They are not behind in reading social trends. They have noticed that a significant classification of the new poor is the single parent bringing up young children.
    The majority of single parents are female, and they are the women who have such immense difficulty in getting out of the so-called poverty trap—in other words, being able to find a job—because they may not have been very well trained. Many of the bed-and-breakfast cases with which I am aware, even in my constituency, consist of women

    1097
    who have failed to cope with life in that they have not taken advantage of their education and training opportunities. There are others who have had children at an early age. For example, one of my constituents who is 17 years of age has twins and is apart from the father of her children. She is living with her mother. These girls—by and large they are no more than girls—find it extremely tough to make a start and become self-reliant, and they end up in bed-and-breakfast accommodation of the sort that we are all well aware of and concerned about.
    I cannot do other than welcome the Minister's departmental commitment to support for what we are calling lone parents. It is a most laudable thing to be doing. I am delighted to know that the Department is providing lone parents with a £50 child care allowance when they embark on training schemes. That is exceptionally good news. I am more pleased than I can say. These are the very people who are in the greatest need. Are we not committed as a nation and a Government to helping the poorest of the poor, whether that involves overseas aid or aid within the United Kingdom? It must be our objective to help those who are in the greatest need.
    Here we have the horns of a dilemma. If we are to help those who are in the greatest need, we must first identify them. We have to make a judgment, and lone parents have been recognised generally as being an extremely needy group. The Child Poverty Action Group—a most eminent group—supports this stance. Once we have identified such a group we have enormous pangs of conscience because there is the rest of the world to consider. There are many others who have needs and they must be treated equally and given the same sort of treatment as we afford to those who are in the greatest need. That is the dilemma, and perhaps that is the illogicality on which the Opposition find themselves resting this evening.
    Although I wish to help all members of my sex, I find a little difficulty in solidly identifying someone who is not a lone parent as necessarily a married woman. There must be others who are bringing up children. There must be married men who are doing so, for a start. There must be parted women who are not married. There must be parted men who are not married. In all these groups there must be some who have children. However, I wish always to help my own sex.
    I recognise the great difficulty that some married women find in returning to the job market. In the information technology industry, for example, there are equal opportunities and equal pay. Why are married women supposedly seeking work not entering that industry? Clearly, carrots must be offered there. Again, we are making a judgment on a particular group and saying that they need some form of special treatment. Yet if we were supporting a women-in-technology campaign, we would not also be supporting a men-in-technology campaign because there would not be that need. Therefore, I am forced by logic to accept that, however difficult it is, we must identify some groups as more disadvantaged than others at any particular point in time and channel assistance to them.
    I firmly support the Government in their child care concept for lone parents. I have great concern for lone parents and I have employed many of them during my time as an employer. However, I make the plea that my hon. Friend the Minister should not ignore the readily identifiable needs of married women wanting to return to the job market. I am not suggesting that because lone
    1098
    parents are being helped other sectors of human society must also be helped; I am simply identifying them as a group which also has special needs.
    On the understanding that the amendments are good and must be accepted by the House, I ask my hon. Friend to give a commitment that he will listen again to the Equal Opportunities Commission, which has voiced its concerns to me, and consider whether there are further ways in which his Department can help another disadvantaged group—the married women at home who have not been earning because they have been bringing up their children and supporting whatever concept of the family we happen to fancy at any given moment. I hope that my hon. Friend will think of their needs and consider ways to help them back into the job market, because the job market certainly needs them.
    Mr. James Wallace: Many people would share the view of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), not only in stressing the importance of giving help to lone parents who wish to undertake training but in suggesting that there must also be ways of encouraging the many married women who want to re-enter the job market to do so, and not least those who have been out of work for family or other reasons and have not qualified for unemployment benefit.
    One of the weaknesses of the employment training scheme is that insufficient attention has been given to encouraging women to return to work. That is to be regretted for a number of reasons, including a woman's right to choose whether she wishes to re-enter the job market and the fact that not only one parents but also many married parents suffer hardship and face the necessity of having to go to work to try to make ends meet. This matter is important to employers and to the community because job structures will change over the next decade and into the next century.
    The Government recognise that it will be necessary to encourage more women to return to work. The Secretary of State said recently that a survey of 2,000 companies showed that only one in three was trying to adapt employment and training practices to try to tap alternative sources, and that very few were far down the road towards providing child care facilities.
    I have been corresponding with the Minister about cases in my constituency. The fishermen are away from home for much of the week and their wives want to work, but they do not qualify for the £50 per week child care allowance because they are married. In most instances, that prevents them seeking the training that they undoubtedly want. There is a clear need to extend the allowance.
    The House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) for highlighting the case of Mrs. Jackson. The question of resources is important, but from what the hon. Lady said it appears that there might be sufficient resources—a point with which the Minister must deal in his reply.
    We are discussing ways in which to encourage women and lone parents, male and female, to come back into the job market through training. There is not much point in getting them trained, however, if they cannot take up jobs because of a lack of child care facilities as a result of the current tax regime affecting workplace nurseries. We must go much further than reforming that tax regime, however.

    1099
    The problem is especially acute for women who want to take jobs where there are no workplace nurseries. We must expand the state nursery sector.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, on an interpretation of social security law, a woman could be told to take a job, having gone through a training scheme, not get any child care benefits, be on a low wage and therefore be unable to take the job because she cannot get anyone to look after her child—she would not be able to afford it—and end up out of work, having been trained?
    Mr. Wallace: That sounds a plausible set of circumstances. There is a barrier to returning to work, and much more must be done about it.
    It is regrettable that the Government have not responded more positively to the modest extension that the hon. Member for Barking has suggested. The Lords amendments are good as far as they go, but they do not go far enough.
    11 pm
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: I believe that lack of child care is one of the main reasons why women do not enter the labour market, why they do not get on once they get a job and why they do not go on training courses. Lone parents struggle more than other people, but married women in low-income families experience great difficulty in taking up employment and training opportunities.
    It seems that the Government accept that training is necessary but also ensure that it cannot be taken up. The Equal Opportunities Commission believes that the Government discriminate. If, as we sincerely hope, the appeal that has been mentioned is upheld, the Government will once again be seen to be going backwards when the rest of Europe is going forwards.
    We need universally available child care. The Government should be just a little daring and accept our amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) made some sensible and telling points.
    Mr. Nicholls: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
    Sometimes, when we have short debates, the quality of speeches shows that the debate could have gone on fruitfully for a good deal longer. With her usual perspicacity, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) anticipated that I cannot tonight give her everything that she wants. She was perhaps most worried that, if Mrs. Jackson wins her case, what is proposed here might retrospectively take away from her what she might obtain in the court. If Mrs. Jackson wins her case, she and anyone else who has a case in the pipeline will find that the judgment is honoured and that there is no question of retrospection.
    The hon. Member for Barking, my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) have all put their finger on the Government's dilemma. We are being accused not of not having done anything helpful, but of having come up with a good idea and not going far enough. The easy way to avoid laying oneself open to that criticism is to do nothing to help. The Government's
    1100
    detractors would say that that is no more than can be expected of the Government and that no great harm has been done.
    The difficulty is that experience has shown that women who wanted to return to the labour market and used the community programme as a vehicle were at a distinct—if unintended—disadvantage: if they had not been unemployed for six months, they could not go on to the programme. When employment training was being devised, we were anxious to do all that we could to ensure that women did not suffer from that disadvantage, and drew up a number of measures to try to help. One was the provision that those who had not been available for work but had been on the order book for more than six months should be eligible to come back; still more significant was the proposal that those who had been out of the labour market for at least two years should be entitled to take part in employment training. All those steps were warmly welcomed, and there can be no doubt on either side of the House that the variations in the criteria for eligibility for ET have been of significant advantage to women. The problem is knowing where to draw the line when resources are inevitably limited. The line taken by the Government is that it is right to target the resources available for child care on lone parents, who—to an overwhelming degree —are at the greatest disadvantage. The hon. Member for Barking advanced the beguiling argument that if there was an underspend on the programme because fewer people were going on to it owing to the rate of decline in unemployment, there might be some spare cash around. Ultimately, however, that argument does not hold water: it is impossible to plan the principle of a programme by simply trying to cash in on a temporary or notional underspend.
    There is no question of retrospective legislation. All that we are doing is restoring the balance to its previous state, which at the time was greatly welcomed.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West is entirely right to remind us that the family has a wider context than that of the lone parent, and that married women also suffer disadvantages. We have tried to help them in the ways that I have suggested, but it would be going too far to say that, irrespective of whether a person is married or a sole parent, that person should automatically receive help.
    In answer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), let me say that I entirely understand the argument that there is not much point in receiving help with child care during training if, once the training is over, people cannot obtain jobs because they cannot afford child care. The logical consequence of that understandable argument is that we should do nothing to help, but, given demographic pressures, it must be a good idea to provide quality training to help women back into the labour market.
    Ms. Richardson: I am afraid that I cannot accept what the Minister has said. He sounds awfully pleasant all of a sudden—almost beguiling, as he said that I had been—but he tossed aside my suggestion that the Government have resources to spare within the scheme because of an underspend, and said that the Government could not spend those resources. I honestly do not know how the Government will cope with the demographic changes that the 1990s will bring unless much more is done to encourage

    1101
    and support the married women—and, in some instances, married men—who want to join the work force, or return to it.
    It is all very well for the Government to say, "They will just have to manage. We will target only lone parents" —deserving though they may be. The fact is that employers will not be able to cope unless married women are allowed, encouraged and helped to return to work. The Government have a golden opportunity to spend money that they have not spent so far, but they will not take it. I cannot think what to call such behaviour, but there are all sorts of words for it: stupidity is one.
    I intend to divide the House simply to show that Opposition Members believe that the Government are not going nearly far enough in their efforts to return women to work and to support training and retraining for them.
    I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). It has been a useful debate.
    The Minister suggested that I wanted a debate simply because I wished to be reassured that the Bill will not override whatever Mrs. Jackson may win. That was not the principal reason. However, I am distressed to find that the Government skated over that very important industrial tribunal case instead of welcoming it and applying the principle to other married women who have not had the opportunity to state their case.
    Mrs. Mahon: Will my hon. Friend confirm that if Mrs. Jackson wins the ruling will apply only to her and that, as with equal pay, women will have to make individual applications? That is very unsatisfactory. It does not work like that in other countries.
    Ms. Richardson: If Mrs. Jackson wins, I understand that she will win only for herself. What is called class action does not apply to all married women. I wish to goodness that it did. I think that six or seven other cases are in the pipeline. Married women who have not gone through the procedure will not be entitled to the award that Mrs. Jackson may win for herself in a very brave and dedicated way.
    I invite my hon. Friends to vote against the Lords amendment. We are not opposed to lone parents receiving help, but we want it to be extended now to married women.
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 55.

    Divlsion No. 383]

    [11.11 pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Burns, Simon

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Butcher, John

    Amess, David

    Butler, Chris

    Amos, Alan

    Carrington, Matthew

    Arbuthnot, James

    Carttiss, Michael

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Chope, Christopher

    Ashby, David

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Cran, James

    Brazier, Julian

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bright, Graham

    Day, Stephen

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Devlin, Tim

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    1102

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Dover, Den

    Malins, Humfrey

    Durant, Tony

    Mans, Keith

    Dykes, Hugh

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Eggar, Tim

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Fallon, Michael

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Favell, Tony

    Mills, Iain

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Forman, Nigel

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Franks, Cecil

    Neubert, Michael

    Freeman, Roger

    Nicholls, Patrick

    French, Douglas

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Gale, Roger

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Paice, James

    Gill, Christopher

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Gow, Ian

    Portillo, Michael

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Redwood, John

    Gregory, Conal

    Renton, Tim

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Hague, William

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

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

    Stevens, Lewis

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Harris, David

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Thurnham, Peter

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Trotter, Neville

    Hunter, Andrew

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Irvine, Michael

    Waller, Gary

    Jack, Michael

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Jackson, Robert

    Warren, Kenneth

    Janman, Tim

    Wheeler, John

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Wilkinson, John

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Wood, Timothy

    Knapman, Roger

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Lightbown, David

    Mr. Greg Knight and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

    Lilley, Peter

    NOES

    Alton, David

    McNamara, Kevin

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Beith, A. J.

    Meale, Alan

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

    Michael, Alun

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Blair, Tony

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute}

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Patchett, Terry

    Buckley, George J.

    Pike, Peter L.

    Caborn, Richard

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Prescott, John

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Randall, Stuart

    Canavan, Dennis

    Redmond, Martin

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Richardson, Jo

    Cryer, Bob

    Ruddock, Joan

    Cummings, John

    Short, Clare

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Skinner, Dennis

    Dixon, Don

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Doran, Frank

    Spearing, Nigel

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Foster, Derek

    Vaz, Keith

    Fyfe, Maria

    Wallace, James

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Gordon, Mildred

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Haynes, Frank

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    lllsley, Eric

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Livsey, Richard

    Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 4, before clause 11, to insert the following new clause—Exemption of Sikhs from requirement to wear safety helmets on construction sites—
    ".—(1) Any requirement to wear a safety helmet which (apart from this section) would, by virtue of any statutory provision or rule of law, be imposed on a Sikh who is on a construction site shall not apply to him at any time when he is wearing a turban.
    (2) Accordingly, where

    (a) a Sikh who is on a construction site is for the time being wearing a turban, and

    (b) (apart from this section) any associated requirement would, by virtue of any statutory provision or rule of law, be imposed—

    (i) on the Sikh, or

    (ii) on any other person,

    in connection with the wearing by the Sikh of a safety helmet,
    that requirement shall not apply to the Sikh or (as the case may be) to that other person.
    (3) In subsection (2) "associated requirement" means any requirement (other than one falling within subsection (I)) which is related to or connected with the wearing, provision or maintenance of safety helmets.
    (4) It is hereby declared that, where a person does not comply with any requirement, being a requirement which for the time being does not apply to him by virtue of subsection(1) or (2)—

    (a) he shall not be liable in tort to any person in respect of any injury, loss or damage caused by his failure to comply with that requirement; and

    (b) in Scotland no action for reparation shall be brought against him by any person in respect of any such injury, loss or damage.

    (5) If a Sikh who is on a construction site

    (a) does not comply with any requirement to wear a safety helmet, being a requirement which for the time being does not apply to him by virtue of subsection (1), and

    (b) in consequence of any act or omission of some other person sustains any injury, loss or damage which is to any extent attributable to the fact that he is not wearing a safety helmet in compliance with the requirement,

    that other person shall, if liable to the Sikh in tort (or, in Scotland, in an action for reparation), be so liable only to the extent that injury, loss or damage would have been sustained by the Sikh even if he had been wearing a safety helmet in compliance with the requirement.

    (6) Where—

    (a) the act or omission referred to in subsection (5) causes the death of the Sikh, and

    (b) the Sikh would have sustained some injury (other than loss of life) in consequence of the act or omission even if he had been wearing a safety helmet in compliance with the requirement in question,

    the amount of any damages which, by virtue of that subsection, are recoverable in tort (or, in Scotland, in an action for reparation) in respect of that injury shall not exceed the amount of any damages which would (apart from that subsection) be so recoverable in respect of the Sikh's death.
    (7) In this section

    "building operations" and "works of engineering construction" have the same meaning as in the Factories Act 1961;

    "construction site" means any place where any building operations or works of engineering construction are being undertaken;

    "injury" includes loss of life, any impairment of a person's physical or mental condition and any disease;

    "safety helmet" means any form of protective headgear; and

    "statutory provision" means a provision of an Act or of subordinate legislation.

    (8) In this section—
    1104

    (a) any reference to a Sikh is a reference to a follower of the Sikh religion; and

    (b) any reference to a Sikh being on a construction site is a reference to his being there whether while at work or otherwise.

    (9) This section shall have effect in relation to any relevant construction site within the territorial sea adjacent to Great Britain as it has effect in relation to any construction site within Great Britain.
    (10) In subsection (9) "relevant construction site" means any construction site where there are being undertaken any building operations or works of engineering construction which are activities falling within Article 7(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (Application outside Great Britain) Order 1989."
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5, 11 and 13.
    Mr. Eggar: I hope that it will assist the House if I explain the background to the amendments and the reasoning behind them.
    The Health and Safety Commission has long been concerned about safety standards in the construction industry. As long ago as 1986, the commission issued a consultation document on proposals for regulations that would require all workers on construction sites to wear head protection where there was a risk of injury. These proposed regulations, which have the support of both sides of the industry, should significantly reduce the number of head injuries on construction sites. The Government are committed to laying the regulations before the House as soon as possible.
    The Government have also had to consider the impact of the regulations on the Sikh community. For religious reasons, orthodox Sikhs are unable to wear anything on their heads in public except a turban. Most of the responses to the 1986 consultative document commented on that issue. Broadly speaking, employers and employer organisations in the industry argued against an exemption on health and safety and industrial relations grounds. The Sikh community, on the other hand, argued in favour because of the hardship that Sikhs would otherwise suffer. The Government have had to take a difficult decision. We had to balance strong feelings and views about the importance of health and safety on one side with strongly held religious views on the other.
    It may help the House if I rehearse briefly some of the arguments. The dangers of head injury on construction sites are well known. They are undoubtedly greatly reduced by the wearing of helmets. We are confident that new regulations will considerably reduce the number of head injuries and result in an overall improvement in health and safety standards.
    The House will not be surprised to learn that Sikhs also feel strongly about the issue. The tenets of his religion are more important for the turbaned Sikh than his own safety. There are more Sikhs employed in construction than in any other industry. It is estimated that the figure could be as high as 40,000. The practical consequences of a statutory requirement on Sikhs to wear helmets would be that many thousands of Sikhs would be faced with a straight choice between their religion and their job. That would cause real hardship and could also result in a loss of skilled labour to the construction industry.

    1105
    It is rare for an issue fundamental to the faith of one particular religious group to come into conflict with public policy. But on other occasions it has been seen as right that the law should take account of deeply held religious beliefs. A precedent exists in the Motor-cycle Crash Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act 1976. Looking back further, there is the whole British Sikh military tradition. Sikhs were allowed to wear turbans instead of steel helmets when they fought for this country in the first and second world wars.
    The Government believed that the balance of the argument lies in taking account of the deeply held views of the Sikh community. Making an exemption for Sikhs in this way will mean that the overall improvement in health and safety arising out of the new proposed regulations will be slightly less than it might otherwise have been. I have no hesitation in accepting that.
    Having decided to make an exemption, it was essential for us to do all that we could to make it workable. That is why we introduced Lords amendment No. 5, which I know is a cause of concern to my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) and for Crosby (Mr. Thornton), among others, and which was debated at length in another place. I should say to my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley and for Crosby that the effect of their proposed amendments would be to render worthless a Sikh's right not to wear a helmet because an employer could justify a general requirement to wear a helmet on health and safety grounds. We believe that that would make our exemption unworkable.
    You will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this has not been an easy decision for the Government to make, but I am convinced that our approach is the correct one. I am confident that it will command widespread support in the House.
    Mr. John Townend: I strongly oppose Lords amendment No. 4, which will divide communities and discriminate against the indigenous population. The British people have accepted millions of immigrants from the new Commonwealth since the war. As a result we have, for better or worse, ceased to be a white, homogenous society and become a multi-racial society, with all the problems that that brings.
    The British people were never consulted and all the polls show that if they had been consulted they would have consistently opposed mass immigration, which has fundamentally changed the country in which they live. Despite that, however, they have accepted the newcomers with a generosity and tolerance that few other countries have shown. The British people have accepted that they must integrate with the newcomers. They have accepted that everyone should be treated equally under the law and to ensure that there is no discrimination they have rightly been told that they must accept the Race Relations Act 1976.
    Since the British people have so generously accepted the newcomers, it behoves the newcomers to integrate and to become English. Whether they are brown, black, yellow or white, they should become English in England and Scots in Scotland. They should accept our laws, our history, our traditions and our tolerance. Unfortunately, the great and the good in this country are not satisfied with having created a multi-racial society—they now want a
    1106
    multi-cultural society, which will prevent assimilation and Anglicisation and will result in Britain ceasing to be one nation and becoming several nations.
    11.30 pm
    The new clause is fundamental to that change of policy.
    An ethnic minority, albeit for religious reasons, is to be treated differently under the law from the rest of the community. Separate laws for separate communities are divisive and unwise, particularly when they involve the safety of others. What will be the position if somebody drops a heavy object from the top of a scaffold and it lands on a Sikh? If the Sikh were wearing a safety helmet, the object might just bounce off and cause no damage. If he is wearing a turban, however, he may be severely injured and fall on top of somebody else or knock somebody off the scaffolding. Others will thus be put at risk by the new clause. The Government should also consider the position of a worker on the top of scaffolding who accidentally drops something. Again, if it hits someone wearing a safety hat it may cause no damage, but if it hits a Sikh wearing a turban, it may kill or severely injure him. What about the psychological effect of that on the person responsible for the accident?
    In industry safety should be paramount and religious belief should take second place. I understand that the new clause is opposed by employers in the construction industry and by the trade unions and that when it was debated in the House of Lords nearly all the Opposition speakers opposed it, although they did not press it to a Division.
    When immigrants from different countries and with different beliefs come to a Christian country they should be prepared to accept our laws and our way of life. If they do not wish to do so, they have a choice. They do not need to work in the construction industry because there are plenty of other jobs available. Alternatively, they could wear a metal helmet over their turban. There is no consistency in the law. People wear hard hats in power stations but I am told that the new clause does not include power stations. How will Sikhs deal with that?
    The new clause discriminates against British workers who do not wish to wear hard hats for other reasons, which in some cases might be health reasons.
    Mr. Corbyn: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that many Sikh building workers and Sikh people living in Britain were born here, hold British passports and are therefore just as much British workers as any white worker?
    Mr. Townend: I suggest that they should be prepared to accept the same laws as white British workers.
    I was perturbed to read the remarks of the noble Lord Strathclyde when he moved the new clause in the other place. At column 738, he stated:
    "We are firmly committed to improving safety standards in construction and we are convinced that the regulation will be a significant step forwards. However, the many representations that we received from the Sikh community convinced us that the regulations would cause real hardship for orthodox Sikhs…
    It was decided on balance that in this case the wider issues of religious freedom and"——
    these are the significant words——
    "relations with the Sikh community must take precedence". —[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 1989; Vol 511, c. 738.]

    1107
    It is the last sentence that worries me. Does this mean that in future legislation exemption will be made to maintain good relations with ethnic minorities? Such discrimination against the general population would be very much resented by the indigenous population, as other happenings have been in recent years.
    My hon. Friend referred to crash helmets for motorcycle riders, an issue that caused considerable problems. I remember a sad case which occurred soon after I became a Member of the House. A gentleman said that he had his own reasons for not wearing a crash hat and asked why he should be treated differently from the Sikhs. He broke the law numerous times, was arrested many times by the police and was actually put in gaol.
    We have also allowed the ritual killing of animals, which is abhorrent to many people in this country who regard it as cruel.
    I beg the Government to go no further down this path as it is divisive and discriminatory. We must stop encouraging the development of a multi-cultural society. We must all be equal before the law whether we are brown, black or white. I sincerely ask the Government to think again and at this late stage not to press the new clause.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West): In response to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) has just said, I simply say, as a member of the Conservative party, that it is no part of the philosophy that I recognise in my party to trample on the religious practices or beliefs of anybody in this country or outside. As I understand it, part of the burden of my hon. Friend's objection to what is proposed in the new clause is that Sikhs not wearing hard hats on building sites take a risk. I am prepared to accept that they take a risk, but I ask my hon. Friend to consider how important observance of their religion must be to them if they are prepared to take such a risk.
    As my hon. Friend the Minister said in his wide-ranging and thoughtful introduction to these proposals, for many people in the Sikh community, certainly in my constituency in west London, in Southall which is next door, in Hayes and Harlington and in a number of neighbouring constituencies, building work is a traditional trade. Many Sikh people work on building sites.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. Friend accept that in many cases employers already have a difficult enough time persuading employees to use safety equipment, and will it not make things much more difficult if a certain section of the work force is exempt from the regulations? Will he also deal with the point that I raised about the danger to other workers?
    Mr. Hughes: I am about to come to building employers and problems of sites.
    I do not know whether all hon. Members have received this letter, which is dated yesterday, from Mr. Robbie Browne-Clayton, director of economic and public affairs at the Building Employers Confederation, telling us how heinous it would be if we allowed the new clause to be inserted into the Bill. I must tell the confederation that the record of its voluntary code of practice to persuade its members to wear safety equipment, hard hats and so on does not stand up to close examination. It is a bit rich for that body now to complain about what the Government
    1108
    are doing. The final paragraph of the letter from the confederation complains about amendment No. 5 and states:
    "It has also been suggested that to admit the possibility of a defence of justifiability would effectively negate the whole exemption. This we do not accept."
    The letter, however, does not go on to argue the confederation's case. The confederation must understand, as my hon. Friend the Minister explained, that without amendment No. 5 the rest of the amendments would not be worth the paper they are written on as people would be able to get round the changes.
    Mr. Malcolm Thornton: What evidence does my hon. Friend have to support his remark that builders, in general have done little or nothing to improve safety on sites? Builders supported the recommendations to which the Minister referred earlier and which will be laid before the House in the future. It is three years since builders gave their support to those recommendations. It is only because the Government have been considering representations from the Sikh community that those recommendations are not already in force. Given the support that those recommendations have received from builders, what evidence does my hon. Friend have to support his remarks?
    Mr. Hughes: It is significant that my hon. Friend's reinterpretation of my remarks strengthens my point. I said that the record of the confederation was patchy and not good, but my hon. Friend said that builders had done nothing. I did not say that; I said that the confederation's record does not stand up to examination. It claimed that a voluntary code would work, but it has not. The Bill is necessary because of the standards in general.
    I want to pay tribute to the person who has done an enormous amount towards the introduction of the amendment, Michael Truman, who was the Conservative candidate for Southall at the previous election. I know that that is a party-political point, but I hope that Opposition Members will bear with me. He brought me into the campaign and I know that Ministers at the Department of Employment and at the Home Office will acknowledge that he lobbied vigorously for the amendment. He brought a number of Sikh representatives to the House and to the Departments and he deserves a great deal of credit from the House.
    With a few exceptions, the majority of hon. Members are white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, or in some cases Catholics. It is therefore easy for us to assume that laws which suit us will suit everyone. Whether people want Britain to be, or think that it should be, a multi-racial society is beside the point. Britain is a multi-racial society and that will not change.
    There are times—this is one of them—when we must consider modifying our laws. Surely the benchmark as to whether that change is reasonable is whether it is fair to the community concerned and whether it brings any disadvantage to the rest of the community, white, black or Asian. I believe that this change does not disadvantage anyone, but recognises the religious conviction of the Sikh community. I am proud that my Government have recognised that and introduced the amendments.
    11.45 pm
    Mr. Thornton: I listened with considerable interest to the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister. I am pleased that at long last the regulations to which he referred will, I hope, shortly be coming before the House.
    There is total agreement on the desirability of hard hats being the norm and the rule on construction sites for safety purposes. The Minister has conceded that this will add immeasurably to the overall safety on sites. He has also conceded that the Government's concession in amendment No. 4 will weaken this improvement in safety. I accept that it is difficult to quantify the extent to which it will do so and I do not seek to quantify it. I also accept that the Government had an extremely difficult choice to make. They have come down in favour of an exemption for the Sikh community.
    It is fair to say that, although these moves have been generally and widely welcomed, the employers in the construction industry feel strongly that no exemption should be allowed. However, my motion to disagree does not relate to this general exemption but to the Lords amendment which was moved thereafter and to which the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) referred: the amendment related to justifiability.
    That amendment adds to, rather than clarifies, the problem. It adds to the difficulties that employers will face on building sites. It may be that, under normal circumstances, the exemption which amendment No. 5 grants to Sikhs will cause few, if any, problems. It may be possible for sensible and sensitive employers to allocate different work on that site. However, that is not always the case. We all know construction sites on which particular dangers and difficulties exist. The amendment is specifically directed at such sites.
    If an employer has decided that, because of its specific circumstances, a site requires that all the work force should wear hard hats, he would be left with no defence against a claim that something was being done to the detriment of a Sikh who was required to leave his site or move to another part of the site where further detriment—perhaps by loss of earnings—would be caused to that worker. I do not believe that the Government wish to impose such an additional difficulty, or that this is, in any way, what the amendment seeks to do.
    In answer to Lord McCarthy, in the other place, the Lord Strathclyde said:
    "The Government feel that to refuse to employ Sikhs on such grounds"
    —that their own health or the health and safety of other workers might be endangered—
    "because they would not wear safety helmets is unjustifiable. The employer no doubt would argue that the condition is justifiable, as he is applying it to all his employees equally." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 October 1989; Vol. 512, c. 82.]
    It seems to me, and to the employers, that this is wholly unreasonable. The matter is already covered by existing legislation.
    The Minister said that my amendment is a wrecking amendment that would negate the Lords amendment. Not so. There is adequate race relations legislation to cover the point. Employers have to justify to courts or tribunals that the decision taken was reasonable in the circumstances.
    I recognise the Government's dilemma: they have spent three years considering representations made to them and
    1110
    have come to the conclusion that it is right and proper to grant Sikhs this exemption. I do not accept that my motion will negate the Lords amendment, which, if carried, will add enormously to the difficulties of site management and cause problems for employers and workers alike. Lords amendment No. 4 will give the Sikhs what they need—Government recognition of the risks that Sikhs are prepared to take, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West said, for their religious beliefs.
    Whether this will affect other workers and how much they might have to suffer because of other people's beliefs are fine points. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to tell us why present legislation cannot guarantee the exemption that the Government are granting. I hope that he will be persuaded that such legislation is enough and that there Is no need to accept the Lords amendment.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: There has been a good debate on the first group of amendments, although we were unhappy with its outcome, and the issues were given serious consideration. This debate has been unfortunate in that the contribution by the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) contained connotations which we found unacceptable and which lowered the tenor of the discussion.
    The hon. Member for Bridlington said that Sikhs should accept our laws because they live in our country. That is a non-starter. The Lords amendments would allow Sikhs to wear turbans on construction sites. If we reject the measure, presumably employers will not take Sikhs on such sites, in line with the situation before the Lords amended it.
    This is not an easy issue for me to discuss. For one thing, I do not have a Sikh community in my constituency. It is also difficult to adopt a clear position on this sensitive subject. We should probe the arguments on both sides better than we are doing in order to understand the legislation. First, there is a clear danger to Sikhs. The Minister has admitted that. I do not know the extent of the danger, but it is clearly a matter of some significance or there would be no reason to say that helmets should be worn on construction sites and no need for the other parts of safety law to operate.
    The hon. Member for Bridlington spoke about danger to other workers. We can think of sites other than high buildings—tunnels, for example—where such danger could be caused. In such cases danger caused to Sikhs could give rise to all sorts of problems for people who go to their aid. Perhaps we do not fully understand the likelihood of that, but it may be that debates on earlier legislation when the wearing of helmets was discussed will give us knock-on information for this debate.
    Discrimination in favour of Sikhs may, on balance, be justified but to some extent it could create problems of counter-discrimination to other people who would feel unhappy about that. We must question whether discrimination in favour of Sikhs exacerbates problems instead of trying to resolve them. Perhaps we should discuss the wearing of turbans and helmets in a wider context. They have been discussed in the application of legislation to motor cycles and now such legislation is to apply to the construction industry. Presumably industries other than construction could also be affected by this legislation.
    We need to respond to deeply felt community views, but it does not follow that we should take such views into

    1111
    account in all circumstances. There may be some in which we should override them. It is like accepting the argument that Salman Rushdie should withdraw his book because of feelings in some communities.
    We are also faced with the general argument about religious freedom. In the other place, Lord McCarthy said;
    "We should allow religious groups in this country who feel as deeply as the Sikhs on this matter freedom to do what they want unless we can demonstrate that they are significantly damaging people other than themselves by their actions.
    To me the issue turns on whether other workers are being damaged, whether the employer is being put at risk and whether measurable damaging circumstances can be shown."
    —[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 1989; Vol. 511, c. 744.]
    That is a fruitful position to take and we should discuss it while we have the opportunity before we move on from the amendment.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: I support the amendments because they are most important to the many orthodox Sikhs among the 40,000 or so Sikhs in the construction industry. They would be faced with an appalling dilemma by the new requirement.
    A long-standing characteristic of British life has been our freedom of religion and our tolerance of the requirements of different faiths. The provisions are directly related to the religious requirements of the Sikh faith. That faith goes back for more than 500 years, and it requires of its adherents that they coil their hair and wear it beneath a turban. That requirement is one of the five Ks which are the articles of the Sikh faith. The safety helmet provision would have been incompatible with that religious practice.
    12 midnight
    The British Sikh community therefore welcomed the amendments moved for the Government by Lord Strathclyde in the other place. In particular, they noted the opposition of Lord Stoddart of Swindon, speaking for the Labour party, who condemned what he called discrimination in favour of one particular religion, which he viewed, by some extraordinary way of reasoning, as somehow being discrimination against other sections of the community. It is right to respect the devotion of the Sikhs to their religion and to make these provisions. The Gravesend Sikh community has expressed its concern through its Gurdawara. I commend the Government for their sensitive response to the representations by hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members.
    Mr. Eggar: We have had an interesting debate, and the contributions from my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Derbyshire North-East (Mr. Barnes) have shown what a difficult issue this is, and how the Government have had carefully to balance conflicting and firmly held views.
    I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) that exemption for Sikhs could, in theory, pose a risk to others who work on the site, but the chances of a third party on the site being injured as a result of a Sikh being injured because he was wearing a turban rather than a hard hat is fairly remote. Sikhs work on construction sites at the moment, wearing their turbans, and we are not aware of any injuries that have occured in the circumstances that he has outlined.
    The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East asked me to describe the scale of the problem. The last year in
    1112
    which there was a detailed examination was 1981–82, and in that period there were 2,000 accidents on construction sites involving head injuries. That is roughly the same number as occur now, although there might have been a slight decrease—we do not have any firm statistics. About one death a year has resulted from head injuries.
    Unfortunately, because of the way that the statistics are collected, we cannot say how many of those injuries occurred to Sikhs. However, it is accepted by both sides in the construction industry that some strong legislative action has to be taken to improve safety on construction sites. There is no dispute about that, and it was recognised as a result of the 1986 consultation paper.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) is not noted for his lack of generosity to those of us grinding away on the Front Bench, so it was slightly unfair to say that the reason why the consultation period has taken so long is that Ministers have been considering the position of the Sikh community. It was only in February this year that the recommendation was made by the Health and Safety Commission, and it was only at that point that Ministers were able to make a judgment on the conflict between the requests of the HSC and the feeling of the Sikh community.
    My hon. Friend has suggested that Lords amendment No. 5 is unnecessary because it would still be for the employer to demonstrate that a requirement to wear a safety helmet was justifiable because, if a person were not to wear one, he would be a danger to others and to himself. The arguments on this matter are evenly balanced, as it is on a number of points in this difficult subject.
    Having once decided, however, that there should be an exemption for Sikhs, it must be for the Government to ensure that the exemption is a real one and is beyond doubt. The problem with the argument that my hon. Friend advances, and that of the building employers—I understand the concern that has been expressed—is that it would muddy the waters and introduce some uncertainty and lack of clarity where, above all, we must have certainty and clarity.
    Mr. Thornton: Is my hon. Friend aware that section 1 of the Race Relations Act 1976 states that, if a "requirement or condition" can be shown to be
    "justifiable irrespective of the colour, race nationality or ethnic or national origins of the person to whom it is applied",
    indirect racial discrimination will not have occurred? That is the legislation to which I referred earlier. If the amendment is agreed to, it will deem that the enforcement of the safety helmet policy on a Sikh who is not prepared to wear a helmet would not in any circumstances be justifiable. The point that I am making—with respect to my hon. Friend, I feel that he has not answered it—is that existing legislation is sufficient to guarantee what the Government are saying should happen, which is that the general exemption should apply. The burden of proof would be on an employer to show before a court or other tribunal that what he was suggesting was justifiable. It cannot be right that there should be no element of justifiability.
    Mr. Eggar: There may be a minority of employers who, irrespective of the exemptions that I hope the House will grant this evening, would claim that the normal wearing of a safety helmet justifies their refusing to employ Sikhs, or moving their existing Sikhs to other work. That is the point that is made by the Building Employers

    1113
    Confederation. This requirement would amount to indirect racial discrimination under the 1976 Act, but under that Act the employer could argue as a defence that his action was justifiable as he was applying the condition of wearing a safety helmet purely on health and safety grounds. In other words, if we did not agree to amendment No. 5, an employer could override the exemption which the House is being asked to grant.
    I return to my original answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby. If we accepted his argument, we would bring uncertainty where, above all, we want certainty and clarity. The argument of my hon. Friend on the burden of proof is not one which we would necessarily accept. There is a conflict between the legal advice that has been given to him and that which is available to me. It is a difficult area, because no clear decision has been made by an industrial tribunal. The law is not as straightforward as my hon. Friend has suggested.
    We have had a useful and constructive debate on a difficult issue. I am grateful to my hon. Friends and to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East for contributing to it. I ask the House to agree to the amendments.
    Ms. Richardson: I apologise to the Minister for not rising to my feet as swiftly as I should have done before he replied to the debate.
    We think that the Government have it about right. We accept that there are groups in our society who have certain deeply held beliefs that should be recognised and respected. If that means that such people—in this instance, the Sikhs—are prepared to endanger themselves by wearing a turban and not a hard hat, that is for them to decide. Their views should be respected.
    I was very shocked by the speech of the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend). Indeed, I felt extremely uncomfortable about it. I am sure that I echo the feelings of my hon. Friends in saying that we want a multi-cultural society—not an integration of those who have come to live among us or, in many cases, were born here. We do not want them so assimilated that they disappear. We want to benefit from their cultures.
    Mr. John Townend: Does the hon. Lady think that she is expressing the views of the vast majority of the British people? In my part of the country people think that there should be integration and assimilation and that we should become one people, the British people, regardless of colour.
    Ms. Richardson: Those whom I meet in my constituency and elsewhere are much more tolerant than the hon. Gentleman gives them credit for. I do not know about the people of Bridlington. I do not know whether Sikhs live in Bridlington. I do not know whether those whose views the hon. Gentleman has apparently expressed have ever met Sikhs or discussed this matter with them. Perhaps they do not understand their deeply held beliefs.
    I remind those hon. Members who can recall the event that some years ago the same arguments were rehearsed, from both sides of the House, about the wearing of crash helmets. I am proud and pleased that I voted for a measure that allowed people to wear turbans instead of crash helmets. There have not been any bad effects, although I do not pretend to know whether anyone has been killed. Nevertheless, it is proof of the pudding. We were tolerant then, for goodness sake let us be tolerant now.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to.

  Clause 20

    DISSOLUTION OF TRAINING COMMISSION
    Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 15, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

    "(2) Subject to subsection (2A), all the property, rights and liabilities to which the Training Commission was entitled or subject immediately before that date shall on that date become property, rights and liabilities of the Secretary of State.

    (2A) Any liability in respect of pensions, superannuation allowances or gratuities which, but for the passing of this Act, would have arisen or existed on or after that date as a liability of the Training Commission to or in respect of the chairman or any former chairman of the Commission shall instead be a liability of the Paymaster General."

    Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 7, 16, 19 to 26 and 29.
    Mr. Nicholls: These amendments all follow from the provisions of the Bill that dissolve the Training Commission. Between them, the amendments have the single main purpose of transferring land currently held by the commission to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
    The Training Commission has always been able to hold title to both freehold and leasehold land and buildings. Its property is not part of the civil estate, which is mostly held by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment through the Property Services Agency. The Training Commission mainly exercised its land-holding power in relation to much of its jobcentre network and skills training agency sites. The arrangement has been particularly appropriate because the buildings held in that way by the Training Commission are mainly specialist in nature. Upon dissolution, it will be necessary for that property to be transferred to a new owner. When the Bill was being drafted a final decision on who that new owner should be had still to be taken. The Bill was therefore published with the provision that the Secretary of State should designate a Minister to hold the land title.
    We have since concluded that the title should be held by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. Having direct land-holding powers within the Department will give my right hon. Friend more direct accountability and responsibility, as well as improving administrative and operational efficiency. Before he can hold title to the land, my right hon. Friend must be constituted a corporation sole, which is what the main amendment in the group, No. 21, provides. The other amendments in the group simplify the drafting as there is no longer any need to differentiate between land going to the designated Minister and other property going to the Secretary of State. Now, with one exception, everything will transfer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, with all the associated rights and liabilities. The only exception is that the Paymaster General will exercise his usual responsibility for the pensions and similar payments due to the chairman and former chairmen of the commission.
    I hope that, with that brief explanation, the House will be content to agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    12.15 am
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I must confess to some puzzlement. The Minister has spoken only about the transfer of assets and the staff concerned, yet I understood that this group of amendments was to do with the dissolution of the Training Commission. If that is the case, I want to speak about that as well as about assets, property and staff.
    It is not clear whether future employers will stand by any employment agreements on wages, job conditions or pensions of staff. The Minister should say something about that. It would be interesting also to know the value of the property that is to be transferred and how the Minister predicts it will be farmed out to the successor bodies.
    The main issue here, however, is the abolition of the Training Commission. It is incredible that we are having such a brief debate on this subject, which is vital to the nation's future industrial prosperity and our work force's training opportunities. It is not clear why these proposals were not brought before the Standing Committee. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to tell us why the Government waited until debates in the other place to raise the issue.
    There have been numerous and confusing changes in training schemes recently. We used to have the Manpower Services Commission, which was a tripartite body comprising three employer, three trade union and three education authority representatives who ran the youth training scheme and the technical and vocational education initiative in schools and colleges. It included local councillors and local bodies that represented all three interest groups. They approved, or did not approve, schemes, but in some cases did their job too well for the Government. They found fault with the quality of schemes, whether because of the content, the training or unsatisfactory or unsafe conditions, and some of them said so. The Government curtailed their role and then disbanded the MSC. The Government then created the Training Commission, which is now to be disbanded. The new idea is to have training and enterprise councils. How many bids have there been in each area to run TECs?
    Will the Minister confirm our information, which is that in many cases there is only one bid? Would he care to comment on the likely outcome in terms of the breadth and quality of the training? Are all the leading figures in industry and commerce and top management in the private sector, who will run TECs, to be white and male —with one exception, I gather, in Newcastle somewhere? If so, is that not possibly in breach of the sex discrimination and racial discrimination legislation, perhaps not technically, but in spirit?
    I am puzzled how employer-led schemes are expected to succeed in some areas. The Governmnt are fond of telling us how successful their efforts to do away with unemployment have been, but there are numerous constituencies where unemployment is very high. In Liverpool, Riverside, for example, 25·3 per cent. of the available work force is unemployed. In Glasgow, my home town, no fewer than eight constituencies are in the top 20 of high unemployment. The official figure in Maryhill, my constituency, is 18·5 per cent., but the real figure, after allowing for the Government's fiddling of the figures, is considerably higher. There are many other constituencies with high unemployment—in Manchester, Birmingham,
    1116
    Tyne Bridge and Sheffield, for instance. If there are not too many employers about, how are they supposed to organise training schemes for the available work force?
    This policy might seem very reasonable in Horsham—where unemployment is running at 1 per cent.—and in Mid-Sussex, Wokingham, Chesham, Amersham and Mole Valley, where the rate is similarly low. It is simply not relevant, however, in areas of high unemployment. I wonder whether the Minister has thought his way through the problem, or whether areas such as Glasgow have, as usual, been written off as being of no importance because the Government do not care what happens to those who will not, in any event, vote Conservative.
    How can such schemes possibly work, in the light of the attitude of management to training? As we travel along this road, we can predict exactly where we will arrive. An MSC/NEDO report concluded some time ago that British companies rarely considered training one of the main components of corporate strategy, and did not treat it as a boardroom issue. In another place, the Government even rejected a modest proposal that training organisations should be consulted before appointments were made.
    Thus we shall have a work force trained in a narrow range of skills to suit individual employers. In a world of rapidly changing technology, their skills will be bound by whatever the local management sees fit to provide. They will be trained, but not educated. Can we believe that all employer-led agencies will be keen to foster a critical intelligence and the asking of awkward questions? Some will train; many will poach. Would it not, after all, be better if we retained the present arrangements and tried to improve them? Would it not be better if management got on with running their businesses, while those who know something about education and training got on with their business?
    Mr. Wallace: I cannot accuse the Government of curtailing debate on the winding-up of the Training Commission: that provision was in the Bill originally, and was also debated in Committee. A more substantive criticism concerns the way in which the Manpower Services Commission was suddenly wound up to make way for the Training Commission, which is now being wound up in its turn. There has been little consistency or stability in the provision of training.
    I shall ask only one or two questions; the next debate may allow broader discussion of some of the issues. First, can the Minister give us some idea of the value and extent of the property and the assets with which we are dealing? Having become "incorporated"—I hope that that will not be too painful—what does the Secretary of State intend to do with the assets to which he will have sole title?
    We know that, for better or worse, TECs are taking over from the Training Commission. What statutory provisions underpin them, though? How will those involved in them be accountable to the House for the money that they spend—in many instances, vast amounts?
    Mrs. Mahon: I am very concerned about the way in which the amendments have been brought to the House, and about how responsibility for training is being given to people who have clearly failed in the past. The private sector has a very poor record. My constituency contains a TEC, and we know the names of the good and worthy whom the Minister has seen fit to appoint.
    Mr. Martin Redmond: Business men one and all.
    Mrs. Mahon: They are indeed—and they are exactly the same people who were appointed to the business in the community scheme, which also operates in my area, and to the Eureka project for an educational museum, funded mainly by private means. In the past, such people have largely relied on the public sector.
    I am also concerned about the fact that there is no employee representation on the TECs. The proposal will not provide a coherent national training programme. I am bitterly disappointed that it has been brought before the House in this way.
    Questions were asked in the other place about the European social fund. The figure of £60 million was mentioned as having come from the European social fund during the last 10 years. Most of that money was targeted on special projects. I hope that the Minister will say something about the future of that funding. Who will be accountable for the huge sums of money that will be provided by the public sector?
    Mr. Nicholls: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly to the debate. In doing so I hope to clear up a misunderstanding. The amendments are specific. They do not relate to the dissolution of the Training Commission per se. They relate to the narrower and doubtless fascinating, although somewhat arcane, debate about who should own the land after the Training Commission is dissolved.
    When these matters were first considered, a final policy decision had not been reached on precisely which Minister should be responsible for taking over the land holding. The traditional view was that all this should be done through the Property Services Agency via my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. However, it was thought to be more sensible in the case of what might be described as a specialised property to place it in the hands of the sponsoring Minister. That is why it was proposed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment should take over the land holdings —not because of any particular desire on his part to indulge in empire building but because it seemed to be logical that he should take them over.
    The amendments, I repeat, do not refer to the debate about why the Training Commission should be abolished. However, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) put his finger on it when he said that we had that debate in Committee. Having already this evening been accused of being surprisingly nice, I hesitate to confound that new assessment of me by significantly lowering the tone of the debate. However, perhaps I could delicately remind the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) that the reason for the abolition of the Training Commission was because one of the main limbs of that tripartite structure—the TUC—came out against employment training. Bearing in mind that that was the Training Commission's biggest programme at the time—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Maryhill lines herself up behind the wreckers of employment training.
    The fact is that the Manpower Services Commission, the predecessor of the Training Commission, was responsible for designing the programme, together with trades union commissioners. However, they then decided, for what one can only conclude were party political
    1118
    reasons, to oppose it. It would have been a complete nonsense for the commission to continue to function when one of its main limbs was campaigning against what it was designed to do. The decision was taken, therefore, to abolish the Training Commission.
    I am going over somewhat old ground that has been debated before, but it is right to make that point in order to clear up any apparent confusion among Opposition Members.
    Mrs. Fyfe: I thank the Minister for clearing up some of the confusion, but he is labouring under the delusion that we are simply talking about trade union involvement in what was formerly a tripartite body. I have read thoroughly the debate in the other place on the issue. There were many references to the fact that education and training bodies were not represented on the commission. The Minister has chosen to deal only with uncontroversial property matters. He is dodging the issue of the role of the trainers and educators.
    Mr. Nicholls: If I am to be accused, even pilloried, for keeping myself within order, I shall have to suffer those slings and outrages with as much fortitude as I can command. The amendments are specific; if Opposition Members wanted to broaden the debate on the commission, they should have worked out how to do so.
    I do not think that I shall be giving too much away to some hon. Members if I say that TECs and general Government training policy will be considered in the next debate on industrial training boards. This narrow debate is on the land-holding capabilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that the House will agree that I have addressed those concerns quite directly.
    Mr. Wallace: I asked two relevant questions within the narrow confines of the debate on the extent of the land holdings and what the Secretary of State proposes to do with them.
    Mr. Nicholls: The land holdings will be those formerly held by the Training Commission. Jobcentres will be among the properties affected, and, within the meaning of the statute, my right hon. Friend intends to own them.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 7 agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 8, before clause 21, insert the following new clause—Consultation in connection with industrial training orders—
    ". In section 1 of the Industrial Training Act 198.2 (establishment of industrial training boards), the following subsection shall be substituted for subsections (4) and (5)—

    "(4) Before making an industrial training order the Secretary of State shall consult—

    (a) such organisations or associations of organisations appearing to him to be representative of substantial numbers of employers, and such bodies established for the purpose of carrying on under national ownership any industry or part of an industry or undertaking, as he thinks fit; and

    (b) such other organisations, associations or bodies (if any) as he thinks fit.""

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 27, 28, 30, 32 and 33.
    12.30 am
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    May I welcome the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to his new post following the reshuffle? Man and boy, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) stayed as my shadow for over six years, and I very much hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield will have such a happy and long career on the Opposition Front Bench.
    The amendments, which we moved in another place, are designed to enable us to change statutory industrial training boards to voluntary employer-led bodies or to employer-led boards. The change is part of the changes to the existing training framework necessary to meet the challenges of the next decade.
    The White Paper, "Employment for the 1990s", which we published some months ago, set out the scale of the challenges facing Britain, such as the effect of changing demography:—in particular, the shortage of young people —the growth of overseas competition, the changing patterns of employment and changing skill needs.
    The White Paper set out the framework required to meet those challenges. In future, training must help business succeed, become the responsibility of employers, provide standards that are set by industry, allow adults and young people to receive qualifications, be delivered locally and be flexible to suit local needs. The commitment of employers is fundamental to that. One of the most encouraging features of the current training position is the strength of employers' response to the training and enterprise councils' initiative.
    In the debate on Lords amendment No. 6, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) asked how many training and enterprise councils had been approved. Although the concept was introduced only last March, 35 TECs have been approved for development funding. Plans for a further 50 are well advanced. Already, over half the working population is covered. In the north-west, there are TECs in Cumbria, Oldham, east Lancashire, Rochdale, south-east Cheshire and Wigan. In my area, the west midlands, there is a major TEC in Birmingham and one in Walsall. There is also one in the north-west midlands. In the Yorkshire and Humberside region, there are TECs in north Yorkshire, Sheffield, Calderdale, Kirklees and Rotherham.
    The TECs are covering the country, and there is tremendous enthusiasm for the concept. It would be a great tragedy if we had the normal political knockabout on this concept. The idea is crucial to this country. The TECs will plan and provide training locally, help the training of employed and unemployed people and will give training and enterprise not only a higher profile locally but a much better delivery locally than we have ever had.
    Mrs. Mahon: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the White Paper acknowledges that, going back to the beginning of the century, the private sector has failed miserably in providing training? We compare very unfavourably with our European counterparts.
    Mr. Fowler: The case is not quite as the hon. Lady states it. We certainly need to catch up with countries such as Germany, France, Japan and the United States. The
    1120
    position to which the hon. Lady refers has not suddenly emerged but has been a characteristic of this country all this century. [Interruption.] It serves no one to sloganise, least of all to clamour and shout out as hon. Members are doing from a sedentary position. This is a serious matter which requires a serious policy response. Training and enterprise councils are a serious response.
    I ask the Opposition to talk to the people who are on TECs locally—the business leaders. The thing that has impressed me most about the TECs is the enthusiasm that has been shown. People who have been involved in training for decades longer than I have noted the new spirit that has arisen over the past few years, not least for demographic reasons.
    We need training arrangements that deliver not only training locally but standards in each industry at the sectoral level. In other words, our training system must be founded on standards and recognised qualifications based on competence. Those standards must be identified by employers and be nationally recognised. We need a system of employer-led organisations to identify, establish and secure recognition of standards, sector by sector or occupational group by occupational group.
    Such a system of standard-setting bodies will be effective only if employers are committed to it. The Government's objective is therefore to see established throughout industry and commerce standard-setting bodies created by employers themselves, to which they subscribe and which will secure their continuing voluntary support. That approach is far preferable to one of regulation and compulsion.
    The statutory system, whatever may have been said about it in the past, has not delivered the goods. Many firms in the few sectors covered by the statutory systems are not happy with performance. The engineering industry training board is an example. The group of 14 major companies in the engineering industry has campaigned against the continuance of the EITB in its present form. The levy system is bureaucratic by any measure, has ceased to be an incentive to train in many industries and is not providing money in that respect. The statutory framework constrains the development of effective commercial operations. The offshore petroleum training board, for example, cannot train workers employed for work onshore because of the statutory limitation on it.
    Above all, industry training boards have failed to solve the training needs of their sectors. As the White Paper sets out, we want to move to a system which is based on employer commitment and which is voluntary, and independent and employer led. In saying that employers have the key role to play in securing those improvements, I am not seeking to deny the important part that other groups such as trade unions and educationists rightly play in training matters. However, without the commitment of employers, the good will and active encouragement of others will achieve little. In the vast majority of sectors that already have independent, voluntary arrangements, the views of trade unions are sought and taken into account, and in a range of those sectors, trade unions are represented on the governing body itself, including the glass, aviation, insurance and timber trades and many other industry organisations.
    We want to move to a non-statutory system. At present, only seven statutory industry training boards are in existence, compared to over 100 independent, voluntary training organisations. We want to move to a system in

    1121
    which all sectors are covered by non-statutory, independent and voluntary arrangements. Those bodies must be able to command the active support of senior management in their sector. They must be seen by their sector as the body with the major role of dealing with Government on vocational, education and training matters, and their most important functions are the identification of key skill and training needs, and the establishment of occupational standards. In that way, they will complement the work of the training and enterprise councils at local level.
    When I published the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s", I announced that we would be consulting the seven remaining ITBs with a view to securing their replacement by independent and voluntary bodies. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has held detailed discussions with all the main employer interests involved. I am pleased to tell the House that employers in the majority of sectors covered by those boards have come forward with proposals for the creation of such bodies.
    Those new organisations will be progressively taking over the key activities of the boards covering the sectors of road transport, hotel and catering, clothing and allied products, plastics processing, offshore petroleum and engineering other than engineering construction.
    In the case of construction and engineering construction, I have accepted the strong arguments of employers that statutory arrangements should continue there for the time being. There are particular problems in those areas concerned with a highly mobile labour force. In those industries there is much labour only sub-contracting, a high level of self-employment and a high use of short-term contract labour.
    I shall be telling the two ITBs concerned that they will be reconstituted for a further three-year period, using the new powers being sought in the Bill, ending in 1993 for the construction industry and 1994 for engineering construction. At the end of that period, the Government will want to review the statutory arrangements.
    In the future, there will be significant changes in the statutory boards. That includes the way in which we will wish to move to an employer majority on the boards using powers in amendment No. 10. They will become employer-led bodies but they will be statutory bodies, and the levy powers will continue.
    12.45 am
    The positive response from employers to my request to develop their own voluntary training arrangements promises well for the future success of the new bodies. They should provide a firm basis for the improvement in our training performance. It was necessary to see the shape of the proposals from employers for the replacement of statutory ITBs—those which are being replaced—before we could draw up appropriate amendments to the Industrial Training Act 1982. The powers we are seeking in the amendments will make it possible to transfer the staff and assets of ITBs to successor bodies so that key functions can be maintained and the continuity of employment of staff secured.
    Amendment No. 8 changes the requirement on me to consult before making an order affecting the scope of an ITB. Amendment No. 9 will enable the key activities of ITBs to be continued without disruption during the transition to non-statutory status. It enables a board, with
    1122
    my agreement, to pass on its assets to a successor to be used for charitable purposes connected with training for employment.
    The new clause also safeguards the position of staff involved in such a transfer by extending the application of the Transfer Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to them. That means that their existing terms and conditions of employment will be preserved, and that is important.
    Mr. Wallace: Will the Secretary of State confirm that that includes existing pension rights?
    Mr. Fowler: There are different arrangements for pension rights. This concerns the working terms and conditions. However, I understand that the inquiries that have been made of the boards and their constituent parts suggest that most will want to take advantage of the existing industry training board pension scheme. The hon. Gentleman probably knows that there is an industrywide scheme to cover this issue and I think that staff will continue to use it. These terms do not cover the pension arrangements. There is nothing unusual about that since that has never been the case with such transfers.
    Mrs. Mahon: In the previous debate, I mentioned the £60 million that has come from the European social fund and said how useful that has been. Does the Secretary of State believe that we will be able to attract that sort of funding when training is privatised?
    Mr. Fowler: I heard what the hon. Lady said during the earlier debate. We are talking to the Commission about that and our intention is to ensure that that is the case. We are well apprised of the issue.
    The general purpose of the new clause is to ease the transition from statutory ITBs to a voluntary approach. Firms in the industries affected and the staff of the ITBs involved will benefit from the change to voluntary status being achieved with a minimum of disruption.
    Amendment No. 10 changes the balance of interests represented on ITBs, as well as providing the employer leadership that we believe is necessary to improve IT13 effectiveness. It will enable the move from statutory ITBs to employer-led successor arrangements to take place more smoothly.
    The net result is that in the two sectors in which industrial training boards remain the employer leadership of the statutory boards will provide the basis for the reorganisation and achieve greater effectiveness. I hope that it will also pave the way for the development of voluntary arrangements in due course, but that is not the intent at the moment.
    The overall effect of these amendments will be to create the conditions for voluntary employer-led training organisations to flourish. In important sectors of industry employers are now to be given a real opportunity to control and direct the work of their training body. They now have every incentive to play a full part, unfettered by the bureaucracy—perhaps the necessary bureaucracy—of a statutory system.
    I agree that it is vital that that opportunity is taken. We shall be publishing a report shortly on research that we have carried out into the amount of funding and resources that are given to training in this country. We estimate that, at the moment, employers are spending about £18 billion' per year on training—although those figures are probably

    1123
    several years out of date. There is no question but that there is and has been a marked increase in the interest and financial commitment given to training, especially over the past two years, and that it takes account of the demographic trends and changes in the work force.
    To myself and to many in the training world, there is no greater challenge in the 1990s than that of providing better training. The difference between nations and companies will be the differences in their skills—and in the skills of individuals. The new arrangements will help to bring about that change, and that is important and necessary for this country.
    Mr. Tony Blair: First, I thank the Secretary of State for his kind words of welcome, although I find the idea of shadowing him for six years somewhat mind-numbing. In all fairness, I should tell him that my hon. Friends and I had in mind for him the more educative experience of opposition. He should regard the next year as a sort of training scheme for when that occurs, shortly after the next election.
    This series of amendments deals specifically with industrial training boards. In 1981 there were 23 industrial training boards, but following a review by the Manpower Services Commission, their number was reduced to seven. The 16 that were wound up were replaced by voluntary bodies that seemed to multiply hugely so that there are now 102 non-statutory training organisations. In the White Paper published in December 1988, the Government proposed the abolition of the remaining seven industrial training boards. The amendments to be inserted before clause 21 in effect pave the way for that abolition
    The two most controversial candidates for abolition are obviously the construction and engineering boards. As far as I understand what the Secretary of State has told us tonight, both the construction industry training board and the construction part of the engineering industry training board will remain in full in their present form, at least for the time being, and obviously I welcome that.
    More generally, it is worth remembering that the boards were set up not because the voluntary sector had succeeded, but because it had failed to provide the type of training that people wanted. It is against that background that we must look at the advantages of the present industrial training board system. The first advantage is that the boards have statutory force—in other words, they have the force of the Government behind them. They are not dependent simply on the good will of individual companies.
    Secondly—we believe that this is particularly important —they are tripartite bodies that involve the employer, educational interests and trade union interests. Many employers, believe it or not, accept that trade unions play a vital part in ensuring that training is dealt with adequately.
    Thirdly, the boards have levy-raising powers, which, at least for some training measures, are absolutely necessary. In any event, however, those levy-raising powers are, in many cases, the principal source of funds for those training boards. Even where levy exemption procedures apply, the levy exemption is allowed only where certain training
    1124
    criteria are met by employers. Therefore the existence of the potential power to raise a levy can act as an incentive to employers for training practices.
    Fourthly, tangentially, as a result of the levy, the ability arises to claim from the European social fund. The boards are treated as publicly funded bodies and, therefore, are eligible for grants under the rules of the ESF.
    I want to direct my remarks principally to the engineering industrial training board. The 1981 review, "Framework for the Future", that paved the way for the abolition of 16 of the 23 boards that then existed specifically paid tribute to the work of the EITB and said that it had done a job that was irreplaceable by the voluntary sector. What has changed so dramatically between the publication of that Government report in 1981 and the White Paper in December 1988?
    I understand that about 550 staff are employed by the EITB. I do not believe that anyone doubts the immense contribution that that board has made to training in the engineering industry, although I am not sure that the Government share that view. It is only right that we pay tribute to the work of that board and to the commitment of its staff to training. The Secretary of State may say that we still have tremendous training inadequacies in the engineering industry and that therefore, in some sense, the board has failed. I believe that the argument runs the other way—what would our training facilities be like but for the existence of the board? Surely that is the test of its effectiveness.
    We should regard the levy-raising powers of the board seriously and it is instructive to look at its most recent accounts. Some £20 million of the £32 million revenue of the EITB comes from the levy in one form or another. I shall be obliged if the Minister could confirm that. I do not know many people who believe that a voluntary series of subscriptions could raise the same amount of money and, therefore, perform the same task on behalf of the board. As a result of matching grant from the ESF about £13 million in this financial year will go to the industry, not to the board, for training programmes.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) is correct that £13 million is a lot of money and it is roughly equivalent to half the board's revenue. I appreciate that it is not the same as the board's revenue, but it is a substantial chunk of money which goes to the engineering industry for training. It is unjustifiable to say that the board should be abolished unless there is a clear guarantee from Europe that matching grant will still be available following the transfer to the voluntary sector. It would be extraordinary if we forfeited money that is available for training, especially as my information shows —I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm it —that the matching grant from the ESF assists 25,000 of our people to train.
    I know that the board believes that much of the money that goes to training would not be forthcoming from the industrial sector employers. If that money is lost, effectively it will be lost for good.
    Mrs. Mahon: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the excellent schemes in new technology for groups such as women who want to get back into the work force have come from that very source of funding? That is very important.
    1 am
    Mr. Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is one danger of saying that training should simply be left to market forces in the private sector. There will be perfectly legitimate schemes and interests which will not be met simply by the operation of market forces. I and a lot of other people fear that if there is a move to the voluntary sector it will not be in the employers' commercial interests to maintain some schemes which perform a valuable function now. Therefore, we must be sure of the proposed move's consequences before we make it.
    A separate submission, dated May of this year, was made to the Department of Employment, in which the engineering industry training board listed nine key elements which they believed were at risk in the transfer to the voluntary sector. Those nine items, which I shall not list because they are fairly well known, add up to the requirement for a strong, politically supported national organisation which has a clear sense of direction and is adequately funded to provide the training needs in the engineering sector. When we consider that, and the paucity of guarantees and assurances which the Secretary of State gave tonight, we see that there is a pretty compelling case for the retention of an industrial training board in the public sector.
    Many non-statutory training organisations operate in the voluntary sector. Some of them replaced earlier training boards which were abolished. I have looked a little bit at the evidence of how well these voluntary organisations work. An Institute of Manpower Studies report by Carol Varlaam which was published in December 1987 and done for the Manpower Services Commission found that more than one third of the voluntary organisations were ineffective when judged against the criteria applied. In July 1987 Mr. Alan Anderson carried out work for Manpower Research. He based his study on 42 of the non-statutory training organisations and found that the average number of staff at each one was slightly more than three and many of the organisations had serious funding problems.
    At best, the evidence of the performance of these voluntary organisations is mixed. Therefore, against the background of the fact that they unquestionably do good work and have the ability to obtain funding from Europe and that transfer into the voluntary sector must, at the very least, as a result of the experiences which we have had, have uncertain consequences, it is highly irresponsible to propose the board's abolition without strong and satisfactory assurances that training will still be done adequately.
    We know that the deficit on our manufacturing trade is about as serious as that in any modern industrial country, and the deficit in the engineering sector is £8 billion and covers virtually every sector, including new and old technology. It cannot be right at this time and with this trade deficit in engineering to abolish a critical element of our industrial training. If the Secretary of State is not serious about training in this country, he is not serious about our deficit; if he is not serious about our deficit, he fails in his responsibility to carry this country through into the 1990s. Therefore, without the proper assurances, we oppose the amendments.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: I, too, welcome the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to his new position.
    I should like to concentrate on the construction industry training board because it has a profound effect on my constituents.
    I welcome what the Secretary of State has said tonight, but it is rather bizarre that we are discussing these important issues at this stage of the evening. It would surely have been better to make a statement earlier this afternoon. In that event, those of my constituents who have travelled down from Norfolk could have heard what the Secretary of State had to say 12 hours earlier, instead of having had to wait all day. It is strange that we have heard such an important announcement at this juncture.
    Nevertheless, I welcome the Secretary of State's remarks about the CITB. The uncertainty that has characterised the events of the past few months has been unsettling at the headquarters of the CITB at Bircham Newton. The morale of the staff has suffered and people have not known where they stand. Rumours have circulated and many feared that the future of the CITB was at stake.
    If the statutory levy had not been kept, there is little doubt but that the CITC would have found it difficult to continue in the medium term. It is all very well firms saying, with the best will in the world, that they will pay a voluntary levy, but we all know that in construction, which the Secretary of State rightly said is different from other types of industry, when recessions come along firms cut back. They would cut back on the levy, the whole infrastructure of training would collapse and safety in the industry would suffer as a consequence.
    I am slightly concerned about the proviso that the Secretary of State entered—that he will carefully examine how effective the new arrangements are and then review them in three years' time. That may well lead to continuing uncertainty. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at the new arrangements after a year and a half. I hope that he will examine the new board's structure, the new revenue-raising arrangements and the new management structure. I hope that management will be given more scope to get on with the job with less bureaucracy. I hope that at the end of a year and a half my right hon. Friend will say that the statutory levy is to continue, not just for another year and a half but for a good deal longer.
    A large number of highly qualified people work in a major complex in my constituency which has a profound effect on the local economy. Beyond that—we must look beyond constituency interests—the future of safety in the construction industry is at stake. The industry's safety record in this country is far from perfect. A large number of people are seriously injured or killed on sites and if we do anything other than build on the CITB's excellent record in training, that record will go downhill. If we build on its record of expertise, commitment and enterprise, we can go forward and create a safer construction industry.
    Tonight's announcement has put aside a great deal of uncertainty. I hope now that we can put recent unsettling events behind us, that we can look to the future and, above all, to a safer industry. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind what I have said and that in a year and a half he will declare himself happy with the new arrangements and give a guarantee for a period much longer than three years, because so much is at stake.
    Mr. Wallace: I join those who have congratulated the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on his maiden employment speech and I look forward to many more debates with him on this and related issues.
    Much of the debate has centred around the Government's training strategy. It has been rightly pointed out that until now the private sector has had a poor record on providing adequate training. That was one of the principal reasons for the setting up of industrial training boards with compulsory levies. That took account of the fact that the private sector, left to its own devices, had signally failed. That is frankly admitted by the authors of the equivalent of the White Paper on Scottish training and enterprise. They say that the performance of the private sector has been a source of considerable disappointment.
    We have moved to training and enterprise councils and in Scotland to local enterprise councils and to the different structures promoted by the Scottish Development Agency and Highland Enterprise. We must hope that they will succeed. We may express considerable reservations and concern, but if that is the only structure for training on offer for the time being, it is in the country's interest that it should succeed.
    Many of us who represent rural areas have doubts about the availability of people who have the time, commitment and expertise to take an interest in training. In many respects such people are the local managers and deliverers of Government training schemes. Many of us have constituencies with many small businesses run by self-employed people. Most of the successful entrepreneurs in that field devote a great deal of time, including leisure time, to running businesses. One wonders whether they would have time to engage in promoting training schemes.
    If the TECs are to be successful there must be a change in the whole culture. The Secretary of State has expressed optimism about that. However, it is not simply a question of that change applying to employers, important though that is, because training, while it is clearly in the interests of employers, must involve educators, trade unions, local authorities and other authorities. As my noble Friend Lord Rochester said in another place, it must also involve trainers. I hope that the Secretary of State and his Ministers will recognise that, and that consultation with the many other bodies will not just be lip service. Those bodies have an important role to play in the whole area of training and without them it would be impossible to initiate and continue adequate training schemes. I hope that their views will be properly taken into account, not least when setting up successors to the training boards to which the amendments relate.
    Some hon. Members have already spoken about the weakness of the levy system. I accept that in industries such as construction and engineering it has been necessary to ensure a degree of fairness. We must ensure that the burden of training does not fall on those who are self-employed or who run small businesses and who have the good will to see the need for proper training. They must not be left to provide all the skilled people for industry.
    People in the CITB who have found loopholes to avoid paying the levy have been a source of considerable irritation to those who are honest and pay up. One of my constituents, the first to attend my surgery in 1983 after I was elected, complained that he had been billed for a substantial amount as his levy to the CITB. He was in a
    1128
    remote area of Orkney and did not see any benefit accruing because the CITB did not provide any training in the area. He was aware that many people, some of whom he had trained, had set up in business and, no doubt, were using the expertise that he had passed on, and who were exempt from the levy. That constituent feels a sense of unfairness and injustice. That must be addressed when we look to a continuation of the construction industry training board.
    The Secretary of State mentioned the offshore petroleum board, which I understand does not impose a levy. Surely in the aftermath of Piper Alpha and other accidents and tragedies offshore it is important to have a board charged with responsibility for training, not least for safety training. The offshore liaison committee has been arguing since 1985 that the low paid or the unemployed should not have to subsidise the oil industry by paying for their own survival training. A recent survey of Shell's Tern field catering staff showed that 87 out of 93 had paid for their own survival training. With offshore safety so much in the forefront of our minds, one cannot leave it to the employers to get together and organise training because experience has shown that they have not been subsidising or providing safety training courses. There must be a Government role in ensuring that there is adequate safety training for offshore workers.
    1.15 am
    The hon. Member for Sedgefield dealt with the employment industry training board. I endorse his remarks, and I shall not go over them again. He made a powerful case for the valuable work that the EITB has done. Its important contribution in a vital skill centre should be continued, not least because of what it has done in maintaining the standards of training in the important engineering sector.
    The Secretary of State said that during the transitional period he intends to ensure that the key activities of the board are continued. In this respect, I should like him to confirm that some of the important work being undertaken by the EITB will continue. For example, it does work on women in industry, something that is not seen as commercial in the short term but, given our earlier debates, will be important in the long term. It provides a comprehensive careers advice service, which should also be maintained.
    What timetable does the Minister envisage for making appointments to the board? It is important, as it looks to the future, that it should know who the personnel involved will be.
    Is there any chance that money from the European social fund will be lost because the levy will no longer be seen as public money?
    Will the Minister confirm that the CITB and the EITB, which play such important roles as managers for YTS and employment training, will continue in those managerial roles under the new scheme?
    We are not satisfied that the new arrangements for training are yet set out in sufficient detail for us to embrace them with enough confidence to permit the winding up of the training boards. They are not perfect, but in many other ways they are a vital part of the provision of skilled training. For that reason, if the House divides, we shall not be supporting the Lords amendments.
    Mr. Frank Haynes: I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to his new

    1129
    responsibility for employment. My hon. Friend dealt with the Secretary of State for Employment when he was responsible for energy. I hope that the Secretary of State is not too tired to understand what I am saying. The Opposition now have a shadow Secretary of State for Employment who will give the Secretary of State a good going over. He has got it coming, as the Secretary of State for Transport, when he was responsible for Energy, got it when my hon. Friend was responsible for energy. I hope that the Secretary of State will put down his notes and take the message on board.
    When I was a lad, and into my youth, the industry in which I worked had a first-class training system. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is not listening. He is talking to his junior, and he should not be. He should be listening to what Opposition Members are saying because all day Opposition Members have been making sensible contributions, but all too often these slick Ministers will not listen to what we say. The Secretary of State is a smart-Alick when he is speaking from the Government Dispatch Box. He appears almost every other week and introduces a different training scheme. The schemes are changed time and time again. He might get things right one day. He would do so if he listened to what my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have to say. He should understand that we have a special interest in the subject.
    The Secretary of State makes it clear from the Government Front Bench that he does not like trade unions. He keeps on saying so. I watch him on the "box" when he thrashes the trade unions. He should understand that the trade unions have had a massive role in training. That has been my experience, and I was 35 years in the mining industry. I know that since 1979——
    Mr. Nicholls: That is a long time ago.
    Mr. Haynes: It is a long time ago, but I have a good memory. The young Minister must listen. If he does so, he will get a good training and work education. He will learn also how to represent constituents. I did not stand in court all day filling my pockets.
    Mr. Nicholls: Not like the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
    Mr. Haynes: I am talking about the Minister, not my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield. The junior Minister is making many comments from a sedentary position.
    I know what work is. I have told the House before that there is such a thing as a No. 10 shovel. It is as big as a table top. That was my implement—an implement of torture. I know what bloomin' work is. The Minister should have listened to the contributions from the workers. and there are many workers on the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): And on this side, Frank!
    Mr. Haynes: I cannot understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) is sitting on the Government Benches below the Gangway. My hon. Friend is the Opposition's deputy Chief Whip. It may be that he did not want to sit behind me. If he wished to sit opposite me, he will have to be satisfied with a profile.
    The Secretary of State told us about his involvement in training and talked about qualifications. What qualifications does the right hon. Gentleman have for training
    1130
    people in industry? What experience has he had of training youngsters and others to undertake skilled jobs? I do riot think that he has had any. That will remain my view unless he intervenes to tell me about his qualifications and experience.
    I resent someone with no qualifications preaching to me about training, and especially about safety, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham). In the mining industry, which I left to come to this place, there have been many more deaths in the past few years than hitherto. That is tragic. The increase in the number of deaths is related to the Department and the Secretary of State. There are not enough inspectors to ensure that management and employees are doing the job properly under the appropriate safety regulations. Employees might not have received proper training.
    When I was a lad and a youth in the mining industry, there was proper training. Managers and workers worked together in the interests of training and safety and to protect one another. I was taught to be my own safety officer, and that is the way to go about it. At the same time, however, we were also responsible for the chaps who worked on either side of us. The Secretary of State, the junior Minister and the Minister of State do not know about training and work. I have an idea that the Minister of State, who has just joined the Department from the Foreign Office, is in the same league as his right hon. and hon. Friends—[Interruption.] We can have a joke now and again, but training and safety are serious matters and should be dealt with properly.
    The question of 1992 has been mentioned in the Chamber on many occasions. If the United Kingdom is not prepared for 1992 it will go down the Swanee. In our preparations for 1992 should be the proper training of management and employees. That is in the interests not only of their health and their lives, but of the economy.
    I am concerned about some of the Secretary of State's comments tonight about training. He has failed in the past; he must have failed, as he keeps coming back to the House with different schemes. He has been talking about this, that and the other. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield mentioned the training boards, which have now gone. My experience in life is that if something is not making a profit, something has to go. More often than not, the employee has to suffer. The training scheme is run down because the Government do not put in enough money. The Secretary of State is responsible for that, and he knows it.
    I remember serving on an employment Bill Standing Committee where we discussed many aspects of employment, including training and safety. The junior Minister did a first-class job on behalf of the Government. Why? It was because the Secretary of State was hardly ever there. I was Opposition Whip on that Committee and I told the right hon. Gentleman that he could have Thursdays off because of Cabinet meetings—but I told him that I expected him back in the evenings if the Committee was still sitting. We did have some late sittings, and the junior Minister was there all the time. I am not afraid to admit that I helped him from time to time. The Committee did a good job on the Bill, but I cannot say the same for the right hon. Gentleman.
    The Secretary of State should stand at the Dispatch Box and say that there will be decent training schemes throughout industry. That is important for those who

    1131
    work in industry, it is important for the economy and, most of all, as the Prime Minister keeps telling us—and we know, without her telling us—we must get ready for 1992. If we are not ready, the right hon. Gentleman is going down the Swanee with us.
    Mr. Fowler: It is very reassuring to know that in the reshuffle on the Opposition Benches the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) marches on and has not changed. He will be relieved to know that it is quite possible that a new employment Bill will be introduced in the next Session, and we very much look forward to him serving on that.
    Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State is wrong—I am the Whip for energy.
    Mr. Fowler: I was simply making an offer. I was rather hoping that the hon. Gentleman was not going on any more of his foreign trips—
    Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I work in the Whips Office. I am here every day. I do not go on foreign trips, so he can come off that one.
    1.30 am
    Mr. Fowler: I must have made a mistake. I apologise. I recognise the seriousness of what the hon. Gentleman said about training, and I agree with him about its importance, particularly in regard to Europe and 1992.
    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) for his comments about the construction industry training board. It will be reviewed in three years' time. It is an exception to the general policy. It is sensible that there should be a review, and I hope that what I have announced today will end, as my hon. Friend suggested it would, the uncertainty that hung over it. I pay tribute to the work that it has done in an industry which stands apart from many of the other industries about which we have been talking.
    In the few minutes that remain to me, I shall not be able to respond to everything that has been said, so I shall reply in the usual way. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) accused the Government of not being serious about training. I must remind him that his party opposed, root and branch, the introduction of employment training for long-term unemployed people for month after month. We tried honestly to introduce a scheme that provided training for such people, but the Labour party and the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), opposed it at every turn. I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman puts his mind to the subject, that policy will change. It is all very well his uttering words about the importance of training, but we want some commitment from the Opposition.
    In a scheme that is training more than 400,000 long-term unemployed people, 210,000 people are on the employment training programme, which has been opposed at every stage by the Labour party. I believe that that is an entirely indefensible position, and one of the first things that the hon. Member for Sedgefield should do in his new post is assess that policy and change it. There is no justification whatever for opposing a training programme which all the research shows is producing good training for
    1132
    long-term unemployed people and brings them back into employment. We all agree about the importance of training, and there is no need to labour the point. One of the troubles with the case of industrial training boards is that they have not raised skill standards. There is also a range of levy arrangements with ITBs. It is not true that they are all provided with vital resources from the levy. The offshore petroleum board imposes no levy, and the hotel and catering board levy touches only 1 per cent. of firms in the industry. The proposals have come from the different industries themselves.
    With the new TECs, we wish to see the local delivery of training; with the new industry training organisations, we wish to set new and good national standards.
    Mr. Blair rose——
    Mr. Fowler: I cannot give way: it is not remotely possible.
    Employers, the public and those involved in the TECs have demonstrated a new enthusiasm for training, and I hope very much that the whole House will share that enthusiasm.
    It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the order this day, proceeded to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 32.

    Division No. 384]

    [1.35 am

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Gregory, Conal

    Amess, David

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Amos, Alan

    Hague, William

    Arbuthnot, James

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

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Harris, David

    Ashby, David

    Hayward, Robert

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Batiste, Spencer

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Boswell, Tim

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Brazier, Julian

    Irvine, Michael

    Bright, Graham

    Jack, Michael

    Burns, Simon

    Janman, Tim

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Jessel, Toby

    Carrington, Matthew

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Carttiss, Michael

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Knapman, Roger

    Chope, Christopher

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Lightbown, David

    Cran, James

    Lilley, Peter

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Maclean, David

    Day, Stephen

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Devlin, Tim

    Mans, Keith

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Dover, Den

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Durant, Tony

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Eggar, Tim

    Mills, Iain

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Fallon, Michael

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Favell, Tony

    Moss, Malcolm

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Forman, Nigel

    Neubert, Michael

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Freeman, Roger

    Paice, James

    French, Douglas

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Renton, Tim

    Gill, Christopher

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Stevens, Lewis

    Gow, Ian

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    1133

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Wood, Timothy

    Thurnham, Peter

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Waller, Gary

    Mr, John M. Taylor and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

    Warren, Kenneth

    Wheeler, John

    NOES

    Alton, David

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Meale, Alan

    Beith, A. J.

    Michael, Alun

    Blair, Tony

    Nellist, Dave

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Patchett, Terry

    Buckley, George J.

    Pike, Peter L.

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Randall, Stuart

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Redmond, Martin

    Cryer, Bob

    Richardson, Jo

    Cummings, John

    Short, Clare

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Skinner, Dennis

    Dixon, Don

    Wallace, James

    Foster, Derek

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Fyfe, Maria

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Gordon, Mildred

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Illsley, Eric

    Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.

    Kennedy, Charles

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the order this day, to put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords amendments:——
    The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 33.

    Division No. 385]

    [1.47 am

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Devlin, Tim

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Amess, David

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Amos, Alan

    Durant, Tony

    Arbuthnot, James

    Eggar, Tim

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Fallon, Michael

    Ashby, David

    Favell, Tony

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Batiste, Spencer

    Forman, Nigel

    Boswell, Tim

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Brazier, Julian

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Bright, Graham

    Freeman, Roger

    Burns, Simon

    French, Douglas

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Carrington, Matthew

    Gill, Christopher

    Carttiss, Michael

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Chapman, Sydney

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Chope, Christopher

    Gow, Ian

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Gregory, Conal

    Cran, James

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Hague, William

    Day, Stephen

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

    1134

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Harris, David

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Hayward, Robert

    Neubert, Michael

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Paice, James

    Irvine, Michael

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jack, Michael

    Renton, Tim

    Janman, Tim

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Jessel, Toby

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Stevens, Lewis

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Knapman, Roger

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Lightbown, David

    Thurnham, Peter

    Lilley, Peter

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Maclean, David

    Waller, Gary

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Warren, Kenneth

    Mans, Keith

    Wheeler, John

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Wood, Timothy

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Mills, Iain

    Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Mitchell, Sir David

    NOES

    Alton, David

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Meale, Alan

    Beith, A. J.

    Michael, Alun

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

    Nellist, Dave

    Blair, Tony

    Patchett, Terry

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Buckley, George J.

    Randall, Stuart

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Redmond, Martin

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Richardson, Jo

    Cryer, Bob

    Short, Clare

    Cummings, John

    Skinner, Dennis

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Wallace, James

    Dixon, Don

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Foster, Derek

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Tellers for the Noes

    Gordon, Mildred

    Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.

    Illsley, Eric

    Kennedy, Charles

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

    ROAD TRAFFIC
    That the draft Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Recording Equipment) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 24th July, be approved.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
    Question agreed to.

    Electricians (Registration)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
    1.58 am
    Mr. Stuart Randall: It is of great concern that, with the advent of the single European market, the United Kingdom electrical contracting industry will be at a serious disadvantage compared with its counterparts in most of the other Community countries. That arises from the fact that on the continent the industry is regulated in the sense that operatives can carry out electrical installation work only if they are suitably qualified. In addition, the work has to adhere to mandatory safety standards. Furthermore, work generally has to be inspected to ensure that those standards are met.
    In the United Kingdom, the electrical contracting industry works within a self-regulated framework. One consequence of that is that anybody who wishes to call himself or herself an electrician can do such work and is not bound even by the safety standards of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. That system leads to shoddiness, with the effect that sub-standard electrical wiring resulted in 3,500 accidental fires in dwellings and 2,800 accidental fires in other occupied buildings in the United Kingdom in 1987. That is according to the Home Office document entitled "Fire Statistics United Kingdom 1987". Mr. Gresty, the county trading standards officer of North Yorkshire county council, was kind enough to send me examples of extremely bad wiring practice. It is vital to take action to eliminate it.
    The feeling in the industry is that the existing system of self-regulation will not enable it to compete fairly with unscrupulous continental operatives who will be able to work in the United Kingdom outside the influence of our system of self-regulation. The irony is that they will be able to do that without any qualifications and without having to concern themselves with safety standards in the United Kingdom, although they would be prevented from doing such work in their own countries by the various regulatory systems that exist there. Clearly, they would be able to cut corners and complete work more cheaply, but the safety consequences would be disastrous. Our industry is not asking for regulations on a basis comparable with those in the other EEC countries, but it is asking to be able to compete fairly with its EEC couterparts. I am sure that the Minister will find that a reasonable argument.
    A key step towards addressing the problem is that the Electrical Contractors Association—with, I am glad to say, help from the Government—carried out detailed research and has just produced a report entitled, "Access for the British Electrical Contracting Industry to the European Single Market". That study investigated the issue of regulation in the electrical contracting industry in EEC countries and its possible impact on fair trade.
    The main conclusions that I draw from the study are that the systems of regulation are variable in the EEC countries and there is no possibility of our self-regulated approach being adopted by the EEC for 1992. Therefore, we have to react to what exists on the continent in order to ensure fair competition and we need to do so as expeditiously as possible.
    It is important to note that, if we fail to respond to the needs of the industry, our existing self-regulated system will not be able to monitor and establish the extent to
    1136
    which unscrupulous operators were coming to the United Kingdom and what work was being done. Clearly, the consequences of that would be serious when one is dealing with the potentially hazardous issue of electricity supply.
    The industry is not asking for a system of regulation along the lines that exist on the continent. It is asking for a voluntary system of self-certification of work which will be based on an assessment of contracting companies in terms of their skills and the application of mandatory technical standards. If a company wishes not to take part in the voluntary system, it would be free to do as it does now, but it would not be qualified to certify its own work. A third party would have to inspect the work and approve it.
    Continental contracting companies would be free, like British companies, to decide which of those options to pursue. The key point is that all companies, whether British or continental, would be treated exactly the same. The other main element in all this is the need for reciprocal recognition arrangements to be put in place so that British contracting companies can compete fairly on the continent.
    As our existing system of self-regulation would generally be unacceptable on the continent, it would result in an almost total barrier to trade and for the electrical contracting industry 1992 and all that would be a complete farce. An urgent solution is needed.
    I want to say a little more about the structure of the self-certification process proposed by the ECA and the two conditions that have to be satisfied for that to happen. As I have already said, if a contractor wishes voluntarily to be able to self-certify its work, it must meet certain qualifying criteria regarding the company and its staff. Some of the criteria that I should like to see are that the company must be commercially competent, its staff must be qualified electricians and there must be a minimum level of experience of, say, three years. The criteria would need to be assessed by an independent Government-approved body similar to the one that already exists for the gas industry—the Confederation for the Registration of Gas Installers.
    The second main condition which must be met for self-certification is that work must adhere to existing IEE wiring regulations. That adherence must now become mandatory. The ECA—proposed structure suggests that those wiring regulations should become part of the normal building regulations which must be adhered to as part of the normal local authority planning permission procedures relating to construction work. Just as the local authority inspects construction projects to ensure that they meet agreed planning permission and building regulation guidelines, under these arrangements inspection of wiring could be carried out by the contracting company itself if it was qualified to self-certify or by a third party if the company had decided that it did not wish to be able to self-certify. The inspection work could be carried out by the local authority or by the National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting—both of which will have to adapt themselves to some extent to be able to carry out that work.
    The upshot of all this is that continental electrical contractors would be able to work in the United Kingdom, but within the necessary IEE technical regulations that would ensure safety and fair competition. It must be stressed that 1992 must not result in the deterioration of electrical standards. On the contrary, the number of

    1137
    electrically caused fires, fatalities and serious accidents in the United Kingdom causes concern and unquestionably justifies raising the standards of our electrical installations.
    The other vital condition is that the reciprocal recognition arrangements which aim to allow British contractors to have fair access to continental markets must work effectively. I understand that there is agreement in principle on an industry basis between the ECA and the international trade association—the Association Internationale d'Entreprises Electriques.
    Although the groundwork on reciprocal recognition is being done by the industry, I nevertheless believe that the time has come for Government to start playing a more active role in this matter. I am especially anxious that the Minister should press the EEC Commission to do whatever is necessary to ensure that the system of reciprocal recognition works in the interests of British industry. The Government can obviously do that far better than industry and I hope that the Minister will move quickly on this.
    What are the possible legislative consequences? I believe that the Government have all the powers that they need. Does the Minister agree that the function of the approved body, to which I have referred and which would allow contractors to self-certify their work, could be dealt with under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974? I refer specifically to schedule 3, clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7. Does the Minister also agree that incorporating electrical wiring into building regulations could be dealt with administratively and would not require legislation? I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that.
    The Consumers Association has written to me about incorporating electrical wiring into building regulations. It states:
    "The fact that anyone can set up a business in this field of work without qualifications or experience is highly unsatisfactory…We think that the Wiring Regulations drawn up by the IEE should have the force of law…We would, therefore, welcome any changes in the Building Regulations which would make it mandatory to meet the lEE standards."
    I hope that the Minister will accept the proposal that I have put before the House, which is based on the views of the ECA, the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union and others. Not to accept the proposal would pose a serious risk to our electrical contracting industry in terms of loss of trade and jobs. It would also have serious consequences for consumers because of the threats to safety that could arise from a deterioration in standards.
    Will the Minister accept in principle the ECA structure that I have put before the House on the question of self-certification, third-party inspection and reciprocal recognition? If the Minister will not accept that structure in principle, will he tell the House exactly what he intends to put in its place and the timescale for producing alternative proposals, bearing in mind the urgent need for our industry to start preparing for 1992? I gave the Minister notice of that question, so I hope that he can give a reply.
    I am sure that the Minister recognises that the industry is not advocating anything other than that the industry should be able to operate in a free market while recognising the different ways in which the continental industry is regulated and is likely to be regulated in the foreseeable future. I am sure that the Minister also recognises that much of what I have advocated for the
    1138
    electrical contracting industry already exists for gas installations. Will the Minister confirm that he accepts the idea of having an approved body which would assess contractors to see if they satisfied the qualifying criteria for self-certification? I understand that the requirements for the approved body have already been defined by the ECA. Those requirements are comparable with what would be needed for Europe.
    Will the Minister also confirm that he will give support to the electrical contracting industry by encouraging the EC Commission to establish a system of reciprocal recognition that will ensure that United Kingdom contractors are able to compete fairly at home and on the continent?
    2.12 am
    Mr. Peter Thurnham: I wish to intervene briefly to congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) on his good fortune in securing an Adjournment debate on such an interesting and important subject.
    I declare an interest as one who has built up an electrical contracting business which is listed among the 10 largest in the industry. I have also represented the Electrical Contractors Association for some time in the House.
    The Minister will be aware that our industry is in a unique position. It is in a healthy state, but it needs help from the Government to be able to compete vigorously in Europe. For many years in this country any Tom, Dick or Harry could set up here, and now any Fritz, Pierre or Sebastian will be able to do the same. At the same time, however, even the most qualified electrician here will have considerable difficulty in setting up and competing in Europe. That is why it is most important that the Government should establish reciprocal trading arrangements so that members of the ECA can go abroad to compete and to demonstrate that healthy state of our electrical contracting industry, which will then stand it in good stead when competing in Europe.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Do I take it that the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) had the permission of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) to make a speech?
    Mr. Thurnham: Yes.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: So that it can be recorded in the Official Report, I should tell the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West that it is a courtesy to inform the Chair when it is agreed that other hon. Members are to take part in the Adjournment debate.
    2.15 am
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) for raising this interesting issue this morning He brings considerable expertise—no doubt based on his own background in electrical engineering—to it. I was interested to hear the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who is also an expert on this matter.
    I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West that electrical installation

    1139
    engineers should be competent and properly qualified. But electrical contracting is one area where considerable regulation already exists or is being developed: first, self-regulation on the part of the industry and, secondly, regulation through the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the control of supply and the building regulations.
    First, I shall turn to voluntary self-regulation. The Electrical Contractors Association examines all the companies that apply to it for membership for technical skills, competence in contracting, sound business practices and the qualifications of their staff and operatives. Once admitted to the ECA, registered contractors are required to conform with the association's rules and standards. The ECA has for 40 years offered guarantees to customers, in support of their registered contractors. These guarantees cover not only the work undertaken by the contractor but also completion of the project if the original contractor experiences difficulties.
    The National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting, a consumer safety organisation, has about 9,500 contractors on its register. By its own estimate, the NICEIC believes that about 75 per cent. of electrical contracting work in all sectors—domestic, commercial and industrial—is undertaken by contractors registered with it. Contractors are registered only after undergoing a full day's inspection by an NICEIC inspector and annual inspections take place thereafter.
    I applaud the work of both these organisations and I am confident that the schemes run by the ECA and NICEIC—which are by no means mutually exclusive—offer the consumer excellent standards of safety and quality of service. It is primarily through the increasingly effective promotion of these schemes that the industry will be able to put its own house in order, since, as contractors realise that they will be unable to compete for trade without the backing of a recognised body, they will quickly be forced to seek recognised status or suffer in the market place.
    Turning to health and safety, the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989—made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974—will come into force on 1 April 1990. The purpose of the regulations is to require precautions to be taken against the risk of death or personal injury from electricity in workplace activities.
    On the control of supply, the Department of Energy has issued regulations for the safe and secure supply of electricity. Regulation 27 enables an electricity board to take into account compliance with the IEE wiring regulations in assessing whether an installation should be connected.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West has referred to the suggestions from parts of the electrical industry that electrical installation work should be brought within the scope of the building regulations, as indeed is already the position in Scotland. We believe that the existing arrangements to ensure that such work is carried out in a safe manner are working well. Nevertheless, we are considering whether, particularly in the light of developments at the European level, it might be desirable to reinforce them with a general legal requirement in the regulations.
    If we should decide to go down this path, there are a number of practical difficulties that would first need to be
    1140
    resolved. In particular, we would have to find ways of ensuring that we were not simply adding an unnecessary and burdensome layer of bureaucratic control to the industry's own voluntary arrangements. We are discussing these issues with representatives from the industry, and, in accordance with our normal practice, we would consult widely on detailed proposals before deciding whether or not to introduce a requirement of this nature.
    If electrical installation work were to be brought within the scope of the building regulations, an additional regulation made under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 would be necessary, and an approved document would be issued setting out how compliance with that regulation would be achieved.
    I have already referred to developments at the European level. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that these are of prime importance.
    The Electrical Contractors Association's report on the way in which the electrical installation industry is controlled in all the member states of the European Community is a most useful document. I am pleased to say that the Government made a large contribution to the funding of that research.
    The report concludes that, on the whole, the industry is more highly regulated in other member states than in the United Kingdom and that this, in effect, creates barriers to entry for United Kingdom contractors. That is a serious allegation, and we shall wish to examine equally seriously whether barriers are, in practice, significant and, if so, how they should be tackled on a Community basis.
    I do not, however, believe, for the reasons which I have already set out, that the right answer would be the introduction of statutory registration, either under schedule 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, or by other legislative means.
    To achieve equality of market access in Europe, the ECA has advocated a system of reciprocal recognition. Appropriate reciprocal arrangements would, in the ECA's view, require some sort of formalisation of the current structure of self-regulation, based on recognition of contractors qualified to self-certify that their work complies with technical standards, while the work of other contractors would be subject to third-party inspection. An independent means, both of accrediting suitably qualified contractors and of providing inspection of other contractors, might be necessary.
    These are, I think, suggestions which certainly deserve further exploration. The arguments were further developed by the hon. Gentleman. A key element would be the creation of an independent industry-wide approval and inspection body, perhaps modelled on CORGI, or perhaps on the NICEIC in a rather different and more broadly based form. To such a body, the Government would accord recognition but not, as I have said, statutory backing.
    It is for the industry to carry these proposals forward. I gather that the ECA is currently consulting its continental European counterparts through the pan-European association, the AIE, and that the hope is that the AIE will arrive at an agreed approach to reciprocal recognition before the end of the year. In countries with statutory registration arrangements, the agreed approach will need to be brokered with Government and dealt with on a Communitywide basis. In the United Kingdom I shall be taking a close interest in any formalisation of the United Kingdom arrangements which may be necessary,

    1141
    not least in the light of our current examination of whether the building regulations might be widened to include electrical installation.
    Mr. Randall: Bearing in mind the agreement in principle in Britain between the ECA and the AIE on reciprocal recognition, does the Minister agree that the Government have an important role to play in pushing the matter forward through the EEC Commission?
    Mr. Chope: The Government are certainly considering the appropriate steps to take in the light of these developments. I have nothing to report to the hon. Gentleman this evening, but I assure him that submissions are on their way: my Department is considering the matter.
    Whatever the outcome, we must ensure that our electrical installation contractors are not disadvantaged in the single market. That the other member states have more statutory regulation of their electrical installation industries than we have may not matter in itself. Indeed, it does not necessarily mean that their standards of workmanship are higher. It would be fair to say that we have high standards in this country. That is not to say that we cannot improve them, but it would be wrong to suggest that our standards are lower than those of other countries.
    The hon. Gentleman quoted Home Office statistics. They do not break down to wiring faults in the manner that he suggested. The best statistics that I have were produced by the Department of Energy and deal with domestic fatalities. Although one is too many, I am pleased to say that in 1987 there was only one death as a result of domestic wiring faults.
    Mr. Randall: May I refer the Minister to table 49(a) in the report to which I referred? Under the heading "Dwellings", the report says that there were 3,549 accidental fires resulting from electrical wiring. Under the
    1142
    second heading of "Other occupied buildings" the report says that there were 2,875 electrical wiring fires. These are Home Office statistics.
    Mr. Chope: I do not dispute the overall statistics, but I am advised that whether the fires were caused by wiring faults is open to dispute. I shall note the documents to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
    Mr. Randall: I do not want to use the Minister's time, because I know that he wishes to answer the questions that I put to him, but the document breaks down the causes of fires and one of those specified is electrical wiring. Other electrical causes are mentioned and one could increase the number of accidents by including those caused by electrical appliances. I have specifically mentioned wiring which is the matter that would be covered by EC regulations and which we wish to see in legislation.
    Mr. Chope: I shall not disagree with the information in the documents to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I shall seek further information on the basis of what he has said.
    If regulation leads to unfair barriers to trade for the United Kingdom's reputable installation contractors and thus to restrictions on European competition, we shall wish to consider carefully how those barriers might be removed. For the time being the ECA's proposals for reciprocal recognition in conjunction with technical control through the building regulations offers a possible way forward. I cannot say that the Government accept that as the solution, but, as I say, it certainly offers a possible way forward and we are considering it sympathetically.
    I think that I have answered all the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. If not, I shall be happy to clear up any that remain in correspondence.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Two o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Public Sector Employees
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to undertake a separate case study prior to any changes that would remove employment rights from public sector employees as part of any plan to privatise public sector jobs.

  Mr. Lilley
  No. In all privatisations the Government observe the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (TUPE), which provide that, where there is a transfer of an undertaking, all the employees' rights and liabilities must automatically be transferred to the new employer. Pension rights fall outside the scope of TUPE and are negotiated separately in each case.

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the number of people investing in premium bonds since the change to a minimum investment of £100.

  Mr. Ryder
  In the three months since the change to a minimum purchase of £100 on 1 July, premium bond purchases have averaged 60,000 per month to a value of £23·7 million. In the three months prior to the change premium bond purchases averaged 175,000 per month to a value of £24 million.

  Government Statistics
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out those Government statistics on which he now answers parliamentary questions, in the light of the changes in the arrangements of the Central Statistical Office.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: I am placing in the Library a copy of the paper prepared by the Central Statistical Office "Note for the Table Office of the House of Commons and for the House of Lords following the reorganisation of the responsibility for economic statistics: The establishment of the 'new' Central Statistical Office", which sets out the new arrangements.

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will remove the provision of subsidy of child care facilities by employers from the list of items regarded for tax purposes as a benefit in kind; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 2 November 1989]: There is no list of items regarded for tax purposes as benefits in
  636
  kind. Such benefits are generally liable to taxation. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no plans to exempt beneficiaries of subsidies for child care from taxation.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the Legal Action Group's report on financial eligibility for legal aid.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) on 6 November 1989 at column 440.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the value of eligibility limits for legal aid in 1979; and what are, in real terms, the value of those limits today.

  The Attorney-General
  The eligibility limits for civil legal aid between April and November 1979 were £3,600 disposable income and £2,500 disposable capital. The retail prices index increased by 103·69 per cent. between 1979 and 1989. Increasing the 1979 civil legal aid limits by the same amount produces £7,332·85 disposable income and £5,092·25 disposable capital. However, the RPI includes increases in the cost of housing—which have been greater than the increase in prices generally—while housing costs are disregarded in assessing legal aid eligibility.

  Regina v. Barnard
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will send for the papers in Regina v. Barnard heard at Oxford Crown court before His Honour Judge Leo Clark, Queen's counsel on 21 October to consider whether the sentence imposed is such that it is a suitable case to refer to the Court of Appeal for review.

  The Attorney-General
  Yes.

THE ARTS

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether any national galleries or museums are being prosecuted for responsibilities which were formerly covered by Crown immunity.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: The science museum has been charged under the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 following an inspection of its water cooling plant.

  Civil Service Dispersal
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has any plans to relocate his offices to the north-west of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no such plans.

CIVIL SERVICE

  HEO Direct Entry
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will provide an estimate of the administrative cost per successful candidate in the recent direct entry higher executive officer competition.

  Mr. Luce
  The information will not be available for some time. The Civil Service Commission began interviewing candidates for the scheme on 6 November 1989 and the entire exercise will not be completed until early next summer.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present amount of aid now being given to Sri Lanka; and if he will list each project on which aid is being spent.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In 1988–89 expenditure on Britain's bilateral aid programme to Sri Lanka totalled £19·8 million, though disbursements in the present financial year are expected to be lower. Britain also contributes to programmes administered by the European Community and other international aid organisations. Current bilateral aid projects are as follows:

  Colombo Roads Rehabilitation

  Power Distribution, Colombo

  Supply of Agricultural Tractors to Trincomalee area

  Supply of Miscellaneous Vehicles

  Land Use and Conservation Project

  Mahaweli Catchment Area Project

  Sandskipper Project (Artisanal Fisheries)

  Coconut processing

  Wood burning stoves

  Victoria Dam Maintenance

  Supply of school furniture

  Archaeological assistance in Cultural Triangle

  Health and welfare projects (Anti-Malaria, Health Education, Cleft Lip and Palate)

  Support for Non-Governmental Organisations (Oxfam, Save the Children Fund and Sarvoydaya)

  English Language Training

  University link projects

  Heads of Mission Gift and Small Projects Schemes

  Books Presentation Programme

  Training awards in the United Kingdom

  Commonwealth Scholars and Fellowship Plan

  Joint Funding Schemes

  Associate Professional Officers Scheme

  Samanalawewa Hydroelectric Power Project

  Bus bodies for Colombo

  Water supply schemes in Southern Sri Lanka

  Oxfam
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place between his Department and Oxfam with regard to the Government contributing towards some of the costs of Oxfam's aid programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My officials and I are in regular contact with Oxfam both about support under our joint funding scheme and about emergency relief measures. Indeed, I have recently decided to increase our grant to Oxfam under the joint funding scheme to £3·5 million next year.638
  We will of course also consider sympathetically requests for assistance for disaster and emergency relief measures if the need arises.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons of public policy the immigration portfolio has been moved from Minister of State to a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.

  Mr. Waddington
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a question from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 6 November 1989 at column 417.

  Wrongful Imprisonment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) by year, (b) amount paid and (c) cases, the number of occasions ex-gratia payments of compensation to persons wrongfully imprisoned have been made.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested, based on the date on which the final payment of compensation was made from 1980, is as follows:

  Year

  Number awarded compensation

  Total amount paid (£)

  1980

  18

  92,631

  1981

  13

  88,805

  1982

  10

  114,157

  1983

  6

  45,853

  1984

  12

  14,450

  1985

  17

  216,163

  1986

  13

  154,890

  1987

  14

  153,806

  1988

  8

  56,925

  Computer Codes
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government are taking to ensure that computer codes involved in the decision-making process involving public safety are(a) reliable and (b) open to scrutiny by (i) the public and (ii) the scientific community.

  Mr. Waddington
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a question from him by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) on 6 November 1989 at columns 401–2. The Home Office is one of the Departments represented on the interdepartmental working committee on software engineering.

  Equal Opportunities (Insurance)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received a copy of "Unisex Pricing in Long Term Insurance" by the Equal Opportunities Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We received the report in July and are considering it in the context of the Equal Opportunities Commission's proposals for amending the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

  Traffic Offences
  Mr. Tebbit
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is any limit placed upon the maximum time after an alleged traffic offence in the Metropolitan police area after which no prosecution will be initiated.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Proceedings for most road traffic offences are subject to the normal limitation that, for summary offences, the information must be laid within six months of the offence.

  Arrests
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide figures on the number of arrests made in the Metropolitan police district under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 in the years 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 27 October 1989]: Information is not held centrally on the number of arrests made under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. However in 1987 in the Metropolitan police district (including City of London) there were 2,600 prosecutions under section 5 of this Act of which 2,000 were found guilty. In 1988 the figures were 6,500 and 4,900 respectively.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Nursery Teachers
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to increase the number of nursery teachers.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In recent years the allocations of intake numbers to initial teacher training courses for early years (3–8) have been increased and institutions have been encouraged to increase the provision made for early years training within their allocation for primary places. The numbers recruited to such courses have nearly doubled since 1986.

  Publicity literature on teacher recruitment, including that aimed at mature entrants and re-entrants, has highlighted the opportunities for early-years specialists.

  Under the LEA training grants scheme, in-service training in the teaching of children in primary classes who are younger than "rising five" is a national priority area.

  My hon. Friend the Minister of State is chairing a committee of inquiry on the quality of educational provision for three and four-year-olds which will be taking into account the nature of training for teachers and other professional staff involved.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received to date about student loans.

  Mr. Jackson
  Since the publication of the White Paper on top-up loans for students, we have received about 4,100 letters, including 49 petitions.

  Pupils
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will provide guidance to local education authorities in relation to the provision they make for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department is today issuing a circular that provides guidance about the nature of educational provision that LEAs should make to meet the special educational needs of pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties in special schools. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many disabled students were included in his survey of students income and expenditure commissioned by his Department when drawing up proposals for the White Paper on top up loans for students.

  Mr. Jackson
  The surveys were designed to give a representative sample of the student population as a whole. We have no evidence that the proportion of disabled students included in the surveys was unrepresentative.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Civil Service Dispersal
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he has any plans to relocate the Privy Council offices to the north-west of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have no such plans. The Privy Council Office accommodates the Leaders of both Houses, the departments of the Clerk of the Privy Council and of the Judicial Committee of the Council. It would be impossible for those concerned to discharge their responsibilities to the sovereign and to Parliament if the office were to be located outside central London.

  Members' Salaries (Attachment)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Lord President of the Council who is authorised to attach the parliamentary salary of right hon. or hon. Members who refuse to pay the community charge or so-called poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  [holding answer 30 October 1989]: Normally, the charging authority would serve an attachment of earnings order (AEO) on a debtor's employer, having first obtained a liability order from a magistrates' court. Since hon. Members do not have an employer, unless they authorise the attachment of their earnings, the charging authority would have to enforce recovery of the outstanding sum by other means.

TRANSPORT

  Chemicals
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve safety precautions for toxic and inflammable chemicals when being transported by road.

  Mr. Atkins
  The rules for safely transporting these goods are reviewed regularly.

  Radioactive Material
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) airports and (b) seaports that are used to transport (i) plutonium and (ii) other radioactive material to Europe and Japan.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There are over half a million movements of radioactive material per annum. The Department does not collect information on a routine basis on the ports and airports used to export such material to Europe and Japan. In the particular case of plutoniums, I am advised that during the last year the only exports, in greater than gramme quantities, have been to Europe and have been made via Carlisle airport.

  Worthing Bypass
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that detailed design work will be prepared for both his Department's preferred route for the A27 in the Worthing area and a real bypass in advance of the public inquiry.

  Mr. Atkins
  In the special circumstances of the A27 Worthing-Lancing scheme, we have undertaken to carry out full traffic, economic and environmental assessments of the alternative "blue" bypass routes that have been put forward as well as of our preferred "green" route announced in July. This will ensure an adequate basis for all the issues to be thoroughly debated at a public inquiry.

  We could not justify carrying out detailed design work on routes other than the one to be published in draft orders unless, following an inquiry, we were persuaded that such an alternative route should be adopted.

  Railways
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Burnley, (Mr. Pike),Official Report, 30 October, column 84, he will indicate which railway issues were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I cannot add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) on 30 October at column 84.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what success the Government have had in reducing the incidence of drinking and driving.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am pleased to report that statistics published today by the Home Office show a furher reduction in the proportion of breath tests which are 642
  positive. Results published by the transport and road research laboratory of the blood alcohol levels of driver fatalities also show a similar downward trend. This demonstrates our continuing success in changing public attitudes towards drinking and driving. This could not have been achieved by the Government action alone. Much of the credit must go to the police and to the brewers, publicans, and soft drink producers for their support in promoting low-alcohol and alcohol-free drinks and in helping us to bring home to people the awful consequences of drinking and driving.

  There is, however, still a long way to go and we must not let up. We shall be launching our Christmas campaign against drinking and driving early in December, with the continuing support of private industry.

  Waterloo and City Line
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being taken to improve services on the Waterloo and City line.

  Mr. Portillo
  Network SouthEast is well aware of the shortcomings of the Waterloo and City line. It plans a major overhaul of the line over the next few years and a programme of improvements is in hand. Resignalling should be completed by 1992. I am pleased to say that Network SouthEast has today announced that it is to order 20 new coaches to replace the existing fleet. These will be of the most modern design, similar to those on order by London Underground for the Central line. I welcome the British Railways Board's decision to approve this important piece of investment. I expect deliveries to begin in 1992.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Antarctic
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what part his Department played at the recent Paris conference on the Antarctic.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 31 October, at column 143.

  Cambodia
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the exclusion of Cambodia from international agencies and agreements, including the World Health Organisation's international telecommunications treaties, airline agreements and trade agreements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Cambodia's participation in international agencies and agreements is a matter for the agencies and authorities concerned. The Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea currently occupies Democratic Kampuchea's United Nations seat. We have not opposed acceptance of the credentials of Democratic Kampuchea, but have made clear our abhorrence of Pol Pot and his associates.
  643
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about the Government's policy towards Cambodia.

  Mr. Hurd
  The British Government's objective is a sovereign and independent Cambodia whose people are free to decide their own future. We do not have diplomatic relations with the unelected regime put into power by the Vietnamese. We have consistently made plain our repugnance for the Khmer Rouge. We have never given, and will never give, support of any kind to the Khmer Rouge.

  These objectives remain unchanged but we have reviewed their implementation in the light of recent events. Vietnam has withdrawn its combat units from Cambodia. The international conference at Paris failed to reach agreement on a political settlement. Fighting continues within Cambodia itself and the need for humanitarian aid has grown. In these circumstances we have decided:

  (i) to build up our humanitarian aid programme. We shall continue to provide substantial help to the many thousands of Cambodians living in camps along the Thai-Cambodia border who have been made homeless by the years of fighting. We stipulate that none of our aid should reach the Khmer Rouge. We shall now increase the humanitarian aid which we give inside Cambodia itself while continuing to channel this aid through the non-governmental organisations and organisations such as UNICEF and not direct to the Phnom Penh regime. As part of this policy, I propose to offer now a further contribution of £250,000 to UNICEF for humanitarian projects inside Cambodia. Arrangements will be made for a member of the British embassy in Bangkok to visit Phnom Penh soon to report on the situation at first hand. I am asking the heads of the NGOs to meet me to discuss details;

  (ii) to adapt our stance at the UN. The report of the UN credentials committee again recommended acceptance of credentials of Democratic Kampuchea for the Cambodian seat and was approved without a vote. That question has thus already been settled for the present session. Our long-standing position on this legal and technical matter in no way implies readiness to deal with the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea as a government, much less support for the Khmer Rouge. We have decided with our friends and partners to modify the draft resolution which we, with 74 other UN member states, are co-sponsoring at the United Nations General Assembly in the debate on 15 November. These changes are intended to make clear that the situation in Cambodia has changed and that we do not support the Khmer Rouge in any way.

  We wish to see peace and stability restored to Cambodia through a comprehensive political settlement which will create the conditions in which the Cambodian people can elect a government of their choice, free from the fear of Khmer Rouge atrocities, foreign occupation or civil war. In consultation with our friends and allies, notably the ASEAN group of countries, we shall continue to work to this end.

  Hong Kong
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he proposes to take any action in response to the recent Chinese sacking of two members of the Basic Law Drafting Committee in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Maude
  Members of the Basic Law drafting committee are appointed by the standing committee of the Chinese National People's Congress. The suspension of two members is a matter for the Chinese authorities and the members themselves. We hope that the Chinese Government will take full account of opinion in Hong Kong in their drafting of the Basic Law.

  Gibraltar
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why Gibraltar does not have elected representation in the European Parliament.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer the hon. Member to the observations made on this matter by my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary on 20 June 1984.

  Amnesty International
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to ascertain the reasons for the refusal of the Indian Government to grant entry visas to representatives of Amnesty International in January, March and December 1985, November 1986, November 1987 and March 1989.

  Mr. Maude
  The Indian Government have made their views on Amnesty International clear in public statements. Equally, we have made known to them that we regard Amnesty International as a serious and responsible organisation. The issuing of visas is a matter for the Indian Government.

WALES

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the changes in the totals and percentages of unemployed in(a) Wales and (b) the area covered by the valleys initiative since (i) July 1986, (ii) July 1987 and (iii) July 1988.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested is shown in the table. The figures used are not adjusted for seasonality and are affected by the change in benefit regulations for under 18-year-olds introduced in September 1988.

  Change in number of unemployed

  1Change in unemployment rate (Percentage points)

  July 1986–September 1989

  Valleys area

  -19,964

  -9·1

  Wales

  -84,592

  -8·1

  July 1987–September 1989

  Valleys area

  -13,718

  -6·3

  645

  Change in number of unemployed

  1 Change in unemployment rate (Percentage points)

  Wales

  -61,535

  -6·0

  July 1988–September 1989

  Valleys area

  -7,630

  -3·5

  Wales

  -35,478

  -3·3

  1 The rates used for Wales are on the "narrow base" (ie the denominator consisting of employees in employment and unemployed claimants) which provides the closest basis on which a comparison can be made with my estimates for the valleys programme area.

  Since the launch of the valleys programme in June 1988, the unemployment rate in the valleys area has fallen by 3·9 percentage points compared to a fall in Wales of 3·4 percentage points.

  Health Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will break down the distribution of the sum of money allocated for the implementation of the White Paper, "Working for Patients", by authority and by the sub-divisions as in his answer to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside of 31 October; and what uses he expects to be made of the cash sum for health authorities' discretionary use.

  Mr. Grist
  The distribution of the £1·62 million allocated for the discretionary use of health authorities in meeting the costs of implementing the White Paper "Working for Patients" during the current financial year is shown in the table:

  £ million

  Clwyd

  0·19

  East Dyfed

  0·13

  Gwent

  0·23

  Gwynedd

  0·13

  Mid Glamorgan

  0·26

  Pembrokeshire

  0·07

  Powys

  0·08

  South Glamorgan

  0·29

  West Glamorgan

  0·20

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority

  0·04

  1·62

  The funding provided recognises the need for health authorities to strengthen their systems and staffing particularly in the fields of finance and personnel in order to meet the operational requirements of the White Paper reforms. While information is not available on the precise deployment of these additional funds—since this is a matter for each health authority to decide in the light of its own local circumstances—all authorities have confirmed that they have borne in mind the following considerations:

  (i) the information technology and staffing consequences of the need to introduce and maintain capital asset registers and to generate capital charges in respect of all registered assets;

  (ii) the staffing consequences associated with the introduction of new contractual arrangements for service provision particularly in the contract negotiation, billing, paymaster and accounting function;

  646

  (iii) the staffing consequences associated with the need for the introduction of comprehensive (computerised) manpower management systems;

  (iv) the need for district co-ordinators and supporting staff etc. (as necessary) to establish medical audit as district level.

  The balance of the additional £5 million which the Department has provided toward the cost of implementing the White Paper proposals in the current financial year has been reserved centrally for the various purposes outlined in the table, but it is not possible to say at the present time how much of this funding will be allocated in due course to individual health authorities.

  (a) £2·34 million has been earmarked in respect of authorities' information technology and resource management initiative plans under the revised Information and Information Technology Strategy for the NHS in Wales which is to be published shortly. The distribution of these funds between health authorities will be subject of detailed discussions between health authorities and my officials;

  (b) £0·11 million has been reserved for medical audit purposes including support for some specific projects and the appointment of a clinical adviser to head a Clinical Resource User Group and to liaise with the Welsh Advisory Group on Medical Audit;

  (c) £0·18 million is required for the cost this year of the Value for Money Unit which has been established to lead the drive for cost improvements and income generation, to promote opportunities for marketing NHS expertise and to advise authorities on the commercial exploitation of innovation;

  (d) 0·14 million has been set aside for the cost of additional training at the all Wales level of health authority personnel and finance staff and for strengthening the functions undertaken by the Manpower Consultancy Service;

  (e)£0·11 million has been reserved for preparatory work to enable the implementation of the White Paper proposals relating to family practitioner services. Of this sum, £0·08 million has been allocated to the family practitioner committees in Wales and £0·3 million is being used centrally to help meet the cost of appointing general managers to FPCs in Wales;

  (f) £0·50 million is to be used in establishing treatment centres at Bridgend, Bangor and Cardiff but it is not possible at this stage to give an accurate assessment of the distribution of this funding between the managing authorities.

  Untreated Sewage
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) by what date he plans to end the discharge of untreated sewage from Wales into the sea, whether by long or short outfalls;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the cost of ending the discharge of untreated sewage from Wales into the sea;

  (3) whether he will make it his policy to end the discharge of untreated sewage from Wales into the sea and into estuaries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The Government remain to be convinced that prior treatment is always necessary or desirable where properly designed and sited long sea outfalls are available. However, a study has been commissioned, to be undertaken by Consultants in Environmental Sciences Ltd., to investigate the likely costs and benefits, both environmental and financial, of applying various treatment standards to all major discharges.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the outfalls into the sea and estuaries carrying untreated sewage from Wales which are currently being extended or for which extensions are being planned, with the cost of each project and its projected date of completion.
  647
  Mr. Grist
  This is a matter for Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig. Information is held centrally only in respect of investment on outfalls in connection with the United Kingdom's programme to achieve compliance with its obligations under the EC's bathing water directive. This was placed in the Library by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on 20 October.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the outfalls which currently convey untreated sewage from Wales into the sea and into estuaries.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is available on National Rivers Authority registers and is not held centrally.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  European Single Market
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many firms have approached his Department for information concerning the single market; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The DTI has recorded over 260,000 inquiries for information on the single market since our `Europe Open for Business' campaign was launched in March 1988, including more than 150,000 calls to our 1992 telephone hotline. The large majority of these requests have been from individual firms or business organisations. In addition, DTI Ministers and officials have spoken at more than 1,250 single market conferences and seminars since the campaign began, mainly to business audiences.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many single European market measures were agreed in principle, adopted or had common positions under the Spanish presidency of the European Commission; and whether this total exceeds those under previous presidencies.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: A record 68 measures aimed at removing barriers to trade within the Community were finally adopted, agreed in principle, or had common positions agreed for submission to the European Parliament, under the Spanish presidency of the Council of Ministers in the first half of this year. Of these 23 came from the single market White Paper. The comparable figures for earlier presidencies were:

  Presidency and Date

  All measures

  White Paper

  Luxembourg

  July—December 1985

  32

  22

  Netherlands

  January—June 1986

  13

  4

  United Kingdom

  July—December 1986

  48

  24

  Belgium

  January—June 1987

  23

  15

  Denmark

  July—December 1987

  31

  8

  Federal Republic of Germany

  January—June 1988

  56

  23

  Greece

  July—December 1988

  54

  18

  Spain

  January—June 1989

  68

  23

  Note: The figures in the White Paper column are for adoptions, except for the Spanish Presidency, which includes three common positions awaiting final adoption.
  648
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the total expenditure per year associated with his Department's single market unit.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: Expenditure to date on the Department of Trade and Industry's "Europe Open for Business" campaign, which is the responsibility of my Department's single market unit, is around £13 million. Of this, around £8·9 million is represented by national advertising. The remaining £4·1 million has provided a detailed and comprehensive range of literature; a national telephone inquiry service and mailing operation; the Spearhead computer database; video materials; research into business preparations; and a major series of business conferences in 1988.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make it his policy to hold six-monthly national conferences bringing together business men and women, trades unions and professional bodies to discuss the implications of the European single market of 1992.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: I have no plans at present to hold regular conferences of this type. Department of Trade and Industry Ministers and officials have already spoken at over 1,250 single market conferences and seminars, and are further committed to participating in over 100 more. In addition, my Department's extensive day-to-day contact with business and representational bodies provides ample opportunity to discuss single market issues.

  Woven Spun Cotton
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his policy towards placing restrictions on the importation of woven spun cotton; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are various restraints on imports into the United Kingdom of woven spun cotton fabrics from low-cost supplying countries under the European Community's agreements under the multi-fibre arrangement and other restraint arrangements. If it can be clearly demonstrated that unrestricted imports from a particular country subject to these arrangements are causing or threatening disruption of the United Kingdom market, my Department will consider whether it is in the United Kingdom interest to request restraint action in Brussels.

  Messrs. Gary Gilbert and Sankey
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will investigate whether Messrs. Gary Gilbert and Sankey or any of its employees and employees of related companies were knowingly connnected with companies in whose shares they traded during the period 1982 to 1988.

  Mr. Redwood
  The concept of being knowingly connected with a company is one contained in the Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985. Investigations into possible contraventions of that Act are not normally announced. If the hon. Member has information suggesting that there may have been such a contravention he should draw it to my right hon. Friend's attention.

  British Steel (Flotation)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total cost of the flotation of British Steel.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The total cost to the Government of the sale of British Steel is estimated to be as follows.

  £ million

  Underwriting

  21·3

  Selling and broking commission

  1·7

  Receiving banks

  4·3

  Marketing

  11·6

  Advisers' fees

  5·6

  Other costs (excluding stamp duty)

  0·2

  Overseas costs

  2·8

  47·5

  This represents less than 2 per cent. of the gross proceeds of the sale.

  Telecommunications (Liberalisation)
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether any decisions have been made as a result of the recommendations from the Director General of Telecommunications about the further liberalisation of telecommunication services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  [pursuant to the reply, 15 June 1989, c. 481–82]: I can now inform the House that I have signed the new branch systems general licence under the Telecommunications Act 1984. The licence enters into force today.

  The new licence provides for significant further liberalisation in a number of areas. In particular, it allows "simple resale" whereby companies and others can sell on to third parties any spare capacity they have on the private lines they lease from British Telecom and Mercury. The licence thus gives operators of private networks complete freedom in their use within the United Kingdom.

  The licence also contains a condition designed to limit the intrusion caused by unsolicited telephone and fax sales calls. Under it, users will be able to request that a particular company ceases such calls and if the company continues to make them, it will be in breach of the licence.

  Since the licence will govern the operation of the overwhelming majority of private networks and branch systems in the country, as well as the provision of telecommunications services, we have been particularly careful to produce a document which will put into practice the measures announced by my hon. Friend in the simplest and most effective way.

  We have also taken the opportunity to simplify further some of the conditions, particularly those relating to the provision of international data services.

  We have also added a requirement that specially adapted telephones for the hard of hearing located in lifts to which the public have access should be clearly signposted. We hope these further changes will bring additional benefits to the users of telecommunications in the United Kingdom.

  In preparing the new licence, my Department has received detailed advice from the Office of Telecommunications. I am grateful to the Director
  650
  General of Telecommunications for this advice and for his recommendations, which have formed the basis for the further liberalisations that are contained in the licence.

  Copies of the new licence will be generally available at a cost of £5 from the Office of Telecommunications, and I will ensure that they are placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

ENERGY

  NATO Exercises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the post-1980 NATO exercises in which the NATO Wartime Oil Organisation's United Kingdom headquarters and the United Kingdom National Oil Board have been exercised.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The United Kingdom National Oil Board and the eastern branch of the NATO Wartime Oil Organisation have participated in a number of post-1980 NATO exercises.

  Plutonium (Transportation)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what arrangements for airport facilities British Nuclear Fuels plc. has made to transport plutonium from Sellafield to Dounreay and Europe in the light of the forthcoming closure of Carlisle airport.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  As this is an operational matter for BNFL, I am asking the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what arrangements have been made in the event of a nuclear accident occurring in the United Kingdom larger than the so-called reference accident.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's statement on 12 December 1988. She said that extensive consultations with the emergency services and local authorities have"confirmed the availability of contingency plans which would permit an effective response to be made to any nuclear accident, including those with more widespread effects than the specific site and off-site plans are designed to cater for".—[Official Report, 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 388.]
  Off-site emergency exercises are regularly based on an assumed radioactive release going significantly beyond that which could arise from the reference accident to ensure this wider capability is tested.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase in electricity prices in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Annual percentage changes in electricity prices in current terms, that is, with no adjustment for inflation, are given in the table. Separate figures are given for domestic and industrial consumers.

  Change in prices over previous year per cent.

  Year

  Domestic

  Indtustrial

  1979

  8·5

  11·1

  1980

  27·3

  23·3

  1981

  20·2

  15·8

  651

  Year

  Domestic

  Industrial

  1982

  9·8

  9·5

  1983

  3·7

  0·4

  1984

  1·4

  -0·2

  1985

  3·2

  3·9

  1986

  2·2

  0·9

  1987

  -0·5

  -2·9

  1988

  5·4

  5·5

  Source Fuel price indices, Energy Trends.

  Gas Prices
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase in gas prices in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Annual percentage changes in gas prices in current terms, that is, with no adjustment for inflation, are given in the table. Separate figures are given for domestic and industrial consumers.

  Change in prices over previous year (Percentage)

  Year

  Domestic

  Industrial

  1979

  3·7

  14·1

  1980

  16·6

  36·0

  1981

  26·0

  21·2

  1982

  24·7

  6·3

  1983

  12·0

  1·7

  1984

  3·7

  3·3

  1985

  4·1

  6·8

  1986

  1·8

  -12·8

  1987

  -1·0

  -5·8

  1988

  0·8

  -4·8

  Source: Fuel price indices, Energy Trends.

  Coal Mining Subsidies
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by when the Government intend to comply with EEC directives on eliminating subsidies to the British coal mining industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  There are no EC directives on eliminating subsidies to the British coal mining industry. The Government already comply with the EC directive on coal state aids under which member states can provide specified financial support to their coal industries subject to either the approval of, or prior notification to, the Commission.

  Energy Efficiency
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how the Government intend to improve energy efficiency in the United Kingdom during 1990–91.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Energy efficiency is primarily a matter for individual consumers. The Energy Efficiency Office will continue to provide help and guidance to consumers, to improve their energy management and to encourage the energy efficiency industry. For Government Departments, where the Government have direct responsibility for energy use, we announced a framework for securing energy savings rising to £45 million per year, equivalent to 15 per cent. of their energy bills, over five years.

  Power Stations
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if provision will be made to make available to independent electricity generators the portfolio of redundant power stations currently held by National Power and PowerGen.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Electricity Act 1989 includes, in schedule 3, a provision which could enable one electricity licence holder to make a compulsory purchase order covering surplus land held by another.

EMPLOYMENT

  YTS
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many YTS starts and how many leavers were recorded by each payment type, by male and female, and by one or two-year training entitlement by standard training agency in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, for each of the last three months.

  Mr. Nicholls
  As the information is contained in several tables I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy in the Library.

  Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, (1) pursuant to the answer of the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) of 31 October,Official Report, column 160, what are the criteria for the 1990 target number of factory inspectors;

  (2) what was the target number of factory inspectors for 1 April 1988 and April 1989; and what it is for 1 April 1990.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government have made financial provision for the Health and Safety Executive to allow recruitment as follows:

  Total factory inspectors in HSE1

  Inspectors in HM Factory Inspectorate

  1 April 1988

  634

  574

  1 April 1989

  2 649

  588

  1 April 1990

  640

  590

  1 Includes inspectors on non-inspection duties eg those contributing to policy or technical standards.

  2 Following an unexpectedly high rate of resignations during 1987–88, this "target" was reduced in October 1988 by HSE to 638.

  The criteria for HSE's 1990 target for factory inspectors were set out in the Health and Safety Commission's plan of work for 1989–90 and beyond.

  Labour and Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Labour and Social Affairs Council meeting held in Brussels on 30 October.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Council agreed some important items in the field of health and safety at work. They reached common positions on a directive to improve the minimum health and safety requirements for workers handling heavy loads, and on a directive covering health and safety requirements for workers working with visual display units.
  653
  The Council continued its discussion of a revised draft of the charter of social rights. The presidency conclusions on the draft charter will now go forward with a view to a decision on adoption, to the European Council in December.

  A report on a comparative study on working conditions in member states, drawn up by the Commission, was also discussed and welcomed. The Commission was invited to continue the work in consultation with member states.

  Disabled People (Quotas)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the various grants for which employers may apply in order to facilitate the employment of disabled people; and if he will indicate in each case(a) the amounts allocated by his Department and (b) the amounts taken up by employers, in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: My Department provides a variety of help to facilitate the employment of people with disabilities, including six special schemes to help overcome specific barriers to work. Two of these offer grants to employers:

  (a) the Job Introduction Scheme—grants towards an individual's wages during a trial period.

  (b) the Adaptations to Premises and Equipment Scheme—grants to employers to adapt their premises or equipment to enable a specific disabled employee to work more effectively and productively.

  The other four offer help directly to individuals. Money is allocated to the special schemes as a bloc, and expenditure on any one scheme is not constrained by estimates for that scheme; these are based each year on previous take-up and other evidence of likely demand.

  Between 1979–80 and 1988–89, total expenditure on all the special schemes for the disabled rose from £743,000 per annum to £5,669,000 per annum.

  The financial information requested about the two schemes is as follows:

  Job introduction scheme

  Year

  Expenditure estimate £

  Actual expenditure £

  1979–80

  334,000

  297,201

  1980–81

  457,000

  269,433

  1981–82

  425,000

  354,588

  1982–83

  531,500

  439,861

  1983–84

  571,000

  567,980

  1984–85

  646,000

  659,000

  1985–86

  760,000

  674,000

  1986–87

  837,000

  574,000

  1987–88

  920,000

  619,000

  1988–89

  609,000

  614,000

  Adaptations to premises and equipment scheme

  Year

  Expenditure estimate £

  Actual expenditure £

  1979–80

  330,000

  50,000

  1980–81

  381,000

  64,233

  1981–82

  150,000

  71,469

  1982–83

  177,000

  107,334

  1983–84

  280,000

  134,412

  1984–85

  150,000

  243,649

  1985–86

  250,000

  295,000

  1986–87

  450,000

  256,000

  1987–88

  480,000

  404,000

  1988–89

  354,000

  423,000

NORTHERN IRELAND

  NATO Exercises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the extent of involvement by his Department in NATO exercise Wintex/Cimex 1987 and exercise Wintex/Cimex 1989; what is the number of staff engaged in the exercise planning process and in the exercise themselves; and what are the posts, ranks and responsibilities of the staff involved.

  Mr. Cope
  The Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments each play their part in testing those procedures in which we have an interest. Staff participate as required. It would not be appropriate for me to supply the detail requested.

  Arts
  The Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the visits made by each of the Ministers in his Department to events in the arts in the last year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 1 November 1989]: The information on official visits to arts events is as follows:

  Secretary of State

  Julius Caesar, Grand Opera House.

  Armada Exhibition, Ulster Museum.

  Don Giovanni, Grand Opera House.

  Minister of State

  Spanish Armada Exhibition—Ulster Museum.

  Ulster Orchestra Concert—London.

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State responsible for Health

  Ulster Society of Women Artists Annual Summer Exhibition—QUB Department of Architecture, 15 Chlorine Gardens.

  Save the Children Reception—Dolls House Exhibition—Ulster Folk Museum.

  Faust—Grand Opera House.

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State responsible for the Environment

  Look Back in Anger.

  Jazz Concert—Cornmarket.

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State responsible for Education

  Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts—Reception at Hillsborough Castle.

  Armada Exhibition—Ulster Museum.

  Young Farmers' Clubs Arts Festival, Ballymena.

  Performance of Peter Pan by Scottish Ballet—Grand Opera House, Belfast.

  "The Entertainers"—Little Theatre, Bangor.

  National Choral Competition—Whitla Hall.

  Opening Emigration Gallery and Ship—Ulster American Folk Park, Omagh.

  American Waterways Wind Orchestra Performance—Donegall Quay, Belfast.

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State responsible for Economic Development

  National Portrait Gallery, London—private viewing.

  Tate Gallery, London—private viewing.

  Hayward Gallery, London—private viewing.

  Grand Opera House, Belfast.

  Tate Gallery, London—reception.

  Castleward Opera.

  British Museum.

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State responsible for Agriculture

  655

  Spanish Armada Exhibition—Ulster Museum

  British Food and Farming Exhibition—Cultra Manor.

  Musical Evening.

  Cinema Visit.

  Queen's Film Theatre.

DEFENCE

  Polychlorinated Biphenyls
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations have been undertaken into the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls in radar units and other equipment; what steps have been taken to arrange for their safe disposal; what measures have been taken to protect the health and safety of operators; what plans there are to discontinue their use; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  Extensive checks have been made over a number of years by the services and the Procurement Executive to ascertain whether equipment in use contains polychlorinated biphenyls. Such checks continue to be made as required. When disposal action needs to be taken, special arrangements are made to ensure that polychlorinated biphenyls are disposed of in accordance with the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980.

  Appropriate control measures have been laid down in general guidance on the handling of equipment containing polychlorinated biphenyls which has been issued to all units and establishments. This includes advice on the hazards involved and the steps to be taken to prevent contamination, including the use of protective clothing as appropriate.

  In accordance with the relevant regulations, whole equipments or components containing polychlorinated biphenyls, which are already in service, are not disposed of until they become obsolete or reach the end of their service life, unless they need replacing sooner.

  Defence Procurement
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will estimate the value of defence procurement in the northern region.

  Mr. Neubert
  Table 6.9 in volume II of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989" (SDE) shows that in 1986–87, the latest year for which figures are available, equipment expenditure of some £500 million was recorded against locations in the northern region of England. The assumptions which underlie the calculations are explained in an essay on pages 61–62 of SDE 88 volume II.

  Emergency Broadcasts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the liaison arrangements between his Department and the United States civilian or military authorities on the proposed content of emergency radio and television broadcasts in the United Kingdom during a pre-war crisis.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No liaison arrangements have been made between my Department and United States civilian or military authorities on the proposed content of emergency radio and television broadcasts in the United 656
  Kingdom during a pre-war crisis, but there would naturally be liaison between the United Kingdom and its NATO allies over such matters at such a time.

  NATO Courses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the posts, ranks and responsibilities of United Kingdom military and civil participants in the biannual courses on civil-military co-operation held by NATO at Oberammergau.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom sends military field-grade officers of rank from major to colonel and civilians of equivalent status who have responsibilities for civil emergency or contingency planning. crisis management or aid to the civil authorities.

  Civil-Military Co-operation Conference
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the posts, ranks and responsibilities of United Kingdom delegates to the annual conference on civil-military co-operation at headquarters allied forces central Europe, Brunssum.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  United Kingdom representatives at lieutenant colonel or equivalent level who have responsibilities for contingency planning and crisis management will attend the conference.

  NATO Exercises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the extent of involvement by his Department in NATO Exercise Wintex-Cimex 1987 and Exercise Wintex-Cimex 1989; what is the number of staff engaged in the exercise planning process and in the exercises themselves; and what are the ranks and responsibilities of the staff involved.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department plays its part in testing those procedures in which we have an interest. Staff participate as required; it would not be appropriate for me to supply the detail requested.

  Immingham and Tilbury Ports
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present state of progress towards(a) Immingham and (b) Tilbury ports' development of Z-berths for nuclear-powered submarine visits.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The only ports which are currently under discussion with local authorities as possible venues for visits by nuclear-powered submarines are Swansea and Tilbury. Regarding Tilbury, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) on 5 May 1989 at column 277.

  Meteorological and Hydrographic Offices
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the nature of the differences between the agency to be established for the Meteorological Office and the defence support agency to be established for the Hydrographic Office at Taunton.

  Mr. Neubert
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence explained in his speech in the defence
  657
  debate on 18 October, at column 155, many support activities are an integral part of overall military capability and must remain within the chain of command. Nevertheless, we believe that many of these support activities can be organised on the same lines as full Next Steps agencies, within framework documents which set out the terms under which the support agencies are to be managed on a day-to-day basis. In this way, it is possible for more of the Ministry of Defence to share in the advantages of the Government's Next Steps initiative.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place copies of the criteria governing the management and operation of(a) the agency to be established for the Meteorological Office and (b) the agency to be established for the Hydrographic Office in the Library.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is my intention to place in the Library, when these activities become agencies next year, copies of their framework documents, excluding any classified or commercially sensitive parts.

  Defence Support Agencies
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) military survey activities, (b) defence accounts activities and (c) Royal Air Force training activities are due to become defence support agencies; and what is the nature of any other activities that are currently being considered for possible re-organisation into defence support agencies.

  Mr. Neubert
  We plan to start operating the Hydrographic Office at Taunton as a defence support agency from April 1990. In addition, we are currently preparing framework documents to cover the operations of the following activities:

  (a) Directorate of Military Survey at Feltham (excluding overseas elements)

  (b) Director General Defence Accounts, including its central bill-paying office at Liverpool and pay-roll offices at Cheadle Hulme and elsewhere

  (c) The RAF's training organisation within RAF Support command, based at various locations within the United Kingdom

  (d) Service Children's Schools in North West Europe.

  We are also looking at a wide range of other possibilities for operation as defence support agencies, including activities in the areas of aircraft maintenance and repair, stores and transport, naval bases, computer services, education and chemical defence research.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what service schools in Germany are due to become defence support agencies.

  Mr. Neubert
  As announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 18 October at column 155, we are considering operating service children's schools in north-west Europe as a defence support agency, run on Next Steps lines, but remaining within the defence chain of command. The exact scope of the proposed new organisation is under study. There are 87 service children's schools in north-west Europe, located in the Federal Republic of Germany (and Berlin), Belgium and Sardinia.

  Military Flights
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what details are required as standard operational practice before the competent authority authorises a flight by military aircraft operating within the United Kingdom airspace; and why no central records are kept of unauthorised low flights by military aircraft.

  Mr. Neubert
  The requirement for information varies according to the circumstances. No central records are kept of unauthorised low flights because none is required.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the offer by the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of the alteration of the MSD 2000 radar to satisfy United Kingdom requirements for the European fighter aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Under agreed arrangements for procuring individual items of commonly required equipment, participants in the European fighter aircraft project pay for work undertaken within their own country. Two international consortia in which the industry of all four nations are represented have submitted proposals for developing radar for the European fighter aircraft; and discussions are proceeding among the European fighter aircraft nations with the aim of making a choice acceptable to all four participants.

  Frigates
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the purchase of ships built under licence to the design of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation frigate replacement 90 programme in United Kingdom shipyards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  Following the United Kingdom withdrawal from the NFR90 project, we are looking at how best to meet the Royal Navy's requirement for a replacement for the type 42 destroyer, to come into service at about the turn of the century. It is most unlikely that this would involve licensing any design which might emerge from the NFR90 project.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many courts martial have been held in the RAF for alleged low-flying offences in the last 10 years for which information is available; how many findings of guilt there have been; and what sentences have been imposed.

  Mr. Neubert
  The table provides details of the Royal Air Force courts martial for low-flying offences in the last 10 years at which the accused were found guilty; there have been no cases in the past 10 years where individuals charged under sections 51 or 52 of the Air Force Act 1955 were found not guilty.
  659

  Year

  Number of courts martial

  Number of personnel involved

  Charges under Air Force Act 1955

  Sentence

  1985

  1

  1

  Sections 51 and 52

  £300 fine and Severe Reprimand

  1989

  1

  1

  Sections 51 and 52

  Loss of 18 months seniority and Severe Reprimand1

  In addition one service man was charged under section 692 in connection with the 1989 case, and was sentenced to the loss of 18 months seniority and a severe reprimand1.

  1 Findings and sentence subject to confirmation.

  2 Conduct to the prejudice of good order and Air Force discipline.

  Conventional Forces
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the effect on the NATO doctrine of forward defence in the event that the CFE talks achieve substantial reductions in conventional forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Any CFE agreement will require the Alliance to examine its force structures. Our current assessment is that forward defence is likely to remain a key element in NATO strategy for the foreseeable future.

  Airborne Stand-off Radar
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the deployment of an airborne stand-off radar system in Europe.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Studies into the feasibility and cost of an airborne stand-off radar system are in progress. No decisions to deploy such a system have been taken.

  Conventional Weapons
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the redistribution of forces within NATO in the event that the CFE talks achieve substantial reductions in conventional weapons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The implications of a CFE agreement for NATO forces are under consideration in the Alliance.

  Leaded Petrol
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any vehicles belonging to or used by his Department and used on public roads run on leaded petrol.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Most vehicles used by the Ministry of Defence on public roads either run on unleaded petrol, or use diesel fuel. However, there is a residual number of vehicles, in particular some types of Land-Rover, which run on leaded petrol and which it would not be cost effective to convert to unleaded fuel. As they reach the end of their useful life they are replaced with vehicles which can run on unleaded petrol or are diesel-engined.

SCOTLAND

  Lockerbie Air Crash
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scoland if he has been approached by Strathclyde police about the length of time taken by the West German federal 660
  police to release relevant evidence in the form of an Air Malta loading list from Frankfurt; and what effect this has had on the investigation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The investigation is being carried out by Dumfries and Galloway constabulary with assistance from Strathclyde police and other police forces who report to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate.

  The police have not found it necessary to approach the Lord Advocate or any Government Minister in this connection.

  The Lord Advocate does not consider that it is helpful to speculate upon specific lines of inquiry or their relevance to the general investigation.

  Both he and the chief constable of Dumfries and Galloway constabulary have recently emphasised the importance and productivity of a good working relationship which exists with the West German police and prosecution authorities.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether all the available evidence that is held by the West German police forces investigating the Lockerbie air crash has been made available to the British police force investigating the crash.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As I have stated in another answer, my noble and learned friend, the Lord Advocate has overall responsibility for the criminal investigation and any criminal proceedings in this country which may result from it.

  In a press statement which he issued on Monday 30 October and again on 5 November he emphasised that the degree of international co-operation in this case has been unprecedented. That co-operation has included unprecedented access to evidential material held by the West German federal police (BKA). Neither he nor the chief constable of Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, who is leading the international inquiry, has any reason to believe that any evidence available to the German police has been denied to the investigating team.

  Oil Seed Rape
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has about the impact of the cultivation of oil seed rape on human health or allergies; and if his Department will sponsor any research on this subject.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Although oil seed rape pollens have been identified as a cause of allergic reactions in some individuals there are at present no medical grounds for distinguishing their effects from those of the pollens of other plants and trees. A range of medicines is available for the treatment of such allergic conditions.

  The Scottish Office will give favourable consideration to any soundly based relevant research proposal.

  Childhood Leukaemia
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by year to date, and by health authority, the number of incidences of childhood leukaemia that have been reported following the Chernobyl accident; and what was the reported number of incidences in 1980 and 1986.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of cases of leukaemia recorded in children in the 0 to 14 age group in Scotland, analysed by health board of residence in the years 1980, 1986 and 1987, are shown in the following table. 1987 is the latest year for which cancer registration in Scotland is complete.

  Health Board

  1980

  1986

  1987

  Argyll and Clyde

  4

  4

  6

  Ayrshire and Arran

  2

  1

  4

  Borders

  1

  0

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  0

  0

  Fife

  3

  2

  7

  Forth Valley

  4

  1

  3

  Grampian

  3

  5

  2

  Greater Glasgow

  12

  11

  9

  Highland

  3

  1

  0

  Lanarkshire

  5

  1

  5

  Lothian

  6

  6

  9

  Orkney

  0

  0

  0

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  Tayside

  7

  0

  5

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  1

  Scotland

  51

  32

  51

  Gaelic Broadcasting
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to support a Gaelic broadcasting council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government are currently considering the future of Gaelic broadcasting, including Comunn na

  Number of schools with school board

  Region/Islands areas

  Primary schools

  Percentage of Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Percentage of Secondary schools

  Borders

  35

  45

  7

  78

  Central

  60

  51

  10

  53

  Dumfries and Galloway

  58

  50

  13

  81

  Fife

  72

  50

  15

  79

  Grampian

  151

  55

  28

  72

  Highland

  83

  41

  22

  81

  Lothian

  159

  65

  40

  78

  Orkney

  15

  75

  5

  83

  Shetland

  15

  54

  8

  100

  Strathclyde

  636

  71

  158

  85

  Tayside

  96

  52

  25

  78

  Western Isles

  31

  69

  5

  100

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total number, in each regional council area, of schools in (a) the primary sector and (b) the secondary sector which did not
  662
  Gaidhlig's proposals for the establishment of a Gaelic broadcasting council; and we will announce our conclusion shortly.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of Grampian Television to discuss Gaelic broadcasting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend met the managing director of Grampian Television on 5 April 1989 to discuss issues, including Gaelic broadcasting, arising from the broadcasting White Paper. The meeting was also attended by representatives of Scottish Television and Border Television.

  Advisers
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report all current advisers to his Department who are not career civil servants, giving their date of appointment and fees.

  Mr. Rifkind
  There are currently two part-time advisers to the Scottish Office. They are:

  Professor J. Lamb CBE, Scientific Adviser, appointed on 20 September 1987.

  Dr. C. K. Bennington, Industrial Adviser, appointed on 8 August 1988.

  It is not our practice to divulge the remuneration of industrial advisers. Fees are negotiated individually and relate to previous outside earnings.

  School Boards
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total number, in each regional council area, of schools in (a) the primary sector and (b) the secondary sector which now have a school board in place, showing each total as a percentage of the total number of such schools in the area.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is set out in the table:

  require to hold elections for school boards, showing these as a percentage of the total number of boards currently in place.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is set out in the table.
  663

  Number of schools where a School Board has been established without a contested election

  Region/Islands area

  Primary

  Percentage of total number of primary School Boards

  Secondary

  Percentage of total number of secondary School Boards

  Borders

  7

  20

  2

  29

  Central

  22

  37

  0

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  28

  48

  5

  38

  Fife

  23

  32

  4

  27

  Grampian

  48

  32

  5

  18

  Highland

  37

  45

  3

  14

  Lothian

  39

  25

  4

  10

  Orkney

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shetland

  5

  33

  0

  0

  Strathclyde

  258

  41

  50

  32

  Tayside

  29

  30

  4

  16

  Western Isles

  22

  71

  1

  20

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a list of the bodies which have expressed themselves to his Department(a) in favour and (b) against the proposal to create three separate Nature Conservancy Councils, as referred to in the letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow from the Minister of State at his Department, dated 31 October.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Development Department consultation paper "Scotland's Natural Heritage" invited comments on the proposals to merge the Countryside Commission for Scotland (CCS) with a new Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland (NCCS) to form a single natural heritage agency for Scotland. Although not specifically invited to do so, some respondents commented on the Government's decision to create three separate NCCs but it is not possible to give a breakdown of these in the manner requested. My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to announce the outcome of the consultation exercise soon.

  Health Service (Grading Appeals)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report, to the latest available date, the number of appeals against clinical grading which have now been heard, the number that are still outstanding and the figures for each health board area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 1 November 1989]: The information is not available since there is no central record of the total number of appeals lodged nor of the number resolved at unit level.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what basis is the notional income on capital calculated, under the Housing Benefit (Community Charge Rebate) (Scotland) Regulations 1988, such that £1 is deemed the notional income for every £250 increment of capital between £3,000 and £8,000.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  Tariff income on capital progressively reduces entitlement to community charge rebate for those with higher levels of capital. The Government believe that it is right to expect claimants with savings above £3,000 to use some of those resources to meet their day-to-day living expenses thereby reducing the burden on taxpayers.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the proportion of(a) all pensioner households and (b) those pensioner households financially dependent solely on state benefit likely to receive a rebate on the community charge.

  Mr. Scott
  All elderly people financially dependent solely on state benefits will be entitled to receive community charge benefit, and the vast majority of them will be entitled to maximum community charge benefit. The precise number of pensioner households who will receive community charge benefit will be affected by the community charge transitional relief scheme, and I will write to my hon. Friend about the remainder of his question when the Government's public expenditure plans have been published.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will now reconsider the six-month rule relating to attendance allowance in order to ensure that there is no systematic failure to provide early stage community care for people with a proven attendance need arising out of chronic sickness or disability.

  Mr. Scott
  The provision of community care services is a matter for local authority social service departments who will consider clients' needs whether or not they are getting attendance allowance. We shall look at the six months waiting period for the allowance when we consider the future of disability benefits in the light of the results of the OPCS disability surveys. Meanwhile, we have already announced our intention to remove this waiting period for terminally ill people.

  Income Support
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state the levels of weekly income which may be disregarded for persons whose families are in receipt of income support and who may have some part-time self-employed work; and how these levels of disregard have changed over the past 10 years, under the present system and the previous supplementary benefit system.
  665
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The weekly amount of earnings that may be disregarded for people with families who are in part-time self-employment and receiving income suport are:

  £

  Couples aged under 60 years who have been continuously in receipt of supplementary benefit/income support for two years or more.

  15 per couple

  Couples receiving or with underlying title to the disability premium (for example people who have been sick for 28 weeks or more, or are disabled).

  15 per couple

  All other couples.

  5 each member

  Lone parents.

  15

  The equivalent levels of earnings disregarded under the Supplementary Benefit scheme since 1979 were:

  Claimants

  Partners

  Dependants

  11986

  11987

  11988

  11986

  11987

  11988

  11986

  11987

  11988

  North Eastern

  794

  777

  700

  200

  193

  155

  376

  386

  382

  London North

  774

  755

  643

  166

  164

  117

  338

  342

  310

  London South

  680

  664

  581

  134

  121

  93

  280

  267

  273

  Wales and South Western

  624

  607

  546

  142

  129

  105

  258

  245

  240

  Midlands

  821

  818

  714

  213

  200

  152

  403

  396

  374

  North Western

  739

  738

  669

  165

  164

  128

  352

  375

  380

  Scotland

  506

  535

  499

  107

  102

  92

  219

  225

  236

  Totals2

  4,938

  4,896

  4,352

  1,127

  1,074

  841

  2,227

  2,236

  2,196

  1 Figures for June of each year are unavailable. The information relates to February 1986, May 1987 and May 1988. Figures are in thousands.

  2Totals do not consistently sum due to rounding.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest e discretion of a social sick people receiving income support.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information on the number of receiving income support is not available. However, the latest available estimates are that some 248,000 income support claimants are in receipt of the disability premium which is payable to sick or disabled people.

  Grants and Loans (Clothing)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discretion his Department's local offices have over the payment of grants or loans to help people on pensions, income support and invalidity benefit meet the additional costs of purchasing necessary extra clothing for a person as in-patients in hospital; and if he will take steps to ensure that these provisions are interpreted with adequate generosity at local level to ensure that the real needs of claimants are met.

  £

  Supplementary benefit (to April 1988) Income support (from April 1988)

  Family income supplement (to April 1988)

  Rent rebates and rent allowances1 to April 1983)

  Family Credit (from April 1988)

  Housing benefit (from 1982–83) Community charge benefit (from April 1989)

  1979

  Up to £1,200 ignored. Over £1,200, an income of 25p a week was taken into account for each complete £50

  No capital limit

  No capital limit

  November 1980

  Up to £2,000 ignored. No entitlement to benefit if capital exceeded £2,000

  No capital limit

  No capital limit

  666

  1979–80 £

  November 1980–April 1988 £

  People required to register for employment.

  2

  4

  People not required to register for employment.

  4

  4

  Lone parents.

  6

  112 maximum

  1 £4 plus half the amount of any earnings between £4 and £20.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list in the Official Report the total numbers in each region of the United Kingdom of (a) direct recipients of supplementary benefit or income support payments and (b) the estimated number of dependants of such recipients in June of each year since 1986.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information for Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The information by social security region for Great Britain is as follows:

  Mr. Scott
  Social fund budgeting loans and community care grants may be awarded, at the discretion of a social fund officer, to help people on income support with the cost of clothing. Hospital in-patients who are not receiving income support may be able to obtain a crisis loan where it is planned that they will be discharged from hospital within two weeks and a loan is the only means of avoiding serious risk to health or safety. Whether a loan or grant can be made is for a social fund officer to decide having regard to the circumstances of the individual case.

  Benefit Limits
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretaryof State for Social Security if he will list in the Official Report the various capital limits that have existed for each relevant social security benefit, including housing benefit, since 1979, above which no benefit is payable.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is as follows:
  667

  Supplementary benefit (to April 1988) Income support (from April 1988)

  Family income supplement (to April 1988)

  Rent rebates and rent allowances1 to April 1983)

  Family Credit (from April 1988)

  Housing benefit (from 1982–83) Community charge benefit (from April 1989)

  November 1982

  Up to £2,500 ignored. No entitlement to benefit if capital exceeded £2,500

  No capital limit

  No capital limit

  November 1983

  Up to £3,000 ignored. No entitlement to benefit if capital exceeded £3,000

  No capital limit

  No capital limit

  April 1988

  Up to £3,000 ignored. Over £3,000, an income of £1 a week is taken into account for each £250, or part of £250, between £3,000 and £6,000.No entitlement to benefit if capital exceeds £6,000

  As in Income Support

  As in Income Support

  May 1988 to date

  As above

  As in Income Support

  Up to £3,000 ignored. Over £3,000, an income of £1 a week is taken into account for each £250, or part of £250, between £3,000 and £8,000.No entitlement to benefit if capital exceeds £8,000

  1 Note. —Between 1979 and the phased introduction of I-lousing rent rebate, rent allowance and rate rebate schemes which were not Social Security benefits.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will allocate funds to set up a working group to investigate improvements of wheelchairs for disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  No. The disablement services authority, which has responsibility for the provision of wheelchair services in England, has this matter under consideration.

  Social Fund Allocations 1988–89

  Grants

  Loans

  Local Office

  Allocation for grants remaining at 31 March 1989

  Applications remaining to be processed at 31 March 1989

  Allocation for loans remaining at 31 March 1989

  Applications remaining to be processed at 31 March 1989

  (£000s)

  (£000s)

  Doncaster East

  —1

  2

  —1

  57

  Doncaster West

  97

  33

  75

  181

  Wath-on-Dearne

  77

  13

  9

  114

  Social Fund Allocations 1989–90

  Grants

  Loans

  Local Office

  Allocation for grants remaining at 30 September 1989

  Applications remaining to be processed at 30 September 1989

  Allocation for loans remaining at 30 September 1989

  Applications remaining to be processed at 30 September 1989

  (£000s)

  (£000s)

  Doncaster East

  71

  10

  187

  49

  Doncaster West

  152

  33

  290

  163

  Wath-on-Dearne

  68

  28

  170

  93

  1 Figures not available.

  Part-time Workers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce legislation to revise the current national insurance plan to include provision for cover for part-time workers on a pro-rata basis.

  Offices (Doncaster and Wath-on-Dearne)
  Mr. Martin Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by social security offices in(a) Doncaster and (b) Wath-on-Dearne, the number of social fund applications that remained unprocessed at the end of the financial year 1988–89, the number that are currently awaiting determination, and the underspend at each office in 1988–89.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Part-time workers who earn above the lower earnings limit, currently £43 per week, are already included in national insurance on the same basis as full-time employees. We have no current plans to introduce legislation to extend national insurance to those who earn less than the lower earnings limit.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what problems he has identified arising from recent changes in social security regulations relating to homelessness among young people; and whether he intends to make any changes to the regulations.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The broad thrust of our policy for the majority of 16 and 17-year-olds is correct; it would be irresponsible to provide a perverse incentive to leave home needlessly.

  However, our monitoring and discussions with interested bodies revealed earlier this year that a minority were facing real difficulties. As a result, the following changes were made in July:

  (a) 16 and 17-year-olds on income support who, for good reason, have to live independently, became entitled to a higher rate of income support as a recognition of higher and unavoidable expenses (there was a similar relaxation in the rules governing housing benefit);

  (b) in addition, entitlement to income support during the child benefit extension period was extended to those 16 and 17-year-olds genuinely estranged from their parents;

  (c) those 16 and 17-year-olds who seek emergency accommodation in night shelters are now automatically considered for payment of income support under the "severe hardship" provisions;

  (d) special training arrangements were introduced for those officials who deal with claims from the vulnerable group of young people who are estranged from their families or who have had to leave home for some other good reason.

  Those who are homeless continue to be able to claim a social fund crisis loan to enable them to secure accommodation.

  We continue to monitor the effects of the 1988 social security reforms including those affecting 16 and 17-year-olds.

  Social Fund
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount for each social security region of unspent social fund allocations, and the national total, for both loans and grants, for the last financial year.

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

  Table

  Year 1988–89

  Grants Outstanding balance

  Loans Outstanding balance

  National £ million

  18·5

  17·5

  North East Region

  3·0

  1·5

  North West Region

  1·5

  2·5

  Midlands Region

  2·5

  2·0

  London North Region

  2·0

  4·0

  London South Region

  2·0

  4·0

  Wales and South West Region

  1·0

  1·0

  Scotland

  5·5

  2·5

  Note: Figures rounded to the nearest £½ million.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many housing benefit recipients are(a) retired pensioners, (b) unemployed and (c) sick.
  670
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information is not collected on a basis which can identify those who are sick. The information available is in the table.

  Estimated numbers receiving housing benefit: Great Britain May 1988

  Claimants also in receipt of Income Support (000)

  Claimants in receipt of Housing Benefit only (000)

  Claimant or partner aged 60 or over

  1,440

  1,720

  Registered unemployed

  880

  n/a

  Single Claimants
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average weekly payment of(a) unemployment benefit, (b) sickness benefit, (c) invalidity benefit and (d) retirement pension received by a single claimant.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. The table shows the average weekly payments of unemployment benefit, invalidity benefit and retirement pension, at the latest available dates, to persons without adult dependants. They may be single, married, widowed or divorced. I regret that similar information is not available for sickness benefit, but the average payment to all sickness beneficiaries at 2 April 1988 was £33·65.

  Type of benefit

  Average weekly payment to persons without adult dependants

  Unemployment benefit

  £34·41 (at May 1989)

  Invalidity benefit

  £46·74 (at 2 April 1988)

  Retirement pension1

  £38·87 (at 31 March 1989)

  1 Contributory retirement pension only.

  Unemployed Persons
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the number of unemployed persons in receipt of(a) unemployment benefit only, (b) unemployment benefit combined with income support and (c) income support only.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is as follows. The figures relate to August 1989, the latest date for which they are available.

  Number of unemployed claimants

  Unemployment benefit only

  242,573

  Unemployment benefit and income support

  88,128

  Income support only

  1,001,918

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he is yet in a position, following the undertaken given during the Committee stage of the Social Security Bill 1989, to publish the results of the monitoring exercise undertaken to establish the effects of the increase in the maximum period of disqualification for unemployment benefit on grounds of voluntary unemployment.
  671
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have today arranged for copies of two reports, one by Social and Community Planning Research, the other by the Department, to be placed in the Library.

  War Widows
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is, for the latest year for which records exist, the average pension received from all sources by a war widow whose husband was of private rank or equivalent and who died or left the armed forces(a) before 31 March 1973 and (b) after that date.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 25 October 1989]: I regret this information is not available. Under the war pension scheme administered by the Department of Social Security a war widow of a private would receive currently a tax-free war widows pension of £56·65. In addition, age allowances of £6·10 at 65, £12·20 at 70 and £15·30 at 80 are payable. It is unlikely that widows whose husbands served on or after 31 March 1973 would be eligible for age allowances. A war widow whose husband served on or after 31 March 1973 would also receive a forces family pension paid under the armed forces pension scheme. For the widow of a private this would be about £68 a week, the exact figure depending on the year in which her husband's service ended. About 75 per cent. of war widows are also in receipt of a retirement pension, but no information is available about the rates received. Nor is it known what other pensions or income individual war widows may have.

  Mr. Neil Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what definition his Department uses of war widow for pension purposes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 27 October 1989]: The Department applies the legislation for the time being in force. Different orders or schemes apply in different circumstances, but none of these provides an express definition of the term "war widow". The Service Pensions Order provides a pension in certain circumstances for a widow of a member of the armed forces whose death was due to service. Whether death was due to service is determined in accordance with the substantive provisions of the order. The civilians scheme includes provision for the award of pensions to widows where the late husband's death was a direct result of war injuries or war service injuries. There are a number of other schemes which also provide pensions for widows who satisfy the requirements of that particular scheme. These include widows whose late husbands were members of the Naval Auxiliary Service, Mercantile Marine, Her Majesty's Coastguard, Auxiliary Coastguard, Home Guard, Ulster Defence Regiment, Polish forces who served under British command during world war 2, the Polish resettlement forces, or the nursing and auxiliary services.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to increase the pensions of widows of the two world wars to make them more comparable with the benefits paid to widows of service men who died after 1973.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 1 November 1989]: Under the war pensions scheme administered by the Department of Social Security, the pension paid to a
  672
  war widow is the same regardless of when she was widowed. Provision for service men's widows through the occupational forces family pension paid under the armed forces pension scheme is a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence. The pensions paid under the war pensions scheme are larger than national insurance widows' pensions, can be received in addition to a retirement pension on the widow's own contributions and are free of tax. In addition, age allowances of £6·10 at age 65, £12·20 at 70 and £15·30 at 80 are paid. These allowances are unique to the war pensions scheme and will be increased from next April to £7, £13·50 and £20 respectively. Eighty five per cent. of all war widows receive age allowances.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  River Crane
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what surveys or investigations concerning the River Crane in Isleworth have been carried out or authorised by or on behalf of his Department and what financial assistance is being given or promised by his Department to the National Rivers Authority for works connected with the River Crane.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department's involvement in works in connection with the alleviation of flooding from the River Crane has been limited to giving agreement to the outline proposals for contract I which comprises the rebuilding of the channel of the tidal river downstream of Talbot Road bridge to its confluence with the Thames. No financial commitment has yet been requested or issued.

  Monofilament Fishing Nets
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will extend the prohibition on the use of monofilament nets by fishing fleets in inshore Scottish waters to cover the whole of Great Britain and offshore waters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  We have no plans to extend the prohibition on the use of nylon monofilament gill nets although we maintain close monitoring of the fishery. However, there are national mesh size restrictions pursuant to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975; the use of such nets is variously controlled in some inshore waters under byelaws made by National Rivers Authority regions or sea fisheries committee; and we announced on 27 July 1988 our intention to introduce certain national restrictions on the use of gill and other nets whose mesh sizes fall between 65mm and 89mm.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the fishing industry.

  Mr. Curry
  I am well aware of the current difficulties facing the industry but these must be seen against the years of unparalleled growth and prosperity since 1983. I am sure that the industry will be able to tackle the future with confidence within the framework of the common fisheries policy.

  Sheepmeat Regime
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current state of negotiations on the future of the sheepmeat regime.

  Mr. Curry
  The Council of Agriculture Ministers adopted a regulation in September providing for substantial changes to the sheepmeat regime. The regulation will begin to have effect in January next year.

  Woodlands
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by county in England and Wales the Forestry Commission woodlands which have been sold during each of the last three years, stating for each disposal the hectarage involved.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on 6 November 1989 at column 486.

  Animal Products (Exports)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which countries require additional certificates accompanying animal products exported from the United Kingdom to show they are free from radioactivity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Scientific advice on which the Government rely is to the effect that all food produced and marketed in the United Kingdom may be safely consumed as free from harmful radioactive material. Nevertheless since the Chernobyl incident a number of countries—especially in the middle and far east—have required official certificates to this effect in respect of their food imports from the United Kingdom. My Dement has routinely provided these at the request of the exporters to facilitate exports. No exhaustive list of those importing countries requiring such certification has been maintained and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Salmonella
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he has taken or he plans to take to ensure that breeding flocks in other European Community countries known to be contaminated with salmonella enteriditis become free of this bacteria; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am pressing for the adoption of Community measures to tackle the problem of salmonella in poultry flocks.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any evidence to link salmonella typhimurium with the contamination of eggs, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Salmonella typhimurium is known to be present in some poultry laying flocks and, like Salmonella enteritidis, has the potential to contaminate eggs. This can arise in a number of ways including contamination of the shell by infected faeces as the egg is laid and subsequent 674
  penetration into the egg contents. The evidence supporting this view was upheld by the Select Committee on Agriculture in its first report on salmonella in eggs published in February 1989.

  Contaminated Meat
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library the results of the research carried out at his central veterinary laboratory on the bacteriological contamination of poultry meat and sausages.

  Mr. Gummer
  No research on the bacteriological contamination of poultry meat and sausages is carried out at the central veterinary laboratory, Weybridge.

  London Food Commission
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to invite a representative from the London Food Commission to participate in the new consumer panel announced by him on 2 November.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have written to the National Consumer Council, the Consumers Association and the Consumers in the European Community group inviting each organisation to nominate representatives of consumer interests to the consumer panel. I have suggested that in those nominations they should put forward ordinary consumers rather than representatives of particular organisations or lobby groups.

  Potassium Bromate
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take as a result of the recent review by the Food Advisory Committee on the use of potassium bromate in foodstuffs.

  Mr. Maclean
  Potassium bromate is currently approved for use as a flour improver. That approval was given on the basis that when the flour was used in bread the baking process ensured that there were no residues left. Recently, improved analytical techniques have indicated that this is not necessarily the case and that there may be some very small residues. The Food Advisory Committee has thus recommended that approval for potassium bromate as a flour improver should be withdrawn. I accept that advice and as the law requires will be circulating the draft regulations for consultation today. Potassium bromate is also used in the brewing industry but there are not the same residue questions there and this usage will therefore be allowed to continue for the present.

  I have deposited a copy of the Food Advisory Committee's advice in the Library of the House.

  Straw and Stubble Burning
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by county the number of successful prosecutions for breaches of straw and stubble burning law for the current year, and the penalties imposed.

  Mr. Patten
  [holding answer 27 October 1989]: I have been asked to reply.
  675
  Information held centrally for 1988 is given in the table. Of the 33 offenders found guilty one (in Hertfordshire) was given an absolute discharge and the remainder were fined. Data for 1989 are not yet available.

  Offenders found guilty under section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972—Byelaws relating to the burning of straw or stubble

  Police force area

  Total found guilty

  Average amount fined (£000)

  Avon and Somerset

  3

  45

  Bedfordshire

  1

  200

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  210

  Cleveland

  3

  50

  Gloucestershire

  1

  200

  Hertfordshire

  4

  100

  Lincolnshire

  9

  110

  Northamptonshire

  1

  100

  North Yorkshire

  2

  50

  Warwickshire

  1

  100

  Wiltshire

  3

  190

  England and Wales

  33

  125

  BSE
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he proposes to take any further action in the light of the Southwood report on bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to the reply, 13 June 1989, c. 352]: All bovine animals which are found to have BSE are slaughtered and destroyed. Meat from these animals does not enter the food chain either for human or animal consumption. Earlier this year my predecessor announced that he would take a further precaution which would be to exclude certain bovine offals derived from healthy animals. Further technical studies have now been carried out and additional independent expert advice has been taken. The offals affected are brain, spinal cord, thymus, spleen, tonsils and intestines. A full consultation with all interested parties as required by law has now been completed with one exception, subject to results in this final case, we are proposing to make new regulations today to implement the ban to come into effect on Monday 13 November.

  Offals from calves under six months of age will be excluded from these arrangements since any of these offals which may be used for human food will not present a human health hazard. There are no known cases of human beings being infected by any animal encephalopathy. This is a further addition to the very tough measures which Sir Richard Southwood's expert committee recommended earlier this year.

HEALTH

  Funding
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much funding for the Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde district health authority and the West Lancashire family practitioner committee has increased in the period 1979 to 1989.

  Mr. Freeman
  The recurrent revenue funding for the Blackpool. Wyre and Fylde district health authority has increased from £37·8 million in 1982–83 to £65·3 million in 1989–90. This increase of £27·5 million represents an increase in real terms of about 16 per cent., and an 676
  increased share of north-western region's recurrent revenue expenditure from 4·7 per cent. to 5·1 per cent. The health services now provided by the Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde health authority were part of the Lancashire area health authority up to 1982–83 and expenditure on them was not separately identified.

  The recurring revenue funding of the Lancashire family practitioner committee has increased from £1·15 million in 1985–86 to £1·42 million in 1989–90. This increase of £270,000, in cash terms, represents an increase in real terms of 19 per cent.

  Family practitioner committee administration expenditure prior to 1985–86 is not available as it was included as part of district health authorities expenditure and not separately identified.

  Insulin
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date synthetic human insulin was licensed in Britain; and on what date warnings to patients were inserted in packs.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Synthetic human insulin was licensed in June 1982. General patient leaflet warnings were available from the outset. As a result of reports that some patients had noticed less pronounced or no symptoms of hypoglycaemia on transferring to human insulin the licensing authority reviewed all data sheets and patient information leaflets. In March 1989 they requested manufacturers to add a specific warning to this effect.

  Fluoride
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department is carrying out, and what information he has gathered, regarding the effect on the health of people of fluorides in drinking water.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department is not currently commissioning any research into the effects of fluoridated water on general health. The Government remain convinced that fluoridation at a concentration of one part per million—the level used in all United Kingdom fluoridation schemes—has no adverse effects upon health, and there is no medical evidence to challenge this view. Numerous studies undertaken in this country have, however, demonstrated that dental caries is reduced in fluoridated areas by as much as one third to one half compared to non-fluoridated areas.

  Waiting Lists (Southampton)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report, the hospital waiting list numbers for the Southampton and South West district health authority for the last six years for which records are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The requested information is given in the table.

  Numbers of cases on the in-patient waiting list, Southampton and South West Hampshire DHA, at 31 March, 1984 to 1989.

  Year

  Total numbers

  1984

  9,199

  1985

  8,732

  1986

  8,492

  677

  Year

  Total numbers

  1987

  8,217

  11988

  7,051

  11989

  8,542

  1 Total less self deferred cases to give comparable data with earlier years.

  Mental Handicap Hospitals
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to health authorities on the protection of day services in mental handicap hospitals during the period of rundown in patient numbers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Planning guidelines issued to health authorities in Health Circular (88) 43 (a copy of which is in the Library) state that health authorities should aim"to provide good quality care for mentally handicapped people in all settings including maintaining and where necessary improving standards in large hospitals as their populations reduce."

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has about the current provision of day services in mental handicap hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The most current information available for 1987–88 concerning the provision of day care facilities in England is contained in the Department of Health publication "Summary of KH14—NHS Day Care Facilities", a copy of which is in the Library. These figures include facilities outside mental handicap hospitals.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will take to ensure that the resources of large mental handicap hospitals are redeployed for the benefit of people with mental handicap, in particular for the provision of day services, when these funds are no longer required on site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Decisions regarding the use of resources released from large mental handicap hospitals are primarily matters for health authorities in consultation with the relevant local authorities—as they are best placed to know the needs of the population in their area. Arrangements already exist whereby health authorities can transfer funding to local authorities to assist in the provision of community care. Proceeds from the sale of mental handicap hospitals must be used specifically for the development of services for that client group unless there are exceptional circumstances and the Department has agreed otherwise.

  Community Care
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will encourage health and local authorities to co-operate in ensuring continuity of day service provision when residents move out of hospital, in particular the provision of therapist input to community day services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Government policy is to encourage the development at local level of a comprehensive range of well-co-ordinated health and social services for mentally handicapped people. Every district is required by 1991 to 678
  have agreed in consultation with the relevant local authorities policy statements and action plans for meeting those needs of mentally handicapped people for which health authorities have the relevant skills, expertise and responsibility. This includes the provision of therapy services.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, in the preparation of the White Paper on community care, he has considered the training provided by the Crossroads care attendant schemes for care attendants, local voluntary management committees and co-ordinators of local schemes; and whether this might provide a model for training by local authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Training needs will be considered along with other implementation issues following publication of the White Paper.

  Mental Handicap (Community Care)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will instruct health authorities to review their day services for people with mental handicap following the social services inspectorate report on day services outside hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We expect health authorities to review their day services for people with a mental handicap as part of their general responsibility to keep all the services which they provide under review.

  Patients
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will give the number of patients treated in the northern region for each year since 1983 as(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is given in the table.

  Cases treated, NHS hospitals, Northern Regional Health Authority, 1983–1987–88

  Year

  In-patient cases treated

  New out-patients

  1983

  409,115

  557,125

  1984

  420,080

  569,743

  1985

  433,131

  595,232

  1986

  441,095

  602,318

  1987–88

  462,766

  592,469

  Hospital Improvements
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will list major hospital improvements in the northern region since 1983, together with the cost of each.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following is a list of capital schemes over £1 million in northern region which, according to information available centrally, have been completed since 1 January 1983, together with the cost of construction at tender stage in each case:

  Project/scheme

  Construction cost £

  Blyth Community Hospital & Health Centre

  4,258,871

  Darlington Memorial Maternity Department

  1,125,935

  Fenhan Blood Transfusion Service Centre

  3,542,500

  Freenan Hospital—ENT(D)

  2,865,079

  679

  Project/scheme

  Construction cost £

  Furness (Barrow) DGH scheme 1 phase 1

  9,966,609

  Furness General scheme 1 phase 2

  1,496,150

  Furness General scheme 2 phase 1

  6,080,209

  Hartlepool DGH scheme 2 phase 1

  4,906,403

  Hartlepool DGH scheme 3 phase 1

  2,395,891

  Hartlepool DGH scheme 3 phase 4

  1,900,440

  Jarrow Community Hospital

  3,314,250

  Middlesbrough General Hospital

  1,567,825

  North Tyneside scheme 1 phase 1

  10,364,538

  North Tyneside scheme 2 phase 1

  4,140,250

  Queen Elizabeth Gateshead scheme 3 phase 1

  6,139,179

  Queen Elizabeth Gateshead scheme 3 phase 2

  1,762,698

  Royal Victoria Infirmary scheme 1 phase 4

  13,640,929

  South Cleveland General scheme 2 phase 1A

  1,257,000

  South Cleveland General scheme 2 phase 1B

  6,154,060

  South Cleveland General scheme 2 phase 1C

  1,035,884

  South Cleveland General Newlington Brokerage (D)

  2,552,000

  St. Georges Hospital boilerhouse

  1,238,183

  Total:

  Number of schemes = 22

  £91,704,884

  Darlington Health Authority
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will list the total spending allocated to Darlington health authority for each year since 1983, adjusted for inflation.

  Mr. Freeman
  Gross revenue expenditure in Darlington health authority between 1982–83 and 1988–89, the latest year for which figures are available, is shown in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  Cash

  At 1989–90 prices1

  1982–83

  22·1

  32·4

  1983–84

  24·0

  32·7

  1984–85

  25·6

  33·2

  1985–86

  26·8

  32·9

  1986–87

  29·0

  34·5

  1987–88

  31·4

  35·6

  1988–892

  34·6

  36·5

  1 Figures have been revalued using the Gross Domestic Product deflator.

  21988–89 figures arc provisional (ie unaudited).

  North Tees Health Authority
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will list the total spending allocated to North Tees health authority for each year since 1982, adjusted for inflation.

  Mr. Roger Freeman
  Gross revenue expenditure in North Tees health authority between 1982–83 and 1988–89, the latest year for which figures are available, is shown in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  Cash

  At 1989–90 prices1

  1982–83

  22·7

  32·3

  1983–84

  24·3

  33·1

  1984–85

  25·5

  33·0

  1985–86

  26·8

  32·9

  1986–87

  28·9

  34·4

  1987–88

  31·9

  36·1

  1988–892

  34·3

  36·2

  680
  1Figures have been revalued using the Gross Domestic Product deflator.

  2 1988–89 figures are provisional (ie unaudited).

  South Tees Health Authority
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will list the total spending allocated to South Tees health authority for each year since 1982, adjusted for inflation.

  Mr. Freeman
  Gross revenue expenditure in South Tees health authority between 1982–83 and 1988–89, the latest year for which figures are available, is shown in the table.

  Year

  Cash

  At 1989–90 prices1

  £ million

  £ million

  1982–83

  53·1

  75·7

  1983–84

  55·9

  76·1

  1984–85

  58·1

  75·4

  1985–86

  60·7

  74·6

  1986–87

  66·0

  78·6

  1987–88

  73·2

  82·9

  21988–89

  81·9

  86·4

  1 Figures have been revalued using the gross domestic product deflator.

  2 1988–89 figures are provisional (ie unaudited).

  Northern Region (Spending)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will list total spending in the northern region for each year since 1983 adjusted for inflation.

  Mr. Freeman
  Gross revenue expenditure in the northern region between 1982–83 and 1988–89, the latest year for which figures are available, is shown in the table.

  Year

  Cash

  At 1989–90 prices1

  £ million

  £ million

  1982–83

  520·8

  741·8

  1983–84

  554·0

  754·1

  1984–85

  586·9

  761·3

  1985–86

  620·1

  762·4

  1986–87

  664·7

  791·8

  1987–88

  726·4

  822·3

  21988–89

  802·7

  846·8

  1 Figures have been revalued using the gross domestic product deflator.

  2 1988–89 figures are provisional (ie unaudited).

  Breast Cancer
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of women aged(a) between 50 and 64 years and (b) over 64 years, have now been screened for breast cancer in each health authority; and how many cases of breast cancer have been detected as a result of this screening.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The NHS is setting up a national breast cancer screening service over the three years to 1990, and the service is not yet operational in all health authority areas. Following the introduction of a new statistical return for breast cancer screening from April 1989, we expect to have details of the percentage of women screened in 1989–90 towards the end of 1990. Preliminary data assembled by the cancer screening evaluation unit from 16 screening centres indicates that, as
  681
  at June 1989, of 154,191 women aged 50 to 64 invited for screening by these centres, 679 women were found to have breast cancer.

  Helicopter Ambulances
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in the Official Report those ambulance services in England which have helicopter ambulance facilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We do not collect this information centrally. However, we are aware that several health authorities now have dedicated helicopter ambulances. In the London area an emergency helicopter service has been operating for some months and in Cornwall the first air ambulance service has been operating for over two years. South East Thames has announced that it is shortly to commence a limited helicopter trial. In addition, other authorities have been co-operating with police forces in helicopter projects.

  All health authorities can make use of RAF helicopter transport in emergency rescue missions which are free and in secondary transfers for which a charge is made. Fixed wing transport is also sometimes used where appropriate, again at commercial rates.

  Disablement Services Authority
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if, in the light of an overall overspend on the wheelchair service, and the forecast increase in patient attendance, and the supply of non-powered wheelchairs and of special seating, he will increase the level of funding to the Disablement Services Authority; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what provision is made for inflation and rising salary costs when determining the level of resources for the Disablement Services Authority; and on what basis that provision is decided.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to ensure that the Disablement Services Authority has the financial resources to carry out its planned service development in indoor/outdoor wheelchairs and special wheelchair seating; if he will indicate the source of funding for these developments and whether it is to come from a reduction of other savings or from savings of improved efficiency; whether these savings have so far been realised in the two and a quarter years' existence of the authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  These are matters that have been addressed in the public expenditure survey, the result of which will be announced shortly.

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many haemophiliacs have been infected with HIV due to contaminated blood products for the period(a) since 1979, (b) since 1985 and (c) in the current year;

  (2) how many haemophiliacs have died as a result of having been infected with HIV due to contaminated blood products for the period (a) since 1979, (b) since 1985 and (c) in the current year.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and 682
  the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 7 November which gives the information currently available for the numbers of haemophiliacs reported as HIV-antibody positive.

  The latest information available on the numbers of haemophiliacs with AIDS known to have died in the United Kingdom is given in the table. No reliable figures are available for years before 1983.

  Number

  For the period 1983–85

  14

  For the period 1986–88

  71

  For 1989 up to 31 October 1989

  22

  Total

  107

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are now being taken to ensure that all blood, imported or otherwise, and blood products, used by the National Health Service for treatment of haemophiliacs in Britain is not contaminated by HIV.

  Mr. Freeman
  The safety of the blood supply in this country is maintained in two ways. First, since August 1983 potential donors have been given a leaflet which asks those at risk of HIV infection not to give blood. Secondly, since October 1985 all blood donations have been tested for antibodies to HIV-1. In addition, since June 1988 all donations from donors who have visited certain specified west African countries where HIV-2 is more common have been tested for antibodies to HIV-2.

  All blood products (home-produced or imported) used in this country, including Factor VIII which is used in the treatment of haemophilia, are now made from screened plasma, and are treated to inactivate HIV. All products concerned are also tested by the National Institute of Biological Standards Control under its batch release system.

  NATO Exercises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the extent of involvement by his Department in NATO exercise Wintex/Cimex 1987 and exercise Wintex/Cimex 1989; what is the number of staff engaged in the exercise planning process and in the exercises themselves; and what are the ranks and responsibilities of the staff involved.

  Mr. Freeman
  This Department plays its part in testing those procedures in which we have an interest. Staff participate as required; it would not be appropriate for me to supply the detail requested.

  Oil Seed Rape
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has about the impact of the cultivation of oil seed rape on human health or allergies; and if his Department will sponsor any research on this subject.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department is aware that several studies were being conducted during the summer of 1989 into the possible links between oil seed rape and allergy. We will be interested in seeing the findings when the results are published in due course. The Department's view is that there is no conclusive proof of any link between the
  683
  growing of oil seed rape and the increase in the numbers of allergy, hay fever, and asthma sufferers. It is possible that other factors such as pollens from less visibly prominent sources are causal or contributory factors. The Department has no plans to sponsor any research in this area.

  Childhood Leukaemia
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by year to date, and by regional health authority, the number of incidences of childhood leukaemia that have been reported in England and Wales following the Chernobyl accident; and what were the reported incidences in 1980 and 1986.

  Mr. Freeman
  Cancer registration data for 1985 onwards are still being collected, and thus the requested information for 1986 and for the period since the Chernobyl accident in 1987 is not yet available. The table shows the data for 1980.

  Number of newly diagnosed cases of leukaemia1, ages 0–14 years, England and Wales, 1980

  Area of usual residence

  Males

  Females

  England and Wales

  195

  143

  Northern RHA

  7

  8

  Yorkshire RHA

  13

  6

  Trent RHA

  13

  14

  East Anglian RHA

  7

  6

  North West Thames RHA

  10

  7

  North East Thames RHA

  17

  10

  South East Thames RHA

  13

  12

  South West Thames RHA

  19

  16

  Wessex RHA

  23

  12

  Oxford RHA

  9

  5

  South Western RHA

  17

  5

  West Midlands RHA

  24

  18

  Mersey RHA

  7

  6

  North Western RHA

  11

  12

  Wales

  5

  6

  1 ICD Ninth Revision code 204–208.

  Spina Bifida
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health authorities that provide a test for spina bifida in the foetus; and when this test will become generally available to pregnant mothers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Screening tests for spina bifida are already generally available to pregnant mothers.

  Midwives (Grading)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of midwives still awaiting the results of their regrading claim; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on the number of appeals to district health authorities is not collected centrally.

  Tranquillisers
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health following the publication of the findings by the Association of Health Councils for England and Wales, if he will institute research to ascertain why tranquillisers are prescribed in connection with physical illness and as to whether guidelines should be issued on the management of 684
  different conditions which could avoid the use of benzodiazepines; and if he will take steps to institute a practice policy on repeat prescribing involving frequent monitoring and review.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We share the association's concern about inappropriate prescribing of benzodiazepines. It is a matter for clinical judgment whether a patient with a physical illness needs to be treated with a benzodiazepine drug either to treat the physical symptoms themselves or in addition to a drug or drugs to treat such symptoms. Doctors already have all the guidance they need about the use of benzodiazepines.

  From April 1990 under our proposals in the White Paper "Promoting Better Health" it will be a responsibility of family practitioner committees to encourage the development of repeat prescribing control systems in those practices that do not already have such a system.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the findings by the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales published in "Health News Briefing—Benzodiazepines: A Suitable Case for Treatment", on numbers of people taking benzodiazepines and the reasons for the prescriptions being made.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The association's report acknowledges that the number of people taking benzodiazepines and all the reasons for prescriptions are unclear. In 1988 in Great Britain the number of prescriptions for these drugs fell by 9 per cent. from 25·5 million in 1987 to 23·2 million. This is a reduction of nearly 25 per cent. since 1979, when 30·9 million prescriptions were written.

  I share the association's conclusion that benzodiazepine prescribing could be further reduced.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess whether the findings by the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales suggest that inappropriate long-term prescribing of benzodiazepines comes to an end and as to whether benzodiazepone prescribing for(a) women and (b) the elderly constitutes a disproportionate percentage of all benzodiazepine prescribing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information is not collected centrally about the numbers or types of patients prescribed drugs.

  Advice has been issued to doctors by the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the Royal College of Physicians. psychiatrists and general practitioners and the British Medical Association. This advice, contained in the "British National Formulary", addressed appropriate use of benzodiazepines and strategies for reducing long-term prescribing, including prescribing for women and for the elderly. We support that advice.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue guidelines to hospitals to take account of the findings by the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales on benzodiazepine use.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The use of benzodiazepines in the treatment of a patient is a matter of clinical judgment, and therefore a matter for the clinician and the patient
  685
  concerned to decide in any individual case. Some hospitals have already established their own drug formularies and we welcome this move.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the advice given to doctors in the Committee on Safety of Medicines bulletin "Current Problems, No. 21", January 1988, in the light of the findings of the Association of Community Health Councils of England and Wales.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The advice on benzodiazepines, dependence and withdrawal symptoms published in "Current Problems No. 21" remains valid and is summarised in the latest edition of the "British National Formulary" which the Department issues free to all doctors.

  Dependent Adults
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will give consideration to legislation to provide dependent adults with legal status, basic rights and social protection should their carer be unable to provide for them;

  (2) what powers exist for the appropriate authorities to ensure that the rights and health of dependent adults are safeguarded in the event of their carer being unable to provide for them;

  (3) what protection exists to safeguard the care of dependent adults in the event of their carer being unable to provide for them;

  (4) what steps he plans to take to ensure that dependent adults' personal and medical welfare is properly protected by effective liaison between all interested professional parties in the event of their carer being unable to provide for them.

  Mr. Freeman
  Section 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948 and sections 115 and 135 of the Mental Health Act 1983 empower local authorities to take action to safeguard the welfare of dependent people who are not receiving proper care. The exercise of these powers is a matter for the local authority concerned which will need to keep in touch with the appropriate health authority. When failures of care come to light we ask the authorities for reports which are carefully studied to see whether any action is called for.

  Contraception
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on women and the Dalkon shield contraceptive device.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans for Government intervention in relation to this matter of litigation in the United States courts. For the initial claims deadline, the court itself directed, and approved, publicity by the Dalkon shield manufacturers. Further extensions of the deadline have received independent media publicity. It is for individual health authorities to decide whether they wish to direct their resources to specific activity on this matter. Our longstanding advice has been that they should be as helpful as possible with regard to the release of information.

  Petrol
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authority vehicles run on(a) unleaded petrol, (b) leaded petrol, (c) diesel and (d) have three-way catalytic converters.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information in the form requested is not available centrally and the cost of obtaining it would be disproportionate. All regional and district health authorities in England are implementing a lead-free policy and are converting their vehicles at the earliest opportunity.

  Energy Efficiency
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to issue guidelines to health authorities requiring them to carry out an energy audit for health authority buildings, identify priority areas for energy saving and segregate fuel bills for each building.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department has issued comprehensive guidance, the national energy code (ENCODE), on all aspects of energy efficiency for health care buildings including the need for energy audit and prioritising energy saving measures. Recommendations for separate metering where applicable will be issued shortly.

  We have no plans to require health authorities to undertake a formal energy audit.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require health authorities to establish an energy management unit and allocate responsibility for energy efficiency to one member of staff for each building.

  Mr. Freeman
  The comprehensive guidance, the national energy code (ENCODE), on energy efficiency published by the Department recommends a level of energy management and responsibility appropriate to the size of the estate and potential for energy savings.

  Environmental Audit
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to require health authorities to carry out an environmental audit on(a) energy consumption, (b) purchasing policy, (c) waste arising and disposal methods, (d) pollution from health authority premises and (e) environmental training.

  Mr. Freeman
  Health authorities are expected to comply with all relevant statutory legislation. We have no plans to require them to carry out environmental audits on energy consumption, purchasing policy, waste arising and disposal methods, pollution from health authority premises or environmental training.

  Environment Policy
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will allocate funds for implementing an environment policy for the National Health Service;

  (2) if he will draw up an environment policy for the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for health authorities to decide on their overall environmental policies and the allocation of associated resources.
  687
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will include as items for the regional review by Ministers(a) any adverse impact of health authority practices on the environment and (b) any adverse impact of environmental factors on public health within the region.

  Mr. Freeman
  This year public health issues were discussed with each region in preparation for regional reviews, which are now normally conducted by the chief executive of the management executive. Where there are serious concerns about these or other specific areas, they are raised at the review itself. Management action is taken in relation to the impact of health authority practices on the environment as they arise.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue guidance banning the use by health authorities of products proven to be environmentally damaging where an alternative is available.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. We consider that, as responsible public bodies, health authorities should be able to take account of all relevant factors, including environmental factors and statutory requirements, in securing best value for money in their purchasing policies.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those health authorities which have regular planning and consultative meetings with local authority environmental health officers; and what exchange of information there is between them.

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that this information is not collected centrally.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about health authorities as(a) consumers, (b) waste producers and (c) polluters.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for health authorities to ensure that they perform their duties effectively, efficiently and responsibly with due regard to the effects on the environment.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require health authorities to monitor progress on their environment policies and practice and report to him.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department already monitors a number of key aspects of health authorities' environmental policies and practices and will continue to do so.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there is an environmental component in the training and qualification of(a) nurses, (b) doctors, (c) radiographers, (d) hospital administrators and (e) health visitors.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Nurses and health visitors: The standard and content of training for nurses and health visitors is determined by the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  (b) Doctors: The General Medical Council recommend the curriculum for undergraduate medical students.

  (c) Radiographers: The Council for the Professions Supplementary to Medicine through its Radiography Board, is responsible for regulating the professional education of radiographers.

  688

  (d) Hospital Administrators: Health authorities and the National Health Service Training Authority are responsible for the standard and content of training for hospital administrators.

  Air Pollution
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health authorities premises which have boilers and incinerators giving rise to air pollution problems.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information on health authority premises where boiler and incinerator are known to give rise to air pollution problems is not available centrally but all installations are expected to comply with current legislation.

  Waste Management
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if there is a staff member specifically responsible for waste management in each health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not available centrally. It is for health authorities to determine responsibilities for waste management. As far as clinical waste is concerned, the Department has issued guidance to health authorities which recommends that it should he the responsibility of a designated officer within each authority.

  Lead Piping
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of health authority buildings have lead piping.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information is not available on the extent to which lead piping is installed within health care buildings. All current guidance recommends the use of copper piping.

  Recycling
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities provide collection facilities for(a) glass, (b) paper and (c) cans for recycling.

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that this information is not held centrally.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of National Health Service stationery is(a) 100 per cent. recycled and (b) not recycled.

  Mr. Freeman
  National contracts for copy paper and listing paper for computer use do make provision for the use of recycled paper. No figures are yet available to show the percentage of recycled paper used. However, it is unlikely that the use of 100 per cent. recycled stationery will be significant. Large quantities of chemicals are necessary to achieve a desirable standard of whiteness in the paper. This calls into question the level of benefit to the environment, and can involve higher costs of production than ordinary paper.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has issued guidance to health authorities requiring them to phase out the use of chlorofluorocarbons as sterilant gases.
  689
  Mr. Freeman
  Regional supplies directors were advised at a meeting of the national procurement group in September 1988 that the small-scale use of chlorofluorocarbons in sterilisers as a carrier gas for ethylene oxide should be avoided, if possible, since pure ethylene oxide and ethylene oxide/carbondioxide mixtures were available as satisfactory alternatives.

  Nurses
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many enrolled nurses have been turned away from conversion to first-level nursing places in the last year;

  (2) what is the current average waiting list for an enrolled nurse conversion course.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many practising enrolled nurses there are in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally. Information provided by the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting about the numbers in the United Kingdom who have paid the periodic fee and were therefore on the effective register shows that on 31 March 1989 there were 158,500 people who held an enrolled nurse qualification.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by health district(a) the current nursing staff establishment, (b) the number in post at the latest available date and (c) the number who had left the National Health Service in the preceding year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: Information on the number of nursing and midwifery staff employed in each district health authority in England at 30 September 1988 is given in the table.

  We do not collect information on nursing staff establishments centrally. Reliable information on the numbers leaving the National Health Service last year is not yet available.

  Doctors and Dentists
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his latest meetings with doctors and dentists.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have frequent formal and informal meetings with doctors and dentists, mostly very amicable, constructive and supportive of our objectives. I met the British Dental Association on 27 September when I reached full agreement with it on the terms of its new contract. I met the British Medical Association on 18 October to discuss the implementation of our proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients" and had a friendly and constructive discussion.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the Government's initiative announced in February for improving life for people in residential homes; whether he proposes to take 690
  any further action on the recommendations of the committee on residential care chaired by Lady Wagner; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In February we announced our intention to launch a development programme aimed at improving life for people in residential homes, based on recommendations of the committee chaired by Lady Wagner.

  We have appointed five agencies to carry forward important recommendations from the committee's report "Residential Care: A Positive Choice". Work has now begun and will continue for the next three years at a total cost of around £2·2 million. This initiative aims at better training for staff in homes, better information for the public in making choices, effective, accessible and widely known arrangements for making suggestions and complaints, a closer relationship between homes and their local communities and better management of homes. Cost-effective ways of achieving these objectives will be explored through a wide range of development projects. The results of these activities will be made widely and regularly available to national and local agencies concerned and will be independently assessed.

  The thrust of many of the committee's recommendations, for example on the organisation and funding of community care, has been taken into account in the wider context of community care development and will be reflected in the forthcoming White Paper.

  The committee's recommendations on setting and maintaining standards have been incorporated in our proposals to achieve even-handedness in inspection of residential care homes, as between independent and local authority homes, through the setting up of inspection units in social services departments at arms length from the management of local authorities' own homes. Issues concerning children and young people, on which the Wagner committee made recommendations, are covered in the Children Bill, including education and health needs of children in care, keeping siblings together wherever practicable and appropriate, the needs of ethnic minority groups and accommodation for young people leaving care. And we are considering issuing guidance on encouraging and enabling people in residential care homes to manage their own finances where they are capable of doing so.

  The Wagner committee has done a valuable service in pointing the way to better standards. The Government are playing their part in responding to its report. We also look to local authorities and private and voluntary agencies, to whom much of the report was primarily addressed, to take those messages to heart and act on them.

  The selected agencies and their fields of activity are as follows:

  Basic training programmes for care staff: the National Institute for Social Work;

  Ways of increasing contacts between homes and their local communities and a wider role for volunteers: the Social Care Association (Education);

  Methods of self-assessment and performance evaluation by managers: the Polytechnic of North London;

  Ways of providing information to help people in choosing a home or alternative to residential care: the Policy Studies Institute.

  The department of government, Brunel university will co-ordinate this activity, provide an information service and publish an independent assessment of the programmes.
  691
  In addition the Department's social services inspectorate will develop procedures for dealing with suggestions and complaints.

  National Health Service staff in post in England nursing and midwifery by district health authority1 at 30 September 1988

  Whole lime equivalent2

  Total England

  403,880

  Northern RHA HQ

  70

  Hartlepool

  860

  North Tees

  1,280

  South Tees

  2,650

  East Cumbria

  1,600

  South Cumbria

  1,120

  West Cumbria

  1,160

  Darlington

  1,170

  Durham

  1,180

  North West Durham

  730

  South West Durham

  1,620

  Northumberland

  3,170

  Gateshead

  1,400

  Newcastle

  5,200

  North Tyneside

  970

  South Tyneside

  970

  Sunderland

  2,600

  Yorkshire RHA HQ

  120

  Hull

  2,660

  East Yorkshire

  1,610

  Grimsby

  1,300

  Scunthorpe

  1,240

  Northallerton

  530

  York

  2,300

  Scarborough

  890

  Harrogate

  1,170

  Bradford

  2,740

  Airedale

  1,440

  Calderdale

  1,570

  Huddersfield

  1,990

  Dewsbury

  970

  Leeds Western

  3,420

  Leeds Eastern

  3,310

  Wakefield

  2,000

  Pontefract

  1,070

  Trent RHA HQ

  100

  North Derbyshire

  2,270

  South Derbyshire

  3,980

  Leicestershire

  6,570

  North Lincolnshire

  2,230

  South Lincolnshire

  2,110

  Bassetlaw

  680

  Central Nottingham

  2,250

  Nottingham

  5,670

  Barnsley

  1,700

  Doncaster

  2,560

  Rotherham

  1,850

  Sheffield

  6,310

  East Anglian RHA HQ

  50

  Cambridge

  2,600

  Peterborough

  1,780

  West Suffolk

  1,660

  East Suffolk

  2,640

  Norwich

  3,950

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  1,410

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  1,300

  Huntingdon

  770

  North West Thames RHA HQ

  3—

  North Bedfordshire

  1,380

  South Bedfordshire

  1,900

  North Hertfordshire

  1,020

  East Hertfordshire

  1,050

  North West Hertfordshire

  3,060

  South West Hertfordshire

  1,240

  692

  Whole time equivalent2

  Barnet

  2,870

  Harrow

  1,430

  Hillingdon

  2,050

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  2,030

  Ealing

  1,760

  Brent

  2,000

  Paddington and North Kensington

  2,050

  Riverside

  3,910

  North East Thames RHA HQ

  110

  Basildon and Thurrock

  2,180

  Mid-Essex

  1,910

  North East Essex

  2,980

  West Essex

  1,670

  Southend

  2,000

  Barking, Havering and Brent

  3,350

  Hampstead

  2,120

  Bloomsbury

  3,210

  Islington

  1,510

  City and Hackney

  2,620

  Newham

  1,410

  Tower Hamlets

  2,390

  Enfield

  1,500

  Harringey

  1,350

  Redbridge

  1,520

  Waltham Forest

  2,660

  South East Thames RHA HQ

  10

  Brighton

  2,250

  Eastbourne

  1,700

  Hastings

  1,280

  South East Kent

  1,610

  Canterbury and Thanet

  2,590

  Dartford & Gravesend

  1,880

  Maidstone

  1,580

  Medway

  1,640

  Tunbridge Wells

  1,890

  Bexley

  1,580

  Greenwich

  2,050

  Bromley

  2,180

  West Lambeth

  2,370

  Camberwell

  2,310

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  3,550

  South West Thames RHA HQ

  120

  North West Surrey

  1,640

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  1,340

  South West Surrey

  1,750

  Mid-Surrey

  1,820

  East Surrey

  1,740

  Chichester

  1,370

  Mid-Downs

  1,780

  Worthing

  1,570

  Croydon

  2,300

  Kingston and Esher

  1,550

  Richmond, Twickenham and R.

  1,260

  Wandsworth

  2,940

  Merton and Sutton

  2,590

  Wessex RHA HQ

  10

  East Dorset

  3,210

  West Dorset

  1,820

  Portsmouth and South East

  3,930

  Southampton and South West

  4,180

  Winchester

  1,310

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  1,780

  Salisbury

  1,440

  Swindon

  1,860

  Bath

  3,120

  Isle of Wight

  1,030

  Oxford RHA HQ

  70

  East Berkshire

  2,310

  West Berkshire

  2,870

  Aylesbury Vale

  1,710

  Wycombe

  1,250

  Milton Keynes

  730

  693

  Whole time equivalent2

  Kettering

  1,510

  Northampton

  2,410

  Oxfordshire

  4,150

  South Western RHA HQ

  80

  Bristol and Weston

  3,470

  Frenchay

  2,690

  Southmead

  2,160

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  2,900

  Exeter

  3,300

  North Devon

  1,000

  Plymouth

  2,890

  Torbay

  1,850

  Cheltenham

  1,350

  Gloucester

  2,490

  Somerset

  3,130

  West Midlands RHA HQ

  130

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  1,150

  Herefordshire

  1,200

  Kidderminster

  1,280

  Worcester

  1,700

  Shropshire

  2,740

  Mid-Staffordshire

  1,760

  North-Staffordshire

  4,190

  South-Staffordshire

  1,900

  Rugby

  460

  North Warwickshire

  1,490

  South Warwickshire

  1,910

  Central Birmingham

  2,860

  East Birmingham

  1,400

  North Birmingham

  1,380

  South Birmingham

  2,610

  West Birmingham

  2,540

  Coventry

  2,600

  Dudley

  2,070

  Sandwell

  1,490

  Solihull

  1,150

  Walsall

  1,960

  Wolverhampton

  2,210

  Mersey RHA HQ

  70

  Chester

  1,730

  Crewe

  1,790

  Halton

  630

  Macclesfield

  1,580

  Warrington

  2,350

  Liverpool

  5,160

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  2,580

  Southport and Formby

  1,230

  South Sefton

  2,290

  Wirral

  2,770

  North Western RHA HQ

  120

  Lancaster

  2,120

  Blackpool Wyre and Fylde

  2,540

  Preston

  2,490

  Blackburn Hymburn and Ribb

  1,930

  Burnley Pendle and Rossend

  3,240

  West Lancaster

  920

  Chorley and South Ribble

  610

  Bolton

  1,900

  Bury

  1,100

  North Manchester

  2,450

  Central Manchester

  2,070

  South Manchester

  3,120

  Oldham

  1,480

  Rochdale

  1,170

  Salford

  3,320

  Stockport

  2,160

  Tameside and Glossop

  1,420

  Trafford

  1,230

  Wigan

  2,110

  London Post Graduate SHA 's

  The Hospital for Sick Children

  1,240

  The National Hospital

  410

  694

  Whole time equivalent2

  Moorfields Eye Hospital

  190

  The Bethlem Royal Hospital

  720

  The National Heart and Chest

  640

  The Royal Marsden Hospital

  460

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlottes

  1,230

  Eastman Dental Hospital

  10

  LAS

  3—

  BTS

  70

  PHLS

  10

  Other

  10

  1 Including unqualified nursing and midwifery staff and agency staff.

  2 Figures independently rounded to nearest ten (10) whole time equivalents.

  3 Indicates less than five (5) whole time equivalents.

  Source:Department of Health (SM13) annual census of NHs non-medical manpower.

  Drug Deaths
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths per year in the United Kingdom are attributable to the use of hard drugs.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: The exact information requested is not available. The table shows the number of deaths attributable to certain drugs in the United Kingdom 1986–88.

  Numbers of deaths attributable to certain drugs, United Kingdom 1986–88

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Drug dependence or addiction1

  63

  65

  56

  Other drug abuse or intoxication2

  16

  14

  21

  Other poisoning by drugs3

  105

  129

  128

  1 Morphine type.

  Heroin, Methadone, Opium, Opium alkaloids and other derivatives, Synthetics with morphine-like effects.

  Cocaine.

  Coca leaves and derivatives.

  Combinations of morphine type drugs with any other.

  2 Morphine type.

  Cocaine type.

  3 Opiates and related narcotics.

  Codeine (methylamorphine), Heroin (diacetylmorphine), Pethidine (mepiridine), Methadone, Morphine, Opium (alkaloids).

  Surface and infiltration anaesthetics.

  Cocaine, Lignocaine, Procaine, Tetracaine.

ENVIRONMENT

  Planning Guidance
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what comments he has received on his proposal to drop the special prescription in favour of development from the draft PPG3 planning guidance note.

  Mr. Howard
  None so far, although a number of informal responses indicate a generally favourable reaction to our draft guidance.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to deal with the problems of disposing of toxic wastes.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I am preparing legislation, to be introduced at the earliest opportunity, to strengthen the
  695
  law on waste disposal. This will include a duty of care on waste producers and improved controls over the disposal or treatment of waste. I shall also be issuing a consultation paper on the review of the special waste regulations shortly.

  Sewage Works
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to introduce legislation to provide local authorities with powers to abate odour nuisance from sewage treatment works.

  Mr. Trippier
  We are currently considering the possibility of doing so.

  European Community Water Directives
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last discussed United Kingdom compliance with European Community water directives with the Community environment commissioner; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I discussed United Kingdom compliance with the drinking water directive with Commissioner Ripa when I attended the meeting of the Environment Council in Brussels in September.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress towards reaching agreement with the Commission of the European Communities on plans for the implementation of the drinking water directive, 80/778/EEC, and the bathing water directive, 76/160/EEC.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 30 October to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown),Official Report, columns 261–62.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what date the United Kingdom will meet the requirements of European Council directives on water quality; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  In the majority of cases the United Kingdom already meets the requirements of the various European Community directives concerning water quality. For the remainder of cases measures are in hand to achieve these, notably in the case of the directives on the quality of drinking water and bathing waters, where timetabled improvement programmes have been submitted to the Commission of the European Communities.

  Dioxins
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what standards there are for the control of the emissions of dioxins in processes of burning or incineration.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is impractical at present to set specific limits for emissions of dioxins, as the monitoring and analysis of these compounds is complex, slow and expensive. Emissions of dioxins are therefore controlled in the United Kingdom, as in the European directives on municipal waste incineration plants, through effective control of combustion conditions and the fitting and use of suitable abatement equipment.

  Home Ownership
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has plans for additional assistance to people seeking to become home owners.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to help people into home ownership.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any new proposals to assist first-time home owners.

  Mr. Howard
  The Government will continue with the policies which have enabled there to be 3½ million more home owners today than in 1979.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the level of home ownership in the south-west of England.

  Mr. Chope
  Estimates of the number and percentage of dwellings in owner-occupation in the South West region are given in table 9.4 of "Housing and Construction Statistics 1978–1988", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  South Africa (Sporting Links)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent steps he has taken to discourage sporting links with South Africa.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The sixth conference of European Ministers responsible for sport which I attended in Reykjavik from 30 May to 1 June 1989 agreed a resolution concerning apartheid in sport and discouraging sporting contact with South Africa. The resolution has been adopted by the Committee of Ministers and I have asked the Sports Council to circulate a copy of it to the governing bodies of sport.

  In August I wrote to the chairman of the Test and County Cricket Board and the president of the Rugby Football Union about the proposed tours to South Africa restating the Government's commitment to the Gleneagles agreement and our policy of seeking to discourage sporting contact with South Africa. I asked for copies of my letters to be passed on to individual players who had accepted invitations to visit South Africa.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is Her Majesty's Government's current policy on sporting links with South Africa.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Her Majesty's Government remain fully committed to the Commonwealth statement on apartheid in sport—the Gleneagles agreement.

  Water Industry (Investment)
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total estimated cost of the investment programme in the water industry over the next 10 years.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The estimated expenditure by the English water plcs, required by the programmes of which
  697
  account was taken by the Secretary of State in setting the initial level of K, is £22·8 billion in prices prevailing at November 1989.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any measures were announced during the summer adjournment to ensure that low-cost rural housing association property remains available for local housing needs after the first occupants move on.

  Mr. Howard
  The Housing Corporation issued a consultation paper on 10 October on the way in which the repurchase scheme for shared ownership properties in rural areas would work.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress being made in providing affordable housing in rural areas to fulfil local needs.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government's policy on rural housing was set out in a statement of 5 July 1988, and in statements of 3 and 7 February this year, copies of which are in the Library. It will take some time for this initiative to have its full effect, but I am sure that in due course it will make a significant impact on availability of housing in rural areas.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on his policy regarding planning applications for development within green belt areas.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend continues to be fully committed to upholding green belt policy as set out in planning policy guidance note 2.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether it remains Government policy that land vested in local authorities under the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938 including land occupied by tenanted properties will be treated as inalienable.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Chope) gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) on 24 July at column 469. The Government remain committed to ensuring that all green belt land, including land held under the 1938 Act, continues to fulfil green belt objectives.

  Domestic Waste
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to enable him to reach his target of a substantial increase in recycled domestic waste by the year 2000.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  A substantial increase in the amount of domestic waste recycled can be achieved only by a combination of measures. First, by manufacturers designing recyclability into their products, cutting down on the amount of unnecessary packaging and pricing recycled products competitively. Secondly, by consumers knowing about and choosing recycled products and 698
  making use of recycling facilities provided by local authorities, retailers and voluntary groups. Thirdly, by local authorities and retailers substantially increasing their commitment to providing recycling facilities so that the majority come up to the standard of the best. Fourthly, by Government creating the right waste management framework for an increase in recycling through measures which we intend to bring forward in the Environmental Protection Bill and through our support for major experiments such as Recycling City in Sheffield, intended to identify and apply best practice in recycling techniques.

  County Hall, London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the future of the County hall, London SE1.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The future of County hall is in part the subject of an appeal to the House of Lords against a judgment of the Court of Appeal given on 20 July, and in part the subject of planning applications considered at a public inquiry which closed on 6 November.

  Acid House Parties
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to take further measures to eliminate so-called acid house parties.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to take to tackle the noise problems associated with acid house parties.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Department and the Home Office are currently consulting local authorities and the police about the possible need to extend their powers to prevent or control acid house or similar parties. We will consider further action in the light of that consultation.

  Environmentally Friendly Products
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to regulate the labelling of ecologically friendly products.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he intends to provide to consumers who wish to purchase products which do not damage the environment.

  Mr. Trippier
  We have announced our support for the establishment of an EC-wide scheme of eco-labelling in a discussion paper which I issued in August jointly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I am pleased to say that the Environment Council on 19 September asked the Commission to bring forward proposals as soon as possible.

  Association of County Councils
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Association of County Councils; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend last met the Association of County Councils and other local authority associations on 17 October to discuss the Government's proposals for the community charge transitional relief scheme.

  Dutch Minister for Sport
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Minister for Sport next expects to meet his equivalent from the Dutch Government; and what matters he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have no immediate plans to meet the new Dutch State Secretary for Welfare, Health and Cultural Affairs, who has responsibility for sport. Officials from his Department and mine are members of the Council of Europe standing committee on the European convention on spectator violence. The committee is meeting today.

  Community Care
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what help from the transitional relief scheme will be available to those people discharged from residential care into the community after 1 April 1990.

  Mr. Chope
  It is the Government's intention that the scheme for transitional relief should operate under rules that are as simple as possible so as to produce practicable arrangements which will enable authorities to issue community charge bills next April which reflect both transitional relief and rebates. As with other schemes it will be necessary to establish a qualification date for entitlement. We have proposed that in order for a person to qualify for relief at an address that person should be entered in the charging authority's community charges register for 31 March 1990 as living at that address.

  Rents
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has agreed any definition of an affordable rent or a market rent.

  Mr. Chope
  Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 sets out how a rent assessment committee should determine a market rent.

  Planning appeals

  Secretary of State's decision

  Year

  Received

  Decided

  Allowed

  contrary to inspector's

  Number

  Percentage

  recommendation

  1979

  12,990

  8,933

  2,602

  29·1

  17

  1984

  16,192

  11,643

  3,773

  32·4

  16

  1988·89

  28,659

  21,061

  7,734

  36·7

  19

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding the process for determining planning applications.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend receives a number of representations about the operation of the development control system. In particular, more than 400 individuals and organisations have responded to a consultation paper entitled "Efficient Planning" which we issued on 28 July.

  Sports Council
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Sports Council; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I will next meet the chairman of the Sports Council on 16 November when we will discuss current issues in sport.

  Royal Parks
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review encroachment fees charged by his Department in relation to the fringes of royal parks.

  Mr. Trippier
  Encroachment licences are essential to control developments on the boundaries of the royal parks. Encroachment fees are normally reviewed every five years but in some cases there has been a considerably longer period without review. There is an element of catching-up in some the increases.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of planning appeals have been allowed during the latest 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In the 12 months to 31 August 1989, 35.4 per cent. of planning appeals were allowed.

  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many local authority planning appeals referred to him were agreed by him in 1979, 1984 and 1989;

  (2) how many local authority planning appeals referred to him were subject to a change in the inspector recommendation in 1979, 1984 and 1989;

  (3) what was the number of appeals against planning permissions to local authorities which were referred to him for 1979, 1984 and 1989.

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

  Low-cost Housing
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to improve the supply of low-cost housing for rent and shared ownership.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress his Department is making in its policy of increasing the supply of affordable housing.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to increase the supply of affordable housing.
  701
  Mr. Chope
  We have planned for an increase of more than 60 per cent. between 1989–90 and 1991–92 in public support through the Housing Corporation to housing associations, which are now the main providers of new subsidised housing; associations' output will increase further as a result of their enhanced capacitity to use private finance. Deregulation of the private rented sector will stimulate new investment in housing to rent. We have also announced a series of measures to promote supply of affordable housing for rent and sale, including shared ownership sale, in rural areas. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Autumn Statement will set out the Government's revised plans for expenditure on subsidised housing rolled forward to 1992–93.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress towards the removal of pollution from inland coastal waters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the investment plans that I have announced for improvements to sewage treatment works Official Report, 7 December 1988, cols. 199–200 and to bathing waters, Official Report, 20 October 1989, cols. 261–2. These programmes are the biggest of their kind, and will bring about substantial improvements to the quality of our estuarial and coastal waters.

  Councillors' Allowances
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has made to the letter dated 14 July from the chairman of the three local authority associations about members' allowances.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government have introduced amendments in another place to the Local Government and Housing Bill which will give power to implement a new system of councillors' allowance on the lines supported by the chairmen of the three local authority associations concerned.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to reduce the level of nitrates in public water supplies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Water undertakers have prepared firm programmes to achieve compliance as quickly as practicable with the nitrate standard of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 which is the same value as that set by the EC drinking water directive. Some water undertakers are already blending water that has a high nitrate concentration with water that has a low nitrate concentration in order to meet the standard. Investigation is also proceeding of treatment processes, such as ion exchange and biological de-nitrification. In addition, agricultural measures to prevent pollution will be introduced under a pilot scheme in nitrate sensitive areas.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to legislate on waste recycling.
  702
  Mr. Trippier
  We hope to bring forward provisions to promote recycling in the Environmental Protection Bill.

  School Sport
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what policies his Department has to encourage sport for schoolchildren outside school hours.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Government are committed to promoting participation in sport for schoolchildren both in and out of school hours.

  The Sports Council's initiatives aimed at increasing young people's participation in sport, include the "Ever thought of Sport?" and 'What's your Sport?" campaigns. The Government are currently considering the recommendations of the School Sport Forum; our response will be published shortly.

  Stop Notices
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to introduce changes to planning laws relating to stop notices.

  Mr. Moynihan
  As soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Environmental Groups
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list any official engagements he has between the present time and the end of November with environmental groups.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier today by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing).

  Sports and Recreation Facilities
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to extend compulsory competitive tendering to the management of local authority sports and recreation facilities.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The draft order requiring competition in the management of local authority sports and leisure facilities was laid before Parliament on 25 October. Subject to parliamentary approval, implementation in England will take place in three stages between 1 January 1992 and 1 January 1993.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest figure he has for unleaded petrol sales.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of petrol sold in the United Kingdom is unleaded.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot).

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if any vehicles belonging to or used by his Department run on leaded petrol.

  Mr. Chope
  The exact answer can be obtained only at a disproportionate cost. Wherever possible all vehicles that can be run on unleaded fuel do so. Those vehicles which can run only on leaded fuels are being replaced.
  703
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if any Government ministerial cars run on leaded petrol.

  Mr. Chope
  Most ministerial allocated cars run on unleaded petrol. It is our intention to move the rest of the Government car fleet to unleaded petrol as the vehicles fall due for replacement.

  Housing Report
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the Association of District Councils report, "A Time to Take Stock".

  Mr. Chope
  The report makes a useful contribution to the discussions we shall be having about the details of the new local authority capital finance system and the new renovation grant system that remain to be settled. We shall be discussing points raised in their report with the Association of District Councils and other local authority associations when the Housing Consultative Council meets at the end of this month.

  Motor Fuel
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact of different fuel brands and of petrol, lead-free petrol and diesel, respectively, on the environment.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The composition of motor fuels sold in the United Kingdom is controlled and no assessment is made of the environmental effects of different brands. The reduction in lead content of petrol in 1986 and the growth in sales of unleaded petrol have more than halved the concentration of lead in the air. However, it is now estimated that some 80 per cent. of lead in air still comes from petrol vehicle emissions. Diesel fuel has no lead added to it.

  The impacts on the environment of other materials emitted from vehicles are given in the report of the Department's terrestrial effects review group, acid rain review group, and building effects review group. The proportions of total emissions of these materials which come from diesel and petrol vehicles are given in the Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics. Copies of review group reports and the digest are in the Library of the House.

  Housing (Hackney)
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to visit the London borough of Hackney to discuss housing finance.

  Mr. Chope
  No, but the Department has regular contacts with the borough and has recently held a meeting with the council in the current housing investment programme round.

  Planning Guidance
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received any representations on the draft PPG3 planning guidance note.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend has not so far received many formal responses to our draft planning 704
  policy guidance note, "Housing". He has, however, received a number of informal responses which indicate a generally favourable reaction to the new draft guidance.

  Comments may be made on the draft guidance until 5 January 1990.

  Planet Protection Fund
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he supports the creation of a planet protection fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We do not need new international institutions to tackle the environmental problems facing the world today. Instead, we support the use of the existing bilateral and multilateral channels for environmental assistance, adapting or improving those channels as necessary. In her statement in the House on 26 October my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister drew attention to the support expressed in the Langkawi declaration on the environment for existing international environmental organisations, especially the United Nations environment programme. We consider that any additional resources should not go towards creating new bureaucracies but directly to measures to protect and improve the environment.

  Council Tenants
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to take any action to ensure that tenants have the right to receive information on their council's effectiveness in housing policy.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave on 1 November to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo).

  Homelessness
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance his Department plans to offer to local authorities which are obliged to house people made homeless as a result of mortgage arrears.

  Mr. Chope
  We will announce the conclusions of our review of the homelessness legislation very shortly.

  Housing Repairs
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has made any estimate of the total amount needed to tackle housing disrepair in England and Wales.

  Mr. Chope
  The most recent English house condition survey estimated that the average cost of repair of all dwellings was, in 1986, £950 which sums to £17·9 billion for the housing stock in England as a whole. Against this should be set the same survey's estimate of the annual value of work undertaken on the repair and improvement of the stock which was, in 1986, £17·3 billion. Figures relating to Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Estate Action
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has since his appointment visited any housing projects funded by Estate Action.
  705
  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has not done so but he hopes to do so in future. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning visited Holmewood estate, Bradford, at the end of September and last week I visited Marlborough Road estate in Derby where Estate Action funding has totalled more than £2·1 million last year and this.

  Ivory
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to curtail the global trade in ivory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Effective action to curtail world trade in ivory requires concerted international co-operation, principally through the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES). We strongly supported the ban on commercial trade in African elephant ivory at the recent CITES conference. We were also successful in obtaining agreement to our resolution urging all parties to the convention to implement these more stringent controls immediately. The Indian elephant is already subject to a similar prohibition.

  Litter
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to enable local authorities to impose fixed penalties for the dropping of litter.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that our proposals for legislation to tackle the problem of litter, published on 20 July, include a provision which will allow all district and borough councils to operate a fixed penalty scheme for littering.

  Lower Grange Estate, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to approve grants enabling new homes for rent and for sale to be built on the Lower Grange estate in Bradford, and some existing homes to be modernised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  An application for city grant in respect of 280 houses to be built for sale and 28 flats to be refurbished for sale was received on 6 October. It is being examined and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities hopes to issue a decision as quickly as possible.

  My Department has not yet received a detailed application for estate action support in respect of the houses which the city of Bradford metropolitan council intend to refurbish. The Housing Corporation has also not yet received a detailed appplication for housing association grant for the houses proposed to be built for rent by North British Housing Association. Both applications, when received, will also be dealt with as quickly as possible.

  Northumbrian Water Authority
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will give the capital spending of the Northumbrian water authority for each year since 1983 and the total spending planned over the next five years.
  706
  Mr. Howard
  Northumbrian Water Group plc estimates that expenditure required in 1990–95 by the investment programme which was taken into account in setting K will amount to £540 million at November 1989 prices. Northumbrian water authority's capital expenditure since 1983, taken from the authority's annual report and accounts and repriced, was as follows:—

  Northumbrian Capital Expenditure 1982–83 to 1988–89

  £ million (1988–89 prices)

  DOE services

  Land drainage

  1982–83

  49·1

  0·2

  1983–84

  41·9

  0·2

  1984–85

  34·3

  0·3

  1985–86

  47·2

  0·2

  1986–87

  42·8

  0·3

  1987–88

  44·1

  0·2

  1988–89

  41·2

  0·2

  NATO Exercises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the extent of involvement by his Department in NATO exercise Wintex/Cimex 1987 and exercise Wintex/Cimex 1989; what is the number of staff engaged in the exercise planning process and in the exercises themselves; and what are the posts, ranks and responsibilities of the staff involved.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  My Department plays its part in testing those procedures in which we have an interest. Staff participate as required; it would not be appropriate for me to supply the details requested.

  English Heritage
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the total per head of the population of England that was spent by English Heritage in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Trippier
  On the basis of OPCS mid-year population estimates and English Heritage gross expenditure, the spend per head for the financial years 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89 was £1·42, £1·50, and £1·65 respectively.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by individual water company the amounts proposed for(a) industry debt written off and (b) the injection of new Government capital.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 26 October 1989 to my hon. Friend for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) [Official Report, col. 555].

  Seaforth Nature Reserve
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the reasons why the Seaforth nature reserve is being demolished; how many appeals has he received in favour of the reserve; and how many against.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have received 23 representations supporting the reserve, but I understand that Sefton M BC,
  707
  the local planning authority, proposes to meet the Merseyside Docks and Harbour Company—the land owners—to discuss the issues of present concern at Seaforth. It is too soon to tell what the future of the reserve will be.

  Radioactive Discharges
  Ms. Hannan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has monitored the effect of radioactive discharges from the Health Service to air and water.

  Mr. Trippier
  Radioactive waste may be disposed of only if an authorisation has been issued under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP). Authorisations are issued only after careful assessment of the environmental impact of the proposed disposals. They impose strict conditions and activity limits, which are designed to ensure that any dose to the general public is well below the maximum permissible as recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. The premises concerned are subject to inspection to ensure compliance with the terms of authorisations.

  Monuments (Policy Review)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reply to the policy review on the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments—England, Wales and Scotland that was undertaken by Peat, Marwick and McClintock; and when he expects to act on the report's recommendations.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 7 November 1989]: The consultant's review was commissioned as part of a policy review of the three commissions undertaken jointly by the Department, CADW Welsh Historic Monuments and the Scottish Development Department. We announced our decisions on the main points of principle raised in the PMM report's recommendations relating to the English Commission on 20 February at columns 496–97. There remain further points of detail which affect all three commissions. We aim to conclude this further work by the end of the year.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people have been affected by the use of local authorities' powers to restrict the amount of rent payable through housing benefit such that only part of the eligible rent is assessed for benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not held centrally.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to prevent the circulation by councils to community charge payers of misleading information on(a) on the level of charge and (b) the sums by which it is calculated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The code of practice issued under the Local Government Act 1986 already requires publicity 708
  issued by local authorities to be accurate and balanced. In addition I propose to lay regulations before the House under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 prescribing the precise form of bills to be sent to charge payers next year.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the proposed system for transitional relief for the poll tax.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government have issued two proposals papers on 11 October and 20 October, copies of which have been placed in the Library. Discussions are now taking place with the local authority associations following which a further consolidated paper will be issued. The paper will set out the detailed arrangements for the operation of the scheme.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning his recent statement relating to the community charge.

  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning his recent announcement relating to the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  I have received representations from individual local authorities and other bodies. The Department has also held a number of discussions with the local authority associations.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of St ate for the Environment if he will make a statement on all those degenerative mental conditions which can now be assessed for poll tax exemption.

  Mr. Chope
  The revised exemption for people who are severely mentally impaired will not refer to specific conditions. Any person who is entitled to a qualifying benefit—which will now include attendance allowance and constant attendance allowance—and who has a certificate from a registered medical practitioner stating that his intelligence and social functioning are severely impaired, whatever the cause, will be exempt from the community charge.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the likely administrative costs of the poll tax transitional relief scheme in 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 18 October at column 155.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the causes for the relative levels of base community charge in areas of greater social needs as against areas without such problems.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The proposals for Standard Spending Assessments which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 6 November take account of substantial research which has been discussed with the local authority associations over the last year.
  709
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what costings have been undertaken by his Department as to the financial and manpower implications of implementing a two-tier system of local government finance, comprising a local income tax and a property tax.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A two-tier system of local government finance could, we estimate, cost up to twice as much to administer as the community charge.
  710
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any intention to revise the indicators used in the calculation of revenue support grant in those local authorities whose amount of grant is adversely affected by the introduction of the community charge.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I announced my proposals for the calculation of revenue support grant in my statement on 6 November.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

West Bank Universities
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to help achieve the reopening of the universities which have been closed on the West Bank of the River Jordan.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the European Community and its member states continue to press the Israeli authorities to ensure the normal functioning of West Bank universities.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will the Government convey to the Israeli authorities that the reopening of these universities would be a useful step in building up confidence in the context of the approaching negotiations?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, a statement by the EC Council was made as recently as 6th October following which representations were made to the Israeli authorities by the EC troika on 11th October. The statement broadly deplored the renewed closure of the schools and wished the universities to be reopened. It stated that this would be a major factor in establishing the climate of confidence that is indispensable to the development of the peace process.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the closure of the five universities and colleges on the West Bank with its effect on over 18,000 students is an extremely serious matter? Can he be more specific and say, first, whether representations have been made about this matter by Her Majesty's Government to the Israeli Government and, secondly, whether we have approached the United States Administration to see whether they would combine with us in making representations?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I have said, our most recent representation was through the EC Council in which we play a full part. We made our position on this matter very clear. Naturally we are in touch also with the United States on these matters. We believe that we have a part to play in fostering the peace process. I shall of course take note of the noble Lord's remarks in regard to raising that particular issue with the United States.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend know whether the Israeli authorities have given any reason for the continued closure of the universities? If so, what is that reason?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords the general reason is alleged security concerns. However, we do not accept that that is a justification for this measure.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the Minister agree that quite apart from the universities, apparently the schools will be closed again? Is he aware that the Community has protested many times in the strongest terms not only against the closures but also against the killing and wounding of many thousands of Palestinian children by shooting and beating? Does he think that it would be appropriate for the Community, perhaps next month at the summit, to consider suspending the economic privileges that it gives to Israel while these outrages continue?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, so far as concerns the closure of the schools, they have been progressively reopened since 22nd July. However, they remain subject to frequent disruption by curfews and short-term closure orders. So the situation there, as the noble Lord says, is not very satisfactory. So far as concerns sanctions against Israel, we do not believe that economic sanctions are a solution to the problems of the Middle East.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, has the Minister read the report prepared by Professor Adam Roberts of Oxford University which stated that the Israeli authorities face a genuine cause of difficulty and trouble because of the torment in the universities?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not read the report to which the noble Lord refers. I shall see if I can find it and have a look at it. However, we still do not believe that the closure of the schools can be justified by security anxieties. We shall continue to speak up against this denial of basic human rights.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that all these problems in Israel will continue until there is an international conference to examine the exact situation and until the recommendations of such a conference become binding? Does he further agree that until that happens there will be no peace either for Arab or Israeli in that lamentable land?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, our policy and that of our European friends is based on two fundamental principles: first, the right of all states in the region, including Israel, to live in security; secondly, self-determination for the Palestinian people. We believe that an international conference remains the most appropriate forum for direct negotiations between all the parties concerned.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Minister said that the British Government and the EC have made representations to Israel. Can he tell the House whether there has been any response to those representations, and whether the Israelis have taken any action concerning the universities as a result of those representations?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot say that I have heard of any response from the Israeli

707
Government. Certainly the universities have not been reopened. But as I said in reply to an earlier question, some of the schools had been reopened before the most recent representations were made. Unfortunately, even now the schools are subject to disruption and short term closures.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is much easier in the quiet of this Chamber to give advice to the Israelis on how to deal with what is a very difficult situation, and that there ought to be a little more sympathy for those who are trying to bring law and order into that part of the world?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Viscount is quite right. It is easy enough to hear views from this Chamber about what should or should not be done in this matter. In a way that shows how very difficult a problem this is to resolve.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, until such time as we have international agreement, is it not in Israel's own interest to enable those who are the leaders of the rising generation to return to their studies?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, yes. The EC statement made clear that we believe that the normal functioning of the schools and universities would be a major factor in establishing the climate of confidence that is indispensable for the development of the peace process.

Ambulance Service: Pay Dispute
2.43 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the cost of employing policemen to do ambulance work, compared with what is paid normally to ambulance drivers.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the charge that is made by the Metropolitan Police to the regional health authority for police officers who provide emergency cover is £15.45 per hour worked. The pay of a qualified ambulanceman or woman in London with effect from 1st April 1988, including London weighting, is £11,074 per annum.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Does he agree that when the figures are worked out in detail it is much more expensive to employ the police than to let the ambulancemen do the job that they were trained to do? Is he further aware that only a couple of years ago there was parity among all the emergency services and the one that has dropped behind is the ambulance service? Is he further aware that the ambulancemen's representatives asked whether the issue could be taken to arbitration and proposed that the result of the arbitration should be binding on both sides? Was that not a sensible proposition to have made?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall endeavour to answer some of the noble Lord's questions. He asked whether it would be cheaper for the ambulancemen to do the job. He knows perfectly well that that is not the point at issue. It is that the ambulancemen, for reasons of their own, decided to remove an emergency service and because of the possible risk to life—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble Lord will stop wagging his head and listen to the answer it will help. The emergency services were not available because of the action which the ambulancemen took. As a result of that life was at risk. As always, the police provide aid when there is a possibility of lives being at risk.
On the second point of whether ambulancemen's pay has fallen behind that of the other emergency services the answer is that the ambulancemen are employees of the National Health Service. Ninety five per cent. of those in the health services have already settled for an increase of around 6.5 per cent. That is the sum of money being offered at the moment for those outside London; it is 9.3 per cent. for those in London. Therefore the offer is in line with the other increases.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is not the point at issue that the Government are expecting ambulancemen to accept a 6.5 per cent. offer when much greater figures have been settled for the other emergency services such as the fire services and the police, and indeed for Members of another place? Why is the Secretary of State, and indeed the noble Earl, adopting such a confrontational attitude?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Ennals: It is indeed a confrontational attitude to a group of people who are dedicated, skilled professionals but at the same time very low paid. Why does the Minister not seek a settlement rather than confrontation? Why does he not seek arbitration?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the ambulancemen are part of the National Health Service. Ninety five per cent. of those in the health service have accepted a settlement of around 6.5 per cent.; that is, 100 per cent. Of those who have settled their claims. It is within that context that the ambulance service is considered. The noble Lord asks why the ambulancemen are treated differently from the firemen and the police, but he knows perfectly well that the police are subjected to brawls and fights, personal risk and so on. One really cannot take a comparison with the responsibilities of the police and the fire service. It is frankly like discussing Tuesday afternoon at Piccadilly Circus. The two matters are separate.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the Minister agree that consideration might now be given to some independent mandatory arbitral

709
machinery being set up for the essential services, and that official action in those essential services should therefore be outlawed? Furthermore, does he agree that no comparison whatever can be drawn between strike action over pay with regard to the police, who do not strike, and ambulancemen who do?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend on the last point. The police have a no-strike agreement which has been observed and which is not prevalent elsewhere. We are in danger of trying to dicuss the issues at risk, the issues of pay, across the Floor of the House. That is undesirable. I was asked a question on the relationship between the pay of the police and the ambulancemen. I have explained that. I would make only this point. The reason that the police, and now the Army, may be involved, is in order to prevent the risk to life.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, it is intolerable that ambulance workers should inflict suffering on the community through industrial action or be constrained by unwillingness to take it. Therefore, is not the way out for the Government to provide sufficient resources to enable their pay to be determined fairly under a non-strike agreement either by arbitration or through the award of a comparability study?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a possibility which can be considered. However, while an emergency service is not available the Government must ensure that there is back-up service. For that reason we have invited the police and the Army to help.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the letter issued in 1978 from the office of the Leader of the Opposition, then Mrs. Margaret Thatcher? She said that the three emergency services should be taken outside the arena of public squabbling over pay and should have firm and automatic links to national pay rises. Are we to understand that the Prime Minister has now changed her mind, or is this another example of disagreement within the Cabinet?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I can remind the noble Baroness of what happened one year later when her Government were in power. They appointed Professor Clegg—
A noble Lord: Answer the question!
Earl Ferrers: I beg your pardon. My Lords, if noble Lords will be patient I shall try to explain what happened. In 1979 Professor Clegg was appointed by the then Labour Government. He rejected a link between the pay of the police and the ambulance workers because, as he said —and it is now a fact —only 10 per cent. of ambulance workers' time is spent on emergency work.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it not most unfair of the Minister to refer to strike action? No strike action is being taken by these men. Is it not also most unfair of him to suggest that any ambulance workers have
710
refused to undertake emergency action? None of them has refused to undertake emergency action. Is this really the way to deal with the dispute?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is not helpful to have this kind of conversation across the Floor of the House. I have been asked various questions and I have answered them, but I am anxious not to become involved with the details of a current financial dispute.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the "invitation" to the police and the soldiers, as he described it, was not issued as such? Is he also aware that if it were issued in terms of an invitation rather than an order there would be few acceptances?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord knows perfectly well that he is splitting hairs. When the emergency services are not available it is up to the Government to take the necessary action. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health discussed the matter with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence and they decided that it would be appropriate to ask the Army to help.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the issue could be settled before midnight tonight if the Government accepted the ambulancemen's request that the matter should go to arbitration, which should be binding? Will he also look into the fact that last night a number of ambulancemen who wanted to answer emergency calls and who had been lambasted by the press found that the keys to their ambulances had been removed? Will the Minister discover who gave that appalling order? Above all, do the Government not agree that an agreement to binding arbitration would stop the trouble before midnight tonight?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, all those matters will be considered by the Government because they are anxious to see the situation come to an end. An offer has been made of 9.3 per cent. in London and 6.5 per cent. elsewhere. All the National Health Service employees who have settled have done so around that figure.

Televising of the Chamber
2.56 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked the Chairman of Committees:
What are the proposed arrangements for the televising of the House of Lords in the coming Session.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, the broadcasting authorities intend to return to the House regularly on the day of the State Opening of Parliament, 21st November 1989.
I understand that BBC2 intends to broadcast a programme called "Westminster" daily from Monday to Friday at 8.15 p.m. lasting for a quarter of an hour on Mondays and half an hour on Tuesday

711
to Friday. Starting in the New Year BBC2 will also broadcast "Westminster Week" between 12 noon and 1 p.m. on Sundays. Both this and the daily programme will cover the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament. There will also be a live programme on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons concerned mainly with another place.
I understand that Channel 4 proposes to broadcast "The Parliament Programme" daily from Tuesday to Friday at 12 noon for half an hour and "A Week in Politics" each Sunday at 10 a.m. for an hour. Both programmes will cover both Houses.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for that helpful Answer. Can he confirm that the televising of the proceedings of this House will not be subject to the restrictions that have been placed on the televising of those in another place? We must assume that the coverage of the proceedings of this House will be diminished. Therefore can the noble Lord explain the criteria for deciding which of our proceedings will be televised?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, there will be no restrictions on the broadcasters in this House other than those which previously existed. They will retain the same freedom which they have used with great responsibility. It will be the responsibility of the broadcasters to decide the way in which they produce their programmes and which proceedings in this House are included.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us heard the first part of his Answer with great pleasure because we feel that during the past Session the broadcasting authorities behaved most properly and did a great deal to build up the public estimation of themselves and of this House?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and I am sure that the broadcasters have heard his comments. The cameras happen to be present today.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are grateful to him and other noble Lords who are members of his committee for looking after our interests in this matter since the House was first televised almost five years ago? Can he advise us about the position of commercial advertising? Is he aware that many noble Lords on all sides of the House would find difficulty in accepting the possibility that parliamentary proceedings will be interrupted by commercial breaks?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful for the kind opening remarks from the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. The Broadcasting Committee is anxious to hear your Lordships' views of the new programmes and will welcome any information. At present live broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings on Independent
712
Television is constrained by a rule which prevents advertising breaks during such broadcasts. The IBA is seeking to have the rule revoked and has proposed a set of stringent guidelines to govern the juxtaposition of advertisements and parliamentary proceedings.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, despite the self-congratulation for the supposed great success, are we being fair to the other place? We are partners in working Parliament, and its Members, who went into greater detail than we did —
Noble Lords: No, no!
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: They decided upon something quite different. Ought we not to keep in mind the fact that the only reason the cameras are present in this House, with their powers to sweep round and so forth, is that we were being used as a Trojan horse in order to get the cameras where they really wanted them?
Noble Lords: No, no!
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The other place is well aware of the dangers which we do not have but which it should take into account. Are we being fair in our supposed laudatory evidence about the correctness of having the cameras present.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I do not believe that I or any other noble Lord who has spoken on the Question have cast aspersions on the other place. It has its own arrangements and it is conducting its own experiment.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, from looking at today's Order Paper, can the noble Lord assist us and tell us which particular issue has brought the cameras into this Chamber for the first time since the Recess? Could it be something like Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Recording Equipment) Regulations or, indeed, the important matters contained in the Children Bill, or could it perhaps be this Question?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, it is quite coincidental. It is to enable the broadcasters to check a number of technical details before they begin broadcasting regularly.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will separate ratings be published measuring relative popularity?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord say something more about a very important issue which he slipped in; namely, that the IBA is contemplating reversing the rule which has applied so far that there shall not be advertisements within a parliamentary programme? Am I correct in understanding him to say that? If that is the case, what would be the balance between the IBA's view and the view of the Broadcasting Committee of this House?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I believe that the IBA would be in certain difficulties if it

713
came to live broadcasting. It probably concerns another place rather more than this House. However, the IBA has put forward suggestions and proposals which will obviously have to be considered both by the Home Secretary, who I believe has a responsibility, and by the Broadcasting Committees of both Houses.
Lord Carter: My Lords, there is still one point which is not clear. I understand that the proceedings of the committees of another place are to be televised. Will that also apply to the proceedings in Committee of this House?
The Chairman of Committees: Yes, my Lords. It always has.

Teacher Shortages
3.2 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the latest figures for teacher shortages, both overall, and in specific areas of the curriculum.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Department of Education and Science carried out its annual survey of teacher vacancies in England and Wales last January. It showed a secondary vacancy rate of 1.2 per cent. and a nursery and primary vacancy rate of 1.8 per cent. The largest numbers of secondary vacancies occurred in maths, science, modern foreign languages, English and physical education. The department carried out a further ad hoc survey in September, the results of which indicate that the situation has not worsened since January.
Baroness David: My Lords, does not the Minister think that that is perhaps a rather complacent reply in the light of the survey carried out recently by the six teaching unions, which showed the position to be substantially worse than the DES reported to the interim advisory committee? Is it true that the DES survey was carried out by ringing round the various authorities, whereas the unions' survey was carried out by a very well-documented questionnaire which went out to heads of schools?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the findings of the unions' survey are at odds with the other surveys carried out this autumn, including a survey carried out by the Labour Party, which all estimated vacancies at about half the level suggested by the unions.
The Government are not complacent about this problem. We are aware that there are difficulties in some parts of the country and in some subjects. We must be particularly vigilant over the next few years as the demand for qualified manpower grows.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in certain inner city areas those shortages are considerably worse than the figures which he has given to us would indicate and that the shortages will not be ameliorated —in fact
714
rather the reverse will take place —by local management of schools, parental choice and other elements of the recent education Act? Can he give us any indication of what is being done to tackle the problem of inner city schools.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as I said, there are difficulties in certain parts of the country. However, the Government have an action programme to combat teacher shortages. Expenditure totalling over £50 million since July 1986 has been incurred on various methods to improve teacher recruitment all over the country.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, what is the attitude of the teachers' unions to the return of retired teachers to the schools, and more particularly for part-time service?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend will have to ask the teachers' unions about that. However, I gather that it is not as favourable as it might be.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the past year there has been a very substantial increase in the number of practising teachers resigning from the profession? Does he not agree that steps taken to improve recruitment are only part of the problem? Is he also aware that one of the key areas of shortages is deputy heads, where there are a number of vacancies? Does he agree that it is extremely important to take some action to stem the tide of resignations of practising and experienced teachers? Can he say what the Government intend to do about that?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I must repeat that the Government are not complacent. However, we believe that the problem is being exaggerated in some quarters. Recruitment in 1988 was up by 5 per cent. over 1987, which was itself an exceptional year. Primary recruitment was up by 12 per cent. As I say, the situation is improving.
Baroness Young: My Lords, while welcoming what my noble friend said on the steps which the Government are taking to improve the teacher supply, there is a real concern about shortages which needs to be met. Will he ask his right honourable friend to look at a pilot scheme being introduced in independent schools whereby second-year university students can do one month's work experience in a school to find out whether or not they are interested in teaching? That may be something which could well be used in maintained schools and would help to encourage able under-graduates and students to look at teaching as a possible profession'?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend and I shall pass on her remarks to my right honourable friend.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, what support is being given to the London authorities in particular, which are facing this acute shortage of teachers, regarding the accommodation problem by allowing free housing and additional mortgages to teachers?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is a real problem. Difficulties in filling vacancies are not necessarily a problem of teacher supply but of teacher mobility. In the present difficult housing market, people seem generally less inclined to move house and therefore to change jobs. I know that my right honourable friend is fully aware of that problem but I shall draw the noble Lord's remarks to his attention.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether, in assessing these shortages, account is taken of the fact that there are roughly a million fewer people in our schools? Is that allowed for in calculating the shortages?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, of course it is. The demographic graph shows that we have considerably fewer pupils at school at present than we had 10 years ago; but the demographic graph will increase over the next few years, and we have to relate the supply of teachers to that graph.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House whether the possibilities of full implementation of the national curriculum are already affected by the levels of shortages within the subjects which he has indicated? Can he also give some guidance as to whether it will be possible to teach the Welsh language in the schools of Wales without sufficient teachers being available and qualified to do so?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, we feel that as education reforms transform our schools, teaching will become more attractive and hence recruitment will improve. As far as I know, there are no particular difficulties with the curricula at present. Regarding Welsh teaching, I shall have to write to the noble Lord in English.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I am already waiting for two replies from him and I shall be anxiously scanning the mail. Does he accept, as has been indicated, that in the schools —and I wish to put this matter very strongly —there is a very real sense of disappointment and disillusionment, and that the sooner that is removed the better the chances will be of our children being properly taught?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord said.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, if the Minister believes that this problem is being over-exaggerated and that there are no problems with the introduction of the national curriculum, would he comment on the report this weekend of the remarks of the head of HMI, Mr. Eric Bolton, who said:
"Shortages in specialist teaching subjects could worsen while the national curriculum could produce new shortages and expose hidden subject shortages"?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, there are always people who find hidden problems in the future; but, if I may say so, I think it would be wise to await the
716
findings of the next survey in January before jumping to any conclusions.
Lord Peston: My Lords—
Lord Denham: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way, I wonder whether I might make my statement after he has been answered.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not take decisions on whether or not the noble Lord makes his statement. That is for his side of the House. I hoped I might ask a question, and with permission I shall do so.
I heard the noble Lord say twice that the Government were not complacent, but can he explain why there should ever be any teacher shortage? Surely the first prerequisite of any education system is that there should be enough teachers. The Government have had 10 years to deal with this problem. Why have they not solved it?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, there is always mobility of labour, as there is in the teaching profession. There is always a certain amount of shortage; it is only 1·2 per cent., as it was in 1979. There will always be movement horizontally in any profession and that is why, in a profession such as this, there is an inbuilt shortage which is now being met by other people.

Business
3.11 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that consideration of Commons Amendments to the Children Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour, and that during this adjournment the Committee stage of the Trade Union Act 1984 (Amendment) Bill will be discharged and the Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Recording Equipment) Regulations 1989 will be taken.

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bills have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bills, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid.
That such Bills shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed, signed by

717
the agent, stating that the Bills are the same in every respect as the Bills at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session.
That the proceedings on such Bills shall in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages.
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such Bills in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Children Bill [H.L.]
3.12 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend collects the voices on this Motion, may I point out the task that will fall to your Lordships if it is accepted, as no doubt it should be.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, the Question must be put first.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the Bill, as it left your Lordships' House, went to 124 pages. A very considerable Bill. The amendments that come from another place run to 136 pages. If they are accepted —and most of them are Government sponsored or approved amendments from the other place —the Bill will be increased by at least half as much again and probably more.
This is yet another example of legislation which is excessive in quantity and defective in quality. As regards quantity, your Lordships have not only to consider this Bill but also what has happened in the spill over part of this Session. Your Lordships came back a day or more in advance of the other place and immediately met the Local Government and Housing Bill with amendments running to 146 pages. Practically all of those were Government amendments. That drew an expostulation from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, which was subsequently endorsed by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, from the Government Benches. The noble Lord the Leader of the House apologised for that situation, and as always —and in some ways unfortunately —the very high respect in which he is held enabled him to get away with parliamentary murder.
In regard to the quantity, it is partly, not wholly but significantly, due to the defective quality. What
718
is happening now and has been happening for a long time is insistence on legislating in detail in defiance of the recommendations of the Renton Committee on the preparation of legislation that general rules should be laid down. The Renton. Committee endorsed a notable memorandum by the two senior Scottish judges who said they were perfectly used to applying general rules to particular situations.
If Parliament insists on legislating for particular situations, they are bound to miss some; as one must assume some were missed in this Bill from the quantity of amendments that have been made in another place. Not only are they bound to miss some but others will arise which have not been envisaged, and the courts will not then know what Parliament meant to do in that situation.
In defiance of the Renton Committee recommendation, we have continued perforce to accept legislation trying to govern every particular situation. That is why we get an inflated Bill such as this, which will be further inflated by a whole series of amendments to be moved today. This is not the occasion to go into the situation exhaustively, and no doubt your Lordships will undertake—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, on a point of order. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack moved that the Commons amendments should be now considered. He did so from his place two paces to the left of the Woolsack. Would it not be more appropriate if my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches actually allowed him to put the question before we discuss it?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am sorry my noble and learned friend intervened, I had only a few words left.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will forgive me, my noble and learned friend is correct. Technically the noble and learned Lord is out of order. If we have the Question put, then the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, may conclude his remarks.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question is that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am sorry if I intervened too soon. I did so on advice. I intervened at the moment I did having taken the most authoritative advice that I could find.
I only wish to add this. No doubt your Lordships will proceed on these amendments; but your Lordships have put up with a good deal in the spillover Session and on previous occasions. Is it not high time that your Lordships said, "Enough is enough"?
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for referring to the report of the committee of which I was chairman, but I do not wish to pursue that part of what he said. However, I think we should bear in mind that never in the

719
history of Parliament —certainly since the war, and I have been in Parliament for 44 years —has either House had to consider so many hundreds of amendments as your Lordships have been asked to consider in this overspill Session. I am sorry to have to say this because I am a keen supporter of this Government and of the Prime Minister. But that is an indication that our legislative process this Session has become out of hand. I am therefore asking my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, not learned; noble and intelligent, but not learned.
Lord Renton: My Lords, he reveals an intellectual distinction which enables me to say that I have no regrets about using that phrase. I believe that my noble friend the Leader of the House should now consult the Leader of another place with a view to completely overhauling our legislative process so that in a future Session we are not again confronted with a mass of amendments such as those now before the House, many of which involve important changes of policy. In the nature of things we shall not have a full opportunity to discuss them. Therefore, I hope for a favourable answer from my noble friend on that suggestion.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I fully support what the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, have said. I have made these points on several occasions over the past three or four years, particularly during the last two Sessions when the burden on this House has become very onerous indeed. I support the noble Lord in the representations that he makes to his noble friend.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I have been called many things in life but never by the adjective that he was good enough to apply to me. He asked me a direct question. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, does not feel that I am again getting away with parliamentary murder, may I say to him, to my noble friend and to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that, yes, what your Lordships have said has considerable weight in it. I shall be consulting with my right honourable friend the Leader in another place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS AND AMENDMENTS MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 104 as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—
'(1A) In any proceedings in which any question with respect to the upbringing of a child arises, the court shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child.'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their
720
Amendment No. 1. In speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 93.
The effect of these four amendments is to state as a general principle that the court is to regard any delay in proceedings about children as to be likely to prejudice the child's welfare. It does this by removing that proposition from Clauses 10(1) and 27(1) and promoting it to Clause 1 where it applies to all proceedings in which any question with respect to the upbringing of a child arises including, for example, wardship proceedings. At present the principle applies only to Section 7 orders in the private law sphere and to limited types of public law proceedings. After the welfare principle, the need to avoid delay is one of the most important policies underlying the Bill. It is therefore proper that it should appear in Clause 1.
The only other amendment of this group that I need to mention specially is Amendment No. 93 which extends the range of proceeding in which the court is required to draw up a timetable and give directions to ensure it is complied with by applying the amended Clause 27(1) to proceedings in which the court is hearing an application for any order under Part IV of the Bill, for example, for the discharge of a care order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we welcome the amendment which established in Clause 1, the opening clause of the Bill, the principle that a delay is likely to be prejudicial to the interests of the child. We welcome that principle and that it should be established in Clause 1 of the Bill. It has been estimated that the Bill will increase considerably the number of cases that could come before the courts. Mindful of the present delays in the courts, we are bound to ask whether adequate resources will be made available so that the courts can cope with the increased volume of work without lengthening the delays. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can tell the House now, or possibly later at a more convenient stage, how much thought is being given to the need for additional resources.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this is an amendment that really should be welcomed. The first clause of the Bill as printed contains some welcome but rare statements of principle. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, pointed out earlier, it can be done and we are doing it again to great advantage. These are the kinds of precedents to be followed as regards the mass of detail that we shall have to consider later.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and to my noble friend Lord Renton for welcoming the amendment. I attach a great deal of importance to the proper implementation of this measure. Noble Lords can take it that we shall be extremely careful to try to measure resources to what is to be required of the courts. One of the present problems is that it is

721
difficult to know exactly what demands will flow from the Bill.
We are making arrangements for this matter to be very carefully examined as we proceed with implementation for which rules of the court will be required. In the light of the consideration of these matters by the inter-departmental working group to which I have referred, the arrangements will take full account of the need for resources. One of the important points is to give this principle the kind of emphasis that I am sure all of your Lordships feel that it should have by putting it into Clause 1 of the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Clause 4, page 3, line 36, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
`(2) No parental responsibility agreement shall have effect for the purposes of this Act unless—

(a) it is made in the form prescribed by the regulations made by the Lord Chancellor; and

(b) where regulations are made by the Lord Chancellor prescribing the manner in which such agreements must be recorded, it is recorded in the prescribed manner.'.

3 Page 3, line 42, after 'may', insert 'only'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. Amendment No. 2 replaces, and partially alters, the original Clause 4(2). While it repeats that, to be effective, parental responsibility agreements must be in the form which will be prescribed by the Lord Chancellor, it provides that they will be effective without the need for their being recorded in any particular way unless or until the Lord Chancellor makes regulations prescribing a manner of recording.
Amendment No. 3 makes clear that parental responsibility orders and agreements may only be brought to an end by order of the court made on the application of the persons specified in Clause 4(4)(a) and (b). The only effect of Amendment No. 3 will be to prevent parental responsibility agreements being discharged by mutual agreement. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 5, divide Clause 5 into two Clauses, the first consisting of page 4, lines 4 to 35 and page 5, lines 12 to 16, and the second of page 4, line 36 to page 5, line 11.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 13, 15, 16 and 18. These amendments, together with Amendments Nos. 5 to 9, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20 and 21 do two things essentially. They split Clause 5 into two parts, the first dealing with the appointment of guardians and the second with their removal. They recast the clause so that, like other private orders under the Bill, those relating to the appointment of guardians can be made either on application or by the court of its own motion.
722
Among other things, the amendments also allow others to execute and revoke guardian appointments on behalf of disabled parents and guardians; allow guardians to disclaim their appointment even if the Lord Chancellor has not prescribed the manner of recording such disclaimers, and allow the High Court, in accordance with rules of court, to appoint guardians of the child's estate without giving them the rest of parental responsibility for the child. This amendment would, for example, make it possible to allow the Official Solicitor to administer damages awarded by a United Kingdom court to a child who has no other connection with the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.30 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
5 Page 4, line 4, leave out from '(1)' to end of line and insert `Where an application with respect to a child is made to the court by any individual, the court may by order appoint that individual to be the child's'.
6 Page 4, line 9, at end insert—
'(1A) The power conferred by subsection (1) may also be exercised in any family proceedings if the court considers that the order should be made even though no application has been made for it.'.
7 Page 4, line 15, leave out 'is signed by the person making it' and insert 'is signed by the person making the appointment or—

(a) in the case of an appointment made by a will which is not signed by the testator, is signed at the direction of the testator in accordance with the requirements of section 9 of the Wills Act 1837; or

(b) in any other case, is signed at the direction of the person making the appointment, in his presence and in the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature.'.

8 Page 4, line 16, after 'a', insert 'child's'.
9 Page 4, line 35, leave out 'another' and insert 'a'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. In doing so I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 12, 14, 17, 19, 20 and 21. Perhaps I may take the amendments in order. Amendment No. 5 will allow an individual who wishes to be a child's guardian 1.o apply to the court to be so appointed, and for the court to order his or her appointment, provided of course that the circumstances in either Clause 5(1)(a) or (b) exist. The amendment corrects an oversight in the original Clause 5 which did not provide for applications to be made to the court for appointments of guardians. This is a necessary addition.
Amendment No. 6 makes clear that the court's power to appoint a guardian of a child can also be exercised on the court's own motion in any family proceedings, as defined in Clause 7. That seems to be a useful addition and is in accordance with the philosophy of the Bill that the courts should have wide powers to consider what is best in any situation even if specific application for that has not been made.

723
Amendment No. 7 has this effect. Clause 5(4) at present requires appointments of guardians by individuals to be in writing, dated and signed by the person making the appointment. "Signed", according to the interpretation section, includes making one's mark. Some physically disabled people, however, are unable even to make their mark on documents. This amendment will therefore permit such persons to appoint guardians by means of wills or other documents signed by someone on their behalf, at their direction and in their presence and in the presence of two witnesses. Although generally the Bill does not require the presence of witnesses to the appointment of guardians, in the special circumstances provided for in this amendment an exception seems wise.
Amendment No. 8 makes clear that only a guardian of the child's person will have parental responsibility for the child concerned, not a guardian of the child's estate. Amendment No. 9 is a drafting amendment.
Amendment No. 12 continues the theme of Amendment No. 7. The intention is to provide for physically disabled individuals who are unable to sign their names or make their marks to revoke appointments of guardians by means of written instruments, corresponding to Amendment No. 7. Similarly, Amendment No. 14 is intended to enable physically disabled persons to revoke appointments of guardians by enlisting the help of some other person to destroy the relevant instrument at their direction and in their presence.
Amendment No. 17 relates to Clause 5(14). Clause 5(14) presently provides that, to be valid, disclaimers by guardians must be recorded in the manner prescribed by the Lord Chancellor in regulations. This amendment provides that if regulations have not been made when the Act comes into force, valid disclaimers may still be made as long as they comply with Clause 5(13). However, when regulations are made, disclaimers will have to be recorded in accordance with the requirements of those regulations in order to be valid.
Amendment No. 19 provides that the court's powers to bring guardianship appointments to an end are to be exercisable either of the court's own motion in any family proceedings, or on the application of any person with parental responsibility for the child or, with leave of the court, the child himself. Amendment No. 20 will allow the High Court to continue to exercise its inherent power to appoint a guardian of the child's estate to administer his property though only in accordance with rules of court. Amendment No. 21 makes clear that a guardian of a child can be appointed only in accordance with the provisions of Clause 5. That is necessary to ensure the integrity of the procedure. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as well as the technical amendments to which the noble and learned Lord
724
referred, we particularly welcome the power of the court of its own volition and within its own powers to make an order without any application having of necessity to be made to it. We entirely agree with his observations that the whole philosophy behind the Bill is to give the court the utmost power within proper limits to see that the child's welfare is protected.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
10 Clause 5, page 4, line 36, leave out 'subsection (2) or (3)' and insert 'section 5(2) or (3)'.
11 Page 4, line 42, leave out 'subsection (2) or (3)' and insert 'section 5(2) or 3'.
12 Page 4, line 45, leave out 'by him' and insert ' —

(a) by him; or

(b) at his direction, in his presence and in the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature.'.

13 Page 4, line 46, leave out 'subsection (2) or (3)' and insert 'section 5(2) or (3)'.
14 Page 4, line 47, leave out from 'if' to end of line 48 and insert `, with the intention of revoking the appointment, the person who made it—

(a) destroys the instrument by which it was made' or

(b) has some other person destroy that instrument in his presence.'.

15 Page 5, line 1, leave out 'subsection (2) or (3)' and insert `section 5(2) or (3)'.
16 Page 5, line 3, leave out 'subsection (2) or (3)' and insert 'section 5(2) or (3)'.
17 Page 5, line 7, leave out subsection (14) and insert —
'(14) Where regulations are made by the Lord Chancellor prescribing the manner in which such disclaimers must be recorded, no such disclaimer shall have effect unless it is recorded in the prescribed manner.'.
18 Page 5, line 10, leave out 'this section' and insert 'section 5'.
19 Page 5, line 11, at end insert —

'(a) on the application of any person who has parental responsibility for the child;

(b) on the application of the child concerned, with leave of the court; or

(c) in any family proceedings, if the court considers that it should be brought to an end and even though no application has been made.'.

20 Page 5, line 14, at end insert —
`(16A) Subject to any provision made by rules of court, no court shall exercise the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to appoint a guardian of the estate of any child.
(16B) Where rules of court are made under subsection (16A) they may prescribe the circumstances in which, and conditions subject to which, an appointment of such a guardian may be made.'.
21 Page 5, line 15, after 'guardian', insert 'of a child'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 to 21 en bloc. I think I am right in saying that I have spoken to all of these amendments with either Amendment No. 4 or Amendment No. 5.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
22 Clause 6, page 5, line 26, leave out 'Regulations may specify' and insert `The Lord Chancellor may make regulations specifying'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22. This is a minor amendment. It clarifies which Minister is to make the regulations under Clause 6(2) concerning welfare reports. Noble Lords will not be surprised to discover that the choice has fallen on the Lord Chancellor. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
23 Clause 7, page 6, line 17, leave out 'issue' and insert 'question'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23. With this amendment I group Amendment No. 240. These are purely drafting amendments. They substitute what the draftsman now considers to be a more appropriate noun —"question" —in place of "issue" in the relevant provisions. The idea behind it is in furtherance of the same point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Even if an issue has not been raised by parties before the court, it may still be appropriate for the court to make an order that deals with the matter. The draftsman felt that "question" enabled that to be suggested better than the original word. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
24 Clause 8, page 6, line 38, leave out `by virtue of a care order'.
25 Page 6, line 43, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
`(3) A person who is, or was at any time within the last six months, a local authority foster parent of a child may not apply for leave to apply for a section 7 order with respect to the child unless —

(a) he has the consent of the authority;

(b) he is a relative of the child; or

(c) the child has lived with him for at least three years preceding the application.

(3A) the period of three years mentioned in subsection (3)(c) need not be continuous but must have begun not more than five years before the making of the application.'.
26 Page 7, line 10, at end insert —
`(4A) No court shall make any section 7 order which is to have effect for a period which will end after the child has reached the age of sixteen unless it is satisfied that the circumstances of the case are exceptional.'
27 Clause 9, page 8, line 2, leave out `by virtue of a care order'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their
726
Amendments Nos. 24 to 27. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 51, 71, 72 and 102.
Amendments Nos. 24, 27, 51, 71, 72 and 101 simplify references to children in local authority care. I shall mention Amendment No. 25 a little more fully. Clause 8(3) as at present drafted requires a local authority foster parent who wants to apply to the court for leave to apply for a residence order with respect to the child first to obtain the consent of the local authority if the child has lived with him for less than three years. This amendment would extend the consent requirement where the person making the application was a local authority foster parent of the child at any time in the preceding six months. As at present drafted, Clause 8(3) would not apply where, for example, the child had just been removed from the foster parent, or if the child had just been rehabilitated with his parents.
The amendment also frees from the consent requirement a local authority foster parent who happens to be a relative of the child. The amendment also sets out how the three-year period mentioned in subsection (3)(a) is to be calculated. At present it may not be entirely clear.
Amendment No. 26 would add a further small restriction on the making of Section 7 orders in Clause 8. It would prevent courts making Section 7 orders to extend beyond the child's attaining the age of 16 unless there are exceptional circumstances. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
28 Clause 9, page 8, line 5, at end insert —
`(5A) A person who would not otherwise be entitled (under the previous provisions of this section) to apply for the variation or discharge of a section 7 order shall be entitled to do so if —

(a) the order was made on his application; or

(b) in the case of a contact order, he is named in the order.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28.
Clause 9(4) and (5) set out categories of persons who are entitled to apply for all, or some, Section 7 orders. Any other person wishing to apply for a Section 7 order must first obtain leave of the court. If he gets leave and successfully applies for an order, he may at some later stage wish to apply for variation or discharge of that order. But because the definition of Section 7 order includes,
"any order varying or discharging such an order",
the proposed applicant would again need to seek leave before making his application to vary.
This amendment therefore provides that, where a Section 7 order has been made, a person who would not otherwise be entitled to apply for variation or discharge or that order will be able to apply without first obtaining leave where the existing order was made on his application or, in the case of a contact order, he is named in it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
29 Clause 10 page 8, line 27, leave out subsection (1).
30 Page 8, line 33, leave out 'such a question' and insert 'any question of making a section 7 order, or any other question with respect to such an order,'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 29 and 30. I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
31 Clause 10, page 9, line 21, leave out from 'made' to end of line 23 and insert —

'(ii) who is a parent of the child concerned;

(iii) who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him; or

(iv) with whom the child is living,'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31.
This amendment extends the range of persons who may be required to comply with conditions included in a Section 7 order so as to include a father who has not been married to a child's mother at any time since the child's conception and any person with whom the child is living, even though that person does not have parental responsibility for the child. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord a simple question. Would this or any of these amendments which we are currently discussing meet the case of the foster parent who wanted to adopt a child but was unable to do so because the child had to go to parents of a different colour?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not believe the mere fact that the colour question may be involved is of itself an absolute bar. It is, of course, a most important consideration. However, as I said, I do not believe that it is an absolute bar, although none of these amendments specifically covers the matter.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, perhaps I may say from a child care point of view that I hope in this country we shall not say that a coloured child must be placed with a coloured family. By so doing we could deprive the child of a home background. One would always hope that the child would be placed in a home where he or she would receive love, continuity and security, regardless of colour; but that
728
if there was a coloured family available, the child could be placed with that family.
Lord Renton: My Lords, there was a case reported recently in the press about this matter. I understand that it may be subject to appeal, in which case we ought not to attempt to discuss the merits of the case now. However, I think that this is a matter which we should keep open so far as is possible.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords do not think I was suggesting that that should be done. I was concerned that it should be made clearer under the Bill, since this is such an important piece of legislation, that the consideration would be that the child should have care and love rather than it being an issue of colour. As I understood the case in question, it concerned a black child who had to go to black parents.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord thinks that this is properly a matter for regulations?
A noble Lord: No!
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if I may say so, I wonder whether we ought to be discussing a particular case. I say that because, if reported, our discussion may be misinterpreted outside the House. I believe that we are talking about a concept which is really the fundamental basis upon which the Bill is built. The only consideration —perhaps I ought to use the word, paramount —is the welfare of the child in the particular circumstances which will be considered.
Questions of ruling by legislation or by regulation that a white child must go to a white parent and a black child must go to a black parent is something which this House would not tolerate. The only thing that this House would tolerate is the paramount welfare of that particular child.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I venture to agree with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The amendment which your Lordships have accepted states that in all proceedings the welfare of the child shall be paramount. That is all that it is necessary to say. In my view it would be a profound mistake if one tried to legislate further. Moreover, if one tried to particularise further by legislation I venture to suggest that it certainly ought not to be by subordinate legislation.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, it was indeed only a question of time during today's debate before this question arose. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The whole question of transracial fostering and adoption is altogether too delicate for primary legislation. We know that some local authorities have certain guidelines which are intended to meet the interests of the child, especially when he or she becomes an adolescent.
However, how the matter is carried out in practice is sometimes a matter of concern, especially when it

729
is carried out by those local authorities which have a coding or categorisation of colour which means that "black" covers almost everything which is not white or pink. It is a matter of concern, but it is not, with respect, something with which this Bill could possibly cope.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should just like to confirm that I believe the Bill sets the framework for, and places supreme emphasis on, the welfare of the child. It largely leaves such matters to be judged in relation to the particular circumstances of the case in question.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, mention has been made that some local authorities devise their own guidelines in such cases. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend would think it appropriate in future to ensure that most local authorities should be guided in the same way. Alternatively, perhaps in his wisdom he thinks that there is no necessity for such a safeguard?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is always difficult to strike a correct balance between individual local responsibility and general guidance. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State would have responsibility for issuing general guidance, but guidance by its very nature is there to be a help rather than a rule. Therefore the ultimate responsibility would be with the authority. In many cases that may be the court. It would have responsibility for the child when determining the application of the principles of law which we are seeking to lay down as regards the circumstances of a particular case.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
32 Clause 11, page 9, line 35, leave out `if he would not otherwise'.
33 Page 9, line 35, leave out 'have that responsibility'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 32 and 33. The purpose of these amendments is to improve the style of the drafting. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
34 Clause 11, page 9, line 41 leave out 'or section 18 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978'.
35 Page 9, line 43, leave out 'or section 49 of the Act of 1978'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34 and 35. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 97 and 98. The amendments remove an unnecessary reference in the Bill to the Adoption (Scotland) Act. That Act is sufficient to secure the necessary result.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
36 After Clause 12, insert the following new clause —
'Enforcement of residence orders.
. —(1) Where —

(a) a residence order is in force with respect to a child in favour of any person; and

(b) any other person (including one in whose favour the order is also in force) is in breach of the arrangements settled by that order,

the person mentioned in paragraph (a) may, as soon as the requirement in subsection (2) is complied with, enforce the order under section 63(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 as if it were an order requiring the other person to produce the child to him.
(2) The requirement is that a copy of the residence order has been served on the other person.
(3) Subsection (1) is without prejudice to any other remedy open to the person in whose favour the residence order is in force.'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36. The new clause provides a remedy in the magistrates' courts for the person who has a residence order in his favour where another person breaches the arrangements settled by the order.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMMONS AMENDMENT
37 Clause 13, page 10, line 22, at end insert—
'(2) The powers of a magistrates' court under section 60 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 to revoke, revive or vary an order for the periodical payment of money shall not apply in relation to an order made under Schedule 1.'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37.
The amendment disapplies Section 60 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 in so far as that section would give magistrates power to revoke, revive or vary a periodical payments order made under Schedule 1 to the Bill. Schedule 1 contains its own provisions for that, and therefore that section should be disapplied.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
38 Clause 14, page 11, line 13, at end insert —
'(7) A family assistance order shall not be made so as to require a local authority to make an officer of theirs available unless —

(a) the authority agree; or

(b) the child concerned lives or will live within their area.

(8) Where a family assistance order requires a probation officer to be made available, the officer shall be selected in accordance with arrangements made by the probation committee for the area in which the child lives or will live.
(9) If the selected probation officer is unable to carry out his duties, or dies, another probation officer shall be selected in the same manner.'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38.
The amendment provides for the selection of local authority or probation officers whom the court may by order require to advise, assist and befriend the person or persons named in a family assistance order. Its provisions are similar to those in paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 to the Bill which govern the selection of supervisors for supervision orders.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I doubt whether we are wise to legislate on this point. The second part of the amendment, especially subsections (8) and (9), deals with administrative matters which the authorities concerned would deal with as a matter of course. Subsection (9) states:
"If the selected probation officer is unable to carry out his duties, or dies, another probation officer shall be selected in the same manner".
Do we really have to have primary legislation to tell our administrative grandmothers to suck eggs in that way?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the problem is that a family assistance order must make provision for a local authority to do particular acts. That involves resources for the local authority, and we must be careful about the conditions under which the local authority should be asked to provide an officer in a particular way. The same applies more generally. It is a matter of detail but perhaps of necessary detail.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I shall support in a sentence or two what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said, because it is in line with previous protests which have been made in the House today about the absurdity of legislation which attempts to take it for granted that the public consists of a band of powerless idiots. I say that not so much because of subsections (8) and (9), to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred but because if one looks at subsection (9), even having regard to what the noble and learned Lord said about the need to provide for the appointment of a specific officer, one finds that it provides that, if the probation officer is unable to carry out his duties or he dies, someone else can be put in his place. That is carrying things to an absurdity. The House, as the legislative body revising legislation, should not allow such an example to pass without notice. I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for calling attention to it.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, perhaps I may put an opposite point of view. I am all for having this provision in the Bill. I regret to say that there are a number of cases in social services and probation departments which are not allocated to a social worker or a probation officer because they have not been replaced and there is no one to deal with the case. I support the inclusion of the provision in the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, many of these amendments have arisen as a result of consultations with those having practical experience. A good deal of consultation has been going on throughout the whole parliamentary process with people in the field. Difficulties in the work are sometimes encountered which might not be adequately or properly described in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, did, and an arrangement of this kind which allocates responsibility can be important. I know of cases in which, because a probation officer has, as it were, moved on in some way, adequate arrangements for carrying on that person's work have not been made. It is useful to direct attention to that point.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wish to add only one more sentence. It was not so much that I objected to subsection (8), which talks about the arrangements that should be made for the selection and appointment of an officer, but because vague words are used:
"in accordance with arrangements made by the probation committee for the area".
Must it not follow as night follows day that the same situation must arise if the person so appointed is no longer available? It is obvious that subsection (8) applies and another person must be appointed:
"in accordance with arrangements made by the probation committee for the area".
To have a legislative provision for that, as I tried to say before, and as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said before me, constitutes an absurdity for legislators.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
39 Clause 15, page 12, leave out lines 20 and 25 and insert —
'(11) For the purposes of this Part, a child is disabled if he is blind, deaf or dumb or suffers from mental disorder of any kind or is substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury or congenital deformity or such other disability as may be prescribed; and in this Part —'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39. The amendment is designed to ensure that the definition of "disability" in the Bill is as far as possible the wording of Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948, which contains the general definition used for the purpose.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
40 Clause 16, page 12, line 33, leave out 'they consider' and insert 'is'.
41 Page 12, line 37, after 'including' insert 'training'.
42 Page 12, line 42, leave out from 'care'" to 'form' in line 44 and insert 'means any'.
43 Page 13, line 1, leave out 'A local authority may provide for children' and insert 'Every local authority shall provide for children in need within their area'.
44 Page 13, line 2, leave out 'they consider' and insert 'is'.
45 Page 13, line 4, at end insert—
'(5) A local authority may provide such care or supervised activities for children within their area who are attending any school even though those children are not in need'.
46 Page 13, line 5, leave out from '(6)' to end of line 10 and insert 'In this section'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 40 to 46. The amendments strengthen this important clause which was much debated in this Chamber in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading and in another place. The important matter is the deletion of the words "they consider", which I believe will be welcomed by more than one of your Lordships.
Amendment No. 41 also makes an important point in picking up training as part of the facility that may be provided. Otherwise the amendments are of a technical nature.
Amendments Nos. 43 to 45 make significant changes to Clause 16(5). They put local authorities' duties and powers in respect of day care services and supervised activities outside school hours and in the holidays for school age children on the same footing as their duties and powers for pre-school children. It also follows that local authorities should have a power to provide such services for school-age children who are not in need. Subsection (5) as amended would therefore parallel subsection (1) and the new subsection (5A), subsection (2).
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may say how very pleased I am to see Amendments Nos. 40 to 46. We tried very hard to ensure that "they consider" was deleted and "is" inserted at various stages of the Bill. I am also very glad to see training included in the clause. This is all very welcome and I do not understand why it took so long to achieve. However it is very nice that it is here.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
47 After Clause 16 insert the following new clause—
'Review of provision for day care, child minding etc.
. —(1) Every local authority in England and Wales shall review—

(a) the provision which they make under section 16;

(b) the extent to which the services of child minders are available within their area with respect to children under the age of eight; and

(c) the provision for day care within their area made for children under the age of eight by persons other than the authority required to register under section (registration)(1)(b).

(2) A review under subsection (1) shall be conducted—

(a) together with the appropriate local education authority; and

(b) at least once in every review period.

4 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this imposes a duty on local authorities in England and Wales to
734
review the day care services made by them in accordance with duties and powers given them under Clause 16 —those provided by registered childminders and other day care services provided by registered persons. The review is to be carried out once every three years together with t he appropriate local education authority and it shall have regard to services provided for children aged under eight in maintained schools, community homes, voluntary homes, children's homes, nursing homes and National Health Service hospitals. The result of the review is to be published by the local authority as soon as practicable in whatever form it chooses and it should include information about proposals affecting the day care services reviewed. The authorities carrying out the review are also to have regard to representations from the relevant health authorities and other persons and organisations.
I believe that this again is in accordance with the wishes of the House. These proposals should lead to a better co-ordination of services for children before they reach compulsory school age and in their first years at primary school. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Baroness David: My Lords, again I welcome the amendment. However I am sorry to say that I did not spot the age of eight years. We tried to change it to 11 years in later amendments and clearly it is a point which we missed. I should prefer to have seen the age of 11, but it is too late to do anything about it now.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
48 Clause 17, page 14, line 5, leave out from 'who' to end of line 6 and insert —

'(a) has parental responsibility for him;

(b) is willing and able to —

(i) provide accommodation for him; or

(ii) arrange for accommodation to be provided for him, objects'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I ought perhaps to explain Amendment No. 48 fairly shortly. A fuller discussion may arise in relation to the amendment to the amendment on the Marshalled List. I also wish to speak to Amendment No. 49 in this connection. Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 are concerned with the provision of accommodation for children under voluntary arrangements.
When the Bill left this House, Clause 17(7) provided that a local authority may not provide accommodation for a child under voluntary arrangements if any person who has parental responsibility objects. Amendment No. 48 would limit the bar on local authorities providing accommodation to cases where an objection is made by a person who has parental responsrblity and that person is willing and able to provide alternative accommodation or arrange for such accommodation to be provided.
However we are concerned that subsection (7) as presently drafted goes too far. For example, a mother

735
bringing up a child alone after separation may experience difficulties and ask the local authority to look after the child for a short period. The estranged father, under the provisions as drafted, could block this arrangement even though he himself had no intention or means of providing accommodation for the child. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 48
48A Line 6, at end insert —
("except that, where such a person has agreed in writing with the local authority to give a period of notice before removing the child from the accommodation, the local authority may continue to provide accommodation for the child until such period of notice has expired.").
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, this is my amendment. Observing what my noble and learned friend has just said, it seems to be the philosophy behind this part of the Bill to encourage parents to feel confident that arrangements for the provision of accommodation will be entirely voluntary on their part provided only that certain criteria in Clause 17 are met, including the criteria that my noble and learned friend has just moved in his amendment in addition.
This is a thoroughly desirable principle and I acknowledge that there must be a clear differentiation between voluntary care which has been agreed upon between the parent and the local authority and the child coming into care through the use of a statutory order. However, the details of the arrangement must acknowledge that the child has his or her own needs, wishes and feelings. That is acknowledged in subsection (6), which places a duty on the local authority to ascertain and consider the child's wishes and feelings before providing accommodation, but there is no comparable duty on either the local authority or the parent to consider the child's wishes before he or she is removed from the accommodation.
Children cannot be treated as articles of luggage which can be deposited and reclaimed at will. It may be that the child may be in voluntary accommodation because his or her parents have previously shown erratic behaviour patterns, perhaps as a result of drug/alcohol dependency or mental illness. In those circumstances it is easy to imagine a parent demanding the instant return of the child to the family home, which after reflection the parent will regret. This would be a most unsatisfactory state of affairs for the child, particularly if the child is in long-term placement and has developed emotional ties with foster carers.
I am grateful to the noble Baronesses who have added their names to my amendment. It provides that where a person who has parental responsibility for the child has agreed in writing with the local authority prior to a voluntary accommodation arrangement that the child should not be removed without a period of notice, the provisions of subsections (7) and (8) shall not apply until such time as the agreed period of notice has expired.
736
I believe that this amendment recognises the principle of the voluntary nature of such care arrangements but also that the child has wishes and feelings of his or her own. If nothing else, the child may wish to say goodbye to his or her foster carers or newly made school friends etc.
I shall not pursue this any longer. Suffice it to say that I hope that my noble and learned friend will have some sympathy with the amendment. It seems to me that it fills a gap without upsetting the principle on which Clause 17 has been written. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 48A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 48, be agreed to. —(Lord Mottistone.)
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I hope that this amendment will not have the effect of opening a local authority to charges of illegally holding a child if a parent refuses to honour a written agreement. Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether that is so. If so, is it not rather important to local authorities?
Baroness David: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment. It is not very strong. There have been a number of efforts in the course of the Bill passing through both this House and another place to try to provide for the occasion when a parent tries to take a child away without any notice from the place where he or she is staying and where the child may have been for a long time. This is just in order to give time for thought. I appreciate that it is difficult under subsections (7) and (8) of the clause. However I hope that the difficulties have been recognised and that possibly this rather mild amendment might be accepted as a form of compromise.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I, too, wish to support the measure. Amendment No. 48 is valuable so far as it goes, but Amendment No. 48A is a particularly useful addition to it. It addresses a problem repeatedly raised in this House when the Bill was before us the first time round. I hope that such agreements become, if they are not already, a standard procedure.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I, too, wish to support the amendment. I do not think that it is ever a good thing, except in dire emergency, to remove a child without reasonable notice from where he is living. Apart from the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has mentioned, the child should have time to be prepared for what is going to happen to him so that he can adjust to his change of circumstances.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we support the amendment for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and others. However, I am in a little doubt whether the amendment, if it were accepted, would be in conflict with subsection (8). That subsection appears to me to override any agreement between the parties. As I understand it, we cannot at this stage amend subsection (8). We could not therefore have two inconsistent provisions in the Bill. I wonder whether the department would

737
nevertheless encourage local authorities to enter into agreements with parents and whether such agreements could incorporate a notice provision.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are obvious advantages in having agreements which would operate in practical terms. However, whether it would be right to have legally enforceable agreements in this area is much more doubtful. As has been mentioned, one of the important principles underlying this matter is to distinguish very clearly between a local authority's compulsory role and its voluntary role in this area. One of the practical matters that has arisen is that people are less willing to involve themselves in voluntary arrangements if they fear that those arrangements can be backed up with compulsion; in other words, if the boundary between the voluntary giving of a child to a local authority and the compulsory taking of a child by a local authority were to be confused.
As has been said, we considered this matter very carefully while the Bill was in this House. It was also considered very carefully during the passage of the Bill through another place. My honourable friend the then Minister responsible or health, Mr. Mellor, and his officials have discussed this fully with organisations which are particularly concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised a question as regards the effect of the amendment. Even if the amendment is passed, subsection (8) will remain. Therefore, there is an apparent conflict between the two provisions. However, I believe that as the amendment is attached to subsection (7), which deals with a local authority's position on a parent's objection, and not to subsection (8), which concerns removal of the child, the effect of the amendment is by no means clear. If the intention is to provide in statute for a constraint on a person's right to recover a child whenever a written agreement on notice has been made but not complied with, that intention will probably be unaffected as it is unlikely that it would be construed to override subsection (8). The latter subsection allows any person who has parental responsibility for a child to remove him at any time. That is a technical difficulty. However, the main point is that writing into the Bill provisions on written agreements on notice would, we fear, undermine the voluntary nature of agreements. As I have said, one of the fundamental principles is to distinguish between voluntary and compulsory roles.
One of the difficulties this proposal raises is the question of sanctions which would be available if the parents failed to comply with the terms of the agreement by acting under subsection (8) and removing the child. The usual sanction applied to an individual who fails to comply with a legal requirement is the possibility of liability for an offence or some other form of court action. This can happen under the present law. A person who removes a child from voluntary care and fails to observe an agreed notice period is liable to commit a criminal offence. This emphasises how inappropriate it would be to include a compulsory agreement in a voluntary arrangement.
It is true that the amendment does not require there to be an agreement on termination of
738
placement. If there were no agreement, the provisions would not apply. However we believe it would be good practice always to have the arrangements set out in writing and that they should include a plan and details of how the arrangements can be brought to an end. One assumes that in practice these arrangements would be followed. I can make some of the assumptions that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made about the general way the public operates. Regulations will set out the way these voluntary arrangements should be drawn up. Although we do not believe an arrangement should be legally enforceable, this does not mean that it would be ineffective. I do not see any disagreement between us as regards what would happen in practice.
However, in the majority of cases it would only be necessary to remind the parents of the arrangement and explain that time was needed to prepare the child to return home and make practical arrangements. In this way by use of good practice, precipitate action by the parents would generally be avoided. I believe that this is the right way forward. As I said when the Bill was previously before this House, there are a number of arrangements in place for dealing with emergencies which could be invoked. While I very much understand the basis on which this amendment has been tabled, I hope that in the light of my explanation and the importance of the principle of the voluntary agreement in this field, the mover of the amendment will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, my understanding of the amendment is that it does not seek to give any legal enforceability to such an agreement, but merely to give a local authority a discretion to provide accommodation. As it is purely discretionary in that way, it seems to me that it is in no way in conflict with subsection (8). I respectfully suggest to the House that this amendment is perfectly innocuous. It is entirely discretionary; it is in no conflict with the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall seek to deal with the matter as it has been put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman. If the provision is not intended to be legally enforceable, there is no problem as regards practice because arrangements will be set out in practical terms for this to occur. There is nothing in the Bill which prevents that from being the practice. I cannot see how putting into the Bill something about an agreement which is not intended to be legally enforceable really advances matters. I suggest that it tends to introduce confusion because agreements referred to in statute law are normally intended to have legal effect. Accordingly, while I appreciate fully what my noble and learned friend said, I fear that to introduce this amendment into the legislation would be a mistake. However, it would be right to regulate the practice in the way that the noble and learned Lord and the other speakers who have spoken in support of the amendment have suggested.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate and who have supported the principle of my amendment. I see the

739
difficulties to which my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack has referred. It is unfortunate that we should have to discuss the matter now. At an earlier stage of the Bill it would have been possible to iron out any differences and if necessary modify subsection (8) in order to make the two sit together.
Reassurance that the procedure could well become established practice is helpful. The amendment was written with the deliberate intention that it would not be statutorily compulsory to have a written agreement, thus preserving the voluntary nature of the clause. The proposal therefore lends itself to a code of practice approach rather than to statutory legislation. I shall take the advice of my noble and learned friend and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 48A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 48, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 48 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
49 Clause 17, page 14, line 10, leave out subsection (9) and insert —
(9) Subsection (7) and (8) do not apply while any person —

(a) in whose favour a residence order is in force with respect to the child; or

(b) who has care of the child by virtue of an order made in the exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction with respect to children,

agrees to the children being looked after in accommodation provided by or on behalf of the local authority.
(9A) Where there is more than one such person as is mentioned in subsection (9), all of them must agree.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
50 After Clause 17, insert the following new Clause —
'Provisions of accommodation for children in police protection or detention or on remand, etc.
. —(1) Every local authority shall make provision for the reception and accommodation of children who are removed or kept away from home under Part V.
(2) Every local authority shall receive, and provide accommodation for, children —

(a) in police protection whom they are requested to receive under section 38(3)(e);

(b) whom they are requested to receive under section 38(6) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984;

(c) who are —

(i) on remand under section 23(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969; or

(ii) the subject of a supervision order imposing a residence requirement under section 12AA of that Act,

and with respect to whom they are the designated authority.
(3) Where a child has been —

(a) removed under Part V; or

(b) detained under section 38 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984,

and he is not being provided with accommodation by a local authority or in a hospital vested in the Secretary of State, any reasonable expenses of accommodating him shall be recoverable from the local authority in whose area he is ordinarily resident.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in the their Amendment No. 50. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 80, 81, 82, 165, 311, 379 to 381, 392, 407, 408 and 438. The amendments fall into two broad groups.
The first group, Amendments Nos. 50, 80, 81, 82, 165 and 311, essentially involves technical matters of a drafting nature. The amendments concern the local authority's duty to make provision for the accommodation of children whom it must look after under Part V of the Bill or under certain other enactments. The effect of the Bill is not altered by the amendments but it should be easier, as a result, to identify local authority responsibilities in respect of the accommodation of various categories of children.
The second group, Amendments Nos. 379, 380, 381, 392, 407, 408 and 438, is intended to clarify and consolidate the provisions for young people charged with a criminal offence who are either on remand or who have been detained by the police while awaiting a court hearing, and certain other related matters. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I shall deal first with Amendment No. 50, which adds a new clause to follow Clause 17. Clause 17 is fortunately very widely drawn and contains various statements of principle. If we compare the two closely enough we find that all the details mentioned in the new clause can be said to be covered by one or other of the subsections in the existing Clause 17. Therefore it does not seem to me to be necessary to have the new clause.
I go further. A number of hypothetical contingencies are listed in the new clause. There may well be others which have not been mentioned. For example, there has been a splendid movement to discharge people from mental hospitals so that they can live in the community. I would mention especially mentally handicapped children who are not severely handicapped and who are capable of living in the community. Nevertheless, after discharge, a small minority of people in both the categories I have mentioned may be in need of the kind of accommodation referred to in Clause 17. However, they are not mentioned in the new clause to follow Clause 17. I should have thought that it would be better to leave the very well stated general principles in Clause 17 as they are without trying to amplify them in detail.
I find it rather surprising that the very large number of other amendments —especially the

741
amendments to schedules, some of which are very lengthy —should have to be considered en bloc at the same time as the new clause to follow Clause 17. I merely mention that as an approach which increases the effort required by legislators —which we are —to find out what is really involved in such a vast mass of amendments.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who has been very helpful so far in explaining the reasons for the various amendments that have come from the Commons, has dealt with those amendments generally by saying that they are mainly of a drafting character. But they take up a number of pages. For example, Amendments Nos. 379 to 381 are among the amendments to Schedule 8. Altogether, the amendments to Schedule 8 run from pages 86 to 98 —12 pages of amendments to that schedule alone —and some are of considerable substance. I do not wish to labour the matter. One can but proceed by way of a general protest; and that is what I am doing.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Amendment No. 50 is intended to deal with people who might not be covered by Clause 17. Those are children in police protection, in detention or on remand. That is a very special class of child. It does not follow that they are in need in the technical sense, although they are in need of accommodation. The provisions regulate the basis on which those children are accommodated. I believe that it is important to have the holding of children under those circumstances regulated by statute.
While I should like to give the noble Lord as much opportunity as is feasible to consider all the ramifications, the amendments are of a fairly technical character and are required to deal specifically with children, for example, in police protection, who are a very special class.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, perhaps I may ask whether it is envisaged that the provision should apply to any particular age group.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it applies to children generally. There are particular provisions dealing with children who are in the care of the police in respect of particular offences. But the amendment applies to children generally who are within the categories that I described; for example, in subsection (2) of the new clause.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
51 Clause 18, page 14, line 20, leave out 'in the care of the authority by virtue of a care order' and insert 'in their care'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 51. I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 24. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
52 Clause 18, page 15, line 3, at end insert 'and linguistic'.
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52. With this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 96, 187, 201 and 294.
This group of amendments is intended to secure that due weight is given to the needs of children of ethnic minority groups and to enable them to develop with a proper awareness of their racial and cultural background. We examined this subject in our earlier consideration of the Bill. I am grateful in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, who stimulated the debate by proposing a number of amendments.
If I may consider a little more particularly Amendments Nos. 52, 187 and 201, in various places in the Bill the welfare responsibility of the local authority, voluntary organisation or person running a children's home who is looking after a child includes a requirement to give due consideration to the,
"religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural background"
of the child concerned. An example is at Clause 18(5)(c). The Commission for Racial Equality supported amendments which would add a reference to the child's language and I gave an undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, at Third Reading to consider the matter further. The Government, in the light of that further consideration, have agreed that this point should be expressly provided for and that is the intention of the three amendments, Nos. 52, 187, 201.
On Amendment No. 294, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and others were also concerned that some local authorities needed to do more to take account of the ethnic composition of their area and make greater efforts to recruit day carers and foster carers from ethnic minority families. Amendment No. 294, which addresses this concern, would require local authorities to have regard to the different racial groups of children in need in their area when they are providing day care services or encouraging applications from potential foster parents. We believe that this amendment will encourage a more positive approach among local authorities who do not already take sufficient action in this area, if there are such authorities.
Amendment No. 96 is a drafting point but one possibly of some interest. It changes a reference to religious creed to religious persuasion which is the word that has been used in other parts of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, if I may speak to Amendment No. 52, we on these Benches are delighted that the Government have accepted the amendment. As the noble and learned Lord has said, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, raised

743
it at Report stage. We are delighted that the child's language is to be a consideration, and that we are not relying entirely on the child's cultural background. So we are very pleased to associate ourselves with this amendment and with the amendments which accompany it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
53 Clause 19, page 15, line 21, at end insert 'in other respects apart from providing accommodation for him'.
54 Page 15, line 32, leave out from 'in' to end of line 33 and insert 'a voluntary home'.
55 Page 15, line 43, at end insert 'unless he falls within subsection (3A).
(3A) A person falls within this subsection if he is —

(a) a parent of the child;

(b) a person who is not a parent of the child but who has parental responsibility for him; or

(c) where the child is in care and there was a residence order in force with respect to him immediately before the care order was made, a person in whose favour the residence order was made.'.

56 Page 15, line 45, leave out from 'with' to end of line 2 on page 16, and insert 'a person who falls within subsection (3A)'.
57 Page 16, line 3, at end insert —
'(4A) Subject to any regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection, any local authority looking after a child shall make arrangements to enable him to live with —

(a) a person falling within subsection (3A); or

(b) a relative, friend or other person connected with him, unless that would not be reasonably practicable or consistent with his welfare'.

58 Page 16, line 8, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 53 to 58 en bloc. I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 79, 293, 295 and 296.
This group of amendments is concerned with various matters to do with the provision of accommodation for children in need. Amendments Nos. 53 and 79 are essentially drafting amendments to make clear that the maintenance of a child by a local authority includes the provision of accommodation and is not limited to other provision for him. On looking at it in consultation with some of the groups involved, it appeared that this might be a possible view of the provision as drafted. Therefore we are making it clear that it includes the provision of accommodation and is not limited to other provision for the child.
Amendment No. 79 puts right an omission in Clause 24, so that a local authority may recover expenses incurred in providing accommodation and maintenance for a child. Amendments Nos. 54 and 295 both concern provision for voluntary organisations to place children with foster parents. Amendment No. 54 would make it clear that local authorities can arrange for children to be looked after in a voluntary home run by a voluntary organisation and registered with the Secretary of State. It also ensures that if a voluntary organisation arranged a placement with a foster parent on behalf of a local authority, the placement would be treated
744
as a local authority placement and would be governed by the foster placement regulations under that clause and paragraph 10 of Schedule 2.
Amendment No. 295 would amend the provision for regulations governing the placement of children with local authority foster parents in paragraph 10 of Part II of Schedule 2. Amendments Nos. 55, 56 and 296 are introduced in Clause 19 because, as presently drafted, it looks as though a parent or other person with parental responsibility may be a local authority foster parent under Clause 19(2)(a). This is not what is intended and these amendments make that clear.
Amendment No. 57 is one of the principal amendments in this group and is intended to give greater emphasis in the Bill to the important matter of rehabilitation. We have taken account of concerns about rehabilitation in the Bill as presently drafted, that some local authorities pursue their present duties in this field with perhaps insufficient vigour. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised this question of contact and returning a child to his family at Report stage in this House.
Rehabilitation with the family is dealt with in paragraph 9 of Schedule 2. This is something of a general purpose provision on rehabilitation in that it covers not only children being looked after by the local authority, but also any other child in need in the authority's area who is living apart from his family. The authority must take reasonable steps to enable him to live with his family or to promote contact between him and his family, if they consider it necessary to do so in order to safeguard or promote his welfare.
We believe, however, that it would be right to have a specific and more positive rehabilitation duty made prominent at the very front of the provisions. Accordingly, Amendment No. 57 would add a new subsection to Clause 19 requiring a local authority looking after a child to make arrangements to enable the child to live with one of the persons specified, unless this would not be reasonably practicable or consistent with his welfare. The persons specified include a parent of the child or another person or persons listed in subsection (4), as well as those listed in paragraph (b) of the amendment. The rider,
"unless that would not be reasonably practicable or consistent with his welfare",
is necessary. We have to accept, as did the Social Services Committee in Children in Care, that for some children rehabilitation is not practicable.
The reformulated duty would be subject to any regulations made by the Secretary of State in this respect. Amendment No. 58 is a minor drafting amendment and Amendment No. 293 is a simple consequential amendment to paragraph 9 of Schedule 2, to take account of the new rehabilitation provisions proposed in Amendment No. 57. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, again I very much welcome Amendment No. 57 with its central

745
emphasis on the role of rehabilitation. I believe that this has been welcomed by the voluntary organisations with an interest in the field. So we welcome very much the group of amendments and support them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
59 Clause 20, page 16, line 29, after 'home', insert —
`(cc) accommodated —

(i) by any health authority or local education authority; or

(ii) in any residential care home, nursing home or mental nursing home,

for a consecutive period of at least three months'.
60 Page 16, line 31, at end insert —
'(2A) Subsection (2)(cc) applies even if the period of three months mentioned there began before the child reached the age of sixteen.'.
61 Page 17, line 8, leave out 'this section' and insert `subsections (1) to (6)'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 59 to 61. The amendments modify the after-care responsibilities of local authorities under Clause 20. Amendment No. 59 extends the definition of,
"a person qualifying for advice and assistance",
in subsection (2) to cover children accommodated for at least three months by health and education authorities, or in registered children's, nursing and mental nursing homes.
Commons Amendments Nos. 60, 65 and 66 are consequential amendments. Placements of this kind are provided for in Amendments Nos. 232 and 232A. Commons Amendment No. 62 provides a specific power for local authorities to give financial assistance toward the cost of expenses incurred in living near the place where they are employed or educated and to make grants to meet expenses connected with such purposes. Amendment No. 64 is a technical, drafting amendment inserted for clarity.
At this stage it might be convenient if I do not elaborate further. I shall go on to move Amendment No. 62 and then call Amendment No. 62A. I beg to move that Commons Amendments Nos. 59 to 61 be considered en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
62 Clause 20, page 17, line 9, at end insert—
'(6A) A local authority may give assistance to any person who qualifies for advice and assistance by virtue of subsection (2)(a) by —

(a) contributing to expenses incurred by him in living near the place where he is, or will be —

(i) employed or seeking employment; or

(ii) receiving education or training; or

(b) making a grant enabling him to meet expenses connected with his education or training.

(6B) Where a local authority are assisting the person under subsection (6A) by making a contribution or grant with respect to a course of education or training, they may —
746

(a) continue to do so even though he reaches the age of twenty-one before completing the course; and

(b) disregard any interruption in his attendance on the course if he resumes it as soon as is reasonably practicable.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 62.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor).

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 62
62A Line 2, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, clearly the purpose of this amendment to Commons Amendment No. 62 is to convert the power contained in Commons Amendment No. 62 into a duty to give assistance. I should point out that should that be acceptable to the House the duty to give assistance will be confined to assisting those young people who have left care but who qualify for advice and assistance under Clause 20(3).
I believe that in Committee and again at Report we heard a great deal about the problems which face young people leaving care. They have a very difficult threshold to cross. The vast majority of them have to do so without the support of their natural protectors; namely, their family. Research shows that as many as 70 per cent. of young people leaving care seek to live a life of independence —I am not quite certain whether that is of choice or necessity; it is probably of necessity —but do not have adequate financial resources to do so. Therefore many of them end up on the street. For example, if they are looking for accommodation they are often required to have a lump sum to pay the rent in advance or to pay a deposit to a landlord; or they may want assistance to pay the rent.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand Clause 20(1) if they find such accommodation just before leaving care, the local authority is under a duty to assist; but if they find accommodation after they have left care, the local authority is not under a duty to assist. It has been said that these young people end up on the street because of a misunderstanding between the statutory authorities. But with great respect that brings no relief to young people who have not crossed the right administrative boundaries at the right time.
From figures that I have seen (I do not have them with me this afternoon) some local authorities provide a positive package of support through grants and assistance with accommodation. However, the sad fact remains the other have failed to provide any or adequate assistance. The research shows that the amount of support which local authorities make available to care leavers in different parts of the country varies widely, ranging from the very good to the totally indifferent.
We believe that the assistance should be adequate and should be more or less equally available

747
throughout the country. I am sure that most Members of your Lordships' House will agree with that proposition. The object of our amendment is to enable the local authorities to achieve that end. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 62A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 62, be agreed to. —(Lord Prys-Davies.)
4.45 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, at every stage of the Bill as it went through this House, we had a great many discussions on this subject of young people leaving care. Although promises were given about monitoring, I believe that the situation has changed. It has become worse during the six months or so since we considered this Bill. Studies have been made and reports issued by the citizens' advice bureaux, Centrepoint and Shelter. They all say that the situation is becoming very much worse for these young people. More and more of them are becoming homeless.
It seems to me to be extremely important that something positive should be done while we can still do it and this Bill is still before us if we hope to take preventive action. Otherwise, I believe that the money saved from not making this a duty and not making local authorities give the assistance that they should give in certain cases will go towards paying vastly much more for young people in prisons and those who take to prostitution and drugs. It is an extremely serious problem.
We have been given figures by the Department of Health, with official returns from local authorities. It is quite extraordinary how the figures vary from practically nothing to way up into the 150,000 area. So there is nothing going on round the country which makes much sense.
There should be a duty everywhere to ensure that these young people are looked after. I hope that at long last the noble and learned Lord will feel able to accept this amendment. I believe that it is of very great importance.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this amendment would replace the power of a local authority in the new subsection (6A) introduced by Commons Amendment No. 62 (should your Lordships agree to that in due course) to contribute to accommodation expenses incurred by a child in connection with his employment, further education or training, with a duty to do so.
First, it is important to recognise that Commons Amendment No. 62 adds to the powers of local authorities to assist in that connection. This amendment seeks to replace that power with a duty. By virtue of Amendment No. 61, with which we have just dealt, when a local authority is considering whether it would be appropriate to provide financial assistance in the circumstances described in Commons Amendment No. 62, it will not be bound by the exceptional circumstances qualification which is applied to the provision of cash assistance elsewhere in the Bill, for example, under subsection (6) of Clause 20. So in this connection, the
748
exceptional circumstances requirement is not applied for cash assistance. I think that to some extent that meets the concern mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
Also by virtue of Commons Amendment No. 63, to which we shall come, a local authority will be unable to attach a repayment condition to any such financial assistance; so it is out and out assistance. Nor will it be required to have regard to the means of the child or his parents. Taken together those specific exclusions from the general arrangements for the provision of financial assistance under the Bill provide a powerful indication on the face of the Bill of the expectations on local authorities to provide the form of support specified in Commons Amendment No. 62, which is related to education and training. That will be fully reflected in the guidance which will be made available to local authorities when the Bill is being implemented. There are valid reasons for this. The Government share the view that future education training or employment prospects of young people are crucial areas where they may need some special help if they are to become equipped to be fully independent members of society. That is why we have given this very considerable increase in flexibility to local authorities to assist in such cases.
As from July this year this form of financial assistance will no longer affect the level of income support which a young person may receive through the social security system. It is important that we emphasise this; a number of noble Lords emphasised it when we considered the matter previously. It is not part of a social security system. The social security system is more general and applies without specific reference to circumstances of this kind. This is a particular power to assist in a particular way without in any way diminishing the income support which the young person might receive through the social security system.
The Government believe that the proposed Amendment No. 62A, which replaces the local authority's power to assist in such circumstances with a duty to do so in all the circumstances to which the provision applies, goes too far. For example, it would require a local authority to contribute towards the cost of independent accommodation even where it was able, with the child's agreement, to provide accommodation in an appropriate community home under the provisions of Clause 17(5). Under the provision the local authority can accommodate any person who has reached the age of 16 but is under 21 in a community home which takes children aged 16 and over if the authority considers that it would safeguard or promote his welfare. It would also impose an unqualified requirement on local authorities to make grants to meet expenses connected with educational training without any regard to financial support for these purposes which may be available elsewhere.
We are not requiring the local authority to have regard to other financial support when considering this assistance. If one turned it into a duty, it would surely at the very least be necessary to do that. It is surely more flexible to give the local authority the power to operate in this very enlarged discretionary

749
way. The power provided in Amendment No. 62, without Amendment No. 62A, enables a local authority to take full account of the range of services which it provides or which is available from others within its locality.
I believe that this approach goes a long way to deal with the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, have outlined to us. However, I believe that it does so in an appropriate way in the amendment. If the approach is correct, as I believe it is, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord one question. We have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady David, that many local authorities are not doing anything at present for their children leaving care. Is there any reason to suppose that those local authorities will do any better in the future unless there is some element of compulsion?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are a number of ways of assisting local authorities to move in an appropriate direction. One way is to give them very specific powers of the kind that we have done, with very considerable encouragement as to how these powers should be exercised. That is what Amendment No. 62 does. To try to turn it into a duty to make payments in all circumstances would require a completely different approach because the duty to make payments could apply only in the case of some form of need, whereas the power is given here in a way that I believe encourages local authorities to assist in particular in relation to the problem of education and training. It is a power that local authorities do not possess at the present time.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord realises that there is anxiety expressed in the House between the position of a power being given —and it is obviously right that the power should be given —and an expectation that the power will be exercised by some authorities which have not troubled to deal with this very important matter until now.
The noble and learned Lord was good enough to say that there would be guidelines. I wonder whether he would leave us with a little more satisfaction if he were able to undertake that the guidelines will express very clearly that local authorities in appropriate cases are expected to exercise those powers. It seems to me that it may be the nearer way of dealing with the matter. An amendment has been put which most likely will not be taken to a Division. However, the wish of the noble and learned Lord is obviously that local authorities should not only have the power but should in proper cases exercise it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may repeat what I said on this matter. On the face of the Bill, the specific exclusion of conditions which apply to other powers are themselves a powerful indication to the local authorities of the expectations that we have of them. These expectations will be fully
750
reflected in the guidance which will be made available to local authorities when the Bill is implemented. I believe that I have given an undertaking on the lines that the noble Lord has in mind in connection with the implementation of this Bill.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has used the word "undertaking". I am more than happy, and I believe that my noble friends will be also.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, in the light of the undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 62A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 62, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 62 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
63 Clause 20, page 17, line 11, after 'section', insert '(otherwise than under subsection (6A))'.
64 Page 17, line 14, after 'section', insert 'as a person qualifying for advice and assistance'.
65 Page 17, line 17, leave out from 'who' to 'shall' in line 22 and insert 'is accommodated —

(a) by a voluntary organisation or in a registered children's home;

(b) by any health authority or local education authority; or

(c) in any residential care home, nursing home or mental nursing home,

ceases to be so accommodated, after reaching the age of sixteen, the organisation, authority or (as the case may be) person carrying on the home.'.
66 Page 17, line 23, at end insert —
'(9A) Subsection (9) only applies, by virtue of paragraph (b) or (c), if the accommodation has been provided for a consecutive period of at least three months.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 63 to 66.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
67 Clause 21, page 17, line 32, after 'suffer', insert 'significant'.
68 Page 18, line 10, leave out subsection (6).
69 Page 18, line 14, leave out from beginning to 'having' in line 18.
70 Page 18, line 33, at end insert —
'(10) This section is subject to section 17(8).'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 67 to 70. I speak at same time to Amendments Nos. 336, 337, 347 and 348.
This group of amendments deals with the restriction of liberty of young people. Noble Lords will remember that it was a matter that was very closely considered. We undertook to consider it further as the Bill progressed.

751
Amendment No. 67 further strengthens the criteria for restriction of liberty in subsection (1) of Clause 21 by requiring that under sub-paragraph (a)(ii) of that subsection the harm which the child is likely to suffer is significant harm. In other words, we have strengthened that.
Amendment No. 70 inserts a new subsection (10) which provides a cross-reference to subsection (8) of Section 17. This makes it clear that where a child is provided with accommodation under a voluntary arrangement, any person who has parental responsibility for the child may at any time remove the child from secure accommodation, even where the local authority has obtained the authority of the court under this section to restrict his liberty.
Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 remove the references in Section 21 to appeals and legal aid respectively. These are provided for in the new clauses on appeals and legal aid in Amendment No. 238 (which is to be considered later) which are general in scope. When we discussed this section in Committee I undertook to reflect further on a very important point of principle raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. This concerned the need to protect young people not directly caught by this provision who may have their liberty restricted in, for example, private psychiatric homes and also in National Health Service establishments. I hope that I can now provide some reassurance to noble Lords who expressed concern on this matter.
Amendments Nos. 232 and 232A introduce two new clauses requiring local authorities to be notified of the accommodation of children in certain specified establishments. These relate to certain children who are provided with accommodation by any health authority or local education authority, or in any residential care home, nursing home or mental nursing home. It is the Government's intention that when new secure accommodation regulations are brought forward under the provisions in subsection (8) of Section 21, children accommodated in the types of establishment specified in Amendments Nos. 232 and 232A who have their liberty restricted will be brought within the scope of Section 21. I believe that that provides the safeguards which my noble friend was seeking.
I hope your Lordships will also welcome the changes proposed by the remaining amendments in this group. Amendments Nos. 336 and 337 replace the regulation-making power of the Secretary of State in Schedule 5 to approve the provision of secure accommodation in voluntary homes with a power to prohibit the provision of such accommodation. Amendments Nos. 347 and 348 make comparable changes to Schedule 6 in respect of registered children's homes. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
71 Clause 22, page 19, line 9, leave out `the subject of a care order' and insert `in their care'.
72 Page 19, line 10, after 'the', insert `care'.
5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 71 and 72. I spoke to them when speaking to Amendment No. 24. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
73 Clause 22, page 19, line 14, after `child', insert 'so far as is reasonably practicable'.
74 Page 19, line 34, at end insert `or who is not being looked after by them but is in need'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 73, 74 and 75 en bloc.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, does Amendment No. 75 go with the preceding amendments?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am content to deal with Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 en bloc, and with Amendment No. 75 separately if the noble and learned Lord wishes. Therefore, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 73 and 74.
As regards Amendment No. 73, subsection (2) of Clause 22 itemises matters for which the regulations on reviews of cases of children being looked after by local authorities —Clause 22(1) —may provide. The amendment would qualify subsection (2)(g) by inserting the words underlined as follows:
"(g) requiring the authority to inform the child so far as is reasonably practicable of any steps he may take under this Act;".
As regards Amendment No. 74, Clause 22(3) requires every local authority to establish a procedure for considering any representations. These include at (a) any child who is being looked after by the authority and this effectively limits the scope of the procedure to representations about cases of children being looked after by the authority. The addition to (a) of the words in the amendment would allow representations by or on behalf of a child who is not being looked after but is in need. That is a lacuna highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, during earlier considerations. We have managed to catch up with the point. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
75 Clause 22, page 20, line 3, leave out `this subsection' and insert `regulating the procedure to be followed'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 75.
The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that regulations made in respect of inquiries into representations may deal with the procedure to be followed in relation to consideration of

753
representations. It follows the observation of the drafting as put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale during our earlier considerations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, at an earlier stage, and being under the influence of Professor Hawking, I described this subsection as collapsing on itself like a black hole. If I had been under the influence of a zoologist I might have described it as being like a snake following its own tail. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, had the same difficulty as regards the drafting and I express my gratitude to my noble and learned friend for having met that.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
76 After Clause 23 insert the following new clause —
'Consultation with local education authorities.
—(1) Where —

(a) a child is being looked after by a local authority; and

(b) the authority propose to provide accommodation for him in an establishment at which education is provided for children who are accommodated there,

they shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, consult the appropriate local education authority before doing so.
(2) Where any such proposal is carried out, the local authority shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, inform the appropriate local education authority of the arrangements that have been made for the child's accommodation.
(3) Where a child ceases to be accommodated as mentioned in subsection (1)(b), the local authority shall inform the appropriate local education authority.
(4) In this section "the appropriate local education authority" means —

(a) the local education authority within whose area the local authority's area falls; or

(b) where the child has special educational needs and a statement of his needs is maintained under the Education Act 1981, the local education authority who maintain the statement.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 76.
This amendment would place a duty on local authorities in relation to children they are looking after such that a local authority proposing to place a child in an establishment with education on the premises would be required so far as is reasonably practicable to consult the appropriate local education authority before doing so. The local authority would also be required, as soon as is reasonably practicable, to inform the local education authority of any arrangements when the child ceases to be so accommodated.
The idea is to ensure that there is full consultation between the local social services authority and the local education authority on both the welfare and educational needs of children who may be placed in a residential school or a home with education provided on the premises. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
77 Clause 24, page 21, line 22, leave out 'when' and insert `immediately before'.
78 Page 21, line 24, after 'authority', insert 'any reasonable'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 77 and 78. They are relatively minor drafting amendments which help to clarify the power under Clause 24(7) of one local authority to recover certain expenses from another. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
79 Clause 24, page 21, line 25, at end insert 'and maintaining him'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 79. I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 53. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
80 Clause 24, page 21, line 25, at end insert —
'(7A) Where a local authority provides accommodation under section (provision of accommodation for children in police protection or detention or on remand, etc.) (1) or (2)(a) or (b) for a child who is ordinarily resident within the area of another local authority and they are not maintaining him in —

(a) a community home provided by them;

(b) a controlled community home; or

(c) a hospital vested in the Secretary of State,

they may recover from that other authority any reasonable expenses incurred by them in providing the accommodation and maintaining him.'.
81 Clause 25, page 21, line 33, after '17(2)', insert (`provision of accommodation for children in police protection or detention or on remand, etc.) (3)'.
82 Page 21, line 33, leave out '24(7) or (8)' and insert '24(7) to (8)'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 80, 81 and 82. I spoke to these amendments when speaking to Amendment No.50.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
83 Clause 26, page 22, line 12, leave out from 'concerned' to `harm', in line 13 and insert 'is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant'.
84 Page 22, line 15, leave out from 'the' to first `to' in line 18 and insert 'care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent'.
85 Page 22, line 24, at end insert —Page
Page 22, line 24, at end insert —
'(4A) The court may —

(a) on an application for a care order, make a supervision order;

(b) on an application for a supervision order, make a care order.'.

86 Page 22, line 35, at end insert 'or'.
87 Page 22, line 41, leave out from '1968' to end of line 43.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 83 to 87. Amendment No. 83 is extremely important. It arises following a great deal of discussion in earlier stages. The present condition, contained in subsection (2)(a), for a care order or supervision order is that the child concerned has suffered significant harm or is likely to suffer such harm. Subsection (2)(b) sets out casual conditions which must also be satisfied. It was those that we found difficult. We all had similar ideas about what should be covered but the difficulty arose in ensuring that the words did so.
We consider on reflection that in this very important question of deciding whether compulsory intervention in the upbringing of the child is necessary the test should be whether the child is at present suffering significant harm and not whether he has suffered such harm in the past. Strictly, under the present test, an order could be made on the ground of significant harm suffered several years before and not likely to be repeated (provided that the causal condition in subsection (2)(b) and the general principles in Clause 1 were satisfied). The law would not be satisfactory if left like this. The future ground:
"is likely to suffer such harm",
would of course be retained.
Amendment No. 84 is a proposal by the Government to amend one of the threshold conditions for a care order or supervision order in Clause 26. The threshold conditions for a care or supervision order are set out in subsection (2) of Clause 26.
Under Clause 26(2) the court has to be satisfied that the child concerned is suffering or is likely to suffer harm and that the harm is attributable to one or other of the conditions at subsection (b)(i) and (ii). The first is the standard of care given to the child or likely to be given to the child if the order were not made being below that which it would be reasonable to expect the parent of such a child to give to him. Alternatively, the harm or likelihood of harm must be attributable to the child's being beyond parental control.
The amendment concerns the first of these attributable conditions. There was some criticism during the Bill's progress in this House that the phrase:
"the parent of such a child"
is potentially confusing and could lead to long arguments between lawyers in court —and your Lordships know it need not be tremendously
756
confusing to have that effect. We want to avoid that if possible. It has been argued that
"the parent of such a child",
could call for difficult hypothetical judgments about "such a child" in individual cases and leave uncertain whether aspects of background, wealth and so on should be taken into account. It would be better, it was suggested, to find a way of focusing the assessment more directly on the parents than on the child.
If the amendment were adopted subsection (b)(i) would read:
"the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him".
By dropping "such a child" the condition seems to centre more on the needs of the child whose case is before the court rather than on some hypothetical child and the hypothesis is transferred to the parent.
The test has to be, in effect, what care it would be reasonable to expect a reasonable parent to give that child. If the test were what care it would be reasonable to expect the parent (that is, the child's parent) to give, one might have to allow for, say, chronic irresponsibility on the part of that person to the upbringing of children. The standard of care which would be reasonable in such a case could be very low.
On balance, we think that the new version, in avoiding the words "such a child" and focusing more specifically on the child in question, is simpler and more helpful. Other differences between the two versions are of minor importance. "Standard of care" has been simplified to "care". The rest is minor redrafting to accommodate the principal change.
Amendment No. 85 is to make clear for the avoidance of doubt that the court on an application for a care order may make a supervision order, and vice versa.
As regards Amendments Nos, 86 and 87, in the other place the Government heard further agruments in support of those advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on behalf of the NSPCC for removal of the restriction at Clause 26(7)(c). This restriction would prevent the court entertaining an application for a care order or a supervision order if at the time the application was made the child in question was being provided with accommodation by or on behalf of the local authority.
On further reflection the Government have accepted that the bar is unnecessary. The important point was made that the NSPCC, whom this point chiefly concerns, always endeavours to work with the full co-operation and support of local authorities in its child protection work and in the comparatively few cases where it judges it necessary to initiate care proceedings. Such co-operation is essential and in subsection (5) the Bill requires the authorised person who proposes to make an application under Clause 26 to consult the relevant local authority if it is reasonably practicable. I am sure that there will be no difficulty on that score with the NSPCC.
Amendment No. 87 removes the restriction at subsection (6) and Amendment No. 86 is a simple

757
adjustment of the drafting of what would remain in subsection (6).
When the Bill left this House for the other place in March the Government were still considering amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in Committee and on Report seeking to establish on the face of the Bill the right of the NSPCC to initiate care proceedings. At present it may do so on the authority of the Secretary of State by order made under Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 —the only body so authorised. The amendment recognises the special position in child protection work of the NSPCC. In all the circumstances we are persuaded that the NSPCC should be identified specifically in Clause 26 and should not need to rely on a subsequent order by the Secretary of State to continue to carry out this part of their work.
Amendment No. 92 is intended only to clarify the meaning of "care order" under the Bill. The basic definition is given in Clause 26(10), but Clause 75(1), while pointing to Clause 26(10), also carries some further detail. This includes orders which are deemed to be or to have the effect of care orders. This amendment merely places a corresponding cross-reference into Clause 26 to ensure that references in the Bill to a "child in care" carry the broader meaning.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble and learned friend for this group of amendments and particularly for the earlier group of amendments which he described; that is, Amendments Nos. 83 and 84. Those are the result of long discussions which we had starting in Committee on this rather delicate point. It seems to me that the Government have come up with a solution which is as good as one could possibly expect. They have taken regard of all the points made by the NSPCC and indeed by others.
Of course, I am simply delighted to see Amendment No. 91, which again is the conclusion of a long discussion between us. I should also like to thank my noble and learned friend for many other amendments, and to save the time of your Lordships' House I have not popped up each time. They show that in another place and indeed in the shape of my noble and learned friend in this House, the Government have listened as much as they possibly can to many of the arguments which the NSPCC and others have put forward. I thank my noble and learned friend for that.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may herald with equal enthusiasm the victory of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and my defeat. I believe that it was I who ventured to suggest the formula "such a child" in our earlier deliberations in this House. We now have a very much better formula. Therefore, I say that I herald my defeat with enthusiasm.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I also wish to welcome the undoubted improvements to Clause 26 and in particular the reference to the suffering of harm as a continuing state of affairs. However, the very fact that these amendments have to be produced supports the view that it is too difficult to produce a comprehensive, watertight statutory code of criteria for care and that it is too dangerous to remove the safety net of wardship. However, I know that that battle has been fought and lost and I shall not pursue it now.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should like to say two things. First, it has been the Government's aim in the carriage of this Bill to try to secure as broad an agreement as possible on its various provisions. That takes time and a good deal of consideration and willingness to change what one has embarked upon. I believe that these amendments are the fruit of that.
As regards having a watertight definition, I believe that the more one strives for a watertight definition and sets one's aims high, the more likely one is to reach it. I believe that we have now reached a very good definition. Of course certain powers of the High Court remain and I have no doubt that, if necessary, it would find a way to use those powers, although not to make a care order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
88 Clause 26, page 22, line 45, leave out 'the local authority appearing to the court to be'.
89 Page 23, line 1, leave out 'it appears to the court that'.
90 Page 23, line 2, leave out from first 'authority' to 'the' in line 3.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 88, 89 and 90. In moving these amendments I speak also to Amendments Nos. 113, 114 and 115.
Clause 26(7) makes provision as to which local authority should be the authority designated in a care order. Under Clause 26(7) it is that authority which appears to the court to be the authority within whose area the child lives. If it appears to the court that the child does not live within the area of a local authority, the designated authority should be that which appears to the court to be the authority in whose area the circumstances giving rise to the care order occurred. Similar provisions are made in Clause 32(5) in respect of the local authority which is to be named in a direction made by the court in family proceedings that the child's circumstances be investigated by "the appropriate authority".
These amendments remove from Clause 26(7) and 32(5) the qualification as to the authority appearing to the court to be appropriate. Under Clause 26 the designated authority will therefore be that authority in whose area the child lives or, where the child does not live in the area of a local authority, the area in which the circumstances occurred. Clause 32(5) will reflect this position. This correctly focuses on the true state of the facts and is an improvement on the clauses as drafted.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
91 Clause 26, page 23, line 6, leave out from 'means' to end of line 9 and insert—

'(a) the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and any of its officers; and

(b) any person authorised by order of the Secretary of State to bring proceedings under this section and any officer of a body which is so authorised.'.

92 Page 23, line 22, after 'means' insert `(subject to section 75(1))'.
93 Clause 27, page 23, line 28, leave out from 'for' to 'shall' in line 31 and insert 'an order under this Part'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 91 to 93. I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 with Amendment No. 83 and Amendment No. 93 with Amendment No. 1. I therefore propose to move these three amendments en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
94 Clause 28, page 24, line 12, at end insert —
'(2A) While a care order is in force with respect to a child, the local authority designated by the order shall—

(a) have parental responsibility for the child; and

(b) have the power (subject to the following provisions of this section) to determine the extent to which a parent or guardian of the child may meet his parental responsibility for him.

(2B) The authority may not exercise the power in subsection (2A)(b) unless they are satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to safeguard or promote the child's welfare.
(2C) Nothing in subsection (2A)(b) shall prevent a parent or guardian of the child who has care of him from doing what is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting his welfare.'
95 Page 24, line 14, leave out 'shall have parental responsibility for him but'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 94 and 95. In moving these amendments I speak also to Amendment No. 100.
These amendments attempt to clarify the relationship between a local authority and a person with parental responsibility for a child who is under a care order. At present a care order operates to give a local authority parental responsibility and such responsibility is additional to that of a parent or guardian. Clause 2(7) of the Bill states that where more than one person has parental responsibility for a child, each may act alone and without the other or others in meeting that responsibility. It is conceivable, therefore, that a parent may strongly disagree with a local authority decision (for example, regarding education) and wish to seek to reverse its effect by exercising his parental responsibility.
760
To a large extent we think that Clause 2(8) deals with this potential for conflict. It says that the fact that a person has parental responsibility for a child does not entitle him to act in a way which would be incompatible with any order made with respect to the child under the Bill. Therefore, a parent could not exercise his parental responsibility in a way which is incompatible with a care order.
We have remained concerned in the light of all these discussions that the operation of these rules may still lead to room for doubt. It may be difficult to decide whether action is "incompatible" with a care order. As a result we have thought it helpful to make it clear that in the end in care cases the local authority must be in the driving seat. It has the responsibility, guided by statute and regulations, to care for children and we must give it power to carry its duties out. We have therefore made it clear with Amendment No. 94 that an authority may determine the extent to which a parent or guardian may meet his parental responsibility for the child. This would give the local authority the ability to prevent a parent from undermining its decisions, for example regarding placement of the child.
This power to determine is subject to a number of safeguards. First, by new subsection (2B) the authority may exercise it only if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to safeguard or promote the child's welfare. Secondly, by new subsection (2C) a parent or guardian who is currently looking after a child (for example during a contact visit) may still do what is reasonable in all the circumstances for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the child's welfare. This ensures that a parent may always take reasonable steps to care for the child. Clause 3(5) of course permits a person who has not got parental responsibility to take such steps.
Thirdly, new subsection (6), which is introduced by Amendment No. 100, ensures that the power to determine does not detract from a parent or guardian's right or duties under other enactments. For example, a parent's statutory right to consent to marriage or adoption is not affected by the Amendment No. 94.
Fourthly, parents and guardians will have the right to have their wishes and feelings ascertained and taken ino account by a local authority which is taking decisions with respect to the child. Clause 18(4) and (5) impose such a duty of consultation wherever it is reasonably practicable to carry it out. Where a parent is aggrieved by a local authority's actions he or she will also be able to use the complaints and representations procedure outlined in Clause 22 which was developed in the proceedings in your Lordships' House. With all these safeguards I think we can be confident that the power given to local authorities by Amendment No. 94 will be sparingly used and only where its use is justified.
Amendment No. 95 makes an amendment which is consequential to Amendment No. 94. It removes what would otherwise be a duplicatory reference to a local authority receiving parental responsibility by virtue of a care order.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
96 Clause 28, page 24, line 16, leave out 'creed' and insert 'persuasion'.
97 Page 24, line 22, leave out 'or section 18 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978'.
98 Page 24, line 25, leave out 'or section 49 of the Act of 1978'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 96, 97 and 98. I have spoken to Amendment No. 96 with Amendment No. 52 and to Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 with Amendment No. 34. I therefore propose to move these three amendments en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
99 Clause 28, page 24, line 37, leave out 'abroad' and insert `outside England and Wales'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 99. In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 302 to 308 inclusive. These amendments are intended to improve paragraph 17 of Schedule 2, which governs the placement abroad of children who are looked after by local authorities.
Amendments Nos. 99, 303, 305, 306 and 308 replace the word "abroad" by the words "England and Wales", the limit of the jurisdiction of the relevant provisions in Part III and Schedule 2. At present the ambit of this paragraph is unclear because the word "abroad" is imprecise. Amendment No. 302 is clarificatory in that, read with Amendment No. 303, it makes clear that placement of a care order child outside England and Wales may only be made with the approval of the court.
Amendments Nos. 304 and 307 limit the classes of person whose approval of arrangements for the child to live outside England and Wales is needed. In addition to the child, under subsection (3) consent would be required only from those with parental responsibility. This brings these provisions into line with the private law provision on emigration in Clause 12(1).
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does it really mean that when the Bill left this House "abroad" meant Scotland?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that underlines the imprecision of the word "abroad" which we are now seeking to cure.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
100 Clause 28, page 24, line 38, at end insert —
'(6) The power in subsection (2A)(b) is subject (in addition to being subject to the provisions of this section) to any right, duty, power, responsibility or authority which a parent or guardian of the child has in relation to the child and his property by virtue of any other enactment.'
5.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 100. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 94.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
101 Clause 29, page 24, line 39, leave out `has been placed' and insert 'is'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 101. Clause 29 is important in that it deals with contact by parents and others with children in care, on which matter the present law is inadequate. It embodies the major reforms promised in the White Paper at paragraph 64, including in subsection (1) a presumption of reasonable access for the child's parents and others specified.
Amendment No. 101 is a minor drafting point. It is established in Clause 75(1) that a child who is in care has been placed in the care of a local authority under a care order. This amendment changes the reference in Clause 29(1) to adopt the simpler terminology which appears throughout the Bill. Clause 29(1) lists those persons who, subject to other provisions in the clause, are to have a presumption of reasonable contact with a child in care. These are the parents and other persons who have a certain legal status in respect of the child.
Amendment No. 104 recognises these cases by extending the presumption of reasonable contact to persons who, immediately before the care order was made, had care of a child under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction.
Amendment No. 103 is a drafting amendment to accommodate Amendment No. 104. Amendments Nos. 105 to 110 are intended to shorten and simplify other provisions in Clause 29, which has become long and complicated, and to deal with certain defects which have been raised during discussions.
Amendment No. 105 provides the court with a general power to make such orders with respect to contact as it considers appropriate: and, on an application by the local authority or the child, the court may make an order authorising the authority to refuse contact between a person mentioned in subsection (1) and named in the order. Amendment No. 105 allows the court to make such order as it

763
considers appropriate even though no application has been made, if it considers that the order should be made.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
102 Clause 29, page 24, line 40, leave out `by a care order'.
103 Page 24, line 43, leave out 'and'.
104 Page 24, line 46, at end insert 'and —
(d) where, immediately before the care order was made, a person had care of the child by virtue of an order made in the exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction with respect to children, that person.'
105 Page 25, line 1, leave out from `by' to 'authority' in line 29 and insert 'the authority or the child, the court may make such order as it considers appropriate with respect to the contact which is to be allowed between the child and any named person.
(2A) On an application made by —

(a) any person mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1); or

(b) any person who has obtained the leave of the court to make the application,

the court may make such order as it considers appropriate with respect to the contact which is to be allowed between the child and that person.
(2B) On an application made by the authority or the child, the court may make an order authorising the authority to refuse to allow contact between the child and any person who is mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1) and named in the order.
(2C) When making a care order with respect to a child, or in any family proceedings in connection with a child who is in the care of a local authoity, the court may make an order under this section, even though no application for such an order has been made with respect to the child, if it considers that the order should be made.
(2D) An'.
106 Page 25, line 30, after `(1)', insert 'or an order under this section'.
107 Page 25, line 36, leave out 'subsection (2) and (4)' and insert `this section'.
108 Page 25, line 40, leave out '(6)' and insert `(2D)'.
109 Page 25, leave out lines 42 and 43 and insert 'terms of any order under this section may be departed from by agreement between the local authority and the person in relation to whom the order is made'.
110 Page 26, leave out lines 6 to 17 and insert 'on the application of the authority, the child concerned or the person named in the order'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendment No. 102 with Amendment No. 24. I have also spoken to Amendments Nos. 103 to 110 with Amendment No. 101. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 102 to 110.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
111 Clause 31, page 27, line 19, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert —

'(a) the authority within whose area the child concerned is living or will live; or

764

(b) where —

(i) the child is a registered pupil at a school; and

(ii) the authority mentioned in paragraph (a) and the authority within whose area the school is situated agree,

the latter authority.'.
112 Page 27, line 25, leave out from 'shall' to 'before' in line 27.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 111 and 112. I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 319 to 331 and Amendments Nos. 386 and 413. These amendments make various changes to the provisions in Clause 31 and Schedule 7 on education supervision orders. Amendment No. 111 deals with Clause 31(7) which specifies the local education authority to be designated by the court in an education supervision order. As currently drafted the designated authority is, in the case of a child registered at a school, the local education authority in whose area the school is situated, that is the school authority. In any other case, the designated authority would be the local education authority within whose area the child lives or will live; namely, the home authority.
Amendment No. 111 reverses this requirement, so that the designated authority would normally be the home authority. The school authority could, however, be designated in cases where the child is registered at a school and where both the home and school authority agree. This amendment is designed to achieve consistency in various respects. First, it would accord with existing legal provisions on pupils' registration and school attendance. I believe it would also be generally consistent with the existing law.
Amendment No. 112 concerns the duty of a local education authority, which proposes to apply for an order, to consult the social services committee of the local authority. The amendment would remove
"so far as is reasonably practicable"
from the requirement to consult the social services committee in subsection (8). The need for an education supervision order is unlikely to arise in an emergency and there should be no circumstances where consultation with the social services department is not possible. Amendment No. 331 aligns the definition of "parent" in Part III of Schedule 3 with the definition of "parent" in the Education Act 1944.
Amendments Nos. 319 to 323 and Amendment No. 329 are consequential. Amendment No. 324 is intended to clarify that proper education may take place other than at school by referring to the place at which the child should be educated. This deals with a point made by supporters of education at home that education may be provided other than at a school, as Section 36 of the Education Act recognises. Amendment No. 326 provides that directions may be given at any time while an education supervision order is in force. As currently drafted, paragraph 12 might imply that an education supervisor may only give a single set of directions which he cannot subsequently vary or revoke.

765
Amendment No. 328 specifies the information that a child subject to an education supervision order and his parents would be required to give the supervisor. Amendment No. 330 makes provision for sanctions and removes paragraph 17 of Schedule 3, which is now covered in separate amendments in respect of procedure and appeals. The main Amendment, No. 238, concerns rules of court. Amendment No. 386 makes a number of amendments to the Education Act 1944 which are largely consequential to amendments in the Bill. Paragraph 7A provides for amendments to Section 40 of that Act which are consequential to the introduction in the Bill of the education supervision order. Paragraph 7B amends Section 71 of the Education Act which deals with complaints with respect to independent schools. This ensures that the notice of complaint procedure can be instigated by the Secretary of State for Education and Science against a proprietor who fails to comply with the new welfare duty in relation to children accommodated at that school, which is the subject of Amendment No. 232B.
Paragraph 7C inserts a new definition of "parent" into Section 114 of the Education Act 1944 which is consequential to provisions in the Bill. Amendment No. 413 removes the option of imprisonment as a penalty for failing to comply with a school attendance order under Section 40(1) of the Education Act 1944. This is in line with government policy in recent years which has seen imprisonment as inappropriate for this offence which, rather, may attract a fine of up to £400. Amendment No. 327 corrects a drafting error.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
113 Clause 32, page 28, line 18, leave out 'the local authority appearing to the court to be'.
114 Page 28, line 20, leave out 'it appears to the court that'.
115 Page 28, line 21, leave out from first 'authority' to 'any' in line 22 and insert 'the authority within whose area'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 113, 114, and 115. I have already spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 88.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
116 Clause 33, page 29, line 1, leave out 'be brought to an end' and insert 'have effect for such period as may be specified in the order, but shall in any event cease to have effect'.
117 Page 29, line 13, after second 'which' insert `—(i)'.
118 Page 29, line 14, after '32(4)' insert 'but
(ii) no application for a care order or supervision order has been made with respect to the child,'.
119 Page 29, line 19, leave out 'if later'.
120 Page 29, line 20, at end insert `if that period ends later than the period mentioned in paragraph (a)'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 116 to 120. These amendments are intended to clarify the provisions in subsections (4) and (5) relating to time limits for interim care and supervision orders. Amendment No. 116 would provide that the court itself may specify a period after which an interim order shall end. The only limitation is that the interim order may not endure beyond any one of the events listed in subsection (4)(a) to (e). Amendments Nos. 117 to 120 are drafting amendments. That is perhaps sufficient explanation of them.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
121 Clause 33, page 29, line 23, after 'examination', insert 'or other assessment'.
122 Page 29, line 24, at end insert; 'but if the child is of sufficient understanding to make an informed decision he may refuse to submit to the examination or other assessment'.
123 Page 29, line 27, after 'examination', insert 'or assessment'.
124 Page 29, line 28, after 'examination', insert 'or assessment'.
125 Page 29, line 28, at end insert —
'(7A) A direction under subsection (6) may be —

(a) given when the interim order is made or at any time while it is in force; and

(b) varied at any time on the application of any person falling within any class of person prescribed by rules of court for the purposes of this subsection.'.

126 Page 29, line 29, leave out subsection (8;, and insert —
'(8) Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 3 shall not apply in relation to an interim supervision order'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 121 to 126. I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 142 to 145.
This group of amendments deals with the important question of medical and psychiatric examination and assessment of a child who is the subject of an interim care order, interim supervision order or an emergency protection order. There are similar provisions in the new clause, Amendment No. 139 establishing a child assessment order.
Amendments Nos. 121,123,124, 142, 144 and 145 extend the direction-making power of the court in a modest but potentially useful way. The Bill provides at Clauses 33(6) and 36(4) that a court when making an interim care or supervision order or an emergency protection order may given directions as to the medical or psychiatric examination of the child. Addition of the words "or other assessment" provide that the court's direction powers are not limited to medical or psychiatric examinations. It is easy to see that other types assessment might be helpful to the court.
Amendments Nos. 122 and 143 are in response to a long-running debate started in this House by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and continued in the other place about whether the Bill should contain an explicit statement about the child's right to refuse consent to an examination or assessment if he is of

767
sufficient understanding to do so. There can be no doubt about the position in the general law, which is that children over 16 are to be presumed to be competent to give or refuse consent, and that the Family Law Reform Act 1969 must also be regarded as not excluding the possibility that a child under the age of 16 may be competent to give or withhold consent. The Gillick judgment confirmed that children under 16 have a legal capacity to consent to examination and treatment if they are of sufficient understanding to make an informed decision.
It was argued that giving the courts a power to give directions in relation to medical and psychiatric examinations would make the general law uncertain on the question of consent. We thought it unlikely that a court would give such directions, or a doctor act on them, in the face of refusal of consent by the mature child, though not all were reassured by this opinion.
The last thing the Government want is uncertainty about the position where a child of sufficient understanding refuses consent, including about what the doctor should do. Our main concern was that we should not provide openings for the suspected abuser to bring pressure on the child to withold consent. A child capable of making an informed decision could still feel intimidated and allow his views to be subverted. We accept, however, that this is a problem to address in guidance.
We shall encourage local authorities and doctors in guidance to explore where possible the child's reason for withholding consent. Those concerned would be able to try to persuade the child to see the advantages of allowing the examination to go ahead but would not be able to overrule the child if the court accepted that he was of sufficient understanding to make an informed decision. We accept that the rights of the child of sufficient understanding to give or withhold consent should be put beyond doubt. Amendments Nos. 122 and 143 write this point specifically into the provisions on interim care and supervision orders and emergency protection orders, and there is a similar provision in the new clause on child assessment orders —Amendment No. 139.
The purpose of Amendment No. 125 is, first, to make clear that the court may exercise its power under subsection (6) to give directions about medical or psychiatric examinations and other assessments when it makes an interim care order or interim supervision order or at any time while the interim order is in force; and, secondly, to provide that such a direction may be varied at any time on the application of any person who is recognised in the rules of court. There are identical provisions in Clause 36(6) in relation to directions given in support of emergency protection orders.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Baroness David: My Lords, I am pleased to see these amendments. As the noble and learned Lord said, we had considerable discussions. He was good
768
enough to say that he saw that there was a point and that he would consider it. I am pleased that he has decided to put this provision into the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
127 Clause 34, page 29, line 38, leave out `varied or'.
128 Page 30, line 9, leave out subsection (5).
129 Page 30, line 12, after 'When', insert `a court is'.
130 Page 30, line 13, leave out from '(4)' to `any' in line 16.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 127 to 130. I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 132 and 133.
Clause 34(1) currently provides for the court to vary or discharge a care order. This follows terminology used in the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. However, under the Bill the effect of a care order is such that there will no longer be any way in which a care order can be varied, so Amendments Nos. 127, 132 and 133 remove that power and all subsequent references to variation of this order. If a technical change is required such as designation of a different local authority as the responsible local authority, this would be effected by means of an appeal on the point in question.
Amendment No. 128 relates to Clause 34(5), which as presently drafted allows the court to substitute a care order for a supervision order on the application of any person entitled to apply for the supervision order to be discharged. Amendment No. 128, which was prompted by the Opposition in the other place, would remove this power, which on reflection we accept is excessive. It does not seem appropriate for a higher order to be substituted for a lower order without the conditions for such an order being satisfied afresh.
Amendment No. 129 corrects a drafting omission to make clear that Clause 34(6) refers to consideration by the court of the matters under that subsection.
Amendment No. 130 would remove the powers of the court to make any other order with respect to the child when considering an application for a discharge of a care or supervision order. Again we do not believe on reflection that the court should have such a wide ranging power in these circumstances.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
131 After Clause 34, insert the following new Clause—
'Orders pending appeals in cases about care or supervision orders
.—(1) Where —

(a) a court dismisses an application for a care order; and

769

(b) at the time when the court dismisses the application, the child concerned is the subject of an interim care order,

the court may make a care order with respect to the child to have effect subject to such directions (if any) as the court may see fit to include in the order.
(2) Where—

(a) a court dismisses an application for a care order, or an application for a supervision order; and

(b) at the time when the court dismisses the application, the child concerned is the subject of an interim supervision order,

the court may make a supervision order with respect to the child to have effect subject to such directions (if any) as the court may see fit to include in the order.
(3) Where a court grants an application to discharge a care order or supervision order, it may order that —

(a) its decision is not to have effect; or

(b) the care order, or supervision order, is to continue to have effect but subject to such directions as the court sees fit to include in the order.

(4) An order made under this section shall only have effect for such period, not exceeding the appeal period, as may be specified in the order.
(5) Where —

(a) an appeal is made against any decision of a court under this section; or

(b) any application is made to the appellate court in connection with a proposed appeal against that decision,

the appellate court may extend the period for which the order in question is to have effect, but not so as to extend it beyond the end of the appeal period.
(6) In this section "the appeal period" means —

(a) where an appeal is made against the decision in question, the period between the making of that decision and the determination of the appeal; and

(b) otherwise, the period during which an appeal may be made against the decision.'

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 131. I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 309.
I shall deal first with Amendment No. 131. Where a court refuses to grant a care order, but the child is subject to an interim care order, the court may make a care order with respect to the child pending an appeal. In a similar way, a court may order that a child subject to interim supervision may remain under supervision pending an appeal, where a supervision or care order is refused.
The court will also have power to stay a discharge of a care or supervision order pending appeal. Such orders pending appeal or stays may not last beyond the determination of the appeal or the expiry of the time for appealing. Any extensions of these orders must be sought from the Appellate Court, rather than the court of first instance.
Amendment No. 309 applies to orders giving the court's approval to arrangements for a child in local authority care to live abroad. This approval may be "stayed" pending appeal. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
132 Clause 35, page 30, line 44, leave out 'variation or'.
133 Page 30, line 45, after 'or', insert 'the variation or discharge of a'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 132 and 133. I spoke to these amendments when I moved Amendment No. 127.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House and of the noble and learned Lord if I were to raise some anxieties about the guardians ad litem, because Amendments Nos. 132 and 133 relate to Clause 35 which in turn relates to these guardians. There has been a long running debate over the independence of the panels of guardians ad litem. The issue of the independence and status of such panels has been raised at almost every stage of the Bill's proceedings.
As I understand it, there remain three anxieties. First, it is regretted that the Bill does not provide for a separate and independent administration of funding of the panels. We appreciate that the Government have put forward the concept of an area panel which would embrace more than one local authority. However, I am told that there is very little support for the concept, and that it has in general been received with some dismay. Therefore I wonder whether the Government are prepared to think again on the issue and provide in the regulations for a truly independent structure.
The second anxiety arises out of recent speeches, including one made on 24th October at a family law conference by Her Honour Judge Bracewell QC, who is advising on the judicial administration necessary to ensure the best possible transition for new procedures. She said there will be considerable problems in having children represented by solicitors where guardians ad litem had been appointed and where there is no conflict of interest between the guardian and the child.
I understand that this situation has caused a great deal of concern among guardians ad litem. They believe that the independent representation of children cannot best be achieved if they are called upon to act as advocates, as well as being investigators and expert witnesses. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord is able to elaborate upon the difficulties envisaged by Her Honour Judge Bracewell.
The third anxiety is the need to emphasise the importance of collecting statistics on the non-appointment of guardians. In Clause 63 the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to call upon the clerks of the court to submit information about proceedings relating to children. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord is in a position to confirm that the Secretary of State will require the clerk of each court to submit information about the number of non-appointments of guardians and the reasons therefor.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am happy to address these matters which are of fundamental importance in relation to the implementation of the Bill. As noble Lords will be aware, the making of major changes in structure is difficult to accomplish while the structure is serving its current needs. We must try to deal with what we have and build upon it. That is the idea behind the panel system: trying to amalgamate local authorities so as to give a greater independence to the panel than it would have if it was connected only with a single local authority.
I am not surprised to hear that the idea has not been received with the most tremendous enthusiasm. But, on the other hand, trying to construct a national service would perhaps be received with even less enthusiasm, at least in some quarters. Therefore this is a step in the right direction and one which the Secretary of State will be pursuing.
Mention was made of the statement made by Her Honour Judge Bracewell. I do not know the precise context of the remark. However, my understanding is that the present arrangement for the guardian ad litem to instruct a representative remains. That is my understanding of the situation at present.
Another important issue was raised in this House when the Bill was before this Chamber on a previous occasion. It concerns the funding of guardians ad litem. As your Lordships know, an amendment was put forward to deal with the matter. The important consideration is that the local authorities concerned with guardians ad litem should make sufficient funds available to ensure that there is a proper arrangement for the necessary guardians. The amendment was withdrawn after I indicated that we would consider the matter further.
I am glad to say that I can now tell your Lordships that the Government propose to look for an early legislative opportunity to take a reserve power to enable the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, to make a specific grant in respect of expenditure for the setting up of the administration of panels established under regulations made under Clause 35(7); for the corresponding provisions to be added to the Adoption Act by way of Amendment No. 372; and for training fees and other expenses for panel members.
This is an important reserve power which we hope to put into legislation at an early opportunity. However, we must bear in mind all the problems we have with the legislative programme. It would be a reserve power to be used only if it proved necessary to do so in order to secure improvements to this important service for children in need.
So far as concerns the collection of information, the situation is that information from the courts is referred to in sufficiently general phrases to enable us to collect the information. Obviously anything that prevents a case being expeditiously and properly disposed of will be a matter upon which we shall wish to have information. I believe that the information-gathering machinery is adequate to ensure that matter. I hope that those remarks will reassure the noble Lord on the matters that he raised.
6.00 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the information that he has given us. I am sure that those who are concerned about the independence and effectiveness of the panel will welcome the news that the Government propose to secure a reserve power. That is moving in the right direction.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we have departed slightly from the subject matter that I was moving. I believe that we had reached Amendments Nos. 132 and 133.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
134 Clause 35, page 30, line 45, at end insert —
`(cc) on an application under section 34(4);'.
135 Page 31, line 4, at end insert —
`(ee) under Part V;'.
136 Page 31, line 12, after '(ii), insert —
'(iv) the refusal of an application under section 34(4);
(v) the making, or refusal to make, an order under Part V'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendments Nos. 134 to 136.
I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 154. These are technical amendments which would extend the list of proceedings in Clause 35(6) under which a guardian ad litem may be appointed in accordance with subsection (1).
Amendment No. 134 rectifies an omission by including a reference to proceedings under Clause 34(4) under which those who are entitled to apply for the discharge of a care order may apply for the order to be substituted by a supervision order.
Amendment No. 135 adds proceedings under Part V. They are currently found in Clause 37(12), which Amendment No. 154 amends accordingly.
Amendment No. 136 adds to the list appeals against the refusal of an application under Clause 34(4) and the making or refusal to make an order under Part V.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
137 Clause 35, page 31, line 42 at end insert —
`(11) Regardless of any enactment or rule of law which would otherwise present it from doing so, the court may take account of —

(a) any statement contained in a report made by a guardian ad litem who is appointed under this section for the purpose of the proceedings in question; and

(b) any evidence given in respect of the matters referred to in the report,

in so far as the statement or evidence is, in the opinion of the court, relevant to the question which the court is considering.'.
138 After Clause 35, insert the following new clause —
'Right of guardian ad litem to have access to local authority records.
. —(1) Where a person has been appointed as a guardian ad litem under this Act he shall have the right at all reasonable times to examine and take copies of —

(a) any records of, or held by, a local authority which were compiled in connection with the making, or proposed making, by any person of any application under this Act with respect to the child concerned; or

(b) any other records of, or held by, a local authority which were compiled in connection with any functions which stand referred to their social services committee under the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, so far as those records relate to that child.

(2) Where a guardian ad litem takes a copy of any record which he is entitled to examine under this section, that copy or any part of it shall be admissible as evidence of any matter referred to in any —

(a) report which he makes to the court in the proceedings in question; or

(b) evidence which he gives in those proceedings.

(3) Subsection (2) has effect regardless of any enactment or rule of law which would otherwise prevent the record in question being admissible in evidence.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the house do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 137 and 138.
Amendment No. 137 provides for the contents of a guardian ad litem's report, and any evidence given in respect of the matters referred to in it, to be taken into account by the court (in so far as they are relevant to the question before it) irrespective of any enactment or rule of evidence which would otherwise prevent that.
Amendment No. 138 will give a guardian ad litem, appointed under this Bill, a positive right to inspect records held by a local authority relating to a child who is the subject of an application to the court. Under subsection (1), the right to inspect will include a right to take copies of the records. Any copies so taken will be admissible as evidence of any matter referred to by the guardian in his report or oral evidence, irrespective of any rule of law to the contrary.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
139 Before Clause 36, insert the following new Clause —
'Child assessment orders
. —(1) On the application of a local authority or authorised person for an order to be made under this section with respect to a child, the court may make the order if, but only if, it is satisfied that —

(a) the applicant has reasonable cause to suspect that the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm;

(b) an assessment of the state of the child's health or development, or of the way in which he has been treated, is required to enable the applicant to determine whether or not the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and

(c) it is unlikely that such an assessment will be made, or be satisfactory, in the absence of an order under this section.

(2) In this Act "a child assessment order" means an order under this section.
(3) A court may treat an application under this section as an application for an emergency protection oder.
(4) No court shall make a child assessment order if it is satisfied —

(a) that there are grounds for making an emergency protection order with respect to the child; and

(b) that it ought to make such an order rather than a child assessment order.

(5) A child assessment order shall—

(a) specify the date by which the assessment is to begin; and

(b) have effect for such period, not exceeding 7 days beginning with that date, as may be specified in the order.

(6) Where a child assessment order is in force with respect to a child it shall be the duty of any person who is in a position to produce the child—

(a) to produce him to such person as may be named in the order; and

(b) to comply with such directions relating to the assessment of the child as the court thinks fit to specify in the order.

(7) A child assessment order authorises any person carrying out the assessment, or any part of the assessment, to do so in accordance with the terms of the order.
(8) Regardless of subsection (7), if the child is of sufficient understanding to make an informed decision he may refuse to submit to a medical or psychiatric examination or other assessment.
(9) The child may only be kept away from home —

(a) in accordance with directions specified in the order;

(b) if it is necessary for the purposes of the assessment; and

(c) for such period or periods as may be specified in the order.

(10) Where the child is to be kept away from home, the order shall contain such directions as the court thinks fit with regard to the contact that he must be allowed to have with other persons while away from home.
(11) Any person making an application for a child assessment order shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that notice of the application is given to —

(a) the child's parents;

(b) any person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him;

(c) any other person caring for the child;

(d) any person in whose favour a contact order is in force with respect to the child;

(e) any person who is allowed to have contact with the child by virtue of an order under section 29; and

(f) the child,

before the hearing of the application.
(12) Rules of court may make provision as to the circumstances in which —

(a) any of the persons mentioned in subsection (11); or

(b) such other person as may be specified in the rules, may apply to the court for a child assessment order to be varied or discharged.

(13) In this section "authorised person" means a person who is an authorised person for the purposes of section 26.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 139.
I spoke to Amendment No. 139 earlier.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 139
139A Leave out lines 11 and 12 and insert —
("(c) it is unlikely that such an assessment will be made because any of the persons in subsection (1A) have unreasonably refused to produce the child for a medical or psychiatric examination or other assessment or because access to the child has been unreasonably refused to a person authorised to seek access.
(1A) the persons referred to in subsection (1)(c) are —

(a) the child's parents;

(b) any person who is not a parent but who has parental responsibility for him;

(c) any other person caring for the child.

(1B) "a person authorised to seek access" means —

(a) in the case of an application by a local authority, an officer of the local authority or a person authorised by the authority to act on their behalf in connection with their inquiries; or

(b) in the case of an application by an authorised person, that person.").

Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with the permission of the House I propose to speak to both Amendments No. 139A and Amendment No. 139B. There is so much unanimity —if I may put it that way —in your Lordships' House about the desirability of getting this measure on the statute book as soon as possible, that I can announce, before I say anything, that if the noble and learned Lord is unable to accept the amendment, there is no question of the House being divided.
I make a point immediately that if the noble and learned Lord, in his wisdom, feels that an amendment should be accepted by the Government, I am told that, if it went back to the other place, it would not be a procedure which is likely to delay the Bill. It is in that spirit that I ask him on behalf of the Government to consider carefully the importance of the amendment.
Perhaps I may first say what is the purpose of the amendment. It is to see that the child assessment order, with which we are dealing, will clearly reflect what it was intended to become.
The point of Amendment No. 139B is to see that the period of time during which a child can be removed from home under such an order is reduced. If I may, I shall give a little of the history. The whole idea of such an order being made had its birth in the Kimberly Carlile report, in which recommendations were made that an order should be obtainable from the court —it was to be from a magistrate —that a parent should bring a child, within a short period of time, to a clinic or general practitioner so that not just a medical examination but a development assessment could be made. One or two points were made in the report about such an order. Page 154 states:
The order would not physically order the detachment of the child from its parents. There should be no question of family trauma".
When your Lordships' House was considering whether there should be an order separate from an emergency protection order, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on 19th January this year agreed that, although the Government were at that stage against a separate order, he would, in his
776
kindness, consider the matter further. I rely for that on the report of the proceedings in your Lordships' House of that date (cols. 427 and 434).
If one looks at Commons Amendment No. 140, one sees that the Government have introduced an amendment —it came I believe in Committee —to the grounds for granting an emergency protection order. In that amendment they provide that within the emergency protection order there would be a ground that there is suspicion of significant harm to the child where social workers are unreasonably denied access to the child and where there is some evidence to indicate that access to the child is urgently required.
I turn, if I may, to what the Minister, Mr. David Mellor, said on Report in the other place about a child assessment order and what the limitations of that child assessment order would be.
He said:
"There may be a repeated failure to produce a child and perhaps it cannot be asserted that the matter is quite so urgent that there is an immediate need to intervene to take the child away".[Official Report, Commons, 23/10/89: col. 593.]
Then at cols. 594 and 595 on the same date he said:
"it has always been difficult for the House to consider this subject, particularly in the light of several celebrated cases in which people who abused a child repeatedly failed to produce the child".
One has a clear indication from those quotations and from the whole atmosphere in which the assessment order was being dealt with that we were considering cases where access to the child is denied or where parents or carers failed to produce a child —presumably either to a social worker or for examination or assessment.
If we examine the very vague words in the amendment we see the need to do something. We are trying to substitute a clear amendment, in my submission, particularly if one examines subsection (1)(c) of Amendment No. 139:
"it is unlikely that such an assessment will be made, or be satisfactory, in the absence of an order under this section".
The courts must be guided by that; social workers must be guided by it; others who are looking after the child must be guided by it. The words are very vague in connection with an order which we were doubtful about making first of all but have made: we now have the emergency order. It is thought that it makes it so much better —I put it as high as that —if one clearly provides, as our amendment to the Commons amendment seeks to do, that,
"it is unlikely that such an assessment will be made",
because,
"any of the persons in subsection (1A) have unreasonably refused to produce the child for a medical or psychiatric examination or other assessment or because access to the child has been unreasonably refused to a person authorised to seek access".
Then in subsection (1A) we define who those persons are and in subsection (1B) we define,
"a person authorised to seek access".
I ought at once to say that this amendment has the support of a number of bodies which have very great experience in these matters. I am not saying that there is unanimous support from all the bodies which look after children. To obtain unanimity from that great body of volunteer workers is not always

777
possible. However, I can say that a substantial body of opinion is in favour of this clarification and this amendment.
Perhaps I may quickly turn to the time that is suggested in the Commons amendment, namely up to seven days. We thought that the whole idea of this assessment order was upon the basis of no trauma being created. Somebody who ought to gives permission for a medical examination or some kind of examination in regard to the child's development. Someone takes the child and has him for one night. Surely that must be enough, if that action is necessary. Then of course, if necessary, on another day by all means he should be taken. But for us under this provision to provide that a child can be removed for up to seven days from its home seemed again, in the light of the origin and definition of the assessment order, to be wrong.
As I said at the beginning, I am putting this respectfully to the noble and learned Lord in the hope that he will see wisdom and understanding in the two amendments. I tell him beforehand that if he cannot agree to them, because we are so keen on the Bill passing without any hindrance at all in regard to time, my friends and I certainly do not intend to divide the House. However, on the basis that we wish to improve the Bill as much as possible where it is essential to do so, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will give the careful consideration that he always gives to what I have said. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 139A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 139, be agreed to. —(Lord Mishcon.)
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I wish to make quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, appreciates that not everybody gives unqualified support to his amendments. I shall be brief. I have some sympathy for the second amendment. It creates new paragraphs (b) and (c) to subsection (9). I am not at all sure that it is necessary because the situation is covered adequately, I should have thought, by the existing paragraphs (b) and (c).
As to the first amendment, about which the noble Lord spoke at some length. I do not agree with it. I am advised that the issue of failure to obtain access to the child is now dealt with in the emergency protection order. Therefore it is fair to say that if the noble Lord takes any drastic action in the Chamber I shall not be behind him.
Lord Meston: My Lords, the question as to whether there should be any child assessment at all, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has reminded us, was a matter of some controversy and difficulty at the earlier stages of the Bill. What has now been produced in Amendment No. 139 strikes me as a carefully calculated compromise, and none the worse for that.
As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, I think at Committee stage in this House, there is still the risk of the child assessment order being seen by the court as the softer option when what was really required was an emergency protection order.
778
However, we can be reassured to some extent that the new subsection (4) will or ought to direct the mind of the court to the possibility of making an emergency protection order. One simply hopes that that will be enough.
The amendments to this amendment are obviously to be considered separately. Amendment No. 139A strikes me as doing little more than making specific what the Government's amendment spells out only in general terms. It adds words, but nevertheless I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the words will improve the provision by producing clarity in the matter.
As regards Amendment No. 139B, I have certain misgivings because it strikes me as too limiting and too rigid. It has the same limitation as in subsection (5)(b), which has been the source of some concern. One knows in practical terms that if a child has to be removed in order to be medically assessed by a number of specialists, it may be difficult to arrange for the child to see all the specialists required within a period of seven days or indeed within a period of 24 hours. One knows from experience that if a number of specialists are required and there are a limited number of specialists in the given area —some may be on holiday and others may be ill —it may be very difficult for the local authority concerned to co-ordinate them. For those reasons I venture to support Amendment No. 139A but not Amendment No. 139B.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that people are divided on the issue. The Association of Directors of Social Services agrees with the amendment put forward by the Commons. That body has come to an agreement with the NSPCC. The reason for that is that the application for an assessment order helps social workers who have nagging doubts whether there is a problem with a child but are not certain of it. Therefore, they ask for a child assessment order.
I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could clarify one point for me. I had understood that if an assessment order was asked for it did not necessarily mean that the child had to be removed from home. That was the great asset of the child assessment order. The parents or the social worker, or both, could take a child to see a doctor. That measure on the one hand safeguarded the social worker who had a nagging doubt about a child but who was not certain that there was a problem, and on the other hand it helped the child who one did not wish to remove if it could possibly be avoided. On behalf of the Association of Directors of Social Services, I respectfully do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but agree with the Commons amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as has been said, this is an extremely important and difficult issue. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, raised the issue in the correspondence columns of The Times earlier in our deliberations on the Bill. He stated in his letter the point of view that I had put earlier much more clearly than I had done when I dealt with the matter in this House. However, there are great difficulties.

779
As the noble Lord said, this measure bears the marks of a very carefully worked out agreement between the two interests that were promoting rather different points of view when the Bill was before us. With such experts being so divided, it was not easy for the Government to come to a conclusive view on the right way forward. However, no doubt under the effective and pervasive influence of my honourable friend the then Minister responsible for health, they gradually moved together and converged on the contents of Commons Amendment No. 139.
I much appreciate the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, proposed his two amendments because that is the spirit in which, all along, we have sought to approach the Bill. The Bill is an important measure on which there is a substantial degree of agreement. Certainly there is complete agreement on the results to be achieved. If there is any divergence, it is usually on the means by which that should be attained.
On the Commons amendment, I think agreement has been arrived at with a great deal of careful consideration. For that reason I would not readily depart from it in any respect. In answer to my noble friend Lady Faithfull, I should say that the question of a child being away from home is carefully addressed in the amendment because it is one of the more important aspects of it. Commons Amendment No. 139 states in subsection (9) that:
"The child may only be kept away from home —

(a) in accordance with directions specified in the order;

(b) if it is necessary for the purposes of the assessment; and

(c) for such period or periods as may be specified in the order".

There is no question that as a result of granting an order with a seven-day validity a child has to be away from home for seven days or anything of the kind. The idea of the seven-day validity is, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, to secure that the examination or assessment can take place. The court has to decide that. It does not follow that the assessment could immediately be carried out. Arrangements have to be made to do that and some assessments may require some time for arrangements to be made. Originally we proposed rather a longer period of validity for the orders, but as a result of further consideration and pressure to reduce the time involved we reduced it to a period of seven days.
I feel that there may be a slight element of confusion between various people who have considered this matter. If it is thought that the validity of the order is a measure of the time for which a child is to be taken away from home, that is a complete misunderstanding. The idea of the seven-day period is to limit the period for which the order shall be effective.
In many cases I should have thought that there would be no necessity at all for the child to be taken away from home if it is a question of a fairly ordinary kind of medical examination. This is often the kind of medical examination involved when a social worker has a nagging doubt about a child. In such cases all that may be necessary is to take a child to
780
the doctor. A fairly simple examination may be called for.
I find myself in a certain amount of difficulty. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, seriously enjoined on the Government this afternoon the desirability of not legislating in detail but leaving the matter to the courts to decide as regards details. Amendment No. 139A substitutes much more detailed words for the rather general words of subsection (1)(c) of the proposed new clause of Commons Amendment No. 139. I should have thought that the amendment, as the Commons has passed it, is the kind of test which a court would find sufficiently precise to enable it to apply to a great variety of different circumstances.
The situation is certainly not one on which one can reach a clear conclusion. These are difficult issues and I do not wish to pretend that I am absolutely certain that what we have is correct and that there can be no improvement on it. On the other hand, I think that having regard to the history of the way in which the Commons amendment was reached, it would be rather unwise to change it.
As has been explained, I understand that the purpose of Amendment No. 139A is to tighten up the grounds for the orders so that they more closely reflect the perceived need for the orders. However, I believe it would place too narrow a restriction on the ability of courts to make orders. Unreasonable refusal to produce a child for an examination or assessment after a social worker has tried to negotiate that voluntarily could well make it unlikely that in the words of subsection (1)(c) of the proposed new clause:
"such an assessment will be made, or be satisfactory, in the absence of an order".
The order refers to a child assessment order. However, it would be unwise to fail to cater for other eventualities. A calculating parent may produce a child at an inconvenient time or without notice so that the examination or assessment cannot properly go ahead. A parent may interfere in the arrangements so much that an assessment cannot be carried out satisfactorily. It may be difficult to show in such circumstances that there was unreasonable refusal to produce the child. Inclusion on the grounds of a reference to refusal of access may give the wrong signals in the opposite direction. It should not follow automatically where access has been refused that an assessment is needed. There is a risk that if one puts in a condition of this kind the converse may be assumed.
Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of the proposed new clause in the Commons amendment requires a court to be satisfied that an order is required for an assessment to be made or to be satisfactory. A court should apply this condition vigorously. Specifying the circumstances which make it necessary would impose a rigidity which is best avoided. Although I appreciate the spirit in which the measure was proposed, I do not believe that imposing that rigidity on the agreed amendment would be satisfactory.
Turning to Amendment No. 139B, strictly speaking the first part of the amendment is not necessary. It has the same effect as we have proposed.

781
The second part of Amendment No. 139B places a time limit on keeping a child away from home. There can be only one continuous period of 24 hours. As I said earlier, if that was a limit on the amount of time for which the child could be kept away from home the situation would be different, but that is not the purpose of the amendment. It is the validity of the order that is in question.
In the Commons amendment we have made very specific requirements concerning keeping children away from home. The court has to look at the matter very carefully. That is the kind of protection that Amendment No. 139 seeks and I believe that we have attained the result in another way.
I appreciate that many of those who are involved in this area support one or other of the amendments. However, as has been evidenced here tonight, there is also a substantial body of opinion in the other direction. I believe that what is set out in the amendment passed by the Commons is appropriate.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to all those who have participated in the discussion. We all want to achieve a proper end to this issue. With regard to the observations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who is not in his seat, perhaps I may paraphrase a biblical passage by saying that there is a time for precision in detail and a time for a general principle to be enunciated. I believe that a time for precision in detail arises when a child is taken somewhere against the wishes or without the consent of a parent or carer.
Because of what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said —perfectly fairly —about the organisation for which he speaks so eloquently and well (and the same applies to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull), I ought to say that the following organisations supported the objective of the amendment in trying to restrict the broad grounds for a child assessment order: the Family Rights Group, the Children's Legal Centre, the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, the National Children's Bureau, the British Association of Social Workers, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and, dare I say with due reverence, the Law Society.
I have to accept what the noble and learned Lord has said. I made my position perfectly clear when I spoke in favour of the amendment. I should like only to say a word about the question of the period of time. It is very easy to take it for granted that courts, seeing that there is a time limit of seven days, would automatically have in mind that it ought to be the shortest period possible. Evidence has been produced to me that when the 28-day order was prevalent in many courts somebody used to bob up and say, "Could I have a 28-day order, please, your Worship?" The result was that a 28-day order was made, the court having been satisfied that there was a need for an order. One hopes that there will not be the making of automatic seven-day orders in the same way for the assessment orders. I can only hope, when sitting down after asking leave to withdraw the amendment, as I intend to do, that guidelines or
782
instructions will be given to the courts so that they will make orders for the minimum period and not the maximum period. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 139A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 139, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 139B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 139, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 139 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
140 Clause 36, page 32, line 5, leave out from second 'if to end of line 10 and insert 'it is satisfied that —

(a) there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to suffer significant harm if —

(i) he is not removed to accommodation provided by or on behalf of the applicant; or

(ii) he does not remain in the place in which he is then being accommodated;

(b) in the case of an application made by a local authority —

(i) enquiries are being made with respect to the child under section 39(1)(b); and

(ii) those enquiries are being frustrated by access to the child being unreasonably refused to a person authorised to seek access and that the applicant has reasonable cause to believe that access to the child is required as a matter of urgency; or

(c) in the case of an application made by an authorised person —

(i) the applicant has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm;

(ii) the applicant is making enquiries with respect to the child's welfare; and

(iii) those enquiries are being frustrated by access to the child being unreasonably refused to a person authorised to seek access and that the applicant has reasonable cause to believe that access to the child is required as a matter of urgency.

(1A) In this section —

(a) "authorised person" means a person who is an authorised person for the purposes of section 26; and

(b) "a person authorised to seek access" means —

(i) in the case of an application by a local authority, an officer of the local authority or a person authorised by the authority to act on their behalf in connection with the enquiries; or

(ii) in the case of an application by an authorised person, that person.

(1B) Any person —

(a) seeking access to a child in connection with enquiries of a kind mentioned in subsection (1); and

(b) purporting to be a person authorised to do so,

shall, on being asked to do so, produce some duly authenticated document as evidence that he is such a person.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 140. I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 141 and 146.
The amendments deal with emergency protection orders. Those orders, and the lesser child assessment order which we have just considered, will spearhead the new statutory framework for the protection of children. The Government tabled first drafts of the three amendments at Committee stage in the other place and also a draft clause on the child assessment order but did not press them so as to be able to reflect on what was said. My honourable friend the

783
former Minister for Health, Mr. Mellor, also had further discussions with interested voluntary and other organisations on those and other matters.
Amendment No. 140 amends the grounds for an emergency protection order in Clause 36(1) to provide specifically that the court may make an emergency protection order if it is satisfied that the following circumstances apply. Where the application is by a local authority, first, the authority is making inquiries to enable it to decide what action it should take to safeguard or promote the child's welfare under Section 39(1)(b); secondly, those inquiries are being frustrated by access being unreasonably refused to a person authorised to seek access; and, thirdly, the applicant has reasonable cause to believe that access is required as a matter of urgency. Where the applicant for the emergency protection order is an authorised person defined in new paragraph (1A), first, that he has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm and is making inquiries with respect to the child's welfare; secondly, as for applications by a local authority, that those inquiries are being frustrated by access to the child being unreasonably refused to a person authorised to seek access; and, thirdly —again, most importantly —that the applicant has reasonable cause to believe that access is required as a matter of urgency.
We accepted the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Mottistone and others earlier this year that the social worker would probably not be able under the present grounds in subsection (1)(a) and (b) to obtain an emergency protection order where access had been unreasonably refused and there was only limited evidence to suggest an emergency. Your Lordships may remember that my noble friend produced some examples on which he sought my comment. Having considered those examples I thought that they might be brought under the then existing drafting. However, I appreciated that there was a chance that they might not. Accordingly, we make this proposal in order to deal with that matter. It might be difficult, when there were signs of a possible emergency but a lack of firm information to satisfy the present test that there is reasonable cause, to believe that the child is likely to suffer significant harm if he is not removed or kept where he is.
That is a principal point on which the provisions in respect of unreasonable access differ from those of the child assessment order, which is also to be available in cases of unreasonable refusal of access. The emergency protection order is to be available where access and perhaps other emergency action is needed as a matter of urgency; the child assessment order is to be available where the circumstances show, and the court is satisfied, that assessment of the child is the appropriate next step and that there is no particular urgency sufficient to justify an emergency protection order.
An important part of the test for the court is whether the refusal to allow the child to be seen is unreasonable. The court might well consider a refusal unreasonable if it were not accompanied by
784
co-operation in some form —such as taking the child to the GP —sufficient to allay fears about the child's welfare. Rules of court governing these applications will require the applicant to explain what steps he had taken to communicate with the person having care of the child and to warn that emergency protection order proceedings could result.
I understand that the Association of Directors of Social Services and the NSPCC, who were very much involved in these discussions, support the changes. Others have suggested that the changes and the introduction of a child assessment order have upset the balance previously achieved in the Bill between the need to remove children from seriously abusing parents and the need to protect families. It is important that we strike the right balance and not tip the scales too far in one direction. I believe that we have reached this balance.
Part of the argument which has been put is that at the end of the day social workers will find it hard not to remove children under an emergency protection order, in spite of constraints on such action built into Clause 36 and to be strengthened if Amendment No. 141 in this group is agreed. I do not accept that in the new climate of greater awareness of available powers and responsibilities which the Bill is intended to create, the removal power will be misused.
The emphasis on urgency, court scrutiny of applications, making orders only where this is necessary and removing the child only when that is necessary will ensure that the balance we seek is achieved in practice. A better argument is that we did not get this balance quite right in early versions of the Bill, because in the serious frustrated access case it would have been too difficult to secure an emergency protection order.
Amendments Nos. 141 and 146 are intended further to improve the provisions on emergency protection to ensure that the power of removal and power to prevent the child's removal from a safe place, such as a hospital, are used only when it is necessary for the welfare of the child to do so.
Subsection (3)(a) as presently drafted requires any person who has parental responsibility for a child as a result of an emergency protection order to take, but only take, such action in meeting that responsibility as is reasonably required to safeguard or promote the child's welfare, having regard to the duration of the order. This requirement applies to action under subsection (2)(b) and (c); that is, removal or prevention of removal and the exercise of parental responsibility.
We think however that this important message can be strengthened still further. Amendment No 141 recasts subsection (3) to refer specifically to the power to remove the child or prevent removal of the child under subsection (2)(b), and to require while an emergency protection order is in force that this should be exercised only in order to safeguard the welfare of the child. In other words, in this part we have taken out,
"promote the welfare of the child".
That means he should not use the subsection 2(b) powers unless it is necessary to do so in order to

785
safeguard the child's welfare. This is a much stronger restraint on unnecessary removal than the present formulation.
Subsection (7) requires the emergency protection order applicant who has exercised either of these powers to return the child (or allow him to be removed from the hospital etc.) if he considers it safe to do so. Amendment No. 146 makes specific reference to exercise of each of the powers in subsection 2(b)(i) and (ii) for greater emphasis. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like very briefly to say thank you to my noble and learned friend for having gone such a long way, both in the amendments to which he has just been referring and also in Amendment No. 139. We were talking earlier about an amendment to that. It is splendid the way, after all this time, my noble and learned friend has come up with a solution which is flexible enough to be made to work. It will be very interesting to see how it goes.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
6.45 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
141 Before Clause 36, page, 32, line 25, leave out from beginning to 'as' in line 28, and insert—
'(3) Where an emergency protection order is in force with respect to a child, the applicant
(a) shall only exercise the power given by virtue of subsection (2)(b) in order to safeguard the welfare of the child;
(aa) shall take and shall only take such action in meeting his parental responsibility for the child.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 141. I have already spoken to this and move it formally.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 141
141A Line 7, at end insert—
("(aaa) may apply to the court for an exclusion order").
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady David, I beg to move Amendment No. 141A. My noble friend has asked me to apologise for the fact that she was unable to stay in the House to move the amendment and to speak in support of it.
If my noble friend Lady David had been here she would have made it clear that this is no more than a probing amendment. The amendment as it stands poses a dilemma between the duty to protect the welfare of the child, and the need to ensure that injustice is not done to a parent who is wrongfully accused of abusing his child. The amendment
786
represents one approach. On the other hand, we are bound to ask whether a mere possibility of exposing a child to risk of abuse should support the making of an exclusion order.
We appreciate that the Law Commission in a recent working paper has specifically examined this complicated issue and expressed a view as to how it should be resolved. It is a difficult issue. I believe that my noble friend Lady David was particularly anxious to know whether she could tempt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to express a view at the moment about this content ious issue and the best way of resolving it.
Moved, that Amendment No. 141A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 141, be agreed to. —(Lord Prys-Davies.)
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, at Committee and Report stages we considered amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, respectively about undertakings by a member of the household to vacate the home where an application for an emergency protection order was being considered. I said that this was an important issue which raised difficult questions and which we were still considering.
I should like, seeing as I mentioned the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, to say how much we miss him on this occasion. He was with us for most of the debates when we had the Bill before us, and I am sure that all of us would like to see him quickly restored to his normal health.
I am thinking of the noble and learned Lord, the noble Baroness, Lady David, and I have no doubt also the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in moving this amendment. We have no disagreement on the underlying principle that, in some cases, removal of the abused child can be as traumatic or even more traumatic for the child than the abuse itself and a better course may be to try to have the suspected abuser leave. The question is whether it is necessary to change the law in order to facilitate an outcome of this kind in appropriate cases, and if so in what way.
The Law Commission have initiated discussions on these very questions in their welcome consultative document, to which reference has already been made, Domestic Violence and Occupation in the Family Home, Working Paper No. 113, published for comment in August.
They made three introductory points. First, the possibility of ousting an abuser, or suspected abuser, from the home instead of having to remove the child would be an effective protection against child abuse in a relatively small proportion of cases. The abuse must be of a kind for which only one of the adults in the household is responsible, and there must be another adult able to look after the child properly and willing to co-operate in the exclusion of the other. The possibility of ousting a suspected abuser is probably most relevant in cases of sexual abuse or serious one-off acts of violence.
Secondly, any attempt to turn the present hotch-potch of enactments into a coherent scheme

787
of law on occupation of the family home and protection of family members from domestic violence and molestation —the remit of the Law Commission itself—faces considerable problems. Devising even a limited scheme for the protection of children is not without difficulty. The law in this field is not at all simple and there are issues which need to be taken into consideration before decisions are made.
Thirdly, in particular the Court of Appeal in domestic proceedings has repeatedly emphasised the draconian nature of exclusion orders which in the longer term can have serious implications for property and occupational rights. This consultative document is a first important stage in the process by which the Law Commission reviews existing law and puts forward proposals for reform, just as it did on the reforms of private child care law which are now embodied in the Bill.
The next step is for comments on the proposals to be sent to the Law Commission by the end of November and for it to consider those comments. Those who have read the consultative document will know that the Law Commission specifically asked for views on 20 questions listed in Appendix B of the document. While no fundamental change in the present system is suggested, the Law Commission says that a number of important issues have to be addressed. In a field as complex as this one, more harm than good can be caused by rushing hastily into legislation.
That means that at present the Government cannot bring forward substantive proposals. They must await the Law Commission's recommendations following the consultation exercise. However, we propose to clarify local authorities' power to assist the suspected abuser to find alternative accommodation. That is the concern of Amendment No. 290 to which I shall speak later. So within the rather difficult framework of the existing law we are trying to move somewhat in the direction of this amendment; but to go along with the amendment at this stage, as I think the noble Lord will recognise, would be premature. The difficulties are great but the will to find a good solution to them is very strong.
I am able to illustrate that difficulty by the present Bill. It was preceded by a great number of consultations, the White Paper and the Law Commission work. Yet when the Bill begins its parliamentary process there is much further discussion and improvement such as we are witnessing tonight. So in a complicated area such as this I think it would be rather unwise to seek to move too quickly.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene for one moment before the noble Lord rises. I should like at once to say that I am sure that my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones will very much appreciate the kind reference that the noble and learned Lord made about him and the way in which your Lordships received it.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I rise to say very briefly that the NSPCC advises me that it supports the principle that an alleged offender should be removed from the home rather than the child but, for the reasons which my noble and learned friend gave at some length, it has not yet seen a draft which fully meets the requirements to satisfy the child's safety, the offender's civil rights and the financial position of the family. I should like to tell the House what the society's founder, Benjamin Waugh, said in 1884:
"Our aim is to remove the evil from the child not the child from his home".
I believe that that quotation is underlined by much that is in this Bill. It might perhaps guide us in those parts which have not yet been tied up.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should like to make just one point. I confess that I had another solution to the problem of an alleged abuser who does not want to move out of his home and feels that he is being unfairly treated. My solution was to have an empty flat which we offered to the mother and the children for them to move to. I think that that ought to be considered as well. It could not possibly be put in the Bill but it is good practice. It is fair to the child for the child to remain with the mother, brothers and sisters; it is fair to the man, because if he felt that he was being treated unfairly he could stay in the home. I just throw in that suggestion.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for his response to this amendment, which, as I said at the beginning, is a probing amendment. I am sure that my noble friend Lady David and my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones will read with great interest the words spoken by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. They will be studied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 141A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 141, by leave withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 141 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
142 Clause 36, page 32, line 37, after 'examination', insert 'or other assessment'.
143 Page 32, line 37, at end insert
'(4A) Where any direction is given under subsection (4)(b), the child may, if he is of sufficient understanding to make an informed decision refuse to submit to the examination or other assessment.'.
144 Page 32, line 40, after 'examination', insert 'or assessment'.
145 Page 32, line 41, after 'examination', insert 'or assessment'.
146 Page 33, line 2, leave out from 'child' to end of line 4 and insert 'and—

(a) the applicant has exercised the power given by subsection (2)(b)(i) but it appears to him it is safe for the child to be returned; or

(b) the applicant has exercised the power given by subsection (2)(b)(ii) but it appears to him that it is safe for the child to be allowed to be removed from the place in question.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 142 and 143 with Amendment No. 121. I have also spoken to Amendments Nos. 144 and 145. I spoke to Amendment No. 146 with Amendment No. 140. With the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 142 to 146 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
147 Clause 36, page 33, line 30, after 'him', insert —
'(dd) any person who is allowed to have contact with the child by virtue of an order under section 29;'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in moving that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 147, I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 157. Amendments Nos. 147 and 157 extend the list of persons in Clauses 36(10) and 38(10) with whom reasonable contact should be allowed with a child who is subject to an emergency protection order or who is in police protection respectively to include any person who is allowed to have contact with that child by virtue of an order under Clause 29. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
148 Clause 36, page 33, line 34, at end insert—
'(12) A person shall be guilty of an offence if he intentionally obstructs any person exercising the power under subsection (2)(b) ro remove, or prevent the removal of, a child.
(13) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (12) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in moving agreement to this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 162, 209, 210 and 211.
This group of amendments rationalises various provisions for offences. Amendment No. 148 inserts an offence into Clause 36 which deals with the emergency protection of children. The amendment provides that a person who intentionally obstructs the holder of the emergency protection order in his exercise of these powers would be guilty of an offence attracting on summary conviction a fine not exceeding level 3.
Amendment No. 162 makes similar provision in relation to any person intentionally obstructing the holder of an emergency protection order who had been authorised to enter premises and search for a child under Clause 40(3).
Amendments Nos 209, 210 and 211 rationalise the penalties provided for in Clause 59 for offences committed in relation to private fostering. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
149 Clause 37, page 34, line 11, leave out from 'may' to end of line 20 and insert 'extend the period during which the order is to have effect by such period, not exceeding seven days, as it thinks fit, but may do so only if it has reasonable cause to believe that the child concerned is likely to suffer significant harm if the order is not extended.'.
150 Page 34, line 29, leave out from '(8)' to 'any' in line 30.
151 Page 34, line 38, leave out 'made by virtue of rules under subsection (8)' and insert 'for the discharge of an emergency protection order'.
152 Page 34, line 40, at end insert —
'(9A) No appeal may be made against the making of, or refusal to make, an emergency protection order or against any direction given by the court in connection with such an order.'.
153 Page 34, line 41, after 'apply', insert '—

(a) where the person who would otherwise be entitled to apply for the emergency protection order to be discharged —

(i) was given notice (in accordance with rules of court) of the hearing at which the order was made; and

(ii) was present at that hearing; or

(b)'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I propose to move agreement of Commons Amendments Nos. 149 to 153 together. These amendments make changes to provisions in Clause 37 on extensions to emergency protection orders and applications to discharge emergency protection orders and deal with the question of appeals.
Amendment No. 149 seeks to remove an anomaly. An emergency protection order may be made for up to eight days. Subsection (5) provides that the court may extend an emergency protection order for up to seven more days if two requirements are met. One is that the court (on the information put before it) is satisfied that the child is likely to suffer significant harm if the order is not extended. The other requirement at present is that the court is satisfied that the person making the application for the extension is not ready to apply for a care order and has reasonable grounds for not being ready.
However, that second requirement could prevent the court extending the emergency protection order even though it was satisfied that this was necessary for the child's protection. If by chance the applicant could not satisfy the court that he had reasonable grounds for not being ready to apply for a care order—the case may have been badly mishandled or something may have gone wrong in connection with its preparation —the child could not be given further protection on an extended emergency order. As a result he might have to return to a dangerous situation. The only test for extending an emergency protection order should be whether it is needed for the avoidance of significant harm to the child.
Amendments Nos. 150, 151 and 153 are about applications to discharge an emergency protection order. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, voiced concern about the rules of court in relation to emergency protection orders on 19th January, in response to which I had the pleasure of writing to him on 13th March.
Clause 37(8) at present provides that the circumstances in which the child, parents and certain

791
other people may apply for discharge of an emergency protection order may be set out in rules of court. It was argued that the ability to apply for an emergency protection order to be discharged could be seriously curtailed by rules of court and that any intended restrictions should be set out in the Bill. We take the point that entitlement to apply for discharge of an emergency protection order should be stated more positively, and this group of amendments makes the necessary changes to subsections (8) to (10).
Amendment No. 153 places in subsection (10) the principal point that we would have wanted to provide for in rules of court under the original approach. This is that entitlement to apply for discharge of an emergency protection order would not apply where the person concerned was given notice of and attended the hearing at which the application for the emergency protection order was considered.
Amendment No. 152 prohibits appeals from the making or refusal of an emergency protection order and any directions consequential upon such an order. The child and a parent, and anyone else who has parental responsibility for him or with whom he lives, will be able to challenge emergency protection orders 72 hours after they have been made, under Clause 37(8) and (9) of the Bill. This will adequately safeguard the position of the child and those close to him. Given the short duration and emergency nature of these orders, no other provision is necessary. Indeed, a formal appeal procedure, with the added delay it would necessarily involve, would be singularly inappropriate. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord found any pleasure in sending me a letter, perhaps I may tell him that I had even more pleasure in receiving it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
154 Page 35, line 1, leave out subsection (12).
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 154. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 134.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration of Commons Amendments be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the House does not return to this business until five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Trade Union Act 1984 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.3 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: 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 Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged. —(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Recording Equipment) Regulations 1989
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th July be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Recording Equipment) Regulations 1989 be approved
A new scheme to approve repairers of tachographs came into operation on 1st April following lengthy consultations and discussions with interested parties. The purpose of the scheme is to introduce greater competition into the tachograph repair market and to ensure that repairs are of a satisfactory standard. Under the new scheme, repairers of tachographs will be approved if they meet the British Standards Institution quality standard known as BS5750 or an equivalent standard under the quality assurance scheme. These regulations provide for offences and penalties in connection with the scheme, although an initial period for repairers to register under the scheme has been allowed before these regulations come into force. The main interested parties have been told about our proposals to introduce these offences and no objections have been raised.
The greater competition which the new scheme is designed to introduce should help keep repair costs down. It will also end the virtual monopoly of the repair market enjoyed by the three major tachograph manufacturers. The reason why they have had this virtual monopoly is that most of the authorised tachograph calibration centres operate under the sponsorship of one or other of the manufacturers. Many centres have an agreement with their sponsor to sell or install only their sponsor's products. Under the new scheme an operator will be able to specify that his tachograph be repaired by any authorised repairer.
Penalties are needed for non-compliance with the scheme in order to ensure that it is adhered to. We aim to deter centres from installing or calibrating unapproved repairs by making it clear that, if they install or calibrate a tachograph repaired by an unapproved repairer, they will be liable to have their approval to operate withdrawn. They will have to make sure that a repaired tachograph bears an

793
authorised repairer's seal before installing or calibrating it.
The regulations introduce two types of offence. The most serious of these is the forgery, use or alteration of a tachograph seal with intent to deceive. A person might do this in order to try to pass off an unauthorised repair as a genuine one. The penalty would be a fine of up to £2,000 if tried at a magistrates' court or up to 2 years' imprisonment if tried at a Crown Court.
The other types of offence is for a person to use, or allow to be used, a vehicle fitted with a tachograph which was repaired by an unauthorised repairer. A person charged with this offence will, however, not be guilty if he proves to the court that he neither knew nor ought to have known that the tachograph had not been properly repaired. Thus, if an operator installs a second-hand tachograph which he knows has been repaired by an unauthorised repairer, he will be guilty and liable to a fine of up to £2,000. If, however, a driver is told by the same operator that the tachograph in his vehicle has been legally repaired, and he cannot be expected to have known otherwise, he will not be guilty.
These regulations also amend an existing offence: that of using, or allowing to be used, a vehicle where the tachograph has been illegally installed. A person charged with this offence will not now be guilty if he proves to the court that he neither knew nor ought to have known that the tachograph was illegally installed. The fine for a person found guilty is also raised from £1,000 to £2,000. These charges ensure consistency with the new offence of knowingly using a vehicle fitted with a tachograph which was repaired by an unauthorised repairer.
I trust that your Lordships will agree that these somewhat technical regulations are a necessary accompaniment to the tachograph repair scheme, and will help to ensure compliance with what is a necessary road safety requirement. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for explaining the new regulation. I wish that the explanatory memorandum made some reference to the fact that an intention of the regulation was to increase both the number of repairers and the competition. There is no reference to that in the explanatory memorandum. It is a point that I have made on previous occasions. I find the remainder of the explanatory note helpful. I am glad that the noble Viscount has made some reference to that point.
I regard Regulation 2(3), as being most important. The noble Viscount referred to the possible defence that the individual neither knew nor ought to have known that the equipment was installed or repaired not in accordance with the Community regulation.
I have found the Freight Transport Association Drivers' Handbook in my records. I do not have the date of its issue. Mr. Peter Bottomley was then the Minister for Roads and Traffic. That may give some idea of the date.
I should like to refer to two passages which I found extremely helpful. On page 10 it states:
794
"All vehicles required to be fitted with tachographs must have the equipment calibrated and sealed".
It continues:
"The sealing provision is evidence that the equipment has not been tampered with. Calibration and sealing has to be undertaken at a centre approved by the Secretary of State for Transport".
It goes on to state:
"All equipment must be checked when it is installed and after it has been repaired at an approved calibration centre".
The point is not explained in the booklet, so can the noble Viscount say who has the responsibility for carrying out the checking? That is a most important matter. Will the approved centre be responsible for any failure or fault and be caught by the new Section 97AA mentioned in Regulation 3 or are the important words "with intent to deceive"? What will happen to a centre which, after checking, is found not to have properly carried out the repair in accordance with Community regulations?
I am advised that there is often difficulty when the enforcement officer or examiner seeks to check on a driver's hours and rest breaks by looking at the records. That is the purpose of the tachograph. I am also informed that all tachograph discs are identical and therefore delays and difficulties arise during the important checking. Is it not desirable that tachograph discs are marked with serial numbers? That would simplify checks with a particular driver.
On referring to other records I found that in July last year this matter was raised in a debate in another place. I have looked quickly at the ministerial reply but can see no reference to it. I shall be grateful if the noble Viscount can reply tonight. This is a useful regulation which we should like to see enforced as soon as possible.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for introducing the regulations so comprehensively. During Question Time today I was moved to suggest that the cam eras were in the Chamber for the purpose of listening to this important debate. Therefore I am surprised to see that they are covered and that the camera usually in the Gallery has disappeared. Consequently, I shall save for another occasion the long and important speech that I had intended to deliver.
This appears to be a perfectly sensible step forward. It makes the use of tachographs more efficient and in some cases easier. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the explanatory note does not go to the heart of the matter as regards the noble Viscount's comments about increasing competition. I should have thought that the Government would have been only too pleased to offer explanatory notes on the subject. It is something of which I approve. The provision under Section 2(3) which gives a statutory defence against mistakes is clearly sensible. I wish the regulation well.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I should like to say only a few words because the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has said everything. These are sensible regulations and I support them 100 per cent. I wish that all private vehicles carried equipment showing the speed at which they were travelling so that it could

795
be produced in case of trouble. I did not know that a tachograph does not have an identifying number and that is a serious lapse. Otherwise, I support the regulations 100 per cent.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, for their reception of the regulations. I have noticed that since the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has sat down the cameras have been removed. I do not know whether there is a connection between the one and the other.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned the Freight Transport Association handbook and asked questions about future procedure. The handbook, issued to its members, has a section on tachographs which the association will no doubt wish to consider amending. The department has issued a new tachograph manual to the calibration centres and it will include information on the new scheme.
A press notice has been issued by the department. Potential repairers can learn of the scheme through the tachograph centre, through publicity in the trade press or by contacting the Department of Transport.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about serialisation. Computerised tachograph analysis systems can detect the driver who drives for a period and then inserts a new chart after destroying the previous one because the odometer will show that he has already driven. Chart serialisation would impose an unnecesary burden on operators in terms of cost and extra work. However, we are prepared to look again at the issue.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down can he deal with the point that I raised? Who carries out the checking after calibration and repairs? If he does not have the answer can he write to me, because somebody must carry through the checking if there is to be control over the repairing?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, calibration centres are approved by the Secretary of State. If the centre fails to carry out checks or install properly, the approval can be withdrawn. If the centre carries out work in such a way as to intend to deceive, by forging seals, for example, it would be guilty of the offence of forgery.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.16 to 8.5 p.m.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
155 Clause 38, page 35, line 29, at end insert—
'(cc) take such steps as are reasonably practicable to discover the wishes and feelings of the child;'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 155. This amendment deals with a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, suggesting that a constable should take the steps described in the amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
156 Clause 38, page 35, line 34, leave out 'by or on behalf of a local authority' and insert —

(i) by or on behalf of a local authority; or

(ii) as a refuge, in compliance with the requirements of section (Refuges for children at risk),'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 156. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 164, 164A and 164B. The new clause "Abduction of Children in Care etc," which would be inserted by Amendment No. 164, will make it an offence to take or keep away from the person responsible for him under the relevant provisions of the Bill a child who is in care, the subject of an emergency protection order or in police protection; or to induce, assist or incite such a child to run away.
Amendment No. 164 provides for the recovery of such children who are abducted, kept away or have run away or are missing. The court may make a recovery order requiring any person who is in a position to do so to produce the child to an authorised person, or authorising the child's removal by the authorised person. A recovery order may also require a person who has information about the child's whereabouts to disclose that information, and may authorise a constable to enter premises and search for the child.
The new clause on refuges for children at risk (Amendment No. 164B) represents the outcome of discussions on the problem of "runaway" children with the Children's Society (which has considerable experience of this problem through its Central London Teenage Project) and others. The noble Lords, Lord Meston, Lord Banks and Lord McGregor of Durris, raised the problem in the Committee stage of the Bill in this House, when I undertook that an amendment would be tabled to give effect to the proposal in the White Paper The Law on Child Care and Family Services that organisations could, in specified circumstances, be exempted from liability as regards the harbouring of children.
Amendment No. 164B, which I understand meets all the concerns of the Children's Society, empowers the Secretary of State to issue certificates where a voluntary home or registered children's home, or local authority or voluntary organisation through a foster parent, propose to provide a refuge for children who appear to be at risk of harm.

797
Subsections (5) and (6) provide that where a certificate is in force the person providing the refuge in the home or as a foster parent will not be liable under any of the harbouring, inciting and other offences in the statutes listed in subsection (7). Subsection (4)(b) will allow the Secretary of State to impose requirements designed to ensure that refuges are properly run.
Amendment No. 156 would amend Clause 38(3)(e) to allow the constable who has taken a child into police protection to place him in a refuge as an alternative to placing him in local authority accommodation.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
157 Clause 38, page 36, line 26, after `child', insert —
'(dd) any person who is allowed to have contact with the child by virtue of an order under section 29;'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 157. I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 147.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
158 Clause 39, page 36, line 34, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 38 and insert —

(a) are informed that a child who lives, or is found, in their area —

(i) is the subject of an emergency protection order; or

(ii) is in police protection; or

(b) have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives, or is found, in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm,'.

159 Page 37, line 17, at end insert —
'(3A) Where enquiries are being made under subsection (1) with respect to a child, the local authority concerned shall (with the view to enabling them to determine what action, if any, to take with respect to him) take such steps as are reasonably practicable —

(a) to obtain access to him; or

(b) to ensure that access to him is obtained, on their behalf, by a person authorised by them for the purpose,

unless they are satisfied that they already have sufficient information with respect to him.'
160 Page 37, line 21, leave out subsection (5) and insert —
'(5) Where, in the course of enquiries made under this section—

(a) any officer of the local authority concerned; or

(b) any person authorised by the authority to act on their behalf in connection with those enquiries —

(i) is refused access to the child concerned; or

(ii) is denied information as to his whereabouts,

the authority shall apply for an emergency protection order, a child assessment order, a care order or a supervision order with respect to the child unless they are satisfied that his welfare can be satisfactorily safeguarded without their doing so.'
161 Page 37, line 29, after first `order,' insert 'a child assessment order,'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 158 to 161. These amendments are intended further to strengthen the Local authority investigation duty in Clause 39 and they complement the "frustrated access" condition for emergency protection orders provided for in Amendment No. 140 and, for non-emergency cases, the new child assessment order (Amendment No. 139).
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
162 Clause 40, page 38, line 34, at end insert —
`(6A) A person shall be guilty of an offence if he intentionally obstructs any person exercising the power of entry and search under subsection (3) or (4).
(6B) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (6A) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 162. I have already:spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 148.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Motion agreed.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
163 Clause 40, page 38, line 44, at end insert; using reasonable force if necessary.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 163. In speaking to this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 246. These amendments are to make clear that where a police constable is authorised by a court warrant to assist a person to exercise certain powers he may use reasonable force if necessary.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
164 After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—
Abduction of children in care etc.
.—(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence if, knowingly and without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, he —

(a) takes a child to whom this section applies away from the responsible person;

(b) keeps such a child away from the responsible person; or

(c) induces, assists or incites such a child to run away or stay away from the responsible person.

(2) This section applies in relation to a child who is —

(a) in care;

(b) the subject of an emergency protection order; or

(c) in police protection,

and in this section "the responsible person" means any person who for the time being has care of him by virtue of the care order, the emergency protection order, or section 38, as the case may be.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
164A Insert the following new clause:—
'Recovery of abducted children etc.
.—(1) Where it appears to the court that there is reason to believe that a child to whom this section applies —

(a) has been unlawfully taken away or is being unlawfully kept away from the responsible person;

(b) has run away or is staying away from the responsible person; or

(c) is missing,

the court may make an order under this section ("a recovery order").
(2) This section applies to the same children to whom section (Abduction of children in care, etc.) applies and in this section "the responsible person" has the same meaning as in section (Abduction of children in care, etc.).
(3) A recovery order —

(a) operates as a direction to any person who is in a position to do so to produce the child on request to any authorised person;

(b) authorises the removal of the child by any authorised person;

(c) requires any person who has information as to the child's whereabouts to disclose that information, if asked to do so, to a constable or an officer of the court;

(d) authorises a constable to enter any premises specified in the order and search for the child, using reasonable force if necessary.

(4) The court may make a recovery order only on the application of —

(a) any person who has parental responsibility for the child by virtue of a care order or emergency protection order; or

(b) where the child is in police protection, the designated officer.

(5) A recovery order shall name the child and —

(a) any person who has parental responsibility for the child by virtue of a care order or emergency protection order; or

(b) where the child is in police protection, the designated officer.

(6) Premises may only be specified under subsection (3Xd) if it appears to the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing the child to be on them.
(7) In this section —
"an authorised person" means —

(a) any person specified by the court;

(b) any constable;

(c) any person who is authorised —

(i) after the recovery order is made; and

(ii) by a person who has parental responsibility for the child by virtue of a care order or an emergency protection order,

to exercise any power under a recovery order; and
"the designated officer" means the officer designated for the purposes of section 38.
(8) Where a person is authorised as mentioned in subsection (7)(c)—

(a) the authorisation shall identify the recovery order; and

(b) any person claiming to be so authorised shall, if asked to do so, produce some duly authenticated document showing that he is so authorised.

(9) A person shall be guilty of an offence if he intentionally obstructs an authorised person exercising the power under subsection (3)(b) to remove a child.
(10) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(11) No person shall be excused from complying with any request made under subsection (3)(c) on the ground that complying with it might incriminate him or his spouse of an offence; but a statement or admission made in complying shall not be admissible in evidence against either of them in proceedings for an offence other than perjury.
(12) Where a child is made the subject of a recovery order whilst being looked after by a local authority, any reasonable expenses incurred by an authorised person in giving effect to the order shall be recoverable from the authority.
(13) A recovery order shall have effect in Scotland as if it had been made by the Court of Session and as if that court had had jurisdiction to make it.
(14) In this section "the court", in relation to Northern Ireland, means a magistrates' court within the meaning of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.'
164B Insert the following new clauses —
'Refuges for children at risk.
. —(1) Where it is proposed to use a voluntary home or registered children's home to provide a refuge for children who appear to be at risk of harm, the Secretary of State may issue a certificate under this section with respect to that home.
(2) Where a local authority or voluntary organisation arrange for a foster parent to provide such a refuge, the Secretary of State may issue a certificate under this section with respect to that foster parent.
(3) In subsection (2) "foster parent" means a person who is, or who from time to time is, a local authority foster parent or a foster parent with whom children are placed by a voluntary organisation.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations —

(a) make provision as to the manner in which certificates may be issued;

(b) impose requirements which must be complied with while any certificate is in force; and

(c) provide for the withdrawal of certificates in prescribed circumstances.

(5) Where a certificate is in force with respect to a home, none of the provisions mentioned in subsection (7) shall apply in relation to any person providing a refuge for any child in that home.
(6) Where a certificate is in force with respect to a foster parent, none of those provisions shall apply in relation to the provision by him of a refuge for any child in accordance with arrangements made by the local authority or voluntary organisation.
(7) The provisions are —

(a) section (Abduction of children in care, etc.);

(b) section 71 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (harbouring children who have absconded from residential establishments etc.), so far as it applies in relation to anything done in England and Wales;

(c) section 32(3) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (compelling, persuading, inciting or assisting any person to be absent from detention, etc.), so far as it applies in relation to anything done in England and Wales;

(d) section 2 of the Child Abduction Act 1984.'

165 Clause 41, leave out Clause 41.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 164, 164A, 164B and 165. I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 164, 164A and 164B with Amendment No. 156 and to Amendment No. 165 with Amendment No. 50. Accordingly I will take these, with your Lordships' leave, en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
166 Clause 42, page 39, line 34, after '(1)', insert 'Without prejudice to section (Rules of court) or any other power to make such rules'.
167 Page 40, line 14, after 'to', insert—

(a) the considerations to which the local authority shall have regard in forming an opinion as mentioned in subsection (3)(c); and

(b)'

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 166 and 167. Amendment No. 166 is a minor technical amendment to Clause 42 to make clear that the rule-making power in Clause 46(1) for Part V proceedings does not restrict or affect in any way the general rule-making provisions which are covered by Amendment No. 238 or any other power to make rules of court.
Amendment No. 167 seeks to deal with a point which concerned the noble Lords, Lords Mottistone and Mishcon. Clause 42(3) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for the local authority within whose area a child who was a subject of an emergency protection order usually lived to take over an EPO applied for by someone else if it considers that it would be in the child's best interests for it to take over the responsibilities given under the order.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, thought that this could lead to difficulties for the child and family if an authority exercised this power in EPO cases initiated by the NSPCC. This could undermine the society's efforts to establish a relationship with the child and family. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was concerned that an EPO taken out by a concerned authority which found the child in its area could be transferred to a much less concerned authority in whose area the child normally lived; he took the view that such transfers should be controlled by the court rather than by regulations.
I have explained the Government's view and now we propose this amendment which would provide specifically that the regulations which may be made under subsection (3) may make provision for the considerations to which the local authority must have regard in forming an opinion as to whether it would be in the child's best interests to take over responsibility under the order.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
168 Clause 43, page 41, line 4, leave out subsection (6).
8.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their
802
Amendment No. 168. With this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 184, 185 and 266.
These amendments tighten up the definition of "voluntary home" and "voluntary organisation". Amendment No. 168, by removing a n ambiguous reference, clarifies that controlled and assisted community homes are not voluntary homes and so Part VII and Schedule 5 do not apply in relation to them. Such a home is subject to the provisions of Schedule 4. Amendment No. 184 provides that a school cannot be a voluntary home. Amendment No. 185 excludes community homes from the definition of voluntary homes. Amendment No. 266, for the purposes of the Act, restricts 1he definition of voluntary organisation to the one contained in Clause 75(1).
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
169 Clause 48, page 44, line 4, leave out from 'liable' to end of line 7 and insert `to pay compensation ("the appropriate compensation") in accordance with this section'.
170 Page 44, line 8, leave out `related or' and insert 'in force at the relevant time'.
171 Page 44, leave out lines 12 to 14 and insert "the appropriate compensation is a sum equal to that part of the value of any premises which is attributable to expenditure incurred in relation to the premises, while the home was a controlled community home, by the authority who were then the responsible authority.'
172 Page 44, line 15, leave out `related or' and insert 'in force at the relevant time'.
173 Page 44, line 19, leave out from beginning to 'a' in line 20 and insert 'the appropriate compensation is'.
174 Page 44, line 25, leave out `was' and insert 'is at the relevant time'.
175 Page 44, line 27, leave out from `home' to 'a' in line 28 and insert `the appropriate compensation is'.
176 Page 44, line 36, at end insert—
'(4A) The appropriate compensation shall be paid—

(a) in the case of compensation payable under subsection (2), to the authority who were the responsible authority at the relevant time; and

(b) in any other case, to the Secretary of State.'.

177 Page 44, leave out lines 38 to 42.
178 Page 44, line 47, leave out second `premises' and insert `any premises or part of premises (including land)'.
179 Page 45, line 1, leave out 'was, or is' and insert `is at the relevant time'.
180 Page 45, line 3, leave out 'used for the purposes of the home are not' and insert `are not at the relevant time'.
181 Page 45, line 6, leave out from beginning to `and' in line 13 and insert '"the relevant time" means the time immediately before the liability to pay arises under subsection (1)'.
182 Page 45, line 27, leave out 'was, or is' and insert 'is at the relevant time'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 169 to 182. These are drafting amendments designed to remove ambiguity in the existing draft. Clause 48(1) sets out the liability of a proprietor of a controlled or assisted community home to pay compensation on closure of the home

803
or on disposal of premises. The amount payable will in effect be the increase in the value of the premises which is attributable to the expenditure of public money. Clause 48 is being restructured so that subsection (I) will refer only to liability to repay "the appropriate compensation". The appropriate compensation will then be defined for each case in the relevant subsection of Clause 48.
Amendments Nos. 170 to 182 clarify what is meant by "appropriate compensation" in the particular circumstances. The overall effect of the clause is unchanged; the presentation is improved.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
183 Before Clause 49, insert the following new clause—
'Provision of accommodation by voluntary organizations
(1) Where a voluntary organisation provide accommodation for a child, they shall do so by —

(a) placing him (subject to subsection (2)) with —

(i) a family;

(ii) a relative of his; or

(iii) any other suitable person, on such terms as to payment by the organisation and otherwise as the organisation may determine;

(b) maintaining him in a voluntary home;

(c) maintaining him in a community home;

(d) maintaining him in a registered children's home;

(e) maintaining him in a home provided by the Secretary of State under section 62(5) on such terms as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine; or

(f) making such other arrangements (subject to subsection (3)) as seem appropriate to them.

(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the placing of children with foster parents by voluntary organisations and the regulations may, in particular, make provision which (with any necessary modifications) is similar to the provision that may be made under section 19(2)(a).
(3) The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the arrangements which may be made under subsection (1)(f) and the regulations may in particular make provision which (with any necessary modifications) is similar to the provision that may be made under section 19(2)(f).
(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring any voluntary organisation who are providing accommodation for a child —

(a) to review his case; and

(b) to consider any representations (including any complaint) made to them by any person falling within a prescribed class of person,

in accordance with the provisions of the regulations.
(5) Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular make provision which (with any necessary modifications) is similar to the provision that may be made under section 22.
(6) Regulations under subsections (2) to (4) may provide that any person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes or fails to comply with a regulation shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale,'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 183. In speaking to this amendment
804
I speak also to Amendment No. 340. These amendments clarify the powers of voluntary organisations to provide accommodation for children, mainly by bringing the powers together in one place.
The new clause introduced by Amendment No. 183 sets out the powers of voluntary organisations to provide accommodation by placing the child with a family, a relative or others, or in a home —for example, a voluntary home or a registered children's home —or by making other arrangements. These provisions are equivalent to those in Clause 19 which deal with the placement of children by local authorities. The new clause also includes powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations covering the various kinds of placement as well as the carrying out of case reviews and the consideration of complaints and representations about the children.
Amendment No. 340, which is consequential to the new clause, would remove provisions in the current draft of the Bill which relate to the placing of children with foster parents by voluntary organisations. These provisions are included in the new clause.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
184 Clause 49, page 46, line 5, leave out 'in the case of a home or other institution which is supported wholly or partly by endowments'.
185 Page 46, line 7, at end insert—
'(cc) any community home;'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 184 and 185. I have spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 168.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
186 Clause 49, page 46, line 8, leave out from 'institution' to or' in line 9, and insert 'provided, equipped and maintained by the Secretary of State'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 186. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 191, 226, 227 and 353.
These amendments make minor changes to references to institutions which are youth treatment centres; that is to say, homes for children who are in need of particular facilities and services. The Government's Social Services Inspectorate reviewed the national youth treatment service last year. Its report was published on 9th May 1989. The inspectors concluded that there was a continuing need for this specialised service but recommended that its management should be removed from the Department of Health and brought within the mainstream of child care. The Government are still

805
considering that recommendation and would obviously consult interested bodies on any option for change that it might wish to pursue.
However, there are options short of that whereby management arrangements could be improved without in any way diluting the Secretary of State's responsibilities for the service or removing it from Government control. Amendment No. 226 is designed to increase the room for flexibility should the Government decide to pursue such a limited change in the future. Clause 62(5) reproduces the provision under which YTCs are currently provided. Amendment No. 226, which is very limited in scope, widens this slightly by enabling the Secretary of State to make arrangements to provide the service.
Amendment No. 227 is a minor amendment to apply the power in subsection (5) to planned future as well as present provision. Amendments Nos. 186, 191 and 353 are drafting amendments to align the terminology with that in Clause 62(5) and remove an unnecessary reference to homes provided by a local authority.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
187 Clause 50, page 46, line 39, at end insert 'and linguistic'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 187. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 82.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
`(2A) The Secretary of State may make regulations —
188 Clause 51, page 47, line 7, at end insert—

(a) requiring every child who is accommodated within a local authority's area, by or on behalf of a voluntary organisation, to be visited by an officer of the authority —

(i) in prescribed circumstances; and

(ii) on specified occasions or within specified periods; and

(b) imposing requirements which must be met by any local authority, or officer of a local authority, carrying out functions under this section.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 188. This amendment empowers the Secretary of State by regulation to impose a duty on local authorities to visit in specified circumstances and at specified times every child in their area who is accommodated by or on behalf of a voluntary organisation and to impose requirements on the authorities in carrying out these functions.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
189 Clause 52, page 48, line 10, leave out subsection (3).
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 189. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 194, 350, and 363 to 369.
Clause 52 originally provided inter alia for local authorities to treat establishments caring privately for more than three children as private children's homes instead of private foster homes. The amendment to Clause 52 and the introduction of the new Schedule 6A will apply a normal upper limit of three foster children, unless they are siblings, to local authority voluntary organisations and private foster parents. It will provide local authorities with discretion to increase the limit in particular circumstances.
Amendments Nos. 363 and 364 provide a right of appeal for private foster parents aggrieved by a local authority's refusal to grant exemption from the normal fostering limit imposed by the new Schedule 6A on a condition attached to an exemption or a variation of an exemption. Amendments Nos. 365, 366 and 367 apply to these appeals the conditions which apply to existing rights of appeal against local authority decisions in respect of private fostering.
Amendment No. 368 removes subparagraph (6) of paragraph 8 of Schedule 7 concerning appeals. Amendment No. 369 makes it clear that even these rights of appeal are not available to local authority foster parents or foster parents with whom children are placed by a voluntary organisation. Both these categories have access to complaints procedures in accordance with regulations.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
190 Clause 52, page 48, line 22, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(4A) A child is not cared for and accommodated in a children's home when he is cared for and accommodated by —

(a) a parent of his;

(b) a person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him; or

(c) any relative of his.'

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 190. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 192, 193 and 258. Amendments Nos. 190, 192, 193 and 258 are all concerned with defining what we mean by "children's home" for the purpose of Part VIII. Amendments Nos. 190 and 193 are intended to clarify that certain domestic arrangements are not be classed as children's homes within the meaning of Clause 52. Two new subsections are inserted which mirror provisions in the Part on private fostering (paragraph 2 of Schedule 7).
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMON AMENDMENT
191 Clause 52, page 48, line 30, leave out from `home' to '; or' in line 31 and insert 'provided, equipped and maintained by the Secretary of State'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 191. I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 186.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
192 Clause 52, page 48, line 35, leave out from beginning to `and' in line 36.
193 Page 48, leave out from beginning of line 39 to end of line 15 on page 49 and insert—
'(7A) A child shall not be treated as cared for and accommodated in a children's home when—

(a) any person mentioned in subsection (4A)(a) or (b) is living at the home; or

(b) the person caring for him is doing so in his personal capacity and not in the course of carrying out his duties in relation to the home.'

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 192 and 193. I have spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 190.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
194 Clause 52, page 49, line 25, at end insert—
`(15) Schedule 6A shall have effect for the purpose of setting out the circumstances in which a person may foster more than three children without being treated as carrying on a children's home.'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 194. I have already spoken to this Amendment with Amendment No. 189.
Moved, That the House do agree wih the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
195 Clause 53, page 49, line 26, leave out 'registered'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 195. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 202, 203, 204, 213 and 352. The first five amendments in this group remove the word "registered" from Clause 53 and Clause 60. They are intended to allow the provisions of those clauses to apply to a private children's home whether or not it is registered. Amendment No. 352 makes a consequential amendment to the reference to children's homes in paragrah 2 of Schedule 7 dealing with privately fostered children.
Moved, That the House do agree wih the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
196 Clause 53, page 49, line 38, leave out 'and'.
197 Page 49, line 39, leave out 'every' and insert 'any other'.
198 Page 49, line 40, at end insert 'and
(d) any person whose wishes and feelings the person carrying on the home considers to be relevant.'.
199 Page 49, line 45, leave out 'they have' and insert 'he has'.
200 Page 50, line 2, leave out `they have' and insert `he has'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 196 to 200 inclusive.
The principal amendments in this group are Amendments Nos. 196 and 198. These would require persons carrying on registered children's homes to ascertain, where it is reasonably practicable, the wishes and feelings of any person whose wishes and feelings he considers relevant, when making any decision with respect to a child who is accommodated in the home. These persons would be in addition to those already specified (child, parents and others with parental responsibility). Under Clause 53(3) the person carrying on the home would also be required to give due consideration to any wishes and feelings ascertained.
At Report stage in this House I moved similar amendments in respect of local authorities' responsibilities towards children whom they look after, including those in community homes, and in respect of persons carrying on voluntary homes. I said at the time that the Government would bring forward similar amendments in respect of registered children's homes. Amendment No. 197 is a drafting amendment which is aimed at conformity of drafting style, and Amendments Nos. 199 and 200 are drafting amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
201 Clause 53, page 50, line 3, at end insert 'and linguistic'.
202 Page 50, line 6, leave out 'registered'.
203 Clause 54, page 50, line 10, leave out 'registered'.
204 Page 50, line 16, leave out 'registered'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 201 to 204 inclusive. I have spoken to Amendment No. 201 with Amendment No. 52, and I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 202, 203 and 204 with Amendment No. 195.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
205 Clause 57, page 52, line 17, leave out 'the child' and insert `any child who has been in his care'.
206 Page 52, line 19, leave out 'the' and insert 'any such'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 205 and 206. These amendments are concerned with the disqualification of persons from acting as private foster parents. These are people who, for example, have committed offences or have failed to notify the presence of a disqualified person in their household to the local authority. Amendment No. 205 corrects a drafting error by replacing the reference to "the child" with a reference to
"any child who has been in his care".
Amendment No. 206 makes a minor drafting improvement.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
8.30 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
207 Clause 58, page 53, line 1, leave out from 'privately' to end of line 2.
208 Page 53, line 3, after '(2)', insert 'Where'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 207 and 208. I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 351, 354, 356 to 362 and 370.
The effect of these amendments is both to tidy up and to improve the powers of local authorities to safeguard the welfare of children who are privately placed with foster parents: that is where the decision to place and the choice of foster parents have been made by a child's parents. A number of amendments provide for typographical corrections, bring terminology into line with the rest of the Bill and introduce other technical amendments. The amendments of substance reflect our further consideration of these matters in the light of concern expressed by noble Lords and representations from local authorities and other bodies, particularly the Save the Children Fund, concerned with the welfare of these children. The powers of local authorities are extended by giving them power to prohibit any private fostering placement where the foster parent is unsuitable or the accommodation is unsuitable or the placement is prejudicial to the child's welfare. Previously in the Bill, this power applied only where the local authority had not been properly notified of the placement. But this appeared on reflection to be too restrictive. Even where a placement has at first been deemed suitable by an authority, circumstances may change and the authority should be able to act to safeguard the child.
There are important changes in the regulation-making power in respect of notification of fostering arrangements. It is now clearly stated, for the avoidance of doubt, that parents, and those
810
with parental responsibility, can be required to give the appropriate authority prior notice of a proposed fostering arrangement, subject only to the proviso that they are aware that the child is to be fostered.
We shall also now be able in these regulations to require foster parents to give notice when a person leaves or joins their household. This will be an additional safeguard against a private foster child being exposed to risks in a placement.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
209 Clause 59, page 54, line 20, at end insert:—
'(2A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1)(a) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(2B) A person guilty of an offence.under subsection (1)(b), (c) or (g) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.'.
210 Page 54, line 21, leave out 'this section' and insert `subsection (1)(d) or (f)'.
211 Page 54, line 23, at end insert —
'(3A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1)(e) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 209 to 211. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 209 and 210 with Amendment No. 148. I have also spoken to Amendment No. 211. I therefore propose to put the three amendments en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
212 After Clause 59, insert the following new clause—
Registration
'PART IXA
CHILD MINDING AND DAY CARE FOR YOUNG CHILDREN
.—(1) Every local authority shall keep a register of—

(a) persons who act as child minders on domestic premises within the authority's area; and

(b) persons who provide day care for children under the age of eight on premises (other than domestic premises) within that area.

(2) For the purposes of this Part —

(a) a person acts as a child minder if —

(i) he looks after one or more children under the age of eight, for reward; and

(ii) the period, or the total of the periods, which he spends so looking after children in any day exceeds two hours; and

(b) a person does not provide day care for children unless the period, or the total of the periods, during which children are looked after exceeds two hours on any day.

(3) Where a person provides day care for children under the age of eight on different premises situated within the area of the same local authority, that person shall be separately registered with respect to each of those premises.
(4) A person who—

(a) is the parent, or a relative, of a child;

(b) has parental responsibility for a child; or

(c) is a foster parent of a child,

does not act as a child minder for the purposes of this Part when looking after that child.
(5) Where a person is employed as a nanny for a child, she does not act as a child minder when looking after that child wholly or mainly in the home of the person so employing her.
(6) Where a person is so employed by two different employers, she does not act as a child minder when looking after any of the children concerned wholly or mainly in the home of either of her employers.
(7) A local authority may refuse to register an applicant for registration under subsection (1)(a) if they are satisfied that—

(a) the applicant; or

(b) any person looking after, or likely to be looking after, any children on any premises on which the applicant is, or is likely to be, child minding,

is not fit to look after children under the age of eight.
(8) A local authority may refuse to register an applicant for registration under subsection (1)(a) if they are satisifed that—

(a) any person living, or likely to be living, at any premises on which the applicant is, or is likely to be, child minding; or

(b) any person employed, or likely to be employed, on those premises,

is not fit to be in the proximity of children under the age of eight.
(9) A local authority may refuse to register an applicant for registration under subsection (1)(b) if they are satisfied that any person looking after, or likely to be looking after, any children on the premises to which the application relates is not fit to look after children under the age of eight.
(10) A local authority may refuse to register an applicant for registration under subsection (1)(b) if they are satisfied that—

(a) any person living, or likely to be living, at the premises to which the application relates; or

(b) any person employed, or likely to be employed, on those premises,

is not fit to be in the proximity of children under the age of eight.
(11) A local authority may refuse to register an applicant for registration under this section if they are satisfied —

(a) in the case of an application under subsection (1)(a), that any premises on which the applicant is, or is likely to be, child minding; or

(b) in the case of an application under subsection (1)(b), that the premises to which the application relates,

are not fit to be used for looking after children under the age of eight, whether because of their condition or the condition of any equipment used on the premises or for any reason connected with their situation, construction or size.
(12) In this section —
"domestic premises" means any premises which are wholly or mainly used as a private dwelling;
"premises" includes any vehicle.
(13) For the purposes of this Part a person acts as a nanny for a child if she is employed to look after the child by—

(a) a parent of the child;

(b) a person who is not a parent of the child but who has parental responsibility for him; or

(c) a person who is a relative of the child and who has assumed responsibility for his care.

(14) For the purposes of this section, a person fosters a child if —

(a) he is a local authority foster parent in relation to the child;

(b) he is a foster parent with whom the child has been placed by a voluntary organisation; or

(c) he fosters the child privately.

(15) Any register kept under this section—

(a) shall be open to inspection by members of the public at all reasonable times; and

(b) may be kept by means of a computer.

(16) Schedule 7A shall have effect for the purpose of making further provision with respect to registration under this section including, in particular, further provision for exemption from the requirement to be registered and provision for disqualification.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 212. This matter has given rise to certain proposals for amendment. Perhaps, therefore, having formally moved Amendment No. 212, I should call the amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 212
212AZ Line 7, leave out ("eight") and insert ("eleven").
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am glad to come to the assistance of the noble and learned Lord. I beg to move Amendment No. 212AZ. If it is convenient to the House, I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 212BZ to 212HZ, 371A, 371 C and 371 D. In general we welcome Amendment No. 212, but there is concern about the fixing at eight years the age at which the legislation is to be applied. There is also concern about the fees that are charged for registration and inspection.
Many of us have heard from organisations at local and national level. They are worried at the prospect of registration of care facilities only for children up to the age of eight years. Ideally they would wish to see the registration of all forms of child care up to the age of 16. As a second best, they consider that the minimum necessary to safeguard the well being of children is for the regulations to apply up to the age of 11 years.
At a meeting with some of the voluntary organisations I was told that there is no logic for attaching importance to the age of eight. It seems of more importance than logic, because logic is not the life of the law. It is fair to say that there are no good reasons for the eight-year barrier. Children between the ages of eight and 11 years have as great a need for care as children between the ages of five and seven. The point is well made that the eight-year barrier does not correspond to any division at school. The school is important; indeed, in many localities the daycare and the after-school facilities are provided by parents of children at a particular primary school in relation to that school.
In addition, a case can be made out on many grounds for opposing the deregulation of childcare for children over the age of eight years. Children in the age group of from eight to 11 years are often

813
vulnerable. They are exposed to abuse and to the risk of accidents and crime. Our attention has been drawn to statistics for 1988 issued by the Department of Transport which show that 196 child pedestrians aged between five and 14 years were killed in that year, while almost 4,500 children were seriously injured. The concern is reinforced by the health and safety statistics which draw attention to the higher rate of accidents during school holidays.
It is also well known that industry wants more and more women to return to paid employment. I am told that a recent opinion poll showed that 80 per cent. of mothers not in paid employment would consider returning to work if satisfactory childcare could be arranged for their children. Deregulated childcare for children over the age of seven years is unlikely to be satisfactory for such children and their mothers.
Therefore at a time when expansion of childcare facilities of high quality is called for, this is not the time to reduce quality control. Then there is another side to the case. By imposing an age barrier of eight years, this could encourage some operators to offer low quality childcare exclusively for children over the age of eight years.
I have tried to summarise the main arguments canvassed by many local and national organisations in support of the block of amendments which I have tabled. I should stress that they are supported not just by the national organisations; they are also supported by local organisations up and down the country. The central message we have received is that the age limit regarding registration of daycare facilities should be raised to the age of eleven.
I turn now to Amendment No. 317D. This amendment, and those grouped with it, are really aimed at the charges in respect of registration and inspection. Most of the childcare groups are self-help groups; indeed, only about 30 per cent. receive grants from the local authorities. It is really a cost-effective service. A case could be made out for increased support from local government resources.
The charges will make it much more difficult for many of these self-help groups simply to balance the books. Parents spend a great deal of time in fundraising so that the group is viable. The fear must surely be that other childminders will seek a route around the charging provision by reducing the hours at which they operate. This could happen at a time when all the evidence shows that one ought to be extending the activities of such groups.
I hope that I have done justice to the arguments which we have received.
Moved, That Amendment No. 212AZ, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 212, be agreed to. —(Lord Prys-Davies.)
8.45 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies mentioned the fact that there has been an argument put forward —which I think he dismissed —that there was no room for quality control. He will know, having, I suspect, received much the same literature as I have, that there are two matters of particular concern. First, there is the
814
absence of any criteria regarding the fitness of people who are concerned with childminding and daycare. There is also an absence of any specific requirement for the training of such people, while at the same time the Bill provides for the local authority to refuse registration if it considers that such people are not in fact fit to look after children or to be,
"in the proximity of children".
The absence of any criteria as regards fitness seems to me to be a weakness in the Bill and in the Commons amendment.
The second matter of concern is that which is specifically touched upon by Amendment No. 371B, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone; namely, the absence of any specific requirement for any adequate public liability insurance. I suspect that the answer may be that this will be provided for by regulations which are foreshadowed by subsection (3) of Amendment No. 212AZ and subsection (4) of Amendment No. 212BZ. If that is the position, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will indicate that the requirement for adequate public liability insurance will feature in those regulations.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should hike to ask the noble and learned Lord to consider once again the' point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, about the upper-age limit. The suggestion in the amendment is that it should be raised to the age of 11. I am sorry that it has not been proposed that the age limit should go even higher.
Such work as I have done in connection with women returning to work has underlined the fact that one of the biggest problems is the care of children during school holidays. This means children way above the age of eight years. It can be a cause of great anxiety for working women if they do not know what will happen to their 11 or 12 year-olds who may be bouncing around during the school holidays with no proper supervision. In the interests of children and also in the interests of getting responsible women back into employment, I feel that setting the limit in this provision at the age of eight years is far too early.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I should like to express my support for the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and his amendments. I also think that the age limit should be raised to 11 years. Is there something magical about the age of eight?
I should have thought that it would be more appropriate to set the limit at the age of 11 when the children leave primary school. At that age children are much more able to complain if something is wrong with their care and to explain why than they would be at the age of eight years. There is also the very real danger that the cut-off age will encourage the establishment of after-school and holiday-care schemes which only deal with children over the age of eight, thus avoiding inspection and monitoring by the local authority.
To turn to Amendment No. 371D, can the noble Lord say whether the registration fee of £10 includes the inspection charge, or whether these are considered to be two separate items?
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it is a difficult amendment to discuss. The organisations that work in this field have been concerned from the beginning that the Bill did not include anything about day care. The Government responded splendidly to that concern, but because they responded so late and because of what went on in another place, which was outwith the control of the Bill, there has been no opportunity properly to discuss the clause and all that goes with it in the way that it normally would be discussed through each stage in both Houses. Big gaps in the clause are being exposed.
I sympathise with all that is being said about the age limit. There can be arguments about it. Someone whom I know well and who works in a children's hospital suggested that a better age would be nine or 10 because children are frightfully proud of the fact that they have reached double figures and are therefore more responsible. I can remember that when I am reminded of it, but most of us dealing with the Bill have not been children for a long time.
There can be arguments about the age, but the terrible thing is that we have not been able to argue the issue through. The criteria for determining who is a "fit person" are important and they have not been properly dealt with. I, like the noble Lord, Lord Meston, hope that the regulations to be made under Amendments Nos. 212A, 212B and 371 will do more than outline the point saying merely that they cover this sort of area.
I turn now to my Amendment No. 371B, which seeks to include a provision for proper insurance in the regulations to be introduced by Amendment No. 371. This is clearly not the type of amendment that one would fight to the last, even if there were enough people in the house to fight things to the last, but such matters need to be included.
Rather than go through all the points, most of which have been covered by the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Meston, I suggest that I send my noble and learned friend my brief in the hope that the key factors within it will be included in the regulations when they were laid. I can do no better than that. If I were to give the House my entire brief, your Lordships would be here much longer than you want to be.
It is unfortunate that the provision was introduced so late and that we have been unable to argue it. On the other hand, I should like to suggest to everyone, including those who were distressed by the fact that there was nothing about day care in the Bill, that what we have is much better than nothing, even if the detail is inadequate. To that extent, we must congratulate the Government, and hope that they will be able to write regulations which make the provision workable.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I shall make just two comments. The first is about the registration fee which the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, has already mentioned. The president of the Pre-school Playgroup Association is worried that the pre-school playgroups will be unable to pay the registration fee and the fee for being inspected once a year, if that is what is intended.
816
My second comment —there cannot be an answer to it —is that there is confusion worse confounded in the whole area of the under-fives; as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, women are being enjoined to go out to work. An enormous number of organisations are starting up creches, notably the Midland Bank, which is establishing 300. A voluntary organisation is starting which wants an accreditation system for voluntary organisations, banks and commercial enterprises. We should get clear who will accredit the vast numbers of places there will be for the under-fives. Will there be an accreditation system for the banks, commercial enterprises, civil servants and so forth? Unless we clarify that point, it will be worrying and confusing. However, my noble and learned friend cannot possibly comment on that point because I have not written to him about it. I only learned about the confusion this morning.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may just say a word or two about the general structure before I come to the details that have been raised on the amendments. The new clause, which is the subject of the first amendment, and the eight which follow have long been awaited in the House. On Report on 6th February I told your Lordships that the clauses designed to introduce up-dated and modernised legislation to regulate independently provided day care services for young children would not be ready before the Bill transferred to the other place. They were put down in Committee in the other place and I understand that they were fully debated there.
The improvements to the present legislation contained in the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948 are designed to make it easier for local authorities to regulate and enforce those services and for the law to make it clear who should be registered and who should not. It is also important that the services provided by independent people and organisations are of acceptable standards and that they know what those standards are. If they fall short, the registration authority must have the power to deal effectively with the problem.
The proposal contained in this and the later clauses is that the age limit should be eight. Originally we proposed that it should be five, the theory being that it was the care of young children that should be the subject of regulation; but, having listened carefully to the many representations that have been made, we concluded that it was right to go up to eight.
As the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, said, there is no particular magic about eight. One could argue for seven or nine with almost equal conviction, but one must fix some limit and we concluded that eight is a satisfactory age. It involves statutory regulations requiring the local authority to make annual inspections, having registered the person who is providing the service. The registered person will also be required to observe the conditions imposed on him or her by the local authority.
One finds that older children use a much wider range of facilities, such as recreational clubs and the like. As my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, as

817
children become older they are more able to articulate their concerns.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, they become naughtier.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, says —no doubt from experience —they also become naughtier. The local authorities' registration and inspection scheme would not necessarily be the best way to cope with the development of that characteristic.
As the range of facilities becomes greater, the greater the difficulty there is regulating them effectively. Whether or not the intending providers were exempt would probably be less clear to them. We want an efficient registration system to operate for services used by children at their most vulnerable ages. As I said, any age limit is arbitrary, but we believe that under eight is about right. It strikes a reasonable balance between ensuring that day care services used by young children are subject to statutory registration and not subjecting the much wider range of services used by older children to what might be seen by many as excessive bureaucracy.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull mentioned the so-called accreditation scheme. This does not detract from the statutory registration scheme that we are proposing for the minding services provided for children up to the age of eight. Beyond that, there is room for accreditation and the like. But, in this situation in the under-eight area, we need statutory registration and inspection. I think that the accreditation scheme will have the effect that a number of people get together and provide a service to a standard which they advertise and which they claim is attained by all those who are members of the scheme and are accredited under it. That is what I have to say about the age situation.
As regards fitness, we have had a lot of representations about the need for the Bill to be more specific about what constitutes a fit person. Having considered these carefully, we do not think it appropriate for the Bill to control the matter in such detail. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said earlier, there is a time to be detailed and a time to be less detailed. We believe that this is a time when it is right that the local authority should have some flexibility in the way in which it operates the registration scheme, having regard to the circumstances in its area. To list the criteria in primary legislation would create a very rigid framework. The matter will be dealt with in the guidance to be issued as part of the process of implementing the Bill. This should help both the local authorities which are to enforce the provisions and the people who are applying for registration.
Perhaps I may come to fees. The situation in that regard is that we propose that there should be a regime of charging two distinct fees —one for registration and one for inspection. This requires one to balance a number of considerations as to whether one should have fees or not. On the one hand, local authorities are being overwhelmed with applications for registration, particularly from people wanting to set up day nurseries as business ventures. On the other hand, many day care services
818
are provided by voluntary groups and we know that they almost always operate with very limited funds. Indeed, some of these praiseworthy organisations have been referred to.
We think that, where a commercial undertaking is concerned, it is only right that the intending provider should meet the cost of the statutory regulation service as part of the setting up cost and should look on the cost of statutory inspection as an integral part of the running cost.
However, we recognise that the financial position of voluntary groups may well be different. Many organisations—including notably the Pre-school Playgroups Association —have campaigned vigorously against the imposition of fees both for registration and for inspection. Government Ministers listened to their views and, as a result, the then Minister of Health, Mr. Mellor, gave an undertaking in another place that the fee for voluntary groups would not be more than about 10 per annum.
We shall also consider whether it will be possible to exempt certain categories altogether. Amendment No. 371D deals only with the fees for inspection. It would not be sensible to have a fee for registration alone: the two seem to go together. The important point is that there is a power to provide different fees in different circumstances and to exempt people from fees altogether. So that matter has to be considered further. All we have at the moment is a power to charge fees.
As regards public liability insurance, the subject of Amendment No. 371 B to the Common:3 amendment which we are considering, I can well see that the question of public liability insurance has to be considered. It would certainly be possible to make such a provision in the regulations and it may well be that my noble friend's brief would be of help in considering whether that should be so. I think that all your Lordships can take it that before these regulations are finalised, we shall consult widely on their content. One would expect the material that has been already been assembled to be taken into account in that consideration.
The amendments that we are considering raise points of substantial principle. Some of them could be dealt with under regulations. The age limit is one that has to be determined in the legislation and it is therefore not in that category. The amendments that deal with this general subject are Amendments Nos. 212, 212A to 212H, 215, 216, 219, 225, 230, 248, 371 and 387.1 shall take it that the discussion which we have just had will cover these amendments.
9 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, perhaps I should have mentioned that the amendments which I moved and which were supported by Members of the House were and are supported by about 20 voluntary organisations which have an interest in this field. So there has been, and continues to be, widespread concern. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, there is general support for the thrust of the regulations and the updated regulations. Nevertheless this concern remains. We

819
regret that we have been unable to persuade the noble and learned Lord to accept the argument for increasing the age limit to 11.
However, I am gratified that as regards the determination of the charges there will be flexibility. We very much hope that the regulations will provide an exemption for the voluntary bodies which are undertaking positive work in the area in question. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 212AZ, as an amendment to Amendment No. 212, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 212BZ to 212HZ not moved.]

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
212A After Clause 59, insert the following new clause—
Requirements to be complied with by child minders.
.—(1) Where a local authority register a person under section (Registration) (1)(a), they shall impose such reasonable requirements on him as they consider appropriate in his case.
(2) In imposing requirements on him, the authority shall—

(a) specify the maximum number of children, or the maximum number of children within specified age groups, whom he may look after when acting as a child minder;

(b) require him to secure that any premises on which he so looks after any child, and the equipment used in those premises, are adequately maintained and kept safe;

(c) require him to keep a record of the name and address of—

(i) any child so looked after by him on any premises within the authority's area;

(ii) any person who assists in looking after any such child; and

(iii) any person living, or likely at any time to be living, at those premises;

(d) require him to notify the authority in writing of any change in the persons mentioned in paragraph (c)(ii) and (iii).

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to—

(a) requirements which must be imposed by local authorities under this section in prescribed circumstances;

(b) requirements of such descriptions as may be prescribed which must not be imposed by local authorities under this section.

(4) In determining the maximum number of children to be specified under subsection (2)(a), the authority shall take account of the number of other children who may at any time be on any premises on which the person concerned acts, or is likely to act, as a child minder.
(5) Where, in addition to the requirements mentioned in subsection (2), a local authority impose other requirements, those other requirements must not be incompatible with any of the subsection (2) requirements.
(6) A local authority may at any time vary any requirement imposed under this section, impose any additional requirement or remove any requirement.'.
212B After Clause 59 insert the following new clause —
'Requirements to be complied with by persons providing day care for young children.
.—(1) Where a local authority register a person under section (Registration) (1)(b) they shall impose such reasonable requirements on him as they consider appropriate in his case.
(2) Where a person is registered under section (Registration) (1)(b) with respect to different premises
820
within the area of the same authority, this section applies separately in relation to each registration.
(3) In imposing requirements on him, the authority shall—

(a) specify the maximum number of children, or the maximum number of children within specified age groups, who may be looked after on the premises;

(b) require him to secure that the premises, and the equipment used in them, are adequately maintained and kept safe;

(c) require him to notify the authority of any change in the facilities which he provides or in the period during which he provides them;

(d) specify the number of persons required to assist in looking after children on the premises;

(e) require him to keep a record of the name and address of—

(i) any child looked after on the registered premises;

(ii) any person who assists in looking after any such child; and

(iii) any person who lives, or is likely at any time to be living, at those premises;

(f) require him to notify the authority of any change in the persons mentioned in paragraph (e)(ii) and (iii).

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to—

(a) requirements which must be imposed by local authorities under this section in prescribed circumstances;

(b) requirements of such descriptions as may be prescribed which must now be imposed by local authorities under this section.'

(5) In subsection (3), references to children looked after are to children looked after in accordance with the provision of day care made by the registered person.
(6) In determining the maximum number of children to be specified under subsection (3)(a), the authority shall take account of the number of other children who may at any time be on the premises.
(7) Where, in addition to the requirements mentioned in subsection (3), a local authority impose other requirements, those other requirements must not be incompatible with any of the subsection (3) requirements.
(8) A local authority may at any time vary any requirement imposed under this section, impose any additional requirement or remove any requirement.'.
212C After Clause 59, insert the following new clause—
Cancellation of registration
. —(1) A local authority may at any time cancel the registration of any person under section (Registration) (1)(a) if —

(a) it appears to them that the circumstances of the case are such that they would be justified in refusing to register that person as a child minder;

(b) the care provided by that person when looking after any child as a child minder is, in the opinion of the authority, seriously inadequate having regard to the needs of that child;

(c) that person has —

(i) contravened, or failed to comply with any requirement imposed on him under section (Requirements to be complied with by child minders); or

(ii) failed to pay any annual fee under paragraph 7 of Schedule (child minding and day care for young children) within the prescribed time.

(2) A local authority may at any time cancel the registration of any person under section (Registration) (1)(b) with respect to particular premises if —

(a) it appears to them that the circumstances of the case are such that they would be justified in refusing to register that person with respect to those premises;

821

(b) the day care provided by that person on those premises is, in the opinion of the authority, seriously inadequate having regard to the needs of the children concerned or

(c) that person has —

(i) contravened, or failed to comply with any requirement imposed on him under section (Requirements to be complied with by persons providing day care for young children); or

(ii) failed to pay any annual fee under paragraph 7 of Schedule (Child minding and day care for young children) within the prescribed time.

(3) A local authority may at any time cancel all registrations of any person under section (Registration) (1)(b) if it appears to them that the circumstances of the case are such that they would be justified in refusing to register that person with respect to any premises.
(4) Where a requirement to carry out repairs or make alterations or additions has been imposed on a registered person under section (Requirements to be complied with by child minders) or (Requirements to be complied with by persons providing day care for young children), his registration shall not be cancelled on the ground that the premises are not fit to be used for looking after children if —

(a) the time set for complying with the requirements has not expired, and

(b) it is shown that the condition of the premises is due to the repairs not having been carried out or the alterations or additions not having been made.

(5) Any cancellation under this section must be in writing.
(6) In considering the needs of any child for the purposes of subsection (1Xb) or (2)(b), a local authority shall, in particular, have regard to the child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.'.
212D After Clause 59. insert the following new clause —
'Protection of children in an emergency.
—(1) If —

(a) a local authority apply to the court for an order—

(i) cancelling a registered person's registration;

(ii) varying any requirement imposed on a registered person under section (Requirements to be complied with by child minders) or (Requirements to be complied with by persons providing day care for young children); or

(iii) removing a requirement or imposing an additional requirement on such a person; and

(b) it appears to the court that a child who is being, or may be, looked after by that person, or (as the case may be) in accordance with the provision for day care by that person, is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm,

the court may make the order.
(2) Any such cancellation, variation, removal or imposition shall have effect from the date on which the order is made.
(3) An application under subsection (1) may be made ex parte and shall be supported by a written statement of the authority's reasons for making it.
(4) Where an order is made under this section, the authority shall serve on the registered person, as soon as is reasonably practicable after the making of the order —

(a) notice of the order and of its terms; and

(b) a copy of the statement of the authority's reasons which supported their application for the order.

(5) Where the court imposes or varies any requirement under subsection (1), the requirement, or the requirement as varied, shall be treated for all purposes, other than those of section (Appeals), as if it had been imposed under section (Requirement to be complied with by child minders) or (as the case may be) (Requirements to be complied with by
822
persons providing day care for young children) by the authority concerned.
212E After Clause 59, insert the following new clause—
Inspection.
—(1) Any person authorised to do so by a local authority may at any reasonable time enter —

(a) any domestic premises within the authority's area on which child minding is at any time carried on; or

(b) any premises within their area on which day care for children under the age of eight is at any time provided.

(2) Where a local authority have reasonable cause to believe that a child is being looked after on any premises within their area in conrtavention of this Part, any person authorised to do so by the authority may enter those premises at any reasonable time.
(3) Any person entering premises under this section may inspect—

(a) the premises;

(b) any children being looked after on the premises;

(c) the arrangement made for their welfare; and

(d) any records relating to them which are kept as a result of this Part.

(4) Every local authority shall exercise their power to inspect the premises mentioned in subsection (1) at least once every year.
(5) Any person inspecting any records under this section—

(a) Shall be entitled at any reasonable time to have access to, and inspect and check the operation of, any computer and any associated apparatus or material which is or has been in use in connection with the records in question; and

(b) may require —

(i) the person by whom or on whose behalf the computer is or has been so used; or

(ii) any person having charge of, or otherwise concerned with the operation of, the computer, apparatus or material,

to afford him such reasonable assistance as he may require.
(6) A person exercising any power conferred by this section shall, if so required, produce some duly authenticated document showing his authority to do so.
(7) Any person who intentionally obstructs another in the exercise of any such power shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.'
212F After Clause 59, insert the following new clause —
Appeals
.—(1) Not less than fourteen days before —

(a) refusing an application for registration under section (Registration);

(b) cancelling any such registration;

(c) refusing consent under paragraph 2 of Schedule 7A;

(d) imposing, removing or varying any requirement under section (Requirements to be complied with by child minders) or (Requirements to be complied with by persons providing day care for young children); or

(e) refusing to grant any application for the variation or removal of any such requirement,

the authority concerned shall send to the applicant, or (as the case may be) registered person, notice in writing of their intention to take the step in question ("the step").
(2) Every such notice shall—

(a) give the authority's reasons for proposing to take the step; and

(b) inform the person concerned of his rights under this section.

(3) Where the recipient of such a notice informs the authority in writing of his desire to object to the step being taken, the authority shall afford him an opportunity to do so.
(4) Any objection made under subsection (3) may be made in person or by a representative.
(5) If the authority, after giving the person concerned an opportunity to object to the step being taken, decide nevertheless to take it they shall send him written notice of their decision.
(6) A person aggrieved by the taking of any step mentioned in subsection (I) may appeal against it to the court.
(7) Where the court allows an appeal against the refusal or cancellation of any registration under section (Registration) it may impose requirement under section (Requirements to be complied with by child minders) or (as the case may be) (Requirements to be complied with by persons providing day care for young children).
(8) Where the court allows an appeal against such a requirement it may, instead of cancelling the requirement, vary it.
(9) Where the court imposes or varies any requirement under subsection (7) or (8) the requirement, or the requirement as varied, shall be treated for all purposes (other than this section) as if it had been imposed by the authority concerned.
(10) In Scotland, an appeal under subsection (6) shall be by summary application to the sheriff and shall be brought within 21 days from the date of the step to which the appeal relates.
(11) A step of a kind mentioned in subsection (1)(b) or (c) shall not take effect until the expiry of the time within which an appeal may be brought under this section or, where such an appeal is brought, before its determination.
212G After Clause 59, insert the following new clause —
'Offences.
. —(1) No person shall provide day care for children under the age of eight on any premises within the area of a local authority unless he is registered by the authority under section (Registration)(1)(b) with respect to those premises.
(2) If any person contravenes subsection (1) without reasonable excuse, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) No person shall act as a child minder on domestic premises within the area of a local authority unless he is registered by the authority under section (Registration)(1)(a).
(4) Where it appears to a local authority that a person has contravened subsection (3), they may serve a notice ("an enforcement notice") on him.
(5) An enforcement notice shall have effect for a period of one year beginning with the date on which it is served.
(6) If a person with respect to whom an enforcement notice is in force contravenes subsection (3) without reasonable excuse, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(7) Subsection (6) applies whether or not the subsequent contravention occurs within the area of the authority who served the enforcement notice.
(8) Any person who without reasonable excuse contravenes, or otherwise fails to comply with, any requirement imposed on him under section (Requirements to be complied with by child minders) or (Requirements to be complied with by persons providing day care for young children) shall be guilty of an offence.
(9) If any person —

(a) acts as a child minder on domestic premises at any time when he is disqualified by regulation made under paragraph 2 of Schedule 7A; or

(b) contravenes any of sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) of paragraph 2,

he shall be guilty of an offence.
(10) Where a person contravenes sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 2 he shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he proves that he did not know, and had no reasonable ground for believing, that the person in question was living or employed in the household.
(11) Where a person contravenes sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 2 he shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he proves that he did not know, and had no reasonable grounds for believing, that the person whom he was employing was disqualified.
(12) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction —

(a) in the case of an offence under subsection (8), to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale;

(b) in the case of an offence under subsection (9), to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both; and

(c) in the case of any other offence, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'

212H After Clause 59, insert the following new clause —
`Application of Part (Child minding and day care for young children) to Scotland.
. —In the application to Scotland of this part —

(a) "the court" means the sheriff;

(b) "day care" means any form of care or of activity supervised by a responsible person provided for children during the day (whether or not it is provided on a regular basis);

(c) "education authority" has the same meaning as in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980;

(d) "local authority foster parent" means a foster parent with whom a child is placed by a local authority;

(e) for references to a person having parental responsibility for a child there shall be substituted references to a person in whom parental rights and duties relating to the child are vested; and

(f) for references to fostering a child privately there shall be substituted references to maintaining a foster child within the meaning of the Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984.'

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 212A to 212H.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
213 Clause 60, page 54, line 36, leave out 'registered'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 213. I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 195.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
214 Clause 60, page 54, line 41, at end insert —
`(cc) premises in which a child who is being accommodated by or on behalf of a health authority is living;'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 214. In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 217, 220, 221, 222 and 224. These amendments are largely drafting and technical amendments to the powers of

825
the Secretary of State to cause inspections of certain types of premises and records and to obtain information. Broadly speaking the Secretary of State's powers to inspect, mirror the duties of local authorities to provide services
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
215 Clause 60, page 55, line 3, at end insert —
'(ff) premises on which any person is acting as a child minder;'.
216 Page 55, line 4, leave out from 'premises' to end of line 5 and insert 'with respect to which a person is registered under section (Registration)(1)(b);'.
217 Page 55, line 6, at end insert 'required to be registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984 and'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 215 to 217. I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 215 and 216 with Amendment No. 212. I have just spoken to Amendment No. 217 with Amendment No. 214.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
218 Clause 60, page 55, line 7, at end insert —
'(i) independent school providing accommodation for any child;
(j) premises which are provided by a local authority and in which any service is provided by that authority under Part III.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 218. In moving this amendment, I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 223 and 232B.
These important amendments deal with a matter which had not been foreseen when the Bill was last in this House, but which came to public attention while the Bill was being considered in another place. Following widely reported serious allegations of sexual abuse of children who have been accommodated at a certain independent boarding school, my honourable friend the then Minister responsible for health and the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, with the approval of all Committee Members in another place, including those representing the Opposition parties, reviewed the existing Bill provisions for protecting children in order to establish whether further provisions dealing specifically with independent boarding schools were needed. In particular, the Government considered a proposal that local authority social services' departments should be given power to inspect the quality of life in independent schools.
826
The Bill already contains a number of preventive, regulatory and protective measures which can help deal with problems of this kind. Apart from these amendments the Bill already contains an extensive array of responsibilities and powers. We have taken the view, however, that children who spend long periods away from home in boarding schools are potentially very vulnerable and require specific provisions for safeguarding and promoting their welfare, just as we are providing specifically for children in other longstay establishments. Prevention, in particular, needs emphasising.
Amendments Nos. 218 and 223 are consequential to the main amendment. The first adds independent schools providing accommodation to the list of homes and other premises in Clause 60(1) which the Secretary of State may cause to be inspected. Amendment No. 223 adds proprietors of independent schools to the list of those from whom the Secretary of State may require information and access to records.
There are three main elements in the new Clause to be inserted by Amendment No. 232B. First, a new duty is placed on the proprietor or other person conducting an independent school which provides accommodation for any child and which is not also a children's home or residential care home to safeguard and promote the child's welfare. Secondly, any local authority within whose area such accommodation is provided must do what is reasonably practicable to determine whether a child's welfare is adequately safeguarded and promoted while he is accommodated by the school. These two elements broadly follow the welfare scheme for children in voluntary homes and children's homes in Parts VII and VIII. The third element is that where the local authority considers that the proprietor or person conducting the school is failing to discharge his welfare duty under subsection (1), it must notify the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 386, taken with Amendment No. 111 and others on education supervision orders, will amend the Education Act 1944 so that failure to comply with this duty will be a ground on which notice of complaint action may be taken. This can lead in serious cases to a school being removed from the register of independent schools and having to close. In common with other provisions in the Bill where they have welfare and regulatory responsibilities, local authorities will have a power of entry exercisable at any reasonable time. Regulations will be made under subsection (6) to control inspections of premises, children and records under these powers. These will be prepared in consultation with representatives of independent schools, local authorities, the Department of Education and Science and Her Majesty's Inspectorate.
The other provisions on inspection access are in line with the provisions elsewhere in the Bill. This more specific involvement of social services in this area of the operation of independent boarding schools is one that will require good will and co-operation between social services and the schools concerned, especially in the earlier years.
Representatives of the Independent Schools Joint Council, the local authorities associations and the

827
Association of Directors of Social Services have been consulted on the proposals and have undertaken to co-operate in the preparation of the regulations on inspection and on guidance for schools and local authorities on the nature and extent of their respective responsibilities. The Government welcome that positive approach.
I hope the House will agree that the new framework for the protection of children from abuse provided for in the Bill would be incomplete without specific measures to guard against outrages of the kind alleged earlier in the year.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
219 Clause 60, page 55, line 15, after '(1)', insert 'or, in relation to Scotland, subsection (1)(ff) or (g)'.
220 Page 55, line 16, leave out 'or'.
221 Page 55, line 18, at end insert 'or
(d) the discharge by an local authority of any of their functions under this Act'.
222 Page 55, line 23, leave out 'voluntary home or registered'.
223 Page 55, line 24, at end insert —
'(cc) proprietor of an independent school;'.
224 Page 55, line 27, after 'authority', insert', health authority'.
225 Page 55, line 34, leave out from 'premises' to end of line 38 and insert 'in which any person acts as a child minder (within the meaning of Part (Child minding and daycare for young children)) or provides day care for young children (within the meaning of that Part);'.
226 Clause 62, page 57, line 32, leave out 'provide, equip and maintain' and insert 'arrange for the provision, equipment and maintenance of.
227 Page 55, line 35, after 'are' insert 'or will be'.
9.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 219 to 227 en bloc. I have already spoken to Amendment No. 219 with Amendment No. 212, Amendments Nos. 220, 221 and 222 with Amendment No. 214, Amendment No. 223 with Amendment No. 218, Amendment No. 224 with Amendment No. 214, Amendment No. 225 with Amendment No. 212, and Amendments Nos. 226 and 227 with Amendment No. 186.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
228 Clause 63, page 58, line 37, after 'each', insert 'magistrates'.'
229 Page 58, line 38, leave out 'transmit to him' and insert 'transmit—

(a) to such person as may be specified in the direction; and

(b)'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 228 and 229. These amendments will enable the Secretary of State to require clerks to
828
magistrates' courts to provide management information necessary for operating the concurrent jurisdiction in local authority care and supervision proceedings, by giving the clerk power to direct them to transmit such information as he requires to him or to whomever he may specify. That is the management information collection arrangement that I mentioned earlier in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, about guardians ad litem. In the higher courts the Lord Chancellor has power to obtain such information because the officials in the courts are officials whom he provides to the courts.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —( The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
230 Clause 63, page 59, line 13, leave out paragraph (c).
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 230. I have already spoken to the amendment with Amendment No. 212.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
231 After Clause 63, insert the following new clause —
'Local authority failure to comply with statutory duty: default power of Secretary of State.
.—(1) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that any local authority has failed, without reasonable excuse, to comply with any of the duties imposed on them by or under this Act he may make an order declaring that authority to be in default with respect to that duty.
(2) An order under subsection (1) shall give the Secretary of State's reasons for making it.
(3) An order under subsection (1) may contain such directions for the purpose of ensuring that the duty is complied with, within such period as may be specified in the order, as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary.
(4) Any such direction shall, on the application of the Secretary of State, be enforceable by mandamus.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 231. The amendment would give the Secretary of State a default power in respect of a failure by a local authority without reasonable excuse to comply with any of its duties under the Bill. I agreed to consider the need for such a power in response to amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in Committee on 23rd January and at Third Reading.
In addition to those general default powers there are other provisions on which disaffected persons should draw first. If necessary I could elaborate on those provisions. The default power was intended as a power of last resort to deal with default on the part of local authorities.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
232 Before Clause 64, insert the following new clause —
'Notification of children accommodated in certain establishments Children accommodated by health authorities and local education Authorities.
. —(1) Where a child is provided with accommodation by any health authority or local education authority ("the accommodating authority") —

(a) for a consecutive period of at least three months; or

(b) with the intention, on the part of that authority, of accommodating him for such a period,

the accommodating authority shall notify the responsible authority.
(2) Where subsection (1) applies with respect to a child, the accommodating authority shall also notify the responsible authority when they cease to accommodate the child.
(3) In this section "the responsible authority" means —

(a) the local authority appearing to the accommodating authority to be the authority within whose area the child was ordinarily resident immediately before being accommodated; or

(b) where it appears to the accommodating authority that a child was not ordinarily resident within the area of any local authority, the local authority within whose area the accommodation is situated.

(4) Where a local authority have been notified under this section, they shall —

(a) take such steps as are reasonably practicable to enable them to determine whether the child's welfare is adequately safeguarded and promoted while he is accommodated by the accommodating authority; and

(b) consider the extent to which (if at all) they should exercise any of their functions under this Act with respect to the child.

232A Insert the following new clause —
`Children accommodated in residential care, nursing or mental nursing homes.
. —(1) Where a child is provided with accommodation in any residential care home, nursing home or mental nursing home —

(a) for a consecutive period of at least three months; or

(b) with the intention, on the part of the person taking the decision to accommodate him, of accommodating him for such period,

the person carrying on the home shall notify the local authority within whose area the home is carried on.
(2) Where subsection (1) applies with respect to a child, the person carrying on the home shall also notify that authority when he ceases to accommodate the child in the home.
(3) Where a local authority have been notified under this section, they shall —

(a) take such steps as are reasonably practicable to enable them to determine whether the child's welfare is adequately safeguarded and promoted while he is accommodated in the home; and

(b) consider the extent to which (if at all) they should exercise any of their functions under this Act with respect to the child.

(4) If the person carrying on any home fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with this section he shall be guilty of an offence.
(5) A person authorised by a local authority may enter any residential care home, nursing home or mental nursing home within the authority's area for the purpose of establishing whether the requirements of this section have been complied with.
(6) Any person who intentionally obstructs another in the exercise of the power of entry shall be guilty of an offence.
(7) Any person exercising the power of entry shall, if so required, produce some duly authenticated document showing his authority to do so.
(8) Any person committing an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 232 and 232A.
These new clauses are proposed in response to concerns about the welfare of children who live away from home for long periods, usually in various types of residential accommodation, and for whom local social services authorities at present have few specific responsibilities.
The first of the new clauses deals mainly with children placed in public sector hospitals and special schools. The second is intended to address the same concerns in relation to children placed in private care homes or hospitals.
A power of inspection for the Secretary of State to mirror the local authority welfare duties is provided for in Clause 60, which is in Amendment No. 214 to which I have already spoken.
The welfare of children in the majority of independent boarding schools not covered by these provisions is the subject of Amendment No. 232B, which I have already mentioned.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
232B Before Clause 64, insert the following new clause —
'Welfare of children accommodated in independent schools.
. —(1) It shall be the duty of—

(a) the proprietor of any independent school which provides accommodation for any child; and

(b) any person who is not the proprietor of such a school but who is responsible for conducting it,

to safeguard and promote the child's welfare.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a school which is a children's home or a residential care home.
(3) Where accommodation is provided for a child by an independent school within the area of a local authority, the authority shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to enable them to determine whether the child's welfare is adequately safeguarded and promoted while he is accommodated by the school.
(4) Where a local authority are of the opinion that there has been a failure to comply with subsection (1) in relation to a child provided with accommodation by a school within their area, they shall notify the Secretary of State.
(5) Any person authorised by a local authority may, for the purpose of enabling the authority to discharge their duty under this section, enter at any reasonable time any independent school within their area which provides accommodation for any child.
(6) Any person entering an independent school in exercise of the power conferred by subsection (5) may carry out such inspection of premises, children and records as is prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section.
(7) Any person exercising that power shall, if asked to do so, produce some duly authenticated document showing his authority to do so.
(8) Any person authorised by the regulations to inspect records —

831

(a) shall be entitled at any reasonable time to have access to, and inspect and check the operation of, any computer and any associated apparatus or material which is or has been in use in connection with the records in question; and

(b) may require —

(i) the person by whom or on whose behalf the computer is or has been so used; or

(ii) any person having charge of, or otherwise concerned with the operation of, the computer, apparatus or material, to afford him such assistance as he may reasonably require.

(9) Any person who intentionally obstructs another in the exercise of any power conferred by this section or the regulations shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(10) In this section "proprietor" has the same meaning as in the Education Act 1944.'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 232B. I have already spoken to the amendment in connection with Amendment No. 218.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
232C Before Clause 64, insert the following new clause—
Amendments of adoption legislation.'Adoption
. —(1) The Adoption Act 1976 shall have effect subject to the amendments made by Part I of Schedule 7B.
(2) The Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 shall have effect subject to the amendments made by Part II of Schedule 7B.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 232C. In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 236, 249, 355, 372, 423 and 427.
This group of amendments introduces changes to adoption law. It is our intention to carry out a full review of adoption law. The review will provide an opportunity for detailed consideration of all matters relating to adoption in the light of the changes which have taken place since the last major review and the introduction of the Children Act 1975, now consolidated into the Adoption Act 1976. The changes we are proposing here are therefore limited, and fall into three groups: first, amendments to the Adoption Act 1976 and the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 which will harmonise adoption law within the United Kingdom, thus meeting needs arising from the introduction of new adoption provisions in Northern Ireland and as a consequence of changes in child care law in this Bill; secondly, technical and consequential amendments arising from the Children Bill itself; and, thirdly, a small number of improvements which we have been able to make outside the context of a general review of adoption law to meet the needs of particular groups.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Meston: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord indicate the timescale for the review of adoption law which he mentioned?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we have in place a rolling programme for family law generally. We have of course embarked on that, but I am not in a position to be more specific on the adoption law review than that. It will obviously be something of considerable importance, but at the moment our priorities are divorce law, related questions of conciliation and, as I said, matters connected with the Law Commission's work on ouster, domestic violence and that kind of thing.
I am encouraged to think that we might get on to the adoption stage of this review within the next 12 to 18 months. That may be slightly optimistic, but perhaps there is no harm in setting our sights early rather than late.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
232D Before Clause 64, insert the following new clause—
Tests to establish paternity.
'Paternity tests
. —In section 20 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969 (power of court to require use of tests to determine paternity), the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) Where—

(a) an application is made for a direction under this section; and

(b) the person whose paternity is in issue is under the age of eighteen when the application is made,

the application shall specify who is to carry out the tests.
(1B) In the case of a direction made on an application to which subsection (IA) applies the court shall —

(a) specify, as the person who is to carry out the tests, the person specified in the application; or

(b) where the court considers that it would be inappropriate to specify that person (whether because to specify him would be incompatible with any provision made by or under regulations made under section 22 of this Act or for any other reason), decline to give the direction applied for.".

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 232D. The new clause amends the Family Law Reform Act 1969 so as to provide that, where a person applies to a court for a direction for blood tests to be carried out in order to settle a dispute over paternity, the applicant shall nominate the person whom he wishes to carry out the tests.The court, when making a direction on such an application, shall either specify that the person so nominated shall carry out the tests or shall decline to give the direction applied for.
As your Lordships will know, this matter of testing is now something that is offered by quite a number of people, and we want to give some control of the matter to he court in this particular way.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
233 Clause 64, page 59, line 27, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) The powers of the court to make care orders —

(a) under section 7(7)(a) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (alteration in treatment of young offenders etc.); and

(b) under section 15(1) of that Act, on discharging a supervision under section 7(7)(b) of that Act, are hereby abolished.'.

234 Page 59, line 29, leave out subsection (3) and insert —
'(3) The powers given by that Act to include requirements in supervision orders shall have effect subject to amendments made by Schedule 8.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 233 and 234. At the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 376, 377 and 378.
Amendments Nos. 233 and 234 are drafting amendments. Amendment No. 376 is a conseqential amendment flowing from Amendment No. 377 which the latter replaces. Amendment No. 377 is the important one in this group, which deals with the new power of the court to attach a "residence requirement" to a supervision order made in criminal proceedings in certain defined circumstances. The amendment replaces, with some minor modifications, the comparable provision in paragraph 16 of Schedule 8 to the Bill. The main changes in the revised version are: that the new power is included in a free-standing section of the 1969 Act; provision is now made for the court to attach a fresh "residence requirement" if a child already subject to such a requirement re-offends; a "seriousness of offence" test is now included in the conditions which must be met before the new requirement may be imposed, and before imposing such a requirement the court must obtain or have before it a social inquiry report which specifically addresses the circumstances in which the child has been living.
The final changes are that the provision now stipulates that a residence requirement shall designate the local authority which is to receive the child, and that the court must not impose a residence requirement without first consulting the designated authority. Amendment No. 378 is a further consequential drafting amendment.
This was a matter that we discussed quite considerably during the stages of the Bill in your Lordships' House. I hope that this improvement in the provision meets at least some of the concerns that were then expressed. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
235 Clause 65, page 59, line 35, at end insert —
'(2A) The making of a care order with respect to a child who is the subject of a supervision order discharges that other order.
(2B) The making of a care order with respect to a child who is a ward of court brings that wardship to an end.
(2C) The making of a care order with respect to a child who is the subject of a school attendance order made under
834
section 37 of the Education Act 1944 discharges the school attendance order.
(2D) Where an emergency protection order is made with respect to a child who is in care, the care order shall have effect subject to the emergency protection order.
(2E) Any order made under section 4(1) or 5(1) shall continue in force until the child reaches the age of eighteen, unless it is brought to an end earlier.
(2F) Any —

(a) agreement under section 4; or

(b) appointment under section 5(2) or (3).

shall continue in force until the child reaches the age of eighteen, unless it is brought to an end earlier.
(2G) An order under Schedule 1 has effect as specified in that Schedule.
(2H) A section 7 order shall, if it would otherwise still be in force, cease to have effect when the child reaches the age of sixteen, unless it is to have effect beyond that age by virtue of section 8(4A).
(2I) Where a section 7 order has effect with respect to a child who has reached the age of sixteen, it shall, if it would otherwise still be in force, cease to have effect when he reaches the age of eighteen.
(2J) Any care order, other than an interim care order, shall continue in force until the child reaches the age of eighteen, unless it is brought to an end earlier.
(2K) Any order made under any other provision of this Act in relation to a child shall, if it would otherwise still be in force, cease to have effect when he reaches the age of eighteen.
(2L) On disposing of any application for an order under this Act, the court may (whether or not it makes any other order in response to the application) order that no application for an order under this act of any specified kind may be made with respect to the child concerned by any person named in the order without leave of the court.
(2M) Where an application ("the previous application") has been made for —

(a) the discharge of a care order;

(b) the discharge of supervision order;

(c) the discharge of an education supervision order;

(d) the substitution of a supervision order for a care order; or

(e) a child assessment order,

no further application of a kind mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) may be made with respect to the child concerned, without leave of the court, unless the period between the disposal of the previous application and the making of the further application exceeds six months.
(2N) Subsection (2M) does not apply to applications made in relation to interim orders.
(2O) Where —

(a) a person has made an application for an order under section 27;

(b) the application has been refused; and

(c) a period of less than six months has elapsed since the refusal,

that person may not make a further application for such an order with respect to the same child, unless he has obtained the leave of the court.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 237, 239, 313 and 401. This group of amendments is mainly concerned with the effect of care and supervision orders and their interaction with other orders.
Amendment No. 235 moves into Clause 65 many of the provisions to be found at present in Clause 66. Subsections (3) to (7) of Clause 65 are deleted

835
and equivalent provision included in the adoption schedule. The redundant Clause 66 is removed from the Bill by Amendment No. 237.
Most of the orders referred to continue in force until, and cease to have effect when, the child reaches the age of 18, unless the order is brought to an end earlier. The exceptions are Section 7 orders, which expire at age 16 unless the court is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, in accordance with Clause 8(5) and interim care orders.
Some particular changes are made which perhaps I ought to mention briefly. The new subsection (2J), in excepting interim care orders from the provision that care orders shall continue in force until age 18 unless brought to an end earlier, picks up an earlier oversight. An interim care order will be subject to the specific time limits provided for in Clause 33(4).
The new subsection (20) takes into Clause 65 the bar on further applications in relation to contact with children in care which was previously provided for in Clause 29(10). This is simply a tidying-up provision.
The provisions have been restructured with more specific reference to particular orders as an aid to clarity. In other words we have tried to associate the conditions with the particular orders, to make it easier for the reader to follow. For example, Section 7 orders and orders made under Schedule 1 are referred to specifically.
In addition Amendment No. 235, together with Amendments Nos. 239 and 401, will make changes intended to make a care order incompatible with wardship. New subsection (2B) introduced by Amendment No. 235 provides that, if a ward of court is made subject to a care order, the care order discharges the wardship.
The amendments also deal with the reverse situation. Amendment No. 401 will mean that the issuing of an originating summons will no longer have the automatic effect of making a child a ward if that child is currently under a care order. Amendment No. 239 will prevent the High Court's inherent jurisdiction being used to make a child who is in care a ward of court. That completes the mutual exclusivity of care orders and wardship.
Amendment No. 313 will mean that a supervision order shall cease to apply if a custody order in respect of the same child also ceases to apply as a result of the provisions of Section 25 of the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985. This would happen, for example, if a child who was subject to a custody order had been wrongly removed from the United Kingdom and an order to return the child had been made under the terms of The Hague Convention dealing with international child abduction. In these circumstances it would be appropriate for a co-existing supervision order to cease to have effect as well as the custody order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
236 Clause 65, page 59, line 36, leave out subsections (3) to (7).
237 Clause 66, leave out Clause 66.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 236 and 237.
I have spoken to Amendment No. 236 with Amendment No. 232C, and I have spoken to Amendment No. 237 with Amendment No. 235.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
238 Clause 67, leave out Clause 67 and insert —
'Jurisdiction of courts.
. —(1) The name "domestic proceedings", given to certain proceedings in magistrates' courts, is hereby changed to "family proceedings" and the names "domestic court" and "domestic court panel" are hereby changed to "family proceedings court" and "family panel", respectively.
(2) Proceedings under this Act shall be treated as family proceedings in relation to magistrates' courts.
(3) Subsection (2) is subject to the provisions of section 65(1) and (2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (proceedings which may be treated as not being family proceedings), as amended by this Act.
(4) A magistrates' court shall not be competent to entertain any application, or make any order, involving the administration or application of —

(a) any property belonging to or held in trust for a child; or

(b) the income of any such property.

(5) The powers of a magistrates' court under section 63(2) of the Act of 1980 to suspend or rescind orders shall not apply in relation to any order made under this Act.
(6) Part I of Schedule 7C makes provision, including provision for the Lord Chancellor to make orders, with respect to the jurisdiction of courts and justices of the peace in relation to —

(a) proceedings under this Act; and

(b) proceedings under certain other enactments.

(7) For the purposes of this Act "the court" means the High Court, a county court or a magistrates' court.
(8) Subsection (7) is subject to the provision made by or under Part I of Schedule 7C and to any express provision as to the jurisdiction of any court made by any other provision of this Act.
(9) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision for the principal registry of the Family Division of the High Court to be treated as if it were a county court for such purposes of this Act, or of any provision made under this Act, as may be specified in the order.
(10) Any order under subsection (9) may make such provision as the Lord Chancellor thinks expedient for the purpose of applying (with or without modifications) provisions which apply in relation to the procedure in county courts to the principal registry when it acts as if it were a county court.
(11) Part II of Schedule 7C makes amendments consequential on this section.'.
Rules of Court.
. — (1) An authority having power to make rules of court may make such provision for giving effect to —

(a) this Act;

(b) the provisions of any statutory instrument made under this Act; or

837

(c) any amendment made by this Act in any other enactment,

as appears to that authority to be necessary or expedient.
(2) The rules may, in particular, make provision —

(a) with respect to the procedure to be followed in any relevant proceedings (including the manner in which any application is to be made or other proceedings commenced);

(b) as to the persons entitled to participate in any relevant proceedings, whether as parties to the proceedings or by being given the opportunity to make representations to the court;

(c) with respect to the documents and information to be furnished, and notices to be given, in connection with any relevant proceedings;

(d) applying (with or without modification) enactments which govern the procedure to be followed with respect to proceedings brought on a complaint made to a magistrates' court to relevant proceedings in such a court brought otherwise than on a complaint;

(e) with respect to preliminary hearings;

(f) for the service outside the United Kingdom, in such circumstances and in such manner as may be prescribed, of any notice of proceedings in a magistrates' court;

(g) for the exercise by magistrates' courts, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, of such powers as may be prescribed (even though a party to the proceedings in question is outside England and Wales);

(h) enabling the court, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, to proceed on any application even though the respondent has not been given notice of the proceedings;

(i) authorising a single justice to discharge the functions of a magistrates' court with respect to such relevant proceedings as may be prescribed;

(j) authorising a magistrates' court to order any of the parties to such relevant proceedings as may be prescribed, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, to pay the whole or part of the costs of all or any of the other parties.

(3) In subsection (2)—
"notice of proceedings" means a summons or such other notice of proceedings as is required; and "given", in relation to a summons, means "served";
"prescribed" means prescribed by the rules; and
"relevant proceedings" means any application made, or proceedings brought, under any of the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) and any part of such proceedings.
(4) This section and any other power in this Act to make rules of court are not be taken as in any way limiting any other power of the authority in question to make rules of court.
(5) When making any rules under this section an authority shall be subject to the same requirements as to consultation (if any) as apply when the authority makes rules under its general rule making power.
Appeals
. —(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court against—

(a) the making by a magistrates' court of any order under this Act; or

(b) any refusal by a magistrates' court to make such an order.

(2) Where a magistrates' court has power, in relation to any proceedings under this Act, to decline jurisdiction because it considers that the case can more conveniently be dealt with by another court, no appeal shall lie against any exercise by that magistrates' court of that power.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to an interim order for periodical payments made under Schedule 1.
(4) On an appeal under this section, the High Court may make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its determination of the appeal.
(5) Where an order is made under subsection (4) the High Court may also make such incidental or consequential orders as appear to it to be just.
(6) Where an appeal from a magistrates' court relates to an order for the making of periodical payments, the High Court may order that its determination of the appeal shall have effect from such date as it thinks fit to specify in the order.
(7) The date so specified must not be earlier than the earliest date allowed in accordance with rules of court made for the purposes of this section.
(8) Where, on an appeal under this section in respect of an order requiring a person to make periodical payments, the High Court reduces the amount of those payments or discharges the order —

(a) it may order the person entitled to the payments to pay to the person making them such sum in respect of payments already made as the High Court thinks fit; and

(b) if any arrears are due under the order for periodical payments, it may remit payment of the whole, or part, of those arrears.

(9) Any order of the High Court made on an appeal under this section (other than one directing that an application be re-heard by a magistrates' court) shall, for the purposes —

(a) of the enforcement of the order; and

(b) of any power to vary, revive or discharge orders,

be treated as if it were an order of the magistrates' court from which the appeal was brought and not an order of the High Court.
(10) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision as to the circumstances in which appeals may be made against decisions taken by courts on questions arising in connection with the transfer, or proposed transfer, of proceedings by virtue of any order under paragraph 2 of Schedule 7C.
(11) Except to the extent provided for in any order made under subsection (10), no appeal may be made against any decision of a kind mentioned in that subsection.
Attendance of child at hearing under Part IV or V.
. —(1) In any proceedings in which a court is hearing an application for an order under Part IV or V, or is considering whether to make any such order, the court may order the child concerned to attend such stage or stages of the proceedings as may be specified in the order.
(2) The power conferred by subsection (1) shall be exercised in accordance with rules of court.
(3) Subsections (4) to (6) apply where —

(a) an order under subsection (1) has not been complied with; or

(b) the court has reasonable cause to believe that it will not be complied with.

(4) The court may make an order authorising a constable, or such person as may be specified in the order —

(a) to take charge of the child and to bring him to the court; and

(b) to enter and search any premises specified in the order if he has reasonable cause to believe that the child may be found on the premises.

(5) The court may order any person who is in a position to do so to bring the child to the court.
(6) Where the court has reason to believe that a person has information about the whereabouts of the child it may order him to disclose it to the court.
Evidence given by, or with respect to, children.
. —(1) Subsection (2) applies where a child who is called as a witness in any civil proceedings does not, in the opinion of the court, understand the nature of an oath.
(2) The child's evidence may be heard by the court if, in its opinion—

(a) he understands that it his duty to speak the truth; and

839

(b) he has sufficient understanding to justify his evidence being heard.

(3) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision for the admissibility of evidence which would otherwise be inadmissible under any rule of law relating to hearsay.
(4) An order under subsection (3) may only be made with respect to —

(a) civil proceedings in general or such civil proceedings, or class of civil proceedings, as may be prescribed; and

(b) evidence in connection with the upbringing, maintenance or welfare of a child.

(5) An order under subsection (3)—

(a) may, in particular, provide for the admissibility of statements which are made orally or in a prescribed form or which are recorded by any prescribed method of recording;

(b) may make different provision for different purposes and in relation to different descriptions of court; and

(c) may make such amendments and repeals in any enactment relating to evidence (other than in this Act) as the Lord Chancellor considers necessary or expedient in consequence of the provision made by the order.

(6) Subsection (5)(b) is without prejudice to section 74(4):
(7) In this section —
"civil proceedings" and "court" have the same meaning as they have in the Civil Evidence Act 1968 by virtue of section 18 of that Act; and
"prescribed" means prescribed by an order under subsection (3).
Privacy for children involved in certain proceedings.
. —(1) Rules made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 may make provision for a magistrates' court to sit in private in proceedings in which any powers under this Act may be exercised by the court with respect to any child.
(2) No person shall publish any material which is intended, or likely, to identify —

(a) any child as being involved in any proceedings before a magistrates' court in which any power under this Act may be exercised by the court with respect to that or any other child; or

(b) an address or school as being that of a child involved in any such proceedings.

(3) In any proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that the published material was intended, or likely, to identify the child.
(4) The court or the Secretary of State may, if satisfied that the welfare of the child requires it, by order dispense with the requirements of subsection (2) to such extent as may be specified in the order.
(5) For the purposes of this section —
"publish" includes —

(a) broadcast by radio, television or cable television; or

(b) cause to be published; and

"material" includes any picture or representation.
(6) Any person who contravenes this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(7) Subsection (1) is without prejudice to —

(a) the generality of the rule making power in section 144 of the Act of 1980; or

(b) any other power of a magistrates' court to sit in private.

(8) Section 71 of the Act of 1980 (newspaper reports of certain proceedings) shall apply in relation to any proceedings to which this section applies subject to the provisions of this section.
Self-incrimination.
. —(1) In any proceedings in which a court is hearing an application for an order under Part IV or V, no person shall be excused from—

(a) giving evidence on any matter; or

(b) answering any question put to him in the course of his giving evidence,

on the ground that doing so might incriminate him or his spouse of an offence.
(2) A statement or admission made in such proceedings shall not be admissible in evidence against the person making it or his spouse in proceedings for an offence other than perjury.
Legal aid.
. —(1) The Legal Aid Act 1988 is amended as mentioned in subsections (2) to (4).
(2) In section 15 (availability of, and payment for, representation under provisions relating to civil legal aid), for the words "and (3)" in subsection (1) there shall be substituted "to (3B)"; and the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
"(3A) Representation under this Part shall not be available —

(a) to any local authority; or

(b) to any other body which falls within a prescribed description,

for the purposes of any proceedings under the Children Act 1989.
(3) Regardless of subsection (2) or{ 3), representation under this Part must be granted where a child who is brought before a court under section 21 of the 1989 Act (use of accommodation for restricting liberty) is not, but wishes to be, legally represented before the court."
(3) In section 19(5) (scope of provisions about criminal legal aid), at the end of the definition of "criminal proceedings" there shall be added "and also includes proceedings under section 15 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (variation and discharge of supervision orders) and section 16(8) of that Act (appeals in such proceedings)".
(4) Sections 27, 28 and 30(1) and (2) (provisions about legal aid in care, and other, proceedings in relation to children) shall cease to have effect.
(5) The Lord Chancellor may by order make such further amendments in the Legal Aid Act 1988 as he considers necessary or expedient in consequence of any provision made by or under this Act.'.
The Lord Chancellor: In speaking to Amendment No. 238, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 238A, 373, 384, 416 and 446. Amendments Nos. 238 and 373 create the single concurrent jurisdiction in children's matters across the magistrates' county courts and the High Court and create a specialised magistrates' court and family proceedings court which will absorb juvenile courts' care jurisdiction as well as having jurisdiction in other family matters. They replace and elaborate on the powers already in the Bill to enable the Lord Chancellor by order to provide for where in the concurrent jurisdiction any type of children's case should start and for its transfer. The powers will be used to allow the more complex care-related cases to be transferred to the superior courts for hearing. They will also be used to expedite the hearing of care cases and to allow proceedings relating to the same child and his family to be heard together.
Amendment No. 238 also allows rules of court to be made for children's cases and, in particular, will allow procedures in magistrates' and superior courts in children's cases to be aligned so far as that is practicable and desirable.

841
The amendment provides for appeals to lie from magistrates to the High Court in all children's cases, including care cases, and will allow all parties to appeal, including local authorities, which will in future be able to appeal refusal of care and related orders. The amendment also confers powers on the court in care and related proceedings to require the child's attendance.
On children's evidence, the amendment makes children's unsworn evidence admissible in all civil proceedings. The amendment enables the Lord Chancellor to abrogate the hearsay rule in such children's proceedings and in respect of such evidence as he thinks fit. The power is likely to be used to re-establish the status quo ante, the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re H, Re K, so far as concerns children's cases in the superior courts.
The amendment allows rules to be made securing privacy of hearings in magistrates' courts of proceedings under the Bill. The amendment removes the privilege against self-incrimination in public law proceedings under the Bill but prevents such evidence being used in a subsequent prosecution of the witness or his spouse except for perjury.
So far as concerns legal aid, the amendment extends civil legal aid to all proceedings under the Bill and will enable legal aid to be granted without delay to those immediately involved in care-related cases, including the child.
Amendment No. 238A leaves out the existing Clause 68, which is superseded by the new clause, "Rules of Court", contained in Amendment No. 238.
Amendment No. 384 extends civil legal aid to proceedings under the Bill in magistrates' courts. Amendment No. 416 repeals a definition of domestic court in the Administration of Justice Act 1964 that has long been redundant. Amendment No. 446 repeals provisions in the Legal Aid Act 1988 which are no longer required as a consequence of this Bill.
Amendment No. 238 provides for the new clauses to which I have referred. I have summarised the provisions in question.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Meston: My Lords, Amendment No. 238 runs to five pages and is one of the worst examples of the complaint made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, at the beginning of today's proceedings. It is most unsatisfactory to legislate in this way, particularly about such important matters in a Bill whose provisions we hope will last for a long time.
Yet it is ironic that the amendment contains one of the few provisions which could not have been foreseen as being necessary when the Bill left this House in March. It is the provision for the admissibility of hearsay evidence to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has referred. Can he indicate when the order provided for in the new clause is expected to take effect and what he has in mind in relation to the admissibility of hearsay
842
evidence in child cases? Further, has there been any consultation? It is to be hoped that the hearsay regulations, which presumably will be made by him, will not involve an elaborate procedure of notice and counter-notice, as is the position under the Civil Evidence Act.
Without going into further detail on this enormous amendment I shall raise only one other matter. It is the remarkable final subsection of the amendment which appears at the bottom of page 48, which states that:
"The Lord Chancellor may by order make such further amendments in the Legal Aid Act 1988 as he considers necessary or expedient in consequence of any provision made by or under this Act".
I suspect that if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, were present he would have fairly strong comments to make about it because it appears to provide for non-parliamentary amendment of an enactment. It must be regarded by the legal profession with considerable suspicion.
I understand that the only real requirement is for a power to enable legal aid to be expedited, if not the granting of instant legal aid, in cases where the court provides for a stringent timetable. One must ask why on earth the noble and learned Lord needs such a wide provision. There was criticism earlier today of the absurd detail contained in some parts of the Bill. Yet here is a completely contrary provision which gives an extremely broad, general power with no indication as to how it will be operated.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, can my noble and learned friends tell me about the implications that the amendment will have for the juvenile courts? He mentioned them in passing in his introduction but I see no reference to them in the next. Will the family court subsume the juvenile courts or will they continue to function in the same way?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I must support my noble friend Lord Meston in his complaint about the amendment. It treats your Lordships' House with not even something approaching contempt but with actual contempt. It makes an absolute mockery of the whole proceedings when we are given this amount of material at this stage and no opportunity of going through it. We on these Beaches take an extremely poor view of the matter.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, my noble and learned friend will know that it is inevitable that, as a member of the Family Courts Campaign I must say how disappointed we were about being unable to have a more specific law in respect of family courts. There were some notable speeches in the other place and many speeches from all sides of the House in the other place on family courts. On the other hand, the Solicitor-General on 21st October gave a very full explanation of why it was felt impossible to implement family courts under this Bill, and we accept that.
However, I also ask my noble and learned friend —and I ask him knowing quite well the answer—whether it would be possible as we cannot have family courts at present, to have a well

843
supported conciliation service. I know that it is not possible to have conciliation written into statutory law at present. In fact it would be quite inadvisable inasmuch as the divorce law is under consideration by the Law Commission and therefore we very much hope that it will take into account the whole question of conciliation services. Also there is a committee, organised by the socio-legal centre at Bristol University, which is looking into the welfare support services for the courts.
Therefore, I ask my noble and learned friend whether he will consider —I go no further than that —the whole question of how a conciliation service could on a temporary basis be financed. He has kindly and generously written to me to say that he understands my request but cannot comment or give a decision today. However, again I make a plea for him to consider the situation.
Your Lordships may remember some years ago that the Treasury made a grant to a voluntary organisation, the Rayner Foundation, for setting up intermediate treatment centres under the juvenile law. It was not known whether those centres would be a success. However, by giving money to a voluntary organisation it was possible within five years to diminish the number of children in penal institutions.
I make a plea to my noble and learned friend that consideration should be given to the making of a grant to a voluntary organisation, perhaps the Nuffield Trust, which is already bound up with the conciliation service, to dispense to conciliation projects throughout the country (of which there are 80) on a temporary basis until such time as a decision is taken by the Law Commission when it considers the divorce laws.
I make two points. First, in the other place the honourable Member for a constituency in Wales whose name I cannot pronounce said that the people in North Wales want a conciliation service but it is not a well resourced area and they are unable to raise the money. On the other hand, in Oxford on 18th April a conciliation service was opened without any publicity whatever. Since then there have been 75 referrals, including 15 from solicitors, 10 from the divorce courts, five from civil welfare officers and three from social workers. Both those instances show that there is a need for conciliation services. I dare to suggest that money would be saved in the country in legal aid fees, although one cannot say that specifically.
Therefore, on the Floor of your Lordships' House I take the opportunity to ask my noble and learned friend whether in the near future the whole question of the resourcing of conciliation services could be considered, if only on a temporary basis.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I very much support the plea made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. These are complex amendments to a complex Bill. It seems to me that time will show how well the Bill is fitting together. I hope that time will also show that it heralds the beginning of a family court.
844
Meanwhile the Bill provides the practitioners and the clients with a consistent set of legal remedies which will be available in all the courts and, as we heard earlier this afternoon, in all proceedings. The courts therefore will have to adapt to its requirements.
What worries me is how quickly practitioners throughout the country will grasp the guiding principles and the guiding philosophy of the Bill. I have spoken with colleagues and I believe that many have not as yet grasped its significance. In many ways the Bill is as radical as the Law of Property Act 1925 was in the field of property law. It took many years for practitioners to grasp the significance of the 1925 legislation. The 1925 Law of Property Act dealt with property. This Bill deals with children. I am therefore particularly anxious that every effort should be made to ensure that the philosophy of the Bill is fully understood; otherwise there is a risk that for some years to come the new concept of residence, the new concept of contact, will simply be perceived as new terminology for the old substance. That worries me very much.
I support the emphasis which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has placed on the importance of conciliation. I note that it is a concept that fits in with the Law Commission's discussion paper on the grounds for divorce —that divorce should be granted only at the end of a transition period. It appears that even where the parties in a divorce —the husband and wife or former husband and wife —wish for a settlement, there are substantial areas of disagreement. This is an area where the conciliator and the mediator can be of help. Conciliation has yet to develop as a discipline. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that the development of that discipline should be encouraged by the department.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should like, first, to respond to the feeling of outrage of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, at being faced with this amendment and its later colleagues. When the Bill was originally designed it was a Bill to alter the substantive law in relation to children. It is plain that that is the way it had been proceeding for some considerable time through the White Paper and through the work of the Law Commission on private law in this area.
I was very keen that these two matters should go together; that the private law and the public law be reformed at the same time so that the children we are concerned for face an integrated structure with principles and philosophy that are capable of being understood and explained. I entirely take the point that we shall have to explain it as clearly as we can and as often as we can. I try to take my part in that by lecturing to various people who want to listen on the Children Bill and on what we are seeking to achieve.
However, I felt it was extremely important that we should also try to alter the court procedures to

845
conform with the substantive rules and to move towards an integrated method of court procedure for dealing with children's cases. That matter had to be developed later than the earlier provisions to which I have referred. The options were either to leave it out of this Bill altogether and hope that in due course another opportunity would arise with a substantive law reform but no corresponding reform of the court and its jurisdiction, or to try to seize the opportunity of this Bill to deal with the matter of the courts.
I indicated as plainly as I could when the Bill was before your Lordships what I had in mind. But the detailed working up of these provisions required a good deal of consultation, and I have indicated the scale of that. We had clauses in the Bill indicating in general terms what we had in mind. This is a development from that presented as the Bill went through its parliamentary procedure in the other place.
Therefore while I appreciate the difficulty, we have done what is very necessary at the earliest possible moment. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred to the provision at the end concerning the Legal Aid Act. We have in mind provisions of the Legal Aid Act which require to be modified as a consequence of this Act. We have already set out certain modifications that will take place including, for example, a compulsory legal aid allowance under Clause 2(3)(b).
It is plain that further amendments may be required to the Legal Aid Act in consequence of a provision made by or under this Act. So it is not a very wide power, it is simply to bring effectively into play what we have done under this Act by using or amending the Legal Aid Act 1988.
To turn to the hearsay matter, the noble Lord accepted that it is very fortunate that we are in a position to modify the decision of the Court of Appeal. I gathered from his observations that he was in favour of the modification in this instance. That we propose to do. The power to make the orders will come into force on Royal Assent to this Bill. I shall certainly wish to exercise the power to bring the law regarding children's cases into the state in which it was before the decision of the Court of Appeal or something along those lines.
Naturally, I have spoken about the matter before to those concerned with it, but I shall be formally consulting about the matter before exercising the power. That is what I presently have in mind. Turning to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, the clear jurisdiction of the juvenile court will be absorbed within the new family proceedings court. Amendment No. 238 begins by saying:
846
"Leave out Clause 67 and insert —
(1) the name 'domestic proceedings', given to certain proceedings in magistrates' courts, is hereby changed to 'family proceedings', and the names 'domestic court' and 'domestic court panel' are hereby changed to 'family proceedings court' and 'family panel', respectively".
The care jurisdiction of the juvenile court will be absorbed within the new family proceedings court. The juvenile court will remain but it will be concerned with criminal cases only. That ties in with the point made concerning the philosophy of the Bill. It is our intention that those who will adjudicate on these matters will be those with a special interest in and who have made a study of the Act, as I hope it will become, and its provisions.
The judicial studies board has already made considerable arrangements. I believe this to be part of the development for which those who are concerned for the family court are looking. It is a considerable step in the direction of achieving the aims of those who over the years have supported the family court campaign. It is true that in discussion on these matters with the family court campaigners sometimes one discerns between the members of the campaign somewhat different views about what the family court should be. However, as I understand the thrust of that campaign, I think I can claim that, broadly, we are moving in the right direction.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull emphasised conciliation. As she knows, my predecessor but one, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, commissioned research from Newcastle on this matter. It would be fair to say that, although the research was carefully and competently conducted, the results do not yield a very sure guide to the way forward. We have also to take into account the fact that the Law Commission is dealing with questions of the substantive law of divorce. The shape of that law as it emerges will have an effect on the place that conciliation may have.
I am grateful to my noble friend for mentioning the precedent of the intermediate treatment resourcing. I have asked my officials to look at thai point and to inform me about it. But, as matters stand, it is unlikely at the present time that money could be provided through the Lord Chancellor's Department for conciliation. We provided money through the department for the continuation of the fieldwork on which the Newcastle project was based. We provided funds to assist the continuation of the fieldwork at three centres. To make an assessment of the place of conciliation was a reasonable use of the money. At present I fear that I cannot give much hope, although I am concerned to make progress in this matter. I am grateful to my noble friend for raising it. Those are the main questions in relation to the amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
238A Clause 68, leave out Clause 68.
239 Clause 69, page 61, line 40, after 'authority', insert —
'(bb) so as to make a child who is the subject of a care order a ward of court;'.
240 Page 61, line 42, leave out 'issue' and insert 'question'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 238A, 239 and 240. I spoke to Amendment No. 238A with Amendment No. 238, to Amendment No. 239 with Amendment No. 235 and to Amendment No. 240 with Amendment No. 23.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
On Question, Motion agreed to.
241 Clause 70, page 62, line 20, after 'effect', insert 'in prescribed circumstances'.
242 Page 62, line 27, after 'effect', insert 'in prescribed circumstances'.
243 Page 62, line 29, at end insert—
'(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) may provide for the order concerned to cease to have effect for the purposes of the law of Northern Ireland, or (as the case may be) the law of England and Wales, if prescribed conditions are satisfied.'.
244 Page 62, line 36, after 'effect', insert 'in prescribed circumstances'.
245 Page 62, line 37, at end insert —
'(2A) Where a child who is in the care of a local authority is lawfully taken to live in Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or in any of the Channel Islands, the care order in question shall cease to have effect if the conditions prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State are satisfied.'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 241 to 245. Clause 70 is intended to establish the machinery under which care orders made in one part of the British Isles may be transferred to another part. Amendments Nos. 241, 242 and 244 clarify that such regulations may provide for transfer to take place in prescribed circumstances to enable us to make conditions. Amendment No. 243 extends the regulation-making power in relation to orders made in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales to ensure that it will be possible for a prescribed order to cease to have effect if conditions prescribed in the regulations are met. Amendment No. 245 take similar regulation-making powers where the child who is the subject of a care order made in England or Wales is lawfully taken to another of the territories recognised in Clause 70.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
246 Clause 71, page 63, line 14, at end insert 'using reasonable force if necessary.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 246. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 163.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
247 Clause 71, page 63, line 35, leave out 'and 60' and insert ', (Inspection), 60, (Children accommodated in residential care, nursing or mental nursing homes) and (Welfare of children accommodated in independent schools).
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 247.
Amendment No. 247 extends the warrant provison to support various powers of entry which have been included in new provisions in the Bill. These are in relation to the inspection of premises where day care is provided, children accommodated in residential care homes, nursing homes and mental nursing homes and the welfare of children in independent schools.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
10 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
248 Clause 71, page 63, line 37, leave out paragraph (c).
249 Clause 72, leave out Clause 72.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 248 and 249. I spoke to Amendment No. 248 when I moved Amendment No. 212, and Amendment No. 249 was spoken to with Amendment No. 232C.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
250 Clause 74, page 64, line 32, leave out 'conferred by' and insert 'of the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State under'.
251 Page 64, line 33, after 'regulations' insert 'or rules'.
252 Page 64, line 33, leave out 'or 47(3)' and insert 47(3), (Local authority failure to comply with statutory duty: default power of Secretary of State) or (Privacy for children involved in certain proceedings) (4)'.
253 Page 64, line 37, after ' 15(4)' insert',(Application to Channel Islands) or 77(2),'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 250 to 253. I should like at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 269.
Amendment No. 250 is a drafting amendment which alters Clause 74(1) to provide that the powers of the Lord Chancellor or of the Secretary of State

849
under the Bill to make orders or regulations will, save for specified exceptions, be exercisable by statutory instrument.
Amendment No. 251 makes the same provision for rules of court. Amendment No. 252 provides certain exemptions from the general requirement. Amendment No. 253 provides that any statutory instruments made under Amendment No. 269 would be exceptions to the provisions in Clause 74(2), requiring generally that orders, rules and regulations be subject to the negative resolution procedure permitting an annulment following a resolution by either House.
Amendment No. 269 confers power to extend the Bill to the Channel Islands by Order in Council.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
254 Clause 75, page 65, line 7, leave out from 'and' to 'a' in line 9 and insert 'also includes any order which by or under any enactment has the effect of or is deemed to be'.
255 Page 65, line 12, after 'means' insert 'subject to paragraph 16 of Schedule 1,'.
256 Page 65, line 12, at end insert—
' "child assessment order" has the meaning given by section (Child assessment orders) (2);
"child minder" has the meaning given by section (Registration);'.
257 Page 65, line 17, after 'parties', insert 'as foster parents'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 254 to 257. I should like at the same time to speak also to Amendments Nos. 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267 and 268.
Amendments Nos. 270 and 271 deal with commencement. Certain provisions will come into force on Royal Assent and another will do so after two months. Commencement is also made the responsibility of either the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State, or both of them acting jointly. This provision mirrors the responsibilities for the various matters in the Bill.
While the Government wish to implement the Bill as soon as possible it is of course a major piece of reforming legislation which will require statutory instruments, rules of court, guidance, planning and training upon a grand scale, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has already hinted. It is not possible, therefore, to specify on the face of the Bill the dates by which such provisions will come into force. However, the Government's aim is that all the provisions in the Bill should be in force by October 1991.
Amendment No. 383 makes minor amendments to existing enactments to reflect the substantive conceptual changes brought about by the Bill. The Acts concerned are: the Matrimonial Causes Act; the National Health Service Act; the Child Care Act; the Education Act; the Child Abduction Act and the Foster Children (Scotland) Act.
850
While the Government wish to implement the Bill as soon as possible, as I say, a number of regulations are required to be made and many other matters need to be carried out. Nevertheless, the Government are anxious to introduce certain provisions —that is, those to which Amendment No. 270 relate —on or shortly after the passing of the Act. Indeed, some noble Lords have already expressed the desire for certain provisions to be brought in earlier than that date.
We believe that the new provisions on paternity testing should come into force on the passing of the Act because of the urgent need for a mechanism to enable a choice to be made between testers and individual cases. We also believe that the power given to the Lord Chancellor to override the rules of evidence relating to hearsay should come into force on the passing of the Act so that the power may be exercised as soon as possible.
We further believe it right that the amendment to the Child Care Act brought about by paragraph 22C of Schedule 8 should come into effect immediately. This will mean that for certain purposes, especially as regards the access provisions in Part IA of the Child Care Act 1980, the word "parent" will include both of the child's parents whether or not they were married to each other at the time of his birth.
Finally, we have decided that the clarification of a local education authority's powers concerning contributions to the cost of special education provision abroad, which is contained in paragraph 22D of Schedule 8, should come into force at the expiration of two months from the passing of the Act.
Amendment No. 271 is a minor technical amendment which alters the commencement provisions so as to provide for the Act to be brought into force, as I said, by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State acting either separately or jointly.
Amendment No. 383 updates the definition in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 which presently refers to a child who has been boarded out with those parties by a local authority.
The amendment also alters, as I said, certain parts of other statutes, and I do not know that I need to mention them all in detail.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I have one small question. I observe that very little of Clause 77 applies to Scotland. Do the Government have plans to update the children's legislation for Scotland concurrently with this legislation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, only a few of the provisions of the Bill will extend to Scotland. We are altering legislation where it applies across the United Kingdom. Some would claim that the provisions for children in Scotland are considerably more advanced than those that have applied here hitherto. The Secretary of State for Scotland has set

851
up a working party in his department to review child care law in Scotland. That working party is presently working. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will want to consider its report which he will have in fairly early course. No doubt even the law in Scotland in relation to children can be still further improved.
I have moved a little too quickly. I want formally to put Amendments Nos. 254 to 257.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
258 Clause 75, page 65, line 19, at end insert —
"children's home", has the same meaning as in section 52;'.
259 Page 65, line 21, at end insert —
"day care" has the same meaning as in section 16;'.
260 Page 65, line 25, at end insert —
"domestic premises" has the meaning given by section (Registration) (12);'.
261 Page 65, line 30, at end insert —
"guardian of a child" means a guardian, (other than a guardian of the estate of a child) appointed in accordance with the provisions of section 5'.
262 Page 65, line 45, after 'means', insert 'in relation to England and Wales'.
263 Page 65, line 47, at end insert 'and, in relation to Scotland, a local authority within the meaning of section 1(2) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968'.
264 Page 66, line 28, leave out 'supervised child' and insert 'child who is the subject of a supervision order'.
265 Page 66, line 29, at end insert —
' "school" has the same meaning as it has in the Education Act 1944 or, in relation to Scotland, in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980;'
266 Page 67, line 16, leave out subsection (5).
267 Page 67, line 18, at end insert —
'(5A) References in this Act to accommodation provided by or on behalf of a local authority are references to accommodation so provided in the exercise of functions which stand referred to the social services committee of that or any other local authority under the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970.'
268 Page 67, line 27, at end insert —
'(6A) References in this Act to children who are in need shall be construed in accordance with section 15.'
269 After Clause 76, insert the following new clause—
Application to Channel Islands
'. Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that any of the provisions of this Act shall extend to any of the Channel Islands with such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in the Order.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Amendment No. 258 has been spoken to with Amendment No. 190; Amendments Nos. 259 to 265 have been spoken to with Amendment No. 254; Amendment No. 266 has been spoken to with Amendment No. 168; Amendments Nos. 267 and 268 were spoken to with Amendment No. 254; Amendment No. 269 was spoken to with Amendment No. 250. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 258 to 269.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. — (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
270 Clause 77, page 68, line 8, after (2), insert 'Sections (Tests to establish paternity) and (Evidence given by, or with respect to children) (3) to (7) and paragraph 22C of Schedule 8 shall come into force on the passing of this Act and paragraph 22D of Schedule 8 shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed but otherwise'.
271 Page 68, line 9, leave out 'Secretary of State', and insert 'Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State, or by both acting jointly'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 270 and 271.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. — (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
272 Clause 77, page 68, line 15, after 'provisions', insert 'and savings'.
273 Page 68, line 16, at end insert —
'(7A) An order under subsection (2) may make such transitional provisions or savings as appear to the person making the order to be necessary or expedient in connection with the provisions brought into force by the order, including—

(a) provisions adding to or modifying the provisions of Schedule 10; and

(b) such adaptations —

(i) of the provisions brought into force by the order; and

(ii) of any provisions of this Act then in force,

as appear to him necessary or expedient in consequence of the partial operation of this Act.
(7B) The Lord Chancellor may by order make such amendments or repeals, in such enactments as may be specified in the order, as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of any provision of this Act.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 272 and 273. I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 411. These amendments deal with transitional aspects of the Bill; Amendment No. 411 inserts transitional provisions into the Bill. On the private law side, the general result is that existing orders will be preserved. It will be inappropriate to convert them into new style orders because of the conceptual dissimilarity between old and new orders. On the public law side, however, there is a higher degree of correspondence between old and new orders and therefore many existing orders will be deemed to be the equivalent new orders.
Amendment No. 272 is a technical amendment and Amendment No. 273 will enable a commencement order to make further transitional provisions and modify existing ones. Such an order will also be capable of making further consequential amendments to enactments. The knock-on effects of the Bill are so far-reaching, even in areas ostensibly remote from family law, that we cannot be absolutely sure that we have tracked down all the references that need to be amended consequentially. This power will enable the Lord Chancellor to deal with any

853
such obscu re references that eventually come to his attention. I believe that that is a reasonable course for us to take in the circumstances.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I think that we should take special note of this group of amendments. It is a very unusual way for us to be legislating. The matter starts on page 68 with Clause 77(2), which states:
"This Act shall come into force on such date as may be appointed by order made by the Secretary of State".
Then we find in Amendment No. 273 that an order made under that subsection:
"may make such transitional provisions or savings as appear to the person making the order to be necessary or expedient in connection with the provisions brought into force by the order",
including those mentioned in Schedule 10.
So, to begin with, we find that the common provision that power should be given to bring the Act into force on the particular date that the Secretary of State shall decide is accompanied by the power given to him —a very wide power indeed —to make transitional provisions as indicated in Schedule 10.
As it left your Lordships' House, the tenth schedule consisted of ten lines. A new tenth schedule has been brought back consisting of 17 pages, dealing with the most fundamental matters some of which could hardly be described as "merely transitional", because they are pretty fundamental. Your Lordships will find that they start at the foot of page 113 of the list of Commons amendments. There we find the cross-heading, "Pending Proceedings, etc." Then on the next page we find transitional provisions relating to, "Custody Orders, etc.". There are references to about eight previous Acts. Then we move on several pages further and find reference to "Guardians". The sub-heading is,
"Existing guardians to be guardians under this Act".
Fair enough. But again there are a number of cross-references. The next cross-heading is, "Children in Care", with the sub-heading, "Children in compulsory care".
That provision continues for six pages. Then we have as the next cross-heading, "Supervision Orders". Under that heading there are a number of no doubt necessary cross-references to a number of existing Acts of Parliament.
At the foot of page 125 is the heading "Place of Safety Orders". Over the page is the heading "Recovery of Children". That is followed by the heading:
"Voluntary Organisations: Parental Rights Resolutions".
This is an unusual situation which, if we had time at this late hour, we should think through. Then we come to a cross-heading entitled "Foster Children" and another one entitled "Nurseries and Child Minding". There is a further heading entitled:
"Children Accommodated in Certain Establishments".
Then there is a rather important cross-heading entitled, "Criminal Care Orders".
854
My suggestion is that the Government are not giving enough time for the preparation of this fundamental legislation, and that these transitional provisions are of a kind which should have been thought through before the Bill ever saw the light of day and before it was ever presented to Parliament.
I do not blame my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor personally for this, but it is not a satisfactory way to legislate if we as legislators, and your Lordships in particular as Members of a revising Chamber, are expected to follow through all the implications of these complicated afterthoughts. In any event, I think it is so strange —it is not within my recollection that it has been done before —to make the simple provision dealing with giving power to the Secretary of State to make an appointed day order and at the same time to provide that he should be given very wide powers not only to apply the transitional provisions detailed in the Act which I burdened your Lordships with mentioning, but also under Amendment No. 273 any other transitional provisions that he considers ought to be made. It is a very strange way to legislate, and I feel obliged to draw attention to it.
10.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble friend suggests that we should have got all the transitional provisions right in advance. One of the great difficulties about making progress in a fundamental area is that no matter how carefully consultation proceeds before one begins, once the parliamentary process starts a great deal of interest is excited in the matter and there are considerable debates concerning what the provisions should be. One can only decide what the transitional provisions are and what transitional provisions may be necessary in the light of what it is one finishes up with.
As we go through the parliamentary consideration of the main matters, it follows that we have to consider and make detailed provisions to give effect to the kind of transitional circumstances which may be raised. This Bill was desired urgently on all sides of the House, particularly following the situation in Cleveland. However, there were earlier situations than that in Cleveland which made the Bill necessary. It would not have been practicable to prepare in advance transitional provisions in detail. As I have said, because of the kind of consideration that this Bill and anything like it has to have, it is natural that major changes on the substantive provisions should take place as the Bill progresses.
We have done our very best to ensure that the Bill conforms with what the House and the other place wish in this very important area. The technical amendments which come towards the end to deal with the transitional provisions are complicated because of the very fundamental nature of what has been accomplished.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, while I understand perfectly the comments of my noble friend Lord Renton, I should like to congratulate the civil servants on the tremendous amount of consultation that has taken place over the pasi: two years.

855
Furthermore, when the Bill was published at least four or five meetings were held with various voluntary organisations and the statutory organisations. It was not until the Bill was printed that it was possible to hold those meetings in order to discuss the many points which arose.
Therefore, although I understand my noble friend's comments, nevertheless there has been a great deal of consultation between the civil servants, the noble and learned Lord and those concerned with the wellbeing of children. Perhaps the very success of those consultations has led to the difficulty to which my noble friend Lord Renton has referred.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
274 Clause 77, page 68, line 20, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
'(9) The following provisions of this Act extend to Scotland —
section (Review of provision for day care, child minding, etc.);
section 21(9);
section (Recovery of abducted children, etc.) (13);
Part (CHILD MINDING AND DAY CARE FOR YOUNG CHILDREN);
section 60(1)(ff) and (g), (2) to (4), 5(a), (b) and (g) and (6) to (12);
section (Amendments of adoption legislation),
section 74 (so far as necessary);
section 75 (so far as necessary);
subsections (1) to (3), (7A) and (7B) and this subsection; in Schedule 2, paragraph 22;
in Schedule 8, paragraphs 1, 5B to 5E, 12A, 19B, 20B(a) and 221 to 23;
in Schedule 9, paragraphs 13A to 13F, 21A, 24A, 24B, 25B, 27D, 31A, 31B, 3IG(a) and (b) and 31J; in Schedule 10, paragraphs 1, 33 and 34; and
in Schedule 11, the entries relating to —

(a) the Custody of Children Act 1891;

(b) the Nurseries and Child Minders Regulation Act 1948;

(c) section 53(3) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963;

(d) section 60 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968;

(e) the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968;

(f) the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978;

(g) the Child Care Act 1980;

(h) the Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984;

(i) the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985; and

(j) the Family Law Act 1986.'.

275 Page 68, line 22, leave out subsection (10) and insert —
'(10) The following provisions of this Act extend to Northern Ireland—
section (Recovery of abducted children, etc.);
section 70(1)(b), (1A) and (3)(a)(i);
subsections (I) to (3), (7A) and (7B) and this subsection; in Schedule 2, paragraph 22;
in Schedule 8, paragraphs 1, 5B to 5E, 12A and 19B;
in Schedule 9, paragraphs 13D, 13E, 24A, 24B, 27D, 31A, 31B, 31G(c) to (e) and 31 H to 31J;
in Schedule 10, pargraphs 18, 28 to 30 and 38(a); and in Schedule 11, the entries relating to the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971, the Children Act 1975, the Child Care Act 1980 and the Family Law Act 1986.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 274 and 275.
Amendment No. 274 would extend to Scotland those additional provisions which were inserted by earlier amendments and which were desired for Scotland to which I referred earlier. The effect of the clause as amended will be to extend to Scotland those provisions for regulating and reviewing day care services, reciprocal adoption arrangements, private fostering and minor consequential amendments.
Amendment No. 275 is largely a technical necessity to extend certain provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland. It must also extend provisions in the Bill which amend, repeal or save provisions in other enactments which already extend to Northern Ireland. Otherwise the amendments repealing or saving would have no effect in that jurisdiction.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
276 Clause 77, page 68, line 25, leave out subsection (11).
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 276.
The amendment would remove Clause 77(1 1) which provides that nothing in the Bill should impose any charge. That is the privilege amendment. This is a technical formality.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
277 Schedule 1, page 70, line 3, leave out 'High Court, a county court or a magistrates'.'
278 Page 71, line 8, leave out 'the parents of the child' and insert' —

(a) any parent making or securing the payments; and

(b) any parent to whom the payments are made or secured,'.

279 Page 71, line 26, leave out 'or 2'.
280 Page 71, line 34, at end insert —
'(2A) Where the court makes an order under paragraph 1 against a person who is not the father of the child, it shall record in the order that the order is made on the basis that the person against whom the order is made is not the child's father.'
281 Page 71, leave out line 36 and insert —
'(a) in relation to a decision whether to exercise its powers under paragraph 1, any parent of the child;
(aa) in relation to a decision whether to exercise its powers under paragraph 2, the mother and father of the child;'.
282 Page 72, line 2, leave out '£500' and insert '£1000'.
283 Page 73, line 9, leave out 'or 2'.
284 Page 74, line 32, leave out 'High Court, a country court or a magistrates'.'
285 Page 76, line 4, leave out '(4)' and insert '(3)'.
286 Page 77, line 5, leave out 'and' and insert —
'(2) In this schedule except paragraphs 2 and 15,'.
287 Page 77, line 7, at end insert '; and for this purpose any reference to either parent or both parents shall be construed as references to any parent of his and to all of his parents'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 277 to 287 en bloc.
Amendments Nos. 277 and 284 are drafting amendments. "The court" will be defined in the Bill as meaning the High Court, a county court or a magistrates' court. The amendments therefore remove superfluous words from paragraphs 2(1) and 10(2) of Schedule 1.
Amendment No. 285 is a drafting amendment. Amendment No. 282 amends the maximum amount of lump sums payable under magistrates' courts orders to take account of the Magistrates Courts (Increase of Lump Sums) Order 1988. Amendments Nos. 283, 278, 286 and 287 are drafting amendments. Amendment No. 279 is consequential upon Amendment No. 286.
Amendment No. 280 will require the court where appropriate to record on an order the fact that it was not made on the basis that the person against whom it was made was the child's father. That will facilitate the continued use of financial orders as a reliable basis for the registration of paternity under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 where appropriate.
Amendment No. 281 is a drafting amendment that is consequential upon Amendment No. 286.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
288 Schedule 2, page 77, line 31, leave out 'Part III' and insert `this Act'.
289 Page 77, line 40, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'Part III of this Act'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 288 and 289 en bloc. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 332, 334, 335, 342, 344 and 345. These are drafting amendments designed to remove ambiguity that has emerged on consideration of the existing draft. They do not change the effect of the provisions referred to. For example, Amendment No. 289 makes it clear that the reference to "Part" in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 is to Part III of the Act and not to Part I of Schedule 2. That is just an example of the sort of amendments that we are here dealing with.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
290 Schedule 2, page 78, line 5, at end insert —
'Provision of accommodation in order to Protect child
4A. —(1) Where —

(a) it appears to a local authority that a child who is living on particular premises is suffering, or is likely to suffer, ill treatment at the hands of another person who is living on those premises; and

(b) that other person proposes to move from the premises,

the authority may assist that other person to obtain alternative accommodation.
(2) Assistance given under this paragraph may be in cash.
(3) Subsections (7) to (9) of section 15 shall apply in relation to assistance given under this paragraph as they apply in relation to assistance given under that section.'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 290. This amendment is connected with the question of exclusion of the suspected abuser that I spoke of earlier in connection with ousters. This amendment picks up a point made by Lord Justice Butler-Sloss in the Cleveland Inquiry report. She encouraged social services departments to consider the appropriateness of using their existing powers under Section 1 of the Child Care Act 1980 to prevent the reception of a child into care. Under these powers they may be able to defray for a limited period additional costs incurred by the suspected abuser in leaving home on a temporary basis while initial assessment of the child is completed.
That is valuable advice; the lack of any specific provisions on undertakings in the law need not prevent local authorities which obtain an emergency protection order agreeing to arrangements for vacating the home on a voluntary basis. Some do it already. The power in the 1980 Act is being replaced by a similar broad power in Schedule 2, paragraph 6. Amendment No. 290 would add a much more specific provision to the detailed powers and duties in Schedule 2 on local authority services to families. When the authority consider that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, ill treatment at the hands of another person and that other person is willing to move from the premises, the authority may assist the other person to obtain alternative accommodation. Assistance may be in cash and, by virtue of subsection (3), the assistance may be unconditional or subject to conditions.
I hope that this will be regarded as a useful start and that the House will consider that the amendment is useful.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
291 Schedule 2, page 78, line 13, after 'take', insert 'reasonable'.
292 Page 78, line 20, leave out 'wardship proceedings' and insert 'proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court with respect to children'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 291 and 292 en bloc.

859
Paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 forms part of the range of preventive duties provided for in the Bill. It would require local authorities to take steps to reduce the need to bring proceedings in respect of children in their area. We wish to insert the word "reasonable", so that local authorities should take reasonable steps under paragraph 6.
Amendment No. 292 to the same paragraph would extend the duty of local authorities to take reasonable steps to reduce the need to bring wardship proceedings to cover all proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court with respect to children. The latter phrase is comprehensive: it includes wardship and also the residual powers regarding injunctions, for example.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
293 Schedule 2, page 79, line 8, leave out from 'take' to end of line 10 and insert 'such steps as are reasonably practicable, where any child within their area who is in need and whom they are not looking after is living apart from his family —'
294 Page 79, line 14, at end insert—
Duty to consider racial groups to which children in need belong
9A. Every local authority shall, in making any arrangements —

(a) for the provision of day care within their area; or

(b) designed to encourage persons to act as local authority foster parents,

have regard to the different racial groups to which children within their area who are in need belong.'.
295 Page 79, line 38, leave out `by voluntary organisations'.
296 Page 80, line 6, leave out 'specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of section 19(4)' and insert `falling within section 19(3A)'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 293 to 296 en bloc. I have spoken to Amendment No. 293 with Amendment No. 53, to Amendment No. 294 with Amendment No. 52, to Amendment No. 295 with Amendment No. 53 and to Amendment No. 296 with Amendment No. 53. Therefore I propose to take them en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
297 Schedule 2, page 81, line 2, after 'person', insert 'who is not a parent of his but'.
298 Page 81, line 35, leave out from 'been' to end of line and insert 'infrequent'.
299 Page 81, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 40 and insert 'and that it would be in the child's best interests for an independent person to be appointed to be his visitor for the purposes of this paragraph, they shall appoint such a visitor.'
300 Page 81, line 44, leave out 'expenses reasonably incurred' and insert 'reasonable expenses incurred.'.
301 Page 82, line 7, at end insert —
'(4A) Where a local authority propose to appoint a visitor for a child under this paragraph, the appointment shall not be made if—
860

(a) the child objects to it; and

(b) the authority are satisfied that he has sufficient understanding to make an informed decision.

(4B) Where a visitor has been appointed for a child under this paragraph, the local authority shall determine the appointment if —

(a) the child objects to its continuing; and

(b) the authority are satisfied that he has sufficient understanding to make an informed decision.'

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 297 to 301 en bloc. Amendment No. 297 is a drafting amendment. Amendment No. 298 clarifies the conditions for the appointment of an independent visitor in circumstances where communication between the child and his parents or others has been infrequent. This replaces the words:
"so infrequent that it is appropriate to appoint a visitor for him".
Amendment No. 299 modifies the duty of the local authority to appoint a visitor if the conditions in paragraph 15(1) are met by introducing a qualification that it appears to the local authority that it would be in the child's best interest for an independent person to be appointed to be his visitor for the purposes of this paragraph.
Amendment No. 300 is a drafting amendment. Amendment No. 301 places further limitations on the duty to appoint a visitor. A local authority shall not appoint a visitor if a mature child objects and shall terminate an existing appointment if a mature child objects to its continuing.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
302 In Schedule 2, page 82, line 21, leave out 'with the approval of the court' and insert 'only'.
303 Page 82, line 22, leave out 'abroad' and insert 'outside England and Wales with the approval of the court.'.
304 Page 82, line 23, leave out from 'who' to end of line 26 and insert 'has parental responsibility for the child,'.
305 Page 82, line 28, leave out 'abroad' and insert 'outside England and Wales.'
306 Page 82, line 31, leave out 'abroad' and insert 'outside England and Wales'.
307 Page 82, line 35, leave out from 'who' to end of line 38 and insert 'has parental responsibility for the child'.
308 Page 83, line 4, leave out 'abroad' and insert 'outside England and Wales'.
309 Page 83, line 5, at end insert —
'(7) Where a court decides to give its approval under this paragraph it may order that its decision is not to have effect during the appeal period.
(8) In sub-paragraph (7) "the appeal period" means —

(a) where an appeal is made against the decision, the period between the making of the decision and the determination of the appeal; and

(b) otherwise, the period during which an appeal may be made against the decision.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 302 to 308 with Amendment No. 99.1 spoke to Amendment No. 309 with Amendment No. 131. I therefore propose to move agreement to Amendments 302 to 309 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
310 Schedule 2, page 84, line 6, leave out from 'his' to end of line 8.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this amendment removes the liability to pay contributions where a child in care is allowed to live with a parent or a person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him. This amendment would delete the reference to persons who are not parents, so that the exemption from liability to contribute only exists where the child lives with his parents. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
311 Schedule 2, page 84, leave out lines 13 to 16 and insert —

'(a) section (Provision of accommodation for children in police protection or on detention or on remand, etc.);

(b) an interim care order;'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 50. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
312 Schedule 3, page 87, line 35, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) and (5).
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the sub-paragraphs removed by this amendment refer to schemes of intermediate treatment to be prepared under Section 19 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. The requirement for such schemes to be prepared was introduced by Section 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. In practice, because of the passage of time since the 1982 Act was implemented, every local authority has already prepared a scheme of intermediate treatment. The provisions in sub-paragraph (4) are therefore redundant. Sub-paragraph (5) is removed because the provisions would have required specified activities to be restricted to those provided under the scheme, which the Government now believe would have been unduly restrictive. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
313 Schedule 3, page 89, line 45, at end insert —
'(IA) A supervision order shall also cease to have effect if an event mentioned in section 25(1)(a) or (b) of the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 (termination of existing orders) occurs with respect to the child.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 235. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
314 Schedule 3, page 90, line 24, leave out 'agrees' and insert 'agree'.
315 Page 90, line 25, leave out 'it appears to the court that'.
316 Page 90, line 26, leave out 'its' and insert 'their'.
317 Page 90, line 29, leave out 'requests' and insert 'request'.
318 Page 91, line 4, leave out '(under this or any other enactment)'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 314, 316 and 317 make grammatical improvements, inserting the plural for the singular in relation to the action of a local authority, in common with the style elsewhere in the Bill.
Amendment No. 315 makes the decision as to which local authority should act as supervisor dependent on whether the child lives or will live in its area.
Amendment No. 318 removes the words,
"(under this or any other enactment)" from paragraph 10 of Schedule 3.
This suggests that a care or supervision order can be made under another enactment than This Bill which is certainly now not correct. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
319 Schedule 3, page 91, line 20 at end insert 'and'.
320 Page 91, line 21, leave out from 'parents' to end of line 22.
321 Page 91, line 26, leave out sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) and insert—

'(i) the supervised child; or

(ii) a parent of his,'.

322 Page 91, line 33, at end insert 'and'.
323 Page 91, line 34, leave out from 'parents' to end of line 36.
324 Page 91, line 37, leave out 'school which the child should attend' and insert 'place at which the child should be educated'.
325 Page 91, line 43, leave out 'other wishes and feelings mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)' and insert 'wishes and feelings of the child's parents'.
326 Page 91, line 44, at end insert —
'(4) Directions may be given under this paragraph at any time while the education supervision order is in force.'.
327 Page 92, line 23, leave out '12A' and insert '12C'.
328 Page 93, line 2, at end insert —
'Information to be given to supervisor etc.
15A. — (1) An education supervision order may require the child —

(a) to keep the supervisor informed of any change in his address; and

(b) to allow the supervisor to visit him at the place where he is living.

(2) A person who is the parent of a child with respect to whom an education supervision order has been made shall—

(a) if asked by the supervisor, inform him of the child's address (if it is known to him); and

(b) if he is living with the child, allow the supervisor reasonable contact with the child.'.

329 Page 93, line 8, leave out from beginning to 'or' in line 9.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 111. I shall move Amendments Nos. 319 to 329 because there is a possible amendment to the following amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
330 Schedule 3, page 93, leave out lines 14 to 19 and insert —
offences
16A. —(1) If a parent of a child with respect to whom an education supervision order is in force persistently fails to comply with a direction given under the order he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) It shall be a defence for any person charged with such an offence to prove that —

(a) he took all reasonable steps to ensure that the direction was complied with;

(b) the direction was unreasonable; or

(c) he had complied with —

(i) a requirement included in a supervision order made with respect to the child; or

(ii) directions given under such a requirement,

and that it was not reasonably practicable to comply both with the direction and with the requirement or directions mentioned in paragraph (c).
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
Persistent failure of child to comply with directions
16B. —(1) Where a child with respect to whom an education supervision order is in force persistently fails to comply with any direction given under the order, the local education authority concerned shall notify the appropriate local authority.
(2) Where a local authority have been notified under sub-paragraph (1) they shall investigate the circumstances of the child.
(3) In this paragraph "the appropriate local authority" has the same meaning as in section 31.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 330. I spoke to Amendment No. 330 with Amendment No. 111, and there is now a question of the amendment to it.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 330
330A Leave out lines 2 to 19.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mishcon, I beg to move Amendment No. 330A.
864
I believe that Amendment No. 330 is one of the many amendments brought in very quickly at Report stage in another place and has really not been discussed. On these Benches, we believe that Amendment No. 330 is rather surprising. It provides that non-compliance by a parent with the directions of an education welfare officer could be an offence punishable by a fine. Even if the education welfare officer were a qualified social worker —and many education welfare officers have no qualifications —we believe that it would be wrong to make non-compliance with a direction of an official an offence punishable by fine.
I understand that currently the local education authorities are placing less and less emphasis on court action to tackle the problem of truancy. They seek to explore more fully the reasons for truancy. They then seek to tackle the problem by other means.
Against that background, it seems to us very surprising that the Government should be introducing this offence. Moreover, in discussions on this Bill, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has consistently pointed out to your Lordships that it is a central principle of the Bill that the state should not intervene compulsorily in family life without very good reason. That has been one of the central principles of the Bill.
Should the state intervene to punish a parent because of non-compliance with a direction of an official? We fear that this provision would bear down unfairly on the under-privileged parent who may not have fully understood that he had received a direction within the meaning of this clause and who could be prosecuted and fined.
As I understand it, it is not a defence for a parent to say that he had not understood that the communication from the education welfare officer was a direction. How is an under-privileged person to distingish between a piece of advice on the one hand and a direction on the other hand?
We have often said that this Bill is a forward-looking Bill. However, on these Benches we fear that Amendment No. 330 —which was rushed through another place —is turning the clock back. I do not expect that the Government will accept our amendment at this time of the day. Nevertheless we hope that they would not rush into implementing the amendment. We hope that by regulations they can find ways and means of mitigating the impact of the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said in moving the amendment. However, I am particularly concerned because Amendment No. 330 shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution —which is the usual case —to the defence as regards whether the direction was reasonable. Normally we should not shift the burden of proof in that way. It would have been perfectly possible to draft the provision in such a way as to keep the burden of proof upon the prosecution by enacting in the second line of subsection (1) the word "reasonable". That subsection of the amendment would then read:

865
"If a parent of a child with respect to whom an education supervision order is in force persistently fails to comply with a reasonable direction".
Then the provisions contained in subsection (2)(b) would be unnecessary and the burden of proof in that respect would not have been shifted on to the defence.
As the noble Lord has already said, at this hour we are not likely to get the matter changed. However, I believe that for future reference we should put down a warning that shifting the burden of proof in that way should be avoided if possible.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the proposed amendment would remove the provision for sanctions against parents who persistently fail to comply with a direction of a supervisor administering an education supervision order. I wish to emphasise the fact that the offence is not just failing to comply with the direction; it is persistently failing to comply. We believe that an offence provision is a necessary and reasonable sanction against parents whose persistent failure to comply with directions is likely to damage their child's education.
Under Section 36 of the Education Act 1944 parents have a clear duty to ensure that their child is properly educated. If they fail to do so —for example, by failing to comply with a school attendance order—they may be liable to commit an offence. Where an education supervision order is in force the duties of parents under the education Acts are superseded by the duty to comply with any directions in force under the education supervision order. It is therefore appropriate that parents who persistently fail to comply with the supervisor's directions should be liable for an offence under the Children Bill since this supersedes their liability for an offence under the education Acts.
As regards the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton, the burden of proof is appropriate to be on the prosecution for the matters which are the substance of the offence. The substance of the offence is persistently to fail to comply with a direction. But it is also reasonable to allow a defence that the original direction was not a reasonable direction or that one of the other defences could be made out. Therefore, while I understand his concern about the matter, it is not right to describe it as a shifting of the onus of proof, the onus of proof being in respect of the substance of the offence which is described in that way.
I certainly understand the concern expressed but we feel that in the circumstances the education supervision order requires that the directions made under it should be capable of being enforced. However, I rely on and point to the fact that persistent refusal is necessary before any offence would be committed under this provision.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I follow the emphasis which the noble and learned
866
Lord has placed on the word "persistently" which appears in subsection (1).
It is still our view that if an education welfare officer is to be empowered to issue a direction which is envisaged in this amendment, it is premature to do so until the education authorities have been adequately staffed by trained welfare officers who can properly investigate the cause of the truancy. That is still our judgment. Nevertheless, I do not propose to press this amendment and I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment No. 330A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 330, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 330 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
331 Schedule 3, page 93, line 25, at end insert —
'Interpretation
19. In this Part of this Schedule "parent" has the same meaning as in the Education Act 1944 (as amended by Schedule 9).'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 331. I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 111.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
332 Schedule 5, page 97, line 39, leave out 'Part' and insert `paragraph'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 332. This amendment has been spoken to with Amendment No. 208.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
333 Schedule 5, page 98, line 12, leave out sup-paragraphs (7) to (10).
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 333. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 338, 339 and 349. Amendment No. 333 would remove subparagraphs (7) to (10) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 5, which are now unnecessary.
Amendment No. 338 makes a minor amendment to the regulation-making power on the conduct of voluntary homes in paragraph 7(2)(i). Amendment No. 349 provides similarly for registered children's homes.
Amendment No. 339 introduces a regulation-making provision with respect to disqualification of persons in relation to voluntary homes similar to the provision under Section 58 which refers to disqualification of persons carrying on a children's home.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —( The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is a very small point and purely concerns the drafting. We find that the expression "voluntary homes" is defined in the definition clause, Clause 75, to be found on page 66, which states:
"'voluntary home' has the meaning given by section 49".
In that clause there is no reference to children's homes. I should have thought that for the sake of completeness and for the benefit of those who are to use what will become a very long and complicated statute, it would have been better to have children's homes treated in the same way.
However, I suppose that the answer, and consolation, is that if we turn to Clause 54, which is the one referred to in Amendment No. 339, we find that there is a reference to a "registered children's home". It is obviously too late to do anything about this. I merely make the point in order to show that the definition clause to which I have referred —namely, Clause 75 —is a most admirable way of helping the user of the statute. However, if we have such a definition clause, it gains enormous advantage from being truly complete, which this one is not quite.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in some cases the word "registered" has been taken out. The situation is, as pointed out, that the definition of "children's home" is dealt with under the "registered children's home" part of the interpretation clause. It is, therefore, relatively complete, but I shall need to check the other references that the noble Lord has given to be certain about that. It is certainly intended that Clause 75 should be reasonably complete.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, perhaps I may say I am grateful to him. He is quite right. Clause 75 refers to "registered children's home" and this amendment refers to "children's homes". However, do I understand that under an earlier amendment which I missed the reference to "registered" in Clause 75 has been struck out? If so, the matter is undoubtedly in order, though there would have to be an alphabetical re-arrangement in order to put the words "children's homes" back where they belong in alphabetical order.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is a little difficult to deal with this in detail at the present moment. I have certainly taken the point made by the noble Lord, but my recollection is that the word "registered" has been affected by an amendment. Amendment No. 258 has a bearing on this matter, but I do not know whether it is wise for me to pursue the point further now.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
334 Schedule 5, page 98, line 48, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'paragraph 1'.
335 Page 99, line 43, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'Part VII'.
336 Page 101, line 17, leave out 'require the approval of the Secretary of State for the provision and' and insert 'prohibit the'.
337 Page 101, line 19, leave out from 'homes' to end of line 22.
338 Page 101, line 28, after 'on' insert 'or in charge of'.
339 Page 101, line 34, at end insert —
'Disqualification
7A. The Secretary of State may by regulation make provision with respect to the disqualification of persons in relation to voluntary homes of a kind similar to that made in relation to children's homes by section 54.'.
340 Page 101, leave out from beginning of line 35 to end of line 43 on page 101.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 334 to 340. I spoke to these amendments with earlier amendments and therefore move them together.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —( The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
341 Schedule 6, page 102, line 24, at end insert—
'(4A) Before deciding whether or not to grant an application a local authority shall comply with any prescribed requirements.
(4B) Regulations made for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4A) may, in particular, make provision as to the inspection of the home in question.'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 341. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 343, 346 and 349A.
Amendment No. 341 imposes a duty on local authorities when considering an application for registration of a children's home to comply with any requirements prescribed in regulations, which may include inspection of the home. Amendment No. 343 is a drafting amendment.
Amendment No. 346 extends the regulation-making power in paragraph 10 to include a requirement for persons carrying on homes to supply information about facilities provided for people to visit children in homes. It mirrors provisions for voluntary homes.
Amendment No. 349A adds that the regulations provided for in paragraph 10 may make provision similar to that made by regulations on reviews and the consideration of representations under the power in Clause 22. This takes up a suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady David, during the Committee stage.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
342 Schedule 6, page 102, line 43, leave out 'Part VIII' and insert 'this paragraph'.
343 Page 103, line 21, leave out 'above'.
344 Page 105, line 14, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'Part VIII
345 Page 105, line 23, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'paragraph 2'
346 Page 106, line 10, at end insert —
`(dd) require the furnishing to the responsible authority of information as to the facilities provided for—

(i) the parents of children in such homes;

(ii) persons who are not parents of such children but who have parental responsibility for them; and

(iii) other persons connected with such children, to visit and communicate with the children.'.

347 Page 106, line 19, leave out 'require the approval of the Secretary of State for the provision and' and insert 'prohibit the'.
348 Page 106, line 21, leave out from 'homes' to end of line 24.
349 Page 106, line 26, after 'on', insert 'or in charge 'of.
349A Page 106, line 27, at end insert—
(k) make provision similar to that made by regulations under section 22;—
350 After Schedule 6, insert the following new Schedule —
`SCHEDULE 6A
FOSTER PARENTS: LIMITS ON NUMBER OF FOSTER CHILDREN
Interpretation
1. For the purposes of this Schedule, a person fosters a child if —

(a) he is a local authority foster parent inrelation to the child;

(b) he is a foster parent with whom the child has been placed by a voluntary organisation; or

(c) he fosters the child privately.

The usual fostering limit
2. Subject to what follows, a person may not foster more than three children ("the usual fostering limit").
Siblings
3. A person may exceed the usual fostering limit if the children concerned are all siblings with respect to each other.
Exemption by local authority
4. —(1) A person may exceed the usual fostering limit if he is exempted from it by the local authority within whose area he lives.
(2) In considering whether to exempt a person, a local authority shall have regard, in particular, to —

(a) the number of children whom the person proposes to foster;

(b) the arrangements which the person proposes for the care and accommodation of the fostered children;

(c) the intended and likely relationship between the person and the fostered children;

(d) the period of time for which he proposes to foster the children; and

(e) whether the welfare of the fostered children (and of any other children who are or will be living in the accommodation) will be safeguarded and promoted.

(3) Where a local authority exempt a person, they shall inform him by notice in writing —

(a) that he is so exempted;

(b) of the children, described by name, whom he may foster; and

(c) of any condition to which the exemption is subject.

(4) A local authority may at any time by notice in writing—

(a) vary or cancel an exemption; or

(b) impose, vary or cancel a condition to which the exemption is subject,

and, in considering whether to do so, they shall have regard in particular to the considerations mentioned in sub-paragraph (2).
(5) The Secretary of State may make regulations amplifying or modifying the provisions of this paragraph in order to provide for cases where children need to be placed with foster parents as a matter of urgency.
Effect of exceeding fostering limit
5. —(1) A person shall cease to be treated as fostering and shall be treated as carrying on a children's home if —

(a) he exceeds the usual fostering limit or

(b) where he is exempted under paragraph 4, —

(i) he fosters any child not named in the exemption; and

(ii) in so doing, he exceeds the usual fostering limit.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply if the children concerned are all siblings in respect of each other.
Complaints etc.
6. —(1) Every local authority shall establish a procedure for considering any representations (including any complaint) made to them about the discharge of their functions under paragraph 4 by a person exempted or seeking to be exempted under that paragraph.
(2) In carrying out any consideration of representations under sub-paragraph (1), a local authority shall comply with any regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 342 to 350 inclusive.
I have spoken to Amendment No. 342 with Amendment No. 288; Amendment No. 343 with Amendment No. 341; Amendments Nos. 344 and 345 with Amendment No. 288; Amendment No. 346 with Amendment No. 341. Amendments Nos. 347 and 348 were spoken to with Amendment No. 367; Amendment No. 349 was spoken to with Amendment No. 333; Amendment No. 349A with Amendment No. 341; Amendment No. 350 with Amendment No. 189. Perhaps that will do for the time being.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
351 Schedule 7, page 106, line 40, leave out from 'any' to 'is' in line 41 and insert—

'(i) parent of his;

(ii) person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him; or

(iii) person who is a relative of his and who has assumed responsibility for his care,'.

352 Page 106, line 43, leave out 'registered'.
353 Page 107, line 1, leave out from `but' to end of line 2 and insert 'provided, equipped and maintained by the Secretary of State.'.
354 Page 107, line 3, after '(l)' insert `(b) to (g)'.
355 Page 107, line 17, leave out from beginning to `or' in line 18 and insert —

`(i) section 1 of the Adoption Act 1976;

(ii) section 1 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978; or

(iii) Article 3 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.'.

356 Page 107, line 22, leave out `local authority for the area concerned' and insert `appropriate local authority'.
357 Page 107, line 24, after `be' insert 'privately'.
358 Page 107, line 41, at end insert—
'(4A) A local authority may at any time vary any requirement, impose any additional requirement or remove any requirement.'.
359 Page 107, line 42, leave out 'paragraph' and insert `Schedule—

(a) "the appropriate local authority" means—

(i) the local authority within whose area the child is being fostered; or

(ii) in the case of a proposal to foster a child, the local authority within whose area it is proposed that he will be fostered; and

(b)'.

360 Page 108, line 6, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
`(b) require any person who is —

(i) a parent of a child; or

(ii) a person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for a child,

and who knows that it is proposed that the child should be fostered privately, to notify the appropriate authority.'.
361 Page 108, line 19, at end insert —
'(ff) require any person who is fostering a child privately to notify the appropriate authority in writing of any person who begins, or ceases, to be part of his household;'.
362 Page 108, leave out lines 23 to 27.
363 Page 108, line 32, leave out 'or'.
364 Page 108, line 33, at end insert —

'(e) a refusal to make an exemption under paragraph 4 of Schedule 6A;

(f) a condition imposed in such an exemption; or

(g) a variation or cancellation of such an exemption,'.

365 Page 108, line 36, leave out 'or prohibition' and insert',prohibition, condition, variation or cancellation.'.
366 Page 108, line 37, leave out 'a requirement, the requirement' and insert' —

(a) a requirement imposed under paragraph 6;

(b) a condition of an exemption imposed under paragraph 4 of Schedule 6A; or

(c) a variation or cancellation of such an exemption,

the requirement, condition, variation or cancellation.'.
367 Page 108, line 49, at end insert—
'(5A) Where it allows an appeal against a refusal to make an exemption, a condition imposed in such an exemption or a variation or cancellation of such an exemption, the court may —

(a) make an exemption;

(b) impose a condition; or

(c) vary the exemption.

(5B) Any exemption made or varied under sub-paragraph (5A), or any condition imposed under that sub-paragraph, shall be deemed for the purposes of Schedule 6A (but not for the purposes of this paragraph) to have been made, varied or imposed under that Schedule.'.
368 Page 109, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
369 Page 109, line 2, at end insert —
'(6A) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1)(e) to (g) confers any right of appeal on —

(a) a person who is, or would be if exempted under Schedule 6A, a local authority foster parent; or

(b) a person who is, or would be if so exempted, a person with whom a child is placed by a voluntary organisation.'

370 Page 109, line 9, leave out 'as if'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 351 to 370.
I have spoken to Amendment No. 351 with Amendment No. 207; Amendment No. 352 with
872
Amendment No. 195; Amendment No. 353 with Amendment No. 186; Amendment No. 354 with Amendment No. 207; Amendment No. 355 with Amendment No. 232C; Amendments Nos. 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361 and 362 with Amendment No. 207; Amendment No. 363 with Amendment No. 189; Amendments Nos. 364, 365, 366, 367, 368 and 369 with Amendment No. 189; Amendment No. 370 with Amendment No. 207.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. — (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[Amendment No. 371A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 371, not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 371B, 371C and 371D, as amendments to Amendment No. 371, not moved.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
371 After Schedule 7, insert the following new Schedule —

CHILD MINDING AND DAY CARE FOR YOUNG CHILDREN
Applications for registration
1. —(1) An application for registration under section (Registration) shall be of no effect unless it contains —

(a) a statement with respect to the applicant which complies with the requirements of regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph by the Secretary of State; and

(b) a statement with respect to any person assisting or likely to be assisting in looking after children on the premises in question, or living or likely to be living there, which complies with the requirements of such regulations.

(2) Where a person provides, or proposes to provide, day care for children under the age of eight on different premises situated within the area of the same local authority, he shall make a separate application with respect to each of those premises.
(3) An application under section (Registration) shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed.
(4) On receipt of an application for registration under section (Registration) from any person who is acting, or proposes to act, in any way which requires him to be registered under that section, a local authority shall register him if the application is properly made and they are not otherwise entitled to refuse to do so.
Disqualification from registration
2. —(1) A person may not be registered under section (Registration) if he is disqualified by regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph.
(2) The regulations may, in particular, provide for a person to be disqualified where —

(a) an order of a prescribed kind has been made at any time with respect to him;

(b) an order of a prescribed kind has been made at any time with respect to any child who has been in his care;

(c) a requirement of a prescribed kind has been imposed at any time with respect to such a child, under or by virtue of any enactment;

(d) he has at any time been refused registration under Part (Child minding and day care for young children) or any other prescribed enactment or had any such registration cancelled;

(e) he has been convicted of any offence of a prescribed kind, or has been placed on probation or discharged absolutely or conditionally for any such offence;

(f) he has at any time been disqualified from fostering a child privately;

873

(g) a prohibition has been imposed on him at any time under section 57, section 10 of the Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984 or any other prescribed enactment;

(h) his rights and powers with respect to a child have at any time been vested in a prescribed authority under a prescribed enactment.

(3) A person who lives —

(a) in the same household as a person who is himself disqualified by the regulations; or

(b) in a household at which any such person is employed,

shall be disqualified unless he has disclosed the fact to the appropriate local authority and obtained their written consent.
(4) A person who is disqualified shall not provide day care, or be concerned in the management of, or have any financial interest in, any provision of day care unless he has—

(a) disclosed the fact to the appropriate local authority; and

(b) obtained their written consent.

(5) No person shall employ, in connection with the provision of day care, a person who is disqualified unless he has —

(a) disclosed to the appropriate local authority the fact that that person is so disqualified; and

(b) obtained their written consent.

(6) In this paragraph "enactment" means any enactment having effect, at any time, in any part of the United Kingdom.
Exemption of certain schools
3. —(1) Section (Registration) does not apply in relation to any child looked after in any —

(a) school maintained or assisted by a local education authority;

(b) school under the management of an education authority;

(c) school in respect of which payments are made by the Secretary of State under section 100 of the Education Act 1944;

(d) independent school;

(e) grant-aided school;

(f) grant maintained school;

(g) self-governing school;

(h) play centre maintained or assisted by a local education authority under section 53 of the Act of 1944 or by an education authority under section 6 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.

(2) The exemption provided by sub-paragraph (1) only applies where the child concerned is being looked after in accordance with provision for day care made by —

(a) the person carrying on the establishment in question as part of the establishment's activities; or

(b) a person employed to work at that establishment and authorised to make that provision as part of the establishment's activities.

(3) In sub-paragraph (1)—
"assisted" and "maintained" have the same meanings as in the Education Act 1944;
"grant maintained" has the same meaning as in section 52(3) of the Education Reform Act 1988; and
"grant aided school", "self-governing school" and (in relation to Scotland) "independent school" have the same meaning as in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.
Exemption for other establishments
4. —(1) Section (Registration) (1)(b) does not apply in relation to any child looked after in —

(a) a registered children's home;

(b) a voluntary home;

(c) a community home;

(d) a residential care home, nursing home or mental nursing home required to be registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984;

874

(e) a health service hospital;

(f) a home provided, equipped and maintained by the Secretary of State; or

(g) an establishment which is required to be registered under section 61 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.

(2) The exemption provided by sub-paragraph (1) only applies where the child concerned is being looked after in accordance with provision for day care made by —

(a) the department, authority or other person carrying on the establishment in question as part of the establishment's activities; or

(b) a person employed to work at that establishment and authorised to make that provision as part of the establishment's activities.

(3) In this paragraph "a health service hospital" includes a health service hospital within the meaning of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978.
Exemption for occasional facilities
5. —(1) Where day care for children under the age of eight is provided in particular premises on less than six days in any year, that provision shall be disregarded for the purposes of section (Registrations) if the person making it has notified the appropriate local authority in writing before the first occasion on which the premises concerned are so used in that year.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) "year" means the year beginning with the day on which the day care in question is (after the commencement of this paragraph) first provided in the premises concerned and any subsequent year
Certificates of registration
6. —(1) Where a local authority register a person under section (Registration) they shall issue him with a certificate of registration.
(2) The certificate shall specify —

(a) the registered person's name and address;

(b) in a case falling within section (Registration) (1)(b), the address or situation of the premises concerned; and

(c) any requirements imposed under section (Requirements to be complied with by child minders) or (Requirements to be complied with by persons providing day care for young children).

(3) Where, due to a change of circumstances, any part of the certificate requires to be amended, the authority shall issue an amended certificate.
(4) Where the authority are satisfied that the certificate has been lost or destroyed, they shall issue a copy, on payment by the registered person or such fee as may be prescribed.
Fees for annual inspection of premises
7. —(l) Where —

(a) a person is registered under section (Registration); and

(b) the local authority concerned make an annual inspection of the premises in question under section (Inspection),

they shall serve on that person a notice informing him that the inspection is to be carried out and requiring him to pay to them such fee as may be prescribed.
(2) It shall be a condition of the continued registration of that person under section (Registration) that the fee is so paid before the expiry of the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date on which the inspection is carried out.
Co-operation between authorities
8. —(1) Where it appears to a local authority that any local education authority or, in Scotland, education authority could, by taking any specified action, help in the exercise of any of their functions under Part X, they may request the help of that local education authority or education authority, specifying the action in question.
(2) An authority whose help is so requested shall comply with the request if it is compatible with their own statutory or other duties and obligations and does not unduly prejudice the discharge of any of their functions.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 371.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
372 After Schedule 7, insert the following new Schedule —

AMENDMENTS OF ADOPTION Act 1976 (CHAPTER 36)
1. In section 2 (local authorities' social services) for the words from "relating to" to the end there shall be substituted —

"(a) under the Children Act 1989, relating to family assistance orders, local authority support for children and families, care and supervision and emergency protection of children, community homes, voluntary homes and organisations, registered childrens' homes, private arrangements for fostering children, child minding and day care for young children and children accommodated by health authorities and local education authorities or in residential care, nursing or mental nursing homes or in independent schools; and

(b) under the National Health Service Act 1977, relating to the provision of care for expectant and nursing mothers."

2. In section 11 (restrictions on arranging adoptions and placing of children) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted—
"(2) An adoption society which is —

(a) approved as respects Scotland under section 3 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978; or

(b) registered as respects Northern Ireland under Article 4 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987,

but which is not approved under section 3 of this Act, shall not act as an adoption society in England and Wales except to the extent that the society considers it necessary to do so in the interests of a person mentioned in section 1 of the Act of 1978 or Article 3 of the Order of 1987."
3. —(1) In section 12 (adoption orders), in subsection (1) for the words "vesting the parental rights and duties relating to a child in" there shall be substituted "giving parental responsibility for a child to".
(2) In subsection (2) of that section for the words "the parental rights and duties so far as they relate" there shall be substituted "parental responsibility so far as it relates".
(3) In subsection (3) of that section for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted —
"(a) the parental responsibility which any person has for the child immediately before the making of the order,
(aa) any order under the Children Act 1989";
and in paragraph (b) for the words from "for any period" to the end there shall be substituted "or upbringing for any period after the making of the order."
4. For section 14(1) (adoption by married couple) there shall be substituted —
"(1) An adoption order shall not be made on the application of more than one person except in the circumstances specified in subsections (1A) and (1B).
(1A) An adoption order may be made on the application of a married couple where both the husband and the wife have attained the age of 21 years.
(1B) An adoption order may be made on the application of a married couple where—
876

(a) the husband or the wife —

(i) is the father or mother of the child; and

(ii) has attained the age of 18 years: and

(b) his or her spouse has attained the age of 21 years."

5. —(1) In section 16 (parental agreement), in subsection (1) for the words from "in England" to "Scotland)" there shall be substituted —

"(i) in England and Wales, under section 18:

(ii) in Scotland, under section 18 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978; or

(iii) in Northern Ireland, under Article 17(1) or 18(1) of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987."

(2) In subsection (2)(c) of that section for the words "the parental duties in relation to" there shall be substituted "his parental responsibility for".
6. —(1) In section 18 (freeing child for adoption), after subsection (2) there shall be inserted —
"(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) a child is in the care of an adoption agency if the adoption agency is a local authority and he is in their care."
(2) In subsection (5) of that section, for the words from "the parental rights" to "vest in" there shall be substituted "parental responsibility for the child is given to", and for the words "and (3)" there shall be substituted "to (4)".
(3) For subsections (7) and (8) of that section there shall be substituted —
"(7) Before making an order under this section in the case of a child whose father does not have parental responsibility for him, the court shall satisfy itself in relation to any person claiming to be the father that —

(a) he has no intention of applying for —

(i) an order under section 4(1) of the Children Act 1989, or

(ii) a residence order under section 9 of that Act, or

(b) if he did make any such application, it would be likely to be refused.

(8) Subsections (5) and (7) of section 12 apply in relation to the making of an order under this section as they apply in relation to the making of an order under that section."
7. In section 19(2) (progress reports to former parents) for the words "in which the parental rights and duties were vested" there shall be substituted "to which parental responsibility was given".
8. —(1) In section 20 (revocation of section 18 order), in subsections ( I ) and (2) for the words "the parental rights and duties", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted "parental responsibility".
(2) For subsection (3) of that section there shall be substituted —
"(3) The revocation of an order under section 18 ("a section 18 order") operates —

(a) to extinguish the parental responsibility given to the adoption agency under the section 18 order;

(b) to give parental responsibility for the child to —

(i) the child's mother; and

(ii) where the child's father and mother were married to each other at the time of his birth, the father; and

(c) to revive —

(i) any parental responsibility agreement,

(ii) any order under section 4(1) of the Children Act 1989, and

(iii) any appointment of a guardian in respect of the child (whether made by a court or otherwise),

extinguished by the making of the section 18 order.
(3A) Subject to subsection (3)(c), the revocation does not—

(a) operate to revive —

(i) any order under the Children Act 1989, or

(ii) any duty referred to in section 12(3)(b),

877
extinguished by the making of the section 18 order; or

(b) affect any person's parental responsibility so far as it relates to the period between the making of the section 18 order and the date of revocation of that order."

9. For section 21 (transfer of parental rights and duties between adoption agencies) there shall be substituted —
"Variation of section 18 order so as to substitute one adoption agency for another.
21. —(1) On an application to which this section applies, an authorised court may vary an order under section 18 so as to give parental responsibility for the child to another adoption agency ('the substitute agency') in place of the agency for the time being having parental responsibility for the child under the order (`the existing agency').
(2) This section applies to any application made jointly by —

(a) the existing agency; and

(b) the would-be substitute agency.

(3) Where an order under section 18 is varied under this section, section 19 shall apply as if the substitute agency had been given responsibility for the child on the making of the order."
10. —(1) In section 22 (notification to local authority of adoption application), after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsections —
"(1A) An application for such an adoption order shall not be made unless the person wishing to make the application has, within the period of two years preceding the making of the application, given notice as mentioned in subsection (1).
(1B) In subsections (1) and (IA) the references to the area in which the applicant or person has his home are references to the area in which he has his home at the time of giving the notice.".
(2) In subsection (4) of that section for the word "receives" there shall be substituted "receive" and for the words "in the care of shall be substituted "looked after by".
11. In section 25(1) (interim orders) for the words "vesting the legal custody of the child in" there shall be substituted "giving parental responsibility for the child to".
12. In —

(a) section 27(1) and (2) restrictions on removal where adoption agreed or application made under section 18); and

(b) section 28(1) and (2) (restrictions on removal where applicant has provided home for 5 years),

for the words "actual custody", in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted "home".
13. After section 27(2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) a child is in the care of an adoption agency if the adoption agency is a local authority and he is in their care."
14. —(1) After section 28(2) there shall be inserted —
"(2A) The reference in subsections (1) and (2) to any enactment does not include a reference to section 17(8) of the Children Act 1989"
(2) For subsection (3) of that section there shall be substituted—
"(3) In any case where subsection (1) or (2) applies and—

(a) the child was being looked after by a local authority before he began to have his home with the applicant or, as the case may be, the prospective adopter, and

(b) the child is still being looked after by a local authority,

the authority which are looking after the child shall not remove him from the home of the applicant or the prospective adopter except in accordance with section 30 or 31 or with the leave of a court."
(3) In subsection (5) of that section —

(a) for the word "receives" there shill be substituted "receive"; and

(b) for the words "in the care of another local authority or of a voluntary organisation" there shall be substituted "looked after by another local authority".

15. In section 29 (return of child taken away in breach of section 27 or 28) for subsections (1) and (2) there shall be substituted—
"(1) An authorised court may, on the application of a person from whose home a child has been removed in breach of —

(a) section 27 or 28,

(b) section 27 or 28 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978, or

(c) Article 28 or 29 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987,

order the person who has so removed the child to return the child to the applicant.
(2) An authorised court may, on the application of a person who has reasonable grounds for believing that another person is intending to remove a child from his home in breach of—

(a) section 27 or 28,

(b) section 27 or 28 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978, or

(c) Article 28 or 29 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987,

by order direct that other person not to remove the child from the applicant's home in breach of any of those provisions."
16. —(1) In section 30 (return of children placed for adoption by adoption agencies), in subsection (1) there shall be substituted —

(a) for the words "delivered into the actual custody of" the words "placed with";

(b) in paragraph (a) for the words "retain the actual custody of the child" the words "give the child a home"; and

(c) in paragraph (b) for the words "actual custody" the word "home".

(2) In subsection (3) of that section for the words "in his actual custody" there shall be substituted "with him".
17. —(1) In section 31 (application of section 30 where child not placed for adoption), in subsection (1) for the words from "child", where it first occurs, to "except" there shall be substituted "child —

(a) who is (when the notice is given) being looked after by a local authority; but

(b) who was placed with that person otherwise than in pursuance of such arrangements as are mentioned in section 30(1),

that section shall apply as if the child had been placed in pursuance of such arrangements".
(2) In subsection (2) of that section for the words "for the time being in the care of there shall be substituted "(when the notice is given) being looked after by".
(3) In subsection (3) of that section —

(a) for the words "remains in the actual custody of" there shall be substituted "has his home with"; and

(b) for the words "section 45 of the Child Care Act 1980" there shall be substituted "Part III of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989".

(4) At the end of that section there shall be added —
"(4) Nothing in this section affects the right of any person who has parental responsibility for a child to remove him under section 17(8) of the Children Act 1989".
18. —(1) In section 32 (meaning of "protected child"), in subsection (2) for the words "section 37 of the Adoption Act 1958" there shall be substituted —

"(a) section- 32 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978; or

(b) Article 33 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987."

(2) In subsection (3) of that section for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted —

"(a) he is in the care of any person —

(i) in any community home, voluntary home or registered children's home;

(ii) in any school in which he is receiving full-time education;

(iii) in any health service hospital";

and at the end of that subsection there shall be added —
"(d) he is in the care of any person in any home or institution not specified in this subsection but provided, equipped and maintained by the Secretary of State."
(3) After that subsection there shall be inserted —
"(3A) In subsection (3) 'community home', 'voluntary home', 'registered children's home', 'school' and 'health service hospital' have the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989."
(4) For subsection (4) of that section there shall be substituted—
"(4) A protected child ceases to be a protected child—

(a) on the grant or refusal of the application for an adoption order;

(b) on the notification to the local authority for the area where the child has his home that the application for an adoption order has been withdrawn;

(c) in a case where no application is made for an adoption order, on the expiry of the period of two years from the giving of the notice;

(d) on the making of a residence order, a care order or a supervision order under the Children Act 1989 in respect of the child;

(e) on the appointment of a guardian for him under that Act;

(f) on his attaining the age of 18 years; or

(g) on his marriage,

whichever first occurs.
(5) In subsection (4)(d) the references to a care order and a supervision order do not include references to an interim care order or interim supervision order."
19. —(1) In section 35 (notices and information to be given to local authorities), in subsection (1) for the words "who has a protected child in his actual custody" there shall be substituted "with whom a protected child has his home".
(2) In subsection (2) of that section for the words "in whose actual custody he was" there shall be substituted "with whom he had his home".
20. —(1) In section 51 (disclosure of birth records of adopted children), "in subsection (1) for teh words "subsections (4) and (6)" there shall be substituted "what follows".
(2) For subsections (3) to (7) of that section there shall be substituted—
"(3) Before supplying any information to an applicant under subsection (1), the Registrar General shall inform the applicant that counselling services are available to him—

(a) if he is in England and Wales—

(i) at the General Register Office;

(ii) from the local authority in whose area he is living;

(iii) where the adoption order relating to him was made in England and Wales, from the local authority in whose area the court which made the order sat; or

(iv) from any other local authority;

(b) if he is in Scotland —

(i) from the regional or islands council in whose area he is living;

(ii) where the adoption order relating to him was made in Scotland, from the council in whose area the court which made the order sat; or

(iii) from any other regional or islands council

880

(c) if he is in Northern Ireland —

(i) from the Board in whose area he is living;

(ii) where the adoption order relating to him was made in Northern Ireland, from the Board in whose area the court which made the order sat; or

(iii) from any other Board;

(d) if he is in the United Kingdom and his adoption was arranged by an adoption society —

(i) approved under section 3,

(ii) approved under section 3 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978,

(iii) registered under Article 4 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987,

from that society.
(4) Where an adopted person who is in England and Wales—

(a) applies for information under —

(i) subsection (1), or

(ii) Article 54 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, or

(b) is supplied with information under section 45 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978,

it shall be the duty of the persons and bodies mentioned in subsection (5) to provide counselling for him if asked by him to do so.
(5) The persons and bodies are —

(a) the Registrar General;

(b) any local authority falling within subsection (3)(a)(ii) to (iv);

(c) any adoption society falling within subsection (3)(d) in so far as it is acting as an adoption society in England and Wales.

(6) If the applicant chooses to receive counselling from a person or body falling within subsection (3), the Registrar General shall send to the person or body the information to which the applicant is entitled under subsection (1).
(7) Where a person —

(a) was adopted before 12th November 1975, and

(b) applies for information under subsection (1), the Registrar General shall not supply the information to him unless he has attended an interview with a counsellor arranged by a person or body from whom counselling services are available as mentioned in subsection (3).

(8) Where the Registrar General is prevented by subsection (7) from supplying information to a person who is not living in the United Kingdom, he may supply the information to any body which —

(a) the Registrar General is satisfied is suitable to provide counselling to that person, and

(b) has notified the Registrar General that it is prepared to provide such counselling.

(9) In this section —
"a Board" means a Health and Social Services Board established under Article 16 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972; and
"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Registrar General.".
21. After section 51 there shall be inserted —
"Adoption Contact Register.
51A. —(1) The Registrar General shall maintain at the General Register Office a register to be called the Adoption Contact Register.
(2) The register shall be in two parts —

(a) Part I: Adopted Persons; and

(b) Part II: Relatives.

(3) The Registrar General shall, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, enter in Part I of the register the name and address of any adopted person who fulfils the conditions in subsection (4) and who gives notice that he wishes to contact any relative of his.
(4) The conditions are that—

(a) a record of the adopted person's birth is kept by the Registrar General; and

(b) the adopted person has attained the age of 18 years and —

(i) has been supplied by the Registrar General with information under section 51; or

(ii) has satisfied the Registrar General that he has such information as is necessary to enable him to obtain a certified copy of the record of his birth.

(5) The Registrar General shall, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, enter in Part II of the register the name and address of any person who fulfils the conditions in subsection (6) and who gives notice that he wishes to contact an adopted person.
(6) The conditions are that —

(a) a record of the adopted person's birth is kept by the Registrar General; and

(b) the person giving notice under subsection (5) has attained the age of 18 years and has satisfied the Registrar General that —

(i) he is a relative of the adopted person; and

(ii) he has such information as is necessary to enable him to obtain a certified copy of the record of the adopted person's birth.

(7) The Registrar General shall, on receiving notice from any person named in an entry in the register that he wishes the entry to be cancelled, cancel the entry.
(8) Any notice given under this section must be in such form as may be determined by the Registrar General.
(9) The Registrar General shall transmit to an adopted person whose name is entered in Part I of the register the name and address of any relative in respect of whom there is an entry in Part II of the register.
(10) Any entry cancelled under subsection (7) ceases from the time of cancellation to be an entry for the purposes of subsection (9).
(11) The register shall not be open to public inspection or search and the Registrar General shall not supply any person with information entered in the register (whether in an uncancelled or a cancelled entry) except in accordance with this section.
(12) The register may be kept by means of a computer.
(13) In this section—

(a) "relative" means any person (other than an adoptive relative) who is related to the adopted person by blood (including half-blood) or marriage;

(b) "address" includes any address at or through which the person concerned may be contacted; and

(c) "prescribed" means prescribed by the Secretary of State."

22. —(1) In section 55 (adoption of children abroad), in subsection (1) after the word "Scotland" there shall be inserted "or Northern Ireland" and for the words "vesting in him the parental rights and duties relating to the child" there shall be substituted "giving him parental responsibility for the child".
(2) In subsection (3) of that section for the words "word '(Scotland)"' there shall be substituted "words `(Scotland)' or `(Northern Ireland)'.".
23. —(1) In section 56 (restriction on removal of children for adoption outside Great Britain), —

(a) in subsections (1) and (3) for the words "transferring the actual custody of a child to", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted "placing a child with"; and

(b) in subsection (3)(a) for the words "in the actual custody of" there shall be substituted "with".

(2) In subsection (1) of that section —

(a) for the words from "or under" to "abroad") there shall be substituted "section 49 of the Adoption
882
(Scotland) Act 1978 or Article 57 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987"; and

(b) for the words "British Islands" there shall be substituted "United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man".

24. —(1) In section 57 (prohibition on certain payments) in subsection (1)(c), for the words "transfer by that person of the actual custody of a child" there shall be substituted "handing over of a child by that person".
(2) In subsection (3A)(b) of that section, for the words "in the actual custody of" there shall be substituted "with".
"Permitted allowances.
57A. —(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of enabling adoption agencies to pay allowances to persons who have adopted, or intend to adopt, children in pursuance of arrangements made by the agencies.
(2) Section 57(1) shall not apply to any payment made by an adoption agency in accordance with the regulations.
(3) The regulations may, in particular, make provision as to —

(a) the procedure to be followed by any agency in determining whether a person should be paid an allowance;

(b) the circumstances in which an allowance may be paid;

(c) the factors to be taken into account in determining the amount of an allowance;

(d) the procedure for review, variation and termination of allowances; and

(e) the information about allowances to be supplied by any agency to any person who is intending to adopt a child.

(4) Any scheme approved under section 57(4) shall be revoked as from the coming into force of this section.
(5) Section 57(1) shall not apply in relation to any payment made —

(a) in accordance with a scheme revoked under subsection (4) or section 57(5)(b); and

(b) to a person to whom such payments were made before the revocation of the scheme.

(6) Subsection (5) shall not apply where any person to whom any payments may lawfully be made by virtue of subsection (5) agrees to receive (instead of such payments) payments complying with regulations made under this section."
26. —(1) In section 59 (effect of determination and orders made in Scotland and overseas in adoption proceedings), in subsection (1) for the words "Great Britain" there shall be substituted "the United Kingdom".
(2) For subsection (2) of that section there shall be substituted—
"(2) Subsections (2) to (4) of section 12 shall apply in relation to an order freeing a child for adoption (other than an order under section 18) as if it were an adoption order; and, on the revocation in Scotland or Northern Ireland of an order freeing a child for adoption, subsections (3) and (3A) of section 20 shall apply as if the order had been revoked under that section."
27. In section 60 (evidence of adoption in Scotland and Northern Ireland), in paragraph (a) for the words "section 22(2) of the Adoption Act 1958" there shall be substituted "section 45(2) of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978" and in paragraph (b) for the words from "section 23(4)" to "in force" there shall be substituted "Article 63(1) of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987",
28. In section 62(5)(b) (courts), for the words from "section 8" to "child)" there shall be substituted —

"(i) section 12 or 18 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978; or

(ii) Article 12, 17 or 18 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987".

29. After section 65 (guardians ad 'item and reporting officers) there shall be inserted —
"Panels for selection of guardians ad !item and reporting officers.
65A. —(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the establishment of panels of persons from whom guardians ad litem and reporting officers appointed under rules made under section 65 must be selected.
(2) The regulations may, in particular, make provision—

(a) as to the constitution, administration and procedures of panels;

(b) requiring two or more specified authorities to make arrangements for the joint management of a panel;

(c) for the defrayment by local authorities of expenses incurred by members of panels;

(d) for the payment by local authorities of fees and allowances for members of panels;

(e) as to the qualifications for membership of a panel;

(f) as to the training to be given to members of panels;

(g) as to the co-operation required of specified local authorities in the provision of panels in specified areas; and

(h) for monitoring the work of guardians ad litem and reporting officers.

(3) Rules of court may make provision as to the assistance which any guardian ad litem or reporting officer may be required by the court to give to it."
30. —(1) Section 72(1) (interpretation) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In the definition of "adoption agency" for the words from "section 1" to the end there shall be substituted" —

(a) section 1 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978; and

(b) Article 3 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987."

(3) For the definition of "adoption order" there shall be substituted
" 'adoption order'—

(a) means an order under section 12(1); and

(b) in sections 12(3) and (4), 18 to 20, 27, 28 and 30 to 32 and in the definition of 'British adoption order' in this subsection includes an order under section 12 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 and Article 12 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (adoption orders in Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively); and

(c) in sections 27, 28 and 30 to 32 includes an order under section 55, section 49 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 and Article 57 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (orders in relation to children being adopted abroad)."

(4) For the definition of "British adoption order" there shall be substituted —
" 'British adoption order' means —

(a) an adoption order as defined in this subsection, and

(b) an order under any provision for the adoption of a child effected under the law of any British territory outside the United Kingdom."

(5) For the definition of "guardian" there shall be substituted—
" 'guardian' has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989."
(6) In the definition of "order freeing a child for adoption" for the words from "section 27(2)" to the end there shall be substituted "sections 27(2) and 59 includes an order under —

(a) section 18 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978; and

(b) Article 17 or 18 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987".

(7) After the definition of "overseas adoption" there shall be inserted —
" 'parent' means, in relation to a child, any parent who has parental responsibility for the child under the Children Act 1989;
884
`parental responsibility' and 'parental responsibility agreement' have the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989."
(8) After the definition of "United Kingdom national" there shall be inserted —
" 'upbringing' has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989."
(9) For section 72(1A) there shall be substituted the following subsections —
"(1A) In this Act, in determining with what person, or where, a child has his home, any absence of the child at a hospital or boarding school and any other temporary absence shall be disregarded.
(1B) In this Act, references to a child who is in the care of or looked after by a local authority have the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989."
31. For section 74(3) and (4) (extent) there shall be substituted—
"(3) This Act extends to England and Wales only."

AMENDMENTS OF ADOPTION (SCOTLAND) ACT 1978 (C. 28)
32. In section 11 (restrictions on arranging of adoptions and placing of children) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted—
"(2) An adoption society which is —

(a) approved as respects England and Wales under section 3 of the Adoption Act 1976; or

(b) registered as respects Northern Ireland under Article 4 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987,

but which is not approved under section 3 of this Act, shall not act as an adoption society in Scotland except to the extent that the society considers it necessary to do so in the interests of a person mentioned in section 1 of that Act or, as the case may be, Article 3 of that Order."
33. For section 14(1) (adoption by married couple) there shall be substituted —
"(1) Subject to section 53(1) of the Children Act 1975 (which provides for the making of a custody order instead of an adoption order in certain cases), an adoption order shall not be made on the application of more than one person except in the circumstances specified in subsections (1A) and (1B).
(1A) An adoption order may be made on the application of a married couple where both the husband and the wife have attained the age of 21 years.
(1B) An adoption order may be made on the application of a married couple where —

(a) the husband or the wife —

(i) is the father or mother of the child; and

(ii) has attained the age of 18 years; and

(b) his or her spouse has attained the age of 21 years."

34. In section 16(1)(a) (parental agreement) for the words from "in England" to "revoked", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be substituted —

"(i) in Scotland under section 18;

(ii) in England and Wales under section 18 of the Adoption Act 1976; or

(iii) in Northern Ireland under Article 17(1) or 18(1) of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987,

and not revoked".
35. In section 18(5) (effect of order freeing child for adoption) for the words "and (3)" there shall be substituted "to (4)".
36. In section 20(3)(c) (revocation of section 18 order) the words "section 12(3)(b) of the Adoption Act 1976 or of" shall cease to have effect.
37. For section 21 (transfer of parental rights and duties between adoption agencies) there shall be substituted —
"Variation of section 18 order so as to substitute one adoption agency for another.
21. —(1) On an application to which this section applies an authorised court may vary an order under section 18 so as to transfer the parental rights and duties relating to the child from the adoption agency in which they are vested under the order (`the existing agency') to another adoption agency (`the substitute agency').
(2) This section applies to any application made jointly by the existing agency and the would-be substitute agency.
(3) Where an order under section 18 is varied under this section, section 19 shall apply as if the parental rights and duties relating to the child had vested in the substitute agency on the making of the order."
38. In section 22(4) (notification to local authority of adoption application) for the word "receives" there shall be substituted "receive".
39. In section 29 (return of child taken away in breach of section 27 or 28) after the word "1976" in each place where it occurs there shall be inserted "or Article 28 or 29 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987".
40. In section 32 (meaning of "protected child"), at the end of subsection (2) there shall be added "or Article 33 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987"
`41. In section 45 (adopted children register)—
(a) for the words from "or an approved" in subsection (5) to the end of subsection (6) there shall be substituted—
"Board or adoption society falling within subsection (6) which is providing counselling for that adopted person.
(6) Where the Registrar General for Scotland furnishes an adopted person with information under subsection (5), he shall advise that person that counselling services are available —

(a) if the person is in Scotland —

(i) from the local authority in whose area he is living;

(ii) where the adoption order relating to him was made in Scotland, from the local authority in whose area the court which made the order sat or;

(iii) from any other local authority in Scotland;

(b) if the person is in England and Wales —

(i) from the local authority in whose area he is living;

(ii) where the adoption order relating to him was made in England and Wales, from the local authority in whose area the court which made the order sat; or

(iii) from any other local authority in England and Wales;

(c) if the person is in Northern Ireland —

(i) from the Board in whose area he is living;

(ii) where the adoption order relating to him was made in Northern Ireland, from the Board in whose area the court which made the order sat; or

(iii) from any other Board;

(d) if the person is in the United Kingdom and his adoption was arranged by an adoption society —

(i) approved under section 3;

(ii) approved under section 3 of the Adoption Act 1976; or

(iii) registered under Article 4 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987,

from that society.
(6A) Where an adopted person who is in Scotland—

(a) is furnished with information under subsection (5); or

(b) applies for information under —

(i) section 51(1) of the Adoption Act 1976; or

(ii) Article 54 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland Order 1987,

any body mentioned in subsection (6B) to which the adopted person applies for counselling shall have a duty to provide counselling for him.
(6B) The bodies referred to in subsection (6A) are —

(a) any local authority falling within subsection (6)(a); and

(b) any adoption society falling within subsection (6)(d) so far as it is acting as an adoption society in Scotland.";

(b) in subsection (7)—

(i) for the word "under" there shall be substituted "from a local authority, Board or adoption society falling within";

(ii) for the words "or adoption society which is providing that counselling" there shall be substituted ", Board or adoption society"; and

(iii) after the word "authority" where it second occurs there shall be inserted ", Board"; and

(c) after subsection (9) there shall be inserted the following subsection —
"(10) In this section —
"Board" means a Health and Social Services Board established under Article 16 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972; and
"local authority", in relation to England and Wales, means the council of a county (other than a metropolitan county), a metropolitan district, a London borough or the Common Council of the City of London:.
42. In section 49 (adoption of children abroad) —

(a) in subsection (1) after the word "Scotland" there shall be inserted "or Northern Ireland"; and

(b) in subsection (3) for the words "word 'England"' there shall be substituted "words `(England)' or '(Northern Ireland)'.".

43. In section 50(1) (restriction on removal of children for adoption outside Great Britain) after the word "1976" there shall be inserted "or Article 57 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987".
44. In section 53(1) (effect of determination and orders made in England and Wales and overseas in adoption proceedings) —

(a) in subsection (1) for the words "Great Britain" there shall be substituted "the United Kingdom"; and

(b) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted —

"(2) Subsections (2) to (4) of section 12 shall apply in relation to an order freeing a child for adoption (other than an order under section 18) as if it were an adoption order; and on the revocation in England and Wales or Northern Ireland of an order freeing a child for adoption subsection (3) of section 20 shall apply as if the order had been revoked under that section."
45. In section 54(b) (evidence of adoption in Northern Ireland) for the words from "section 23(4)"' to "in force" there shall be substituted "Article 63(1) of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987".
46. In section 65(1) (interpretation) —

(a) in the definitition of "adoption agency", at the end there shall be added "and an adoption agency within the meaning of Article 3 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (adoption agencies in Northern Ireland)";

887

(b) for the definition "adoption order" there shall be substituted—

"'adoption order' —

(a) means an order under section 2(1); and

(b) in sections 12(3) and (4), 18 to 20, 27, 28 and 30 to 32 and in the definition of "British adoption order" in this subsection includes an order under section 12 of the Adoption Act 1976 and Article 12 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (adoption orders in England and Wales and Northern Ireland respectively); and

(c) in sections 27, 28 and 30 to 32 includes an order under section 49, section 55 of the Adoption Act 1976 and Article 57 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (orders in relation to children being adopted abroad);";

(c) for the definition of "British adoption order" there shall be substituted —
"British adoption order' means—

(a) an adoption order as defined in this subsection; and

(b) an order under any provision for the adoption of a child effected under the law of any British territory outside the United Kingdom;";

(d) in the definition of "order freeing a child for adoption" for the words from "section 27(2)" to the end there shall be substituted "sections 27(2) and 53 includes an order under—

(a) section 18 of the Adoption Act 1976; and

(b) Article 17 or 18 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987;".'.

Commencement of proceedings
1. —(1) The Lord Chancellor may by order specify proceedings under this Act or the Adoption Act 1976 which may only be commenced in—

(a) a specified level of court;

(b) a court which falls within a specified class of court; or

(c) a particular court determined in accordance with, or specified in, the order.

(2) The Lord Chancellor may by order specify circumstances in which specified proceedings under this Act or the Adoption Act 1976 (which might otherwise be commenced elsewhere) may only be commenced in —

(a) a specified level of court;

(b) a court which falls within a specified class of court; or

(c) a particular court determined in accordance with, or specified in, the order.

(3) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision by virtue of which, where specified proceedings with respect to a child under —

(a) this Act;

(b) the Adoption Act 1976; or

(c) the High Court's inherent jurisdiction with respect to children,

have been commenced in or transferred to any court (whether or not by virtue of an order under this Schedule), any other specified family proceedings which may affect, or are otherwise connected with, the child may, in specified circumstances, only be commenced in that court.
(4) A class of court specified in an order under this Schedule may be described by reference to a description of proceedings and may include different levels of court.
Transfer of proceedings
2. —(1) The Lord Chancellor may by order provide that in specified circumstances the whole, or any specified part of, specified proceedings to which this paragraph applies shall be transferred to—

(a) a specified level of court;

(b) a court which falls within a specified class of court; or

(c) a particular court determined in accordance with, or specified in, the order.

(2) Any order under this paragraph may provide for the transfer to be made at any stage, or specified stage, of the proceedings and whether or not the proceedings, or any part of them, have already been transferred.
(3) The proceedings to which this paragraph applies are—

(a) any proceedings under this Act;

(b) any proceedings under the Adoption Act 1976;

(c) any other proceedings which —

(i) are family proceedings for the purposes of this Act, other than proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court; and

(ii) may affect, or are otherwise connected with, the child concerned.

(4) Proceedings to which this paragraph applies by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(c) may only be transferred in accordance with the provisions of an order made under this paragraph for the purpose of consolidating them with proceedings under —

(a) this Act;

(b) the Adoption Act 1976; or

(c) the High Court's inherent jurisdiction with respect to children.

(5) An order under this paragraph may make such provision as the Lord Chancellor thinks appropriate for excluding proceedings to which this paragraph applies from the operation of any enactment which would otherwise govern the transfer of those proceedings, or any part of them.
Hearings by single justice
3. —(1) In such circumstances as the Lord Chancellor may by order specify —

(a) the jurisdiction of a magistrates' court to make an emergency protection order;

(b) any specified question with respect to the transfer of specified proceedings to or from a magistrates' court in accordance with the provisions of an order under paragraph 2,

may be exercised by a single justice.
(2) Any provision made under this paragraph shall be without prejudice to any other enactment or rule of law relating to the function which may be performed by a single justice of the peace.
General
4. —(1) For the purposes of this Schedule—

(a) the commencement of proceedings under this Act includes the making of any application under this Act in the course of proceedings (whether or not those proceedings are proceedings under this Act); and

(b) there are three levels of court, that is to say the High Court, any county court and any magistrates' court.

(2) In this Schedule "specified" means specified by an order made under this Schedule.
(3) Any order under paragraph 1 may make provision as to the effect of commencing proceedings in contravention of any of the provisions of the order.
(4) An order under paragraph 2 may make provision as to the effect of a failure to comply with any of the provisions of the order.
(5) An order under this Schedule may —

(a) make such consequential, incidental or transitional provision as the Lord Chancellor considers expedient,

889
including provision amending any other enactment so far as it concerns the jurisdiction of any court or justice of the peace;

(b) make provision for treating proceedings which are —

(i) in part proceedngs of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of paragraph 2(3); and

(ii) in part proceedings of a kind mentioned in paragraph (c) of paragraph 2(3),

as consisting entirely of proceedings of one or other of those kinds, for the purposes of the application of any order made under paragraph 2.

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
The Administration of Justice Act 1964 (c. 42)
5. In section 38 of the Administration of Justice Act 1964 (interpretation), the definition of "domestic court", which is spent, shall be omitted.
The Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 (c.22)
6. In the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 —

(a) for the words "domestic proceedings", wherever they occur in sections 16(5)(c) and 88(1), there shall be substituted "family proceedings";

(b) for the words "domestic court panel", wherever they occur in section 16(5)(b), there shall be substituted "family panel".

The Justices of the Peace Act 1979 (c.55)
7. In the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 —

(a) for the words "domestic preceedings", wherever they occur in section 16(5), there shall be substituted "family proceedings";

(b) for the words "domestic court", wherever they occur in section 17(3), there shall be substituted "family proceedings court";

(c) for the words "domestic courts", wherever they occur in sections 38(2) and 58(1) and (5), there shall be substituted "family proceedings courts".

Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c.43)
8. In the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 —

(a) in section 65(1) (meaning of family proceedings), the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (m)—

"(n) the Children Act 1989";

(b) in section 65(2)(a) for the words "and (m)" there shall be substituted "(m) and (n)";

(c) for the words "domestic proceedings", wherever they occur in sections 65(1), (2) and (3), 66(1) and (2), 67(1), (2) and (7), 69(1), (2), (3) and (4), 70(2) and (3), 71(1) and (2), 72(1), 73, 74(1), 121(8) and 150(1), there shall be substituted "family proceedings";

(d) for the words "domestic court panel", wherever they occur in sections 66(2), 67(2), (4), (5), (7) and (8) and 68(1), (2) and (3), there shall be substituted "family panel";

(e) for the words "domestic court panels", wherever they occur in section 67(3), (4), (5) and (6), there shall be substituted, "family panels";

(f) for the words "domestic courts", wherever they occur in sections 67(1) and (3) and 68(1), there shall be substituted "family proceedings courts";

(g) for the words "domestic court", wherever they occur in section 67(2) and (5), there shall be substituted "family proceedings court".

The Supreme Court Act 1981 (c.54)
9. In paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Supreme Court Act 1981 (distribution of business to the Family Division of the High Court), the following sub-paragraph shall be added at the end—
"(e) proceedings under the Children Act 1989".
The Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (c.42)
10. In section 44 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (domestic proceedings in
890
magistrates' courts to include applications to alter maintenance agreements) for the words "domestic proceedings", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted "family proceedings".
The Insolvency Act 1986 (c.45)
11. —(1) In section 281(5)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (discharge not to release bankrupt from bankruptcy debt arising under any order made in family proceedings or in domestic proceedings), the words "or in domestic proceedings" shall be omitted.
(2) In section 281(8) of that Act (interpretation), for the definitions of "domestic proceedings" and "family proceedings" there shall be substituted —
"family proceedings" means —

(a) family proceedings within the meaning of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and any proceedings which would be such proceedings but for section 65(1)(ii) of that Act (proceedings for variation of order for periodical payments); and

(b) family proceedings within the meaning of Part V of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984.".'

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 372 and 373.
Amendment No. 372 I have spoken to with Amendment No. 232C; and Amendment No. 373 with Amendment No. 238. In order not to get lost, perhaps I may take these two together.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
374 Schedule 8, page 110, leave out lines 6 to 14 and insert —
'The Education Act 1944 (c. 31)
4. —(1) In section 40(1) of the Education Act 1944 (enforcement of school attendance), the words from "or to imprisonment" to the end shall cease to have effect.
The Marriage Act 1949 (c. 76)
5. —(1) In section 3 of the Marriage Act 1949 (consent required to the marriage of a child by common licence or superintendent registrar's certificate), in subsection (1) for the words "the Second Schedule to this Act" there shall be substituted "subsection (1A) of this section".
(2) After that subsection there shall be inserted —
"(1A) The consents are —

(a) subject to paragraphs (b) to (d) of this subsection, the consent of —

(i) each parent (if any) of the child who has parental responsibility for him; and

(ii) each guardian (if any) of the: child;

(b) where a residence order is in force with respect to the child, the consent of the person or persons with whom he lives, or is to live, as a result of the order (in substitution for the consents mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection);

(c) where a care order is in force with respect to the child, the consent of the local authority designated in the order (in addition to the consents mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection);

(d) where neither paragraph (b) nor (c) of this subsection applies but a residence order was in force with respect to the child immediately before he reached the age of sixteen, the consent of the person or persons with whom he lived, or was to live, as a result of the order (in substitution for the consents mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection).

(1B) In this section 'guardian of a child', 'parental responsibility', 'residence order' and 'care order' have the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989."
The Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 (c. 20)
5A. —(1) Sections 10 and 10A of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 (registration of father, and re-registration, where parents not married) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In sections 10(1) and 10A(1) for paragraph (d) there shall be substituted —
"(d) at the request of the mother or that person on production of —

(i) a copy of a parental responsibility agreement made between them in relation to the child; and

(ii) a declaration in the prescribed form by the person making the request stating that the agreement was made in compliance with section 4 of the Children Act 1989 and has not been brought to an end by an order of a court; or

(e) at the request of the mother or that person on production of —

(i) a certified copy of an order under section 4 of the Children Act 1989 giving that person parental responsibility for the child; and

(ii) a declaration in the prescribed form by the person making the request stating that the order has not been brought to an end by an order of a court; or

(f) at the request of the mother or that person on production of —

(i) a certified copy of an order under paragraph 1 of Schedule I to the Children Act 1989 which requires that person to make any financial provision for the child and which is not an order falling within paragraph 4(2A) of that Schedule; and

(ii) a declaration in the prescribed form by the person making the request stating that the order has not been discharged by an order of a court; or

(g) at the request of the mother or that person on production of —

(i) a certified copy of any of the orders which are mentioned in subsection (1A) of this section which has been made in relation to the child; and

(ii) a declaration in the prescribed form by the person making the request stating that the order has not been brought to an end or discharged by an order of a court."

(3) After sections 10(1) and 10A(1) there shall be inserted —
"(1A) The orders are—

(a) an order under section 4 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987 that that person shall have all the parental rights and duties with respect to the child;

(b) an order that that person shall have custody or care and control or legal custody of the child made under section 9 of the guardianship of Minors Act 1971 at a time when such an order could only be made in favour of a parent;

(c) an order under section 9 or 11B of that Act which requires that person to make any financial provision in relation to the child;

(c) an order under section 4 of the Affiliation Proceedings Act 1957 naming that person as putative father of the child."

(4) In section 10(2) for the words "or (d)" there shall be substituted "to (g)".
(5) In section 10(3) for the words from "'relevant order'" to the end there shall be substituted—parental responsibility agreement' has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989".
(6) In section 10A(2) in paragraphs (b) and (c) for the words "paragraph (d)" in both places where they occur there shall be substituted "any of paragraphs (d) to (g)".
The Army Act 1955 (c.18)
5B. In section 151 of the Army Act 1955 (deductions from pay for maintenance of wife or child), in subsection (1A) (a) for the words "in the care of a local authority in England or Wales" there shall be substituted "being looked
892
after by a local authority in England or Wales (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989)".
5C. —(1) Schedule 5A to that Act (powers of court on trial of civilian) shall be amended as follows.
(2) For paragraphs 7(3) and (4) there shall be substituted—
"(3) While an authorisation under a reception order is in force the order shall (subject to sub-paragraph (4) below) be deemed to be a care order for the purposes of the Children Act 1989, and the authorised authority shall be deemed to be the authority designated in that deemed care order.
(3A) In sub-paragraph (3) above "care order" means a care order which is not an interim care order under section 33 of the Children Act 1989.
(4) The Children Act 1989 shall apply to a reception order which is deemed to be a care order by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) above as if sections 26(7) (designated local authority), 66(1) (duration of care order etc.) and 70 (transfer of responsibility) were omitted."
(3) In sub-paragraph (5)(c) for the words from "attains" to the end there shall be substituted "attains 18 years of age".
(4) In paragraph 8(1) for the words "Children and Young Persons Act 1969" there shall be substituted "Children Act 1989".
The Air Force Act 1955 (c.19)
5D. Section 151 (IA) of the Air Force Act 1955 (deductions from pay for maintenance of wife or child) shall have effect subject to the amendment that is set out in paragraph 5B in relation to section 151 (1A) of the Army Act 1955.
5E. Schedule 5A to that Act (powers of court on trial of civilian) shall have effect subject to the amendments that are set out in paragraph 5C(2) to (4) in relation to Schedule 5A to the Army Act 1955'.
375 Page 111, line 3, at end insert —
The Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c. 53)
12A. Schedule 4A to the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (powers of court on trial of civilian) shall have effect subject to the amendments that are set out in paragraph 5C(2) to (4) in relation to Schedule 5A to the Army Act 1955.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 374 and 375. I shall also speak to Amendment No. 382.
These amendments will make minor amendments to existing statutes to reflect the substantial conceptual changes made by the Bill. The Acts concerned are the Education Act 1944, the Marriage Act 1949, the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. There is also a drafting amendment to the existing paragraph of the schedule which deals with the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
376 Schedule 8, page 111, line 25, leave out paragraph 16.
377 Page 112, line 33, at end inset —
`17A. After that section there shall be inserted —
"Requirement for young offender to live in local authority accommodation.
12AA. —(1) Where the conditions mentioned in subsection (5) of this section are satisfied, a supervision order may impose a requirement ('a residence requirement') that a child or young person shall live for a specified period in local authority accommodation.
(2) A residence requirement shall designate the local authority who are to receive the child or young person and that authority shall be authority in whose area the child or young person resides.
(3) The court shall not impose a residence requirement without first consulting the designated authority.
(4) A residence requirement may stipulate that the child or young person shall not live with a named person.
(5) The maximum period which may be specified in a residence requirement is six months.
(6) The conditions are that —

(a) a supervision order has previously been made in respect of the child or young person;

(b) that order imposed —

(i) a requirement under section 12A(3) of this Act; or

(ii) a residence requirement;

(c) he is found guilty of an offence which —

(i) was committed while that order was in force;

(ii) if it had been committed by a person over the age of twenty-one, would have been punishable with imprisonment; and

(iii) in the opinion of the court is serious; and

(d) the court is satisfied that the behaviour which constituted the offence was due, to a significant extent, to the circumstances in which he was living,

except that the condition in paragraph (d) of this subsection does not apply where the condition in paragraph (b)(ii) is satisfied.
(7) For the purposes of satisfying itself as mentioned in subsection (6)(d) of this section, the court shall obtain a social inquiry report which makes particular reference to the circumstances in which the child or young person was living.
(8) Subsection (7) of this section does not apply if the court already has before it a social inquiry report which contains sufficient information about the circumstances in which the child or young person was living.
(9) A court shall not include a residence requirement in respect of a child or young person who is not legally represented at the relevant time in that court unless —

(a) he has applied for legal aid for the purposes of the proceedings and the application was refused on the ground that it did not appear that his resources were such that he required assistance; or

(b) he has been informed of his right to apply for legal aid for the purposes of the proceedings and has had the opportunity to do so, but nevertheless refused or failed to apply.

(10) In subsection (9) of this section —

(a) 'the relevant time' means the time when the court is considering whether or not to impose the requirement; and

(b) 'the proceedings' means —

(i) the whole proceedngs; or

(ii) the part of the proceedings relating to the imposition of the requirement.

(11) A supervision order imposing a residence requirement may also impose any of the requirements mentioned in section 12, 12A, 12B or 12C of this Act.
(12) In this section 'social inquiry report' has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982".'.
378 Page 112, line 35, leave out 'subsection (4)' and insert `subsections (1Xa), (2A), (3)(e) and (4) after the word "12A", in each place where it occurs, there shall be inserted "12AA".
(1A) In subsection (4) of that section'.
379 Page 112, line 47, at end insert —
'(2A) In subsections (5)(b) and (c) and (6)(a) after the word "12A", in each place where it occurs, there shall be inserted "12AA".'.
19A. For section 23 of that Act (remand to care of local authorities etc.) there shall be substituted —
"Remand to local authority accommodation, committal of young persons of unruly character, etc.
23. —(1) Where a court —

(a) remands or commits for trial a child charged with homicide or remands a child convicted of homicide; or

(b) remands a young person charged with or convicted of one or more offences or commits him for trial or sentence, and he is not released on bail, then, unless he is a young person who is certified by the court to be of unruly character, the court shall remand him to local authority accommodation.

(2) A court remanding a person to local authority accommodation shall designate the authority who are to receive him and that authority shall be the authority in whose area it appears to the court that—

(a) he resides; or

(b) the offence or one of the offences was committed.

(3) Where a person is remanded to local authority accommodation, it shall be lawful for any person acting on behalf of the designated authority to detain him.
(4) The court shall not certify a young person as being of unruly character unless —

(a) he cannot safely be remanded to local authority accommodation; and

(b) the conditions prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State under this subsection are satisfied in relation to him.

(5) Where the court certifies that a young person is of unruly character, it shall commit him —

(a) to a remand centre, if it has been notified that such a centre is available for the reception from the court of such persons; and

(b) to a prison, if it has not been so notified.

(6) Where a young person is remanded to local authority accommodation, a court may, on the application of the designated authority, certify him to be of unruly character in accordance with subsection (4) of this section (and on so doing he small cease to be remanded to local authority accommodation and subsection (5) of this section shall apply).
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) of this section, "a court" means —

(a) the court which remanded the young person; or

(b) any magistrates' court having jurisdiction in the place where that person is for the time being,

and in this section "court" and "magistrates' court" include a justice.
(8) This section has effect subject to —

(a) section 37 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (committal to the Crown Court with a view to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution); and

(b) section 128(7) of that Act (remands to the custody of a constable for periods of not more than three days),

but section 128(7) shall have effect in relation to a child or young person as if for the reference to three clear days there were substituted a reference to twenty-four hours."
19B. —(l) In section 32 of that Act (detention of absentees), for subsection (1A) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(1A) If a child or young person is absent, without the consent of the responsible person —

(a) from a place of safety to which he has been taken under section 16(3) of this Act; or

(b) from local authority accommodation —

(i) in which he is required to live under sectionl2AA of this Act; or

(ii) to which he has been remanded under section 23(1) of this Act,

895
he may be arrested by a constable anywhere in the United Kingdom or Channel Islands without a warrant.
(1B) A person so arrested shall be conducted to —

(a) the place of safety;

(b) the local authority accommodation; or

(c) such other place as the responsible person may direct,

at the responsible person's expense.
(1C) In this section 'the responsible person' means the person who made the arrangements under section 16(3) of this Act or, as the case may be, the authority designated under section 12AA or 23 of this Act."
(2) In subsection (2B) of that section for the words "person referred to in subsection (1A)(a) or (b) (as the case may be) of this section" there shall be substituted "responsible person".
380 Page 112, line 49, after 'ages)', insert'—
(a) in paragraph (a),'.
381 Page 112, line 50, at end insert '; and
(b) in paragraph (e) for the words "section 23(2) or (3)" there shall be substituted "section 23(4) to (6)".
20A. In section 70(1) of that Act (interpretation) —
(a) after the definition of "local authority" there shall be inserted —
"'local authority accommodation' means accommodation provided by or on behalf of a local authority (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989)"; and
(b) in the definition of "reside" for "12(4) and (5)" there shall be substituted "12B(1) and (2)".
20B. In section 73 of that Act (extent, etc.) —

(a) in subsection (4Xa) for "32(1), (3) and (4)" there shall be substituted "32(1) to (1C) and (2A) to (4)"; and

(b) in subsection (6) for "32(1), 1A" there shall be substituted "32(1) to (1C)".'.

382 Page 113, line 37, leave out second 'marriage' and insert 'family'.
383 Page 113, line 37, at end insert —
'22A. In section 52(1) of that Act (interpretation), in the definition of "child of the family", for the words "has been boarded-out with those parties" there shall be substituted "is placed with those parties as foster parents".
The National Health Service Act 1977 (c.49)
22B. In Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977 (functions local social services authorities), the following sub-paragraph shall be added at the end of paragraph 2 —
"(4A) This paragraph does not apply in relation to persons under the age of 18.".
This Child Care Act 1980 (c.5)
22C. Until the repeal of the Child Care Act 1980 by this Act takes effect, the definition of "parent" in section 87 of that Act shall have effect as if it applied only in relation to Part I and sections 13, 24, 64 and 65 of that Act (provisions excluded by section 2(1)(f) of the Family Law Reform Act 1987 from the application of the general rule in that Act governing the meaning of references to relationships between persons).
The Education Act 1981 (c.60)
22D. The following section shall be inserted in the Education Act 1981, after section 3 —
"Provision outside England and Wales for certain children.
3A. —(1) A local authority may make such arrangements as they think fit to enable any child in respect of whom they maintain a statement under section 7 to attend an establishment outside England and Wales which specialises in providing for children with special needs.
(2) In subsection (1) above "children with special needs" means children who have particular needs which would be special educational needs if those children were in England and Wales.
(3) Where an authority make arrangements under this section with respect to a child, those arrangements may, in particular, include contributing to or paying —

(a) fees charged by the establishment;

(b) expenses reasonably incurred in maintaining him while he is at the establishment or travelling to or from it,

(c) those travelling expenses;

(d) expenses reasonably incurred by any person accompanying him while he is travelling or staying at the establishment.

(4) This section is not to be taken as in any way limiting any other powers of a local education authority."
The Child Abduction Act 1984 (c.37)
22E. —(1) Section 1 of the Child Abduction Act 1984 (offence of abduction by parent, etc.) shall be amended as follows.
(2) For subsections (2) to (4) there shall be substituted —
"(2) A person is connected with a child for the purposes of this section if —

(a) he is a parent of the child; or

(b) in the case of a child whose parents were not married to each other at the time of his birth, there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is the father of the child; or

(c) he is a guardian of the child; or

(d) he is a person in whose favour a residence order is in force with respect to the child; or

(e) he has custody of the child.

(3) In this section 'the appropriate consent', in relation to a child, means —

(a) the consent of each of the following —

(i) the child's mother;

(ii) the child's father, if he has parental responsibility for him;

(iii) any guardian of the child;

(iv) any person in whose favour a residence order is in force with respect to the child;

(v) any person who has custody of the child; or

(b) the leave of the court granted under or by virtue of any provision of Part II of the Children Act 1989; or

(c) if any person has custody of the child, the leave of the court which awarded custody to him.

(4) A person does not commit an offence under this section by taking or sending a child out of the United Kingdom without obtaining the appropriate consent if —

(a) he is a person in whose favour there is a residence order in force with respect to the child, and

(b) he takes or sends him out of the United Kingdom for a period of less than one month.

(4A) Subsection (4) above does not apply if the person taking or sending the child out of the United Kingdom does so in breach of an order under Part II of the Children Act 1989."
(3) In subsection (5) for the words from "but" to the end there shall be substituted —
"(5A) Subsection (5Xc) above does not apply if —

(a) the person who refused to consent is a person —

(i) in whose favour there is a residence order in force with respect to the child; or

(ii) who has custody of the child; or

(b) the person taking or sending the child out of the United Kingdom is, by so acting, in breach of an order made by a court in the United Kingdom."

(4) For subsection (7) there shall be substituted —
"(7) For the purposes of this section —

(a) 'guardian of a child', 'residence order' and 'parental responsibility' have the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989; and

897

(b) a person shall be treated as having custody of a child if there is in force an order of a court in the United Kingdom awarding him (whether solely or jointly with another person) custody, legal custody or care and control of the child."

(5) In subsection (8) for the words from "or voluntary organisation" to "custodianship proceedings or" there shall be substituted "detained in a place of safety, remanded to a local authority accommodation or the subject of'.
22F. —(1) In section 2 of that Act (offence of abduction of child by other persons), in subsection (1) for the words from "Subject" to "above" there shall be substituted "Subject to subsection (3) below, a person, other than one mentioned in subsection (2) below.".
(2) For subsection (2) of that section there shall be substituted—
"(2) The persons are —

(a) where the father and mother of the child in question were married to each other at the time of his birth, the child's father and mother;

(b) where the father and mother of the child in question were not married to each other at the time of his birth, the child's father and mother;

(c) any other person mentioned in section 1(2)(c) to (c) above.

(3) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, it shall be a defence for that person to prove —

(a) where the father and mother of the child in question were not married to each other at the time of his birth —

(i) that he is the child's father; or

(ii) that, at the time of the alleged offence, he believed, on reasonable grounds, that he was the child's father; or

(b) that, at the time of the alleged offence, he believed that the child had attained the age of sixteen."

22G. At the end of section 3 of that Act (construction of references to taking, sending and detaining) there shall be added "and
(d) references to a child's parents and to a child whose parents were (or were not) married to each other at the time of his birth shall be construed in accordance with section 1 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987 (which extends their meaning)."
22H. —(1) The Schedule to that Act (modifications of section 1 for children in certain cases) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 1(1) for the words "or voluntary organisation" there shall be substituted "within the meaning of the Children Act 1989".
(3) For paragraph 2(1) there shall be substituted —
"(1) This paragraph applies in the case of a child who is—

(a) detained in a place of safety under section 16(3) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969; or

(b) remanded to a local authority accommodation under section 23 of that Act."

(4) In paragraph 3(1)—

(a) in paragraph (a) for the words "section 14 of the Children Act 1975" there shall be substituted "section 18 of the Adoption Act 1976"; and

(b) in paragraph (d) for the words "section 25 of the Children Act 1975 or section 53 of the Adoption Act 1958" there shall be substituted "section 55 of the Adoption Act 1976".

(5) In paragraph 3(2)(a) —

(a) in sub-paragraph (i), for the words from "order or," to "Children Act 1975" there shall be substituted "section 18 order or, if the section 18 order has been varied under section 21 of that Act so as to give parental responsibility to another agency", and

898

(b) in sub-paragraph (ii), for the words "(c) or (e)" there shall be substituted "or (c)".

(6) At the end of paragraph 3 there shall be added —
"(3) Sub-paragraph (2) above shall be construed as if the references to the court included, in any case where the court is a magistrates' court, a reference to any magistrates' court acting for the same area as that court".
(7) For paragraph 5 there shall be substituted —
"5. In this Schedule —

(a) 'adoption agency' and 'adoption order' have the same meaning as in the Adoption Act 1976; and

(b) 'area', in relation to a magistrates' court, means the petty sessions area (within the meaning of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979) for which the court is appointed.".'

Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984 (c.56)
221. In section 1 of the Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984 (definition of foster child) —

(a) for the words "he is- (a)" there shall be substituted "(a) he is"; and

(b) the words "for a period of more than 6 days" and the words from "The period" to the end shall cease to have effect.

22J. In section 2(2) of that Act (exceptions to section 1), for paragraph (f) there shall be substituted —
"(f) if he has been in that person's car?: for a period of less than 28 days and that person does not intend to undertake his care for any longer period."
22K. In section 7(1) of that Act (persons disqualified from keeping foster children) —

(a) the word "or" at the end of paragraph (e) shall be omitted; and

(b) after paragraph (f) there shall be inserted "or

(g) he is disqualified from fostering a child privately (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989) by regulations made under section 57 of that Act,".'.
384 Page 113, line 43, at end insert —
The Legal Aid Act 1988 (c.34)
24. In paragraph 2 of Part I of Schedule 2 to the Legal Aid Act 1988 (proceedings in magistrates' courts to which the civil legal aid provisions of Part IV of the Act apply), the following sub-paragraph shall be added at the end —
"(g) proceedings under the Children Act 1989".'.
11 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 376 to 384. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 376 to 378 with Amendment No. 233, to Amendments Nos. 379, 380 and 381 with Amendment No. 50, to Amendment No. 382 with Amendment No. 374, to Amendment No. 383 with Amendment No. 270 and to Amendment No. 384 with Amendment No. 238.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
385 Schedule 9, page 115, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (b) and insert —
`(b) for the definition of legal guardian there shall be substituted—
"'legal guardian', in relation to a child or young person, means a guardian of a child as defined in the Children Act 1989".'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 385. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 388 to 390, 396 to 400, 402 and 409. These amendments all make consequential amendments to existing legislation. This chiefly involves the replacement of various references to old-style orders and provisions which are to be repealed by the Bill with references to the Bill and to orders under it.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
386 Schedule 9, page 115, line 4, at end insert —
The Education Act 1944 (c.31)
7A. —(1) Section 40 of the Education Act 1944 (enforcement of school attendance) shall be amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (2) there shall be substituted —
"(2) Proceedings for such offences shall not be instituted except by a local education authority.
(2A) Before instituting such proceedings the local education authority shall consider whether it would be appropriate, instead of or as well as instituting the proceedings, to apply for an education supervision order with respect to the child."
(3) For subsections (3) and (4) there shall be substituted —
"(3) The court —

(a) by which a person is convicted of an offence against section 37 of this Act; or

(b) before which a person is charged with an offence under section 39 of this Act,

may direct the local education authority instituting the proceedings to apply for an education supervision order with respect to the child unless the authority, having consulted the appropriate local authority, decide that the child's welfare will be satisfactorily safeguarded even though no education supervision order is made.
(3A) Where, following such a direction, a local education authority decide not to apply for an education supervision order they shall inform the court of the reasons for their decision.
(3B) Unless the court has directed otherwise, the information required under subsection (3A) shall be given to the court before the end of the period of eight weeks beginning with the date on which the direction was given.
(4) Where —

(a) a local education authority apply for an education supervision order with respect to a child who is the subject of a school attendance order; and

(b) the court decides that section 31(3) of the Children Act 1989 prevents it from making the order;

the court may direct that the school attendance order shall cease to be in force."
(4) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted —
"(5) In this section —
`appropriate local authority' has the same meaning as in section 31(9) of the Children Act 1989; and
'education supervision order' means an education supervision order under that Act."
7B. In section 71 of that Act (complaints with respect to independent schools), the following paragraph shall be added after paragraph (d), in subsection (1)—
"(e) there has been a failure, in relation to a child provided with accommodation by the school, to comply with the duty imposed by section (Welfare of
900
children accommodated in independent schools) of the Children Act 1989 (welfare of children accommodated in independent schools);"
7C. After section 114(1C) of that Act (interpretation) there shall be inserted the following subsections —
"(1D) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, 'parent', in relation to a child or young person, includes any person —

(a) who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him, or

(b) who has care of him,

except for the purposes of the enactments mentioned in subsection (1E) of this section, where it only includes such a person if he is an individual.
(1E) The enactments are —

(a) sections 5(4), 15(2) and (6), 31 and 65(1) of and paragraph 7(6) of Schedule 2 to, the Education (No. 2) Act 1986; and

(b) sections 53(8), 54(2), 58(5)(k), 60 and 61 of the Education Reform Act 1988.

(1F) For the purposes of subsection (ID) of this section —

(a) 'parental responsibility' has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989; and

(b) in determining whether an individual has care of a child or young person any absence of the child or young person at a hospital or boarding school and any other temporary absence shall be disregarded." '

387 Page 115, line 12, leave out paragraph 9.
388 Page 115, line 20, leave out paragraph 10.
389 Page 115, line 38, at end insert —
'The Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951( c.65)
10A. For section 2(1)(d) of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951 (cases in which leave of the appropriate court is required before enforcing certain orders for the payment of money), there shall be substituted —
"(d) an order for alimony, maintenance or other payment made under sections 21 to 33 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 or made, or having effect as if made, under Schedule I to the Children Act 1989".'.
390 Page 115, line 44, at end insert —
'The Administration of Justice Act 1960 (c.65)
11A. In section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 (publication of information relating to proceedings in private), in subsection (1) for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted —

"(a) where the proceedings —

(i) relate to the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court with respect to minors;

(ii) are brought under the Children Act 1989; or

(iii) otherwise relate wholly or mainly to the maintenance or upbringing of a minor;".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 386 to 390. I spoke to Amendment No. 386 with Amendment No. 111, to Amendment No. 387 with Amendment No. 212 and to Amendments Nos. 388 to 390 with Amendment No. 385.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
391 Schedule 9, page 116, leave out from '1989' to end of line 15.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 391. I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 393 to 395, 403 and 406 and 410. This group of amendments updates existing pieces of legislation to take account of changes in the Bill. For example, Amendment No. 391 makes minor adjustments to the existing powers of the Secretary of State under the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 to give grants to certain voluntary homes registrable under the Bill. That is an example of the kind of effect that the amendments in this group have.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
392 Schedule 9, page 116, line 6, at end insert—
The Criminal Justice Act 1967 (c.80)
12A. In section 67(1A)(c) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (computation of sentences of imprisonment passed in England and Wales) for the words "in the care of a local authority" there shall be substituted "remanded to local authority accommodation".'.
393 Page 116, line 20 at end insert—
The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (c.49)
13A. In section 2(2) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (matters referred to social work committee) after paragraph (j) there shall be inserted —
"(k) section (Review of provision for daycare, child minding etc.) and Part (CHILD MINDING AND DAY CARE FOR YOUNG CHILDREN) of the Children Act 1989,".
13B. In section 5(2)(c) of that Act (power of Secretary of State to make regulations) for the words "and (j)" there shall be substituted "to (k)".
13C. In section 21(3) of tht Act (mode of provision of accommodation and maintenance) for the words "section 21 of the Child Care Act 1980" there shall be substituted "section 19 of the Children Act 1989".
13D. In section 74(6) of that Act (parent of child in residential establishment moving to England or Wales) for the words from "Children and Young Persons Act 1969" to the end there shall be substituted "Children Act 1989, but as if section 26(7) were omitted".
13E. In Section 75(2) of that Act (parent of child subject to care order etc. moving to Scotland), for the words "Children and Young Persons Act 1969" there shall be substituted "Children Act 1989".
13F. In section 86(3) of that Act (meaning of ordinary residence for purpose of adjustments between authority providing accommodation and authority of area of residence), the words "the Child Care Act 1980 or" shall be omitted and after the words "education authority" there shall be inserted "or placed with local authority foster parents under the Children Act 1989".'.
394 Page 116, column 2, leave out from beginning of line 42 to end of line 3 on page 117 and insert —

`Functions under Part III of the Act (local authority support for children and families.

Care and supervision.

Protection of children

Functions in relation to community homes, voluntary homes and voluntary organisations, registered children's homes, private arrangements for fostering children, child minding and day care for young children.

902

Inspection of children's homes on behalf of Secretary of State.

Research and returns of information.

Functions in relation to children accommodated by health authorities and local education authorities or in residential care, nursing or mental nursing homes or in independent schools.'.

395 Page 117, line 24, leave out from `Tribunals)' to end of line 27 and insert 'for paragraph 4 there shall be substituted —

"Registration of voluntary homes and children's homes under the Children Act 1989.

4.Registered Homes Tribunals constituted under Pail III of the Registered Homes Act 1984.".'.

Page 117, line 35, at end insert—
'The Employment of Children Act 1973 (c.24)
21 A. —(1) In section 2 of the Employment of Children Act 1973 (supervision by education authorities), in subsection (2)(a) for the words "guardian or a person who has actual custody of" there shall be substituted "any person responsible for".
(2) After that subsection there shall be inserted —
"(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a) above a person is responsible for a child —

(a) in England and Wales, if he has parental responsibility for the child or care of him; and

(b) in Scotland, if he is his guardian or has actual custody of him.".

'The Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 (c.45)
24B. —(1) In Schedule 1 to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 (proceedings in divorce etc. stayed by reference to proceedings in other jurisdiction), paragraph 11(1) shall be amended as follows —

(a) at the end of the definition of "lump sum" there shall be added "or an order made in equivalent circumstances under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 and of a kind mentioned in paragraph 1(2)(c) of that Schedule";

(b) in the definition of "relevant order'', at the end of paragraph (b), there shall be added "or an order made in equivalent circumstances under Schedule I to the Children Act 1989 and of a kind mentioned in paragraph 1(2)(a) or (b) of that Schedule";

(c) in paragraph (c) of that definition, after the word "children)" there shall be inserted "or a section 7 order under the Children Act 1989"; and

(d) in paragraph (d) of that definition for the words "the custody, care or control" there shall be substituted "care".

(2) In paragraph 11(3) of that Schedule —

(a) the word "four" shall be omitted; and

(b) for the words "the custody of a child and the education of a child" there shall be substituted "or any provision which could be made by a section 7 order under the Children Act 1989".'.

397 Page 118, line 2, leave out 'In section 7(2)' and insert ' —(1) Section 7(2)'.
398 Page 118, line 3, after 'Act)' insert 'shall be amended as follows
(2) For paragraph (c) there shall be substituted —
"(c) in any proceedings relating to adoption, the marriage of any minor, the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court with respect to minors or the provision by any person of accommodation, care or schooling for minors;

903
(cc) in any proceedings brought under the Children Act 1989;"
(3)'.
399 Page 118, leave out lines 7 to 9.
400 Page 118, line 9, at end insert—
'The Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 (c.22)
23A. For section 8 of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 (orders for the custody of children) there shall be substituted —
"Restrictions on making of orders under this Act: welfare of children.
8. Where an application is made by a party to a marriage for an order under section 2, 6 or 7 of this Act, then, if there is a child of the family who is under the age of eighteen, the court shall not dismiss or make a final order on the application until it has decided whether to exercise any of its powers under the Children Act 1989 with respect to the child."
23B. In section 19(3A) (b) (interim orders) for the words "subsections (2) and" there shall be substituted "subsection".
23C. For section 20(12) of that Act (variation and revocation of orders for periodical payments) there shall be substituted —
"(12) An application under this section may be made —

(a) where it is for the variation or revocation of an order under section 2, 6, 7 or 19 of this Act for periodical payments, by either party to the marriage in question; and

(b) where it is for the variation of an order under section 2(1)(c), 6 or 7 of this Act for periodical payments to or in respect of a child, also by the child himself, if he has attained the age of sixteen."

23D. —(1) For section 20A of that Act (revival of order for periodical payments) there shall be substituted —
"Revival of orders for periodical payments.
20A. —(1) Where an order made by a magistrates' court under this Part of this Act for the making of periodical payments to or in respect of a child (other than an interim maintenance order) ceases to have effect —

(a) on the date on which the child attains the age of sixteen, or

(b) at any time after that date but before or on the date on which he attains the age of eighteen,

the child may apply to the court which made the order for an order for its revival.
(2) If on such an application it appears to the court that—

(a) the child is, will be or (if an order were made under this subsection) would be receiving instruction at an educational establishment or undergoing training for a trade, profession or vocation, whether or not while in gainful employment, or

(b) there are special circumstances which justify the making of an order under this subsection,

the court shall have power by order to revive the order from such date as the court may specify, not being earlier than the date of the making of the application.
(3) Any order revived under this section may be varied or revoked under section 20 in the same way as it could have been varied or revoked had it continued in being."
23E. In section 23(1) of that Act (supplementary provisions with respect to the variation and revocation of orders) for the words "14(3), 20 or 21" there shall be substituted "20" and for the words "section 20 of this Act" there shall be substituted "that section".
23F. —(1) In section 25 of that Act (effect on certain orders of parties living together), in subsection (1)(a) for the words "6 or 11(2)" there shall be substituted "or 6".
(2) In subsection (2) of that section —

(a) in paragraph (a) for the words "6 or 11(2)" there shall be substituted "or 6"; and

(b) after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted "or".

23G. In section 29(5) of that Act (appeals) for the words "sections 14(3), 20 and 21" there shall be substituted "section 20".
23H. In section 88(1) of that Act (interpretation) —

(a) in the definition of "child", for the words from "an illegitimate" to the end there shall be substituted "a child whose father and mother were not married to each other at the time of his birth"; and

(b) in the definition of "child of the family", for the words "being boarded-out with those parties" there shall be substituted "placed with those parties as foster parents".

'The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c.43)
231. —(1) In section 59(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (periodical payments through justices' clerk) for the words "the Guardianship of Minors Acts 1971 and 1973" there shall be substituted "(or having effect as if made under) Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989".
(2) For section 62(5) of that Act (payments to children) there shall be substituted—
"(5) In this section references to the person with whom a child has his home —

(a) in the case of any child who is being looked after by a local authority (within the meaning of section 18 of the Children Act 1989), are references to that local authority; and

(b) in any other case, are references to the person who, disregarding any absence of the child at a hospital or boarding school and any other temporary absence, has care of the child.".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 392 to 400. I spoke to Amendment No. 392 with Amendment No. 50, to Amendments Nos. 393 to 395 with Amendment No. 391 and to Amendments Nos. 396 to 400 with Amendment No. 385.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
401 Schedule 9, page 118, line 16, at end insert —
`(1A) In section 41 of that Act (wards of court), the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2) —
"(2A) Subsection (2) does not apply with respect to a child who is the subject of a care order (as defined by section 75 of the Children Act 1989.)"
402 Page 118, leave out lines 19 and 20 insert —
" '(ii) the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court with respect to minors, the maintenance of minors and any proceedings under the Children Act 1989, except proceedings solely for the appointment of a guardian of a minor's estate".'.
403 Page 118, line 20, at end insert —
'The Armed Forces Act 1981 (c. 55)
24A. In section 14 of the Armed Forces Act 1981 (temporary removal to, and detention in, place of safety abroad or in the United Kingdom of service children in need of care and control), in subsection (9A) for the words "the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, the Children and Young Persons Act 1969" there shall be substituted "the Children Act 1989".
'The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (c. 27)
24B. In paragraph 5(a) of Schedule 5 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (maintenance and similar payments excluded from Schedule 4 to that Act) for the words "section 47 or 51 of the Child Care Act 1980" there shall be substituted "paragraph 21 of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989".'.
404 Page 118, line 22, after '25'. insert —
'— (1) For section 27 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (children and young persons in care of local authority) there shall be substituted the following section —
'Children and young persons in care.
27. Where —

(a) a patient who is a child or young person is in the care of a local authority by virtue of a care order within the meaning of the Children Act 1989; or

(b) the rights and powers of a parent of a patient who is a child or young person are vested in a local authority by virtue of section 16 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968,

the authority shall be deemed to be the nearest relative of the patient in preference to any person except the patient's husband or wife (if any)."
(2) Section 28 of that Act (nearest relative of minor under guardianship, etc) is amended as mentioned in sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).
(3) For subsection (1) there shall be substituted —
"(1) Where —

(a) a guardian has been appointed for a person who has not attained the age of eighteen years; or

(b) a residence order (as defined by section 7 of the Children Act 1989) is in force with respect to such a person,

the guardian (or guardians, where there is more than one) or the person named in the residence order shall, to the exlcusion of any other person, be deemed to be his nearest relative."
(4) For subsection (3) there shall be substituted —
"(3) In this section "guardian" does not include a guardian under this Part of this Act."
(5)'.
405 Page 118, line 22, leave out 'the Mental Health Act 1983' and insert 'that Act'.
406 Page 118, line 25, at end insert —
'The Registered Homes Act 1984 (c.23)
25A. — (1) In section 1(5) of the Registered Homes Act 1984 (requirement of registration) for paragraphs (d) and (e) there shall be substituted —
"(d) any community home, voluntary home or children's home within the meaning of the Children Act 1989."
(2) In section 39 of that Act (preliminary) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted —
"(a) the Children Act 1989."
The Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 (c. 36)
25B. For section 54 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 (children and young persons in care of local authority) there shall be substituted the following section —
"Children and young persons in care of local authority
54. Where —

(a) the rights and powers of a parent of a patient who is a child or young person are vested in a local authority by virtue of section 16 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968; or

(b) a patient who is a child or young person is in the care of a local authority by virtue of a care order made under the Children Act 1989,

the authority shall be deemed to be the nearest relative of the patient in preference to any person except the patient's husband or wife (if any)."
The Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (c. 42)
25C. In section 38(2)(b) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (transfer of family proceedings from High Court to county court) after the words "a ward of court" there shall be inserted "or any other proceedings which relate to the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court with respect to minors".'.
407 Page 118, line 31, leave out from `(6)' to end of line 32 and insert 'for the words from "make arrangements" to the end there shall be substituted "secure that the arrested juvenile is moved to local authority accommodation".
(1A) After that subsection there shall be inserted —
"(6A) In this section 'local authority accommodation' means accommodation provided by or on behalf of a local authority (within the meaning of tie Children Act 1989).
(6B) Where an arrested juvenile is moved to local authority accommodation under subsection (6) above, it shall be lawful for any person acting on behalf of the authority to detain him.".'.
408 Page 118, line 34, at end insert —
'27A. In section 39(4) of that Act (responsibilities in relation to persons detained) for the words "transferred to the care of a local authority in pursuance of arrangements made" there shall be substituted "moved to local authority accommodation".
27B. In Schedule 2 to that Act (preserved powers of arrest) in the entry relating to the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 for the words "Sections 28(2) and" there shall be substituted "Section".
The Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 (c.49)
27C. In section 1(2)(b) of the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 (meaning of "surrogate mother", etc.) for the words "the parental rights being exercised" there shall be substituted "parental responsibility being met".
The Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 (c.60)
27D. — (1) In section 9(a) and 20(2)(a) of the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 (orders with respect to which court's powers suspended), for the words "any other order under section 1(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969" there shall be substituted "a supervision order under section 26 of the Children Act 1989".
(2) At the end of section 27 of that Act (,interpretation), there shall be added —
"(4) In this Act a decision relating to rights of access in England and Wales means a decision as to the contact which a child may, or may not, have with any person."
(3) In Part I of Schedule 3 to that Act (orders in England and Wales which are custody orders for 'the purposes of the Act), for paragraph 1 there shall be substituted —
"1. The following are the orders referred to in section 27(1) of this Act —

(a) a care order under the Children Act 1989 (as defined by section 26(11) of that Act, read with section 75(1) and Schedule 10);

(b) a residence order (as defined by section 7 of the Act of 1989); and

(c) any order made by a court in England and Wales under any of the following enactments —

(i) section 9(1), 10(1Xa) or 11(a) of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971;

(ii) section 42(1) or (2) or 43(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973;

(iii) section 2(2)(b), 4(b) or (5) of the Guardianship Act 1973 as applied by section 34(5) of the Children Act 1975;

(iv) section 8(2Xa), 10(1) or l9(1)(ii) of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates Courts Act 1978;

(v) section 26(1Xb) of the Adoption Act 1976."

409 Page 119, line 30, at end insert —
'The Family Law Act 1986 (c.55)
31A. — (1) The Family Law Act 1986 shall be amended as follows.
(2) Subject to paragraphs 31B to 313, in Part I —

(a) for the words "custody order", in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted "Part I order";

(b) for the words "proceedings with respect to the custody of', in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted "Part I proceedings with respect to"; and

907

(c) for the words "matters relating to the custody of", in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted "Part I matters relating to".

(3) For section 42(7) (general interpretation of Part I) there shall be substituted —
"(7) In this Part —

(a) references to Part I proceedings in respect of a child are references to any proceedings for a Part I order or an order corresponding to a Part I order and include, in relation to proceedings outside the United Kingdom, references to proceedings before a tribunal or other authority having power under the law having effect there to determine Part I matters; and

(b) references to Part I matters are references to matters that might be determined by a Part I order or an order corresponding to a Part I order."

31 B. —(1) In section I (orders to which Part I of the Act of 1986 applies), in subsection (1)—
(a) for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted —
"(a) a section 7 order made by a court in England and Wales under the Children Act 1989, other than an order varying or discharging such an order"; and
(b) for paragraph (d) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs —
"(d) an order made by a court in England and Wales in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court with respect to children —

(i) so far as it gives care of a child to any person or provides for contact with, or the education of, a child; but

(ii) excluding an order varying or revoking such an order;

(e) an order made by the High Court in Northern Ireland in the exercise of its jurisdiction relating to wardship —

(i) so far as it gives care and control of a child to any person or provides for the education of or access to a child; but

(ii) excluding an order relating to a child of whom care or care and control is (immediately after the making of the order) vested in the Department of Health and Social Services or a Health and Social Services Board."

(2) In subsection (2) of that section, in paragraph (c) for "(d)" there shall be substituted "(e)".
(3) For subsections (3) to (5) of that section there shall be substituted —
"(3) In this Part, 'Part I order' —

(a) includes any order which would have been a custody order by virtue of this section in any form in which it was in force at any time before its amendment by the Children Act 1989; and

(b) (subject to sections 32 and 40 of this Act) excludes any order which would have been excluded from being a custody order by virtue of this section in any such form."

31C. For section 2 there shall be substituted the following sections —
"Jurisdiction: general.
2. — (1) A court in England and Wales shall not have jurisdiction to make a section 1(1)(a) order with respect to a child in or in connection with matrimonial proceedings in England and Wales unless the condition in section 2A of this Act is satisfied.
(2) A court in England and Wales shall not have jurisdiction to make a section 1(1)(a) order in a non-matrimonial case (that is to say, where the condition in section 2A of this Act is not satisfied) unless the condition in section 3 of this Act is satisfied.
(3) A court in England and Wales shall not have jurisdiction to make a section 1(1Xd) order unless —

(a) the condition in section 3 of this Act is satisfied, Or

908

(b) the child concerned is present in England and Wales on the relevant date and the court considers that the immediate exercise of its powers is necessary for his protection.

Jurisdiction in or in connection with matrimonial proceedings.
2A. — (1) The condition referred to in section 2(1) of this Act is that the matrimonial proceedings are proceedings in respect of the marriage of the parents of the child concerned and —

(a) the proceedings —

(i) are proceedings for divorce or nullity of marriage, and

(ii) are continuing;

(b) the proceedings —

(i) are proceedings for judicial separation,

(ii) are continuing,

and the jurisdiction of the court is not excluded by subsection (2) below; or
(c) the proceedings have been dismissed after the beginning of the trial but —

(i) the section 1(1Xa) order is being made forthwith, or

(ii) the application for the order was made on or before the dismissal.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above, the jurisdiction of the court is excluded if, after the grant of a decree of judicial separation, on the relevant date, proceedings for divorce or nullity in respect of the marriage are continuing in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
(3) Subsection (2) above shall not apply if the court in which the other proceedings there referred to are continuing has made —

(a) an order under section 13(6) or 21(5) of this Act (not being an order made by virtue of section 13(6)(a)(i)), or

(b) an order under section 14(2) or 22(2) of this Act which is recorded as being made for the purpose of enabling Part I proceedings to be taken in England and Wales with respect to the child concerned.

(4) Where a court —

(a) has jurisdiction to make a section 1(1)(a) order in or in connection with matrimonial proceedings, but

(b) considers that it would be more appropriate for Part I matters relating to the child to be determined outside England and Wales,

the court may by order direct that, while the order under this subsection is in force, no section 1(1)(a) order shall be made by any court in or in connection with those proceedings."
31D. —(1) In section 3 (habitual residence or presence of child concerned) in subsection (1) for "section 2" there shall be substituted "section 2(2)".
(2) In subsection (2) of that section for the words "proceedings for divorce, nullity or judicial separation" there shall be substituted "Matrimonial proceedings".
31E. —(1) In section 6 (duration and variation of Part I orders), for subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsections."
"(3) A court in England and Wales shall not have jurisdiction to vary a Part I order if, on the relevant date, matrimonial proceedings are continuing in Scotland or Northern Ireland in respect of the marriage of the parents of the child concerned.
(3A) Subsection (3) above shall not apply if —

(a) the Part I order was made in or in connection with proceedings for divorce or nullity in England and Wales in respect of the marriage of the parents of the child concerned; and

(b) those proceedings are continuing.

(3B) Subsection (3) above shall not apply if—

(a) the Part I order was made in or in connection with proceedings for judicial separation in England and Wales;

909

(b) those proceedings are continuing; and

(c) the decree of judicial separation has not yet been granted."

(2) In subsection (5) of that section for the words from "variation of" to "if the ward" there shall be substituted "variation of a section 1(1)(d) order if the child concerned".
(3) For subsections (6) and (7) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsections —
"(6) Subsection (7) below applies where a Part I order which is —

(a) a residence order (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989) in favour of a person with respect to a child,

(b) an order made in the exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdicton with respect to children by virtue of which a person has care of a child, or

(c) an order —

(i) of a kind mentioned in section 1(3)(a) of this Act,

(ii) under which a person is entitled to the actual possession of a child,

ceases to have effect in relation to that person by virtue of subsection (1) above.
(7) Where this subsection applies, any family assistance order made under section 14 of the Children Act 1989 with respect to the child shall also cease to have effect.
(8) For the purposes of subsection (7) above the reference to a family assistance order under section 14 of the Children Act 1989 shall be deemed to include a reference to an order for the supervision of a child made under —

(a) section 7(4) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969,

(b) section 44 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973,

(c) section 2(2)(a) of the Guardianship Act 1973,

(d) section 34(5) or 36(3)(b) of the Children Act 1975, or

(e) section 9 of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978;

but this subsection shall cease to have effect once all such orders for the supervision of children have ceased to have effect in accordance with Schedule 10 to the Children Act 1989."
31F. For section 7 (interpretation of Chapter II) there shall be substituted —
"Interpretation of Chapter II.
7. In this Chapter —

(a) 'child' means a person who has not attained the age of eighteen;

(b) 'matrimonial proceedings' means proceedings for divorce, nullity of marriage or judicial separation;

(c) 'the relevant date' means, in relation to the making or variation of an order —

(i) where an application is made for an order to be made or varied, the date of the application (or first application, if two or more are detemined together), and

(ii) where no such application is made, the date on which the court is considering whether to make or, as the case may be, vary the order; and

(d) 'section 1(1)(a) order' and 'section 1(1)(d) order' mean orders falling within section 1(lXa) and (d) of this Act respectively."

31G. In each of the following sections —

(a) section 11(2)(a) (provisions supplementary to section 9 and 10),

(b) section 13(5)(a) (jurisdiction ancillary to matrimonial proceedings),

(c) section 20(3)(a) (habitual reisdence or presence of child),

(d) section 23(4Xa) (duration and variation of custody orders),

910
for "4(5)" there shall be substituted "2A(4)".
31H. In each of the following sections —

(a) section 19(2) (jurisdiction in cases other than divorce, etc.),

(b) section 20(6) (habitual residence or presence of child), and

(c) section 23(5) (duration and variation of custody orders),

for "section 1(1)(d)" there shall be substituted "section 1(1)(e)".
311. In section 34(3) (power to order recovery of child) for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted —
"(a) section (Enforcement of residence orders) of the Children Act 1989".
31J. —(1) In section 42 (general interpretation of Part I), in subsection (4)(a) for the words "has been boarded out with those parties" there shall be substituted "is placed with those parties as foster parents".
(2) In subsection (6) of that section, in paragraph (a) after the word "person" there shall be inserted "to be allowed contact with or".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 401 to 409.
I spoke to Amendment No. 401 when I moved Amendment No. 235. I spoke to Amendment No. 402 when I moved Amendment No. 385 and Amendments Nos. 403, 404, 405 and 406 were dealt with when I moved Amendment No. 391. Amendments Nos. 407 and 408 were spoken to in connection with Amendment No. 50 and Amendment No. 409 was spoken to with Amendment No. 385.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
410 Schedule 9, page 119, line 35, at end insert —
'Amendments of local Acts
33. —(1) Section 16 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1981 (exemption from provisions of Part IV of the Act of certain premises) shall be amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph (g) there shall be inserted —
"(gg) used as a children's home as defir, ed in section 52 of the Children Act 1989".
(3) In paragraph (h) —

(a) for the words "section 56 of the Child Care Act 1980" there shall be substituted "section 49 of the Children Act 1989";

(b) for the words "section 57" there shall be substituted "section 49"; and

(c) for the words "section 32" there shall be substituted "section 43".

(4) In paragraph (i), for the words "section 8 of the Foster Children Act 1980" there shall be substituted "section 56 of the Children Act 1989".
34. —(1) Section 10(2) of the Greater London (General Powers) Act 1984 (exemption from provisions of Part IV of the Act of certain premises) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (d) —

(a) for the words "section 56 of the Child Care Act 1980" there shall be substituted "section 49 of the Children Act 1989";

(b) for the words "section 57" there shall be substituted "section 49"; and

(c) for the words "section 31" there shall be substituted "section 43".

(3) In paragraph (e), for the words "section 8 of the Foster Children Act 1980" there shall be substituted "section 56 of the Children Act 1989".
(4) In paragraph (1) for the words "section 1 of the Children's Homes Act 1982" there shall be substituted "section 52 of the Children Act 1989".'.
411 Schedule 10, page 119, leave out lines 38 to 47 and insert —
'PENDING PROCEEDINGS, ETC.
1. —(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (4), nothing in any provision of this Act (other than the repeals mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)) shall affect any proceedings which are pending immediately before the commencement of that provision.
(2) The repeals are those of—

(a) section 42(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (declaration by court that party to marriage unfit to have custody of children of family); and

(b) section 38 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (power of court to divest person of authority over girl or boy in cases of incest).

(3) For the purposes of the following provisions of this Schedule, any reference to an order in force immediately before the commencement of a provision of this Act shall be construed as including a reference to an order made after that commencement in proceedings pending before that commencement.
(4) Sub-paragraph (3) is not to be read as making the order in question have effect from a date earlier than that on which it was made.
(5) An order under section (Evidence given by, or with respect to, children) (3) may make such provision with respect to the application of the order in relation to proceedings which are pending when the order comes into force as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate.
2. Where, immediately before the day on which Part IV comes into force, there was in force an order under section 3(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 (order directing a local authority to bring a child or young person before a juvenile court under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969), the order shall cease to have effect on that day.
CUSTODY ORDERS, ETC.
Cessation of declarations of unfitness, etc.
3. Where, immediately before the day on which Parts I and II come into force, there was in force —

(a) a declaration under section 42(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (declaration by court that party to marriage unfit to have custody of children of family); or

(b) an order under section 38(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 divesting a person of authority over a girl or boy in a case of incest;

the declaration or, as the case may be, the order shall cease to have effect on that day.
Family Law Reform Act 1987 (c. 42) Conversion of orders under section 4
4. Where, immediately before the day on which Parts I and II come into force, there was in force an order under section 4(1) of the Family Law Reform Act 1987 (order giving father parental rights and duties in relation to a child), then, on and after that day, the order shall be deemed to be an order under section 4 of this Act giving the father parental responsibility for the child.
Orders to which paragraphs 6 to 11 apply
5. —(1) In paragraphs 6 to 11 "an existing order" means any order which —

(a) is in force immediately before the commencement of Parts I and II;

(b) was made under any enactment mentioned in sub-paragraph (2);

(c) determines all or any of the following —

(i) who is to have custody of a child;

912

(ii)who is to have care and control of a child;

(iii) who is to have access to a child;

(iv) any matter with respect to a child's education or upbringing; and

(d) is not an order of a kind mentioned in paragraph 15(1).

(2) the enactments are —

(a) the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978;

(b) the Children Act 1975;

(c) the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973;

(d) the Guardianship of Minors Acts 1971 and 1973;

(e) the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965;

(f) the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960.

(3) For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraphs 6 to 11 "custody" includes legal custody and joint as well as sole custody but does not include access.
Parental responsibility of parents
6. —(1) Where —

(a) a child's father and mother were married to each other at the time of his birth; and

(b) there is an existing order with respect to the child,

each parent shall have parental responsibility for the child in accordance with section 2 as modified by sub-paragraph (3).
(2) Where —

(a) a child's father and mother were not married to each other at the time of his birth; and

(b) there is an existing order with respect to the child, section 2 shall apply as modified by sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).

(3) The modification is that for section 2(8) there shall be substituted —
"(8) The fact that a person has parental responsibility for a child does not entitle him to act in a way which would be incompatible with any existing order or any order made under this Act with respect to the child".
(4) The modifications are that —

(a) for the purposes of section 2(2), where the father has custody or care and control of the child by virtue of any existing order, the court shall be deemed to have made (at the commencement of that section) an order under section 4(1) giving him parental responsibility for the child; and

(b) where by virtue of paragraph (a) a court is deemed to have made an order under section 4(1) in favour of a father who has care and control of a child by virtue of an existing order, the court shall not bring the order under section 4(1) to an end at any time while he has care and control of the child by virtue of the order.

Persons who are not parents but who have custody or care and control
7. —(1) Where a person who is not the parent or guardian of a child has custody or care and control of him by virtue of an existing order, that person shall have parental responsibility for him so long as he continues to have that custody or care and control by virtue of the order.
(2) Where sub-paragraph (1) applies, Parts I and 11 shall have effect as modified by this paragraph.
(3) The modifications are that —
(a) for section 2(8) there shall be substituted —
"(8) The fact that a person has parental responsibility for a child does not entitle him to act in a way which would be incompatible with any existing order or with any order made under this Act with respect to the child";
(b) at the end of section 9(4) there shall be inserted —
"(c) any person who has custody or care and control of a child by virtue of any existing order"; and
(c) at the end of section 29(1)(c) there shall be inserted —
"(cc) where immediately before the care order was made there was an existing order by virtue of which a person had custody or care and control of the child, that person".
Persons who have care and control
8. —(1) Sub paragraphs (2) to (6) apply where a person has care and control of a child by virtue of an existing order, but they shall cease to apply when that order ceases to have effect.
(2) Section 5 shall have effect as if—

(a) for any reference to a residence order in favour of a parent or guardian there were substituted a reference to any existing order by virtue of which the parent or guardian has care and control of the child; and

(b) for subsection (8) there were substituted —

"(8) Subsections (1) and (6) do not apply if the existing order referred to in paragraph (b) of those subsections was one by virtue of which a surviving parent of the child also had care and control of him."
(3) Section 9 shall have effect as if for subsection (5Xc)(i) there were substituted —
"(i) In any case where by virtue of an existing order any person or persons has or have care and control of the child, has the consent of that person or each of those persons".
(4) Section 17 shall have effect as if for subsection (9)(a) there were substituted "who has care and control of the child by virtue of an existing order."
(5) Section 19 shall have effect as if for subsection (3A)(c) there were substituted —
"(c) where the child is in care and immediately before the care order was made there was an existing order by virtue of which a person had care and control of the child, that person."
(6) In Schedule 1, paragraphs 1(1) and 14(1) shall have effect as if for the words "in whose favour a residence order is in force with respect to the child" there were substituted "who has been given care and control of the child by virtue of an existing order".
Persons who have access
9. —(1) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) apply where a person has access by virtue of an existing order".
(2) Section 9 shall have effect as if after subsection (5) there were inserted —
"(5A) Any person who has access to a child by virtue of an existing order is entitled to apply for a contact order."
(3) Section 14(2) shall have effect as if after paragraph (b) there were inserted —
"(bb) any person who has access to the child by virtue of an existing order."
(4) Sections (Child assessment orders) (11), 36(10) shall have effect as if in each case after paragraph (d) there were inserted —
"(dd) any person who has been given access to him by virtue of an existing order."
Enforcement of certain existing orders
10. —(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies in relation to any existing order which, but for the repeal by this Act of —

(a) section 13(1) of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971;

(b) section 43(1) of the Children Act 1975; or

(c) section 33 of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978,

(provisions concerning the enforcement of custody orders) might have been enforced as if it were an order requiring a person to give up a child to another person.
(2) Where this sub-paragraph applies, the existing order may, after the repeal of the enactments mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) to (c), be enforced under section (Enforcement of residence orders) as if —

(a) any reference to a residence order were a reference to the existing order; and

(b) any reference to a person in whose favour the residence order is in force were a reference to a person to whom actual custody of the child is given by an existing order which is in force.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2) "actual custody", in relation to a child, means the actual possession of: pis person.
Discharge of existing others
11. —(1) The making of a residence order or a care order with respect to a child who is the subject of an existing order discharges the existing order.
(2) Where the court makes any section 7 order (other than a residence order) with respect to a child with respect to whom any existing order is in force, the existing order shall have effect subject to the section 7 order.
(3) The court may discharge an existing order which is in force with respect to a child —

(a) in any family proceedings relating to the child or in which any question arises with respect to the child's welfare; or

(b) on the application of —

(i) any parent or guardian of the child;

(ii) the child himself; or

(iii) any person named in the order.

(4) A child may not apply for the discharge of an existing order except with t/ leave of the court.
(5) The power in sub-paragraph (3) to discharge an existing order includes the power to discharge any part of the order.
(6) In considering whether to discharge an order under the power conferred by sub-paragraph (3) the court shall, if the discharge of the order is opposed by any party to the proceedings, have regard in particu.ar to the matters mentioned in section 1(2).
GUARDIANS
Existing guardians to be guardians under this, Act
12. —(1)Any appointment of a person as guardian of a child which —

(a) was made —

(i) under sections 3 to 5 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971;

(ii) under section 38(3) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956; or

(iii) under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction with respect to children; and

(b) has taken effect before the commencement of section 5,

shall (subject to sub-paragraph (2)) be deemed, on and after the commencement of section 5, to be an appointment made and having effect under that section.
(2) Where an appointment of a person as guardian of a child has effect under section 5 by virtue of sub-paragraph (1 )(a)(i i), the appointment shall not have effect for a period which is longer than any period specified in the order.
Appointment of guardian not ye.' in effect
13. Any appointment of a person to he a guardian of a child—

(a) which was made as mentioned in paragraph 12(1)(a)(i); but

(b) which, immediately before the commencement of section 5, had not taken effect,

shall take effect in accordance with section 5 (as modified, where it applies, by paragraph 8(2)).
Persons deemed to be appointed as guardians under existing wills
14. For the purposes of the Wills Act 1837 and of this Act any disposition by will and testament or devise of the custody and tuition of any child, made before the commencement of section 5 and paragraph 1 of Schedule 9, shall be deemed to be an appointment by will of a guardian of the child.
CHILDREN IN CARE
Children in compulsory care
15. —(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies where, immediately before the day on which Part IV comes into force, a person was —

(a) in care by virtue of —

(i) a care order under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969;

(ii) a care order under section 15 of that Act, on discharging a supervision order made under section 1 of that Act; or

(iii) an order or authorisation under section 25 or 26 of that Act;

(b) deemed, by virtue of —

(i) paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 5A to the Army Act 1955;

(ii) paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 5A to the Air Force Act 1955; or

(iii) paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 4A to the Naval Discipline Act 1957,

to be the subject of a care order under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969;
(c) in care —

(i) under section 2 of the Child Care Act 1980; or

(ii) by virtue of paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to that Act (which extends the meaning of a child in care under section 2 to include children in care under section 1 of the Children Act 1948),

and a child in respect of whom a resolution under section 3 of the Act of 1980 or section 2 of the Act of 1948 was in force;
(d) a child in respect of whom a resolution had been passed under section 65 of the Child Care Act 1980;
(e) in care by virtue of an order under —

(i) section 2(1)(e) of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960;

(ii) section 7(2) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969;

(iii) section 43(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973; or

(iv) section 2(2)(b) of the Guardianship Act 1973;

(v) section 10 of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978,

(Orders having effect for certain purposes as if the child had been received into care under section 2 of the Child Care Act 1980);
(f) in care by virtue of an order made, on the revocation of a custodianship order, under section 36 of the Children Act 1975;
(g) in care by virtue of an order made, on the refusal of an adoption order, under section 26 of the Adoption Act 1976 or any order having effect (by virtue of paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to that Act) as if made under that section.
(2) Where this sub-paragraph applies, then, on and after the day on which Part IV commences —

(a) the order or resolution in question shall be deemed to be a care order;

(b) the authority in whose care the person was immediately before that commencement shall be deemed to be the authority designated in that deemed care order; and

916

(c) any reference to a child in the care of a local authority shall include a reference to a person who is the subject of such a deemed care order,

and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly, subject to paragraph 16.
Modifications
l6. —(1) Sub-paragraph (2) only applies where a person who is the subject of a care order by virtue of paragraph 15(2) is a person falling within sub-paragraph (1Xa) or (b) of that paragraph.
(2) Where the person would otherwise have remained in care until reaching the age of nineteen, by virtue of—

(a) section 20(3)(a) or 21(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969; or

(b) paragraph 7(5)(c)(i) of—

(i) Schedule 5A to the Army Act 1955;

(ii) Schedule 5A to the Air Force Act 1955; or

(iii) Schedule 4A to the Naval Discipline Act 1957,

this Act applies as if in section 65(2K) for the word "eighteen" there were substituted "nineteen".
(3) Where a person who is the subject of a care order by virtue of paragraph 15(2) is a person falling with sub-paragraph (1)(b) of that paragraph, this Act applies as if section 70 were omitted.
(4) Sub-paragraph (5) only applies where a child who is the subject of a care order by virtue of paragraph 15(2) is a person falling within sub-paragraph (1)(e) to (g) of that paragraph.
(5) Where a court, on making the order, or at any time thereafter, gave directions under —

(a) section 4(4)(a) of the Guardianship Act 1973; or

(b) section 43(5)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

as to the exercise by the authority of any powers, those directions shall continue to have effect (regardless of any conflicting provision in this Act) until varied or discharged by a court under this sub-paragraph.
Children placed with parent etc. while in compulsory care
17. —(1) This paragraph applies where a child is deemed by paragraph 15 to be in the care of a local authority under an order resolution which is deemed by that paragraph to be a care order.
(2) If, immediately before the day on which Part III comes into force, the child was allowed to be under the charge and control of —

(a) a parent or guardian under section 21(2) of the Child Care Act 1980; or

(b) a person who, before the child was in the authority's care, had care and control of the child by virtue of an order falling within paragraph 5,

on and after that day the provision made by and under section 19(4) shall apply as if the child had been placed with the person in question in accordance with that provision.
Orders for access to children in compulsory care
18. —(1) This paragraph applies to any access order —

(a) made under section 12C of the Child Care Act 1980 (access orders with respect to children in care of local authorities); and

(b) in force immediately before the commencement of Part IV.

(2) On and after the commencement of Part IV, the access order shall have effect as an order made under section 29 in favour of the person named in the order.
19. —(1) This paragraph applies where, immediately before the commencement of Part IV, an access order made under section 12C of the Act of 1980 was suspended by virtue of an order made under section 12E of that Act (suspension of access orders in emergencies).
(2) The suspending order shall continue to have effect as if this Act had not been passed.
(3) If —

(a) before the commencement of Part IV; and

(b) during the period for which the operation of the access order is suspended,

917
the local authority concerned made an application for its variation or discharge to an appropriate juvenile court, its operation shall be suspended until the date on which the application to vary or discharge it is determined or abandoned.
Children in voluntary care
20. —(1) This paragraph applies where, immediately before the day on which Part III comes into force —

(a) a child was in the care of a local authority —

(i) under section 2(1) of the Child Care Act 1980; or

(ii) by virtue of paragraph I of Schedule 4 to that Act (which extends the meaning of references to children in care under section 2 to include references to children in care under section 1 of the Children Act 1948); and

(b) he was not a person in respect of whom a resolution under section 3 of the Act of 1980 or section 2 of the Act of 1948 was in force.

(2) Where this paragraph applies, the child shall, on and after the day mentioned in sub-paragraph (1), be treated for the purposes of this Act as a child who is provided with accommodation by the local authority under Part III, but he shall cease to be so treated once he ceases to be so accommodated in accordance with the provisions of Part III.
(3) Where —

(a) this paragraph applies; and

(b) the child, immediately before the day mentioned in sub-paragraph (1), was (buy virtue of section 21(2) of the Act of 1980) under the charge and control of a person falling within paragraph I 7(2)(a) or (b),

the child shall not be treated for the purposes of this Act as if he were being looked after by the authority concerned.
Boarded out children
21. —(1) Where, immediately before the day on which Part III comes into force, a child in the care of a local authority —

(a) was —

(i) boarded out with a person under section 21(1)(a) of the Child Care Act 1980; or

(ii) placed under the charge and control of a person, under section 21(2) of that Act; and

(b) the person with whom he was boarded out, or (as the case may be) placed, was not a person falling within paragraph 17(2)(a) or (b),

on and after that day, he shall be treated (subject to sub-paragraph (2)) as having been placed with a local authority foster parent and shall cease to be so treated when he ceases to be placed with that person in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(2) Regulations made under section 19(2Xa) shall not apply in relation to a person who is a local authority foster parent by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the day on which Part III comes into force and accordingly that person shall for that period be subject —

(a) in a case falling within sub-paragraph (1)(a)(i), to terms and regulations mentioned in section 21(1)(a) of the Act of 1980; and

(b) in a case falling within sub-paragraph (1)(a)(ii), to terms fixed under section 21(2) of that Act and regulations made under section 22A of that Act,

as if that Act had not been repealed by this Act.
Children in care to qualify for advice and assistance
22. Any reference in Part III to a person qualifying for advice and assistance shall be construed as including a reference to a person within the area of the local authority in question who is under twenty-one and who was, at any time after reaching the age of sixteen but while still a child—

(a) a person falling within —

(i) any of paragraphs (a) to (g) of paragraph 15(1); or

918

(ii) paragraph 20(1); or

(b) the subject of a criminal care order (within the meaning of paragraph 34).

Emigration of children in care
23. Where —

(a) the Secretary of State has received a request in writing from a local authority that he give his consent under section 24 of the Child Care Act 1980 to the emigration of a child in their care; but

(b) immediately before the repeal of the Act of 1980 by this Act, he has not determined whether or not to give his consent.

section 24 of the Act of 1980 shall continue to apply (regardless of that repeal) until the Secretary of State has determined whether or not to give his consent to the request.
Contributions fior maintenance of children in care
24. —(1) Where, immediately before the day on which Part III of Schedule 2 comes into force, there was in force an order made (or having effect as if made) under any of the enactments mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), then, on and after that day —

(a) the order shall have effect as if made under paragraph 21(2) of Schedule 2 against a person liable to contribute; and

(b) Part III of Schedule 2 shall apply to the order, subject to the modifications in sub-paragraph (3).

(2) The enactments are —

(a) section 11(4) of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978;

(b) section 26(2) of the Adoption Act 1976;

(c) section 36(5) of the Children Act 1975;

(d) section 2(3) of the Guardianship Act 1973;

(e) section 2(1)(h) of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960,

(provisions empowering the court to make an order requiring a person to make periodical payments to a local authority in respect of a child in care).
(3) The modifications are that, in paragraph 21 of Schedule 2 —

(a) in sub-paragraph (4), paragraph (a) shall be omitted;

(b) for sub-paragraph (6) there shall be substituted —

"(6) Where—

(a) a contribution order is in force;

(b) the authority serve a contribution notice under paragraph 20; and

(c) the contributor and the authority reach an agreement under paragraph 20(7) in respect of the contribution notice,

the effect of the agreement shall be to discharge the order from the date on which it is agreed that the agreement shall take effect"; and
(c) at the end of sub-paragraph (10) there shall be inserted —
"and
(c) where the order is against a person who is not a parent of the child, shall be inz.de with due regard to —

(i) whether that person had assumed responsibility for the maintenance of the child, and, if so, the extent to which and basis on which he assumed that responsibility and the length of the period during which he met that responsbility;

(ii) whether he did so knowing that the child was not his child;

(iii) the liability of any other person to maintain the child."

SUPERVISION ORDERS
Orders under section 1(3)(b) or 21(2) of Ike 1969 Act
25. —(1) This paragraph applies to any supervision order —

919

(a) made —

(i) under section 1(3)(b) of the children and Young Persons Act 1969; or

(ii) under section 21(2) of that Act on the discharge of a care order made under section 1(3)(c) of that Act; and

(b) in force immediately before the commencement of Part IV.

(2) On and after the commencement of Part IV, the order shall be deemed to be a supervision order made under section 26 and —

(a) any requirement of the order that the child reside with a named individual shall continue to have effect while the order remains in force, unless the court otherwise directs;

(b) any other requirement imposed by the court, or directions given by the supervisor, shall be deemed to have been imposed or given under the appropriate provisions of Schedule 3.

(3) Where, immediately before the commencement of Part IV, the order had been in force for a period of more than six months, it shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which Part IV comes into force unless —

(a) the court directs that it shall cease to have effect at the end of a different period (which shall not exceed three years);

(b) it ceases to have effect earlier in accordance with section 65; or

(c) it would have ceased to have had effect earlier had this Act not been passed.

(4) Where sub-paragraph (3) applies, paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 shall not apply.
(5) Where, immediately before the commencement of Part IV, the order had been in force for less than six months it shall cease to have effect in accordance with section 65 and paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 unless —

(a) the courts directs that it shall cease to have effect at the end of a different period (which shall not exceed three years); or

(b) it would have ceased to have had effect earlier had this Act not been passed.

Other supervision orders
26. —(1) This paragraph applies to any order for the supervision of a child which was in force immediately before the commencement of Part IV and was made under —

(a) section 2(1)(f) of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates Courts) Act 1960;

(b) section 7(4) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969;

(c) section 44 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973;

(d) section 2(2)(a) of the Guardianship Act 1973;

(e) section 34(5) or 36(3)(b) of the Children Act 1975;

(f) section 26(1)(a) of the Adoption Act 1976; or

(g) section 9 of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates Courts Act 1978.

(2) The order shall not be deemed to be a supervision order made under any provision of this act but shall nevertheless continue in force for a period of one year beginning with the day on which Part IV comes into force unless —

(a) the court directs that it shall cease to have effect at the end of a lesser period; or

(b) it would have ceased to have had effect earlier had this Act not been passed.

PLACE OF SAFETY ORDERS
27. —(1) This paragraph applies to —

(a) any order or warrant authorising the removal of a child to a place of safety which —

(i) was made, or issued, under any of the enactments mentioned in sub-paragraph (2); and

(ii) was in force immediately before the commencement of Part V; and

920

(b) any interim order made under section 23(5) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 or section 28(6) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.

(2) The enactments are —

(a) section 40 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (warrant to search for or remove child);

(b) section 28(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (detention of child in place of safety);

(c) section 34(1) of the Adoption Act 1976 (removal of protected children from unsuitable surroundings);

(d) section 12(1) of the Foster Children Act 1980 (removal of foster children kept in unsuitable surroundings).

(3) The order or warrant shall continue to have effect as if this Act had not been passed.
(4) Any enactment repealed by this Act shall continue to have effect in relation to the order or warrant so far as is necessary for the purposes of securing that the effect of the order is what it would have been had this Act not been passed.
(5) Sub-paragraph (4) does not apply to the power to make an interim order or further interim order given by section 23(5) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 or section 28(6) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.
(6) Where, immediately before section 28 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 is repealed by this Act, a child is being detained under the powers granted by that section, he may continue to be detained in accordance with that section but subsection (6) shall not apply.
RECOVERY OF CHILDREN
28. The repeal by this Act of subsection (1) of section 16 of the Child Care Act 1980 (arrest of child absent from compulsory care) shall not affect the operation of that section in relation to any child arrested before the coming into force of the repeal.
29. —(1) This paragraph applies where—

(a) a summons has been issued under section 15 or 16 of the Child Care Act 1980 (recovery of children in voluntary or compulsory care); and

(b) the child concerned is not produced in accordance with the summons before the repeal of that section by this Act comes into force.

(2) The summons, any warrant issued in connection with it and section 15 or (as the case may be) section 16, shall continue to have effect as if this Act had not been passed.
30. The amendment by paragraph 19B of Schedule 8 of section 32 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (detention of absentees) shall not affect the operation of that section in relation to —

(a) any child arrested; or

(b) any summons or warrant issued,

under that section before the coming into force of that paragraph.
VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS: PARENTAL RIGHTS RESOLUTIONS
31. —(1) This paragraph applies to a resolution —

(a) made under section 64 of the Child Care Act 1980 (transfer of parental rights and duties to voluntary organisations); and

(b) in force immediately before the commencement of Part IV.

(2) The resolution shall continue to have effect until the end of the period of six months beginning with the day which Part IV comes into force unless it is brought to an end earlier in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1980 preserved by this paragraph.
(3) While the resolution remains in force, any relevant provisions of, or made under, the Act of 1980 shall continue to have effect with respect to it.
(4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not apply to —

(a) section 62 of the Act of 1980 and any regulations made under that section (arrangements by voluntary organisations for emigration of children); or

(b) section 65 of the Act of 1980 (duty of local authority to assume parental rights and duties).

(5) Section 5(2) of the Act of 1980 (which is applied to resolutions under Part VI of that Act by section 64(7) of that Act) shall have effect with respect to the resolution as if the reference in paragraph (c) to an appointment of a guardian under section 5 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 were a reference to an appointment of a guardian under section 5 of this Act.
FOSTER CHILDREN
32. —(1) This paragraph applies where—

(a) immediately before the commencement of Part VIII, a child was a foster child within the meaning of the Foster Children Act 1980; and

(b) the circumstances of the case are such that, had Parts VIII and IX then been in force, he would have been treated for the purposes of this Act as a child who was being provided with accomodation in a children's home and not as a child who was being privately fostered.

(2) If the child continues to be cared for and provided with accommodation as before, section 52(1) and (13) shall not apply in relation to him if —

(a) an application for registration of the home is question is made under section 52 before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which Part VIII comes into force; and

(b) the application has not been refused or, if it has been refused —

(i) the period for an appeal against the decision has not expired; or

(ii) and appeal against the refusal has been made but has not been determined or abandoned.

(3) While section 52(1) and (13) does not apply, the child shall be treated as a privately fostered child for the purposes of Part IX.
NURSERIES AND CHILD MINDING
33. —(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies where, immediately before the commencement of Part X, any premises are registered under section 1(1Xa) of the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948 (registration of premises, other than premises wholly or mainly used as private dwellings, where children are received to be looked after).
(2) During the transitional period, the provisions of the Act of 1948 shall continue to have effect with respect to those premises to the exclusion of Part X.
(3) Nothing in sub-paragraph (2) shall prevent the local authority concerned from registering any person under section 64(1)(b) with respect to the premises.
(4) In this paragraph "the transitional period" means the period ending with —

(a) the first anniversary of the commencement of Part X; or

(b) if earlier, the date on which the local authority concerned registers any person under section 64(1)(b) with respect to the premises.

34. —(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies where, immediately before the commencement of Part X —

(a) a person is registered under section 1(1)(b) of the Act of 1948 (registration of persons who for reward receive into their homes children under the age of five to be looked after); and

(b) all the children looked after by him as mentioned in section 1(1)(b) of that Act are under the age of five.

(2) During the transitional period, the provisions of the Act of 1948 shall continue to have effect with respect to that person to the exclusion of Part X.
(3) Nothing in sub-paragraph (2) shall prevent the local authority concerned from registering that person under section 64(1)(a).
(4) In this paragraph "the transitional period" means the period ending with —

(a) the first anniversary of the commencement of Part X; or

(b) if earlier, the date on which the local authority concerned registers that person under section (Registration)(1)(a).

CHILDREN ACCOMMODATED IN CERTAIN ESTABLISHMENTS
35. In calculating, for the purposes of section (Children accommodated by health authorities and local education authorities)(1)(a) or (Children accommodated in residential care, nursing or mental nursing homes) (1)(a), the period of time for which a child has been accommodated any part of that period which fell before the (lay on which that section came into force shall be disregarded.
CRIMINAL CARE ORDERS
36. —(1) This paragraph applies where, immediately before the commencement of section 64(2) there was in force an order ("a criminal care order 7 made —

(a) under section 7(7)(a) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (alteration in treatment of young offenders etc.); or

(b) under section 15(1) of that Act. on discharging a supervision order made under section 7(7)(b) of that Act.

(2) The criminal care order shall continue to have effect until the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which section 64(2) comes into force unless it is brought to an end earlier in accordance with —

(a) the provisions of the Act of 1969 preserved by sub-paragraph (3)(a); or

(b) this paragraph.

(3) While the criminal care order remains in force, any relevant provisions —

(a) of the Act of 1969; and

(b) of the Child Care Act 1980,

shall continue to have effect with respect to it.
(4) While the criminal care order remains in force, a court may, on the application of the appropriate person, make —

(a) a residence order;

(b) a care order or a supervision order under section 26;

(c) an education supervision order under section 31 (regardless of subsection (6) of that section); or

(d) an order falling within sub-paragraph (5),

and shall, on making any of those orders, discharge the criminal care order.
(5) The order mentioned in sub-paragraph (4)(d) is an order having effect as if it were a supervision order of a kind mentioned in section 12AA of tle Act of 1969 (as inserted by paragraph 17A of Schedule 8), that is to say, a supervision order —

(a) imposing a requirement that the child shall live for a specified period in local authority accommodation; but

(b) in relation to which the conditions mentioned in subsection (4) of section 12AA are not required to be satisfied.

(6) The maximum period which may be specified in an order made under sub-paragraph (4)(d) is six months and such an order may stipulate that the child shall not live with a named person.
(7) Where this paragraph applies, section 5 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (rehabilitation periods for particular sentences) shall have effect regardless of the repeals in it made by this Act.
(8) In sub-paragraph (4) "appropriate person" means —

(a) in the case of an application for a residence order, any person (other than a local authority) who has the leave of the court;

(b) in the case of an application for an education supervision order, a local education authority; and

(c) in any other case, the local authority to whose care the child was committed by the order.

MISCELLANEOUS
Consents under the Marriage Act 1949
37. —(1) In the circumstances mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), section 3 of and Schedule 2 to the Marriage Act 1949 (consents to marry) shall continue to have effect regardless of the amendment of that Act by paragraph 3B of Schedule 8.
(2) The circumstances are that —

(a) immediately before the day on which paragraph 3B of Schedule 8 comes into force, there is in force —

(i) an existing order, as defined in paragraph 5(1); or

(ii) an order of a kind mentioned in paragraph 16(1); and

(b) section 3 of and Schedule 2 to the Act of 1949 would, but for this Act, have applied to the marriage of the child who is the subject of the order.

Children Act 1975
38. The amendments of other enactments made by the following provisions of the Children Act 1975 shall continue to have effect regardless of the repeal of the Act of 1975 by this Act —

(a) section 68(4), (5) and (7) (amendments of section 32 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969); and

(b) in Schedule 3 —

(i) paragraph 13 (amendments of Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953);

(ii) paragraph 43 (amendment of Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964);

(iii) paragraphs 46 and 47 (amendments of Health Services and Public Health Act 1968); and

(iv) paragraph 77 (amendment of Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972).

Child Care Act 1980
39. The amendment made to section 106(2)(a) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963) by paragraph 26 of Schedule 5 to the Child Care Act 1980 shall continue to have effect regardless of the repeal of the Act of 1980 by this Act.
Legal aid
40. The Lord Chancellor may by order make such transitional and saving provisions as appear to him to be necessary or expedient, in consequence of any provision made by or under this Act, in connection with the operation of any provisions of the Legal Aid Act 1988 (including any provision of that Act which is amended or repealed by this Act).'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 410 and 411. I spoke to Amendment No. 410 when I moved Amendment No. 391 and Amendment No. 411 was dealt with in connection with Amendment No. 272.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
412 Schedule 11, Page 120, leave out line 13.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 412.
In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 420, 424, 425 and 432 to 436. These amendments concern the repeals schedule. Amendment No. 412 removes an incorrect repeal of Section 103 to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Amendment No. 435 removes an unnecessary repeal of paragraph 49(b) and (c) of Schedule 4 to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983.
The other amendments simply add repeals of those provisions of statutes which will be made obsolete when the Bill comes into force. Therefore they are appropriate for repeal by this schedule.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
413 Schedule 11, page 120, line 16, at end insert —

'1944 c. 31.

The Education Act 1944.

In section 40(1), the words from "or to imprisonment" to the end.

In section 114(1), the definition of parent.

1948 c. 53.

The Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948.

The whole Act.'

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 413. I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 111.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
414 Schedule 11, page 120, line 17, column 3, at beginning insert —

'In section 3(1), the words "unless the child is subject to a custodianship order, when the consent of the custodian and, where the custodian is the husband or wife of a parent of the child of that parent shall be required".

Section 78(1A).'.

415 Page 120, line 26, column 3, at end insert—

'Section 53(3).'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 414 and 415. In moving these amendments, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 417 to 419, 421, 422, 426, 428 to 431, 437 and 439 to 445.

925
These amendments all repeal provisions in existing legislation consequential on the substantive provisions of the Bill.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
416 Schedule 11, page 120, line 27, at end insert —

'1964 c. 42.

The Administration of Justice Act 1964.

In section 38, the definition of "domestic court".'.

417 Page 120, line 28, column 3, at beginning insert—

'Section 60'

418 Page 120, line 33, at end insert—

'1968 c. 49.

The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.

Section 1(4)(a). Section 5(2)(d). In section 86(3), the words "the Child Care Act 1980 or".

In Schedule 8, paragraph 20.'.

419 Page 122, line 22, at end insert—

'1972 c. 18.

The Maintenance Section 41.'. Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972.

420 Page 122, line 23, column 3, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'paragraphs 4 and'.
421 Page 122, line 23, column 3, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert —

`Sections 42 to 44. In section 52(1), the definition of "custody".

In Schedule 2, paragraph 11.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 416 to 421.
I spoke to Amendment No. 416 with Amendment No. 238, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 417, 418 and 419 with Amendment No. 414, Amendment No. 420 with Amendment No. 412 and Amendment No. 421 with Amendment No. 414.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
422 Schedule 11, page 122, line 29, at end insert —

1973 c. 45.

The Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973.

In Schedule 1, in paragraph 11(1) the definitions of "custody" and "education" and in paragraph 11(3) the word "four".'.

423 Page 122, line 50, column 3, at beginning insert —

`Section 11(5).

Section 14(3).

In section 15, in subsection (1), the words from "subject" to "cases)" and subsection (4).

Section 26.

In section 28(5), the words "or the organisation".

Section 34.

Section 36(1)(c).

Section 37(1), (3) and (4).

Section 55(4).

In section 57, in subsection (2), the words from "and the court" to the end and subsections (4) to (10).

In section 72(1), the definition of "place of safety", in the definition of "local authority" the words from "and" to the end and, in the Definition of "specified order", the words "Northern Ireland or".'.

424 Page 122, column 3, leave out line 51 and insert '11, 19, 21 and 22.'.
425 Page 123, line 9, column 3, leave out 'paragraph' and insert `paragraphs 10 and'.
426 Page 123, column 3, leave out lines 11 to 13 and insert —

'Sections 9 to 15.

In Section 19, in subsection (1) the words, "following powers, that is to say" and sub-paragraph (ii), subsections (2) and (4), in subsection (7) the words "and one interim custody order" and in subsection (9) the words "or 21".

In section 20, subsection (4) and in subsection (9) the words "subject to the provisions of section 11(8) of this Act".

Section 21.

In section 24, the words "or 21" in both places where they occur.

In section 25, in subsection (1) paragraph (b) and the word "or" immediately preceding it and in subsection (2) paragraphs (c) and (d).

Section 29(4).

Sections 33 and 34.

Sections 36 to 53.

Sections 64 to 72.

Sections 73(1) and 74(1) and (3).

In section 88(1), the definition of "actual custody".

In Schedule 2, paragraphs 22, 23, 27, 29, 31, 36, 41 to 43, 46 to 50.'.

427 Page 123, line 13, at end insert —

'1978 c. 28.

The Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978.

In section 20(3Xc), the words "section 12(3)(b) of the Adoption Act 1976 or of.

In section 45(5), the word "approved". Section 49(4).

In section 65(1), in the definition of "local authority", the words from "and" to the end and, in the definition of "specified order", the words "Northern Ireland or".'.

428 Page 123, line 22, column 3, at beginning insert—

'In section 65(1), paragraphs (e) and (g) and the paragraph (m) inserted in section 65 by paragraph 82 of Schedule 2 to the Family Law Reform Act 1987.

In section 81(8), in the definition of "guardian" the words "by deed or will" and in the definition of "sums adjudged to be paid by a conviction" the words from "as applied" to the end.

In section 143(2), paragraph (i).'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 422 to 428.
I spoke to Amendment No. 422 with Amendment No. 414, Amendment No 423 with Amendment No. 232C, Amendments Nos. 424 and 425 with Amendment No. 412, Amendment No. 426 with
928
Amendment No. 414, Amendment No. 427 with Amendment No. 232C and Amendment No. 428 with Amendment No. 414.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
429 Schedule 11, page 123, line 22, column 3, leave out 'paragraph 78' and insert 'paragraphs 78, 83, 91, 92, 110, 116, 117, 138, 157, 158, 165, 166 and 199 to 201.'.
430 Page 123, line 28, column 3, at end insert—
'In Schedule 14, paragraphs 45 and 46.'
431 Page 123, line 31, column 3, at end insert —

In section 28(1), the words "(including an order under section 38 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956)".'.

432 Page 123, line 33, column 3, leave out 'and 35' and insert '35, 44, 50 and 51.'.
433 Page 123, line 46, column 3, leave out '10 to 14, 20, 21' and insert '9 to 14, 20 to 24, 27, 28, 34, 37'.
434 Page 123, line 47, column 3, leave out '59' and insert '62'.
435 Page 123, line 49, column 3, leave out from '48' to end of line 51.
436 Page 123, line 52, column 3, leave out 'paragraph 16' and insert 'paragraphs 5, 16 and 17.'.
437 Page 123, line 52, at end insert—

'1984 c. 23.

The Registered Homes Act 1984.

In Schedule 1, in paragraph 5, sub-paragraph (a) and paragraphs 6, 7 and 8.

1984 c. 28.

The County Courts Act 1984.

In Schedule 2, paragraph 56.

1984 c. 37.

The Child Abduction Act 1984.

In section 3, the word "and" immediately preceding paragraph (c).

In the Schedule, in paragraph 1(2) the words "or voluntary organisation" and paragraph 3(1 )(e).

1984 c. 42.

The Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984.

In Schedule 1, paragraphs 19 and 23.

1984 c. 56.

The Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984.

In section 1, the words "for a period of more than 6 days" and the words from "The period" to the end.

In section 7(1), the word "or" at the end of paragraph (e).

In Schedule 2, paragraphs 1 to 3 and 8.'.

438 Page 123, line 53, column 3, at beginning insert—

'In section 37(15), the words "and is not excluded from this Part of this Act by section 52 below".

Section 39(5).

Section 52.

In section 118(1), in the definition of parent or guardian, paragraph (b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it.'

439 Page 123, line 56, column 3, leave out 'paragraph 19(a)' and insert 'paragraphs 19(a) and 22.'.
440 Page 124, line 2, column 2, leave out 'Custody and Abduction' and insert 'Abduction and Custody'.
441 Page 124, line 2, column 3, at beginning insert —

'Section 9(c).

Section 20 (2)(b) and (c).'.

442 Page 124, line 2, column 3, at end insert —

`and (5).

In Schedule 3, paragraph 1(2).'.

443 Page 124, line 10, at end insert —

'1986 c. 45.

The Insolvency Act 1986.

Insertion 281(5)(b), the words "in domestic proceedings".

1986 c. 50.

The Social Security Act 1986.

In Schedule 10, paragraph 51.

1986 c. 55.

The Family Law Act 1986.

In section 1(2), in paragraph (a) the words "(a) or" and paragraph (b).

Section 3(4) to (6).

Section 4.

Section 35(1).

In section 42(6), in paragraph (b) the words "section 42(6) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 or", in paragraph (c) the words "section 42(7) of that Act or" and in paragraph (d) the words "section 19(6) of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 or".

In Schedule 1 paragraphs 10, 11, 13, 16, 17,20 and 23.'.

444 Page 124, column 3, leave out lines 12 to 14 and insert —

'Sections 4 to 7.

Sections 9 to 16.'

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 429 to 444.
I spoke to Amendments Nos. 429, 430 and 431 with Amendment No. 414, Amendments Nos. 432 to 436 with Amendment No. 412, Amendment No. 437 with Amendment No. 414, Amendment No. 438 with Amendment No. 50 and Amendments Nos. 439 to 444 with Amendment No. 414.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
445 Schedule 11, page 124, line 15, column 3, leave out 'paragraph 11' and insert paragraphs 11, 14, 51, 67, 68, 94 and 95.
In Schedule 3, paragraph 11 and 12.'
446 Page 124, line 15, at end insert —

'1988 c.34.

The Legal Aid Act 1988.

Section 3(4)(c).

Section 27.

Section 28.

In section 30, subsections (1) and (2).

In Part 1 of Schedule 2, paragraph 2(a) and (e).'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 445 and 446.
I spoke to Amendment No. 445 with Amendment No. 414 and Amendment No. 446 with Amendment No. 238.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
447 In the Title, line 4, after 'fostering', insert child minding and day care for young children'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 447.
At long last, this adds to the Long Title to provide for the provisions on child minding and day care added to the Bill by Amendment No. 212 and others. I think that I should express my appreciation for the fact that your Lordships have given me such support until this hour and to the very last of the Commons amendments that we have been asked to consider.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, with the amendment to the Long Title we say farewell to this important Bill. We should bear in mind that we are also saying farewell to 136 pages of Commons amendments which will double the length of the Bill.
I find it rather strange that the question of child minding and day care for the young has to be added to the Long Title bearing in mind that one would have expected those matters to have been considered at an earlier stage and brought into the Long Title from the beginning. Having said that —my views on the handling of the Bill are well known —I should like to pay a most sincere tribute to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor —
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Renton: —for the skill and patience with which he has discharged what I regard as a thoroughly undesirable task. We admire his clarity of mind and speech. We are grateful for the way in which he has shown consideration during this rather lengthy and hard-going handling of 447 amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [H.L.]
Reported earlier this day from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Reported earlier this day from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes past eleven o'clock.

  CAMBODIA
  CAMBODIA
  YOUTH TRAINING PROGRAMME, NORTHERN IRELAND
  YOUTH TRAINING PROGRAMME, NORTHERN IRELAND
  INFORMATION AND DATA THEFT
  INFORMATION AND DATA THEFT
  DENTAL PREPARATIONS: INCLUSION IN NHS LIST
  DENTAL PREPARATIONS: INCLUSION IN NHS LIST
  A.3, GUILDFORD WORKS: COMPLETION DATE
  A.3, GUILDFORD WORKS: COMPLETION DATE
  TRAFFIC DEMAND INCREASE FORECASTS AND POLLUTION
  TRAFFIC DEMAND INCREASE FORECASTS AND POLLUTION
  TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES: LIBERALISATION
  TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES: LIBERALISATION