Sitting of 23 October 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Disability Surveys
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made in assessing the financial implications of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' surveys on disability.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): We are using the extensive information provided by the surveys to help us consider how best to develop policies which serve the needs of disabled people even more effectively.
    Mr. Worthington: Time is running out. Earlier this year the Minister of State promised that there would be a timetable for action after July, but there has still been no action on this issue. Is the Minister aware of the survey conducted by Strathclyde regional council social work department which showed that 80 per cent. of the disabled were worse off after the social security reforms of last year, by an average £9 a week, and that those who were most handicapped suffered most financially? We need action by the Minister and by the Secretary of State to put that right and to end the link in this country between disability and poverty. We cannot accept the Government's slothfulness on this.
    Mr. Scott: The findings of the Strathclyde survey stretch my credulity and do not accord with much of the other evidence that is coming in. But that illustrates the point that although we are anxious to make rapid progress on disability benefits, we must carefully examine all the evidence and the representations that we are receiving before making up our minds on the way forward.
    Mr. Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the major problems with the disability benefit system is that two people with the same disability can receive widely differing levels of benefit—depending for example, whether the disability was from birth, from an accident or from an industrial injury? Will my right hon. Friend take that into account in his review of disability benefits and in his present negotiations with the Treasury?
    Mr. Scott: It is manifest that the cause of an injury can affect the level of benefit to which people are entitled. That is due to the fact that the pattern of disability benefits has
    460
    grown up rather incoherently. We shall look into that aspect to see whether it is possible to arrive at a more coherent pattern.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is it not deplorable that, instead of responding to the challenge of these reports, the Government pile handicap upon handicap by inflicting on disabled people the poll tax, the NHS White Paper proposals and social security changes which their organisations say produced 1 million disabled losers? Where is the urgent and comprehensive review that they were promised? Was that a leak yesterday in the Sunday Telegraph about a change in the treatment of disabled people of working age?
    Finally, will it be a nil-cost review of benefits? If so, how can that possibly be justified when the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has shown that there are vastly more disabled people than the Government ever thought?
    Mr. Scott: It is precisely because we have to balance the need for urgency against the need for a comprehensive look at all this that I cannot yet say exactly what timetable we shall follow. Since the Government came to office, expenditure on benefits for the disabled has risen by £390 million per year in real terms, compared with a figure of £220 million under the Labour Government, so we need no lessons from the Opposition about benefits for the disabled.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Charles Wardle: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether those older and disabled pensioners who benefit from this autumn's special package will lose transitional protection when these increases are introduced.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): No. The increased income support pensioner premiums which took effect in the week commencing 9 October were on top of any transitional addition then in payment.
    Mr. Wardle: The increases that my right hon. Friend has introduced will be welcome, particularly because much of the extra money will go to pensioners who retired before the state earnings-related pension scheme began in 1978, but how have pensioners on the lowest incomes fared by comparison with the average increase in pensioners' incomes in the past decade?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is right that the purpose of the changes which have just taken place was to help those who have had the least opportunity to benefit from the improvements in occupational pensions and in SERPS in recent years. The most relevant figure that I can give is that the proportion of pensioners on the lowest 20 per cent. of incomes fell from nearly two fifths in 1979 to less than a quarter in 1986.
    Mr. Frank Field: If I have understood the Secretary of State correctly, I must congratulate him. Will he spell out to the House that by having no clawback of the increased pensions to the very poorest group, he has made nonsense of the Government's policy of transitional protection? If he is ensuring that this group benefits totally from the additional increase, why do not all pensioners and people on other benefits similarly benefit?
    Mr. Newton: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, we have not made nonsense of anything. We have given up to £3·50 per week extra to more than 2·5 million of the disabled or oldest pensioners.
    Mr. Favell: Is it not true that there are some very rich pensioners and that it is much more sensible to concentrate on the poorest group than to spread the jam thinly as the Labour party would have us do?
    Mr. Newton: It is certainly the case that on the latest information available to us the average total net income of pensioners has been rising considerably faster—nearly twice as fast as for the population as a whole. That underlines the success of earlier policies, those aimed at improving especially the position of the newly retired in general. It also reinforces the need to focus our help on older retired people, which is exactly what we have been doing.

    YTS
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many 16 and 17-year-olds are currently disqualified from benefit for not taking up the offer of a place on a youth training scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): None is disqualified, because the question of disqualification does not arise in the case of a 16 or 17-year-old.
    Mr. Nellist: Is it not a fact that in the 12 months to September, 15,400 16 and 17-year-olds had to apply for income support on special grounds of severe hardship, because they had been disqualified by not having a YTS place, and that 5,230 were rejected and have no benefit at all? When will the Government end this period of economic conscription to YTS through denial of benefit? If the youth training scheme offered a guaranteed job at decent allowances and a genuine future for teenagers there would be no need for the legal theft of putting thousands of teenagers into penury.
    Mrs. Shephard: The Government consider that it is the best possible start for young people to obtain a training place on YTS and to benefit from the allowances associated with it, and 400,000 young people throughout the country are currently doing just that. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are many vacant places on training schemes which should make it possible for young people to find an appropriate training place. The hon. Gentleman's point about severe hardship proves the need for the scheme introduced by the Government to cope with young people who for one reason or another were obliged to wait for a training place or who fell into some kind of difficulty. The hon. Gentleman will also recall that some categories of young people receive income support because for one reason or another they cannot benefit from a YTS place.
    Mr. Baldry: We all welcome our hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. Does she agree that there can be no possible justification for 16 or 17-year-olds not being either in full-time education or in full-time training? At a time when jobs will increasingly go to those who are skilled and qualified, it is criminal to deny those between 16 and 17 and up to the age of 19 opportunities for the best possible
    462
    education and training. Is it not depressing that some people in the Labour party seem to want some kind of lumpenproletariat to continue?
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I repeat that it is the Government's view that the best possible start for young people is to continue in education, to get a job, or to take advantage of the youth training scheme. As I have said, 400,000 young people are currently doing just that.
    Mr. Flynn: We welcome the hon. Lady to her new post with warmth and sincerity. I recall that when she was a Back Bencher she spoke about this issue in Committee. It is disappointing that her reply does not reflect the concern that she expressed then. Has the Minister read the recent report by the citizens advice bureaux which makes it clear that the changes made in July are having no effect and tells a bleak story of growing numbers of young people at the most vulnerable time of their lives having the problems of poverty unnecessarily heaped on them? There are stories of young pregnant girls who have no chance of taking part in a YTS scheme because of their pregnancy but who can get no income support and are left without any money at a time when diet is so important. There are also stories of family break-ups because there is no income in the family.
    The CAB confirms, as an independent body, that this is Government-sponsored poverty—it cannot be blamed on anybody else—because the Government have not only greatly increased the number of young people in hardship, but have intensified their suffering and destitution. The Salvation Army confesses that it cannot cope and the Church of England Children's Society says that there are 98,000 children without hope. Everyone else can see that this is a growing problem. When, in the name of pity, will the Government see it?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall make little progress if we have long questions.
    Mrs. Shephard: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. The CAB report makes six recommendations, all of which can be fully answered by my Department. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of young pregnant girls. The view of the Department and of the Government is that 16 and 17-year-olds, including pregnant girls, are covered by the guarantee of a place. There is no evidence to suggest that pregnancy is an obstacle for young women who are genuinely keen to undertake training, and who are medically fit to do so. In that respect, the rule that they should work until 11 weeks before the expected confinement is in line with the rule applying to women over 18.

    Anti-fraud Officers
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the amount recovered in 1988–89 as a result of the work of anti-fraud officers in his Department; what was the target set; and what were the comparable figures for five years ago.
    Mr. Newton: The total savings achieved by action against social security fraud in 1988–89 were just over £340 million, taking the Department of Social Security and the Department of Employment together. This compares with just over £120 million in 1984–85. For the DSS alone, the

    463
    1988–89 savings were, in round figures, £260 million against a target of £240 million, which compares with £100 million in 1984–85.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Although those figures are encouraging, are they not merely the tip of the iceberg? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that his Department will keep as a high priority the anti-fraud office which is doing such a splendid job, so that the taxpayer may save money? After all, the taxpayer is the paymaster, and we should bring more such fraudulent individuals to justice.
    Mr. Newton: It is undisputed that some social security fraud still goes undetected, so there is scope for further action. We shall continue to ensure that our efforts, and those of the Department of Employment, are made as effective as possible.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister also examine those employers who are taking tax and national insurance contributions from their employees and not passing the money to the proper department? An estimate the other day suggested that more than £1 million per day is being taken by such employers and not passed on, which is fraud on a far bigger scale than that described by the Minister. As for talking about the tip of the iceberg, the Minister should turn the attention of his right hon. and hon. Friends in other Departments to City fraudsters such as those involved in Ferranti who go undetected because the Government will not attack their own friends.
    Mr. Newton: I shall concentrate my reply on the hon. Gentleman's quite sensible point about tax and national insurance fraud by employers. He will know that the Inland Revenue vigorously pursues such matters. Its compliance officers save about £2 billion, as I recall the latest figure, and there have been a number of prosecutions. I accept that our concern with fraud should not be confined to social security beneficiaries who are getting benefit fraudulently but should be extended to anybody who is defrauding the taxpayer and thus other beneficiaries.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: If, as my right hon. Friend said, the amount of social security fraud discovered was in excess of £250 million last year, in layman's terms would it not be true to say that that would be the equivalent of giving every old age pensioner in the United Kingdom an additional 50p per week? Does that not put social security fraud into its proper perspective?
    Mr. Newton: It is for precisely that sort of reason that we take the drive against fraud so seriously. To put the point another way, the sum that I mentioned is significantly greater than the very large amount that we have just made available in additional pensioner premiums.

    Income Support
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to increase the level of income support.
    Mr. Newton: We have this month substantially improved the level of income support for older and
    464
    disabled pensioners. I expect to be making fairly soon a statement about the income support rates from next April, when they will of course be increased.
    Mr. Allen: Is the Secretary of State aware that my constituents and many others are finding it increasingly difficult to manage on the current level of income support, especially in respect of a healthy diet? Did he read the recent Childright report which, using the Department's own figures, showed that if the amount of money required for a healthy diet were taken out of income support, only £1 would be left to meet all other needs? It is becoming a choice between heating and eating. Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about that?
    Mr. Newton: I have already said that we shall take all those matters into account in setting the social security rates for the forthcoming year. There appears to have been a suggestion that attempts were made to suppress the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred. My understanding is that the author of the report has been entirely free to publish it, and I hope that it is well understood that that is the case.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Given that 85 per cent. of women whose partners have left them receive no support from those former partners and therefore rely on income support from the state, when will the Government take action to make those men responsible for the dependants whom they have left behind?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is aware that the rules of the social security system provide for efforts to be made to ensure that those known in the jargon of the trade as "liable relatives" are found and required to make a contribution. Steps are taken to try to ensure that that contribution is paid and we shall be looking for ways to make those efforts even more effective.
    Mrs. Beckett: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Childright report is just one of several recent reports that draw attention to the difficulty faced by many families in paying their bills? The right hon. Gentleman will recall that four years ago, when the Government were planning all their changes in social security, many independent groups warned that they would leave families unable to pay their bills. As the Government's plans for the poll tax, water charges and electricity charges can only make matters worse, what does the right hon. Gentleman plan to do about the situation?
    Mr. Newton: As the hon. Lady referred to our previous exchanges in the House some three or four years ago, at the time of the reforms, she will not have forgotten that, among other things, the reforms in the income-related benefit system steered substantial additional sums of money towards low-income families and those out of work, both through income support and through family credit. In particular, family credit is bringing much greater sums to such families than family income supplement did. I hope that the hon. Lady will bear that in mind.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 50 per cent. of working people in the United Kingdom are making provision for their retirement, which is by far the largest proportion in the EEC, and that the number of retired people with income from private pensions and occupational pensions is increasing? Is he further aware, however, that in my

    465
    constituency and elsewhere there remain a number of people who have little income above the basic state pension? Does he therefore recognise that the increases implemented this month are very welcome as the first fruits of the Government's good intentions towards that group?
    Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising our efforts. Obviously, we shall continue, as and when we feel able to do so, to build on that basic policy of seeking to steer additional help to those pensioners who most clearly have additional needs.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has, in the light of the findings of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' surveys, to increase the allocation of resources to disabled people.
    Mr. Scott: We have already provided for an increase in spending on the sick and disabled in real terms of £1·9 billion, at 1988–89 prices, over the three years to 1991–92. This is a real increase in expenditure of more than 20 per cent. We shall consider the need for further expenditure following our assessment of all the results of the OPCS surveys.
    Mr. Wareing: Is not the Minister citing increases which are due to the greater take-up of benefits introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris)? Is he not truly concerned about the abject poverty of many disabled people—the 4·6 million disabled adults who subsist on an average income of £65 a week? Is it not about time that, instead of posing as a Minister for the disabled, the right hon. Gentleman showed some real concern? Now that the OPCS surveys are out of the way and we have them before us, I hope that we shall not have to wait another 18 months—as we did for the Griffiths report—before the Government take action.
    Mr. Scott: As I said in answer to an earlier question, the Government have no reason to be ashamed of their record in responding to the needs of disabled people. I hope that the hon. Gentleman himself will be glad that the take-up of attendance allowance and mobility allowance has increased so substantially under the present Government. The same number of people were there when Labour was in office, but fewer took up the benefit.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a small, tragic and diminishing group of disabled people desperately need help now? I refer to the haemophiliac AIDS victims. Will my right hon. Friend please do something specific for such people who really do constitute a special case and who are dying almost daily?
    Mr. Scott: Obviously, we are considering the needs of all disabled people. Let me, however, point out to my hon. Friend—who, I know, takes the concerns of this group very seriously—that substantial sums are still available from the money that was provided for the Macfarlane Trust. In the short term, that money is available to help those people to meet their needs, and I hope that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—will encourage them to avail themselves of that opportunity.
    Mr. Ashley: Although I agree that there is no reason to be ashamed of the increased number of claimants, does the Minister agree that there is reason to be ashamed of the fact that most disabled people have experienced no significant increase in their income, despite the Government's boasts about increased prosperity in Britain?
    Mr. Scott: Of the £3·5 billion extra in real terms that the Government are spending on disability benefits, some £500 million is due to the increase in the value of benefits, and the rest to take-up. That take-up, however, is meeting real need. Of course we shall address all those points when we review and reach conclusions about the OPCS reports.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that surveys have shown that in Scotland poorer people, such as those mentioned in this question, pay less under the community charge system than they did under the discredited rating system?
    Mr. Scott: I am sure that the House will note the point that my hon. Friend has made.

    Transitional Protection
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of those on transitional protection will not enjoy a full uprating of their benefits next April.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I cannot anticipate the uprating announcement, but more than half those on income support transitional protection are expected to receive an increase at next year's uprating.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Minister confirm that the half to whom she refers have not received an increase since April 1987? Does she know of any other group who have received no increase in income for three years? In the time during which transitional payments have been frozen, the cost of living will have gone up by about 19 per cent. by next April. How would the Minister like a cut of one fifth in her income?
    Mrs. Shephard: It is correct that after the uprating those still on transitional protection—which should by then be about 5·4 per cent. of the total number of claim—will not receive an increase in their benefit. It should, however, be remembered that those people will still be receiving more benefit than those who have started to receive benefit since April 1988. The hon. Gentleman should also remember that 88 per cent. of all claimants will receive the full uprating in April and that of the other 12 per cent., who are currently on transitional protection, about half will receive some increase.
    Mr. Boswell: Does my hon. Friend, whose presence at the Dispatch Box I welcome, agree that it is in the nature of transitional arrangements that they should be transitional and eventually run out? That has nothing to do with the overall level of benefits, on which the Government have a commendable record—for example, in the recent extension of benefits affecting 2·5 million people this month.
    Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I agree that when there is a massive change in the social security system, such as the one introduced in April

    467
    1988, there are bound to be some people who, at the point of change, are adversely affected. That is why the Government introduced transitional protection to ensure that those people are protected from too sudden a change until the benefit to which they are entitled under the new system catches up.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Could I tempt the Minister to name the figure about which she is being rather coy? Will she confirm that 200,000 claimants are unlikely to receive any increase next April, and that, by definition, they are likely to be the most frail and disabled, as they were the ones who used to get the highest allowances? What does she say to a pensioner of 81 who has been told that he cannot expect an increase until 1992, and does not know whether he will live to claim it? Will she confirm that every single one of the 200,000 was included in the 88 per cent. of people who, the House were constantly assured, would not be losers as a result of last year's changes? Does not their desperate plight now expose how utterly bogus that claim always was?
    Mrs. Shephard: After the uprating about 200,000 people will still be on transitional protection. As I pointed out in an earlier answer, it should be remembered that those people will still be receiving more benefit than those who have come onto benefit since April 1988. I remind the hon. Gentleman that a number of those vulnerable groups have been fully protected, for example for those who need a large amount of domestic help and for those who require respite care the cost of that has been fully updated year by year. In addition, there has been continuous targeting on the most vulnerable groups, in particular the elderly and disabled who have been mentioned so many times today.

    Homeless People
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to use the housing benefit system to discourage people coming to London and claiming they are homeless.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: We have no such plans. Housing benefit is available to anyone who has to pay rent for their home, without any residence qualification.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for her cogent reply. Is she aware that most people claiming housing benefit in central London insist on remaining in the most expensive central areas, as I know from my experience as a Westminster city councillor? Is my hon. Friend further aware that such people could easily find accommodation if they were prepared to travel to the outer areas, particularly across the river to Southwark, where there are thousands of empty units of accommodation? Do the Government have any plans to encourage those people to go where housing is available within easy travelling distance of central London?
    Mrs. Shephard: I remind my hon. Friend, who I know is aware of this, that housing is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. However, I am sure that she will also understand that local authorities are not expected to pay housing benefit on unreasonably high rents, and arrangements exist so that the rent officer can judge whether rents are unreasonably high.
    Dr. Reid: May I congratulate the Minister on her first answer, rejecting the suggestion by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)? People throughout Britain, particularly in areas of high unemployment such as Scotland, would be horrified if the Government had any intention of imposing a residential qualification on those who do not have, and are never likely to have, a residence. May I remind the Minister that the specification that one must spend a specified time in a specified parish was the underlying principle of the poor law in Britain? May I express the hope that that is not the type of Victorian value that the Government or their supporters want us to return to?
    Mrs. Shephard: I shall repeat the words with which I began: we have no such plans.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Is my hon. Friend happy that the system of assessing housing benefit does the utmost to help all vulnerable groups? Is she aware that housing benefit is assessed only after a private rented flat has been found, and that that may not achieve the housing changes that we want or do the utmost to help vulnerable groups find housing for themselves?
    Mrs. Shephard: There are sometimes problems with assessment for housing benefit and with a delay in the local authority making an award. It is the responsibility of local authorities to make the award within 14 days and they have powers to make an interim payment. From time to time, they need reminding of this power.

    Young People
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further measures are planned to ensure the financial security of young people.
    Mr. Scott: By developing the youth training scheme, which now offers over 500,000 places, we have provided the means for young people under 18 to ensure their own financial security. Income support remains available for those who are not able to take up a place on the sceme and" since July, 16 and 17-year-olds who have to live independently can get extra help through the income support and housing benefit scheme.
    Mr. Wallace: Has the Minister of State, or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, had an opportunity to read the letter sent to the Secretary of State last month by the Scottish Council for Single Homeless, which, although welcoming the July changes as a step in the right direction, found the sums inadequate to allow young people who are estranged from their parents to have a living? Regrettably, the reality is that some young people have to move away from home. Will the Minister consider two specific proposals—an estrangement premium, to bring income support levels for young people up to the level for those over 25, and a re-examination of social fund rules so that young people may claim deposits which many landlords and landladies require before they will give them accommodation?
    Mr. Scott: Of course we continue to monitor the effects of these provisions. The level of income support for 18 to 25-year-olds is set to reflect the lower earnings expectations of people at the age compared with those over the age of 25. In those circumstances, social security

    469
    officers seek to provide evidence for the person concerned that they young person will be on income support and will therefore be in receipt of benefit in due course and, if necessary to liaise with landlords to reassure them of that fact.
    Mr. Paice: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to ensure the financial security of young people is for their parents to help them by advising them to do everything they can to secure a beneficial career? As there is now plenty of access to training and further and higher education, that is the way to long-term financial security.
    Mr. Scott: I am sure of that, and that is the most desirable outcome. We have to recognise, however, that there will be some young people who, for one reason or another, are unable to be with their parents or who are suffering severe hardship for other reasons. That is why we have improved the situation for them.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What is the Minister doing to help 19-year-olds in full-time education completing their A-level course, whose parents lose child benefit when they reach the age of 19, and who are not themselves eligible for any benefit? When such parents receive income support, they will also lose any allowance for their children from that source. Now these people will be faced with the poll tax. Is it not disgraceful that the Government give no encouragement to people to complete A-level courses and so benefit themselves and the community?
    Mr. Scott: As we all know, local education authorities have the power to pay educational maintenance allowances to people in that situation. It is for the education system, rather than the social security system, to provide such money.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for providing a universal new benefit for pensioners over 75 years of age.
    Mr. Scott: On 9 October we introduced new and enhanced premiums for disabled pensioners and those aged 75 and over into the income support and housing benefit schemes. This extra help is quite properly targeted on those older pensioners who are most in need. I have no plans for a universal new benefit for this age group.
    Mr. Watson: Is the Minister aware of a large number of people aged 75 and over who just fail to qualify for that premium although they have long since made a contribution to society and who deserve to live their retirement in dignity? Does the Minister agree that the fairest way to tackle this problem is to introduce a universal premium, or is his advice to such people simply that they must await the arrival of a Labour Government for one to be provided?
    Mr. Scott: No, I do not agree, because total incomes of pensioners have risen very quickly under this Government —more than twice as fast as for the population as a whole, at a rate of some 3 per cent. a year, which is all that the last Labour Government could achieve throughout its time in office. Under those circumstances, it is right to try to use the resources that we have to help those most in need.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further discussions he has had with organisations of and for disabled people on the survey findings of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.
    Mr. Scott: I met separately representatives of the Disability Benefits Consortium and the Disablement Income Group in May to listen to their views on the first OPCS reports. Since then, we have continued to receive comments both from individuals and other interested organisations.
    Mr. Turner: Did the Minister listen to those organisations when they told him that the majority of disabled people were living on or below the poverty level? Did he listen to those organisations when they told him that disabled people were living on incomes which, taking into account the cost of disability, are £39 a week less than those for non-disabled people? Will the Minister tell us when this Government are going to do something for the needs of disabled people?
    Mr. Scott: When I met those organisations, we did not have all the OPCS reports in front of us. Now that we can look at them, we find that in terms of financial circumstances, about 70 per cent. are satisfied with their standard of living, few are in financial difficulties and the allowances paid for the extra cost of disability, such as attendance allowance and mobility allowance, more than cover the extra cost incurred.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Clergy Ordination Measure
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what further discussions he has had with the Archbishop of Canterbury regarding the Clergy Ordination Measure 1989.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing the Church Commissioners): The Clergy Ordination Measure is a matter for the General Synod of the Church of England, although I have spoken informally to the Archbishop of Canterbury about the outcome of the debate on 17 July. The Synod will meet in November, which will be its first opportunity formally to consider the matter since the debate in the House in July.
    Mr. Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend gently explain to the Archbishops and the others who may be participating in the decision on what to do next on this measure that there was no basic hostility in the House towards the Church in taking that decision, but that it was taken largely by members of the Church of England who were prepared to stay up through the night to correct a matter that they thought was going wrong? Will my right hon. Friend take to them our concerns about the carte blanche nature of that measure? Will he take to them the concern that the measure appears to give the clergy an advantage over the laity because the laity are not to be allowed to be remarried in church, but divorced and remarried clergy are to be allowed to advise them of that fact? Will he finally suggest to the Church that such special cases as there

    471
    undoubtedly are would be better addressed by the approach of annulment or nullity than by this form of treatment?
    Mr. Alison: I certainly take note of my hon. Friend's comments, and his positive and helpful suggestion. He will remember that it was not only members of the Church of England who happened to be Members of this House who were prepared to stay up late at night, but a substantial number of Whips in the Whips' Office, who likewise felt that it was desirable to stay up late at night and who profoundly influenced the outcome of the debate.
    Mr. Frank Field: When the commissioner is reporting back on this measure, will he make it plain to Synod that many people who waited up through the night for the debate were not happy that the Church should refuse remarriage in church to ordinary lay people, but wished to create a special class of citizenry—those who were divorced and remarried, but who wished to be made priests—and that there may be a similar rough passage for the measure if the Church continues to maintain those two tiers of citizenship?
    Mr. Alison: I certainly take very careful note of the comments by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). He will understand, as I do, that it is unlikely that the Clergy Ordination Measure will be further amended before representation to the House, if the General Synod decides to represent it. His point is one he can make further in debate, if we debate the matter again.
    Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, supporting what has been said already, we represent many lay people and that they are not at all happy about the measure? I give solemn warning that the House will not pass the measure unless it is substantially amended.
    Mr. Alison: I certainly concur with my hon. Friend's observation that the Church of England, in its active parochial life, is well represented by my hon. Friends on the Government Benches and also by Opposition Members. It is entirely proper that such measures should be considered by the Church of England laity in this place. However, I must tell my hon. Friend that the opinions on the merits of the measure are sharply divided. If there were another debate on the measure, I suspect that the outcome would not necessarily be the same as that which occurred on 17 July.

    Church Buildings
    Mr. Cran: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what is the latest figure he has for the number of churches that the Commission has given permission to be (a) demolished and (b) used for other purposes since 1979.
    Mr. Alison: Since 1979, the Church Commissioners have made schemes under the Pastoral Measure authorising the demolition of 109 redundant churches and the appropriation to suitable alternative uses of 374 others. A further 115 have been placed in the care of the Redundant Churches Fund.
    Mr. Cran: At some point, could my right hon. Friend provide information about the number of churches that have been disposed of, but are now used by rather more dynamic churches than the Church of England? In relation
    472
    to the Church of England, does my right hon. Friend agree that a 2·5 per cent. attendance rate on Sundays is a national disgrace and that it is partly attributable to a political clergy?
    Mr. Alison: Since 1969, 1,215 churches have been made redundant and new uses, often for the benefit of the wider community, have been found for more than half of those. Very many of them still remain in constructive and positive use for suitable alternative employment—so to speak. The number of people attending Church of England Sunday worship services is mercifully not subjected to anything equivalent to the Whips' Office in this House. Nevertheless, the numbers—without whipping—are tending to increase Sunday by Sunday.
    Mr. Tony Banks: What criteria are adopted by the commissioners when they consider alternative uses for redundant churches? Would using a church for bingo or as a McDonald's hamburger restaurant be acceptable to the commissioners? One or two churches in my area are so affected.
    Mr. Alison: If the hon. Gentleman would like to make positive proposals, the Church Commissioners, who are always after making a reasonable profit on their assets to the benefit of the retired clergy, would consider sympathetically anything that the hon. Gentleman might propose. The hon. Gentleman would have to exercise his usual discretion and wisdom so as not to make any really untoward proposals for alternative use.

    Ordination Trends
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what are the implications for the future expenditure of the Commissioners of the trend in ordinations during the past five years.
    Mr. Alison: There is no clear trend in ordinations to suggest any significant change in the balance of the commissioners' expenditure in future years. The figure for 1988 male ordinations was the highest since 1971, while the relatively low figure anticipated for 1990 is likely to be partly balanced by the increased number of women entering the ministry.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increasing number of women entering the ministry should be given full rights and that we should have women priests able to perform every function?
    Mr. Alison: In the light of the difficulities encountered by the Clergy Ordination Measure in July, it would be tempting providence to take a position on a measure concerning the ordination of women as priests before that has even been determined in the General Synod.
    Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us believe that those are matters which should be settled only within the Church and should not be matters for discussion in the House of Commons, especially as hon. Members belong to many denominations and religions? They could take decisions on issues which are not really their concern, but the concern of people like me who are members of the Church. Is he also aware that many of us who hold very strong catholic opinions in the

    473
    Church do not go along with some of those people who say that all Anglo-Catholics are opposed to the ordination of women? We are not.
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman is a well-known and loyal Anglican. He will agree that the reality probably is that a substantial number of the solemnisations of marriages, both Christian and secular, that take place in churches are subject to clergy who, because of the establishment of the Church of England, are authorised to register and solemise matrimony in a sacred environment. That makes it evident that public interest in Church of England matters should properly be considered not only in the General Synod but in this House where distinguished laymen such as the hon. Gentleman can express an opinion.

    Research
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Right hon. Member for Selby as representing the Church Commissioners, what is spent by the Church Commissioners for research undertaken by committees of the General Synod; where that money is spent; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alison: The commissioners do not fund research for the General Synod, but I will willingly assist my hon. Friend in securing the relevant information from the General Synod, if he wishes.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the report of the Bishop of St. Albans' committee on the merits and shortcomings of the White Paper on broadcasting? Does he agree that the Broadcasting Bill should seek properly to secure and expand the place of Christian broadcasting in the same way as it does in respect of secular broadcasting?
    Mr. Alison: Yes. I have seen the report of the Bishop of St. Albans, and while I do not agree with everything that it contains, I share my hon. Friend's hope that when the Broadcasting Bill comes before the House, at least as great an opportunity for the expansion of Christian broadcast-ing will be written into the Bill as that proposed for secular broadcasting.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Telephone Costs
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the annual cost to public funds of the House of Commons telephone system.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The figures for the Palace of Westminster for the past three years are given in appendix I of the first report of the Services Committee of this Session. These indicate an average charge for telephone services over that period of £1,434,125 per annum. Of that sum the average call charges for each year were £505,163. This House pays some 86 per cent. of the total bill, and, on that basis, the cost to public funds of those telephone services attributable to the House are £1,233,348 and £434,440, respectively.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that a switch to Mercury could save the taxpayer between £50,000 and £75,000? Does my right hon. and learned Friend, whose policies of controlling Government expenditure and fostering competition formed the basis of our economic success in the early 1980s, agree that such a change would bring a worthwhile saving?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am more than content to accept the tribute offered by my hon. Friend. I remind him that when considering the precise proposals for making economies in public expenditure, one must consider not only the short, medium and long-term effects but the effects of changes proposed or made on the economy that one has in mind. All those matters were considered by the Services Committee in its report published earlier this year. It had reservations about the effect of the change at this stage on the quality and reliability of the service, the ease and speed with which faults might be reported and rectified, and the effect on the traditional relationship with the supplier, British Telecom. The matter can be reconsidered but it was fully examined by the Committee and the Sub-Committee.
    Mr. Winnick: When international conferences take place in which this country is actively involved, is there not a case for right hon. and hon. Members being able to telephone, in this case, the Prime Minister, to tell her that her action has been disgraceful and deceitful. As a former Foreign Secretary ——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That has little to do with this Question. Did I hear the hon. Member use the word "deceitful"? If so, will he withdraw it? I ask him to withdraw that allegation against the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Winnick: I understood that it is a question for the Prime Minister and the House of Commons ——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the word "deceitful".
    Mr. Winnick: Other Commonwealth Prime Ministers have echoed what I have said. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not concerned about the context. Will the hon. Member kindly withdraw that word? He knows that it is unparliamentary.
    Mr. Winnick: The position—[Interruption.] If I am allowed to speak ——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that this is taking time out of Question Time. Will he kindly withdraw that word, please?
    Mr. Winnick: I have said that I believe that the Prime Minister has been deceitful—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I give the hon. Gentleman one final chance. Withdraw the word, please.
    Mr. Winnick: If you, Mr. Speaker, wish me to withdraw since I am not allowed to use that word in the House of Commons, obviously I will do so.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend have any information about the number of fax machines that are connected to the telephone system? Will he ensure that no list of their numbers is published so that we do not get any junk fax on our fax machines.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. friend is right to draw attention to the fact that fax machines are playing a growing part in the communications system of the House of Commons. There are apparently about 135 lines now installed expressly for that purpose. I cannot go beyond that information at this stage.

    Procedure Committee
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received regarding the Procedure Committee's outstanding proposals.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Apart from exchanges following the business statement on 27 July and informal meetings with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, I have received no specific representations on the Committee's outstanding proposals.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Leader of the House take this first opportunity to condemn the outrage of Prime Minister's Question Time now taking place in Kuala Lumpur with real Prime Ministers? Does he accept that he has some distinguished predecessors, for example Norman St. John-Stevas, now in another place, who introduced departmental Select Committees and his other predecessor who introduced televising of the House of Commons? When it comes to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's time to move on to another job, what would he wish to be remembered for?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall be discharging my duties as Leader of the House as effectively as I can.
    Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask the Procedure Committee to look at the motions on procedure which the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) lists on the Order Paper day after day? If we must continue to waste money printing those motions every day, perhaps we could debate them.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I find that a great deal of our time is taken up by trying to keep abreast of the hon. Gentleman's motions on that subject.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Leader of the House agree that he and the Government administrators will have more than a little difficulty if, in the next Session, an embryo research Bill is introduced and amendments relating to abortion are tabled? Does he have it in mind that the Government will use a guillotine to stop the debate?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Bill that the hon. Gentleman envisages will possibly come before the House will be handled by Parliament in accordance with the full range of procedures available to both Houses.

    Theft
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will detail the cost of losses and thefts of House of Commons china and cutlery since his answer of 18 July 1988, Official Report, columns 786–87; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Purchases of tableware for the financial period 1988–89 amounted to £52,289, which represents less than 2 per cent. of that year's turnover. The average cost per annum over the past five years is £38,066. The purchases were largely to cover general wear and tear. It is not possible to give any further breakdown.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of reports that House of Commons plates, cups, saucers and cutlery are to be found in all sorts of places? Will he consider arranging an amnesty for the return of those treasures, and will he keep the House informed of progress?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend's pronouncement should encourage all hon. Members and others to ensure that such objects are returned as promptly as possible. I found no fewer than 17 cups in my own office this afternoon.
    Mr. Allen: Was the amount lost in cutlery and other tableware equal to what has been gained by selling off the family silver? Is it also equivalent to the amount of money made by the Conservative party selling dinners in this place to its political friends?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: There appears to be no limit to the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman's mind. His point has nothing to do with the question.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    No. 1 Millbank
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what further progress there has been in the building alterations at No. 1 Millbank; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Work is progressing well and the new accommodation for commercial letting is expected to be complete at the beginning of 1990. The Church of England Pensions Board took up its new accommodation in the Millbank complex in July—without any House of Commons cutlery, plates or cups.
    Mr. Thurnham: As I pass that building every day on my way from my flat to the House, I continue to take great interest in the progress of the work. Will my right hon. Friend remind the House of the cost of the work to date and of the estimate of the final completion costs?
    Mr. Alison: The conversion is costing several million pounds. I am afraid that I cannot give the exact figure without notice. The building development is well up to schedule and will certainly be completed on time.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that you can confirm that, under Standing Orders relating to questions, it is within your discretion to permit a private notice or written question arising after the date of due notice for questions, which in your opinion is such that the Government should answer. If such a question arises and matters escalate after midday to a degree not apparent previously, is it possible for such a question to be tabled between midday and 3.30 pm or, as I expect, does the question have to be held over until 3.30 pm on the following day?
Mr. Speaker: If that occurs—when that occurs—I have no authority to grant a private notice question at short notice, but those facts would certainly be taken into account if a private notice question were submitted on the subsequent day.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of Question Time when you gave an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) in which you said that he could not say that the Prime Minister had been deceitful, either in this country or abroad. I should like to ask whether that ruling is in "Erskine May" and whether we can say such things. If an hon. Member says that somebody is a liar, I accept that an hon. Member would then be brought to order. However, being deceitful is not quite the same thing as being a liar. People can lie without being deceitful and be deceitful without being liars. Many people in the House and elsewhere are deceitful, but are not necessarily liars.
I should therefore like to know the basis of the ruling that you have given, Mr. Speaker. Is it in "Erskine May"? What exactly is the position? If we continue along these lines, we shall end up not being able to say anything about anybody or about anything that they say or do, and that would be quite wrong in a parliamentary democracy. I understand that in a parliamentary democracy we can challenge Conservative Members in the same way that they can challenge us. I should like to know the precise basis for your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that we in this House do not attribute dishonourable motives to each other—[Interruption.] Order. We are not televised yet, but I hope that we shall set a high standard in the words that we use about each other. "Deceitful" is an unparliamentary word.
Mr. Heffer: Is the basis of your ruling to be found in "Erskine May," Mr. Speaker? Does it say that in "Erskine May"?
Mr. Speaker: There is no longer a list of unparliamen-tary expressions in "Erskine May".
Mr. Tony Banks: There is a list——
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman had better have a look.
Several Hon. Member rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to have an argument about it. We must keep high standards here and treat each other as right hon. and hon. Members of the House—on both sides.
Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was alluding to the need for an emergency debate on the London ambulance dispute, which has been escalated by the management. After the deadline for making representations to you, I received information that the management had taken the keys away from the vehicles belonging to my local ambulance service and will not put——
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is as may be, but I have nothing to add to what I have already said to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
Mr. David Winnick rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall not pursue this matter as we have an enormous list of amendments on the Children Bill.
Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You know that I and other hon. Members observe your rulings and that we are trying to do so. Will you reflect on the ruling you gave a moment ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and what you said to me? I mentioned to you—perhaps you did not hear me because of the noise—that Commonwealth leaders use the same words that I used. If that word simply cannot be used, so be it, but since there is no list in "Erskine May", and since many people believe that the Prime Minister has been—I cannot use the word, according to you—I believe that on future occasions we should be able to speak our minds in a free Parliament and in a parliamentary democracy.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House too will reflect on the matter of parliamentary language. That certain words may be used outside this place is irrelevant. What we are concerned with in this House is keeping up our standards, and I hope that we shall. do so.
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about private notice questions. As you have said, Mr. Speaker, we are coming towards the time when the House will be televised and, understandably, the public will expect the House of Commons to reflect the immediacy and urgency of situations as they are seen outside this place.
We have a myth, which we have all sustained over the years, that private notice questions are not asked unless they are granted. That leads people outside not to understand the extent to which hon. Members on both sides of the House try to pursue matters that are of great urgency, sometimes at a constituency level, but often at a national level. Might it not be time to question whether we need to sustain the illusion that unasked private notice questions have never been asked in the first place?
Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman wants that to happen, he should take it to the Procedure Committee because it is the Procedure Committee that binds the Chair on this matter. I cannot go beyond what the Procedure Committee has recommended and the House has agreed.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you please make it quite clear that, once Parliament is televised, television will be the servant of Parliament and not Parliament the servant of television?
Mr. Speaker: I have used that phrase myself.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
Ordered,
That the draft Inter-American Development Bank (Seventh General Increase) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Orders of the Day

  Children Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  3.37 pm
  Mr. Speaker: Before calling upon the Minister to move the order of consideration motion, I must draw the attention of the House to a printing error on the Amendment Paper. The amendments to new clause 34, which is printed on page 3173, will be found on page 3164.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Leave it for the moment.
  The Minister for Health (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move,
  That the Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely: Amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 14, Schedule 1, Clause 47, Schedule 4, Clauses 48 to 53, Schedule 5, Clauses 54 to 56, Schedule 6, new Schedule 6A, Clauses 57 to 59, Schedule 7, Clauses 60 to 63, Schedules 9 to 13, new Clauses 1, 23 and 20, remaining new Clauses, new Schedule 9A, Amendments relating to Clauses 15 to 26, Schedule 2. Clauses 27 to 33, Schedule 3, Clauses 34 to 46, Clauses 64 to 71, Schedule 8, Clauses 72 to 91 and the Title.
  I should like to pay warm tribute to the officials of the House, who had to work exceptionally hard to produce the order of consideration for today having regard to the large number of amendments that have been tabled. I know that that necessitated a number of officials of the House, as well as officials of my Department, working through the night on Friday. I should like to express my gratitude and, I suspect, the gratitude of the House for that.
  The motion endeavours to arrange our consideration so that a significant number of uncontentious and formal amendments are taken first.
  Mr. Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I tried to attract your attention earlier, but you did not call me. My point relates to what the Minister has just said and the order in which the House will take the amendments. As you, Mr. Speaker, have said, there is an enormous number of amendments to the Bill. I am concerned about new clauses 13 and 5, which involve the child assessment orders and the child production notice. They are important clauses and, if we follow the selection that you have determined, we shall reach them by about 7 o'clock this evening. In view of the importance of the clauses and the statements made by the Minister last Saturday to the social services correspondent of The Guardian will it be possible to take those clauses out of the schedule you suggested and put them back until tomorrow?
  Mr. Speaker: The order in which amendments are taken is not for me. It is in the Government's motion which is on the Order Paper. If the hon. Gentleman does not like that motion, he must vote against it.
  Mr. Mellor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel it necessary to do that.
  I was about to say that the motion, which has obviously been discussed through the usual channels, is an endeavour to reflect the significance of making progress

  481
  with largely uncontentious amendments, followed by the opportunity, while the House is still fresh, to consider some issues, including the one raised by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), which are more contentious and on which the House will no doubt want to spend some time.
  In explaining to the House why there are so many amendments, I shall make three points. First, the Bill is a major consolidation and reform of both the private and public law relating to children. It is an important technical Bill on a matter which is unlikely to be the subject of further sustained parliamentary consideration for some time. Therefore, it is crucial that all the details are right, hence the large number of amendments, many of which, though I suspect purely formal and uncontentious, are vital. I apologise for the large number of amendments.
  Secondly, the Bill has proceeded through both Houses of Parliament as a non-partisan measure and, therefore, the fact that when the Bill was considered in totality in Committee the Government offered a number of concessions to opinion among all parties means that a number of the amendments reflect agreements which were reached in Committee. While that has added to the work of the House, it is an ornament to Parliament rather than otherwise that the Committee stages have led to such a measure of consideration on Report.
  Thirdly, one or two new issues have arisen, such as the follow-up to the Crookham Court school problems which have led to some amendments being tabled. It would have been remiss if we had not taken the opportunities offered to make changes in a part of the law which plainly gave rise to considerable public concern.
  Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1

  WELFARE OF THE CHILD
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 1, line 11, at end insert—
  '(A) 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.'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 74.
  The Solicitor-General: Following what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health has said, I can add that these amendments are not contentious and I shall deal with them comparatively briefly unless hon. Members wish to ask questions about them. The effect of the amendments is to state as a general principle that the court is to regard any delay in proceedings about children as likely to prejudice the child's welfare. That is something about which the House will agree and I commend the amendments.
  Mr. Vaz: The Solicitor-General invited questions on these technical amendments. Does he believe that the amendment pre-empts the debates that we shall hold later on family courts? Does he agree that if we had a family
  482
  court, it would meet many of the criticisms of the delays that occur when the court system deals with cases affecting children?
  3.45 pm
  The Solicitor-General: I am sure that the steps that we propose to take and which we shall have an opportunity —I hope not much later—this afternoon to discuss fully will meet the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: My point is not so much a question as a contribution about an issue that causes me great anxiety. During the past decade, much of my work has concerned the delays involved in court hearings of children's cases—delays between hearings and subsequently in the appeals procedure.
  When considering provision for a child's future welfare, it is vital that circumstances dividing the child from the wider family and that access, when appropriate, to the child by the parent during proceedings be taken into account. Unfortunately, either because of duplicity, pressure of work or lack of communication between parents, the representatives of parents, the wider family, the local authority and the court, in the period leading up to court proceedings there is often a vital breakdown in communications and in the link between the family and the child. When a final decision has been made by the courts that break often leads to an irreversible breakdown in relationships which can cause unnecessary anxiety for children and for the family, the parents, the wider family and especially grandparents.
  I do not want to pre-empt future debates on clauses dealing with maintaining family links during proceedings, but will the Minister assure us that statutory instruments will be brought to the House laying down the responsibilities of the court and the local authority to maintain the link between the child and the wider family during proceedings? Such advice should set out the basic tasks that must be undertaken to ensure that the relationship continues for all practical purposes.
  When proceedings are pending, parents and the wider family are often wholly excluded from communication with the child—they cannot celebrate birthdays, Christmas or other special events together; they cannot gain access for usual family activities, either. It is vital to lay down in legislative form certain other practical steps that the courts must take. Local authorities and courts must not be given options: we must set down clear duties for them to undertake in respect of maintaining the important link between the child in care and the authorities who are responsible for determining its future welfare.
  In many instances, courts and local authorities should be empowered to expedite the following matters: facilities should be provided for preparing meals for children and giving babies a feed. Families should be able to take a child to and from school or nursery if the child is still attending during care proceedings. They should be able to go out on social outings to shops and cinemas and clinics and doctors. Families should be able to clean a child's room, make its bed, wash and iron its clothes, read to it and tell it stories. They should be able to help the child with reading or writing and with shopping for shoes and clothes, with or without the foster parents if the latter are involved in care proceedings. All these are vital in cases in which the courts have yet to decide whether long-term

  483
  separation from the family is in the interests of the child. In that preceding period the link must be maintained and carefully nurtured, along with the support of professional social workers under the guidance of the court.
  It is also important when there is some measure of access to the child during proceedings, that prior to access facilities are provided to choose clothing and the other things that a child needs and which can be provided by a grandparent, another member of the family or a family friend. Those are minimum standards that require to be set down, and without them the situation will remain as it is now.
  Efforts have been made to amend the clause. When delays take place—sometimes for legitimate and at other times for not so legitimate reasons—the break-up of the family begins and gathers pace, and further anxieties and pressure are brought to bear on the child and there is extreme pressure on the family. That is unacceptable, given that part of the whole ethos of social work in most cases is to try to retain the link between the family and the child. Even if at the end of the day the court makes a determination order for either a short or a long period, the child will not live in the family context.
  At some stage during the passage of the Bill will the Minister provide clear advice to local authorities in court? Where, in specific circumstances, it is necessary to maintain the link with the family, will he set out clear instructions detailing the tasks that will have to be carried out on behalf of the court by the social services to maintain the vital family link?
  The Solicitor-General: All those matters are covered at one point or another in the Bill. There may be an opportunity to debate some of them later today. The amendments before us deal with delay and the desirability of avoiding it wherever possible.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

  ACQUISITION OF PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY BY FATHER
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No.268, in 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 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.'.

  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 38.
  The Solicitor-General: Again, these amendments deal with the question of the prescribed form for parental responsibility agreements and, in future, with methods of recording them as laid down as and when the Lord Chancellor comes to lay them down.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 38, in page 3, line 42, after 'may', insert 'only'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 5

  APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIANS
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 269,
  That Clause 5 be divided into two Clauses, the first consisting of page 4, subsections 1–8 and page 5, subsections (16) and (17) and the second of page 4, subsections (9) to (15) on page 5.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 274, 275, 277, 279, 280 and 282.
  The Solicitor-General: The amendments are largely technical. They deal with the splitting of clause 5 into two parts with detailed provisions about the appointment of guardians and with amendments consequent upon the splitting of the clause and some other drafting amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made:
  No. 270, in 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'.
  No. 271, in 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.'.
  No. 272, in 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.'.

  No. 273, in page 4, line 16, after 'a', insert 'child's'.
  No. 274, in page 4, line 36, leave out 'subsection (2) or (3)' and insert 'section 5(2) or (3)'.
  No. 275, in page 4, line 42 leave out 'subsection (2) or (3)' and insert 'section 5(2) or (3)'.
  No. 276, in 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.'.

  No. 277, in page 5, line 1, leave out 'subsection (2) or (3)' and insert 'section 5(2) or (3)'.
  No. 278, in page 5, line 2, leave out from `if' to end of line 3 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.'.

  No. 279, in page 5, line 4, leave out 'subsection (2) or (3)' and insert 'section 5(2) or (3)'.
  No. 280, in page 5, line 6, leave out 'subsection (2) or (3)' and insert 'section 5(2) or (3)'.
  No. 281, in page 5, line 10, 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.'.
  No. 282, in page 5, line 13, leave out 'this section' and insert 'section 5'.
  No. 283, in page 5, line 14, 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 even though no application has been made.'.

  No. 284, in page 5, line 17, 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.'.
  No. 285, in page 5, line 18, after 'guardian', insert 'of a child'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 7
  RESIDENCE, CONTACT AND OTHER ORDERS WITH RESPECT TO CHILDREN
  Amendment made: No. 39, in page 6, line 17, leave out 'issue' and insert 'question'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
Clause 8

  RESTRICTIONS ON MAKING SECTION 7 ORDERS
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 286, in page 7, line 12, at end insert—
  '(5A) 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.'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 147.
  The Solicitor-General: These amendments provide that section 7 orders should not be made in relation to children over the age of 16 except in exceptional circumstances. This is obviously sensible. Amendment No. 147 simply corrects a slip. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9

  POWER OF COURT TO MAKE SECTION 7 ORDERS
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 287, in page 8, line 8, 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.'.

  This concerns the application for variations for section 7 orders. I commend it to the House
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10

  GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
  Amendments made: No. 40, in page 8, line 30, leave out subsection (1).
  No. 41, in page 8, line 36, leave out 'such a question' and insert
  'any question of making a section 7 order, or any other qustion with respect to such an order,'.—[The Solicitor General.]
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 288, in page 9, line 24, leave out from 'made' to end of line 26 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,'.
  This amendment and the two in the next group extend the range of people obliged to comply with the conditions under section 7 orders to unmarried fathers and to anyone with whom the child is living. They fall well within the context of what we discussed in Committee, and I commend them to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11

  RESIDENCE ORDERS AND PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
  Amendments made: No. 289, in page 9, line 38, leave out 'if he would not otherwise'.
  No. 290, in page 9, line 38, leave out 'have that responsibility'. —[The Solicitor-General.]
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 9 line 44, leave out
  'or section 18 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 43, 76 and 77.
  The Solicitor-General: These amendments simply remove references to the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1878. It was thought more appropriate to deal with it elsewhere. I commend them to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 43. in page 9, line 46 leave out 'or section 49 of the Act of 1978'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 13

  ORDERS FOR FINANCIAL RELIEF WITH RESPECT TO CHILDREN
  Amendment made: No. 291, in page 10, line 23, 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 Solicitor-General.]

Clause 14

  FAMILY ASSISTANCE ORDERS
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 292, in 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

  487

  (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.'.
  This amendment deals with the selection of a local authority or probation official to befriend the person named in the family assistance order. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1

  FINANCIAL PROVISION FOR CHILDREN
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No.168, in page 82, line 3, leave out
  'High Court, a county court or a magistrates'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 365, 404 to 406, 318, 319, 169, 170, 366 and 367.
  The Solicitor-General: These are drafting and tidying-up amendments consequential on others. I commend them to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 365, in page 83, 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,'.

  No. 404, in page 83, line 26, leave out 'or 2'.
  No. 405, in page 83, 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.'
  No. 406, in page 83, 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:.

  No. 318, in page 84, line 2, leave out '£500' and insert `£1,000'.
  No. 319, in page 85, line 9, leave out 'or 2'.
  No. 169, in page 86, line 32, leave out
  'High Court, a county court or a magistrates'.
  No. 170, in page 88, line 4, leave out `(4)' and insert '(3)'
  No. 366, in page 89, line 5, leave out 'and;' and insert—
  '(2) In this Schedule except paragraphs 2 and 15.
  No. 367, in page 89, 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 Solicitor-General.]

Clause 47

  PROVISION OF COMMUNITY HOMES BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 457, in page 45, line 27, leave out subsection (6).
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 122, 459 and 164.
  Mr. Mellor: These amendments tighten up the definitions of "voluntary home" and "voluntary organisa-tion". I commend them to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 53

  REGISTRATION AND REGULATION OF VOLUNTARY HOMES
  Amendments made: No. 122, in page 50, line 20, leave out
  'in the case of a home or other institution which is supported wholly or partly by endowments'.
  No. 459, in page 50, line 22, at end insert—
  `(cc) any community home;'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 460, in page 50, line 23, leave out from 'institution' to '; or' in line 24 and insert
  'provided, equipped and maintained by the Secretary of State'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 458, 466, 469, 468, 140 and 141.
  Mr. Mellor: These are purely drafting amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 5

  REGISTERED CHILDREN'S HOMES
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 370, in page 113, line 1, leave out
  `require the approval of the Secretary of State for the provision and'
  and insert 'prohibit the'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 371 to 373.
  Mr. Mellor: These are substantive amendments, so I should say a word or two about them. They make an important but, I hope in the light of the debates that we had in Committee, a welcome change to the Secretary of State's regulatory power in connection with voluntary and registered children's homes. In both schedule 5 and schedule 6, the Bill makes provision for the Secretary of State by regulation to give his approval to the provision and use of accommodation for the purpose of restricting liberty in such homes.
  Amendments were tabled in Committee designed to remove these powers and to replace them with the power to prohibit the provision of secure accommodation in voluntary and registered children's homes completely. At that time I explained that although the Secretary of State had no current intention to give his approval to the provision of secure accommodation in such homes, we thought it right to provide some flexibility in the arrangements should the need for such future provision become apparent.
  4 pm
  I undertook to consider the matter further. Having carefully considered the points made in Committee, I have concluded that the Bill should be amended and that the Secretary of State's power to approve the provision of

  489
  secure accommodation in registered and voluntary homes should be replaced by a regulation-making power to prohibit the use of such accommodation.
  Amendments Nos. 370 and 371 make the necessary changes in so far as they affect voluntary homes, and amendments Nos. 372 and 373 make comparable changes affecting registered children's homes. I think that the changes will be welcomed in the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 371, in page 113, line 3, leave out from 'homes' to end of line 6.—[Mr. Mellor.]
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 199, in page 113, line 12, after 'on' insert 'or in charge of.'
  Mr. Speaker: With this we shall discuss Government amendments Nos. 411, 205 and 206.
  Mr. Mellor: These amendments amend the powers to make regulations in respect of voluntary and registered children's homes. I do not believe that they are controversial.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 411, in page 113, line 18, 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 58.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 201, in page 113, leave out lines 19 to 27.
  Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Government new clause 15.
  Mr. Mellor: This is a substantive amendment and a substantial new clause. Their effect would be to clarify the powers of voluntary organisations to provide accommoda-tion for children, mainly by bringing the powers together in one place.
  New clause 15 sets out the powers of voluntary organisations to provide accommodation by placing the child with a family, a relative or others, in a home—for example, a voluntary or registered children's home—or by making other arrangements. The provisions are equivalent to those in clause 20 that deal with the placement of children by local authorities.
  I hope that by bringing the powers together in one place, the effect of the new clause will be helpful to practitioners in what is otherwise a complex area.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 54

  DUTIES OF VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 123, in page 51, line 12, at end insert "and linguistic'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendments Nos. 129, 54, 407, 75 and 131.
  Mr. Mellor: This formidable list of amendments deals with the welfare responsibilities of the local authority, voluntary organisation or person running a children's home who is looking after a child. They include a
  490
  requirement to give due consideration to the religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural background of the child. An example of that can be found in clause 19(5)(c).
  Hon. Members who sat through the Committee stage will be aware that the Commission for Racial Equality supported amendments that would add a reference to the child's language. I agreed in Committee that that point should be met and that is the intention of Government amendments Nos. 123, 129, 54 and 131. The child's linguistic background is quite likely to have a bearing on his development and on how he should be cared for, and I am only too happy to put that point into the Bill. I am sure that it will be welcome news to the House.
  Amendment No. 75 is purely a drafting amendment, changing a reference to religious creed to "religious persuasion". The word "persuasion" is generally used in the Bill; "creed" must have slipped in through an oversight.—
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 55

  DUTIES OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 124, in page 51, line 23, at end insert—
  '(2A) The Secretary of State may make regulations—

  (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 intention of the amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to regulate the exercise by local authorities of their general duty in clause 55 to visit children in their area who are accommodated by or on behalf of voluntary organisations.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 56

  CHILDREN NOT TO BE CARED FOR AND ACCOMMODATED IN UNREGISTERED CHILDREN'S HOMES
  Amendment made: No. 125, in page 52, line 25, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Mellor.]
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 126, in page 52, line 37, 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.'.

  Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 127.
  Mr. Mellor: The amendments tighten up the definition of a children's home in clause 56: they are drafting amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 458, in page 53, line 1, leave out from 'home' to '; or' in line 2 and insert `provided, equipped and maintained by the Secretary of State'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
  Amendment No. 407 is intended to deal with the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and others that some local authorities needed to take better account of the ethnic composition of their areas and make greater efforts to recruit day and foster carers from ethnic minority families. The amendment requires local authorities to have regard to the different racial groups of children in need in their areas when they are providing day care services or encouraging applications from potential foster parents. I hope that it will be a welcome amendment.
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 301, in page 53, line 6, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 7.
  Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 313.
  Mr. Mellor: The amendments are concerned with the definition of a children's home. Amendment No. 301 is part of the package of new measures to which I referred when moving the motion for the order of consideration, aimed at safeguarding the welfare of children in independent schools. The amendment extends the definition of a children's home to include all independent schools which provide accommodation for not more than 50 pupils and which are not approved for special education. The requirement has been removed that at least one of the children being accommodated must be looked after by a local authority. All such independent schools, in addition to being registered with the Department of Education and Science, will now have to register with the local authority within whose boundaries they lie. As regards independent schools, the definition of a children's home will mirror that of a residential care home.
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong: May I make it clear that the amendment, in a sense, technically "sorts out" clause 56, while the new clause that we shall be debating later spells out the implications for independent schools?
  Mr. Mellor: The hon. Lady is quite right. The amendment deals with the special arrangements for very small schools with fewer than 50 pupils. As I have said, the Bill as originally drafted required one of the children to be looked after by a local authority if such a school was to be within the definition of a children's home. Now any such school, whether or not any single pupil is placed there by a local authority, will fall within that definition, and so will have to be registered with the local authority.
  The arrangements made for independent schools more generally do not involve registration but involve certain inspection arrangements with which we shall deal later. The proposal is part of a package, so I thought it right to refer to it as a part of the careful reconsideration that we have been giving that section of the Bill, in the light of discussions in Committee and of certain matters that were the subject of television programmes and, I think, a good deal of public concern a couple of months ago.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No 127, in page 53, leave out from beginning of line 10 to end of line 30 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

  492

  (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.'.

  No. 128, in page 53, line 40, 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.'.—[Mr. Mellor]

Schedule 6

  REGISTERED CHILDREN'S HOMES
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 202, in page 114, line 4, 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.'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 203 and 204.
  Mr. Mellor: Amendment No. 202 provides that, in considering applications for registration of registered children's homes, regulations may require a local authority to comply with certain requirements, including carrying out an inspection of a home. Although it is unlikely that any authority would register a home without first inspecting it, the Bill as drafted did not require a pre-registration inspection. The amendment is properly tabled in that it provides power for a specific requirement to inspect to be included in regulations. I do not think that that will be a controversial matter.
  Amendment No. 203 is a drafting amendment. Amendment No. 204 requires those running a registered home to supply information about facilities for persons to visit or otherwise to communicate with a child accommodated in a registered home. It mirrors the provisions in respect of voluntary homes already to be found in the Bill.
  Mr. Dave Nellist: I wonder whether I can take a couple of minutes of the Minister's time on this group of amendments. Without challenging your ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I say that you will be aware that on 30 June I tabled an amendment to this part of the Bill to seek an assurance from the Minister, and this seems the most appropriate group of amendments.
  As I understand it, the amendments amend part VIII of the Bill dealing with the absence of state regulation of privately owned children's homes. It occurred to me and to those who have written to me, most notably Mr. John Harris of the department of applied social studies at Warwick university and Mr. Tom Hopkins of Coventry polytechnic, that, although this part of the Bill is not controversial and, in the words of the Minister, will be welcomed as it provides for pre-registration inspection by local authorities, its enactment will cause some concern. This part of the Bill, together with schedule 6, re-enacts certain amendments that the provisions of the Children's Homes Act 1982 had already raised but never implemented. My correspondence with academics in this field contains references to the Children Act 1975 raising similar questions. Because of the long process of enactment of certain sections it takes years for some of the changes to come about, if ever.

  493
  As I tried to discover with a couple of written questions earlier in the year, I want to know from the Minister the Government's intentions about the date of enactment. Although my hon. Friends and I have no detailed objection to this part of the Bill, and although we may not vote for the Bill itself, it is no good without a fairly specific date for these measures to be introduced.
  In an amendment which was not in order and to which I shall not refer at length, I suggested that six months was a reasonable time. Within the ambit of this group of amendments, will the Minister give an assurance to the House, and through me to my constituents, that the beneficial aspects of part VIII will be introduced by a certain date—for example, some time next year—so that local authorities will know when they are to have that extra power and plan how to regulate that sector?
  Finally, the Registered Homes Act 1984 contained parallel provisions dealing with adults rather than children. In parts of my city, that seemed to lead to an explosion of privately-owned homes. In 1988, in certain British social work journals, an advertisement appeared stating:
  "Exceptional opportunity in the private sector. Are you a qualified professional with a comprehensive knowledge in all aspects of community home with education? Are you ambitious, self-motivated and willing to contemplate a new challenge at executive level with optional equity/investment?
  If the answers are yes, kindly contact us. We are an enterprising new CHE Company focusing our endeavours to combine the ultimate child care service with professional business methods."
  I am all in favour of local authorities having powers to inspect and regulate children's homes. I am a little bit worried about the parallels between this Bill and the 1984 Act. When this part of the measure is brought into operation, does the Minister hope for an explosion of privately run children's homes along the lines of the advertisements that appeared in various British social work journals last year?
  What will be the date for implementation of those parts of the Bill that we welcome, and will the Minister confirm or deny that this part of the Bill could be used to open more privately run children's homes—which would be less welcome to us?
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Mellor: It is some years since I was able to give the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) any parliamentary satisfaction. I am glad to be able to make my debut in that respect now by telling him that he is right——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I am afraid I did not see the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) rise. It might be convenient for the Minister to answer all questions together, as this is not a Committee stage.
  Mr. McCartney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for protecting little people in this Chamber.
  I seek some information from the Minister about the operation of the proposed regulations. I have served on a local authority social services committee and have dealt with quarterly and annual reviews of local authority facilities. As a member of that committee, I have found it difficult to carry out an assessment to the best of my
  494
  abilities because very little information was provided about the ethos of a children's home—about contact with outside organisations, the number of children in a home at any time, and the types of learning difficulties in the home.
  Is it intended that these regulations will require visits by local government officers from the department of social services, or is it intended that inspections should be incorporated with the current annual inspections that social services departments make on their own homes?
  Will the Bill insist that local education authorities and social services departments be involved in developing welfare programmes in the homes? I ask that question, because I am interested in children with learning difficulties. Many children in homes have severe learning difficulties or severe physical handicaps so it is important that the ethos of a home should take account of them and, when trying to regulate the conduct of a home, it is important that the education department in each local authority gets involved and takes responsibility for developing the standards that apply to activities inside and outside the home.
  Does the Minister believe that it is important to develop standards in the care provided in a children's home and in the programme for activities in the community? Many children in long-stay homes, whether run by the local authority or the private sector, require a home life, balanced by all the other activities that take place in the wider community.
  Does the Minister intend to consider the ethos of a children's home and the activities that it develops in the wider community for the children in it?
  For once, I am trying to be helpful to the Minister. I know that, when he comes to the Select Committee on Social Services, things can get aggressive on occasions. I shall raise some practical issues with him and attempt to tease out his attitude towards the specific problems of regulation of children's homes. Can he put more flesh on the bones, and tell the House how he envisages the role of the regulatory organisation in the development of a care policy in children's homes, and co-ordinating, with the voluntary sector and the education departments in each local authority?
  Mr. Mellor: I shall continue my efforts to be helpful to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and then, as an encore, I shall try to be helpful to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney).
  I was saying to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East that he was right to say that these provisions in the Bill replace the Children's Homes Act 1982. We intend to implement all the Bill, when it becomes an Act, in accordance with a strict timetable which we intend should lead to all provisions in the Bill being implemented by the autumn of 1991 at the latest. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Bill is long and complex. However, we do not intend to leave any of its provisions lying around for years on end.
  One of the purposes of the Bill has been to look through the whole corpus of children's law and to work out which parts of it we need in future, and which parts we do not need. The House would expect me to say that, having taken the trouble to put existing law into the Bill, we see it as having a role to play. We have no interest, therefore, in delaying its implementation. I hope that those comments are helpful to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East.

  495
  I stress that one of the Bill's purposes is to regulate —often for the first time—aspects of the running of private children's homes. It is unlikely, therefore, to lead to an explosion in the number of such homes. The hon. Gentleman is concerned about undesirable developments, but the impact of regulation may be to control such developments, as is intended. From the debate on community care the other day, the hon. Gentleman knows that our intention is for community care to develop in a way that allows the best possible options to be pursued, whether those options come from the Health Service, local authorities, voluntary organisations or the private sector. In relation to children, any such application has to be examined in accordance with the strictest body of law and this body of law is far stricter than any that has gone before.
  It is not part of our policy to see an explosion in the number of private children's homes. We know that the trend is moving away from children's homes of any kind towards fostering and adoption. One of my regular duties is to sign documents that, in effect, remove children's homes. If that means that many kids who would formerly have been brought up in institutions are being brought up in real homes, that is good and that is the direction in which we all seek to go.
  I point out to the hon. Member for Makerfield that, as I said in Committee, it will be a major task under the Bill to draw up regulations. The aim of the regulations is to offer more guidance in a slightly less structured way than is possible in primary legislation and to try to ensure that that guidance is kept up to date and can be changed more readily. We intend to consult widely on the regulations and we shall welcome contributions from those who have experience in this area. In that light, I shall look at the hon. Gentleman's contribution. If he wants to write in more detail on those matters, I assure him that his comments will be taken into active consideration.
  Mr. McCartney: I will take up the opportunity to make a contribution in writing about the regulations. If the regulations are to operate effectively, it is vital that there are clear contributions from local authority associations in particular and that there is an attempt by the Department of Health to work with them to produce workable regulations which will protect children's development in homes.
  Mr. Mellor: The extent to which we have had open and sustained discussions on the Bill has been encouraging, and I am not the only person who thinks so. We intend to continue that process when we exercise our regulation-making powers. Obviously all the regulations will be brought before Parliament, if any hon. Member feels continuing concern on the matter.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I want to make a brief contribution which I believe is relevant to the debate in response to a comment made by the Minister a few moments ago.
  It is not simply a question of the law being amended to ensure that the Bill is implemented. I received a letter this morning from the director of social services in my area who states that there are now difficulties in securing space in court timetables. I believe that he speaks for the vast majority of the directors of social services when he states that he is less than clear about how increased court capacity can be created to ensure that the intentions in the
  496
  Bill are carried out. That point may not be particularly relevant to this clause. However, as we proceed through the final stages of the Bill, I should be obliged if the Minister would comment on that anxiety expressed by my director of social services.
  I hope that at some point during the final stages of this Bill, we can discuss in some detail the other anxiety voiced by directors of social services, which is their belief that if the Bill is implemented in accordance with the Government's intentions and timetable, local authorities will require at least nine or 10 times the Government's estimate of the cost of the legislation.
  Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman's latter point will have to be discussed, in the usual way, with the local authority associations.
  The hon. Gentleman's first point is important. One of the key aims of the Bill is to ensure that a readily understood and easily manageable body of law can lead to cases being put before the courts within as short a time scale as possible. Some very challenging timetables are set deliberately in the Bill and the power is taken for rules of court to put further flesh on those bones.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who expects to participate in a later debate about the family courts, will want to take the opportunity to comment on some of the novel features of the Bill including, for the first time, the ability to move cases from one part of the jurisdiction to another. I know that my hon. and learned Friend will have heard the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and he will want to dilate further on it, as may the hon. Member for Wentworth. This is an important matter.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 203, in page 114, line 44, leave out 'above'.
  No. 204, in page 117, line 29, 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.'.

  No. 372, in page 117, line 38, leave out
  'require the approval of the Secretary of State for the provision'
  and insert 'prohibit the'.
  No 373, in page 117, line 40, leave out from 'homes' to end of line 43.
  No. 205, in page 117, line 45, after 'on' insert 'or in charge of.
  No. 206, in page 117, line 46, at end insert—
  `(k) make provision similar to that made by regulations under section 23.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

New Schedule 6A
  FOSTER PARENTS

    LIMITS ON NUMBER OF FOSTER CHILDREN
    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 subparagraph (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.'.— [Mr. Mellor.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    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 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.

  Clause 57

    WELFARE OF CHILDREN IN CHILDREN'S HOMES
    Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 382, in page 53, line 41, leave out 'registered'.
    Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 383 to 385, 326 and 467.
    Mr. Mellor: The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the provisions of clauses 57 and 58 will apply where appropriate, whether or not a private children's home is currently registered—for example during the period that an application for registration as a children's home is being considered by the local authority or where a home should be registered, but is not and where the welfare of the children in the home is in issue. I hope that that is a helpful clarification to the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 129, in page 54, line 22, at end insert 'and linguistic'.
    No. 383 in page 54, line 25, leave out `registered'.— [Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 58

  PERSONS DISQUALIFIED FROM CARRYING ON, OR BEING EMPLOYED IN, REGISTERED HOMES
  Amendments made: Nos. 384, in page 54, line 29, leave out 'registered'.
  No. 385, in page 54, line 35, leave out 'registered'.— [Mr. Mellor.]

Schedule 7

  PRIVATELY FOSTERED CHILDREN
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 325, in page 118, line 10, leave out from 'any' to 'is', in line 11, 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,'.

  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 207 to 209, 412, 210, 211, 327, 212, 219, 386 and 387.
  Mr. Mellor: The effect of these amendments is to tidy up and 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 choice of foster parents have been made by a child's natural parents.
  A number of the amendments provide typographical corrections and bring terminology into line with the rest of the Bill and introduce other technical amendments.
  The amendments of substance reflect our further consideration of those measures in the light of representations from hon. Members, local authorities and other bodies, such as the Save the Children Fund, concerned with the welfare of those children. Local authorities' powers are extended by giving them the power to prohibit any private fostering placement where the foster parent or the accommodation is unsuitable, or where the placement is prejudicial to the child's welfare. I stress that, because some right hon. and hon. Members will have heard, as I did in the early hours of this morning while I was wallowing in my bath, an interview in which the regulations governing these placements were discussed.
  4.30 pm
  I am glad to make it clear that local authorities' powers are to be extended to give them the power to prohibit any private fostering placement where the parent or the

  499
  accommodation is unsuitable or the placement is prejudicial to the child's welfare. Previously, that power applied only where the local authority had not been properly notified of the placement. On reflection, that appeared 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 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 the child is to be fostered. That will be an important element of the regulations that we intend to make in accordance with those powers. Prior notice of a proposed placement is vital to enable authorities to investigate in advance the suitability of the proposed foster parents and placement.
  It is essential that the authorities should be able to contact the child's parents. There are sad examples of parents who have behaved in an irresponsible manner by failing to keep in touch with their children or with foster parents. We shall also now be able to require foster parents to give notice when a person leaves or joins their household. That will be an additional safeguard against a privately fostered child being exposed to risks in a replacement.
  There are particular anxieties about the welfare of west African children placed by their parents with white foster parents with insufficient regard to the children's race and culture.
  We expect authorities, as part of their pre-placement inquiries and duty, to give advice to foster parents on the children's needs arising from their racial origin and cultural background.
  That issue rightly arouses anxiety in hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) for putting forward the points that I have mentioned most eloquently in Committee. I hope that my comments this afternoon will be of some comfort to him.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for taking such care to say that the number of west African children coming to this country and being placed with foster parents while their parents return to west Africa is still a cause for anxiety. Do I understand that one of the elements that will be considered when a placement is regarded as prejudicial to the child's welfare is the cultural background of that child? I am sure that that is what he meant.
  Mr. Mellor: That is certainly what I meant.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made:No. 326, in page 118, line 13, leave out 'registered'.
  No. 466, in page 118, line 19, leave out from 'but' to end of line 20 and insert
  'provided, equipped and maintained by the Secretary of State.'
  No. 207, in page 118, line 21, after '(1)' insert `(b) to (g)'
  No. 208, in page 118, line 41, leave out
  'local authority for the area concerned'
  and insert 'appropriate local authority'.
  No. 209, in page 118, line 43, after 'be' insert 'privately'.
  '.No. 412, in page 119, line 14, at end insert—
  '(4A) A local authority may at any time vary any requirement, impose any additional requirement or remove any requirement.'.
  No. 210, in page 119, line 15, 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) No. 211, in page 119, line 27, 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.'.
  No. 327, in page 119, line 40, 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;'.
  No. 212, in page 119, leave out lines 44 to 48.
  No. 213, in page 120, line 5, leave out 'or'.
  No. 214, in page 120, line 6, 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,'.

  No. 215, in page 120, line 9, leave out 'or prohibition' and insert prohibition, condition, variation or cancellation'.
  No. 216, in page 120, line 10, 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.'.

  No. 217, in page 120, line 22, 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.'.
  No. 413, in page 120, line 23, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
  No. 218, in page 120, line 24, 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.'.

  No. 219, in page 120, line 31, leave out 'as if'—[Mr Mellor.]

Clause 61

  PERSONS DISQUALIFIED FROM BEING PRIVATE FOSTER PARENTS
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 461, in page 56, line 38, leave out 'the child' and insert
  'any child who has been in his care'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 462, 258, 259, 463, 464, 260, 261, 264 to 267.
  Mr. Mellor: This group of amendments deals with the disqualification of persons from providing day care to children under eight years of age and similar provisions to disqualify persons from acting as foster parents or from running voluntary or private children's homes. Broadly, they are people who have, among other things, committed offences, failed to register with the local authority, or failed to notify the presence of a disqualified person in their household. In other words, the amendments are directly relevant to the issues that were raised in the media this morning.
  Again, I hope that the existence of these amendments and what I have said about them will be of further comfort to hon. Members who are concerned about this issue. Effective action is being taken in this Bill to apply proper regulations, particularly on sensitive matters, about disqualified persons. Obviously, who should have an influence over a child is a matter of intense concern to all of us.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 462, in page 56, line 40, leave out 'the' and insert 'any such'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 62

  POWER TO PROHIBIT PRIVATE FOSTERING
  Amendments made: No. 386, in page 57, line 20, leave out from 'privately' to end of line 21.
  No. 387, in page 57, line 22, after `(2)' insert 'Where'. —[Mr. Mellor.]

Schedule 9

  AMENDMENTS OF ADOPTION LEGISLATION
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 335, in page 124, line 11, leave out 'and'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we will take Government amendments Nos. 336, 222, 415 to 417 and 223.
  Mr. Mellor: These are consequential and technical changes to terminology used in the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 336, in page 124, line 12, after 'children', insert
  'and children accommodated by health authorities and local education authorities or in residential care, nursing or mental nursing homes or in independent schools.'.
  No. 222, in page 125, line 25, leave out 'subsection (7)' and insert 'subsections (7) and (8)'.
  No. 415, in page 126, leave out lines 35 and 36 and insert
  502
  '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 (1A) 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".'.
  No. 416, in page 126, line 38, leave out from 'and' to end of line 40 and insert
  'for the words "in the care of" there shall be substituted "looked after by".'
  No. 417, in page 127, line 16, at end insert—
  '(3) In subsection (5) of that section—
  (a) for the word "receives" there shall be substituted "receive"; and
  No. 469, in page 128, line 29, leave out from 'but' to end of line 30 and insert
  'provided, equipped and maintained by the Secretary of State;'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 418, in page 129, line 9, leave out from `children)' to end of line 30 and insert
  'in subsection (1) for the 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;

  (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,

  503
  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.'.

  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 419 to 424.
  Mr. Mellor: These amendments to schedule 9, which relates to the Adoption Act 1976, are largely technical changes to clarify the operation of adoption legislation throughout the United Kingdom.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I beg to move amendment No. 472, in page 129, leave out from line 32 to line 47 on page 130 and insert—
  '51A.—(1) The Registrar General shall cause to be maintained a register to he called the Adoption Contact Register which shall be governed by regulations.
  (2) The Register shall include adopted persons, their adoptive parents/guardians and relatives, adoptive parents/ guardians only shall be able to register on behalf of a child under 18. At that age the adopted person may complete a new registration in his/her own right.
  (3) In this section "relative" means any person other than an adoptive relative who is related to the adopted person by blood (including half blood) or marriage.
  (4) A fee as prescribed may be charged for inclusion in the Register.
  (5) An entry made on the Register may be amended on request.
  (6) Any notice given under this section must be in such form as may be determined by the Registrar General.
  (7) The holder of the Register shall facilitate contact or an exchange of information between persons on the Register, offering appropriate assistance.
  (8) The Register shall not be open to public inspection or search, and the holder of the Register shall not supply any person with information entered in the Register, except in accordance with this section.
  (9) The Register may be kept by means of a computer.
  (10) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by the Secretary of State.'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 337 to 339.
  Mr. Fearn: Amendment No. 472 was tabled in response to a consortium of adoption support groups who have had a working party looking into the possibility of setting up an adoption contact register for some time now. They were naturally pleased when this measure was introduced as part of the Bill. However, they felt that the proposed operation of the service as outlined in paragraph 21 of schedule 9 will benefit few and have the potential to result in great distress for many individuals and their families. Their key concern is that the use of the expression "wishes to contact", which is used throughout the clause, is open to many interpretations, and they would like those words to be removed. There is concern also that no support services are offered to the person attempting to make contact. In the Bill as drafted, it is contact initiated by the adoptive person.
  Potential users of the register require a more flexible service to meet their needs in a more sensitive way. There is great emotion and potential heartache, and in some cases there is potential for lives to be destroyed in this difficult matter, and we must be sure that adequate support services exist.
  There was concern that the clause did not contain a minimum age limit, but I accept that Government amendments have properly addressed that problem. Government amendments have partly met the working party's concern that the register should provide for the exchange of non-identifying information and advice, but it is important also that there is an opportunity for adoptive parents and their families to exchange mutually useful information during the childhood of the adopted person.
  Paragraph 21 includes operational detail which, in primary legislation, may prove to be restrictive. Therefore, the working groups would like to see the register governed by legislation. My amendment will meet the needs of those concerned in a more sensitive and appropriate manner. I should like the Minister to refer to the key concern, which is to remove the phrase "wishes to contact".
  Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) for his recognition of the extent to which the changes made by the Government have had an impact on the area of concern that he has outlined. However, I am afraid that I cannot advise the House to accept his amendment.
  The register will be held by the registrar general in circumstances where he will have no facilities for offering assistance to those who wish to make contact. However, the changes that we have introduced will enable people to make use of professional and other specialist services. As part of the administration of the scheme, the registrar general will inform all users of the services, such as the social services departments and other agencies, from whom advice and assistance may be obtained. Therefore, the registrar general will be of some assistance, but I am afraid that that assistance will be limited by the nature of the registrar general's operations. I do not believe that an expansion of those operations to meet the point that the hon. Gentlemen has raised can be justified. For the reasons that have already been given, it is not appropriate for the contact register to be used by children under 18.

  505
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that a lot has been done to tighten up this area, and I hope that he will understand why I cannot invite the House to accept the amendment in the terms that he has tabled it.
  Three amendments in this group are Government amendments and I shall refer to them briefly, the hon. Member for Southport having kindly commended some of them already. We want to improve the adoption contact register. It has been brought to our notice by groups and individuals who have a special interest in this provision that it would be more helpful if relatives seeking to contact an adopted person could offer, for the purposes of the contact register, the address of a third party who would act as an intermediary. The provisions as amended will therefore enable the registrar general to enter on the register, for transmission to an adopted person, an address at or through which a relative may be contacted, even though it is not the relative's own address. That will meet a practical point. Many relatives will no doubt be happy to give their own address, but care and sensitivity are needed where people are seeking knowledge of each other in these often delicate circumstances. Some people prefer to make a first approach through an intermediary with skill and experience in smoothing the path for both parties. These arrangements will also allow relatives to explain through a sympathetic intermediary that they prefer to restrict contact to, say, the exchange of information or letters, rather than a meeting. Some voluntary agencies, I am glad to say, have already expressed a willingness to provide their addresses and services and no doubt others will be equally willing.
  The other amendments provide, as I have already explained, for use of the register to be restricted to people of 18 years old or more. That is the age limit for access by an adopted person to his original birth record, which we believe is the right approach.
  Obviously, all those issues will, in due course, be part of a wider review of adoption law, but I cannot advocate any further changes until that point. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be offended if I do not invite the House to accept his amendment. I hope that he will take some comfort from the fact that, as he acknowledged in his speech, we have done a good deal to make the register workable and will keep under review the way that it works.
  Mr. Fearn: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: No. 337, in page 130, line 4 at end insert
  'has attained the age of 18 years and'.
  No. 338, in page 130, line 18, after '(5)', insert
  has attained the age of 18 years and'.
  No. 339, in page 130, line 45, after 'marriage;' insert—
  '(aa) "address" includes any address at or through which the person concerned may be contacted;'.
  No. 419, in page 133, leave out lines 26 to 29.
  No. 223, in page 133, line 43, leave out
  'After section 72(1) there shall be inserted—'
  and insert 'For section 72(1A) there shall be substituted the following subsections—'.
  No. 420, in page 134, leave out lines 2 to 14 and insert—
  '"(3) This Act extends to England and Wales only.".'.
  No. 421, in page 135, line 28, leave out from '"receive"' to end of line 30.
  No. 422, in page 135, leave out lines 37 to 43 and insert—
  '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

  507
  metropolitan county), a metropolitan district, a London borough or the Common Council of the City of London.".'.

  No. 423, in page 136, leave out lines 38 to 41.
  No. 424, in page 136, leave out from beginning of line 47 to end of line 10 on page 137.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Schedule 10

  MINOR AMENDMENTS
  The Solicitor-General: These are important amendments. Amendment No. 231 amends the Legal Aid Act to provide that civil legal aid is available for all civil proceedings in magistrates courts. Proceedings in the High Court and county court, including those under the Bill, automatically attract civil legal aid without the need for specific provision to be made. New clause 17 provides that civil legal aid is to be available for proceedings under the Bill——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is dealing with the amendment that I called. I called amendment No. 341 and the other Government amendments listed with it.
  The Solicitor-General: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I beg to move amendment No. 341, in page 137, line 20, at end insert—

  'The Education Act 1944 (c. 31)
  3A. 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)
  3B. 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)
  .—(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—

  508

  (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 riot 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 1 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 of 11B of that Act which requires that person to make any financial provision in relation to the child;

  (d) 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)".'.
  Amendment No. 341 is much less contentious and is less interesting. It contains amendments to schedule 10, which makes minor amendments to existing statutes.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 229, 364 and 342.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. McCartney: Although the Solicitor-General said that this is a non-contentious issue, I believe that the Government have failed to take advantage of a real opportunity to deal with the important issue of child abduction. In June I introduced the Prevention of Child Abduction Bill, which has attracted support from hon. Members of all parties because of the growing incidence of that special crime which, in the main, involves members of the families concerned. There is great emotional stress as a result of the way in which more than 100 children per year are abducted illegally from the United Kingdom to all parts of the world. From hon. Members' records and from work with the voluntary sector, I estimate that more than 500 British citizens—young children—have been abducted from the United Kingdom and cannot be returned at the moment.
  The Government are aware of this situation and are to be congratulated on participating in the development of the Hague convention, on the way in which it has been constructed, and on being one of the first Governments to be a signatory to it. In addition, they have provided legislation to enable it to have effect. However, despite the introduction of the Hague convention, there has been no abatement in the ability of people illegally to abduct young children from the United Kingdom and to fail to return them to their family homes. In many instances, the children are abducted to environments that are completely different in culture, language and geography from the communities in which they live and have their wider families in the United Kingdom.
  I had hoped that during the summer the Government would give some thought to the arguments put forward in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). In Committee the Government gave a hint that they would consider the serious points made by my hon. Friend in our debates. However, since those debates, no practical amendments have been brought forward which provide even the hope that there might be some new legislation to protect children who are abused and exploited by abduction.
  My Bill tried to introduce four basic criteria—three introducing new opportunities for the Government to take legislative action and the fourth relating to the Family Law Act 1986 and to amendments to make it more difficult for court proceedings to be disrupted and rendered meaningless by the activities of child abducters. The Government could have used the opportunity afforded by schedule 10 to amend the Family Law Act in relation to court proceedings.
  The main priorities of my Bill were those raised in our Committee debates by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and dealt with the creation of a children's ombudsman to give legal aid, advice and assistance that would enable parents or guardians to retrieve children who have been illegally abducted from the United Kingdom. It also sought to provide advice on the prevention of abduction and to mediate between Governments and courts when children have been abducted. It would not apply only to the countries of the Hague convention because many of the children who have been abducted have been taken to countries that either do not recognise the convention or have not implemented it.
  510
  Although I am sad that the Government have missed an opportunity to deal with this problem, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has now positively attempted to assist me, following my failure to gain parliamentary time for the Bill.
  In August of this year, in response to cases in Italy, which has not implemented the Hague convention, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office accepted for the first time the need for mediation between the Governments and the courts of the United Kingdom and Italy. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and his Italian counterpart have provided for mediation services in specific cases currently before the Italian courts or cases that should go before those courts because of the nature of the abduction from the United Kingdom to Italy. The measures taken by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office represent a major response from the Government because, until August, the Government had steadfastly refused to become involved in mediating in cases where children had been abducted from the United Kingdom.
  The Home Office has some specific responsibilities in this connection and it has responded positively to talks with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), the hon. Member for Ealing Acton (Sir G. Young) and myself. Last week the Lord Chancellor, in discussion with the Minister of State, Home Office, proposed to assist the funding of the charity, Reunite, through the voluntary services unit. That charity counsels and assists families whose children have been abducted.
  This summer two Government Departments have moved significantly in terms of how they perceive their role with regard to child abduction and in relation to providing practical assistance and resources to ensure that they carry out their roles on behalf of families whose children have been abducted.
  When the amendments to the Bill were tabled I expected that the Minister would make practical propositions to bring into line certain court practices that undermine the concept of the Hague convention. The Family Law Act 1986 should have been amended today to ensure that it was obligatory on judges acting within the bounds of that Act to provide new arrangements for passports. As the law currently stands, if a court order is obtained for the temporary or long-term care and control of a child there is no way in which a child may be intercepted at a port or airport if it is abducted after the decision of the court. In many instances an abduction takes place even as the court is considering the long-term care of a child. An amendment to the Family Law Act under schedule 10 would require the court to ensure that passports are automatically surrendered prior to, during and after the court proceedings. It would also require that any court decision relating to those proceedings be recorded in the passport. Without such an amendment children will continue to be abducted prior to, during and after court proceedings.
  I had also hoped that an amendment would be tabled under schedule 10 to establish a register of abducted children. Sad to say, we have no accurate record of how many children have been abducted from the United Kingdom and we must rely on information provided either to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office by distraught parents or from self-help groups such as Reunite, which have been approached by the parents. Every time we

  511
  discuss this issue we receive communications from parents whose children have been abducted and who are unable to seek help and advice or who do not realise that such help and advice is available from Reunite and the social services departments.
  If the Minister cannot introduce substantial amendments today I hope that he will consider finding time in the Session to introduce a substantial Bill that will take account of the considerable and unacceptable level of child abduction from the United Kingdom. Without such Government commitment throuth the Department of Health we shall continue, week in, week out, to see children taken from the custody of United Kingdom courts and scattered throughout the world. They have no opportunity of being returned to the United Kingdom.
  I have met mothers who last saw their children when they were two and they are now eight, nine or 10. I have met mothers who cannot communicate on the telephone with their children because those children have been so long out of the family environment that they cannot speak in the mother tongue. All those individual cases amount to a scandalous situation. For all the might of the state, such as the social services departments and the police authorities, and despite all the resources at our disposal, we cannot protect a small, but vulnerable, group of children.
  I hope that the Minister will respond positively because without such a response the small and significant steps that have been taken by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office will be washed away and we shall be back here next year when another 120 children will have been abducted. We will then have to add those children to the 500 plus already abducted from the United Kingdom.
  I hope that the Minister will respond positively and give a commitment that, for once, he will make practical suggestions to assist those families who suffer unbelievable emotional stress. Those families do not know where to turn and they cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel. I hope that the Minister will give a commitment that legislation will be introduced in the new Session to end the crime of child abduction.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I support what the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has said. Further legislation is required, but, for several reasons, I do not feel that the Bill is the appropriate vehicle for the sort of changes advocated by the hon. Gentleman.
  It is worth noting that the hon. Gentleman in his short intervention overlooked to say that most of the children abducted from this country are abducted by one of their parents. In certain of those cases it would be draconian to say to one parent who has saved up for a considerable time to take the child on holiday that he or she cannot he allowed to take that child for fear that he may not come back. That is a difficult matter. Children who are already under court orders, such as wardship, are subject to legislation preventing them from being abducted from the jurisdiction of the court. I am sure that the Solicitor-General will refer to that when he answers the hon. Member for Makerfield.
  The difficulty is that many countries are not signatories to the Hague convention. Since I served on the Standing Committee a number of people have written airmail letters to me with colourful stamps from exotic parts of the world complaining of just this problem. I draw the attention of the House to Mr. Rait, a former constituent of mine, who
  512
  is currently in South Africa. He has made a number of applications to the South African courts for access to his two young daughters who were taken there by their South African mother. The courts have repeatedly refused him any contact or access to the children. I know of other children in countries such as Tunisia and Egypt who have lived in those countries for five or six years, and who, as the hon. Member for Makerfield said, can no longer speak English.
  This is a subject of considerable concern to all of us. From the correspondence I have seen this summer from the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Foreign Office, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is under consideration. These difficult issues must be resolved before any further progress is made, but I do not think that the Bill is the appropriate vehicle for the measures advocated by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The issue of child abduction is full of complications and it is a legal labyrinth. It seems that no matter what legislation is in place there is a lack of will to try to resolve the position. For nearly as long as I have been a Member of this House I have been concerned with abductions to Spain—I know of two cases, but I will not mention them in any detail— as Spain is a difficult country with which to get such matters resolved.
  I pay tribute to those who, with me, over the years have fought hard to obtain an international convention. There are now two such conventions in place, one European and the other the Hague convention, which makes it clear that where parents are separated or divorced and the child is given into the custody of one of the parents, the country in which the primary wardship of custody was given is the one in which the child must remain.
  However, often, with the best will in the world, courts allow the husband or wife access to the child. We would not wish to destroy that accessibility. However, too often, after a quite legitimate access weekend or couple of days, the next thing the parent with custody knows is that he or she receives a telephone call from Spain and the spouse says, "Ha, ha, I'm in Spain. I've got our son or daughter with me. What are you going to do about it?"
  5 pm
  Under the terms of the Hague and the international conventions, the next step should be straightforward. The child should be immediately returned. In the two cases to which I referred the child would be returned to Scotland. However, the difficulty arises because Spain, while a signatory to the two conventions, has not passed its own domestic legislation to give effect to the conventions. Therefore, one is stymied.
  When these issues are raised with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, its representatives say that it is nothing to do with them but a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department. However, those at the Lord Chancellor's Department say that there is nothing that they can do because the issue is an internal matter for Spain and they cannot compel Spain to ratify the conventions by passing domestic legislation.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) said, these are heart rending matters in which parents sometimes do silly things. In one case I know an attempt was made to re-abduct the child back from Spain. The attempt went wrong but, having failed, it could be

  513
  used in the Spanish courts against the child's parent when she tried to use Spain's legal channels because, apparently, there would be no other redress.
  The Government must act more strongly. I do not accept that the Foreign Office has no locus in this matter. It should press hard on this issue. At every opportunity Ministers should press the Government to deal with these matters. It is no use having international conventions which are not worth the paper they are written on.
  I understand that there is to be a meeting quite soon —I think at the end of this week or next week—either in the Hague or Amsterdam at which these matters may be pursued. I am not sure if representatives of the Lord Chancellor's Department will be present or whether it is purely an officials meeting. Whoever is present I hope that they will use the strongest terms to insist that the Spanish Government must honour their responsibilities.
  Those of us who have been involved during this long period have consistently been told when we have sought to meet the Spanish ambassador to discuss these issues that he cannot meet us because they are matters of purely domestic legislation. I do not accept that. This is a European and international matter. I hope that the strong message will go forth from every quarter of this House that hon. Members believe family abductions of this sort are intolerable. They are bad for children, bad for parents and bad for international recognition. I hope that we shall say clearly to the Spanish Government that they should bring about domestic legislation and sort out the matters because great human tragedies have not only happened already, but will lie in store for future generations of children unless we act vigorously and with certainty.
  The Solicitor-General: I well understand the strength of feeling which this short debate has provoked. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) will appreciate that the amendments for which he calls in legislative form are outside the scope of the Bill. However, I hope to say something positive to him, to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) and to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) who contributed to this debate and has such a deep knowledge of the subject.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North put their fingers on one of the primary aspects of the problem: enforcement. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North referred to the Hague and the European conventions. The United Kingdom is a party to both conventions on the recognition, enforcement and return of children taken abroad. The Government take every opportunity to encourage other Governments to sign, ratify and put into effect such conventions.
  As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North rightly said, there is a meeting this week at the Hague to review the working of the Hague convention. The United Kingdom will be represented at the meeting and will discuss shortfalls in the operation of the convention. I shall write to the representatives who are to attend the meeting to draw to their attention the strength of feeling in today's debate and what has been said about the need for action, to strengthen their hand in the discussions. It will be readily recognised that the Government cannot force foreign Governments to sign or operate the conventions.
  Mr. McCartney: There is one way in which practical measures can be taken even without primary legislation: the advice which could be given to judges in relation to the interpretation of present legislation. Often, a judge has to use his discretion about rescinding passports, and identifying in passports that care proceedings have taken place. In almost every case in my case files and those of other hon. Members, when the judge has discretion he fails to utilise it. Despite court orders having been made and despite the decisions of the court, abductions still take place. Therefore, even without primary legislation could the Government give a commitment that the Lord Chancellor's Department will give clear and unequivocal advice to judges about the marking of passports and asking for passports to be given to the courts during proceedings? Provisions for that already exist in current legislation; the tragedy is that the courts are not utilising them.
  The Solicitor-General: We shall certainly take careful note of what the hon. Member for Makerfield said, ponder on it and see how the matter might be taken forward.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Solicitor-General aware that provisions exist which state that when there is a clear custody order no child should be removed from the United Kingdom but that nevertheless people slip through the net? Will he have discussions with the Home Office to consider a system whereby every port of exit is told about custody orders? It is known that the Home Office operates a stop list of people coming in so there should be no problem about the machinery to make every immigration office aware of the court order. Could the Solicitor-General institute a mechanism whereby as soon as a court order is given on custody it is made known to immigration officials? In that way perhaps we could stop some of the abductions.
  The Solicitor-General: I would not like to comment off the cuff about the practicality of such a measure. There could be formidable practical difficulties, but I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. I shall write to him and refer the matter to the Home Office.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 224, in page 139, line 31, leave out from Sin' to end of line 33 and insert `local authority accommodation.
  (1A) A residence requirement shall designate the local authority who are to receive the child or young person and that authority shall be the authority in whose area the child or young person resides.
  (1B) The court shall not impose a residence requirement without consulting the designated authority first.'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 225.
  Mr. Mellor: The effect of amendment No. 224 is to make it clear that the responsibility of the designated authority is to receive the child, not just to provide the child with accommodation. Amendment No. 225 is a consequential amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 225, in page 140, leave out lines 34 and 35.—[Mr. Mellor.]
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 226, in page 141, line 6, at end insert—

  515
  '22A. 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 hail, 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) (and on so doing he shall cease to be remanded to local authority accommodation and subsection (5) of this section shall apply).
  (7) For the purposes of subsection (6), "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."
  22B.—(1) 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 section 12AA of this Act; or

  (ii) to which he has been remanded under section 23(1) of this Act,

  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.'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 227, 228, 232, 234, 235 and 238; Government new clause 12; and Government amendments Nos. 70, 409, 490, 71 and 121.
  Mr. Mellor: This is a formidable group, but I think that I can boil it down for the House. The amendments fall into two parts: the first group is intended to clarify and consolidate the provisions for young people charged with a criminal offence who are on remand or have been detained by the police while awaiting a court hearing.
  The second group consists of technical Government amendments.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I want to raise one point on new clause 12. Perhaps I have misinterpreted its contents; if so, I should appreciate the Minister's advice.
  New clause 12 deals with the provision of accommodation for children in police protection or detention or on remand, and requires that local authorities shall themselves make provision for the reception of such children. Can the Minister clarify whether the new clause accepts the existing practice under which many local authorities do not provide such facilities themselves but use other authorities' accommodation? As I read it, the new clause will certainly involve a great deal of expenditure for local authorities which do not now directly provide these facilities. I hope that I am correct in assuming that they can continue to use the facilities of adjoining authorities or those of authorities in the same region, as facilitated under the regional planning procedures. I should be grateful for the Minister's advice and help on that.
  Mr. Mellor: That is a perfectly reasonable point. As far as I am aware, there is no interference in what is, for the reasons described by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), a perfectly sensible way for local authorities to pool their resources. If there is any difficulty about that in the event I shall write to him, but I know of nothing that impedes the continuation of these common sense arrangements.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 227, in page 141, line 8, after`ages)' insert `—
  (a) in paragraph (a),'.
  No. 228, in page 141, line 9, 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)".
  23A. In section 70(1) of that Act (interpretation)—
  (a) after the definition of "local authority" there shall be inserted—
  '''local authority accommodation' means accommoda-tion 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)".
  23B. In section 73 of that Act (extent, etc.)

  (a) in subsection (4)(a) for "32(1), (3) and (4)" there shall be substituted "32(1) to (1C) and (2A) to (4)"; and

  517

  (b) in subsection (6) for "32(1), (1A)" there shall be substituted "32(1) to (1C)".'.

  No. 229, in page 141, line 46, leave out second `marriage' and insert 'family'.
  No. 364, in page 141, line 46, at end insert—
  ' . 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".'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 230, in page 142, line 2, at end insert—

  `THE EDUCATION ACT 1981 (c. 60.)
  26A. 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—

  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.".'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 369, Government amendment new clause 26 and Government amendment No. 368.
  Mr. Mellor: I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) in his place, because amendment No. 230 fulfils the Government's undertaking in Committee to bring forward a new clause to deal with an important matter related to the public interest in the Budapest Peto institute for severely brain damaged children. Although I have taken over this matter to produce an amendment for the benefit of the Government draftsman, the authorship of the concept belongs to my hon. Friend, and I hope that, if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, he will be able to talk about it later.
  This useful amendment puts beyond doubt the legal basis for the existing arrangements whereby some local education authorities in England and Wales make a contribution to the costs of certain placements abroad for children with special educational needs. The amendment is particularly designed to enable local education authorities to support children at the Peto institute, because in recent years both that institute and the principles of conductive education as practised there have attracted the attention of many parents of handicapped children, especially the parents of those with cerebral palsy.
  518
  Large numbers of British parents have taken their children to the institute. Such trips are very expensive for the children and for the parents, who often have to live for several months on end in Budapest. The Peto approach has inspired a number of British educational institutions, but at present conductive education is not widely available here. As the House knows, we are trying to do something about that with our support for the Birmingham centre and by means of other discussions that are in hand, but until parents feel that it is not necessary to take their children to Budapest we want to make it possible for British families to go there without suffering undue financial hardship.
  It is also important that parents be able to learn how to carry back to Britain the methods that they learn. For that purpose the amendment allows local education authorities to contribute to parents' expenses.
  I have visited the Peto institute and been deeply impressed by the work there and deeply moved by some of the things I saw, so it gives me particular pleasure to be associated with the amendment.
  I should like to deal briefly with the other amendments in the group. Amendment No. 369 will take effect when Royal Assent is given to the Bill, as will the commencement provisions in amendment No. 368. which we have already dealt with. It is a short-term measure to amend the Child Care Act 1980 until that Act is repealed by the Bill. The amendment will improve the position of the unmarried father whose child is in care. For certain purposes, references to a child's parents in the 1980 Act will include both parents, whether or not married to each other at the time of the child's birth.
  I commend these amendments and the new clause to the House.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I echo the opening remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman about the manner in which our discussions were conducted in Committee and about the positive way in which both sides of the House have approached these matters. I trust that the point that I am about to make will not be regarded as politically controversial, but it is important that it should be made.
  Of course, we welcome the Government's view of the Peto institute and consider the Minister's recommendation reasonable, but one question is begging to be asked. It is the one that many people are bound to put to hon. Members—that perhaps we should ask ourselves why these facilities and this research are not more widely available here in Great Britain. I unreservedly accept the work being done in the Peto institute, and I know that my hon. Friends agree that, in the absence of such facilities in this country, it is absolutely right that they should be accessible to children from Britain. Although I fully appreciate that much research is going on in Birmingham, we have evidence that children in need of conductive education, and their parents, have to travel many miles to, for example, the brain injuries rehabilitation and development centre at Chester which, as far as I can tell, is a first-class institute recognised by the Welsh Office. In time it hopes to be recognised by the Scottish Office and the Department of Education and Science.
  The BIRD institute has not developed to the extent that the Peto institute has. Although I welcome the Minister's wish to ensure that local authorities can feel that resources should be made available for the Peto institute, the urgent

  519
  question that I have asked remains. I hope that the House will agree that this country urgently needs to be able to provide the services and research which are so brilliantly performed by the Peto institute.
  Mr. Robert Key: I congratulate and thank my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health on and for his amendment which he promised in Committee. I recognise its substance as that of the one that I introduced in Committee and I am grateful to the Government for honouring their commitment.
  Shortly after I introduced the new clause in Committee many people who had got hold of the wrong end of the stick wrote to me from all around the country. I sought to remove a discrimination against groups of parents and education authorities who thought that the Peto institute was the right thing for some children. I also sought to remove the uncertainty which undoubtedly faced education and local authorities, some of which felt able to finance children travelling overseas while others felt that they were prohibited from doing so. I did not say or intend at any stage that everyday work being carried out in institutions in almost every health district in this country was in any way devalued by what I was seeking to do. I think that that is now generally accepted, and I certainly hope that it is.
  During the summer I and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) visited the Cedars school at Southampton which carries out remarkable work with cerebral palsy and spina bifida children. There are such schools all over Britain and there is one in my constituency, the Kestrel unit at Odstock hospital. I have also visited physiotherapy departments in our hospitals which are doing everyday, normal, professional work for such children. Nothing that the House is doing in, I hope, accepting the amendment in any way devalues such work. We are simply saying that this must be a step forward until such time as we can provide further help in Britain.
  Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that as we become more integrated in Europe it is likely that there will be considerable exchanges of expertise and more centres of excellence on both sides of the Channel? Does he agree that that is an admirable innovation?
  Mr. Key: That is right. Of course, the amendment allow not only exchanges with the Peto institute but, perhaps, with many other institutions and methods in Europe and throughout the world.
  I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and agree entirely with what he said. There are many research projects for evaluating the work of the Peto institute and other methods of treating and alleviating the symptoms of children. Such projects would repay a great deal more work and more money. Times are hard for some of the schools. I know of one in Hampshire that approached the local education authority, but it was decided that there was not enough money for the scheme. There is much scope for more money to be spent on research.
  I have been involved for many years in special education. Perhaps not many people know about such education unless they are directly involved. However, such work is exciting and I urge the Minister to give special attention to the research needs of special education. I welcome the proposals in the amendment and hope that
  520
  they will make a substantial difference to the lives of the families as well as to the children who will go to the Peto institute in Hungary.
  Mr. Frank Doran: My constituency contains the Raeden centre which is funded by the local authority and does a tremendous amount of work. It recently sent a team to Hungary to the Peto institute to see it in operation. The members of the team came back incredibly frustrated by what they had seen of the work being carried out there in comparison with what is done in Aberdeen. As they saw it, the only difference was the amount of money being poured into the Peto institute.
  It causes me a certain amount of frustration when I hear the Minister speak about supporting British people with unfortunate children who deserve all the help that they can get. The amendment will encourage them to look for help in Budapest. However, we are not doing such people a service by raising their hopes that there is some miracle cure somewhere while at the same time denying the tremendous work that is carried out in this country. I would rather see the resources channeled to institutes such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and to the one in my constituency.
  My frustration was increased when I recently heard the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), talking about the input proposed by the Scottish Education Department to encourage parents to go to the Peto institute. The hon. Gentleman ignores the institute in my constituency that I have mentioned and which is under his Department's direct control and authority. At the same time he attempts to make political capital out of the magic that seems to surround the word "Peto". We do not intend to divide the House on the amendment, but we need to emphasise that there are facilities in Britain that need to be encouraged and which are not encouraged by the amendment.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: Like other hon. Members, I have been engaged in raising money for young people to go to the Peto institute. One of my constituents, Sabrina Archbold, has made great strides since being there. It annoys me that in this day and age we have to raise money for as basic a right as children such as Sabrina to learn to walk. I see the Government giving money to people who have every advantage in life and it makes me angry when we have to come down to scraping up money from raffles and other events.
  Let me make it clear that I have no doubt about the sincerity of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on this issue. I listened to him in Committee and I understand perfectly the points that he has made, although I appreciate that they have been misunderstood by some people outside. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) who expressed concern about why in all this time and in view of the tremendous advances made at Peto we have not been able to carry out work in this country along the same lines. I suspect that one of the reasons is a lack of will and effort at Government level.
  I am slightly worried about the implications of the amendment. I understand the principle that it sets out, but I can foresee people coming to the Government and saying, "Why do you not do something about it?" and being told to go to the local authority. They will say that the local authority can do something about it and will

  521
  advise people to go to the local council for assistance. It is yet another case of powers and duties being given to local authorities when the financial back-up needed to carry out such duties will not be there.
  We all know that the poll tax will cause local budgets to become even tighter and issues such as this will add to the burden. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) said, people's hopes will be built up, but at the end of the day nothing may come of them.
  Another point which stems directly from the Archbold case in my constituency is that families are not assisted by the policies of the Department of Social Security. In the Archbold case, the husband, who was unemployed at the time, took the young lady to Peto while the mother stayed at home with the other child. He was penalised in that he lost benefit because he was not available for work. The local office of the Department interpreted the law quite correctly, but adopted an unsympathetic attitude when it could have been a little more flexible in the application of the rules and could have helped the family to take the action which was greatly in the interests of their daughter.
  Mr. Mellor: I shall respond briefly to some of the interesting points that have been made. While the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) was speaking, one of the rather sinister machines in the Chamber swung round and focused on the back of his head. I am sure that when television arrives here people will be delighted to know that the hon. Gentleman has a truly monastic tonsure. I hope that that will vindicate the decision of the House to introduce television cameras.
  I remember asking myself the question about the availability here of the kind of treatment that is available at Peto. I went there as a Foreign Office Minister, little thinking that I would subsequently have responsibility in this area. I watched an eight-year-old British girl who had been in the Peto institute for just a month walking across the room with the assistance of guide ropes. For seven years and 11 months in the United Kingdom she had not been able to walk a step but after one month at the Peto institute she was able to walk. I shall not forget in a hurry the look of triumph on that child's face.
  Most British visitors who have been to the institute come back and say, "Why not here?". The answer is somewhat complex. First of all, there has been a genuine commitment here to the British principles of doing things. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) made clear, those principles have yielded good results in a significant number of cases. One or two British schools offer what they used to call conductive education, but they have acknowledged, in the aftermath of the publicity that has been attached to the work of the Peto institute, that what they offer is not conductive education as devised at Peto. However, we need to acknowledge that a good range of institutions exists in the United Kingdom which offer considerable opportunities to severely handicapped children.
  5.30 pm
  There is no doubt that the Peto institute has a particular success in encouraging mobility in a number of severely brain-damaged youngsters. It has been criticised by some British experts for placing what they see as too much emphasis on mobility, and too little on intellectual
  522
  development. My conviction was then, and remains, that the work that is done at Peto, involving as it does physical mastery, can lead on to all manner of other challenges. The extent of the achievement of some of the youngsters there is, of itself, a significant stimulus to other achievements. That is why considerable steps forward are being taken on the development of conductive education in the United Kingdom.
  For example, the Birmingham centre is training, in the context of a co-operation agreement with the Peto institute, a range of young British people as conductors. Unfortunately, as a result of the inevitable limitation on the ability of the Peto institute to train people from other countries, the number of conductors that can be trained at any one time is limited. It amounts to about 10 a programme. The foundations of an institue within the United Kingdom are being laid. That will follow on the Peto institute and should not—I say to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South—be seen as in any sense opposing other United Kingdom institutes. It should be seen as broadening the amount of different kinds of care, treatment and education that are on offer. Needless to say, substantial resources are going to all of these.
  Quite a lot of work is going on at the moment in discussion with the Hungarians about strengthening our links with the Peto institute, and I hope that, in due course, that will lead to substantial further development of the principles of conductive education in this country.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I was grateful for the Minister's advice about the possibility of a certain television image, which is not entirely inappropriate for an hon. Member representing Monklands, West, although I do not know whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) would agree.
  I remind the Minister that I referred to my visit to the BIRD institute at Chester in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who has just joined us. While I was there, I met some constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), and others who had come from Dundee. They had a long distance to travel. That underlines a point that a number of hon. Members have made and that I hope that the Minister will take on board, which is that whatever research there may be, and there should be some, it is essential that more resources are provided.
  Mr. Mellor: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. While these centres of excellence have to be established in places that, unfortunately, require people to travel long distances, I know that my hon. Friend the Minister with special responsibility for the disabled keeps under review the various efforts that go on in both the public and voluntary sectors. We wish to see both a growth in provision and a growth in variety of provision. There is no doubt that, for reasons that relate not to resources but to logistics, it will take some time before the United Kingdom has an institute that can cope with the demand for the kind of work that is done at Peto.
  Furthermore, not all youngsters are suitable for the work that is done at Peto. They have to be assessed and where they are suitable and a place can be found, this is a modest but significant way to assist them. As the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said, there are voluntary subscriptions to help people with the fares, and

  523
  that is proper. As I understand it, the Spastics Society also makes contributions. However, if a local authority—we should remember we are talking about local authorities with budgets of tens of millions and sometimes hundreds of millions of pounds—wishes to make a contribution, it is right and proper that it should do so. That is what my hon. Friend's amendment secures.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Two weeks ago, I returned from a visit to the Peto institute. I can make a point about its capacity to train. It is limited in the number of children that it has there, and it cannot train more conductors than it has children to train them on. It takes 15 years to train a conductor properly. When I was there, a team from the Spastics Society was also there, being trained in some of the institute's methods of education.
  Mr. Mellor: I am glad to hear that because at one time there were difficulties in reconciling some members of the Spastics Society to the work being done there. I am glad that that has been resolved.
  The Hungarians have plans for an international institute, which would focus international interest on the Peto. There are discussions between the two Governments about a British contribution to that. We are alive to the many benefits of the work done there. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) was impressed. I do not know anybody who has been there who does not carry a memory of it for long after other memories have faded. I hope that we shall be able to develop equivalent facilities here, that will enable us to keep close to the exciting and pioneering work that has been going on at Peto since the war. Those who are critical about the developments should remember that if we have taken some time to catch up, others beside the present team of Ministers need to ask themselves why. The time has come for us to take a step forward, and that is what we are trying to do. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 342, in page 142, line 2, at end insert—

  'The Child Abduction Act 1984 (c. 37)
  26B.—(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

  524

  (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 (5)(c) 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

  (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".
  26C.—(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 mother; and

  (c) any other person mentioned in section 1(2)(c) to (e) 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."

  26D. 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)."
  26E.—(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

  (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.".'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 343, in page 142, line 2, at end insert—

  'The Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984 (c.56)
  26F. 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.

  26G. In section 2(2) of that Act (exceptions to sectionl), for paragraph (1) there shall be substituted—
  "(f) if he has been in that person's care for a period of less than 28 days and that person does not intend to undertake his care for any longer period."
  26H. 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 61 of that Act,".'.

  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 344, 354 and 358.
  Mr. Mellor: These are technical amendments to the Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 369, in page 142, line 2, at end insert—

  'The Child Care Act 1980 (c.5)
  26AA. 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).'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 231, in page 142, line 8, at end insert—

  The Legal Aid Act 1988 (c. 34)
  27A. 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".'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 239, Government new clause 17 and Government amendment No. 64.
  The Solicitor-General: These are important amendments about legal aid, which I was overhasty in seeking to reach but which deserve the attention of the House. Government amendment No. 231 amends the Legal Aid Act to provide that civil legal aid is available for all civil proceedings under the Bill in a magistrates court. Proceedings at the High Court and the county court, including those under the Bill, automatically attract civil legal aid without the need for specific provision to be made.
  Amendment No. 239 will repeal all the provisions under the Legal Aid Act that are no longer required as a consequence of the Bill.
  New clause 17 provides that civil legal aid is to be available for proceedings under the Bill, and this clause, in conjunction with amendments Nos. 64, 231 and 239 and powers already available under the Legal Aid Act, will permit this.
  A report of the Law Society's annual conference that appeared in The Times on Saturday highlighted my next point, when Sir Stephen Brown, president of the Family Division, said that there will be concern to ensure that the Legal Aid Board can grant legal aid swiftly, particularly in care cases. He emphasised that this was essential, and said that he hoped very much that it would come about, because otherwise all the hard work that had gone into the legislation would not be put into effect.
  We are concerned to ensure that the Legal Aid Board can grant legal aid swiftly, particularly in care cases. Therefore, the Government intend to waive the merits test for those who are automatically parties in care proceedings to grant legal aid in advance of the means test and to waive the means test entirely for children who are the subject of a care application. The clause also makes a number of tidying up provisions consequent on this repeal. Where a child is to be put in secure accommodation, this clause ensures that he must be granted legal aid if he wishes it without any merits test, as now, and without a means test. Proceedings relating to the supervision orders under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, which are criminal in character and are not being repealed by the Bill, will also attract criminal legal aid under the clause.
  These are important amendments, and although I do not need to dwell on them I wish to draw them to the attention of the House. I take this opportunity to note that in the report of the Law Society annual conference proceedings, Sir Stephen Brown, the president of the Law Society—and this is a trailer for a debate that we shall reach shortly—interestingly said that the Bill would set up what would be, in essence, a family court. There is a great deal of truth in what he said, but we shall come to that matter later.
  The legal aid provisions are important and I commend them to the House.
  Mr. Doran: When I consider new legislation such as new clause 17, I am often struck by the thought that it is somewhat pedantically drawn. I assume that there must be a motive for including local authorities in subsection (2), which excludes them from applying for legal aid. Is the reason for that simply that the Solicitor-General is anticipating that most local authorities will fail the means test?
  The Solicitor-General: The new clause naturally ensures only that legal aid is available to individuals for proceedings under the Bill. It would not be appropriate for it to be available to local authorities, as the amendment naturally makes clear.
  Mr. Vaz: Although we welcome the amendments, especially those relating to the extension of representation, I am concerned about one matter. The Solicitor-General will recall that we both sat on the Legal Aid Bill Committee, when I was concerned about the same matter —that is, the amount of resources available for legal aid. It is all very well amending legislation to provide for representation, but if the legal aid system is starved of resources and if the eligibility limits remain unchanged, the numbers of people who can gain through the amendment will be limited. What assurances can the Solicitor-General give us about a new Government attitude towards the provision of greater resources to the legal aid system?
  The Solicitor-General: I do not think that the problem is simply a matter of resources. We have debated the question of resources on a number of occasions and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the resources devoted to legal aid have been rising very quickly indeed. I do not think that the question of eligibility applies because those who need it are entitled to it under the amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 11

  CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I wish to make a correction to the next group of amendments. The lead amendment is No. 243, and we shall be debating an additional Government amendment, No. 426, with the amendments grouped with the lead amendment. It comes after Government amendment No. 346.
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 243, in page 143, line 16, 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".'
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Governments amendments Nos. 347, 425, 245, 346, 426, 348 to 350, 246, 427, 247, 433 and 434.
  The Solicitor-General: These are consequential amendments to existing legislation and I commend them to the House.
  Mr. Hardy: It is appropriate to raise an area of anxiety at this point in our debate. Although the amendments are consequential, consequences flow from them, one of which is causing real concern to the professionals involved in
  528
  child welfare. It is almost inevitable that the consequence of the amendments and of the Bill will be greatly to increase the need for guardians ad litem. There will have to be significant increases in the numbers of people available to fill that role.
  The Minister will recognise that in most, and probably all, parts of the country there are already difficulties in finding people to serve in that capacity. The panels concerned with those appointments are already stressed and the task is difficult. It is possible that the change in the law, especially the amendment to the 1933 Act, will substantially increase demand.
  The Minister may prefer to comment on that matter, which could be a serious problem, on another occasion during the debate. However, I felt it appropriate to raise the matter and point out that the amendments before us could create real difficulties. I know that a number of directors of social services are extremely anxious. I hope that the Minister can offer the House and those responsible for such appointments some relief from their serious anxiety.
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is right—there are other opportunities to debate this important matter.
  Amendment agreed to.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 244, in page 143, line 19, 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 under 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 educational supervision order with respect to a child who is the subject of a school attendance order; and

  (b) the court decides that section 33(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 authority' has the same meaning as in section 33(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 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) '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 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 (1D) 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."'

  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendments Nos. 248, 186 to 190, 192, 194, 471 and 198.
  Mr. Mellor: These are drafting and technical amendments relating to education supervision orders and provisions in the Education Acts.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 347, in page 143, leave out lines 27 to 45.
  No. 425, in page 143, line 45, at end insert—

  `THE RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES (PROTECTION OF CIVIL INTERESTS) ACT 1951 (C.65)
  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 1 to the Children Act 1989".'.
  No. 245, in page 144, line 6, at end insert—

  `THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT 1960 (C.65)
  . 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 1998; or

  (iii) otherwise relate wholly or mainly to the maintenance or upbringing of a minor;".'

  No. 232, in page 144, line 12, at end insert—

  `THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1967 (C.80)
  . 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".'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 470, in page 144, line 19, leave out from '1989' to end of line 21.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendments Nos. 345, 241, 428 to 432, 351 and 435.
  Mr. Mellor: These are technical amendments that update existing legislation to take account of changes in the Bill and to ensure consistency between public Acts of Parliament.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 344, in page 144, line 28, leave out
  'In section 21(3) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968' and insert—
  '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 17 and Part X of the Children Act 1989,".
  13A. 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)".
  13B. In section 21(3) of that Act.'.
  No. 345, in page 145, column 2, leave out lines 18 to 29 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.

  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.'.

  No. 241, in page 146, line 3 leave out from 'Tribunals)' to end of line 6 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 Part III of the Registered Homes Act 1984.".'.

  No. 346, in page 146, line 14, at end insert—

  The Employment of Children Act 1973 (c. 24)
  24a.—(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.".'.

  No. 426, in page 146, line 14, at end insert—

  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) 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 1 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".'.

  No. 348, in page 146, line 23, leave out 'In section 7(2)' and insert '—(1) Section 7(2)'.
  No. 349, in page 146, line 24, 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;
  (cc) in any proceedings brought under the Children Act 1989;".'.
  (3)'
  No. 350, in page 146, leave out lines 28 to 30.
  No. 246, in page 146, line 30, at end insert—

  THE DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS AND MAGISTRATES' COURTS ACT 1978 (C.22)
  26A. 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."
  26B. In section 19(3A)(b) (interim orders) for the words "subsections (2) and" there shall be substituted "subsection".
  26C. 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."

  26D.—(1) For section 20A of that Act (revival of orders 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."
  26E. 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".
  26F.—(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".

  26G. In section 29(5) of that Act (appeals) for the words "sections 14(3), 20 and 21" there shall be substituted "section 20".
  26H. 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".

  No. 427, in page 146, line 30, at end insert—

  'The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c.43)
  261.—(1) In section 59(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (periodical payments through justices' clerk) for the words "the Guardianship of Minors Act 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 19 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.".`.—[Mr. Mellor.]

  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 233, in page 146, line 37, at end insert—
  Page 146, line 37, at end insert—
  `( ) 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 89 of the Children Act 1989.)".'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Government amendments Nos. 410, 146, 395, 148 to 150.
  Mr. Mellor: This group of amendments mainly concern the effect of care and supervision orders and their interaction with other orders.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 247, in page 146, leave out lines 40 and 41 and 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".'.
  No. 428, in page 146, line 41, at end insert—

  'The Armed Forces Act 1981 (c. 55)
  27A. 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".'.
  No. 429, in page 146, line 41, at end insert—

  'The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (c.27)
  27B. 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".'.
  No. 430, in page 146, line 43, after '28.' 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 subparagraphs (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 exclusion 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.".28A'.
  No. 431, in page 146, line 43, leave out
  'the Mental Health Act 1983'
  and insert 'that Act'.
  No. 432, in page 146, line 46, at end insert—

  'The Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 (c.36)
  28A. 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—
  534

  (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).'.".'.
  No. 351, in page 146, line 46, at end insert—

  'The Registered Homes Act 1984 (c.23)
  .—(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 Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (c.42)
  . 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".'.
  No. 234, in page 147, line 6, leave out from '(6)' to end of line 7 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".
  ( ) 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 the 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.".'.
  No. 235, in page 147, line 9, at end insert—
  '30A. 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".
  30B. 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".'.
  No. 433, in page 147, line 13, at end insert—

  'The Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 (c. 60)
  31A.—(1) In sections 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 28 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 28(11) of that Act, read with section 89(1) and Schedule 12);

  (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(1)(a) or 11(a) of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971;

  535

  (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;

  (v) section 8(2)(a), 10(1) or 19(l)(ii) of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates Courts Act 1978;

  (vi) section 26(1)(b) of the Adoption Act 1976.".'.

  No. 434, in page 148, line 9, at end insert—

  'The Family Law Act 1986 (c. 55)
  35A.—(1) The Family Law Act 1986 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) Subject to paragraphs 35B to 35J, 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

  (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."

  35B.—(1) In section 1 (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 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 amendments by the Children Act 1989; and

  536

  (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."

  35C. 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 have jurisdiction to make a section 1(1)(d) order unless—

  (a) the condition in section 3 of this Act is satisfied, or

  (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; o

  (c) the proceedings have been dismissed after the beginning of the trial but—

  (i) the section 1(1)(a) 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."
  35D.—(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".
  35E.—(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,

  537
  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;

  (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 or' 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 jurisdiction 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 12 to the Children Act 1989."
  35F. 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 determined 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(1)(a) and (d) of this Act respectively."

  35G. In each of the following sections—
  538

  (a) section 11(2)(a) (provisions supplementary to sections 9 and 10),

  (b) section 13(5)(a) (jurisdiction ancillary to matrimo-nial proceedings),

  (c) section 20(3)(a) (habitual residence or presence of child),

  (d) section 21(4)(a) (jurisdiction in divorce proceedings, etc.), and

  (e) section 23(4)(a) (duration and variation of custody orders),

  for "4(5)" there shall be substituted "2A(4)".
  35H. 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)".
  35I. 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".
  35J.—(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".'.
  No. 435, in page 148, line 14, at end insert—

  'Amendments of local Acts
  .—(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 defined in section 56 of the Children Act 1989".
  (3) In paragraph (h)—

  (a) for the words "section 56 of the Child Care Act 1980" there shall be substitued "section 53 of the Children Act 1989";

  (b) for the words "section 57" there shall be substituted "section 53"; and

  (c) for the words "section 32" there shall be substitued "section 47".

  (4) In paragraph (i), for the words "section 8 of the Foster Children Act 1980" there shall be substituted "section 60 of the Children Act 1989".
  .—(1) Section 10(2) of the Greater London Council (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 53 of the Children Act 1989";

  (b) for the words "section 57" there shall be substituted "section 53"; and

  (c) for the words "section 31" there shall be substituted "section 47".

  (3) In paragraph (e), for the words "section 8 of the Foster Children Act 1980" there shall be substituted "section 60 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 56 of the Children Act 1989";.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Schedule 12
  TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 436, in page 148, leave out lines 17 to 26 and insert—

  'Pending Proceedings, Etc.
  1.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (4), nothing in any provisions of this Act (other then the repeals mentioned in

  539
  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;

  (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 Il 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 31(1)(c) there shall be inserted—
  "(c) 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 (5)(c)(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 18 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 20 shall have effect as if for subsection (4)(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), 38(10) and 40(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 his person.

  Discharge of existing orders
  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 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 the 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 particular 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)(ii), the appointment shall not have effect for a period which is longer than any period specified in that order.

  Appointment of guardian not yet in effect
  13. Any appointment of a person to be 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 11, 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;

  543

  (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 the 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

  (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
  16.—(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 (1)(a) 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 81(8) 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 within sub-paragraph (1)(b) of that paragraph, this Act applies as if section 85 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 or 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 20(5) 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 31 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, 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 the section 2(1) of the Child Care Act 1980; or

  (ii) by virtue of paragraph 1 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 (by virtue of section 21(2) of the Act of 1980) under the charge and control of a person falling within paragraph 17(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 20(2)(a) 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 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 has 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 a 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

  (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 for 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 made 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
  546
  assumed that responsibility and the length of the period during which he met that responsibility;
  (ii) whether he did so knowing that the child was not his child;
  (iii) the liability of any person to maintain the child."

  Supervision Orders Orders under section 1(3)(b) or 21(2) of the 1969 Act
  25.—( l) This paragraph applies to any supervision order—
  (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 28 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 81; 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 81 and paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 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); 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—

  547

  (i) was made, or issued, under any of the enactments mentioned in subparagraph (2); and

  (ii) was in force immediately before the commencement of Part IV; and

  (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 22B of Schedule 10 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 on 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
  548
  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 V II, 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 accommodation 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 56(1) and (13) shall not apply in relation to him if—

  (a) an application for registration of the home in question is made under section 56 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) an appeal against the refusal has been made but has not been determined or abandoned.

  (3) While section 56(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(1)(a) of the Nurseries arid 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 64(1)(a).

  Children Accommodated in Certain Establishments
  35. In calculating, for the purposes of section 77(1)(a) or 78(1)(a), the period of time for which a child has been accommodated any part of that period which fell before the day 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 80(2) there was in force an order ("a criminal care order") 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 80(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 28;

  (c) an education supervision order under section 33 (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 the Act of 1969 (as inserted by paragraph 20 of Schedule 10), 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 10.
  (2) The circumstances are that—

  (a) immediately before the day on which paragraph 3B of Schedule 10 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
  550
  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).'.
  It may be for the convenience of the House if I mention that there is a printing error in this amendment. Paragraph 27(1)(a)(ii) refers to part IV, but it should read "Part V".
  I am moving the amendment with the incorporation of that correction.
  It is a transitional amendment, which I commend to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 13

  REPEALS
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 236, in page 148, leave out line 39.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 250, 451, 452, 437, 251, 453, 254, 439, 440, 454, 255 and 266.
  The Solicitor-General: Here again I need not detain the House. All the amendments repeal existing legislation in conformity with the general provisions of the Bill, and I commend them to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 248, in page 148, line 42, 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.'.

  No. 352, in page 148, line 46, column 3, at beginning insert—

  551

  '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).'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 237, in page 149, line 9, column 3, at end insert—
  'Section 53(3).'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 118 to 120.
  Mr. Mellor: These are technical amendments concern-ing recovery orders and other powers to recover children in care, or those who are subject to emergency protection powers.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 353, in page 149, line 10, at end insert—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take new clause 1:

  Family Courts
  '(1) Within each county court and magistrates court there shall be created a family division which, together with the Family Division of the High Court, shall operate as a Family Court.
  (2) The Lord Chancellor shall by rules of court specify the procedures to be followed in order to—

  (a) identify the welfare of the child;

  (b) avoid unnecessary formality;

  (c) reduce delay and inconvenience to the public in resolution of family disputes;

  (d) reduce the harm to children and families resulting from the court process and

  (e) introduce conciliatory methods of dispute resolution.

  (3) There shall be a welfare and conciliation service attached to the Family Court and it shall include—

  (a) guardians ad litem and reporting officers;

  (b) a family conciliation service in respect of children subject to proceedings under part two.

  (c) social workers appointed to report to the court in proceedings under part two.

  (4) This section shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint, being not later than eighteen months after the Children Act receives Royal Assent.'.
  Government new clause 18 and Government amend-ments Nos. 240 and 242.
  The Solicitor-General: We now come to the debate that the House has been waiting for: the debate on the family court. In this debate will will discuss new clause 1, the Government's new clause 18 and, above all, the Government amendment incorporating new schedule 9A.
  We had some interesting debates on the family court in Committee. Now we shall see how the Government's proposals match those of the Opposition—both those in new clause 1 and others that are not formally before us, but which we have had the opportunity to consider. I trailed our proposals a moment ago when speaking to
  552
  amendments on legal aid, and mentioned the view of the president of the Family Division that the Bill, in essence, would set up a family court. I must qualify that to some extent because of the scope of the Bill, but I must also make it clear that there is much truth in what the president said about how far it is possible to create a family court in the context of the Bill.
  When considering major reforms of this nature, it is essential to assess the extent to which jurisdictional changes can be of any significance unless and until we have got the substantive law right. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has been making that point ever since he was appointed, and I have done the same In the House in questions to the Attorney-General, answering those who have supported the family courts campaign or the family courts lobby in one form or another.
  It is now recognised that, if we are to make progress on procedural aspects, we must first make progress on substantive law. The Bill begins by creating a new and coherent body of child law, which applies in all relevant courts at every level. Let me explain how our proposals, embodied in new clause 18 and amendment No. 240, achieve what, to a great extent, are shared goals. I shall be interested to hear how the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and others on both sides of the House reiterate their goals.
  There is, I believe, widespread acceptance of the need for a properly supported specialist jurisdiction in family matters, encompassing the courts at all relevant levels. That includes the magistrates courts, the county courts and the High Courts, and it is the achievement of those goals within the scope of the Bill that we are about to debate.
  It is, as I have said, essential to realise that whether we are discussing only matters relating to child law—as covered by the Bill—or the whole range of family law, including divorce, before we can gain any worthwhile benefit from a reform of court structures or from a unified jurisdiction we must create that unified body of law, applicable at all levels and to all relevant matters.
  Mr. Vaz: Will the Solicitor-General give way?
  The Solicitor-General: I shall do so in a moment.
  I propose first to explain how we intend to achieve our goals, and then to demonstrate how they take their place in the Government's rolling programme of review and reform to which I referred in Committee and on Second Reading, and to which my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor referred on Second Reading in the other place. We are dealing with children's law not in isolation —although we can go no further than is allowed by the scope of the Bill—but in the context of a general and rolling review of family law as a whole.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Solicitor-General give way?
  The Solicitor-General: I feel that it would be courteous for me to give way first to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr.Vaz).
  Mr. Vaz: No one in the House disagrees with the Solicitor-General's comment that this is an historic Bill, which will reform the substance of child care law. Does he agree, therefore, that now is the time to reform the

  553
  procedure? If Parliament changes child care law radically, and we do not get the support structure right, the Bill will be completely ineffective.
  The Solicitor-General: I agree to a considerable extent. That is what we are about to do—indeed, what we are in the process of doing.
  Mr. Vaz: So we have a family court.
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman says, from a sedentary position, "So we have a family court", but it is essential to understand that family proceedings go much wider than proceedings on children. Important as the matters of public and private law dealt with in the Bill may be, the Bill—as must be obvious to everyone in the House and in the country—does not deal with the whole matter of divorce. If we are to have a family court, we must consider how that can encompass the whole area of family proceedings.
  Our rolling programme takes what I submit is a first and major step towards what might be described as a family court, although—not least simply because of the scope of the Bill—it cannot go the whole length to create the family court. There is much more to it than the scope of the Bill. As we know, in proceedings relating to children the magistrates court has only a comparatively limited jurisdiction, and one has to jog about from one court to another at different levels, from the county court to the High Court, to exercise different powers.
  6 pm
  With this Bill we are in the business of creating, first, a single body of law and then a unified jurisdiction that runs through all courts. That is greatly to be welcomed, but it does not apply to other areas. For example, it does not apply to the whole concept of divorce, to domestic violence or to access or denial of access to the matrimonial home. Therefore, a great deal of careful review, which is under consideration by the Law Commission, among others, will need to be thought through to create a substantive body of law which is appropriate to all levels before we can take further steps in that direction.
  Mr. Vaz: I do not wish to harass the Solicitor-General; I want to be fair to him and I follow his argument. He has referred to the rolling programme, and he has used the phrase, "the first step" which he used in Committee and he has sought the endorsement of the president of the Family Division for his proposals. If he is on a rolling programme, and bearing in mind the fact that it has taken about 100 years radically to reform the law governing children, what is his timetable? When can Parliament return again to discuss this crucial issue? How long will we have to wait for the second step?
  The Solicitor-General: I shall develop that point later in my speech. The timetable is nothing like 100 years; I suggest that it is nothing like a decade. The programme is already in force. For example, the Law Commission is to report on a number of important matters next year. By the time we are digesting this legislation, which will have to be absorbed and implemented and which will require a great deal of training, we will find that thinking is moving
  554
  forward faster than the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) realises, and possibly faster than his own pace of thinking, but I would not like to do him an injustice.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the family courts now being proposed be able to deal with so-called transracial adoptions, where social work practice with which I profoundly disagree takes for granted that if a child has any black parentage or grandparentage the placement should automatically be with a black family?
  The Solicitor-General: I shall return to the way in which adoption links into this matter. However, when considering a unified jurisdiction in relation to children, and that is certainly not beyond the scope of our contemplation, we are considering a court which ought to be able to deal with that aspect. I shall give the hon. Gentleman a more precise answer when I have more detailed instructions.
  In summary, the Children Bill provides for a single body of substantive child law, and thus it can and does go on to provide for a unified jurisdiction at whatever court level is appropriate for a particular case with swift and expert means to determine and adjust that level as circumstances require, with the same law and the same powers applying at every level. That means that a case that falls within the scope of the Bill may start in the magistrates court, as many cases do, but there may be other family proceedings, for example a divorce, which start in a High Court, or there may be proceedings which start or may be appropriate to go to the High Court, and can rapidly and readily be moved to the appropriate level.
  The changes that the Bill will enact and further changes in the wider field of family law are based on and developed from existing structures designed to make the best use of, and to grow out of, existing resources. I refer not only to financial resources, where one starts from where one is today, but, much more importantly, to human resources. The resources of manpower and expertise that are currently available must be built on by way of training and selection. They will require time for absorption and for a formidable programme of selection and training, but I hope to convince the House that when implemented they will constitute a major step towards what I believe are our shared goals.
  Turning in detail to a single code, our amendment allows us to create a single concurrent jurisdiction for children's cases in the Bill only because the Bill also creates a single code of substantive law applicable in all the courts. Talk of a single jurisdiction without such a code would be nonsense. I hope that I do not need to overstress the fact that without a code of law that can be applied at every level —and we do not have that until we enact the Bill, and we do not have it in relation to divorce proceedings, for example—it is quite pointless to set up a single jurisdiction. However, elsewhere on the statute book the applicable family law varies from court to court, with, for example, different rules relating to financial provision, domestic violence and rights to occupy the family home depending on the level of court in which a case is heard.
  Other parts of the law, such as divorce, are either in a state of transition—I have already said that the Law Commission has a number of works in hand —or they are so carefully grafted on to the structure and constitution of the courts which presently deal with the matter as to make the reorganisation of the wider body of family law an

  555
  extremely complex task. For example, one can only commence a divorce case by a petition and no one has ever heard of a petition in a magistrates court; and one can only obtain an injunction out of the county court or out of the High Court as it is wholly inappropriate to the magistrates court. A number of procedures in the magistrates court are equally inappropriate to the higher courts. Having pointed that out, I should add that the job of creating a single body of law is in hand. The Law Commission has already issued discussion papers on domestic violence and the right to occupy the family home and on grounds for divorce. Final reports on both are expected next year and a joint review of adoption law by the Government and the Law Commission is also on foot, and that will be relevant to what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said.
  As to financial provision, we shall take that on board in the rolling programme to which I shall refer in more detail later when I talk about the work that is going on between relevant Departments. However, it must be recognised that until the same law applies at all levels there can be no overall single family jurisdiction.
  The next essential step towards our ultimate goal is to ensure that the courts hearing family proceedings are specialists. That theme has rightly come through all the campaigning and is certainly recognised by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and myself. The Government's new clause and schedule provide that, in the case of the magistrates, by creating the new magistrates family proceedings courts we shall meet that specialist need. When I mentioned the magistrates family proceedings court, the hon. Member for Leicester, East sought to pass that off as a mere change of name. I hope that he has thought more about it since, because it involves a great deal more than that.
  The magistrates on the new family panels will receive special training on children's and family matters, which they do not receive today. The form of care proceedings which they, the county courts and the High Court will have jurisdiction to hear will differ significantly from those presently heard in the juvenile court. There is to be a move away from what is sometimes called, in rather inelegant jargon, orality—from having everything done by the spoken word—towards the parties being expected to disclose their case, and their evidence, in advance and in writing. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) nodding assent because I think that he recognises, as I do, that early, clear disclosure in writing is of the greatest assistance when one is trying to clarify the real issues in a case and to shorten proceedings, and it concentrates the mind of the court that has to hear the case on the matters it has to determine.
  Magistrates will be expected to read papers ahead of the hearing and to give reasons for their decisions. It is expected that the court will take a more active role in the case, ensure that unnecessary delays are avoided and, for example, use the guardians ad litem to ensure that all matters relevant to a case are investigated. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) mentioned guardians ad litem and the Government have the issue under consideration.
  Generally, it is intended that procedures in magistrates courts and superior courts in care-related cases should be brought into line as far as possible, or at least made compatible. That will ease the movement of cases between different levels of court.
  556
  In the High Court, cases will continue to be dealt with in the specialist Family Division. In the county courts, the great majority of orders will be made, as now in the case of divorce proceedings, by divorce county courts. The intention is to concentrate children's and other family proceedings in the hands of selected judges and registrars, many of whom will have had long experience in this area, either as practitioners or on the Bench, and who will have made a special study of such proceedings and built up expertise in family matters. Others who have shown an aptitude, willingness and personal interest in this type of case will be suitable for training. The Government are currently considering how best that can be arranged.
  The next step that we would need to take would be to ensure that individual family proceedings within the single jurisdiction are dealt with at the right level. Until the same substantive law is applicable at all levels, that cannot happen. Now, as the Bill creates a single body of child law, it is possible to give the Lord Chancellor power to provide for the allocation of children's cases and some non-children's family cases within the concurrent jurisdiction and to consolidate them with proceedings about a child. We are making real progress towards the objectives set by those who are calling for a family court.
  We intend to use the allocation powers in the amendment to specify where proceedings should start and to provide for the transfer of proceedings for three purposes. First, the powers will be used to ensure that, as far as practicable, all proceedings relating to a child and a family are consolidated and heard together.
  If there are already family proceedings afoot, such as a divorce or maintenance dispute between parents, we intend that subsequent applications in respect of a child should usually be made to the court hearing those proceedings. If the proceedings are started in different courts, we intend to provide for transfer so that they can be heard together.
  For example, if there is an application in a county court to adopt a child who is subject to a care order and the parents are applying to a magistrates family proceedings court to discharge that care order, the rules will ensure that the two applications can be heard together. This important need to consolidate proceedings which may affect the same child is why the powers in these amendments, unlike those which we considered in Committee on the present clause 82, now extend to family proceedings other than those covered by the Bill.
  6.15 pm
  In proceedings not centred around a child, the powers can be used only to consolidate them with proceedings that are. For example, we could require a divorce case to be started in the same county court in which the spouses were contesting an order about the child, but we could not transfer a divorce case where other family proceedings were unconnected with children. Unfortunately, to attempt to take powers to do that would be outside the scope of the present Bill.
  Secondly, subject to rules aimed at consolidating them with other proceedings, care and supervision proceedings will be required to start in a magistrates family proceedings court. However, provision will be made for their transfer to a county court or to the High Court, if it were considered more appropriate for them to be heard by a superior court. In the amendment, we are taking power

  557
  to prescribe criteria which will identify the cases which need to transfer up. Consultations and research are already in hand to enable us to draw up those criteria.
  Complicated law or forensic complexity—for example, a case that involves a lot of contradictory medical evidence —are the sort of factors which are likely to affect transfer. We consider that it should be possible to transfer cases up or sideways to a court at the same level if the court seized of the case cannot hear it within a reasonable time. We passed an amendment without discussion or controversy that militates against delay in this kind of proceeding. If the court cannot hear a case within a reasonable time, or if the case needs to be expedited or to be heard over several days and the court cannot provide consecutive hearing days—as some courts, with the best will in the world, cannot—the provisions, which I hope we shall enact, will enable the system to divert the case to a court that can hear it promptly and which has all the necessary expertise.
  At present, we intend that the magistrates or their clerk should be able to transfer a care case at any stage, but should they refuse to do so and should an aggrieved party wish, he will be able to apply to a county court registrar to pluck up the case if he considers that the statutory criteria are satisfied. That registrar can allocate the case either within a county court or to the High Court. I stress that there will not be a need for a further delay as another transfer procedure is gone through if the case merits a High Court hearing. It is recognised that there will be a need for administrative back-up and co-operation between the courts to run such a scheme for care-related cases. That need will be met through a central committee structure, under the aegis of the president of the Family Division.
  The Government consider that it is important to have the flexibility that these powers confer so that transfer criteria and rules relating to where proceedings should be initiated can be altered if experience shows it to be desirable.
  As I have already mentioned, we intend, initially, to require all local authority care applications to be made to a family proceedings court. If we find that most of them are subsequently transferred up to a county court, we may wish to allow care applications to be initiated in a county court, while providing for subsequent transfer down to a family proceedings court in appropriate cases.
  Conciliation and what are often broadly called the support services need to be thought about separately. Conciliation has been the subject of a very comprehensive research project carried out by the conciliation unit at Newcastle university on the Government's behalf. The unit reported earlier this year, but those concerned with family matters in the Government have had comparatively little opportunity to consider its findings or the comments that have been made on them, because of their work on this Bill.
  This is a subject which merits the most careful consideration and the thinking that we have been able to devote to it thus far has led us to the preliminary conclusion that the future of conciliation cannot be properly considered in isolation from the divorce law, on which the Law Commission will report next year.
  558
  The intrinsic relationship between the two can be demonstrated if one thinks about the options for change canvassed by the Commission in its discussion paper on grounds for divorce, which was published earlier this year.
  Mr. Devlin: I have listened carefully to what my hon. and learned Friend has said and I agree with much of it. What has concerned me in correspondence over the summer has been that the Government appear not to be willing to give any form of commitment about funding needs to existing conciliation services until such time as the Government make up their mind on the issue. That is of great concern to many good conciliation services that currently face financial crises which may not be solved and which may lead to some of the conciliation services going to the wall. May we have an undertaking that, while the Government consider these complex matters, proper funding will be made available for conciliation services so they are still there when the Government recognise that they are necessary?
  The Solicitor-General: I shall let my hon. Friend develop that point a little more if he speaks later in the debate and I shall seek to answer him then. I want to develop the point about the intrinsic relationship between conciliation and child cases, and the whole question of family matters and divorce.
  One option canvassed by the Law Commission was a system that would require parties to identify—this is an important point—the consequences of divorce and, if they still wished to divorce in the face of all the likely problems, generally to resolve those problems as a precondition to ending the marriage. That will strike a chord with many hon. Members, but such a system would be likely to put reconciliation, as well as conciliation, in the front of the process so that only real disputes ever reached the court and then only as a last resort.
  The House will appreciate the difference between conciliation and reconciliation. Conciliation aims to enable the parties who are determined to break up the marriage, or who see no other option, and who regard it as irretrievably broken down to decide what will happen thereafter. Reconciliation, which those who are not used to the jargon often confuse with conciliation, is the idea of getting the parties to go back together and not to get divorced at all.
  Arguably, conciliation might be structured and provided for under such a system in a very different way from that which has grown up round the present divorce system, in which the parties initiate the process by seeking a divorce from the court and by making bruising allegations at the outset, which often make conciliation and reconciliation much more difficult. The consequences, such as the custody of children and financial provision, are only then treated as ancillary issues to those opening steps. I throw those ideas out simply as food for thought for the House. We are indebted to the Law Commission for pointing them up. They show how important it is that we see the matter in the round before we achieve anything like the goal that a high proportion of us seek.
  It is, of course, too soon to say whether divorce law should be reformed and, if so, how. I merely wish to demonstrate that it and conciliation must be considered together. That task is also to feature as an item in the rolling programme, which I have mentioned.

  559
  I shall now deal with the support services. The courts will need support if they are to carry out their functions both under the Bill and under any wider procedures the House may seek to enact in due course and which the Government may seek to bring forward. Those services include the provision of welfare reports, the work of the guardians ad litem, the work of reporting officers and the functions of the Official Solicitor in High Court cases. By virtue of clause 6. welfare reports are to be available to all courts in all children's proceedings, either from a probation officer or through a local authority, which may use one of its own officers or ask a voluntary organisation, such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, or any other qualified person to prepare the report. Guardians ad litem are to be available in all the specified proceedings set out in clause 37(6), including applications for a care or supervision order, and are to he appointed unless the court thinks that it is unnecessary to do so to safeguard the child's welfare. Both clause 6 and clause 37 represent improvements on the present law, under which the courts do not always have power to call for welfare reports in children's cases and there is not the same near imperative on the court to appoint a guardian ad litem in care proceedings.
  Mr. Hardy: It is relevant at this stage to ask whether the comments of the Solicitor-General make it clear that the Government understand that the implications of this legislation are that inevitably, even where the courts do not exercise the right to appoint, there will be a greater need for more guardians ad litem to be appointed under these arrangements. At present, there are serious difficulties in securing the appointment of a sufficient number of people for that role. What action does the Solicitor-General envisage will be taken to meet the need that arises from these provisions?
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman has intervened at the appropriate moment. The Government recognise that there is concern about the present arrangements which involve among others not only guardians ad litem, but probation officers, independent social workers, local authority social workers, and the Official Solicitor and his staff. It has been suggested that the functions they perform could be better organised, perhaps being centralised or even attached to the court. There is also the question of the overall level at which they are provided. Such reorganisation and redeployment of resources would be a major undertaking and the issue needs to be examined in detail before a decision is reached. That matter is also to be included in the rolling programme, where it can be examined in the context of the other changes under consideration.
  I have referred to the rolling programme several times and I want to elaborate on it. It is a rolling programme to review family law and procedure and by now the House will want to know how it is to be carried forward. To give it reality, Ministers have agreed that the officials in all the relevant Departments will come together in an interdepartmental working party under the following terms of reference:
  "The Working Party shall oversee a programme of work directed at improving all aspects of family law and business. In particular it shall

  (a) consider the arrangements for the implementation and operation of the new scheme for children's cases under the Children Bill;

  560

  (b) draw together the management information requirement for operating and evaluating the effectiveness of the new scheme; and

  (c) assess and monitor the resource consequences of- the arrangements."

  It will meet regularly and its first task, in addition to overseeing the implementation of this Bill, will be to decide on the detail of its work.
  The programme will cover the areas of the substantive law I have already mentioned—domestic violence and rights to occupy the family home, financial provision and adoption. It will consider the linked issues of conciliation and divorce law reform, as well as the arrangements for providing support services such as guardians ad litem, welfare officers and the role of the Official Solicitor in family cases.
  I hope that the House will see that the Bill makes formidable progress towards achieving a single and properly supported specialist family jurisdiction and in many aspects goes as far as is possible given its scope and progress in related areas, such as reform of the substantive law. I also hope that I have shown that there is little, if anything, in principle, as the debate will highlight in a moment——
  Mr. Vaz: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for giving way again and for setting out the criteria for the rolling programme. We are almost there in terms of an agreement. What is the timetable for the working party to consider establishing a unified family court system? Will it be one year or two? The Solicitor-General's list did not answer that. Will it be established at the start of the review or at the end? Will it happen before this Bill comes into effect?
  The Solicitor-General: It is important to emphasise that this is a rolling programme. The programme will not start and stop. Many aspects are already under consideration. The Law Commission work is already well under way and it reports next year. The implementation of the provisions in the Bill will commence as soon as it reaches the statute book and much thought about its implementation has already begun. The programme will make progress in the immediate years ahead. To try to put an overall timetable on it would be foolish, but I emphasise that the programme is rolling and it will continue to roll.
  6.30 pm
  I hope that I have shown that there is very little, if anything, in principle between what those who seek a family court want and what could be achievable through the Bill and the programme to which the Government are committed. I suspect that successive Governments have been impeded in making progress in the family court issue over the years by the tendency to see the problem in institutional rather than functional terms and, therefore, to see the answer in setting up—at a stroke—some new gleaming steel and glass institution with different coloured robes called a family court without recognising all the steps necessary that would be involved and, most especially, the necessary reforms to the substantive law.
  Our approach examines the problem in terms of functions and its component parts and then moves step by step to reform the many matters that will make up progress to a rationalised and improving system of law and procedures dealing with family disputes and breakdowns.I believe that that is the right way to approach the matter and the Bill makes a real advance.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I commend new clause 1 to the House with confidence because it represents the will of the House given any test that we have had so far of the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House. On Second Reading, apart from the Ministers who spoke, all hon. Members who referred to family courts supported the principle very firmly indeed. In Standing Committee we had a comprehensive discussion and hon. Members—apart from the Ministers—clearly and firmly supported the principle of family courts.
  The hon. Members for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) spoke particularly effectively about family courts, and I am sure that they will do so again if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I remind the House of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Stockton, South who said, with a great deal of support from hon. Members on both sides:
  "The Government will never have a better opportunity than they have now to introduce the long overdue system of family courts."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 8 June 1989, c. 423.]
  The hon. Gentleman was right then and if he repeats those views he will be right tonight.
  The Solicitor-General will be aware that I do not speak through any personal malice when I state that, notwithstanding his commitment to a working party which could have been announced earlier on Second Reading or in Standing Committee, the hon. and learned Gentleman gives me the impression that his proposal has much more to do with persuading Conservative Members not to support new clause I than it has with establishing the principle of family courts. I am sorry to have to tell the Solicitor-General this, but his proposal represents a pathetic little mouse of an offer in terms of realising family courts. It is a tragically lost opportunity.
  Mr. Vaz: Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment about the fact that the Solicitor-General has announced this working party and the rolling programme, but he has not given an effective starting or finishing date? The programme has no timetable, so it is not much of a programme.
  Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. The House will be aware that when my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) specifically asked the Solicitor-General whether he had a timetable in mind, he received a negative reply.
  In the Government's new clause 18 there is no indication of the criteria that will be applied to decide where cases should begin their journey through the courts or the mechanisms which might be put in place to ensure their effective transfer. If some hon. Members mistakenly believe that the Solicitor-General is offering us something that is new, we should attach more importance to what the Solicitor-General said earlier when he said that the proposal was the best use of existing resources. All the advice that we have received is that the existing resources cannot begin to solve the problems and the objective of family courts could not be achieved within the limitation of existing resources.
  Far from establishing family courts or offering hope for their realisation, the proposal might be an impediment to their creation. It is not simply a matter of the emperor having no clothes; if this proposal is the best that the
  562
  Government can do for family courts, it seems that we have not yet had sight of the emperor. Even the promises about the Law Commission do not offer us that prospect.
  Hon. Members will be aware of the history of this issue. Much time has been wasted in trying to achieve a form of family courts and many people will be extremely disappointed with the Government's statement tonight. We all recognise the input made by our former colleague, Mrs. Renée Short. She chaired the Select Committee on Social Services which reported in 1984 declaring that it was very enthusiastic about the prospect of establishing family courts. However, just as important, that Select Committee deplored the introduction of such a measure by dribs and drabs. My heavens, if the Government are making any kind of offer tonight, I am afraid that it represents dribs and drabs as against the very clear commitment made in new clause 1 that the measure would be introduced within 18 months.
  The report produced by the Select Committee under the chairmanship of Mrs. Renée Short was influenced by the Scottish system which had been in operation for several years. Scottish Members will not pretend that we accept that the children's panels in Scotland represent everything that we want to achieve; they do not. The remarkable aspect of their activities is that, after 17 years, they are beginning to consider how they can develop on what has already been achieved. It is staggering that after all this time, and despite the Scottish experience identified by Renée Short, there is no element of informal hearings or family courts elsewhere in Britain. The Solicitor-General outlined the difficulties of adapting English law to the informal system that we support but, if it was not beyond the wit of the Scottish legal system to adapt and introduce a version of family courts and children's panels, surely the English and Welsh legal systems are not so hidebound that they could not achieve the same objective if there were the will.
  Prior to the introduction of children's panels in Scotland I sat as a magistrate in the juvenile court. The major change represented by children's panels in Scotland should not be underestimated. I recall children of seven and eight years of age being paraded before great formal courts for having gone into a superstore and lifted a tin of luncheon meat when they thought no one was looking. The fear of being before such a court and its aura were appalling. As one who experienced and deplored that system and saw a dramatic change when family courts in the shape of children's panels were introduced, I have no doubts about the advantages of the new system, and I believe that the experience of those involved supports that submission.
  We do not have to look to other parts of the United Kingdom as we discuss an English and Welsh Bill. Both Conservative and Opposition Members stated clearly their enthusiasm for the established success of family courts in Canada, New Zealand, the United States of America and Australia. We welcome informality, and accept that such courts already demonstrate that the welfare of the child is paramount. Above all, we welcome the non-adversarial nature of family courts and the genuine conciliation that is possible, as opposed to reconciliation—important though that may be.
  Where children are involved as witnesses, people are brought together in an informal setting and made to feel that they have a vested interest in the success of the agreement reached. That historical success should not be

  563
  underestimated. Too often today professional lawyers see themselves as winners or losers. They seek a clear decision one way or the other and, sadly, when a child is involved, the prize to be won or lost is the welfare or future of that child. In view of the evidence that we have heard today, surely that is unacceptable.
  Yet again, the Solicitor-General asks us to wait. This time he told us that a Commission will be set up and in due course—at a date unknown, unless he clarifies it later in the debate—will produce a report. With great respect—
  The Solicitor-General: It seems that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. The Law Commission has been working on the matter for more than a year and is due to report next year.
  Mr. Clarke: I was referring specifically to the proposal for a working party. The Solicitor-General referred several times to a rolling programme. He did not give the impression that action would be taken urgently.
  We have had the advantage of the recommendations of the Finer report for 15 years. Is that not enough time? How much longer are people—especially children and families—expected to wait? We have heard far too many excuses from the Lord Chancellor's Department, I accept, on whose behalf, the Solicitor-General is expected to speak. Five years ago we were told that there was uncertainty about costs. Three years ago we were advised to wait for the civil justice review—yet another review. Now we are asked to see how the legislation works out. Why?
  6.45 pm
  There is tremendous support for the concept of the family court. Baroness Faithfull, who follows our discussions with great interest, put up a noble fight. She is supported by the Family Courts Campaign, which is also to be highly commended. If their collective efforts as well as those of Barnardo's British Agencies' for Adoption and Fostering, British Association of Social Workers, Children's Legal Centre, Children's Society, Family Rights Group, National Children's Bureau, National Children's Homes, and a host of other informed bodies, has met with so little success, we are entitled to conclude that the influence of the Government's barristers is out of all proportion to their numbers and wisdom.
  The Solicitor-General referred to the view of the president of the Family Division. There is a degree of vested interest, which does not suggest that the views of consumers have been taken on board. The Government's response to the call for family courts is woefully inadequate, and nothing that the Solicitor-General said changes that. It reveals a wilful misunderstanding of the nature of the path that the Government are being urged to tread.
  Lord Denning said:
  "While our substantive law has changed beyond all recognition … our procedural law remains embedded in the past … a hotch-potch of courts and procedures that have never been brought up to date."
  Yet the Government's new clause 18 simply renames the domestic panel of the magistrates court and the business transacted there. It does nothing more than seek to establish concurrent jurisdiction for the five courts that deal with family matters and perhaps leave a marker for rules and regulations to facilitate transferring cases between the courts. The same criticism is true of Government amendment No. 353.
  564
  The Solicitor-General may feel that we are treating his commitment with some scepticism, but the Government's position reminds me of St. Augustine's prayer:
  "Oh Lord, make me chaste, but not yet."
  We have heard "not yet" for too long. The Opposition's new clause offers an alternative, unified system that would be served by adequate conciliation services and seeks to develop expertise among the judiciary, administrators and professionals. Above all, it would be organised to gain public confidence.
  It is not without significance that the Society of County Secretaries has claimed:
  "With a family court in being, we cannot see that the Cleveland situation could have developed."
  The case for family courts is overwhelming and before we return the Bill to another place we should seize the opportunity that it offers in the interests of millions of our children. They are everybody's children. It is not simply a case of dismissing children who might appear before present courts or future family courts as being naughty or difficult —somebody else's children. They are the children of Great Britain. They are entitled to a sympathetic ear and, in many cases, entitled to make their contribution to solving the problems that are being discussed. We are considering their futures.
  Not to deal with this matter in a positive way would be to betray the honest bipartisan approach that has characterised the passage of the Bill in both Houses. It would also represent a betrayal of the intelligent and thoughtful work of the Committee and of the other place. It would be a betrayal of the professionals who are active in this matter, and a betrayal of the expectations of the House and of the citizens whose interests we seek to promote. In that spirit I commend new clause I to the House and look forward to its unanimous approval.
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I and many other people in this country have studied family courts for many years. They will play an important part in future family welfare. Each year, there are about 670,000 petitions and applications on what may be termed family issues. That means that more than 2 million people come into contact with some aspects of family law each year. That contact is almost inevitably confused and confusing, because proceedings can take place simultaneously several courts. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General referred to that point in his opening remarks. For example, a wife who is married to a violent man may bring proceedings in the magistrates court for an exclusion order and, at the same time, petition for divorce in the county court. The local authority may already have taken care proceedings in the juvenile court and may have made the woman's children wards of the High Court. That demonstrates how complicated such issues are.
  The variety of jurisdictions can only lead to unreasonable delay, and lawyers incur unreasonable costs during such delay. It is vital for a family court to encompass many jurisdictions and gather them together in a coherent body. Perhaps the Government should change their priorities. My hon. and learned Friend is wrong to want to perfect the substantive law before setting about reforming the procedure. I listened carfully to what my hon. and learned Friend said about that matter. However, a lawyer spends more time and incurs more cost in manipulating procedures, often on his client's instructions, than in considering the substantive law. In an adversarial system, the procedure provides a lawyer with most of his

  565
  armoury. If we remove procedural problems before we deal with substantive legal problems we may obtain questionable legal results. That could be a drawback, but at least a result will be reached and all parties will know where they stand.
  The Government have set out their intentions, and we must work realistically around them to enable future reform to take place. The important question that we should ask my hon. and learned Friend is how long we must wait for the working party and for its recommenda-tions to be implemented. Cost is always a vital factor in reform, particularly in relation to family law proceedings. I am not one of those who consider that a family court would lead to a cost saving—it most certainly would not —nor do I believe that its introduction could be achieved at a relatively small cost. It will require a large amount of money to do the job properly.
  Perhaps a new court system will be required—preferably a three-tiered system. A vital appointment in that three-tier arrangement would be a family court registrar, who would be the entry point for all family cases. He or she would allocate business to a basic working tier or to an upper tier that deals with appeals or first instance cases of exceptional importance. A body of judicial officers would also be needed to man the new court system. They would all need to be fully trained in aspects of law, adjudication, conciliation and so on.
  There must be a mix of judges, family professionals and magistrates. The latter group would be of great importance, as the great majority of family court officers will have been magistrates. Magistrates have experience of adjudication and the community, which will be necessary in the new system that I propose.
  I disagree with those who argue for the exclusion of magistrates because of their lack of understanding of the real world. That accusation could have been made many years ago, but it certainly does not apply to magistrates today. Although I have sat as a magistrate, I am not doing so at the moment, so I am not thinking about my own contribution. However, I certainly have experience. Since being appointed in 1975, I have had experience with the juvenile bench, domestic court proceedings and adoption proceedings. Perhaps just a little of what I learnt during those years brings me to my present-day conclusions.
  New, separate buildings to house the family court would be required. That is essential to give the new system an identity of its own, which is what we all want, and to give the parties involved a clear appreciation of its new role. There must also be some provision for conciliation in a family court, and the bench must perform a more inquisitorial role than at present. I recognise that there is danger in both approaches. Parties could be regarded as clients rather than as parties to a legal dispute. However, although the court must perform a legal function, the introduction of comprehensive in-court conciliation may help to lessen some of the tensions that arise in family matters. Over many years we have paid insufficient attention to conciliation and, in some cases, reconciliation.
  In-court conciliation began in 1971. Although it has become more of a buzz word in recent years, it is not particularly new. It has some faults, the greatest of which is that parties may regard it as part and parcel of the adversarial process. Also, parties may feel under pressure
  566
  to reach agreement. In New Zealand, where the court performs an inquisitorial role, parties who refuse to attend conciliation are encouraged to think again. Perhaps that is not such a bad idea in our present society.
  However, such drawbacks as I have recognised are preferable to the indecision that results from out-of-court conciliation, because agreements are not legally binding and are often made on incomplete facts due to lack of financial information. In-court conciliation must be a vital element in any family court system. It would be nonsensical to set up a new system without it.
  We could have an extremely long debate on family courts, as they are an important part of this legislation. Hon. Members discuss legislation affecting children and families perhaps once every decade. We must ensure that, when we legislate for the welfare of children in this decade, we get it right. We have a great responsibility to make sure that the legislation will ensure good provision for future family life and children in particular.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: When I intervened in the Solicitor-General's speech to ask whether family courts would deal with the issue of so-called "transracial" adoptions, he helpfully advised me that the Law Commission was looking at the whole issue of adoption. If I heard him aright, I think that he said that the report was expected next year. I do not know whether that time scale is the optimum one for receiving such a report, but in my view we must move much faster and further than we are at present.
  7 pm
  I am gravely concerned at some trends in fostering and adoption practice. The first priority must always be the needs of the children; their needs must be paramount. I understand and accept that many adoptive parents—perhaps the majority—wish to adopt a child in their own image, as the saying goes. However, that is not necessarily always the case.
  I know of a couple who have successfully adopted a child of mixed parentage. A few years ago they saw an advert in either The Observer or The Guardian seeking a foster home, with a view to adoption, for a girl of mixed race who was then in a children's home in the care of the local authority. I believe that the couple did nothing at the time, believing erroneously that the child would soon be placed with a satisfactory couple and be well looked after. However, a year later virtually the same advert appeared in whichever newspaper it was. The child was still in care —still living in a children's home, with apparently no prospect of fostering or adoption. The couple wrote to the local authority concerned, expressing their interest and explaining their experience and background.
  They were astonished and astounded to receive a reply stating that they could not be considered because they were white and the authority's policy was to place such children with black families. The reaction of that family was unprintable and, in recounting their story to the House, I would be out of order if I attempted to repeat that reaction.
  As far as is known the girl is still in the care of the local authority and still in a children's home. I believe that that is intolerable, that it is not good social work practice, and that it is certainly not in the interests of the child. I do not accept—indeed, I entirely reject—the theory that such practice helps to foster a non-racial society. I do not accept

  567
  that the race of a father or mother irrevocably classes a child in the narrow way that social work practice mistakenly assumes in such an arbitrary fashion.
  Anyone who has knowledge of adoption knows and understands that there are difficulties when a child is adopted. At some time adoptive children may—and will —suffer an identity crisis and encounter real difficulties when they discover that their father and mother are not their natural parents. So-called "transracial" adopted children do not undergo more severe crises than adopted children who might be adopted in, as is sometimes said, the image of the parents.
  The problem at the moment is that the social workers involved—I acknowledge that are concerned—go to extremes to try to justify their policies. I accept that they are sincere, but I believe that they are disgracefully mistaken. Some of the ways in which they seek to denounce those who, like myself, argue in favour of the adoption of mixed-race children by parents of any colour —white or black—are intolerable and disgraceful and do not help in the serious debates that we should be having.
  Every family may have times of trauma when bringing up children. Anyone who has had natural children knows that that happens in ordinary families. The problems of adopted children can be dealt with just as easily and just as readily by concerned parents, irrespective of whether they are adoptive or whether they are the "right" racial mix, according to the social workers. The only factors to be taken into account in this matter are the needs of the child. If the race classification argument that is sometimes forced down people's throats in the public debate on this came from South Africa, the people who oppose "transracial" adoptions would throw up their hands in horror and cry that this is an apartheid society. If we believe—as I do—in a truly non-racial society in this country, it is grotesque that any social work practice should seek to classify children by race and so determine social work policy.
  The needs of the children should always be paramount and the children should always be put first. An abstract theory should never take precedence over the real needs of real children and their relevance to today's society and real world.
  I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will make it perfectly clear that the Government will press ahead rapidly with a proper code of social work practice. I hope that that will be one of their first priorities when drawing up the details of the ways in which the family courts will operate. I hope that that will feature as one of the first details when they flesh out the bones of what is now an inadequately drafted new clause.
  Mr. Devlin: First, I thank the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) for his kind remarks, supporting what I said in Committee. It is interesting to note that new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, has the exact text of the all-party amendment that I tabled in Committee with the support of five other hon. Members, from all three parties. I notice that some of those hon. Members are present.
  At the same time, I commend new clause 30 to the House. It gives a much more detailed treatment of the topic and has found its way miraculously into new schedule 9A. It has received 37 signatures, including from most of the hon. Members who have signed new clause 1.
  568
  The reason why I am in some difficulty in supporting the hon. Member for Monklands, West and his colleagues tonight is twofold. First, the subject matter of the amendment is redundant, having been covered as far as possible by the new clause moved by the Government. Secondly, those parts of the intention of the new clause that are not covered by Government amendments are beyond the scope of the Bill, with one notable exception. Therefore, I am slightly surprised to see that what was a probing amendment in Committee has now returned as new clause 1. It must have been tabled before Her Majesty's Opposition had considered the Government's further proposals.
  It was a great honour and privilege to carry this provision as a banner for the Family Court Campaign in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), the hon. Members for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), for Southport (Mr. Fearn) and for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) joined me in tabling that amendment in Committee. We were further supported by effective interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), the hon. Members for Eccles (Miss Lestor), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), my hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (Mr. Key), and for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and from the hon. Member for Monklands, West. In other words, 13 out of 18 hon. Members serving on the Committee supported the amendment. I remind the House that the other five were the two Ministers, their Parliamentary Private Secretaries and the Government Whip.
  In an effort to persuade us to withdraw the amendment, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General announced that the Bill was the beginning of a rolling programme of reform. Many of us therefore look forward to some announcements tonight that will tell us that in the Queen's Speech further reforms will be put before us. Furthermore, my hon. and learned Friend argued that fuller Government proposals would be presented on Report. I believe that they are now included in new clauses 18, 23 and 28.
  The reason why the establishment of a family court is long overdue is not only that such an improvement was suggested 15 years ago in the Finer report but that since then the full statistical horror of cases involving children has been magnified. Since June, when we last discussed this matter, Relate—formerly the marriage guidance council —has published last year's figures. They show that 149,000 children were caught up in divorces last year. Nearly 1,000 per week were under-five. Divorce costs the country about £35 million per day in fees, court costs and social security payments. Last year 151,000 marriages ended in divorce. Whilst that process is extremely painful for the adults involved, it is often the children who suffer most, regressing whilst parents go through the difficulty of getting their own lives back together. Each year, of the 30,000 cases of physically, mentally or sexually abused children, a good section of the abuse is perpetrated by the mother's boyfriend, the stepfather or even stepbrothers. Duplication, alternation and confusion abound in our court system, yet millions of people have a pressing need for the reform of procedure proposed by the Opposition.
  The Finer report, published all those years ago, proposed a unified family court to eradicate the hotchpotch of conflicting legislation and different jurisdictions. The new court was to adopt an inquisitorial

  569
  rather than an adversarial approach. It was to be based on six principles—that there should be impartial adjudication according to law, a unified system of family law, the provision of the best possible conciliation facilities, a team of professionally trained social workers, that there should be a close relationship with social security law and that the whole thing should be organised in such a way as to gain public confidence.
  In 1979 further proposals were made by the Law Society, in 1982 by the Justices Clerks Society, in 1984 by the Association of District Registrars and County Courts. In 1984 the Select Committee on Social Services went further and said:
  "The introduction of a family court system could offer the possibility of a significantly better deal for children and parents."
  The hon. Member for Monklands, West has not only stolen my amendment, but he has stolen my speech as he mentioned that the Cleveland affair might have been prevented by a family court system. I will not repeat that point nor the list of organisations supporting the Family Courts Campaign because they are far too extensive to mention. Looking back over the past 15 years it is clear that a strong case was made right from the start. The Government sought to avoid the need for action with a variety of ruses and excuses. First, they spoke about cost, then they said that what was asked for was too vague. They also said that there was no precedent. Now they say that they are already planning such a court system, but, tonight, they say that it is beyond the scope of the Bill.
  At last in this Bill we have made some essential headway towards our new system of justice for families. Since the Whips are wandering around bullying people I shall quickly examine the Minister's proposals which he has said
  "go further and are drafted more carefully than the amendments."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B,8 June 1989; c. 451.]
  I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) is approaching, but I shall not give way to him. I can assure the Opposition that I have not had my knuckles broken nor have I been offered a holiday in the Bahamas to avoid making this speech.
  New clause 18 sets up family proceedings courts and family proceedings panels. They would be the newly reconstituted magistrates court part of the family court. The rest is left to the Lord Chancellor to make orders with respect to what that court can do.
  The next new clause that the Government rely on is new clause 23, which is pregnant with good potential, but one that may not be carried into execution. The procedure can be altered, parties can be redesignated and the whole new classes of evidence can be demanded. A registrar can deal with initial applications, just as we suggested, and ex parte proceedings rules can also be made. New clause 28 goes further with respect to procedure to be adopted. I appeal to the Solicitor-General to use the clauses as imaginatively as possible to ensure the effect of what the Family Courts Campaign is calling for is carried out.
  Altogether the Government have done an excellent job with the clauses to meet many of the demands of the family courts campaign—or as many as they think are possible at the moment. Rab Butler once reminded the House that
  "Politics is the art of the possible."
  570
  The Government, however, could do a great deal more and they could go a great deal further, but perhaps not in this Bill. New clause 30, which is supported by many hon. Members, must show them the way forward.
  However, I shall measure the Government's proposals so far against the original six recommendations of the Finer committee so that I can draw attention to the obvious gap that I see. There is no doubt that the Government proposals will continue to provide an impartial adjudication according to law. Those proposals, as well as the Bill in general, which I remind the House, deals with children only, moves us much closer to a unified system of family law with new amendments. Trained social workers working with the courts find their place in the Bill. Public confidence will undoubtedly be enhanced by the greater powers given to parents, grandparents and, of course, children.
  7.15 pm
  The gap—here it is—is in the provision of the conciliation service alongside the new procedure. During the summer recess I attempted to find out from the Attorney-General, the Lord Chancellor and even from the Prime Minister what the future of conciliation services will be. The answer, if one can call it that from the usual Civil Service stonewalling, is that with the report of the Newcastle study project under review and with, in any case, the Law Commission re-examining and reporting on the law of divorce next year, there is no answer just yet. Unfortunately, as I said in my earlier intervention, in the meantime our excellent conciliation service in many parts of the country—I mention Cleveland specifically—will go to the wall for lack of funding. However, conciliation is a fundamental of any family court system which the Government may later attempt to establish. In the meantime, it is also a successful tool in the resolution of disputes.
  Let me recap the findings of the New Zealand conciliation service—19 per cent. of those who went to the conciliation service resumed the marriage, 39 per cent. reached full understanding, 16 per cent. went back for guidance and 26 per cent. only reached no agreement. The Relate figures show that, in English terms, 200 children a week under the age of five could be saved from the pain of parental divorce if there was a properly funded conciliation service in this country.
  Even if I am in an optimistic mood today, it seems that the Government are moving slowly down the road to proper conciliation services just as they are progressing to a family court. The excuses, however, are the same. On 8 June in Committee at column 465 the Solicitor-General argued about the cost of the service and in the next paragraph he deployed the vagueness argument. In column 466 he argued that there was no precedent. In a letter since received from the Prime Minister and from the Lord Chancellor I hear that we are already planning something. So long as the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General argue that such conciliation services are beyond the scope of the Bill we should look forward to some serious and far-reaching reforms to be introduced in the next Queen's Speech.
  What has my hon. and learned Friend offered us tonight? He has offered to gather together all the officials from all the relevant Departments into one splendiferous committee, which will consider all the aspects of family law. It will consider the implementation of the Children

  571
  Bill and evaluate the efficiency of the Bill and look at the resource implications of change. It will consider conciliation and the law relating to divorce. It will also consider the support services. Has anyone in the House any idea how many civil servants will be involved in that exercise? It will have to run into hundreds. Has anyone any idea how long it takes hundreds of civil servants to make up their minds about anything? It will take absolutely years. We are talking about another 15-year rolling programme before we get the matter back before the House. I ask the Solicitor-General whether that rolling programme will roll out in the life of the Government. Unless the Solicitor-General can come up with a more satisfactory timescale, I may have to go back to supporting the Opposition in their amendment.
  What is on offer now after 15 years is that the civil servants have won. If the choice tonight is between the will of the House and the will of a huge committee of civil servants from all the different Departments discussing until kingdom come what the future law of the family will be, I shall support the will of the House.
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes: I shall speak briefly in favour of a policy of speedy implementation of family courts. A less adversarial judicial system for family matters has been advocated for many years. While I welcome the minor shift in the Government's mood in this direction, I, along with many others, feel that this is an invaluable opportunity, perhaps the only opportunity for a decade or more, for the Government to take it much further and commit themselves wholeheartedly to the full establishment of family courts.
  The Bill unifies the law relating to children. As the White Paper, "The Law on Child Care and Family Services" of January 1987 stated:
  "it would not be sensible to make decisions on most of the Child Care Review's recommendations concerning jurisdiction in advance of a decision on the family court issue".
  The Bill, which has consolidated much of the law relating to children, provides the right opportunity to make a decision on family courts.
  One of the most important elements of this issue that has been much debated tonight is conciliation, which has been extremely effective in other countries. Not only is it highly desirable in itself, but it can lead to massive savings in legal aid. Earlier this year the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal aid reported that a family court could make savings of up of £14 million in legal aid. Although I accept that to introduce family courts would have considerable cost implications in other spheres, this element must not be ignored.
  Both branches of the legal profession and all those working in the area of family breakdown have long been convinced that family courts are the only economic, effective and appropriate way of dealing with family law matters. It is difficult to understand the Government's reluctance to embrace this measure wholeheartedly. We have skirted around it for far too long and should move rapidly towards a commitment in this direction. I look forward to hearing what sort of time scale is proposed for this long, rolling, decision-making process about which many of us are cynical.
  Mr. Roger Sims: My interest in the cause of family courts is long standing and is on record. In our discussions in Committee I referred to the fact that the appearance of the Finer report, with its advocacy of family
  572
  courts, coincided with my election to the House in 1974, and that soon afterwards I convened a conference on the issue. I hasten to assure the House that I have no intention of repeating my Committee speech here. In response to pleas over the years from me and others, the Government have consistently taken the line that they must first get the law right and then they can alter the structure of the court.
  Let us at least give the Government some credit for not waiting until they have got the law right or until the Bill is enacted but have decided to start the process now. They have decided to adopt an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary approach or, to use my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General's expression, a rolling programme. Certainly, my hon. and learned Friend has announced some important steps this evening. I should like to have heard a lot more, but we have to be realistic and we cannot ignore the fact that a family court would have to cover a number of issues that are not the subject of the Bill and could not feasibly be added to it.
  Certainly, I have no criticism of Opposition Front Bench spokesmen seeking to raise this issue again, despite the fact that we discussed it fully in Committee. Apart from anything else, it has given my hon. and learned Friend the opportunity to expand on the remarks that he made to the Committee, and his contribution was most helpful. However, it would be a pity if the Opposition were to divide the House on this matter, which I understand they are considering. Apart from incommoding a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, it would undermine the bipartisan approach to the Bill which has been a feature of our proceedings and to which the lion. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) referred.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General referred to the interdepartmental working party and what it is to do. I am sure that he will understand that, while we realise that it cannot specify a timetable, there is a suspicion that a working party is a vehicle for inaction rather than action. I hope that before the end of this debate he will assure us that this rolling programme will roll and not simply creak.
  Many of us would like to see many more suggestions included within the proposals. However, what my hon. and learned Friend has suggested this evening is certainly more realistic than the over-ambitious measures un-derstandably advocated by the Opposition Front Bench. My hon. and learned Friend has explained why he has not incorporated conciliation services into the new pattern which he has outlined. However, I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) said about the value of such services which have been running for a number of years.
  In my area of Bromley we have one of the pioneers of the conciliation services. There are now 50 services affiliated to the National Family Conciliation Council. A feature of those services is that they have all been set up on a local basis, all been a product of local initiatives and every one of them is now struggling for funds.
  I am aware that the Newcastle project report is under consideration but my hon. and learned Friend will remember that the report states:
  "conciliation generates important social benefits and rationalisation of it is a priority need."
  I hope that the rolling programme will consider this matter as one of urgency. The danger is that, meanwhile, the conciliation services might wither, which would be disastrous.

  573
  I plead with my hon. and learned Friend for adequate interim funding. He does not have to commit himself as to what form the conciliation services will take in the final structure of the family court, but it is important that they should be preserved in their present form. I urge him to support them as much as he can.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): Hitherto the Government have been reluctant to give us a firm view on the establishment of a family court. In Committee we were able to recap the way in which successive Governments, but mainly this Government, have sidelined the issue, principally because it would cost money to set it up. In the past 15 years there have been a report, two consultation papers and an interdepartmental committee.
  I recall a former Cabinet Minister telling an after dinner audience that when he was in trouble on a policy matter he would go to Cabinet to demand that it set up an interdepartmental committee. Therefore, it hardly inspires confidence when the Solicitor-General tells us that there is to be yet another interdepartmental working party.
  However, let us not be churlish, because pressure from the family courts campaign and other groups has paid off in some respects. The Government have had no alternative but to respond in view of the growing and increasingly well-argued case for the family court.
  Let us examine some of the Government initiatives which were conveniently set out in their response to the report by the Social Services Select Committee. First, they say that the Children Bill creates concurrent jurisdiction in the High Court, the county court and the magistrates court, which will hear proceedings under this Bill and in cases of adoption. The Lord Chancellor, we are told, will have power to provide for the allocation of cases within the hierarchy of the courts, and the Government hope to arrange for judges and registrars with expertise in this field to be responsible for the conduct of such cases.
  We have also heard that, with regard to magistrates courts, a family proceedings court is to be established and magistrates are to have special training. There will be more reliance on the use of written documents—I welcome that approach—and magistrates will be expected to have read them before the hearing and to give reasons for their decisions. In other words, the court is to have a more active role in the conduct of cases.
  7.30 pm
  Procedure in the courts is to be streamlined, and cases involving disputes that may have started in different courts will be merged so that they can be dealt with together. All these measures are to be welcomed, although a note of caution must be entered, in that the Government say that most care and supervision-related cases will be suitable for hearing by the family proceedings court—that is, by lay magistrates. One cannot escape the conclusion that that is done for reasons of cost—it is much cheaper to administer justice through the lay magistracy. The view that I have always held is that family courts should be a unified court with lay magistrates sitting either with a judge or, in some cases, a registrar.
  Although there are powers to transfer cases between courts, some delays are inevitable as some administrative procedures will have to be carried out by at least two sets of court officials. However, all the Government's
  574
  initiatives will be flawed until they address the central issue —the removal of the present adversarial system of family proceedings and the introduction of a properly funded counselling, conciliation and mediation service.
  All the evidence that we have so far supports the view that the only way to remove the courtroom pain and anguish of family disputes is the introduction of an inquisitorial system backed by conciliation. I mentioned courtroom pain and anguish advisedly. We know that we cannot remove all the pain and anguish involved in these cases, but that is no excuse for allowing the courts to be used as a vehicle for venting the anger, frustration, bitterness and—often—guilt which are associated with these matters. Court proceedings are also seen by many as occasions for winning and losing, a view perpetuated by our present system. No palliatives given to the family courts campaign can ever be successful until this problem is tackled.
  We must also consider the facilities that are available in many magistrates courts. They are often appalling. Many courts have no facilities for conducting private interviews, which are held in corridors and passageways. The waiting rooms in many of our courts are cold, forbidding places where witnesses have nothing to do but glare at each other. Is that the way in which we should treat people who are already under considerable stress? Is that the way in which to resolve these difficult issues? A congenial setting is more conducive to better understanding all round. That is why the family court system in New Zealand places so much stress on the setting in which cases are heard. Basics such as the positioning of tables and chairs and how court officials, including judges, are dressed are considered important.
  During the recess I met a representative of the embryonic North Wales family conciliation service, a group set up about three years ago in the hope that it would be able to offer conciliation services to all the courts in north Wales. Yet three years later it does not have a penny with which to begin to put that system into operation. Recently the group asked me for my support to persuade the Welsh Office to give it finance.
  To be fair, in their response to the Social Services Committee the Government conceded that we have a patchwork of systems in England and Wales which is nothing like the system that we need—a universal, properly funded system. I want to ask the Solicitor-General when the university of Newcastle report will be published. When will we be told whether we shall have a properly funded conciliation service? Conciliation services offer couples opportunities to meet in a structured setting so that they can begin to resolve conflicts and work jointly with children to agree decisions. That is important, because conciliation aims to find a way of reducing the pain, anger, confusion and sadness experienced by children caught up in the process of their parents' separation and divorce.
  We must never forget that parents need support when reaching and maintaining responsible decisions about custody and access. Because their parents lack support at the time of separation, children are not properly informed of decisions that will affect them. That leaves many children helpless, confused and lonely. Children want to be consulted and involved in decisions that will dramatically affect their lives. They want basic, practical information.

  575
  They want to know where they will live, whether they will stay at the same school, whether they can still see their grandparents and where their absent parents will be living.
  For these and other reasons, a conciliation service would play an invaluable role. Experience of the family court system in New Zealand is that there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of custody cases that proceed to the traditional blood-letting of a court hearing. There has been a dramatic acceptance of the need to change traditional approaches and procedures on the part of judges, administrators and the legal profession.
  I believe that the campaign for a family court has come a long way, but not far enough. I confess that I did not come to this debate expecting that the Government would come forward with a system to establish family courts, because I knew that they would repeat what was said in Committee. But it is important for the House to have had the opportunity once again to debate this issue. As surely as night follows day there will inevitably be a family court in England and Wales. The House has an opportunity to place an important milestone along the way to the establishment of that system, and I hope that we will divide tonight so that we can properly gauge the support in England and Wales for its establishment.
  Mr. Rowe: My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General left me in no doubt about the Government's intentions in the matter of a family court. I have no doubt that the Government clearly see many of the absurdities in the present system and are anxious to end them. I welcome the commitment to a unified jurisdiction so that we can at least consider all matters relating to one family in one place at one time. That is probably as far as it is reasonable to expect the Government to go in this Bill.
  I share a number of hon. Members' concerns about this rolling programme. I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). I do not see a huge army of civil servants. I see three or four, some of whom have probably been up to their necks with the Bill hitherto, being switched, probably quite gladly, to the next great issue. The more that they come under pressure from outside, the harder it will he for them to work speedily. I hope that the Government will make sure that there are enough civil servants to do this important job expeditiously.
  I received one nasty tremor during the Solicitor-General's speech when he quoted other people. He said that he thought that they had in their minds a wholly new structure, a new steel and glass building, he said, staffed by people with robes of a different colour. I hope that he completely distances himself from that attitude not so much because of the separate system but because of the robes of a different colour. The last thing we want is a reshuffle of existing wigs and gowns into a new pattern of formality and authority. We need a wholly new direction based on non-adversarial procedure.
  The need is to support the family and the child. Most people who have got into matrimonial difficulties desperately want either to resolve them or, if they cannot, to leave one another amicably and equitably. Adversarial proceedings make that harder not just in court but outside it. It is similar to the insurance company's injunction that one should not even be polite to the driver with whom one has just had an accident in case one gives the impression that one was at fault. Such an attitude is disastrous for the
  576
  children and destructive for the family. I suspect, although I could never prove it, that it has a knock-on effect because if one of the spouses remarries the bitterness of the divisions may make it much harder to establish a good future relationship.
  The third objective must be to get agreed solutions where possible. That will reduce the likelihood of a spouse losing access to the child in later years or a wife—it is usually the wife—not getting maintenance. Formality simply does not help.
  When it comes, the family court should be bold, as it was bold in Scotland. Kilbrandon made this great radical leap of differentiating between questions of fact and questions of treatment, especially in criminal cases. It would be a serious error if the family court left juvenile crime to one side. How otherwise are we to reduce our appalling record of incarcerating young people, the worst record of incarceration in western Europe? How can we support the idea of family responsibility if at an incredibly early age we start treating the child who has committed an offence as some kind of criminal standing on his own? I realise that there are risks and I understand that in Scotland at this very time some of the children's panels are anxious lest some of their agreed treatment procedures are oppressive, but they are not questioned because there has grown up a culture of not questioning. Perhaps some should be taken to the sheriff for examination on a voluntary basis to make sure that that is not the case. However, that is a minor matter. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) that we have to support the existing family conciliation services while the rolling programme wanders on.
  Every so often in India there is a great ceremony at which an enormous goddess called Juggernaut is taken out of her temple, put on rollers and taken through the streets. Many devotees allow themselves to be crushed to death under the rollers. I cannot believe that it is the Government's intention with their rolling programme to crush to death the existing family conciliation services by starving them of money while they wait for the Newcastle report to be properly evaluated.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: We have heard some excellent speeches. The speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) was commendable and raised some important issues. I should like to concentrate on what could be described as practical grass-roots issues rather than the complex legal procedures raised by the Solicitor-General and some hon. Members.
  7.45 pm
  In Committee our proceedings were dominated by hon. Members who were either magistrates or lawyers. I am aware that I am competing with at least four Opposition lawyers who are trying to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I speak as a non-lawyer, but as someone who has had extensive and on occasions bitter experience, especially in the juvenile courts, of social work practice. On the basis of that experience, may I say that the existing system of the administration of child care law is a discredited shambles long overdue for reform. It would be shameful if we were to allow the opportunity presented by the Bill to pass without a clear change in the procedures that are long out-dated for the work that they are expected to do.

  577
  It is a matter of great regret that the Government have not proposed anything positive. I suspect that what the Minister said today is not much different from what he said in Committee. I am disappointed by that because I think that some Conservative Members, some of whom are not in the Chamber, firmly believe in the principle of the family court system and recognise the major problems.
  We all accept that in many ways the Bill is a great step forward. It answers the question about the principle of the welfare of the child and affords protection for children and young persons. It advances in law the rights of children and the rights of parents and carers and other relatives in respect of children. However, the Bill leaves the administration of these important changes in a court system that is clearly a hangover from the past.
  In Committee I spoke about my concerns on the practical issues, some of which have been referred to. They certainly concern me and many users of the courts. We should not forget that not many hon. Members have had the experience of being before a juvenile court and having to defend themselves. Not many have had the experience of seeing their children before such courts. Many hon. Members have had experience of being professionals in court, but they have not seen the other side. That is the side that we should consider when we contemplate legislation.
  I am worried about the system as it stands and the one that we will have in being to administer the new legislation. First, there is the matter of formality which has already been mentioned. The system that I met as a young social worker was markedly different from my perception. I had been led to believe that the juvenile court was informal and assisted children to bring forward their views and express themselves. My experience of the juvenile court is completely to the contrary. It is a highly formal system and terrifying for young children. I can recall seeing tearful children being made to stand up straight by magistrates who were offended because the child was so embarrassed that he was looking at the floor when speaking. We must aim at a system that assists children in frightening circumstances to express themselves, and that must be done in a caring and effective way rather than in a daunting way.
  In Committee I mentioned the matter of sensitivity in dealing with children and families. Some hon. Members have spoken about the adversarial system. In Committee I spoke about giving evidence in a serious case of sexual assault on two young children. I was asked to give detailed evidence about the assaults in front of the two children. I objected, but I was forced by the magistrate to give evidence. That is not on, and it is not the kind of system we should have in a civilised country. Vulnerable young children should not be treated in that way. Formality must be tackled as a matter of urgency.
  The other issue that caused some offence to one or two hon. Members who were magistrates was that many people who administer justice, particularly in magistrates courts and juvenile courts, have no insight whatever into the lives of the people with whom they are dealing. They do not come from areas where children have the problems that lead them to end up in juvenile courts.
  I know that the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) was deeply offended when in Committee I referred to flowery hatted magistrates, and she continues
  578
  to assure me that she does not possess a flowery hat even though she is a magistrate. However, she took the point that magistrates come from certain parts of the community and tend not to be a reflection of the people brought before the courts. We must challenge that and then tackle it. Many benches are unrepresentative of local communities and have no insight into the problems that cause people to end up in juvenile courts.
  The hon. Members for Mid-Kent and for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) referred to the physical conditions of many courts. People have to wait in appalling conditions to make a daunting and frightening appearance in court, often with the people whom they are opposing.
  The pressure and the demands on the court system have a bearing on the way people are treated. Although the Government are not introducing the necessary reforms, I hope that they have given some thought to the pressures that the Bill will place on the court system. I can see that huge increases in the workload will result from the emergency protection orders, and the appeals that will result from the Bill.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) said, we must look at the Scottish system. Through the auspices of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), I was fortunate enough to make a visit to see the Scottish children's panel in operation. That was an education, because it was a completely different from a court hearing in the juvenile court system in England and Wales. It was like a breath of fresh air, because it was informal and sensitive and allowed the child, in a non-threatening situation, to express his views. It was non-adversarial and it offered a lot at which we should look. Our colleagues from Scotland should not be afraid to boast about what they have. They are asking how they can improve on that and we are a long way behind them. We should look to Scotland for a lead, particularly on a family court system.
  The central issue is that we need a court system for children that, like the Scots system, has at its heart not the convenience of lawyers, magistrates, police and social workers but the central principle that underlies the Bill —the welfare of the child. We are long way from that principle with the system as it stands. New clause 1 sets out the principles that should underpin the legal system dealing with children, young persons and families. It also sets out the principles that would underpin the operation of the family court system that we envisage, identifies the welfare of the child, and avoids unnecessary formality, which inhibits and confuses most children. It also reduces delay and inconvenience to the public, which often occurs as a result of the way that cases are handled, reducing the harm to children and families that comes from the system. The court system's purpose is to help young children, but when they are involved in it, they suffer. Another vital principle is the introduction of conciliation into our method of resolving disputes. That seems an obvious thing to do.
  I urge the Government to rethink their position. I am unhappy that new clause 23 and the Bill do not include the central principle that all Labour Members, and many Conservative Members, believe should be included in the court system to administer the Bill. It may be another 10 years before we get the chance to debate a similar Bill. It is crucial that we do not sit back and set up committees on

  579
  rolling programmes. Instead we should get down to business, bring about the procedures for these reforms, and include them in the Bill.
  Mr. Fearn: My party has campaigned for many years for the introduction of a family court. I remember standing up in Southport district council in 1974 to speak on the Finer report and to support family courts. This is far from being a new subject, but we are still debating it.
  We are all aware of how the present system of numerous courts dealing with family matters causes confusion and distress for families. In many cases, the children suffer most. Therefore, it is right to attempt to clarify the Government's position on the family court. Under the Bill, the interests of the child are paramount, and that lies at the heart of all the calls for a family court. By providing for the introduction of concurrent jurisdictions, the Bill may go some way to improving the legal and administrative tangle in which families are so often caught. However, because of so much reliance on secondary legislation, that cannot be guaranteed and the results may be worse.
  The Bill does not go far enough. The adversarial nature of the British legal system—there must be a winner and a loser—is often at the root of the problem. Many cases dealing with some element of family life do not need a formalised court hearing. What is required is the ability to arrive at the truth in a fair, comprehensible and civilised manner, which would lead all the parties, including the children, to believe that they had had a fair hearing that would allow a proper assessment of what was in the child's best interests. A family court is the only way to achieve that.
  A separate family court that would also cover young offenders would help to reduce delay in cases involving children. It would prevent cases from being allocated to an inappropriate level of court, and would prevent bottlenecks from arising because of other cases fighting for priority. In some areas, the courts are already severely overburdened, with devastating consequences.
  A family court system with proper and adequate auxiliary services, such as conciliation, mediation, probation and welfare services, would prevent family problems from being dealt with on a piecemeal basis, would allow the whole picture to be considered and would allow for many cases to be resolved before coming to court. It would also enable the judiciary and other members of the legal profession to build up expertise in all sorts of family problems.
  On the whole, there is much common ground between all parties and among the public. It is generally accepted that the best people to resolve problems concerning the needs of children are the parties involved. However, occasionally the state must intervene to protect the welfare of children. That must be done within a coherent framework of services and, whenever possible, with the agreement of those involved. That could be achieved by creating a properly resourced and serviced family system. The system that the Solicitor-General has set out is not a family court.
  The arguments in favour of such a system are well known to all hon. Members. Although I welcome the Government's moves towards the family proceedings court, and understand to some extent their desire for gradual reform, I believe that family courts are an important factor in safeguarding and promoting the
  580
  welfare of children and their families. Delay is not justified, but delay is what we are getting tonight. It may be 15 years before the rolling programme brings forth the priorities that we need. The time is now right to make that commitment and set the reform in motion.
  Mr. Vaz: In Committee, the Solicitor-General coined the memorable phrase "an all-singing, all-dancing, family court". When he started his speech, and busied himself around the Dispatch Box looking for his notes, I thought that he was giving us an example of what the all-singing, all-dancing court would look like.
  The scenario put forward by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) of the Solicitor-General standing on rollers being pushed down the hill as devotees sing around him as a metaphor for the rolling programme is an interesting spectacle. If the Solicitor-General has listened to the speeches tonight, as I am sure that he has, he will have found himself in a minority of one. I suppose that, as he is in the Government of a Prime Minister who decides that a vote of 48 to one at the Commonwealth conference is a victory, he will apply the same criteria and say that he has won the debate on his arguments.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) quoted St. Augustine and talked about chastity. The Solicitor-General is like a reluctant legal virgin, unwilling to take the final step that is necessary to bring him close to us on ideas on the family courts. He introduced the extraordinary phrase in Committee about the rolling programme, and I pressed him as to what that was. It is a remarkable programme with no real beginning and no real end. There is no timetable, just loose criteria based on the points that the Solicitor-General mentioned earlier.
  8 pm
  The Bill has, for the most part, achieved a large degree of consensus. The Standing Committee divided on only a few occasions, and I suspect that there will be few Divisions on Report. Nevertheless, this is one of those occasions. Before I was elected to the House I was a senior solicitor for a London borough. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)—and it is a confession to appease him—that I have never been a private solicitor taking private fees; I have always worked in the public service for various local authorities. As someone involved in child-care law, I saw this Bill as a great, historic opportunity to achieve a unified family court system—but we are being bought off. I hope that some Conservative Members will join us in the Lobby when we divide on this matter, especially the hon. Members for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) and for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), who all spoke eloquently about the need for family courts. We shall have to wait to discover whether they will vote with us or whether the holiday in Bermuda offered to the hon. Member for Stockton, South has been accepted.
  It is 100 years since family law has been considered as carefully as it has been during the passage of the Bill. We are all aware of the historic nature of our work. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield that the opportunity to act may not arise for a decade, although I think that it will be even longer than that. Unfortunately, these issues are too low down the political agenda for Governments to include them in their programmes. Despite the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for

  581
  Monklands, West and the fervour with which he will no doubt carry out his tasks as Minister of State in the next Labour Government, he will have to fight very hard to get these matters debated early in the programme of that Government.
  The Solicitor-General, as a lawyer, must know that it is necessary to have a timetable. It is always good to end something that has been started. It is a reasonable suggestion and I hope that he will be teased into commenting on it when he replies to the debate. He said that, as yet, the substantive law is not quite right, but when it is that will be the time for a change in court structure. As many hon. Members have already said, the Bill will become law shortly—including, I hope, Opposition amendments. Its passage is almost a foregone conclusion —if saying that does not usurp the authority of the House —and there will be in place a substantive and radical piece of law that will repeal six statutes and amend a further 30.
  It is only reasonable to consider the question of structure, and surely it is best to do so at the same time as considering the substance. I think that that is the sensible way to proceed, but unfortunately the Solicitor-General does not agree with me. We accept all that he said about the need for special training for magistrates and for those who will assist in the processing of cases. We agree that the new proposals in clause 67 will provide the opportunity to switch jurisdictions between courts. The hon. and learned Gentleman claims to have the support of the president of the Family Division, who has said that we now have a family court in all but name. If that is the only problem, I urge him to take that little step forward.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said that we cannot change procedures because certain courts have petitions while others have summonses, yet he is proposing to do just that by changing the way that evidence will be made available to the domestic courts. He mentioned the introduction of affidavit evidence and of magistrates considering evidence well in advance. That is a substantial change in procedure, and if he is prepared to go that far, he should go just that little step further.
  I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), although I did not think it the appropriate time to raise the matters that he did. I accept that he was entitled to do so, but I disagreed with everything that he said about transracial adoption. If we are to consider questions of creed and linguistics, we must also consider the question of race. However, that is a larger argument which is not really relevant to a discussion about family courts. My hon. Friend and I must discuss the matter later, when I shall try to convince him of my view and he can try to convince me of his. My experience as a solicitor at the juvenile court in Islington was of enormous pressures being placed on children. That led me to believe that the only solution would be a unified family court and conciliation system. Children in court settings have to face the terrible experience of hardship and bitterness. Time and again I would turn up at the courts, there would be an adjournment and the children would have to wait almost all day before the hearing for interim orders, full-care orders or supervision orders. They would then have to return to the court 28 days later.
  I acknowlege that the Government have recognised the problem and I supported the Solicitor-General when he
  582
  moved amendment No. 37, which sought to reduce delays. We supported the idea of a timetable for cases that will be made possible by the rules of court, which is important, but the best way to solve the problems of delay is to have a family court system with properly trained magistrates and clerks who understand the nature of what is at stake.
  I and the hon. Member for Stockton, South—it sounds like a mutual admiration society, but this is probably the only legislation on which we will agree during our time in Parliament—rue the fact that wardship jurisdiction will be abolished by the Bill. I have an affection for wardship because I believe that it allows for a better system of justice. I should have liked to have a family court system along the lines of the system in the High Court, with experienced judges of the Family Division having affidavit evidence placed before them.
  Mr. Devlin: I understand that while I was out of the Chamber the hon. Gentleman expressed the concern that I might have disappeared to Bermuda. I assure him that I had only gone to pick up the ticket. He mentioned our mutual admiration society, and indeed I rushed back from the other end of the building as soon as I saw his name on the monitor. I agree that wardship should have been retained. It proved to be an invaluable part of the proceedings in Cleveland. Had children not been put in wardship during that unfortunate crisis, we would probably never have had the matter sorted out. As I said in Committee, I regret the Government's view that wardship should be phased out.
  Mr. Vaz: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman returned to the Chamber rather than going to Bermuda. I hope that he will join the Opposition in the Lobby and support new clause 1.
  I agree with the comments of some hon. Members about the way in which the courts operate. The juvenile and domestic courts in Leicester are prime examples of the problems and the pressures on families. There is only a small room in which more than 70 people, including children, have to wait for their cases to be called, and only one court is available. No refreshments are available, there are no telephone facilities and there is no appointments system. All that adds to the burden on families.
  If the Solicitor-General were to say tonight that the reason that he could not introduce the measure was because it would cost more, I should refer him to the points made by so many people and especially to the report of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and to the document "The Price is Right", named after a popular quiz show, which suggested that there would be savings of more than £10 million. If he is afraid that the Chancellor will say that he has not enough money to pay for the new system, I suggest that he hand the Chancellor a copy of that document, which will show the tremendous savings to be made if the system is introduced.
  We need to bring the many aspects of children's legislation into a single system. Wardship, adoption, divorce, custody, access, maintenance, domestic violence, guardianship, affiliation and care orders are all aspects of law and social policy that affect children directly. If the Solicitor-General does not accede to the demands of new clause 1—if he continues to maintain that the change of name that he proposes in Government amendment No. 353 meets the requirements laid down by hon. Members,

  583
  the family courts campaign and other outside organisations—I feel that he should reconsider the Government's proposals. Merely changing the name will not solve the problem. If he does not reconsider, the hon. and learned Gentleman will go down as the first Solicitor-General in history who has introduced such a radical measure and then sabotaged it because he has not the courage, or perhaps the political muscle, to go a step further and introduce a new system that will ensure that the Bill—many parts of which we support—constitutes an effective body of law.
  Mr. Doran: Many powerful speeches have been made on both sides of the House in favour of the family court system, and I do not intend to repeat points that have already been made. I should like, however, to speak from the perspective of one who has specialised in family and child care law for many years, and also from the Scottish perspective.
  I was pleased to hear the compliments that have been paid to the children's hearing system, in which I worked for some 12 years as a solicitor employed both in private practice and by a local authority. I am mystified by the fact that, after all our years of experience of the Scottish system —which got under way in 1971—a similar system has still not been introduced in England and Wales. After reviewing the literature, I have concluded that the only reason why it has not is that the magistrates are far too powerful a lobby to be overcome, and that they want to keep the jurisdiction for themselves. What the Government do not perceive is the damage being done to families and children in the process.
  I listened carefully to what the Solicitor-General had to say, and I should like now to deal in particular with two points that he made. He said that those of us who see the need for a family court consider the problem institutional rather than functional. I consider that rather an insult: it suggests that we ignore the reality of the present system as it affects those who must appear in court, both children and adults. It also assumes that we are talking in a vacuum, which we are not. We have experience both of the damage done to families and children by the present system, and of the Scottish system. But I do not want merely to praise the Scottish system; I want to put on the record something of what it means in practice.
  The Scottish system is informal in that the legal process is separate from the actual hearing and disposal of a case. Every local authority area is required to have a children's panel, consisting of people chosen from and intended to reflect the community, lending an element of democracy to the procedure: lay people are exercising the juvenile justice and child care systems.
  Every children's panel is split up into children's hearings, which hear individual cases. The hearings comprise three members, one of whom must be female and one of whom is elected as chair. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) described his experience of attending a children's hearing in Edinburgh, and I understand why he felt that that was a breath of fresh air. Such an informal set-up, with parents and children sitting around a table with the members of the hearing and everyone not only allowed the opportunity to state his point of view but encouraged to do so, would come as almost a cultural shock to someone who had grown up in the English system—or, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) with the old
  584
  Scottish juvenile justice system. Decisions are not imposed on people; they discuss the disposal by the hearing, and are involved in decision making. That, I think, is crucial.
  8.15 pm
  It is also important to emphasise, as did the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), the importance of the Kilbrandon report. Let me here record the sad death of Lord Kilbrandon a few weeks ago, and the debt owed to him by the Scottish legal profession—and, I am sure, the social workers—for his legacy of the children's hearing system. As long ago as 1964, the Kilbrandon committee saw the necessity of bringing together children who were in need of care and treatment because they had been neglected or abused by parents, and those in need of such care and treatment because they had offended. The two should not be distinguished, and following the report they were dealt with in exactly the same way. That was a fundamental reform in Scots law, and it is the essence of the children's system. The English system seems incapable of similar action: it still forces children to appear before a court. This may be a newly contrived court with a different name in an attempt at subtlety, but the old formality will remain, as will magistrates with no real training or experience of the problems faced by families.
  The Solicitor-General—still basing his remarks on the view that Opposition Members see the problem as institutional—spoke of the difficulties that he has faced in considering the concept of a family court. It seems to me that he himself saw the problems in an institutional context: he confused the need for procedural reform with the need for legal reforms in many other spheres—divorce, for instance, and matrimonial violence.
  Surely it would not be very difficult to establish what should be the jurisdiction of a family court: to establish the rules for such a court, and to change the law in other areas later. I see no need or justification for saying that the whole idea of a family law must wait on the stocks until we have reformed divorce law. What must be reformed are the rules of court relating to divorce. If it seems appropriate to make what I would describe as the cosmetic changes announced by the Solicitor-General today and in Committee, it surely would not be difficult to establish a family court. Let us by all means make other essential changes later.
  I have wrestled with the difficulty that faces me, as a Scots lawyer with experience of the children's hearing system—containing, as it does, informality and a lay element—when it is clearly intended to retain the formal court system to deal with children's cases. I feel that a hybrid system is needed; certainly I do not wish to see the end of the important lay element in the Scottish system.
  A few years ago I worked on the idea of a family tribunal, similar to the industrial and employment tribunals. In my view, we must retain the legal element simply because of the many important legal questions that come before the courts. None of the speakers today, apart from the Solicitor-General, has suggested that the present system which operates in England and Wales should be retained. They realise the need for informality, to remove the barriers and to encourage the proper sensitive solution of cases rather than throwing them to the mercies of the adversarial system. A hybrid sytem with the best of both systems which retained the legal element but introduced a

  585
  lay element should be explored. The Bill does not do that, but it goes some way towards recognising the need for radical change.
  I catalogued my experience in child and family law in Scotland before going on to the meat of what I had to say. I have another relevant experience to bring to today's debate, and that is as a child witness before a court in Scotland. At the age of eight I was the victim of an assault and was required to appear in the sheriff court at Edinburgh. I have never forgotten the terror that I felt as a young child standing in the witness box and being required to answer questions from the bench and from the solicitor who defended the woman who had assaulted me and from the prosecutor. It is a terror which I have seen since in children I have taken to court to meet the judge when, for example, there has been a dispute over custody and the presence of the children has been required by the judge because they were old enough to express a view. It is a terror which every child who appears before the juvenile courts in England must face today. I want to see it stopped, and that is why I will support new clause 1.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran). In his short speech, he brought to the House his own experience as a child, and reflected on the trauma that he felt and that he saw other children experience when they had to appear in court.
  I shall begin my speech by speaking directly to the Solicitor-General. After listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), I felt that the Solicitor-General is a much-maligned man, having to suffer many of the slings and arrows of Opposition fortune. I should like to congratulate him on keeping the promises that he made in Committee. He made a series of commitments to family courts and he has fulfilled them in schedule 9 and new clause 18. I am grateful to him for keeping his promises. Politicians are not supposed to keep promises. The Solicitor-General is a politician as well as being a Law Officer and he kept his promise.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) made a vigorous speech enunciating his opposition to what the Government were doing and making the strong policy commitment that the Labour party has to a family court. He called the Bill a "lost opportunity". He said that the Solicitor-General had produced a "small little mouse" by way of a family court. I accept that we are unifying the jurisdictions of the High Court, the county court and the magistrates court. That is a welcome step, but I believe that the Solicitor-General has builded a small and modest house.
  I should point out to the Solicitor-General that it is always a risky business to make one major reform, such as the creation of a family court, dependent upon other reforms. As the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) will understand, it has taken so long to bring forward the Children Bill because a whole series of investigations and Commissions were looking at children's rights. We had the Law Commission and other reviews and each Lord Chancellor waited for the outcome of the next review before the Children Bill was produced.
  I shall make a great effort not to mention Cleveland. I will leave that to my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West, but a steer had to be given to the variety
  586
  of Commissions before the Children Bill was produced. If we have to wait for the Law Commission's proposals on divorce and adoption, we may have to wait a long time. We shall also have to wait for the working party to which the Solicitor-General referred, and which is a novel arrangement, to produce its conclusions. It is not as if we do not have a divorce law. We have divorce law and proceedings in relation to conciliation, we have adoption laws and laws dealing with access and matrimonial violence. Why do we have to wait until the Law Commission's report on all those matters before we take the bold step of creating family courts? That is why I and my colleagues support new clause 1 which is in our names and, as the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) said, was in his name and that of the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) in Committee.
  The debate has referred to the Finer committee on which we had a great discussion in Committee. When the Solicitor-General referred to the new working party that he was setting up, he did not take up one of the recommendations of the Finer committee which was that there should be a close relationship with social security law. Perhaps the Solicitor-General should look again at that recommendation by the Finer committee and add it to the working party discussions. We do not want to overburden the working party, but we want a family court that reflects the considerations of the Finer committee.
  Finally, I should like to refer to what the hon. Member for Chislehurst said. He said that the Committee had a great consensus and was essentially a non-political committee. We made many references to resources, which have been mentioned again tonight. If the Opposition were in government we would put more resources into child care than the present Government are doing.
  It is clear that we shall be dividing the House on the issue. The hon. Member for Stockton, South said that my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West had referred to his speech in Committee which was a felicitous speech. I appeal to the hon. Members for Stockton, South, for Chislehurst, for Batley and Spen and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). If they wish to show clearly their own personal commitment to a family court they should join us in the Lobby and vote for our new clause.
  The Solicitor-General: First, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for his opening remarks, although I must disagree with his closing remarks. The Government have fulfilled their engagements given in Committee. Although it is in his absence, let me draw on the words of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). The Government have put in place a radical and substantial piece of law. When we enact the Bill, it should be recognised on both sides of the House that that is exactly what we have done.
  One of the difficulties is that discussion on family courts tends to be long on rhetoric and short on thought. Quite frankly, I must say that very firmly about the speech of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). The speeches that suggest that hon. Members should support in the Lobby the Opposition clause instead of the Government's clause are, frankly, misguided.
  The first point to recognise, and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough will recall this as he at least has researched these matters, is that it was Finer himself who recognised that a family court would have to apply a single unified body of substantive law. I have constantly reiterated the

  587
  fact that we are creating in the Bill a single unified body of substantive law in relation to this aspect of children's law, and to that extent we can and shall create a unified jurisdiction and those aspects of what might be described as a family court.
  Mr. Vaz: When?
  8.30 pm
  The Solicitor-General: I will answer the hon. Gentleman. I have had the oportunity to look at the Labour party's own clause—new clause 1—which would be brought into force in not more than 18 months, and then there are the allotted rules of court to be made. Within that time scale—about two years —the House can expect the provisions of the Children Bill to be up and running and in effect. I did not give a time scale for the further rolling programme because that programme goes into wider aspects of family law where we have to do exactly what Finer said and create a single unified body of substantive law.
  By the time that two years is up we can expect to be well down the road. We will have had two or three reports from the Law Commission. We will have considered with constructive care the Newcastle university reports on conciliation. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), who has paid a good deal of attention to the debate, asked when the Newcastle report will be published. That is an example of the amount of thought that has been given to this Bill. The report was published last spring, and I am rather surprised that he has not read it.
  Labour's new clause 1 contains perfectly reasonable hopes, which we will very largely fulfil by our substantive clauses, but they are no more than hopes.
  The hon. Member for Monklands, West referred to other jurisdictions. He mentioned Australia as being in the forefront, but he should be aware of the major difficulties that Australia has had with its family courts—perhaps New Zealand would be a better model.
  The hon. Member for Monklands, West referred to the family and conciliation. It is interesting that new clause 1 applies those aspects only to part II, when they are quite clearly equally applicable to part I.
  The truth of the matter was brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), when he said that, in new clause 1, the Labour party intends to divide the House upon something that is no more than the clause that he put down for probing purposes in Committee. That illustrates the barrenness of the Opposition's stance.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The Labour party made it quite clear from the beginning that it was no disgrace to look for consensus on an issue where we were assured that consensus existed. New clause 1 reflects the all-party view expressed in Committee. The difference between the Labour party and the Government—and I now know what it feels like to be savaged by a dead mouse—is that we are honouring the commitments that we gave.
  The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Monklands, West for that intervention, which says little more than his earlier speech.
  The Bill produces major changes in substantive law on children, in jurisdiction and in court structure to enable the
  588
  family court concept to come into effect in care and family proceedings. I commend the Government's new clause and amendments warmly to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 354, in page 149, line 18, column 3, at beginning insert—

  'Section 1(4)(a).

  Section 5(2)(d).'.

  No. 355, in page 151, line 9, at end insert—

  '1972 c. 18.

  The Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972.

  Section 41.'.

  No. 250, in page 151, line 10, leave out 'paragraph' arid insert 'paragraphs 4 and'.
  No. 249, in page 151, column 3, leave out lines 14 arid 15 and insert—

  Sections 42 to 44.

  In section 52(1), the definition of "custody".

  In Schedule 2, paragraph 11.'.

  No. 446, in page 151, line 16, at end insert—

  '1973 c. 45.

  The Domicile and matrimonial proceedings Act 1973.

  In Schedule 1, in para-graph 11(1) the defini-tions of "custody" arid "education" and in paragraph 11(3) the word "four".'.'

  No. 451, in page 151, line 43, column 3, at end insert—

  'In section 28(5), the words "or the organisation".'.

  No. 452, in page 151, line 54, after 'safety' insert
  ', in the definition of "local authority" the words from "and" to the end'
  No. 437, in page 151, leave out line 59 and insert
  '11, 19, 21 and 22.'
  No. 251, in page 152, line 16, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'paragraphs 10 and'.
  No. 252, in page 152, column 3, leave out lines 18 to 20 and insert—

  'Sections 9 to 15.

  In section 19, in subsec-tion (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.

  589

  In section 24, the words "or 21" in both places where they occur.

  In section 25, in subsec-tion (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 and 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, para-graphs 22, 23, 27, 29, 31, 36, 41 to 43, 46 to 50.'

  No. 453, in page 152, line 25, column 3, at end insert—

  '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".'.

  No. 447, in page 152, line 34, column 3, at beginning insert—

  'In section 65(1), para-graphs (e) and (g) and the paragraph (m) in-serted in section 65 by paragraph 82 of Schedule 2 to the Family Law Reform Act 1987.

  In section 81(8), in the definition of "guar-dian" the words "by deed or will" and in the definition of "sums adjudged to be paid by a conviction" the words from "as ap-plied" to the end.

  In section 143(2), paragraph (i).'.

  No. 253, in page 152, line 34, 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'.
  No. 438, in page 152, line 40, column 3, at end insert—

  'In Schedule 14, Para-graphs 45 and 46.

  No. 448, in page 152,line 43, column 3,at end insert—

  'In section 28(1), the words "(including an order under section 38 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956)".'.

  No. 254, in page 152, line 45, leave out 'and 35' and insert
  ';35, 44, 50 and 51'.
  No. 439, in page 152, line 58, leave out
  590
  '10 to 14, 20, 21'
  and insert
  '9 to 14, 20, to 24, 27, 28, 34, 37'.
  No.440, in page 153, line 3, leave out from '48' to end of line 5.
  No.454, in page 153, line 7, column 3, at beginning insert—

  "In section 118(1) in the definition of parent or guardian, paragraph (b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it.'

  No. 255, in page 153, line 7, leave out 'and 16' and insert',16 and 17'.
  No. 256, in page 153, line 7, 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'.

  No. 357, in page 153, line 7, at end insert—

  `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.'.

  No. 358, in page 153, line 7, at end insert—

  '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.'.

  No. 441, in page 153, line 7, at end insert—

  '1984 c. 28.

  The County Courts Act 1984.

  In Schedule 2, paragraph 56.'.

  No. 238, in page 153, line 8, column 3, at beginning insert—

  'Section 39(5).

  In section 37(15), the words "and is not excluded from this Part of this Act by section 52 below".

  Section 52.'.

  No. 257, in page 153, line 11, leave out Paragraph 19(a)'and 22'.
  No.449, in page 153,line 15, column 3, at beginning insert—

  591

  'Section 9(c).

  Section 20(2)(b) and (c).'

  No. 450, in page 153, line 15, column 3, at end insert—

  'and (5).

  In Schedule 3, paragraph 1(2).'

  No. 442, in page 153, line 23, at end insert—

  '1986 c. 45.

  The Insolvency Act 1986.

  In section 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 para-graph (b) the words "section 42(6) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 or", in para-graph (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, para-graphs 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 20 and 23.'.

  No. 433, in page 153, line 25, column 3, leave out lines 25 to 27 and insert—

  'Section 4 to 7.

  Sections 9 to 16.'

  No. 444, in page 153, line 28, leave out 'paragraph 11' and insert
  'paragraphs 11, 14, 51, 67, 68, 94 and 95. In Schedule 3, paragraphs 11 and 12'.
  No. 239, in page 153, line 28, at end insert—
  Page 153, line 28, 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 I of Schedule 2, paragraph 2(a) and (e)'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

New Clause 1

  Family Courts
  '(1) Within each county court and magistrates court there shall be created a family division which, together with the Family Division of the High Court, shall operate as a Family Court.
  (2) The Lord Chancellor shall by rules of court specify the procedures to be followed in order to—

  (a) identify the welfare of the child;

  (b) avoid unnecessary formality;

  (c) reduce delay and inconvenience to the public in resolution of family disputes;

  (d) reduce the harm to children and families resulting from the court process and

  592

  (e) introduce conciliatory methods of dispute resolution.

  (3) There shall be a welfare and conciliation service attached to the Family Court and it shall include—

  (a) guardians ad litem and reporting officers;

  (b) a family conciliation service in respect of children subject to proceedings under part two.

  (c) social workers appointed to report to the court in proceedings under part two.

  (4) This section shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint, being not later than eighteen months after the Children Act receives Royal Assent.'.—[Mr. Tom Clarke.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 222.

  Division No. 332]

  [8.34 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Fisher, Mark

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Flannery, Martin

  Allen, Graham

  Flynn, Paul

  Alton, David

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Anderson, Donald

  Foster, Derek

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Foulkes, George

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Fyfe, Maria

  Ashton, Joe

  Galloway, George

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  George, Bruce

  Barron, Kevin

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Battle, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Beckett, Margaret

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bell, Stuart

  Gordon, Mildred

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Gould, Bryan

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

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Blair, Tony

  Hardy, Peter

  Blunkett, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Boyes, Roland

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Bradley, Keith

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Buckley, George J.

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Howells, Geraint

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clay, Bob

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Clelland, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ingram, Adam

  Cohen, Harry

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Corbett, Robin

  Lambie, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lamond, James

  Crowther, Stan

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cryer, Bob

  Leighton, Ron

  Cummings, John

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lewis, Terry

  Darling, Alistair

  Litherland, Robert

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lofthozuse, Geoffrey

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

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dewar, Donald

  McAllion, John

  Dixon, Don

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dobson, Frank

  McCartney, Ian

  Doran, Frank

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McKelvey, William

  Eadie, Alexander

  McLeish, Henry

  Eastham, Ken

  McNamara, Kevin

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Madden, Max

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Fearn, Ronald

  Marek, Dr John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Martlew, Eric

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

  Maxton, John

  593

  Meacher, Michael

  Sheerman, Barry

  Meale, Alan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Michael, Alun

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morgan, Rhodri

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

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Soley, Clive

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mullin, Chris

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Nellist, Dave

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Strang, Gavin

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Parry, Robert

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  Patchett, Terry

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Pendry, Tom

  Turner, Dennis

  Pike, Peter L.

  Vaz, Keith

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wall, Pat

  Prescott, John

  Wallace, James

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Radice, Giles

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Randall, Stuart

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Reid, Dr John

  Wilson, Brian

  Robertson, George

  Winnick, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Rooker, Jeff

  Worthington, Tony

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Salmond, Alex

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr.Martyn Jones.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Alexander, Richard

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Amess, David

  Conway, Derek

  Amos, Alan

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Ashby, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Atkins, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Cran, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Critchley, Julian

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Batiste, Spencer

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

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Day, Stephen

  Bendall, Vivian

  Devlin, Tim

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Benyon, W.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Dover, Den

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dunn, Bob

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Durant, Tony

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Eggar, Tim

  Body, Sir Richard

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evennett, David

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Favell, Tony

  Boswell, Tim

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bowis, John

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Forman, Nigel

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Forth, Eric

  Brazier, Julian

  Freeman, Roger

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

  French, Douglas

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Gale, Roger

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gardiner, George

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Burns, Simon

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Burt, Alistair

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Butcher, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Butler, Chris

  Gow, Ian

  Butterfill, John

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gregory, Conal

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Grist, Ian

  Chapman, Sydney

  Ground, Patrick

  594

  Grylls, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hague, William

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mudd, David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hannam, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hayward, Robert

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Page, Richard

  Heddle, John

  Paice, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hind, Kenneth

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howard, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

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

  Portillo, Michael

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Price, Sir David

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Renton, Tim

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hunter, Andrew

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Irvine, Michael

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jack, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Jackson, Robert

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Janman, Tim

  Rost, Peter

  Jessel, Toby

  Rowe, Andrew

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shersby, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Sims, Roger

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knowles, Michael

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Knox, David

  Speed, Keith

  Latham, Michael

  Speller, Tony

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Lilley, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Squire, Robin

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lord, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Stevens, Lewis

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Maclean, David

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stokes, Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Summerson, Hugo

  Malins, Humfrey

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Maples, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Waller, Gary

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mellor, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Mills, Iain

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Mr. Michael Fallon and

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Mr. Tom Sackville.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 23

  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

  595

  (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 working 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 to 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.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 380 and 307.
  The Solicitor-General: The effect of new clause 23 is to enable rules of court to be made to govern practice and procedure and therefore to put flesh on to the bones of what we have been discussing in principle for dealing with cases involving children when the Bill comes into force. New clause 23 supersedes clause 83 of the Bill and amendment No. 380 makes clear that the separate rule-making power in clause 46(1) does not affect the new clause.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 20

  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 an', 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's 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 (Jurisdiction).
  (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.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 63 and 300.
  The Solicitor-General: New clause 20 relates to appeals and is couched mainly in terms of appeals from magistrates' courts. Subsection (1) of the new clause provides that appeals from magistrates' courts shall be to the High Court. That makes two important changes. At present appeals on the facts in care proceedings go from the magistrates court to the Crown courts. By changing the forum of the appeal, we will emphasise the civil nature of applications for care orders. Furthermore, an appeal on

  597
  the facts is not currently available to local authorities. The new clause will change that, putting all parties on an even footing with regard to appeals. Subsections (4) to (8) set out the powers of the High Court when hearing an appeal. Clearly, it must have power to make an order which reflects its conclusions after hearing the appeal, together with any consequential orders made necessary by its determination. Subsections (4) and (5) give the High Court those powers.
  Subsection (9) makes clear that an order of the High Court made on appeal shall have the effect of an order made by the court appealed from. The obvious exception to that is an order for rehearing. The proposed new clause places limitations upon rights of appeal which are to be found in subsections (2), (3), (10) and (11).
  Amendment No. 300 prohibits appeals from the making or refusal of an emergency order and any directions consequential upon such an order. Hon. Members will recall that the child and anyone 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 39(8) and (9). That will adequately safeguard the position of the child and those close to him. Given the short duration and emergency nature of the orders, no other provision is necessary. Indeed, a formal appeals procedure, with the added delay that that would necessarily involve, would be singularly inappropriate. The clauses are essential to the Bill which must deal with the question of appeals particularly from magistrates.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12

  PROVISION 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 40(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.'—[Mr. Mellor.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 13

  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 order.
  (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 14 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 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 with whom the child is living;

  (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 31; 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 28.'. —[Mr. Mellor.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 5, amendment No. 1, in clause 36, page 34, line 8 at end insert—
  '(aa) in the case of an application made by, or on behalf of a local authority, the court is satisfied that there has been an unreasonable failure to comply with a statutory notice served under section Child production notice.'.
  Government amendment No. 116, amendment No. 2, in clause 41, page 39, line 47, after 'order' insert
  'or notice under section (Child production notice).'.
  Government amendments Nos. 376, 396 and 159.
  Mr. Mellor: This group of amendments brings us back to the heart of the Bill or at least to what the many members of the public who have been following our proceedings will consider to be the heart. It is certainly the heart of the Bill when we consider the care with which hon. Members on both sides of the House have approached these issues throughout the Bill's passage.
  As I explained in Standing Committee, the difficulty is to know whether the emergency protection order is adequate or whether we require an additional order—a child assessment order—to run in parallel with it. Further refinements of the emergency protection order will be proposed tonight to provide for the circumstances within which a failure to produce a child is coupled with a genuine and immediate fear for the child—leading to the granting of an emergency protection order. There are other circumstances in which there might be serious cause for concern about the welfare of a child. 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. It is at the heart of our concerns that the emergency protection order is used only in those very serious circumstances, so the issue is whether there should be a lesser order requiring the production of a child and one which allows for the assessment of the child.
  I listened with great care to what was said in Standing Committee. I want to thank all the hon. Members who took part in our debate in Committee. I am also grateful for the tentative discussions involving certain Members which have taken place subsequently—as late as this week. I want also to thank various groups concerned with this issue which have contributed to our discussions. It has been a significant development in this debate that the Association of Directors of Social Services and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children have discussed the issue and are committed jointly to the need for a child assessment order.
  New clause 13 represents the best attempt that the Government can make to take on board the various views and produce an easy-to-use, readily explicable proposi-tion, which has the proper safeguards that one would expect when any intrusion into the rights of parents over their children is considered. I do not believe that the child assessment order, as we have it, is an unnecessary intrusion. By reducing the period from 28 days to seven days, we have shown a marked concern that the order
  600
  should not be excessive. I know that there is concern that the child should not be removed from the parents for that period.
  The period for which a child is removed is entirely dependent on the court; it is not something that the local authority will determine. For the most part, the assessment will take place without a requirement to take the child away, save for the period of an afternoon or two afternoons for an assessment to be made. However, there may be rare occasions when an overnight stay is required. Just because the duration of the order could be seven days, no one should presume that the seven-day period is likely.
  The court is likely to he prepared to give an order only when it is clear that all reasonable attempts have been made to secure voluntary co-operation. Rules of court will require the applicant to explain what steps he has taken to secure an assessment of the child. Court proceedings will be on notice and a guardian ad litem will usually be appointed to represent the child and help the court to decide at a full hearing whether an assessment order is needed.
  9 pm
  New clause 13(8) provides specifically that
  "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."
  That point was impressed on me by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). I thought carefully about her comments and was driven to agree that there is an irresistible logic to that argument, having regard to other developments in the law and in the statutes. Not only is such a provision incorporated in new clause 13, but there will be similar amendments in respect of subsequent emergency protection orders and interim orders in the Bill.
  Applications for a child assessment order will be heard inter partes, not ex parte, as for most EPO applications. The parents, the child and certain other persons will be given notice of the application, which is of considerable importance.
  In some circumstances, the court may take the view that those making the application have underestimated the gravity of the case. It will then be open to the court, if it so wills, to make an emergency protection order instead of a child assessment order. Emergencies and non-emergencies are not self-defining categories—so if, having heard the evidence, the court believes that an emergency protection order is needed, it can so move.
  Mr. Vaz: How can the Minister justify a period of seven days for an assessment when his own Department's guidelines suggest that an assessment will take three months?
  Mr. Mellor: Because a three-month order would be regarded as manifestly excessive. We have made serious and genuine attempts, which I believe have been appreciated by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, to deal wherever possible with sensible propositions. There is genuine anxiety lest child assessment orders be used as an oppressive instrument. After careful consideration, I reached the conclusion that a sensible assessment could be made within seven days in almost every case. If necessary, further action could then be taken.
  Mr. Vaz indicated dissent.
  Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman screws up his face, but I fear that he would do so about any element of the provision. I am sorry about that, because it would be good if everyone could agree, but a powerful group has now been marshalled behind the child assessment order. As I said on Second Reading, 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 and the social workers failed to intervene until it was too late.
  We should make it as easy as possible for the right decision to be made. The social worker might conclude that, notwithstanding the failure to produce the child, there is no evidence that an emergency protection order is needed. I believe that the existence on the statute book of the child assessment order will make it much easier, in circumstances of genuine concern and of a failure to produce the child for assessment—when there is a real reason for that application being made—to ensure that the child is protected. One must always remember that in such circumstances the child should always be given the benefit of the doubt. This has not been one of the easiest decisions to make in the Bill—it has been genuinely difficult. It is right that we have hesitated until the last moment and considered all the voices. I commend the child assessment order to the House.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: The Minister said that the assessment process could be carried out in one or two afternoons. What sort of assessment does he have in mind?
  Mr. Mellor: I am not saying that that is typical of the way in which the process will be undertaken. If the fear is that the child has been subject to serious physical abuse, a single medical examination should be able to establish that fact. By the same token, if there is sexual abuse, one or two medical examinations would satisfy that point. I appreciate that, when one is dealing with more difficult emotional traumas, it is more difficult to make an assessment. Those are the circumstances that were envisaged when it was said that assessment could take longer. It is absolutely clear that one could not ask for a three-month order. I do not seek to do that. A seven-day order is an appropriate way of recognising that there is a need for the order, but it must be tightly circumscribed. On that basis, I commend new clause 13 to the House.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the Minister's comments and for his clarification of new clause 13. We have moved from the concept in the 1970s, which was elaborated in the pages of The Times at that time. It stated:
  "from birth till death it is now the privilege of the parental state to take major decisions—objective, unemotional. The state weighs up what is best for the child."
  I am glad to say that we have moved from the concept that the state knows what is better for the future of a child. It is not right for the state to interpose itself in the role of parents. Over many years Parliament and Ministers of every ilk have seen parental power ebbing away. That has led us to this Bill and to the assessment order.
  The Minister was right to say that in Committee we regarded the assessment order as a new power or weapon in the armoury of social services. We discovered that the more we looked at the emergency protection order the more we had also to look at the cases of Jasmine Beckford and Kimberley Carlile and find some way of covering a situation that was potentially dangerous to a child but yet
  602
  did not have the aspect of danger. Over the past few days and weeks I have found myself arguing that this order is proper. It is remarkable that I was criticised for being critical of social workers. I now defend social workers. They should have this weapon in their armoury.
  I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out that the court will state the time for which a child should be taken from its parents—it will not be incorporated in the statute. In Committee the Minister gave a categoric assurance that an assessment order will be made by a proper court rather than by a magistrate sitting at home in his pyjamas. Proceedings will be inter partes, and notice will be given to parents, who will be able to have their own lawyers present if necessary. My concern about the seven days' notice was that a seven-day assessment order might immediately be converted into an interim court order.
  Mr. Mellor indicated dissent.
  Mr. Bell: I am glad to see the Minister indicate from a sedentary position that that will not be the case. I would certainly welcome any enlightenment on that point. It will eventually be a matter for magistrates, but we would not wish to see any short cut to an interim care order.
  Mr. Mellor: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point. Looking back at some of the points that I made earlier, with advantage I could have said that in a certain case in which there is obviously continued cause for concern but no time to do a proper assessment within the seven days it will be possible to apply for such an order. I would regard that as very exceptional. The existence of the child assessment order will make it less likely that an authority would apply ab initio for an interim care order that is, of course, of longer duration—eight weeks, I think I am right in saying.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful for that clarification.
  New clause 13(8) states:
  "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."
  I am not about to refer to Cleveland—I am certainly resisting every temptation to do so.
  In one case a 14-year-old boy was taken in for an examination. He did not want to be examined and said that there was no reason why he should be. He did not want doctors poking around. He was embarrassed and humiliated by the whole experience. The child assessment order and the provisions tabled by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) will assist people in that situation. People who have nothing to hide who do not wish to go through such an examination will not be obliged to go through with it. It is of great interest and significance to our parliamentary procedures that Back Benchers such as the hon. Member for Billericay—and, indeed, the Minister of State—can take on board the points made in Committee and then come to the House to change legislation. I am grateful for that. From my personal experience, I know that that provision is a useful addendum to the new clause.
  I was especially interested when I read the report of the Association of Directors of Social Services. I am aware that in the beginning the association was hostile to an assessment order in addition to the emergency protection

  603
  order. However, the association has considered the position carefully and has come forward with a document referring to
  "a multi-disciplinary assessment in non-emergency situations".
  We hear much of the difficulties and burdens on social workers and the Bill, and especially the new clause, seek to get away from the idea of single responsibility. I do not want any social worker to have the enormous responsibility of deciding whether a child should be taken from his or her home. I do not want social workers, on scanty evidence or information, to have the entire responsibility for a Kimberley Carlile or Jasmine Beckford case. If the assessment order leads to
  "a multi-disciplinary assessment in non-emergency situations",
  I support and favour it.
  The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) may well seek to speak in this debate—I see that he has his notes ready.
  I was also impressed by an article written by Jim Harding, the NSPCC child care director who was a member of the Kimberley Carlile inquiry. He has stated that the benefits of having a child assessment order are fourfold. He listed those benefits with great care, stating:
  "Firstly, parental responsibility is retained by the parents".
  The move to retaining parental responsibility throughout the period of assessment is to be welcomed. It is a moving away from the concept of a "parental state". He then stated:
  "Secondly, the child can be seen by the family doctor in a familiar environment."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) has already referred to an experience that he had when he was eight years old and to other experiences encountered later as a solicitor when taking children into court. He explained how the hostile environment can affect those children, and how it affected him as a child and left him traumatised for many years. As a result of the assessment order, as Mr. Harding of the NSPCC has said:
  "the child can be seen by the family doctor in a familiar environment."
  We must all be looking not to traumatise and alienate those children who may be subject to an assessment.
  The assessment is not necessarily limited to child sexual abuse. It can involve all kinds of abuse and neglect. Mr. Harding also stated:
  "Thirdly, parents are much more likely to co-operate willingly with this type of order and the social work relationship with the family will not be damaged."
  I support that coherent and cogent point.
  Finally, Mr. Harding stated:
  "Lastly…the child can be protected in serious, but not emergency, situations."
  The assessment order therefore has the support of the NSPCC and the Association of Directors of Social Services. Similar points have been put to me by other single issue pressure groups. The original 14-day period has also been subject to some criticism because of fear that it may be linked to a 14-day taking away of the child. I welcome the fact that that will not be the case. Other points have been made about the wideness of the power, saying that it might be wider than the powers of the emergency protection order. I am satisfied that, on balance, in the circumstances, we need this order.
  The order adds to the armoury of the social services, but is a welcome adjustment. It seeks to protect children who may be at risk and of whom we have no knowledge.
  604
  It may abolish the idea that, with hindsight, we could have known better. This provision will prevent such situations from arising. In a sense, we are acting with hindsight in protecting children, whoever they may be and in whatever situation. We are giving them some extra protection which I am sure they will feel is most welcome.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Sims: The new clause has the full support of the NSPCC, and I welcome it for myself and on its behalf. I take this opportunity to express my thanks for the personal contribution of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and his officials in resolving the problems that were presented by differing professional views on how this dilemma should be solved.
  Social workers have faced a dilemma. Often they have feared that all is not well in a home. They were denied access to a child, but had insufficient information to apply for an order to allow them to go to the house and, probably, take that child away. It is understandable that magistrates may have been reluctant to give such powers unless ample evidence was produced.
  The new clause provides additional powers for social workers for which I have pleaded for some time in the House and outside. I am pleased by the new clause, which is a reasonable compromise between the differing professional views on how the matter should be handled. Naturally I have particular interest in the NSPCC. It is admirable that that society and the Association of Directors of Social Services, which orginally held differing views, were able to work together and to produce the particular formula.
  As the Minister has said, it will obviously be easier for social workers faced with the dilemma I have outlined to apply for a child assessment order rather than an emergency protection order. Another aspect that has not been considered is that cases are often brought to the attention of the NSPCC or local authority social workers by friends, neighbours or relatives who are concerned about what is happening in a particular household. There may not be anything definite that they can put their fingers on, but a variety of incidents or simply not seeing a child around the place may cause concern. Up to now, however, anyone in that position knew that if they reported the matter to the appropriate authorities that might result in the child being taken from the home. It is understandable that people were therefore reluctant to give that information. Now that they know that the result of reporting their concern to the NSPCC or the social worker will be that arrangements will be made for the child to be assessed, at relative leisure, it is far more likely that such cases will come to light. Surely that must be good.
  We cannot be sure that as a result of the new clause there will be no more cases such as Maria Colwell, Doreen Mason or the sad procession of such cases in between. The new power for social workers, however, must at least make such cases less likely. For that, we should all be grateful.
  Mr. Vaz: The Minister is absolutely right when he says that we are dealing with the heart of the Bill. He is absolutely right when he says that the emergency orders and the non-emergency orders that social workers will need to take out to deal with concerns expressed about children lie at the heart of the Bill. I am afraid, however,

  605
  that the Minister's introduction of the child assessment order has resulted in a hole appearing in the heart of the Bill.
  I remind the Minister of his words on Second Reading when he told the House of the need to be clear about the law and said:
  "Of course, of itself, legislation cannot stop such tragedies, but we hope that a clear legal framework will help to make more likely clear-eyed judgments by key people involved in child welfare, whether they are in social services departments, health authorities, the police, education or the courts."—[Official Report, 27 April 1989; Vol. 151 c. 1108.]
  There was a direct plea by the Minister for support for his Bill, which at that stage did not include a child assessment order, and that Parliament should be absolutely certain that because of the background of the legislation—the Kimberley Carlile and Doreen Mason cases, the events of Cleveland and the concerns of the Social Services committees and other organisations—this Bill, which we all hail as an historic Bill and which will codify the law of child care, should be clear. We did not want anybody to be under any misapprehension about any of the clauses. We wanted social workers, who deal with major problems and decisions at grass roots, to be clear about what Parliament intended.
  We discussed at length in Committee the emergency protection order which is to be the subject of a further debate tonight. It is right that the House should know the background to the child assessment order. It was during the debate on the emergency protection order that the Committee was adjourned and the Minister, in the spirit in which he has approached this consensus Bill, agreed to allow both Opposition and Conservative Members to meet officials of his Department to discuss the circumstances surrounding the possibility of the introduction of a child assessment notice.
  The Minister told the Committee that agreement had been reached between the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Association of Directors of Social Services which enabled him to come before the Committee and say clearly that at last there was a framework for a non-emergency order. So it was that we adjourned the Committee to discuss the matter with his officials.
  One of the first things that the officials said to Opposition Members was that they knew that the Department of Health's own guidelines suggested that where a child was to be assessed the proper period for assessment should be three months. At that stage it was proposed that there should be a 28-day non-emergency child assessment order. At that stage, hon. Members from both sides of the House revealed that they were unhappy with this. They wondered how it was possible to have a non-emergency order which was longer than the emergency protection order. Whatever the Minister says, and although he is absolutely right when he says that the legal responsibility and parental rights rest with the parents under a child assessment order, it can still be up to the court to remove the child from the home for that period.
  During the summer recess the Minister wrote to hon. Members to tell them that the period had been reduced to 14 days. Last week two meetings were held with the Minister and his officials to discuss the matter. I do not
  606
  raise these points to criticise the Minister. I am delighted that he allowed us to meet his officials. Although he said that two organisations—the ADSS and the NSPCC—are in favour of the proposals, many organisations are against them. They are the organisations that have to deal with the legislation at grass roots level: British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, British Association of Social Workers, Children's Legal Centre, National Children's Bureau, Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Family Rights Group. These respected organisations say clearly that this is the wrong course for the Minister and Parliament to take.
  We met the Minister to discuss this issue in the cathedral room of the Department of Health. He was open in the discussions, and I raised with him my first concern that this non-emergency order of 14 days was going to be longer than the emergency order of eight days. I asked him what further periods of reduction he would consider and the time limit of seven days was mentioned. It was mentioned because it was one day shorter than the emergency protection order. The Minister may have felt that if the period was shortened we would support the principle of the child assessment order.
  A day later we met officials in the Versailles room of the Department of Health. We discussed with them our concerns and raised again our worry that the child assessment order proposals would cause greater harm to children because it would place social workers in a confusing position.
  I and all Opposition Members accept that the state needs to intervene only in exceptional circumstances and that the background of Cleveland showed that the place of safety order, with its 28-day limit, was wholly inappropriate. It lasted too long and many social workers used the place of safety order in the first instance without considering alternatives.
  However, the Minister's suggestion of an order that will allow the court to remove the child from the parental home for seven days for assessment falls down because it is impossible to obtain an assessment of this sort in seven days. I am not arguing for a longer period of three months; I believe that this order will cause massive confusion. Faced with the prospect of taking out an emergency order, social workers will fall back on the new child assessment order because they believe that it will make them the subject of fewer attacks than they have suffered over the Cleveland case and others.
  I should like to place on record my faith in social workers and social services departments. Not every social worker is perfect, but we cannot support the sorts of attacks on their characters and professionalism that we have heard recently.
  There is no evidence, no research and no inquiry to support the Minister's view that there should be a child assessment order. The order will mean that for seven days the whole family could be involved in an assessment. That in turn could mean that children and parents against whom no evidence has been found could be made to attend an assessment centre and undergo therapy with psychiatrists or psychologists.
  If the Minister wants an order that will provide him with this assessment he should look to the interim care order or the interim supervision order as better means of proceeding in cases of this sort. We understand the need that the Minister feels to demonstrate that the Government want to find a halfway house between the

  607
  emergency order and no order at all. That is why the Opposition's new clause 5 suggests the child production notice. We believe that it will meet the worries of Conservative Members and of those outside this Chamber who will have to administer the new law.
  The child production notice will allow a social services department, and social workers through the department, to serve a notice on parents requiring them to produce a child before a doctor or a health visitor in cases in which child abuse is feared. If the parents decide that they do not want to comply with the notice and if they refuse access to the social services department, it is open to the department to apply for an emergency protection order if it is concerned that the family may move away or that it is being denied information. That option is always open to it.
  New clause 5 makes it clear that, in the notice served on parents, they should be told that if they refuse access to a child the department may take out an emergency protection order. That covers the amendment that the Minister proposes to make to clause 38, which will allow the social services department to seek an emergency protection order on the ground of refusal of access. This sort of notice served in clear terms will give parents and others the idea that the social services department is worried.
  This notice can also fit into the proposals on child assessment. That should be an essential first step. During the recess the Minister wrote to hon. Members and said that the idea of a notice was attractive and would be included in the rules of court. We offer him the notice as an alternative to a course of action that will lead to confusion.
  I have experience of these matters. I am concerned because at the crucial time when the social worker has to make a decision and seeks legal advice from the borough solicitor or other legal advisers, those advisers should he clear about the steps that ought to be taken. The assessment order will not do that.
  9.30 pm
  We are legislating for a new code of practice for child care law and it is not right for us to proceed in such a way. I accept what the Minister says: that he has made efforts to find a suitable conclusion to all the inquiries that he has undertaken. However, we should not proceed knowing that it is unlikely that the legislation will not be amended for many years. We should not proceed in such a hurry over such a serious matter. People outside who follow the proceedings will wonder at the bingo-style operation of some of the negotiations. What started with 28 days goes down to 14 and down to seven. If Report were next week by that time it could have gone down to three days. All this will involve parents and children being involved before the courts.
  I agree on many issues with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). He wants to avoid trauma for the child. However, taking out a child assessment order and going before the court, because it is an on-notice application, will cause great trauma. Taking the child away from the home and subjecting him to examinations by psychiatrists and psychologists and using two-way mirrors during discussions with other family members during therapy sessions will also cause great trauma.
  The bingo-style approach is not appropriate for child care matters. We must be very careful about what we do
  608
  and even at this late stage I urge the Minister not to go down the road that he has chosen. I believe that there will be an increase in child abuse if we approve this child assessment order simply because social workers will prefer not to go for the emergency order but will opt for the on-notice order.
  Mr. Bell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Vaz: No. I am approaching the end of my speech.
  Social workers will rightly condemn the House and the members of the Committee for not acceding to a reasonable request, and the judgment of history will be harsh.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I thank the Minister for taking on board the fact that children, even young children, should be allowed to decide whether to undergo psychiatric and physical examinations. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said that he did not want to raise again the matter of Cleveland, but it was an important aspect of what went on in Cleveland that young children were subjected to physical examinations without any opportunity to protest. Sometimes those examinations were more of an abuse than that for which the children had been taken into care in the first place. The Minister has adopted an important point. I compliment the children's legal centre which has worked closely with those of us who were on the Committee in order to construct these necessary points and have them put into the Bill.
  I should like the Minister to assure us that children who are taken in under assessment orders will not be compelled to undergo psychiatric or any other kind of examination. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) has said that children taken in under such orders may well be subject to psychiatric investigations. I want the Minister's assurance that such investigations will not be carried out against the child's will if the child is capable of making the decision. I believe that even quite young children are capable of making such decisions.
  The import of the point that my hon. Friend the Minister took on board when he agreed that young children should not be forced, against their will, to undergo these examinations is that earlier legislation was based on the concept of children as chattels or the property of parents, and property about which magistrates could make orders, almost as if the child had no will of his own and no opinion in the matter. That was a crucial criticism of earlier legislation. It is paramount that this new legislation embodies the principle that, although they may he small physically, the rights of children should be no less than those of adults. A prisoner may not be subjected to forcible examination of this kind against his will. People in rape cases, prostitutes and all sorts of people who are taken in may not be subjected to examination against their will. This Bill will apply those rights to children, and that is an enormous advance.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) said that he thought that the issue had been resolved. The Minister has said that the Association of Directors of Social Services and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children had agreed on the form of words for the assessment order. However, I do not believe that the issue is anywhere near resolved and I am worried by what is on offer in the Bill.

  609
  I agree with those who said that in Committee we were reasonable with each other and tried for a consensus. I pay tribute to the Minister for his efforts. It is not in his nature, as it is not in mine, to be quite so reasonable. I also pay tribute to his civil servants, who went out of their way to be helpful to us Back-Bench Members. However, I shall now put the boot in and make some important points that need to be made.
  This weekend, I looked at some of the comments made in Committee. I noticed one hon. Member—I shall not say who it was—reading his entire speech from the Committee Hansard. In Committee, I made a point by which I still stand. It is that I am attracted by some form of assessment order, but I have distinct reservations about the 28 days that was originally proposed in Committee. I spelt out a more simple form of assessment, along the lines of a straightforward medical assessment that could take place within a couple of hours or even less, in the company of the parents. What I had in mind was what my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) has put forward as his child production notice.
  We have been discussing this order for some time. When we first spoke of the matter in Committee, the period was 28 days. It implied a full assessment that would involve, as could happen within 28 days, social, psychological, psychiatric, educational and medical assessment and possibly other aspects that could be included, as is the norm when the child is fully assessed, before he is placed on a care order, when he has been through the courts and been made the subject of an order.
  While the order recognised a gap in the law, it went completely overboard, and the Minister accepted that and withdrew the 28-day period. It went beyond what was required, and no one was prepared to support it in Committee. The Minister expressed concern and said that he had a relatively open mind, and I commend him for it. He asked for a steer from the Committee and said:
  "it is too long a period and … perhaps we are really thinking of an assessment that can be transformed into another form of order if there is a real basis for anxiety."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B: 25 May 1989, c. 317.]
  The Minister has moved along the lines that he predicted, but I wish that he had looked at it in more detail and taken on board some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, and which I will raise because of my anxiety about what will happen if the order goes through as is suggested.
  Many of us said in Committee that there should be some form of child production notice, along the lines of a brief, straightforward statutory notice that would not involve going through the rigmarole of the courts system, with huge clumps of procedure, would not have implications that would impinge on the rights of parents and children, and would not mean their being dragged through proceedings. They would be asked to go along to a doctor or health visitor to have that child assessed simply in a way that would be acceptable to many parents if the alternative were to be taken through the courts.
  I have a number of objections to the child assessment order. It clearly duplicates what is available in existing law, which already provides for assessments for children on a place of safety order. I accept that currently that is a 28-day order, but I know that for police place-of-safety orders there is a shorter time scale. I am talking about full
  610
  assessment, not brief medical assessments—although, more often than not, they might be all that is required. There are assessments with interim care orders, and there are informal assessments, where no order is required, while a child is in voluntary care or, with the parents' consent, when the child is in his own home. Whether educational, medical, psychological or whatever, those assessments take place.
  While it may be impracticable within an eight-day emergency protection order to undertake the thorough assessment processes possible on full place-of-safety orders, it would be possible to obtain assessments of certain aspects of a child's case under the provisions already contained in the Bill, and without the necessity for a child assessment order. If just a simple medical assessment is not appropriate, but certain evidence is required, that can be obtained under the emergency protection order within the eight-day period. Under clause 39(4)(b), the emergency protection order empowers a court to require medical or psychiatric examination of a child. Therefore, any such assessment can take place during the time that the child is detained.
  The Minister has reduced the time scale for the child assessment order from 28 days to 14 days, and he is now proposing that it be further reduced to seven days. He has been reasonable and has attempted to achieve consensus, but he is expecting the impossible if he wants the child assessment order to encompass a full and comprehensive assessment. He has defeated the object of the originally intended assessment because it is impractical within the time scale allowed by the amendment. It is not possible to expect social, psychological, psychiatric, medical, educational and other assessments to be carried out in any detail within the amendments time scale. Therefore, the objections raised to the 28-day period have led to the order being reduced to a complete misnomer because such a full assessment cannot happen in the proposed time scale.
  On the issue of civil liberties, I want to raise the question of the implications of the principle of what is essentially an evidence-seeking order. There are lawyers and others in this Chamber who have a great deal more experience of the law than I have. I wish to know whether such an order has a place in British justice. The child assessment order allows for the removal of the child from home for seven days on much less serious grounds than those for an emergency protection order which allows detention for eight days. I find it worrying that children can be removed from home and detained for an equivalent period for assessment purposes.
  I recall our debates about the implications of the 1969 Act and the questions that arose about civil liberties in the way that children were treated on the basis that they were in need of care. Questions were raised because people were given harsher sentences because they were deemed in need of care than they would have been if they had been deemed criminals. I am worried about the implications for civil liberties of an evidence-seeking order, especially when taken in conjunction with an emergency protection order.
  I was interested to note that the British Association of Social Workers has indicated its opposition to the measure. I fear that the child assessment order will cause immense confusion among social workers, because it will not facilitate the use of many existing models of assessment; it will not be possible to make a proper assessment of the kind envisaged in the amendment with a seven-day time scale. While we must recognise that the

  611
  order will be made on the direction of the court, we must also recognise that it will usually be made because a social worker has recommended it in the report that he has given the court. If the social workers are confused, the courts will inevitably be confused as well.
  9.45 pm
  The distinction between the child assessment and emergency protection orders is very unclear, particularly as it will he possible to obtain an assessment within the period of the emergency protection order. The new clause does not make it clear in what circumstances either course would be chosen.
  My concern about many parts of the Bill is underpinned by doubt about whether the Government have given any thought to the resourcing implications. If the child assessment order takes off—and is understood —what facilities will enable us to meet demands which, I suspect, will far exceed the supply of assessment processes? Assessment is a complicated process and, if done properly, an expensive one. The impracticality of the seven-day time scale leaves the whole matter open to question, as does the issue of available resources for domiciliary, day and residential assessment.
  The training of social workers is a matter which we shall probably not have a chance to address in detail, but will they be trained sufficiently to understand when they should use which order? I have been a practising social worker for 20 years and am fairly highly qualified, but I am not sure how I would apply the legislation. Goodness knows how someone who has just come into the job would manage.
  The reduction in the time scale has completely undermined the assessment purpose of the order. All that the Government can reasonably do, in my view, is drop the order and bring in something along the lines of the child production notice. Gaining access to a child is crucial—we all accept that, although we have different ways of resolving the issue—but we need a measure that is far less cumbersome and more easily understood, and that will enable social workers to obtain what they want at that stage. They will want a medical assessment showing knowledge on the part of a doctor of a child's physical state—whether it has been assaulted, for instance, and whether it has bruises. Skeletal service may be involved, as may other medical matters; the question of sexual assault may arise.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East knows my reasons for disliking the term "child production", which has numerous connotations of which he is aware from our personal discussions; nor do I believe that an assessment notice would be appropriate. Assessment now seems to be the order of the day, and one of our difficulties is that people have not fully understood what is meant by assessment.
  My understanding of assessment ranges from a full comprehensive assessment to the simple medical assessment that the Minister mentioned when I asked him what could be achieved in one afternoon. That is what is needed, as such an assessment enables a social worker to make an initial diagnosis and decide what to do next. It might be that the child ends up under an emergency protection order, and it might be that a more comprehensive assessment could be undertaken during that eight-day period, during a subsequent interim care order or at the
  612
  start of the care order, but I do not think that it should be done on the lines of the assessment order proposed by the Minister.
  In doing his best to be reasonable and conciliatory the Minister has made assessment orders effectively inoperable. He has disappeared into his own reasonableness, which is most unfortunate because he has tried, as members of the Committee have tried. I appeal to the Minister to take on board our objections and concerns. They are sincere and there is no party political malice. We want to get the Act right. I have been involved in social work for a long time and I am concerned that what is on offer here will cause immense confusion and will not resolve the problems that we want resolved.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I am delighted to follow the tone of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and the many logical points that he made. I was particularly pleased with his comments about the Minister of State. I think it was the late Harry Cowans who said to me when I arrived in this place, "When they put you on a Committee, you will usually find two Ministers. One of them will be Mr. Nice and the other will be Mr. Nasty." On the basis of a few off-the-cuff remarks, I would not dream of saying that the Solicitor-General would qualify as Mr. Nasty, but on the evidence so far the Minister for Health has well and truly established himself as the Mr. Nice of the Committee. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield was saying.
  The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) were extremely important. He addressed new clause 5, which the Opposition would have found very logical in practice. There are also a number of questions which the Minister would want to answer. Perhaps the distinction between assessment orders and emergency protection orders is not as clear as we would wish, and perhaps they should be clarified, if not in this debate, perhaps later.
  As I said, many of the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East were attractive, but does that give us the right to challenge new clause 13? In my view, it does not because, as my hon. Friends acknowledge, this was one of the most difficult issues that the Minister and the Committee had to address. We appreciate the fact that the Minister involved the voluntary organisations and professional bodies before reaching a conclusion. I have to acknowledge that, most unusually, he also involved the Opposition.
  I am not saying that we find that the assessment orders as outlined in new clause 13 represent absolute perfection, but if, on one hand, the NSPCC and the ADSS support the Minister and, on the other hand, a number of distinguished organisations, including the Family Rights Group, disagree, we are entitled to make one demand of the Minister to which he will feel he should respond.
  In all of our discussions, including the discussions last week, which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East mentioned, nobody—including the Ministers' officials and advisers—was arrogant enough to say that he was absolutely certain that we had got it right, especially on the assessment orders. Nobody could predict whether social workers would rush to use the assessment order, or whether only a few would seek application to see how the order worked.
  However, we are entitled to ask the Minister for the closest possible monitoring of how the order will work and

  613
  how new clause 13 will work in practice. We ask for that monitoring; and we have another request. It is important that the monitoring should take place in the spirit of our exchanges this evening. I feel that Parliament would want an early opportunity to find out what that monitoring would mean and how it would work in practice. Only with that experience of an extremely delicate matter—and we acknowledge its delicacy—would the House be absolutely confident in reaching its final conclusion.
  Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the House for this debate. Even those who have felt unable to agree with new clause 13 have, nevertheless, been at pains to point out their recognition of the strenuous efforts made to try to resolve the matter to the satisfaction of all and I am grateful for that. I am especially grateful for the courtesy of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and I was most touched by his remarks.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) knows only too well that we considered carefully his child production notice and I am grateful to him not only for his having given us the benefit of his experience, which I recognise to be considerable, in stating with great clarity why he did not like our proposal, but for going to a great deal of trouble to put forward a proposal that he considered worthy of consideration. I want to assure him that we considered the matter carefully, as he knows from discussions with my officials.
  There are several reasons why I felt unable to agree to the child production notice. First, it would involve an action that we have aspired to remove from the law on children, which is the ability of a local authority, or any other body, to take substantial control of the situation by administrative action, rather than by court order. All of us wanted to give the court control over these issues. Obtaining a child production notice, serving it and placing a requirement on parents on the judgment and say-so of the local authority alone would be going back on our action at an earlier stage of the Bill to remove the right of local authorities to take by administrative action any form of parental control over the child.
  Secondly, I could not put out of my mind the fact that new clause 5 provides only for production of the child. Taken literally, that could mean merely showing the child briefly and fully clothed to a doctor or nurse, but refusing any further contact, examination or assessment and that would seem to fall short of what is required.
  I appreciate that one is between Scylla and Charybdis. The Scylla is that we are being too draconian and the Charybdis is that we are passing into law an order that will be ineffective. I take some comfort from the fact that both the hon. Member for Leicester, East and his hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who opposed the new clause 13, were in favour of a production order that, as they envisaged it, would allow for one medical examination. If that could be effective, I cannot help but feel that a seven-day order could be effective. If that seems too draconian, I must point out that seven days would be unlikely to be seven consecutive days in which a child was taken away from parents, so it would be far less draconian than the alternative to which the hon. Gentlemen were driven back in their arguments, which is the eight-week interim care order. That has the effect of taking over parental control of the child. I was grateful to the hon.
  614
  Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) because he proved, as he often proves with his commonsense views on this issue, that it was worth pursuing this idea. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough would have spoken in favour of the order if we had not made the changes that we have. While we may not have been able to take everyone with us on the issue, we have progressed a good way along the road.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) should be aware that, under subsection (8) of the new clause, any child with full understanding may refuse a medical examination——
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Children Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Fallon.]
  Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Mellor: As I was saying, subsection (8) effectively provides what my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay asked for. In relation to my hon. Friend's additional point about a child of whatever age protesting and not wanting to be subjected to an examination, even if it were deemed that it was not a child with full understanding of the process, I do not believe that any medical practitioner would carry out a medical examination if a child resisted it. I believe that that would be in line with what we know about medical ethics.
  While I appreciate that there cannot, alas, be full agreement, I suspect that there was a more substantial measure of agreement in this debate than many might have thought possible when we introduced the proposal. I believe that that agreement has vindicated our approach. I will consider the comments made by the hon. Member for Monklands, West about monitoring. I will discuss with the Association of Directors of Social Services ways in which we can keep tabs on what is happening with a view to having an early look at the effectiveness or otherwise of the proposal. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
  Mr. Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When will the House have an opportunity to vote on new clause 5?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it would be appropriate to vote on new clause 5 because new clause 13 has been agreed to. In any event, it would not fall for a vote until quite late on when we reach it on the Amendment Paper—probably, in terms of our progress, not until tomorrow.
  Mr. Vaz: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are your saying that we can vote on new clause 5 after new clause 4?
  Mr. Speaker: No. On the contrary. It would not be appropriate in view of the fact that new clause 13 has been agreed to.

New Clause 14

  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 organisations.
  (7) The provisions are—

  (a) section 43;

  (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.'—[Mr. Mellor.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will he convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 114 and 117.
  Mr. Mellor: New clause 14 will bring great pleasure to many hon. Members who were concerned about the provision of refuges for run-away youngsters, about which the Children's Society was concerned. Those concerns were raised by several hon. Members in correspondence and in the House. They were raised also in Standing Committee on behalf of the Children's Society by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), whom I am glad to see present today in the Chamber. Those concerns related to whether the existence of a refuge might be construed by the courts as an inducement to young people to stay away from home, thus placing in jeopardy organisations providing that valuable service.
  I am glad to say that the revised new clause meets those concerns. It provides that organisations and persons providing refuges may be issued with a certificate by the Secretary of State and that where a certificate is in force those running the refuge, whether in children's homes or as foster parents, cannot be prosecuted for offences involving, for example, harbouring.
  616
  Regulations under the new clause will impose rigorous requirements on those running refuges and those acting for the Secretary of State will examine those seeking certificates with great care. Bona fide organisations will have no difficulty in complying with those requirements. I am quite sure that I speak for the whole House in expressing pleasure that we have been able to bring forward this new clause to meet the legitimate concerns of the Children's Society and others.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I welcome the new clause and the Minister's remarks. Hon. Members almost certainly receive more correspondence on this issue than on any other. The Children's Society has already acknowledged the progress that has been made. Perhaps the spirit of the Bill is reflected in what the House is about to agree. We have always argued that the interests of the child should be paramount. A child who, for whatever reason, has left home has the right to have two or three days in which to think out his or her situation in a calm manner without the Children's Society, for example, being threatened with action for harbouring. That represents progress. I am sure that Opposition Members welcome what the Minister has said.
  Mr. James Paice: I appreciate the way in which my hon. and learned Friend has resolved the difficulties in this issue. When the Bill left the other place, there was great concern about the ambiguity of the Lord Chancellor's remarks on Third Reading and about whether the Government intended simply to deal with children who had run away from care or those who had run away from home. My hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the several exchanges that have taken place between us and with the Children's Society in endeavouring to make sure that we have a clear form of words.
  The problem was that there was debate between lawyers on whether the initially proposed amendments fitted the Bill. I am delighted that my hon. and learned Friend has been able to meet the various requirements put forward by the Children's Society. About 10,000 children are believed to be missing in London each year. Obviously, it is important that the work of the Children's Society, safe houses and refuges should be allowed to continue unhindered. I welcome the clause because it finally makes sure that the Children's Society is acting within the law rather than outside it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 15

  PROVISION OF ACCOMMODATION BY VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS
  .—(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;

  617

  (e) maintaining him in a home provided by the Secretary of State under section 74(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 20(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 under section 20(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 23.
  (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.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 16

  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.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 311.
  Mr. Mellor: This new clause is a general provision which empowers Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to extend provisions in the Bill to the Channel Islands.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 17

  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.
  (3B) Regardless of subsection (2) or (3), representation under this Part must be granted where a child who is brought
  618
  before a court under section 22 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.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 18

  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 Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 to suspend or rescind orders shall not apply in relation to any order made under this Act.
  (6) Part I of Schedule (Jurisdiction) 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 (Jurisdiction) 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 (Jurisdiction) makes amendments consequential on this section;.—[Mr. Mellor.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 19

  WELFARE OF CHILDREN ACCOMMODATED IN INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS
  '.—(1) It shall be the duty of—

  619

  (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 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 an 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.
  `—(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 and in doing so to have regard to such guidance as may be issued by the Secretary of State.
  (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 and authority may recover from the proprietor of the school such fee as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section.
  (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 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 an 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—

  (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.'.
  Amendment (c), in line 12, at end insert—
  (8) Any person authorised by the regulations to inspect records—s

  (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.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 33—Welfare of children accommodated in independent schools (No. 2)—
  '(3A) A local authority may recover from the Secretary of State the cost of carrying out its duties under subsection (3) above.".

  621
  Government amendments Nos. 305, 393 and 308.
  Mr. Mellor: These amendments arise from discussions in Committee, particularly those instigated by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and following a considerable amount of concern in the media about the welfare of children in independent boarding schools, particularly after the programme "That's Life" investigated some serious allegations of sexual abuse of children who were being accommodated at an independent boarding school. Since then, pursuant to undertakings that I gave in Committee, I have considered the matter carefully with Ministers at the Department of Education and Science. We have tabled the new clause and the consequential amendments in an endeavour to deal with some of the issues raised in that case.
  There are three main elements to the new provisions proposed in new clause 19. First, a new duty is placed on the proprietor or any other person conducting an independent school that provides accommodation for any child to safeguard and promote the child's welfare. This provision applies to independent schools that are not categorised as children's homes or residential care homes. We dealt with such categories earlier. The House will remember that those provisions apply where there are fewer than 50 pupils.
  Secondly, any local authority, within the area of which the accommodation is provided, must do what is reasonably practical to determine whether the child's welfare is adequately safeguarded and promoted while he is accommodated by the school. Those two elements broadly follow the welfare scheme for children in voluntary homes and children's homes, which is already included in parts VII and VIII.
  The third element is that, where the local authority considers that the person or proprietor conducting the school is failing to discharge his welfare duty under subsection (1), the authority must notify the Secretary of State.
  Amendment No. 244, to be taken later, will amend the Education Act 1944 so that failure to comply with this duty will be a ground on which notice of complaint action can be taken. This can lead in serious cases to the school being removed from the register of independent schools and having to close.
  I am sure that the amendments and the new clause will commend themselves to the House because what concerned people as a result of the "That's Life" programme and the issues raised by it was that social services departments could intervene only when allegations of child abuse had been made. We know that most independent schools are conducted in ways that totally obviate any concerns for the welfare of the children, but although one acknowledges that straightaway, there are isolated examples that we cannot ignore. If, as I hope, the House passes the new clause, we will be providing a corresponding provision to the duties that already exist requiring Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools to be satisfied about a school's educational and other standards. In effect, we are allowing a social services department to satisfy itself about the social as opposed to the educational welfare of the children. Obviously, the circumstances of individual schools will determine the amount of time that a social services department feels that it must spend.
  622
  I hope that the new clause represents a move forward with which the whole House can be happy. I hope that the hon. Member for Wakefield feels that he has had fair value——
  Mrs. Peacock: Will my hon. and learned Friend clarify one point? Did he say that new clause 19 relates to schools with fewer than 50 pupils?
  Mr. Mellor: No, but I am glad to be able to clear that up. It applies to all independent schools. Such institutions with fewer than 50 pupils are, in effect, already deemed—by the provisions that we passed earlier—to be a children's home. As originally drafted, the Bill dealt with schools only in one particular category. The provision now applies to all independent schools. Obviously, while no one is suggesting that such problems arise in all independent schools—they do not—it is difficult to arrive at a definition that allows us to include those schools where problems might arise. The provision is a way of ensuring that there can be satisfaction about certain non-educational standards in the schools—what one might call "the standards of the regime". The provisions will not be burdensome or onerous on the many well-conducted independent schools throughout the country.
  Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the radical nature of his proposal? There must be generations of parliamentarians of all parties, but especially from this party, who find the concept that they were at an institution with a duty to promote their welfare subversive to the point of astonishment.
  Mr. Mellor: As a humble grammar school boy I know nothing of those things. I simply do my best with the circumstances in which I find myself. New clause 19 is the best I can do and I commend it to the House.
  Ms. Armstrong: I welcome the clause. It mirrors in all respects the new clause in the name of my hon. Friends and myself. I do so, however, with a few peculiar feelings.
  The House will be aware that much of the rest of my time is spent with the education team and that much of my time in Committee was spent on the Education Reform Bill. Then we argued strongly that the independent schools system should be seen as part of the nation's provision and regulated in that way in terms of educational provision and other matters.
  10.15 pm
  I was interested by the Minister's remarks because, on other parts of the Bill, I have argued strongly that one cannot deal with the education of children without taking note of their care whether in a residential home or in their family home. Those two requirements cannot be divorced. If a child is abused or neglected, that has a major effect on its educational opportunities and on its ability to gain the confidence from which learning springs.
  The clause is welcome as it represents a recognition by the Government that the market mechanism cannot be trusted as the sole weapon to look after the welfare of children. During the proceedings on the Education Reform Bill, that market argument was used by the Government to exclude the independent sector from various aspects of the Bill.
  Mr. Key indicated dissent.
  Ms. Armstrong: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not remember that part of our proceedings. I remember, however, that that was the reason that the Minister of State gave for excluding independent schools.
  Mr. Key: I had not intended to intervene, but the hon. Lady has taunted me. I do not recall that argument being used. The argument was that an independent school is an independent school and, therefore, one does not wish the Secretary of State to become involved with it other than within the framework of the law by which everyone else must abide. The Secretary of State is not directly responsible for education in the independent sector. That was the argument used in Committee.
  Ms. Armstrong: I refer to Hansard, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to reread the reports of those debates, as I did this weekend.
  The Government said that parents would move their children from a school if they were dissatisfied with that school. Therefore, they implied that the free market would make the decisions. Now, however, it is recognised that young people—in this instance, young boys—may find themselves unable to tell their parents what is going on for all sorts of reasons. Through the good offices of Esther Rantzen and "That's Life", those boys made clear in graphic and horrifying terms the practices that were going on in the school that they had been unable to stop.
  The clause recognises that the state should have not only the power to intervene, but the duty to do so. What surprises and concerns me is that we have heard no word about this from any of the organisations that are connected with the independent schools. I am a little disappointed about that. I should have thought that after the revelations on "That's Life" those organisations would have pressed the House to take such powers so that those organisations could reassure people who were thinking of placing their child in such a school that the state had the power to intervene. Perhaps that is an indication that voluntary codes of control simply have not worked and have been insufficient to promote the welfare of children.
  We welcome the Government's recognition of the role of local authorities in providing regulation and recognise that local authorities are the best organisations to do this. However, the new clause contradicts other aspects of the Bill. Amendment No. 27 seeks to remove the provision which allows local authorities to charge for the registration of child minders. I know that we shall come to this issue later in the debate, but I wish to raise the principle here.
  I assume that the Government must have decided to accept our amendment because in bringing forward the new clause, which also introduces new powers of regulation and inspection for local authorities, they have not attached a fee similar to the one which they propose to charge to voluntary playgroups, child minders and so on. I hope that this is a recognition on the Government's part that regulation and inspection of this nature is a public responsibility and is important to all of us and that, therefore, there should not be an individual charge.
  624
  I would find it inconceivable for the Government to want to charge voluntary organisations such as playgroups for registration, but not to recognise the need for public schools—about which Government Members know more than me and which charge exorbitant or high fees—to be subject to a charge for their inspection by the local authorities. I am sure that the Minister will want to clear up this anomaly.
  We tabled an amendment seeking to ensure that the Secretary of State would accept responsibility for this aspect of additional duty which will be costly to local authorities. We are adding duties to those which the local authorities already have and we have heard that some of them have insufficient resources to meet their new duties. It is important that we ensure that we do not place such a considerable additional duty on some authorities that they are forced to choose between different duties when deciding how to spend their social services budget. I am sure that the Minister knows what I am asking. I hope that he will say that it is a public responsibility to ensure good regulations and a good quality of care, but that he will ensure that local authorities have sufficient money for this purpose.
  I was also interested to note that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has laid an order before the House which deals with the application of corpora] punishment in independent schools. The order makes it clear that in those schools where the social services are paying the fees of a student children should not have corporal punishment administered to them. In many ways that fits in with the clause. When a beating has taken place it is difficult to determine whether it has been for educational or care purposes. Today we are saying that for care purposes we shall regulate to ensure that that is not possible. I hope that the independent schools will take notice of that and ensure that children who are the subject of care orders or who are placed in independnt schools by local authorities are treated no differently from other children, and that all corporal punishment will be ended in these schools. I hope, furthermore, that the contradictions opened up by the statutory instrument and the new clause will be recognised and resolved.
  I urge the Secretary of State to let us know what additional resources will go to local authorities which carry this out. We see this as a first step towards bringing the independent sector into the mainstream. Of course, the next Labour Government will be interested in the welfare of children in public schools—so much so that we are also interested in their education. We believe that they are part of the nation, and we will ensure that they are brought within the national curriculum.
  We shall also ensure that local education authorities are given a power similar to that contained in the new clause so that social services departments can inspect public schools, and we will make sure that the inspection of education at, and the publication of information on, public schools match those being demanded of state schools.
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I can tell the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) that neither market forces nor state intervention is any safeguard against human wickedness, so the argument has no mileage in it. However, like her, I welcome the spirit and intent of new clause 19 because of the disturbing allegations which have been referred to and which, to some extent, apply to a school in my constituency. Other schools also give rise to concern.
  This new clause partially makes up for the surprising omission from the Foster Children Act 1980 of any duty on a local authority to safeguard the welfare of young people at independent schools. Now the duty is to be placed on the proprietor of, or the head teacher at, a boarding independent school
  "to safeguard and promote the child's welfare."
  Perhaps that is the right way round, but I cannot help feeling that the words
  "to safeguard and promote the child's welfare"
  will be found to be open to many interpretations, and I hope that the regulations referred to in the new clause will lay down clear standards that can be followed by independent schools and include a requirement for regular visits from the social services department.
  What if a proprietor or head teacher for reasons of his own, however, says that a visit on a particular day is inconvenient, or refuses to allow entry to the premises without prior notice? Does that constitute obstruction under the new clause? I should be grateful for guidance on that from my hon. and learned Friend.
  Let us assume for a moment that a social worker from the social services department of a local authority has decided to visit a particular school and that his visit has been agreed by the head teacher or proprietor. May we be assured that the regulations will empower him to interview all the staff and pupils individually or in unaccompanied groups? Will he be able to inspect bedrooms, washing facilities and kitchens and investigate pastoral care, medical care, the contact children are allowed with their parents and the areas available for free time?
  Then there are the welfare problems to which we all think this new clause refers. They must include sexual abuse, possibly committed by members of the staff on the children for whom they are responsible. It is extremely unlikely that a pupil who has been abused and who is interviewed in the presence of, or in close proximity to, his abuser will say what happened.
  Therefore, it seems that total privacy is a first essential if the social worker is to discover anything of value during the short visit that he or she may make to a school. I am not sure at what stage a social worker can ask for a medical examination and whether the social worker will be empowered to remove a pupil from a school, perhaps to a doctor's surgery, if he feels that that is the correct course of action.
  Even in the most favourable atmosphere pupils may be reluctant to say what has happened to them because of the sense of guilt from which such children are known to suffer and because of the stigma that such matters carry. Plainly, social workers will have to be very carefully trained in order to pick up the warning signals.
  626
  10.30 pm
  I wonder whether some teachers in independent schools might be able to join the courses organised by the Community Education Development centre in Coventry. I know that that centre has been running courses for many years to acquaint teachers in state schools with the same warning signs. The clause states that where a local authority is of the opinion that there has been a failure by an independent school to carry out its duty to safeguard and promote the child's welfare it shall notify the Secretary of State. What then happens and what sort of time frame is considered? Will action by the Secretary of State be immediate? Will it be within a given time, perhaps 48 hours, and what will it consist of?
  If there are strong grounds for believing that there has been sexual abuse, plainly an investigation will have to be set in train. If the head teacher or principal was involved, who would have power to suspend them while the inquiry was going on? One might reasonably say that the governors would have that power, but there is no requirement for independent schools to have governors. Even if there were, there is no certainty that the governors, having been appointed by the principal, did not share his predilections.
  Some independent schools accept the children of service families, and some of the schools about which allegations have been made are in precisely that position. If they receive an income from the Ministry of Defence in education grants or, for that matter, from Foreign Office grants because a family is overseas, a strong case could surely be made for the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office having a member on the governing body or in a supervisory role. Perhaps as in the state sector it would be suggested that one or two parent governors would be another safeguard.
  New clause 19 seems to be a badly needed measure to enable social service departments to look after the welfare of children who up to now have been outside the responsibility of those departments.
  I have no doubt that 99 per cent. of independent boarding schools already provide excellent pastoral care. However, the allegations that have been made are so serious that we cannot let them go by. The Bill gives us the opportunity to take action. I am aware that there is understandable reluctance by the Department of Education and Science to become involved in the running of independent schools. Perhaps to some extent I share the view of the hon. Member for Durham, North-West that there should be some loose structure provided by the Department for independent schools.
  Her Majesty's inspectorate carries out inspections of independent schools in connection with the quality of teaching, the general facilities and the state of the buildings. Therefore, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that a social services inspectorate might go in with HMI inspectors when they make a visit. While the HMI inspectors are looking at standards of education, the social services inspectorate could consider welfare matters and, like the HMI, publish its findings. It would in no sense be an alternative to what is in the clause but it would reinforce the inquiries carried out by social services departments. That would be to bring in a third line of inquiry, much as local education authority inspectors are reinforced by the HMI in terms of education.
  When the legislation receives Royal Assent, as I have no doubt that it will, how soon will it be implemented? It has

  627
  been pointed out to me that the Children's Homes Act 1982 still waits to be implemented. I should be sad if that were the fate of this Bill.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I do not want to belittle the deep seriousness with which the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) has spoken, but he has underestimated the nature of the problem. He is still looking back to the romantic time of his old school days, with an ivy-covered quadrangle and an accommodation block run by a nice, friendly matron. The world of private education is not always like that. There is a demi monde of new-type private education that may provide accommodation, but in lodging houses in the town. The Bill does not oblige such schools to inform the local authority of how they are providing accommodation.
  What is "providing accommodation"? Does it mean directly, by way of premises in the ownership of the school, or does it mean suggesting lodgings with one of a group of landladies? That is quite common. Does it cover the over-16s? Does it cover pupils who are aged between 16 and 18 and going to the new private sixth-form colleges that are proliferating? These frequently have foreign students who may live 10,000 miles away from home and their family. They have come with a desperate desire to get English A-levels and will frequently live in one of the suggested lodging houses. The local authority will not necessarily know about the lodging houses which come under the umbrella of the school and which could easily be interpreted as having been provided by the school under this clause.
  I am not sure that local authorities will know where the accommodation is, so the idea of social services inspectors going in with the HMI to inspect the dorm while they inspect the school is not tenable. The accommodation may be provided in another local authority area. The clause does not go far enough to establish control over the new private schools run as businesses or as a straight commercial activity.
  Mr. Key: I should like to help the hon. Member. He may be interested to know that at Harrow school, where I taught for some years, it was only in the 1930s that the school governors purchased boarding houses, which had previously been owned by the landladies and sometimes by the schoolmasters. Today, Harrow owns all the accommodation for its boys. There is a common pattern in the independent sector of the use of masters' accommodation and of landladies, which is part of the ancient school tradition. It is by no means a modern phenomenon and it does not pose a difficulty.
  Mr. Morgan: The hon. Member has pinpointed the source of the difficulty. If there is no obligation on the school to issue a list of the accommodation that it is providing, or even to say whether it is providing accommodation, and is therefore covered by the clause, there is a problem, particularly for many foreign students who cannot consult their parents on such matters because they may not see them from the beginning to the end of the year, and are dependent on Britain's good reputation for looking after its schools. Their parents, 12,000 miles away, will think that they are safe because they have been sent to Britain and are in good hands. I wonder whether they are.
  Mr. Hardy: Earlier this evening, hon. Members were gathered to say farewell to the esteemed Editor of the
  628
  Official Report, Mr. Morgan. I teased Mr. Morgan a little by referring to what happened when I said that a Tory Member resembled Dr. Squeers. I shall not identify that hon. Member because I am sure that he is readily recognisable to his colleagues. When Hansard came out, the word had been changed to "square". Dickens probably does not have quite the influence that he had on education.
  Mr. Morgan: He is probably not on the national curriculum.
  Mr. Hardy: He is unlikely to receive a high place on the curriculum. Dickens exposed the reality of the horror on schools in some parts of England and, I am ashamed to say, in some parts of Yorkshire, because Dotheboys Hall was a real school, with a different name, situated in my county. That was all before social services departments were set up. That was before the NSPCC, with which I am proud to be associated, was established. But, as the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) said, evil is still with us, despite the new structures that have been put in place. For that reason, my hon. Friend the Member far Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) was right to refer to the need for priority and resources.
  Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause commences:
  "Where accommodation is provided for a child by an independent school within the area of a local authority, the authority shall take … steps"
  to care for the child. Some parts of the country may not contain any independent schools. I may not in my area have an independent school capable of providing residential accommodation—and I do not think there are any such schools in Rotherham—but there may be some in Doncaster.
  What will be the position if a child from the Rotherham area who is known to Rotherham borough council attends an independent school near his home but not within that borough council area? Will the authority in which the school is situated assume responsibility for the child, even though that authority's social workers may not know anything about the case? The wording of that provision might cause problems. Surely, the authority that knows the case history of the child, perhaps co-operating with the authority in which the school is situated, should be responsible for maintaining supervision of the child.
  Subsection (5) of the proposed new clause is also worrying. The hon. Member for Newbury thought the school would agree to a visit by an inspector. I am not so sure, and that is why I question the use of the word "reasonable" in that subsection. I suggest that
  "any person authorised by a local authority"
  to care for a child should be free to visit an independent school at any time. "Reasonable" seems to qualify that freedom, remembering that some people may wish to stretch the use of the word "reasonable" in an unreasonable way. As the hon. Member for Newbury said, there are latter-day Squeerses.
  We read in today's newspapers reports about two areas of difficulty, one of them of an enormously serious character. Because, 150 years or more later, the problems of Dotheboys Hall are still with us, we must not qualify the freedom of those who are charged with supervision in this area and who come into contact with people who are responsible for children, remembering that many of those children may have had horrifying experiences in the years prior to their attending such schools.
  Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to hon. Members for their comments and I shall, in view of the hour, reply to them briefly. I thank the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) for welcoming our proposals, which were drafted following a debate in Committee initiated by her hon. Friends. While we do not in new clause 19 agree in every particular with new clause 33, I hope that she will feel that it is sufficiently similar for her not to press new clause 33 and broadly to accept new clause 19. I am aware that the new clause will impose further duties on local authorities; those matters will fall to be considered when we deal with the allocation of resources.
  As for fees, I must reserve what I have to say about the Pre-School Playgroups Association until we reach that point in the Bill. I will say, however, that although we seriously considered imposing fees, we did not do so because fees are apparently not charged for the registration of schools, and it would therefore have been difficult for us to impose them while being consistent. I assure the hon. Lady that the fact that we were dealing with independent schools was not the reason.
  10.45 pm
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) for his contribution. I realise that the descent of disagreeable publicity on his neighbourhood must have been painful for him, and for his constituents. New clause 19 does indeed give a power of entry exercisable at reasonable times.
  Let me point out to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) that, in the event of genuine fear that something dreadful was going on, an emergency protection order could be sought ex parte and the social services could intervene at any point. The "reasonable hour" provision is there because a representative of the social services will visit most independent schools, and it would clearly be unreasonable for him at half-past one in the morning to knock on the door of an establishment that no one had any reason to believe was other than perfectly respectable. Anything that amounted to an attempt to deny a power of entry would constitute obstruction—itself a criminal offence.
  My hon. Friend rightly wanted to know what would happen next. If, following an investigation, an allegation of sexual abuse was made, the child protection machinery would roll into action and an emergency protection order could be sought. If it simply revealed deficiencies that fell short of serious risk to a particular child, but were nevertheless material, a report would be made to the Department of Education and Science, which would be expected to act in a way with which we are all familiar: inspectors would go to the school and examine the circumstances. I dare say that the speed of response would vary according to the seriousness of the allegations, but I would expect an appropriate response, and no doubt the Department would be criticised if it failed to provide one.
  My hon. Friend put his finger on a point that was spotted earlier by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). Both hon. Members—who do not often find themselves in alliance—rightly pointed out that we have incorporated in the Bill parts of a 1982 Act that has not yet been implemented. I assure them that we intend to implement all of the Bill by the autumn of 1991 at the latest. This thorough wash and brush-up of children's law is intended to retain those aspects of existing legislation that are necessary. They are not there simply to
  630
  be on the statute book; they are there to be activated, and we shall activate them with what I hope will be a sensible programme.
  Let me say to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) that I believe that where a school provides board and lodging as part of the school—even if those establishments are outside the curtilage of the school—they will be caught by the legislation. It is true that we have not extended the Bill to children attending schools teaching English as a foreign langage, most of which provide short, non-residential courses. Some children boarding out for 28 days or more, however, would come within the scope of the private fostering provisions in part IX, which contains various powers and safeguards. Similarly, if care and accommodation are provided in a home, part VIII could be relevant. I do not believe that the Bill is toothless, although we shall re-examine it in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said so as not to be caught out on any of the technicalities.
  Mr. Morgan: Will the Bill apply to children until they finally leave school, and therefore after the minimum school leaving age of 16?
  Mr. Mellor: I think that it will apply up to the age of 18. My advisers are nodding that I am correct. I am glad that I did not require too many Sir Humphreys to get that right.
  Finally, the hon. Member for Wentworth raised a point about the authority in which the school is located. We are seeking to give local authorities the right to look at schools in the same way as they have the right to look at any place where a child was living within their area. If a child was already known to a local authority and in contact with the social services department, one would expect liaison, and there would be a role for the home local authority. Otherwise, where a child had simply gone from one area to another to go to school, he probably would not be known to either local authority social services department.
  Social services departments that, rightly or wrongly, feel that they do not have the right to know what is happening in schools should have the right to satisfy themselves about conditions so that they are not merely responding to allegations of abuse, when, if they had been in some contact with the school before, the danger signals should have been spotted. The right should be triggered by the existence of the institution itself and not by the presence of any particular child.
  I have enjoyed this short debate. I hope that it means that the House can collectively set its hand to new clause 19.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 21

  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 Solicitor-General.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The new clause gives a person with benefit of a residence order a means of enforcing that order in a magistrates court under section 63 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. That means that a magistrates court may order a person acting in breach of the order to pay a sum not exceeding £50 for evey day during which he is in default or a maximum sum of £2,000 in total, or it may commit him to custody until he has remedied his default or for a period not exceeding two months. The person in breach must first be served with a copy of the order so there is no chance of him attracting penalties in ignorance.
  I have referred to magistrates courts, but breaches of orders in higher courts could be dealt with as contempts. I commend the new clause to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22

  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 admissable 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 Solicitor-General.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  This new clause will allow a guardian ad litem appointed under this Bill access to local authority records relating to the child with whom the guardian is concerned. The clause will apply to records held by the local authority which were compiled for the purposes of making an application under the Bill, or in connection with any function which is referred to the local authority's social services committee. These functions are set out in the first schedule to the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, and include the care, treatment and supervision of children and young people through the court process, and the supervision of a child subject to a court order in matrimonial proceedings.
  632
  If a guardian ad litem is to protect a child's interests when that child is subject to an application by a local authority, and if the guardian is to advise the court fully on that application, he must have access to the information held by the local authority when making decisions about that child's future. There are two reasons why this must be achieved by giving the guardian a specific right to inspect the local authority's records. First, we cannot rely upon procedural devices which will insist that local authorities give advance disclosure of their case, as that would make available only information upon which the local authority has chosen to rely. The guardian must also have access to information which the local authority does not rely on. In other words, the guardian must be entirely free to decide what information is relevant to his or her report.
  Secondly, we cannot achieve the desired results by making local authorities open to everyone involved in a case because parts of the records are protected by privilege, which is necessary if the authorities themselves are to continue to perform their social work functions. For example, local authorities can protect their sources of information, which might otherwise be lost to them if that protection were removed. The contents of local authority records should not, therefore, be made generally available, but they should be made available to guardians ad litem. I have no doubt that hon. Members will appreciate the importance of the new clause and I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The Solicitor-General has outlined the role of guardians ad litem in respect of local authorities. He said that it might be necessary for them to have access to local authority records at times so that they could feel free to proceed with their duties. The House will follow the thinking behind the Solicitor-General's remarks. However, for guardians ad litem adequately to discharge their duties, it may be that information from other public bodies is necessary. Does the Solicitor-General have in mind to consult the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, for example? Clearly, its involvement with many aspects of this legislation becomes important. Will the Solicitor-General consider, as a next step, whether its records should also be available, in specific cases, to the guardians ad litem?
  Mr. McCartney: It is late, but the new clause is important. Many of the problems that arise in relation to child care orders and in courts determining the long-term future of children placed in care relate to judgments of information received and disseminated, whether that judgment is a value or subjective judgment and whether the sources of information have been dubious in the first instance.
  When I and other hon. Members have dealt with cases in which there has been a serious miscarriage of justice about parental rights when a child has been taken into care, either in the initial stages or later in a magistrates court, much of the discussion thereafter has been about the ability of independent sources to consider and disseminate the information being prepared by the local authority in determination of the case.
  Some months ago, just before the summer recess, we had a debate in the House late in the evening about access to information on social services' files and this debate follows on from that. I am one of those who are concerned that on occasions information on those files is misused, or

  633
  that information cannot be used adequately to protect the child or to give adequate information to the court to determine the long-term relationship between the child and the family, whether the parents only or the wider family.
  I welcome the opportunity provided by the new clause to discuss the general question of access to information. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) rightly raised the question of access to information other than that controlled by the local authority. We should also consider access between local authority departments. The development of information between local authority departments is not always clear and local authorities sometimes prevent significant information passing between departments. There are cases where a local authority has parental care over a child, but where the child's education is provided in a special establishment outside the direct control of that local authority. I know of instances in which information gathered between the two authorities has not been of a quality to make possible adequate decisions about the long-term care of a child.
  I want to outline a case with which I was involved a few years ago. In that case the information was unreliable and no independent source was able to check it in the subsequent court proceedings and a disastrous chain of events unfolded.
  11 pm
  I will not identify the real names of the individuals concerned and will refer instead to the girl whom I will call Carol and her baby Louise. As a result of the inability of an independent source to check the quality of information provided by the social services to the courts or to have access to information during the proceedings, a chain of events occurred which caused the family to be separated. However, at the end of the day they were reunited.
  Carol was visited by a health visitor and confided in the woman that she had a new boyfriend called Nicky. Unknown to Carol, the health visitor already knew Nicky who had suffered from a mental illness. The health visitor reported her concerns to a male social worker. Within 24 hours he called on Carol and asked her to sever the relationship with Nicky. At that stage Carol did not know what had been said between the health visitor and the social worker. She told the social worker that, at that stage, she was unwilling to sever the relationship, but she would consider it in view of what the social worker had said to her. She was revisited 24 hours later and decided to maintain her previous decision not to sever the relationship at that stage.
  The following day, without consultation with Carol, her child was removed from the local authority nursery. The local authority report concluded:
  "There is no evidence at this stage of any form of abuse either in the home or the nursery."
  Carol was immediately refused access to Louise and the magistrates confirmed the order at a subsequent court hearing.
  Three months later Louise was put out for long-term foster and subsequently Christmas cards and presents for the baby were returned. A notice was sent to Carol stating that she would not be able to send birthday cards or correspond with the child in any way. At this stage, the mother was distraught at the circumstances and, despite
  634
  my efforts and subsequently those of solicitors, we could not find any independent sources of information to determine the way in which the decision was taken. Six months later the local authority applied to allow the long-term foster parents to retain baby Louise on the grounds that her relationship with her mother had completely broken down and no bonding existed.
  The bonding had broken down precisely because the social services department had acted to effectively break off the relationship between mother and child. At no stage was any independent review taken of how the local authority had made its decision. No one could challenge the decision or ask for a review to determine what other information—if any—the local authority had gathered to reach its original conclusion.
  Eventually, the foster parents applied to the authority to adopt. Subsequently the foster mother became pregnant and the foster arrangement broke down. Louise was placed in a children's home and then sent out to short-term fostering. After two years of negotiations between the local authority and the solicitors—instigated at my intervention —the baby was eventually returned to her mother. During that time the mother's relationship with Nicky proved to be stable—she married him and a baby sister was born to the family. At no stage during that traumatic two-year period could anyone intervene effectively to prevent that miscarriage of justice.
  I welcome the new clause. If such a clause had existed in the interim, the independent guardian ad litem would have been able to intervene to assess the information provided by the local authority and the actions that were taken based on that information, and then properly represent the child.
  I have met representatives of several self-help organisations throughout the United Kingdom. The case that I mentioned is not isolated. All too often decisions are taken by social workers not because they wish to act aggressively to families but because of pressure on them to try to protect children. They operate on the basis that they should act now rather than be sorry if an event takes place later. In many instances social workers work under pressure because of lack of resourcing for care teams in certain areas or because of general departmental underfunding. When protecting a child from any possible abuse we must determine whether abuse is likely to take place and not abuse that child's right to remain with its parents at that stage.
  The new clause gives an opportunity also to protect children from abuses of authority when there are no grounds for children to be taken from their parents. There could be effective intervention by examining local authority records and determining whether there was sufficient reason to take certain action.
  I hope that the case that I have outlined will be a matter of the past. Luckily, the family whom I mentioned have been brought together. There are many instances in which families are broken up and never brought together, with tragic consequences for mothers and children.
  The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). His wide experience and the instances that he has mentioned help to illustrate the great variety of cases in which the Bill and this new clause might become relevant.
  I shall answer the personal question raised by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) about

  635
  circumstances in which the records of not a local authority but of some other responsible body—for example, the NSPCC—might need to be sought. When we adopted new clause 23 we gave an opportunity to give power for rules on access to documents to be furnished. The NSPCC, as an authorised person within the meaning of clause 28(9), could be required to provide access to such documents as the hon. Gentleman had in mind. I hope that is of assistance. I commend the new clause to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 24

    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 order has reasonable cause to believe that it will not be complied with.

    (4) The court may make a 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.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    The effect of this new clause is to enable a court hearing an application for an order under part IV or part V of the Bill, which relate to care and supervision orders, or education supervision orders and other orders of that kind, to order that the child attend part or all of the proceedings. Such powers must be exercised in accordance with rules of court.
    Subsections (4) to (6) give the court enforcement powers in the event of non-compliance. That is another addition to the Bill in the series on procedure and practice in family proceedings in the courts having concurrent jurisdiction. The purpose is to reproduce—in a decriminalised form, I hasten to say—the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. At present, care proceedings are brought in juvenile courts by bringing the child before the court. In future, care will be sought by an application to the court by the local authority or authorised person.
    The Bill's principal reforms on representation of the child and court procedure and practice should make it unnecessary for the child to attend the hearing in many cases. I hope that this will be much welcomed and that this point illustrates the points that I made in our longer debate earlier. The presumption that there will be a guardian ad litem for the child reporting to the court and his right of access to local authority records, which we have just dealt
    636
    with, and the requirements on advanced disclosure of the case, disclosure of documents and preliminary hearings which it is intended to make in rules of court should make it unnecessary for the child to attend. I know that all these new and welcome provisions will be much welcomed by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) who dealt with this informality.
    However, the child's attendance will be necessary in some cases. The circumstances of the case may be such that the court would be helped by hearing from the child directly, at first hand, for a number of reasons. There ma .y be contradictions in the arguments that have been put forward either by the legal representatives or by the guardian ad litem which may need to be sorted out. The new clause gives the court a discretionary power to call the child when hearing such applications.
    There is also a decriminalising reform of the present model for enforcement. At present, under the 1969 Act, a child can be arrested and detained for up to 72 hours. That is not the kind of thing that we want to repeat, but there is a power that a child should be brought to the court for this purpose should it be necessary. One hopes that it would happen only in rare cases. I commend the new clause to the House.
    Mr. Hardy: I take the view that, if a child's future is being determined by the court, there may well be a risk that the court will be excessively reluctant to bring the child to the court, but the child may be passionately keen to know what the court is saying.
    I am reminded of a case that I know well in which a boy of 11 was attending a case conference where they were telling him about the family that he was to join on the following day. He decided that night that he did not want to wait until he was taken there by the social worker and he went to case the joint himself. He was concerned about the place to which he was to go. I think that he wanted to inspect the two motor cars on the drive. He could not wait. He was concerned about his position and his future. A, child might be in a children's home or some other establishment while a court is determining his or her future and discussing it, as it would under parts IV and V. There may be a risk that the court will be excessively protective.
    Therefore, I was concerned to see the word "may" appear twice in subsection (1). I am sure that the Solicitor-General will have noted it. I am worried in case the double "may" in one sentence is evidence that the court will be excessively protective. I am not saying that it should be an invariable practice, but in the case of a relatively mature, tough or worldly wise boy or girl of 10, 11, 12 or 13, the court could be over-sensitive or over-protective if it sought to leave the child in an establishment a few miles away while his or her future was being disposed of by the court.
    I am strongly in favour of the right being created but I want the right to be exercised in such a way that, especially if the child wishes, he or she may be involved.
    The Solicitor-General: What the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) says carries much force. The new clause not only gives the court the discretion and the right to exercise the power to require the child to come to court, but there is no reason why the court should not intimate to the child that it would like it to come and that it is open to the child to come. The child, as a party, is entitled to

    637
    attend, and that entitlement alone might be brought to its attention. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I commend the new clause.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 25

    ORDERS PENDING APPEALS IN CASES ABOUT CARE OR SUPERVISION ORDERS
    ' .—(1) Where—

    (a) a court dismisses an application for a care order; and

    (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 Solicitor-General.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    11.15 pm
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No.
    320.
    The Solicitor-General: The new clause deals with orders pending appeal and will give the courts power to order that a child remain in care, or place him under supervision, pending an appeal when dismissing an application for a care order.
    In a similar way, the courts will be able to order that a child stay under supervision pending appeal, when a supervision order is refused. Such powers will be available only when the child is already subject to an interim order.
    638
    Courts will also be empowered to order that the child remain in care pending appeal when discharging a care or supervision order. Further, under amendment No. 320, the power to stay the effect of orders will also be extended to those which approve arrangements for children in local authority care to live abroad.
    The powers are necessary to avoid needless disruption to the child where there is a good chance that an appellate court will reverse a first instance decision to refuse an order.
    The new clause balances the need to consider the child's best interests, by protecting him from unnecessary disruption, against the basic premise that the child should not be kept away from his parents where the local authority has failed to obtain an order. The restrictions placed upon the availability and duration of the orders strike that balance in the best way possible.
    Amendment No. 320 completes the picture concerning orders pending appeal. The amendment relates to the situation where the court is asked to approve arrangements for a child in local authority care to live abroad. There must be power to stay this approval pending an appeal as rights of appeal would be useless if the child could be removed from the jurisdiction before an appeal is heard.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 26

    TESTS TO ESTABLISH PATERNITY
    ' . 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 (1A) 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 Solicitor-General.]

    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 28

    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 to 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.'.—[The Solicitor General]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 310.
    The Solicitor-General: This new clause is concerned only with cases heard before magistrates and deals with the matter of privacy.
    The ability of magistrates courts to sit in private and restrictions on publication of material about children involved in civil cases differ, at present, between courts and according to the type of case being heard. For example, most cases affecting the custody of or access to children which are heard in magistrates courts are heard under the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 in the domestic court. Rules of court may specify when hearings under this Act can be held in private, and rules currently provide that the court shall hear applications in private where it considers this is expedient in the interests of the minor. But there is no similar power in relation to care cases.
    The Bill repeals the 1971 Act and new clause 18, which we have already debated, removes jurisdiction to hear care cases from the juvenile court and transfers it to the domestic court. The net effect of all this, if we do not provide otherwise, is to remove protection already afforded today by the law to children involved in care, custody and access cases. In addition, the current hotch-potch of protection in these matters needs to be replaced by coherent and consistent provisions.
    Amendment No. 310 adds another exception, to take account of new clause 28, which deals with privacy for children in certain proceedings. A court or the Secretary of State will have power by order, under subsection (4) of that clause, to lift the restrictions upon identifying a child involved in proceedings under the Bill. This is because it may be in the child's best interests, albeit only in rare cases, for facts to be fully published, rather than have rumour and speculation flourish. Such orders will have to be made quickly. It would be both unwieldy and inappropriate for them to be made under the statutory instrument procedure.
    I commend the new clause to the House.
    Mr. Michael Stern: I shall not detain the House long, but I wish to explore with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General what this clause comprises because I think that it may go wider than he has described. He may be aware that I was in correspondence with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health about a related matter some time ago. Would my hon. And learned Friend the Solicitor-General agree that under the proposed clause, with which I heartily agree, it would be possible for magistrates to order privacy when powers under the Bill were being considered when privacy was required not for the child but for another person connected with the case?
    I am thinking of a case which occurred in my constituency in which privacy would have been necessary for the protection of the accused adult in the case. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree with me that, under the new clause, should magistrates so decide, there would be powers available to them to protect the adult? I am not necessarily asking my hon. and learned Friend to answer this query straight away, but I should be most grateful if he would write to me if he cannot give me an answer now.
    The Solicitor-General: If I do not rise to my feet too rapidly, I may be able to oblige my hon. Friend now.
    The position will be dealt with by rules of court which will set out the circumstances under which the court can sit in private. Those rules of court have still to be formulated and my hon. Friend's point will be borne in mind when we draft them.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 29

    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.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    This new clause deals with self-incrimination. It is important that courts hearing applications for care or supervision orders, or for emergency protection orders, should have the benefit of all the evidence available to them. Generally, a witness in proceedings enjoys a privilege against self-incrimination. Courts hearing the types of application outlined under parts IV and V of the Bill should not be deprived of potentially useful evidence, even on this ground.
    Therefore, the new clause removes that privilege in respect of applications under those parts of the Bill. In its place, it grants such a witness an indemnity so that his evidence in those proceedings cannot be relied upon in proceedings against himself or his spouse for any criminal offence other than perjury.
    I commend the new clause to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 31

    APPLICATION OF PART X 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.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 293 to 298 and Government amendment No. 363.
    Mr. Mellor: These are technical amendments designed to allow part X of the Bill to operate in Scotland.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I assure the House that at this late hour I do not propose to initiate a major debate on Scotland, inviting though that is. There are those who
    642
    might suggest that so keen am I on promoting the Solicitor-General that there might be a vacancy for the Secretary of State for Scotland in the not-too-distant-future and he might be seen as an applicant.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) would expect me to ask a question or two. We appreciate that the new clause applies to part X of the Bill, which deals with child minding and day care. It is rather comprehensive. It includes the sheriff courts, day care, education authorities, local authority foster parents, parental rights and references to fostering a child privately.
    In Committee, even on issues such as these, which I accept cannot be argued to have a major impact on how we deal with these matters, voluntary organisations and local authorities had an opportunity to give us their views. I might be mistaken, but I have not had an opportunity to hear the views of any Scottish organisations. I am not aware of the views of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
    I am asking the Minister, not to give me an assurance that such views will be sought before tomorrow morning, or even before the Bill reaches another place, but that, before implementation, the Government, particularly the Secretary of State for Scotland, will bear in mind the views of such organisations.
    Mr. Mellor: I dinna ken too much about this the noo —but I shall do my best to give the undertaking that the hon. Gentleman wants.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

    Dangerous Goods (Transport by Sea)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
    11.26 pm
    Mr. George Howarth: There is, quite properly, wide public concern about environmental issues, and the subject of this debate is a potentially serious matter that requires Government action.
    One case highlights starkly the need for the law relating to the transport of cargoes to be tightened. In September last year, the ship Ardlough sank in the Irish sea, and much of its deadly cargo—a cocktail of dangerous substances and low-level radioactive waste carried in unlabelled containers—landed at various locations on the north-west coast. The authorities and emergency services had great difficulty dealing with the consequences of this incident for one crucial reason—they did not have sufficient information to work from.
    As a result, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities conducted a detailed review of the procedures involved and, in August, recommended changes to the legal framework in six key areas. The first concerned blanket cover—the system which allows ships to move from one port to another without notifying the authorities other than at six-monthly intervals. The AMA suggests that cover should be limited to single cargoes such as oil tankers.
    Secondly, the requirement for transport operators to give only 24 hours' notice of their intention to bring dangerous goods into ports should possibly be increased, but most certainly the time that applies at the moment should be properly enforced, because port authorities are frequently not given that type of notice.
    Thirdly, harbour masters should be required by clear regulation to give higher priority to safety rather than, as we often suspect is the case at the moment, to economic factors.
    Fourthly, pilots should be required to accompany ships with dangerous cargoes into and out of ports. Such a deficiency, if I may so call it, may have been a factor in the recent Humber tanker collision. That cannot be proved as yet, but one can hope that the facts will be discovered.
    Fifthly, all faces of containers that carry this kind of material should be clearly labelled with a durable label that could withstand up to three months in the sea.
    Finally, the emergency planning authorities and local authorities should be given enough financial support to enable them to carry out proper planning and to make resources available to deal with such problems as and when they arise. The legislation covering that urgently needs to be reviewed and revised.
    I should add in passing that this raises questions about the powers of emergency planning officers, which are too restricted for the demands placed on them. I hope that the Home Secretary—I recognise that this is a transport matter—will build on the comments in his speech of 5 September of this year to the Fire International conference. I am aware that the Department of Transport responded to the AMA's report in a letter dated 12 September 1989, but that response was inadequate and unhelpful. Time prevents me from commenting in too much detail on that response, but having read it I am at a loss to see how, for example, the incident I mentioned
    644
    earlier could have been eased by the response envisaged by the Department. Clearly, more needs to be done and a more intelligent response is needed.
    The Government's general attitude to environmental matters is worrying. It is instanced by the late signing of the Basle convention on toxic waste—the Government were one of the last Governments to sign it. Our present methods and procedures are wholly inadequate when set against acceptable modern safety standards. The Government's complacency stands in stark contrast with their political posture as the guardians of our green and pleasant land.
    If the letter I referred to earlier is indicative, the Government's rhetoric is hollow, their proposals are thin or non-existent and their intentions are nothing more than a tendency to tawdry window-dressing. In many of these issues, particularly that of the transport of these goods by sea, the Government try to lock the stable door after the horse has bolted. Too many disasters are waiting to happen for this approach to be acceptable. More needs to be done. The AMA has good ideas and I hope that the Government will respond to them more positively than they have done do far.
    11.32 pm
    The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I thank the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) for giving me the opportunity of appearing at the Dispatch Box for the first time before a number of changes take place in the Chamber. I also thank him for giving me the chance to speak about this subject, which has been of some topical interest in recent years but which has not had the attention of the House for some time.
    As one with both a background and constituency in Merseyside, the hon. Member is naturally concerned with ports and with the welfare of those that go down to the sea in ships. It is refreshing to be asked to respond on a topic that, while close to the hearts of many of us, stands a better chance of being treated in a dispassionate and non-partisan spirit, and on which, even in the short time afforded by an Adjournment debate, it is possible to get some meeting of minds.
    I shall be responding to individual points in a few moments, but first I should like to say a few words about the current framework for dealing with maritime carriage of dangerous goods and associated emergency planning, dealing with the emergency planning aspect first.
    Contingency plans exist to deal with a spillage or loss of dangerous goods from a ship at sea. The Department's marine pollution control unit, which was set up in 1979 with specific responsibilities for contingency planning and for taking charge of operations to deal with pollution at sea, has access to expert advice on chemical and radioactive hazards and has under contract both a strike team of personnel experienced in handling dangerous cargoes and cargo transfer equipment.
    When an accident happens to a vessel the unit would first try to ascertain the intentions of the owners or the salvors to contain pollution or the threat thereof. If necessary, the Secretary of State would exercise his powers of intervention if it became apparent that the owners or salvors were not taking all reasonable steps to avoid or combat pollution, or if they were not in a position to do so. These powers are statutory ones and derive from the

    645
    Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 supplemented by the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution) (Intervention) Order 1980, which was passed by this Government. These powers are very wide. Where an accident has happened in or to a ship and pollution will or may be caused on a large scale in the United Kingdom or in United Kingdom territorial waters, the Secretary of State may give directions to owners, masters or salvors of ships requiring them to take, or refrain from taking, any action of any sort whatever. Moreover, if he feels that the powers to give directions are inadequate, the Secretary of State may himself take any action of any kind whatever, which can include taking control of the ship or even destroying it.
    In an incident threatening grave or imminent pollution we shall not hesitate to use those powers if need be. This was demonstrated in March of this year when a small Panamanian-registered, Indonesian-owned ship, the Perintis, capsized and sank in international waters in the middle of the English channel, about 35 miles south-east of Brixham. The vessel had a quantity of toxic pesticides on board and the expert advice to the marine pollution control unit was that the chemicals posed a major pollution threat to the marine environment and to United Kingdom fishery interests in particular. The owner of the vessel was not intending to do anything about the chemicals, and accordingly the Secretary of State authorised the MPCU to take direct action to recover the drums of pesticide which were scattered over the sea bed when the vessel capsized. Later, 28 of the 32 drums of toxic chemicals were successfully recovered. Tests showed that they had a much lower rate of solubility in sea water than first feared and scientific advice was that a continued search for the remaining drums was not therefore justified.
    The Government's response on that occasion shows that we are conscious of the environmental hazards posed by the loss of dangerous goods being transported by sea, and we are ready to take action where it is practicable to do so.
    Turning briefly to the general question of transport of dangerous goods by sea, I am well aware of the increasing concern for the protection of the marine environment, which can be undertaken only with international co-operation. The promotion of safety of life at sea was a major factor in the setting up 30 years ago of the International Maritime Organisation as a United Nations specialised agency based in London, and very soon afterwards work was begun, based on the United Kingdom's own Blue Book, on codifying internationally accepted provisions on classification, packing, marking, labelling, stowage and segregation of packaged dangerous goods—work which took shape in the form of the international maritime dangerous goods code, or the IMDG code as it is more familiarly known. There has been similar activity in dealing with bulk carriage of chemicals, gases and solid bulk materials. In all this, successive United Kingdom Governments have played an active role. The IMO's 30th anniversary year, as it happens, coincides with the issue of a new edition of the IMDG code, which for the first time contains detailed provisions controlling the marking, identification, packing and stowage of cargoes known to be marine pollutants and reporting of incidents involving them. These amended provisions will
    646
    enable international adoption of annex III to the marine pollution convention, and the Department is preparing new regulations to implement the changed requirements nationally.
    Although our plans for dealing with emergencies are tried and tested, I am keen to deal with potential problems by preventive action rather than by measures to handle the consequences of an accident.
    Mr. George Howarth: May I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box for the first time? I am familiar with the authority that he has mentioned. Is he aware of the European Commission directive 89/C147/03 of 24 May? It places a requirement on member states to observe articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the directive which covers the ground that I spoke about and about which the Minister has also spoken.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am aware of that directive. There will be a chance to discuss that in the House at a later date and I look forward to that.
    As I was saying, there are detailed and complex internationally agreed rules governing the transport of dangerous goods by sea. One way to do that is to ensure that ships carrying dangerous goods meet the international standards applicable to them. Tankers carrying chemicals in bulk and gas carriers are already singled out by surveyors in the port state control inspections.
    Ministers meeting next March for the third international conference on the protection of the North sea will be considering how the present arrangements for ship inspection can be extended to cover all equipment and the operational requirements required by current international conventions in respect of pollution prevention and safety. Under these measures, ships carrying certain dangerous goods in packaged form will be given special consideration under port state control procedures.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in congratulating the marine pollution control unit on its effective and fast response in averting what could have been a nasty and serious environmental accident following the recent collision in the Humber. The quick response of the unit and the Department averted such a disaster. Oil spillage is covered under international liability and international insurance. The quick and effective way in which we responded to the incident in the Humber demonstrated at first hand the way in which the Department and the Government are set up to meet the challenges presented by such accidents.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke about emergency planning by local authorities. Of course, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I understand that there is a framework in existence which allows expenditure on civil emergency planning in a variety of ways. Apart from these provisions, my right hon. Friend has announced that he intends to appoint a civil emergencies adviser who will have oversight of civil emergency planning in peacetime.
    The regulations about dangerous substances in harbour areas require the harbour authorities to prepare an effective emergency plan for dealing with emergencies that affect or could affect dangerous substances in their areas. In terms of the identification of which goods on board are dangerous and where they are stowed, the master is obliged to prepare a dangerous goods manifest or stowage plan from the information provided on the various

    647
    dangerous goods declarations that he is given. That list or plan must indicate the name of each of the dangerous goods carried and show where each is stowed in the ship.
    When I was in Southampton a few weeks ago I was able to see the way in which a ship's master carefully monitors and clearly identifies where dangerous or suspect cargo is loaded, as he is required to do by the various regulations. That enables easy access to the goods and such goods are not allowed to be placed in the main hold of the ship. In addition, packages, vehicles and freight containers are required to have hazard labels or placards so that they can easily be picked out by an inspector.
    648
    I am sure that we shall return to this topic. I have already spoken about the EC order. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and for the stimulating and educational debate. The hon. Member has done us all a service by his choice of subject. I know that this is not the last time that we shall hear about maritime safety. This debate has been a useful and constructive start.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  EC Economic and Finance Council
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the latest meeting of the European Community's Economic and Finance Council.

  Mr. Lawson
  The Ecofin Council met in Luxembourg on 9 October. The Financial Secretary represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council discussed the abolition of fiscal frontiers, where outline agreement was reached on a number of technical issues to pave the way for the removal of frontier controls related to VAT, in particular the importance of retaining the destination principle. There will be a further discussion at the November Ecofin. The taxation of savings was also discussed, and it was agreed that the Commission should bring forward draft outline proposals on measures to strengthen mutual assistance and to combat tax fraud, for discussion at the meeting of Ecofin in November. It was agreed to send a letter to the European investment bank inviting it to make loan finance available to Poland and Hungary under the bank's normal criteria for lending from its own resources. The Commission's proposals for borrowing under the new Community instrument and through Euratom were also discussed, but no agreement was reached.

  Energy Conservation
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to remove value added tax from insulation materials used to improve energy conservation in buildings.

  Mr. Ryder
  Zero-rating already exists for new dwellings and so insulation materials are relieved when they are installed in the course of construction by a VAT-registered builder. VAT-registered owners of new or existing commercial buildings can normally reclaim, under the normal input tax rules, any tax they are charged for insulation work or materials. Even if the cost of a general relief were acceptable in terms of revenue forgone and additional administration, any such relief would not be permissible under the EC sixth VAT directive. Thus the Government have no plans for a general relief for the insulation of existing dwellings either by contractors or on a DIY basis.

  Customs Officers
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the powers and responsibilities of customs officers when questioning United Kingdom citizens arriving at ports of entry.

  Mr. Ryder
  Customs officers' powers and responsibili-ties are set out in the Customs and Excise Management 286
  Act 1979. Under section 78 of that Act an officer may require a passenger to produce for examination his baggage and anything contained therein and to answer questions in respect of such items.

  Customs officers must also have regard to the relevant provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and its codes of practice.

  Manufacturing Industry (Investment)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will tabulate the investment made by British institutions in manufacturing industry outside the United Kingdom during 1988 together with the comparable amounts of inward investment including for each case the respective geographical areas and manufacturing sectors.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 17 October 1989]: The available information relates to United Kingdom net direct investment overseas in manufacturing industry and overseas net direct investment in United Kingdom manufacturing industry and was published in tables 1.6 and 2.6 of "Business Monitor MA4 1987, Overseas Transactions", a copy of which is in the Library. Comparable information for 1988 should become available next spring. No information is available on overseas portfolio investment by country or by industry.

  African Elephants
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to identify African elephant products in the overseas trade statistics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: The main trade in elephant products is in ivory. Currently, trade in both new and worked ivory is identified in the Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Trade is not normally allowed in Indian elephant ivory under the convention on international trade in endangered species of fauna and flora (CITES). Similar strict controls will now apply to African elephant ivory following agreement this week at the CITES conference.

  In the United Kingdom, strict controls were introduced on imports of ivory from 9 June 1989. From 17 August 1989, these controls have been applied in the European Community under Commission Regulation 2496/89.

  Figures relating to trade in goods included under CITES are published by the European Commission.

  Ivory

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to give details regarding the five consignments of raw ivory which were being held at Heathrow airport when he replied to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West on 6 June,Official Report, column 118.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 18 October 1989]: The position remains as outlined in the answer given to the hon. Member on 6 June at column 118.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has regarding seizures of ivory at ports of entry since 12 April.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 18 October 1989]: Customs continue to seize consignments of illegally imported ivory.
  287
  Most seizures, often involving small quantities, are made locally without reference to Customs HQ. Statistical information is compiled only periodically. Up-to-date details could be obtained only at disproportionate expense.

  Inflation and Interest Rates
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the average levels of inflation and interest rates in(a) Denmark, (b) Canada, (c)

  Short-term Interest Rates

  Year

  United States

  Japan

  Germany

  France

  Canada

  Denmark

  Netherlands

  Sweden

  1979

  11·2

  6·2

  6·7

  9·5

  111·2

  12·6

  9·0

  8·2

  1981

  13·1

  10·9

  9·5

  12·2

  12·6

  16·9

  10·1

  12·2

  1982

  15·9

  7·6

  12·1

  15·3

  18·3

  14·8

  11·0

  14·4

  1983

  9·1

  6·7

  5·8

  12·5

  9·4

  12·0

  5·3

  10·9

  1984

  10·4

  6·5

  6·0

  11·7

  11·0

  11·5

  5·8

  11·8

  1985

  8·1

  6·6

  5·4

  10·0

  9·5

  10·0

  6·3

  13·9

  1986

  6·5

  5·1

  4·6

  7·7

  9·2

  9·1

  5·8

  10·2

  1987

  6·9

  4·2

  4·0

  8·3

  8·3

  9·9

  5·2

  9·2

  1988

  7·7

  4·5

  4·3

  7·9

  9·5

  8·2

  4·5

  10·1

  1 1979 not same series.

  Source: IMF and national sources.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Minister in his Department is responsible for day-to-day management of his Department's information technology strategy; and what proportion of his time was spent on this matter in the month up to Friday 13 October.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: The Minister responsible for oversight of Her Majesty's Treasury's information technology strategy is the Paymaster General. Officials are responsible for the day-to-day management of the strategy. No strategic issue required the attention of the Paymaster General in the month up to Friday 13 October.

  Economic Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the annual percentage growth each year since 1979 in(a) real incomes, (b) the stock of consumer debt outstanding in real terms, (c) consumer spending and (d) output in the economy.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: The 1989 edition of "United Kingdom National Accounts"—otherwise known as the CSO Blue Book—gives annual estimates of real personal disposable income (Table 4.1), consumers' expenditure at constant prices (Table 4.6) and of United Kingdom output (Table 2.4). A copy is available in the Library. Figures of the annual percentage growth of the stock of consumer credit, expressed in real terms, are as follows:

  Growth

  1979

  7·9

  1980

  3·2

  1981

  9·4

  1982

  -6·6

  1983

  12·3

  1984

  12·2

  1985

  11·7

  1986

  12·3

  288
  France, (d) Holland, (e) the Federal Republic of Germany, (f) Japan, (g) the United States of America and (h) Sweden for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 18 October 1989]: The average levels of inflation since 1979 for Denmark, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Japan, the United States and Sweden are given in "OECD Economic Outlook June 1989", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library. The information requested on interest rates is as follows:

  Growth

  1987

  15·5

  1988

  10·9

  Low Pay
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instruct all Government Departments concerned to review the present pay structures of low-paid workers within their responsibilities with a view to giving them a parity with police and armed forces personnel.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: No.

  Electricity
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total cost to the United Kingdom's balance of payments in pounds sterling in the latest available year of the purchase by the Central Electricity Generating Board of electricity from France.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have been asked to reply.

  The provisional value (on a cost, insurance and freight basis) of imports of electricity from France to the United Kingdom in 1988 was £268 million.

  Source: Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, Table 71.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Salman Rushdie
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost in each month since January for the special protection measures taken on behalf of Mr. Salman Rushdie.

  Mr. Hurd
  It would not be proper to disclose information about police protection which would indicate its scale in a particular case.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about trends in Metropolitan police manpower since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since 1979 the trend in Metropolitan police manpower has been steadily upwards. At the end of August 1989 the strength of the force was 28,240–25 per cent. higher than at the end of 1979. In addition, there are now some 1,300 more civil staff supporting the Metropolitan police than there were at the end of 1979; and civilianisation has released more than 300 police officers for operational duty over the last three years, and is expected to release a further 200 in 1989–90. This steady increase in manpower reflects our sustained commitment to building up the strength and efficiency of the police.

  West Midlands Chief Constable
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chief constable of the West Midlands; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Hurd
  I met the chief constable on 5 September, when I attended the "Fire 89" conference in Birmingham. We discussed a number of matters concerning policing in England and Wales.

  Arrests (Football Grounds)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to how many people were arrested during the 1988–89 season at the grounds of each of the clubs playing in each of the four divisions of the Football League; and what are the comparable statistics for the previous two seasons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) collate the number of arrests made at Football League matches in England and Wales. The table shows ACPO's figures for arrests at home games of league clubs according to their division in the 1988–89 season. The figures do not distinguish between arrests of home or away spectators. Such figures are not collated centrally, nor are any relating to the outcome of these arrests.

  Division 1

  1988–89

  1987–88

  1986–87

  Arsenal

  167

  153

  79

  Aston Villa

  344

  308

  202

  Charlton Athletic

  47

  14

  33

  Coventry City

  190

  194

  96

  Derby County

  132

  86

  61

  Everton

  80

  24

  67

  Liverpool

  132

  33

  86

  Luton Town

  7

  1

  —

  Manchester United

  60

  38

  25

  Middlesbrough

  86

  110

  14

  Millwall

  160

  44

  20

  Newcastle United

  166

  149

  136

  Norwich City

  86

  32

  66

  Notts Forest

  66

  130

  98

  Queens Park Rangers

  95

  91

  127

  Sheffield Wednesday

  80

  90

  101

  Southampton

  146

  208

  85

  Tottenham Hotspur

  127

  74

  80

  West Ham United

  201

  149

  144

  Wimbledon

  17

  49

  35

  290

  Division 2

  1988–89

  1987–88

  1986–87

  Barnsley

  21

  55

  76

  Birmingham City

  65

  101

  66

  Blackburn Rovers

  37

  79

  80

  Bournemouth

  35

  149

  28

  Bradford City

  85

  197

  115

  Brighton

  47

  34

  5

  Chelsea

  304

  271

  222

  Crystal Palace

  71

  78

  61

  Hull City

  18

  38

  51

  Ipswich Town

  31

  99

  45

  Leeds United

  159

  184

  182

  Leicester City

  95

  31

  197

  Manchester City

  39

  35

  23

  Oldham Athletic

  12

  19

  13

  Oxford United

  36

  105

  88

  Portsmouth

  162

  282

  65

  Plymouth Argyle

  19

  29

  49

  Shrewsbury

  37

  68

  41

  Stoke City

  44

  57

  73

  Sunderland

  49

  80

  140

  Swindon Town

  44

  67

  48

  Walsall

  148

  47

  95

  Watford

  44

  43

  18

  West Bromwich Albion

  145

  132

  142

  Division 3

  1988–89

  1987–88

  1986–87

  Aldershot

  65

  39

  29

  Blackpool

  66

  36

  104

  Bolton Wanderers

  40

  21

  20

  Brentford

  50

  72

  11

  Bristol City

  73

  21

  46

  Bristol Rovers

  67

  18

  7

  Bury

  27

  5

  11

  Cardiff

  16

  43

  27

  Chester

  20

  22

  49

  Chesterfield

  44

  21

  17

  Fulham

  126

  99

  41

  Gillingham

  23

  32

  9

  Huddersfield

  34

  126

  100

  Mansfield

  40

  21

  31

  Northampton

  3

  11

  57

  Notts County

  49

  56

  13

  Port Vale

  79

  22

  54

  Preston North End

  51

  20

  66

  Reading

  25

  20

  114

  Sheffield United

  50

  60

  53

  Southend

  30

  3

  —

  Swansea

  51

  10

  14

  Wigan

  4

  4

  24

  Wolverhampton

  192

  132

  117

  Division 4

  1988–89

  1987–88

  1986–87

  Burnley

  47

  90

  22

  Cambridge

  17

  29

  49

  Carlisle

  17

  27

  24

  Colchester

  7

  —

  8

  Crewe

  30

  21

  41

  Darlington

  26

  5

  101

  Doncaster

  20

  28

  35

  Exeter

  12

  83

  61

  Grimsby

  79

  66

  156

  Halifax

  62

  38

  19

  Hartlepool

  21

  21

  29

  Hereford

  28

  28

  53

  Leyton Orient

  8

  8

  15

  Lincoln

  19

  —

  9

  Peterborough

  14

  15

  28

  Rochdale

  47

  32

  59

  Rotherham

  31

  47

  54

  Scarborough

  51

  146

  —

  Scunthorpe

  55

  46

  49

  Stockport

  53

  17

  —

  291

  1988–89

  1987–88

  1986–87

  Torquay

  16

  21

  94

  Tranmere

  20

  53

  7

  Wrexham

  12

  17

  25

  York

  132

  62

  37

  Newport County (no longer in the Football League)

  —

  35

  53

  Lotteries
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has recently reviewed the present legislation governing the conduct of lotteries; if he has any proposals for the amendment of the law; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We keep the law governing the conduct of lotteries under review, and have no current proposals for its amendment.

  On-line Betting
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to address the development of technology which makes possible on-line betting with the use of pre-purchase or credit cards and a television receiver; what consideration he is giving to the transmission of such facilities to Britain via satellite television, and if he has any proposals to amend the law.

  Mr. John Patten
  Both credit and cash betting are already regulated by the current law. Similarly, television coverage of those sporting events on which punters most usually bet is already established. We would expect any technological developments in bookmaking to be designed to comply with the current law; and we have received no proposals for changes in the law to accommodate any such development which, if it were introduced, might at present be unlawful.

  Emergency Services (Accident Procedures)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines exist for the emergency services which may come into contact with blood after an accident; and if he will seek to ensure that a standard procedure is followed at all times to protect personnel regardless of the personal circumstances of victims involved.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Contact with blood after an accident may expose members of the emergency services to the risk of contracting one of the blood-borne infectious diseases. Guidance on the operational safety precautions which should be taken to reduce this risk is given in the circulars which the Home Office has issued to police forces and fire brigades on AIDS and hepatitis B. Guidance for the ambulance services is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  AIDS
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in light of evidence that HIV is spreading now faster among heterosexuals than homosexuals and to avoid possible distress to relatives, he will ensure that messages sent to emergency services after 292
  accidents or similar disasters do not refer to victims' sexuality as a reason for taking additional precautions because of a fear of AIDS.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  While all the emergency services have been issued with general guidance about AIDS, there is normally no question of their messages making any reference to victims' sexuality.

  Serious Crime Squad (West Midlands)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to whether any former members of the serious crime squad recently transferred to non-operational duties have since been involved in criminal investigations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The actions of the former serious crime squad are being investigated under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority by Mr. Shaw, assistant chief constable of the West Yorkshire police, to whom all matters of concern should be reported.

  On 14 August the chief constable of the West Midlands stated publicly that all officers who had served on the serious crime squad in the period 1 January 1986 to 31 December 1988 would be moved out of the CID to non-operational duty. The term "non-operational duty" covers all manner of duty other than the arrest of persons for crime or the interrogation of persons in respect of offences for which they have or may have to answer before a court. I have no evidence to suggest that the criteria outlined have been breached.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands listing the members of the serious crime squad at the time it was disbanded and the dates on which they joined the squad.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to how many members of the serious crime squad who were recently transferred to non-operational duties are currently on sick leave;

  (2) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to the date on which Detective Sergeant Michael Honby went on sick leave and on the prospects for his return to duty.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. These are matters for the chief constable of the West Midlands, and my right hon. Friend sees no call for a report on them at the present time.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that moneys recovered from illegal drug operations under the provisions of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 are allocated explicitly for the purpose of combating the use and distribution of illicit drugs.

  Mr. John Patten
  Ministers are considering the detailed arrangements whereby a proportion of the sums confiscated from drug traffickers as a result of international agreements might be used to strengthen the United Kingdom's enforcement and other efforts to curb drug abuse.

PRIME MINISTER

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will discuss during her next meeting with President Gorbachev compensation for the economic damage done to upland farming by the radioactive fall-out from the Chernobyl accident.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not raise this issue when she met President Gorbachev last month. The position with regard to compensation remains as stated in the reply to the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) of 21 July 1986 at column 5.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Antarctic Treaty
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations on liability protocols in relation to the Antarctic treaty at the Paris meeting.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It was agreed in Paris last week that a meeting should be held next year to explore all proposals relating to the liability protocol required under article 8(7) of the Antarctic minerals convention.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Civil Servants (Attributable Interviews)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what guidelines exist for the granting of specific civil servants of attributable interviews to newspapers and radio containing policy statements determined by Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 20 October 1989]: The principles governing civil servants' contacts with the media are set out in chapter 6, sections 2 and 4, of the personnel management handbook. Copies of the handbook are available in the House Libraries. Advice on specific cases is given by departmental information officers.

THE ARTS

  British Library
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the present budgeted cost for the completion of the new British Library.

  Mr. Luce
  As I reported to the House last November, Phase IA of the new British Library at St. Pancras is currently under construction, and is to be built within a cost target in cash of £300 million. Additionally, a completion state which is at present being designed, has been budgeted at £90 million at second quarter 1988 prices.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Recycling
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what policy initiatives have been taken by his Department to increase the level of recycling materials in the United Kingdom; and if he has met the Association of County Councils, the metropolitan authorities or the relevant trades unions to discuss policy options in the recycling field.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 17 October at column 12. The Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of District Councils, and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities are members of the advisory group referred to in that reply.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish in the form of a table the number of bottle banks in each west European country for the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: No figures are kept for the number of bottle banks in each west European country. However, in the United Kingdom there are currently 3,830 bottle banks.

  Source: British Glass Manufacturers Confederation.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish in the form of a table(a) the amount of metal recovered from cans by each west European country in 1988 and (b) the amount of metal recovered as a percentage of the total amount of metal consumed in cans for each country.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: Accurate statistics for the amount of metal cans recycled in each west European country in 1988 are not available. However, in 1988 in the United Kingdom an estimated 950 million steel cans were recycled, equivalent to 8 per cent. of production, and 470 tonnes of aluminium cans were recycled, equivalent to 1 per cent. of production.

  Import Licensing (Relocation)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will relocate the import licensing branch of his Department to Billingham in Cleveland.

  Mr. Forth
  The DTI has a programme of reviews in progress to examine the scope for relocating activities away from London and the south-east. Decisions have already been made to move the Patent Office to south Wales and parts of the insolvency service to Birmingham. The import licensing branch of my Department is one of a number of further areas included in the programme of reviews.

  Companies Act Investigation
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take action under the Companies Acts to investigate the roles of, and relationship between, Mr. Julian Hodgson of Henderson Crosthwaite and Mr. Ian Kennedy of Govett Strategic Investment Trust in relation to the bids for DRG plc by
  295
  Pembridge Investments of Bermuda and for Tilbury plc by FJC Lilley plc, and in relation to the Govett Strategic Investment Trust stakes in Marley plc and London International Group plc; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I know of no reason for doing so but shall consider any information my hon. Friend may have about these matters.

  German Democratic Republic (Imports)
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of imports into the European Economic Community comprised products and goods imported from the German Democratic Republic in the latest available year.

  Mr. Redwood
  In 1988, 1·2 per cent. of EC imports, disregarding trade within the Community, were from the German Democratic Republic.

  Investors Compensation
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has about the operation of the investors compensation scheme to date, as to how many failures it has dealt with and as to what the current situation is in each; and if he will make a statement on the speed and fairness of the compensation paid or offered to date.

  Mr. Redwood
  To date the Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd. has made payments amounting to £2·049 million to investors in five companies. Questions relating to the operation of the scheme are a matter for the scheme itself and the Securities and Investments Board.

  Petrol Retailing
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to receive the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on petrol retailing.

  Mr. Redwood
  Following representations from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the Secretary of State has agreed that the reporting period should be extended to 20 December 1989.

  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has now received the Silberston report on the future of the multi-fibre arrangement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 19 October 1989 at column 176.

ENERGY

  Electricity Sales
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of the total amount of electricity sold by the Central Electricity Generating Board in its last available accounting year came from(a) power stations owned and operated by the board and (b) electricity purchased from France.
  296
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The information requested by the right hon. Member is contained in the Central Electricity Generating Board's 1987–88 annual report and accounts, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. In 1987–88, 95 per cent. of electricity sold by the CEGB was produced by its own power stations and 5 per cent. was imported from France.

  Magnox Power Stations
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has now set aside funds for the decommissioning of Britain's Magnox stations and disposing of the wastes arising.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will make a statement detailing the criteria that will be employed to determine the future operating life for each of the remaining Magnox power stations;

  (2) what discussions he has had with National Power about the future policies that will be used to determine the operating plans for the remaining Magnox power stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government are still considering the future arrangements for the Magnox stations and no decisions on the detailed implementation of our policy have been taken. As my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Energy said in his statement to the House on 24 July, we will give the House a full opportunity to debate our detailed proposals when they are available.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list in the Official Report the estimated operating life for each of the remaining Magnox power stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The operating lifetime of Magnox stations assumed for planning purposes by the CEGB is 30 years. The actual operating life of each station is a commercial matter for the owner of the station, subject to meeting the requirements of the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate.

  Gas-cooled Reactors
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the proposals submitted to his Department detailing the steps to be taken to ensure that each of the advanced gas-cooled reactors can reach its designed level of output.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The achievement of optimum operation of the advanced gas-cooled reactors is a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland electricity board. I have asked the chairman of the CEGB to write to my hon. Friend.

  British Gas (Service Objectives)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what quality of service objectives have been set for British Gas with regard to priority attention for elderly customers and those with small children requiring work to be done on hot water and heating systems; and to what extent the actual levels of service correspond to those objectives.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  These are matters for the Gas Consumers Council and the Director General of Gas Supply to take up with British Gas.
  297
  In relation to the elderly and disabled, British Gas has a code of practice on special services, as required by condition 13 of its authorisation.

  The recent Gas Consumers Council report, "Review of British Gas Services for Elderly and Disabled Consumers", recommended that elderly and disabled people, particularly those with special heating or hot water requirements, should receive priority attention for emergency repair work.

  The Director General of Gas Supply has called on British Gas to implement those recommendations in the GCC report addressed to it and to agree to a change in its authorisation that would give them legal force.

  Severn Barrage
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about progress on the Severn barrage studies.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The report summarising the work by the Severn Tidal Power Group on the Severn barrage is being published today by HMSO in the Department's energy paper series. Copies are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. The £4 million study was jointly funded by the Severn Tidal Power Group, the Central Electricity Generating Board and my Department. I am grateful to them for their contribution to the study and also to the many other participants in the work.

  The study gives a clearer picture, than hitherto, on costs and performance of a tidal barrage and on regional and environmental issues. However, much further work, particularly on environmental issues and the organisation and financing issues of a Severn barrage remains to be done. Work to address these issues will be undertaken during the next two years. In the meantime, essential site specific environmental work will continue.

  As part of the privatisation and restructuring of the electricity supply industry the Government are setting up arrangements which should be very attractive to suppliers of renewable sources of energy but it will of course be for the industry to determine the financial viability of each project.

  The Department will be funding generic tidal R and D in support of site specific work on the Severn, Mersey and other estuaries. This work mainly addresses environmental issues. The total cost of generic environmental studies completed since 1986 and currently under way amounts to £1 million.

  Bradwell Power Station
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if the Central Electricity Generating Board has calculated the level of wigner energy in the twin cores at Bradwell nuclear power station; whether there are any plans to anneal the cores before decommissioning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter for the CEGB. I have, therefore, asked the chairman of the board to reply direct to the hon. Member.

ENVIRONMENT

  Environmental Assessments
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance his Department has received from the European Commission concerning the environ-mental assessment of projects being funded by or the subject of a grant application for European regional development funds; and if he will place copies of such guidance in the Library.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) on 17 October at column 111.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the categories of information on which he is not prepared to answer parliamentary questions on grounds of(a) commercial confidentiality and (b) national security.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  It is not possible to specify all the circumstances in which such considerations may arise.

  Clean Air Congress
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, 28 July,Official Report, column 1178, on the world clean air congress held in September, he will publish the letter he sent to the hon. Member.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have arranged for a copy of the letter to be placed in the Library. The hon. Member will recall that I was unable to answer his original question before the recess and so replied by letter.

  Environmental Protection
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy, 28 July,Official Report. column 1196, he will publish in the Official Report the letter sent in reply relating to environmental protection expenditure.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library. The OECD report to which reference was made in the letter is now expected to be released in the new year.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation so that anonymous personal information cannot be disclosed by a registration officer to another person for purposes not connected with the community charge, if the anonymity of the information cannot be guaranteed by that person.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The collection, storage and transmission of personal data by registration officers are subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984. No further specific provision is required.

  Carnwath Report
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take following the recommendations of the Carnwath report "Enforcing Planning Control", published in February.

  Mr. Howard
  Our consultations on the report's recommendations have revealed wide support for them. My right hon. Friend is seeking a legislative opportunity to strengthen the enforcement provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

  Local Authorities (Competitive Tendering)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to increase the present limit of £25,000 above which local authority contracts must be put out to tender.

  Mr. David Hunt
  New Direct Labour Organisation Competition Regulations were laid before Parliament recently whereby, from 1 October this year, local authorities are required to subject all their building maintenance and new construction work to competition with the private sector. From the same date the de minimis exemption for small authorities was reduced from 30 to 15 employees.

  The emergency work exemption has been redefined to cover only genuinely unpredictable work with effect from 1 April 1990, the date from which authorities are also prohibited from awarding extension "contracts" for maintenance work to their DLOs.

  As regards highways work, the competition-free allowance was reduced significantly from 1 April 1987 and again from 1 April 1988. Any increase in the present threshold of £25,000 above which all local authority highways contracts must be put out to tender would not be desirable as it would reduce the benefits of competition.

  Rutland Water (Toxic Algae)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the progress of the investigation by the National Rivers Authority into the death of dogs and sheep at Rutland Water, following the growth of toxic algae in the water; and whether it is intended(a) to bring prosecutions against Anglian Water under the Water Act 1989 or (b) to recommend the payment of compensation to the owners of the dead animals or of affected businesses.

  Mr. Howard
  I understand that the National Rivers Authority has been monitoring the sites it had identified as affected, or potentially affected, by toxic blue-green algae, including Rutland Water, and that the incidence is declining.The results of its tests are available on the public registers maintained by the NRA, and have been notified to the land owners, who have been given suggestions as to appropriate precautions. The NRA's investigations into the causes are continuing, though algal blooms are a normal seasonal phenomenon, and it is not thought that these are the result of specific polluting incidents. Any decisions on follow-up action including questions of possible prosecution would be for the NRA.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has concerning the number of local authorities in England and Wales who are making arrangements for community charge payers to pay the charge by means of monthly payments; what is his policy towards encouraging local authorities to accept monthly payments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Every community charge payer has a statutory right to pay the community charge in 10 monthly instalments. There is no need for chargepayers to apply for this facility; and local authorities are statutorily obliged to accept montly instalments of one tenth of the charge. It is open to chargepayers and authorities to agree different arrangements if they wish; but an authority may not specify payments other than by monthly instalments without the agreement of the chargepayer.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution the Government will make towards additional revenue costs of running the poll tax in 1990–91 in Calderdale.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The costs of collecting the community charge in 1990–91 will be taken into account in charging authorities' spending assessments.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution the Government will make towards the shortfall on capital allocation incurred by Calderdale council in implementing the poll tax.

  Mr. David Hunt
  We have made allocations of £160 million to charging authorities towards the capital costs associated with implementing the community charge in 1988–89 and 1989–90. Calderdale's allocation was £513,071.

  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, when he will consult representatives of local government and relevant professional bodies on his determination under part VI of the Local Government and Housing Bill of housing revenue account subsidy for 1990–91; and what proposals he will be making.

  Mr. Howard
  My Department is today sending local housing authorities, the local authority associations and other interested bodies consultation papers on the proposed new housing revenue account subsidy. The papers contain the Secretary of State's detailed proposals for a method of calculating the new subsidy for which the Local Government and Housing Bill makes provision. They also include details of the guideline rents, and of the allowances for expenditure on management and mainte-nance which we propose to take into account in calculating each authority's entitlement to subsidy in 1990–91. Comments are invited within six weeks. I am putting a copy of the consultation papers in the Library together with a list of the guidelines proposed for each authority.

  For the rent guideline we propose to follow the practice of the past two years and assume next year an average rent increase in England of 5 per cent. above the allowance for inflation. But this year we propose to use the provisions in part VI of the Bill to allow the aggregate notional rental income for England to be apportioned between housing authorities by reference to variations in the aggregate

  301
  values of houses and other property. This leads to different guideline rents for different authorities. A set of rules to limit changes ensures that no guideline rent would represent an increase of more than £4.50 a week over the average rent in any authority this year, and permits at the lower end of the scale guidelines which assume modest reductions in real rents of up to 9 pence per week. This should begin the process of encouraging authorities towards sensible levels of rents in different parts of the country, while ensuring that rents can remain within the reach of people in low paid employment.

  For the management and maintenance expenditure guideline we propose to assume an increase for each housing authority of 3 per cent. above the allowance for inflation next year. This should enable the level of expenditure on council housing maintenance to continue to grow.

  The "guidelines" both for rent and for management and maintenance spending are no more than the assumptions the Government will make in calculating subsidy. Each council will have to decide for itself what level of rent it wants to set, and how much it wants to spend on managing or maintaining its stock.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is now taking to ensure that there are changes in the law concerning the importation and movement of toxic waste so as to prevent the recurrence of the experience suffered in the Wath on Dearne area this year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are considering the implications of the incident at Wath on Dearne and any need for legislative changes.

  Acid House Parties
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to remove rating relief from farmers who let out agricultural land for acid house parties.

  Mr. Chope
  Agricultural land is exempt from rates. Where the land is used for purposes other than that for which it is exempted, it may be brought into rating depending on the degree and frequency of that other use.

  Bradwell Power Station
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if there are any plans for the Bradwell nuclear power station site to be used as a national repository for radioactive debris and equipment resulting from the decommissioning of the Magnox programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. Nirex's disposal facility for low and intermediate-level radioactive waste is intended to accommodate both operational and decommissioning wastes. The Government have made it clear that it intends to keep open the sea disposal option for large items arising from decommissioning operations.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he is taking to encourage and facilitate the recovery of chlorofluorocarbons in refrigerators in(a) the liquid, and (b) the foam; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has commissioned a study from independent consultants on the recovery of substances— including CFCs—which are controlled under the Montreal protocol. The Government will consider the conclusions of this study which are expected early next year.

  A number of retail outlets and local authorities have already set up schemes to reclaim CFCs from domestic appliances. ICI has recently announced their intentions to help establish a national network of sites for the collection and recycling of reclaimed CFCs.

  Ministerial Correspondence
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the paper used for ministerial correspondence in his Department consists of(a) mill off-cuts and (b) previously used paper.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  All the letterheaded paper used for ministerial correspondence in the Department of the Environment is manufactured from mill off-cuts.

  Animals (Illegal Trading)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to counter the illegal trade in hawksbill and green turtles; when he last raised the matter with the Japanese Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Infractions of the CITES controls would be matters for the CITES Secretariat. the United Kingdom strictly implements the provisions of the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES) under which commercial trade in hawksbill and green turtles is already prohibited. We have not raised the matter with the Japanese Government.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the numbers of homeless persons listed each year from 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The estimated numbers of households for whom English local authorities accepted responsibility to secure accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act are as follows:

  Numbers

  1979

  57,200

  1980

  62,920

  1981

  70,010

  1982

  74,800

  1983

  78,240

  1984

  83,550

  1985

  93,980

  303

  Numbers

  1986

  103,560

  1987

  112,440

  1988

  117,550

  However, because of changes in the reporting system in 1980 and 1982 the figures for the earlier years are not strictly comparable with those since 1983.

  Sewage Works (Discharges)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, by region(a) all those sewage works which have been granted applications for relaxations of their discharge consents by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, (b) all those for which applications were refused and (c) the number of objections to proposed relaxations received by his Department for each sewage works.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the applications for time-limited consent which have been submitted in the context of the water industry's capital investment programme for sewage treatment works. No such applications have yet been granted or refused although a number have been withdrawn by the water authorities' successor companies. Temporary consents have been granted pending com-pletion of the process of considering applications and objections to them. Some 10,000 representations have been received as a result of advertising these applications.

  Water Privatisation
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish schemes made under schedule 2 to the Water Act with regard to the transfer of property, rights and liabilities to the National Rivers Authority and the water authority successor companies.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Copies of all the schemes of transfer except one are now in the House Library. A copy of the remaining scheme will be placed in the Library within a few days.

  Wimpey No-fines Properties
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice the Building Research Establishment is able to offer owners and lending institutions on the structural condition of Wimpey no-fines houses and flats.

  Mr. Chope
  The BRE's report on 'The structural condition of Wimpey no-fines low-rise dwellings" is published today. I commend this report to the House. Its conclusions are reassuring for owners and lending institutions alike.

  The BRE inspected a range of houses and flats built in the 1950s and 1960s. They found most properties were constructed as designed, although minor variations in the type and distribution of reinforcement were found.

  The BRE considers that these constructional variations do not materially affect the structural adequacy of the dwellings. In the vast majority of cases reinforcement was in a reasonable condition; where corrosion had occurred,
  304
  its effects on no-fines construction were no greater than would be expected in traditional masonry-walled dwellings.

  Indeed, the structural system of Wimpey no-fines low-rise dwellings is essentially the same as that of traditional solid-walled masonry dwellings: such systems are simple and robust and are unlikely to be significantly affected by minor variations in workmanship or isolated cracking in the concrete.

  The report also contains much useful information on no-fines construction which should be particularly helpful to lending institutions and their surveyors when considering mortgage applications, and also to local authorities and private owners when approaching the repair and maintenance of these dwellings.

  The report will be distributed to all major lending institutions and to interested local authorities.

  Local Government Expenditure
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing, for each local authority in England(a) the party in control, and (b) the budgeted overspend on settlement for 1989–90 expressed in percentage terms.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 17 October 1989]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Conservative Party Conference 1989
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total cost of the services provided by his Department in connection with security requirements at the 1989 Conservative party conference.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: None.

  Tyne and Wear Development Corporation
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give his latest information as to how many new jobs in Sunderland have been created by the activities of the Tyne and Wear development corporation from its inception.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 20 October 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) gave him on 20 July at column 346.

  Member's Correspondence
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne can expect a reply to his letter of 3 August to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) concerning Mr. Richard Hall and Resicon Ltd.

  Mr. Chope
  I replied to the hon. Member's letter on 20 October.

  Theatre Royal, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any application to list the Theatre Royal in Bradford has been submitted over the last ten years; whether any buildings adjacent to the Theatre Royal are listed buildings; and if he will make a statement.
  305
  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend has not received an application to list the Theatre Royal in the last 10 years. However, the building would have been assessed for listing during the resurvey of the area in 1983, following which several buildings in Manningham lane were included on the statutory list, including the Theatre tavern and the Royal Standard public house, which are adjacent to the theatre. My right hon. Friend is always prepared to reconsider a building for listing if fresh evidence is produced which shows that it possesses special architec-tural or historic interest.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Security Patrols
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will state the number of(a) Royal Ulster Constabulary patrols, (b) Regular Army patrols and (c) Ulster Defence Regiment patrols, as a percentage of the total number of patrols carried out by the security forces for each month since November 1985 and (d) Ulster Defence Regiment patrols which were accompanied by the Royal Ulster Constabulary as a percentage of the total number of patrols conducted by the regiment for each month since November 1985.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 20 October 1989]: Information is not regularly collected in the form requested, and could not be provided except at disproportionate cost.

WALES

  Rents into Mortgages Scheme
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he has any information on the number of tenants who may wish to participate in his rents into mortgages scheme;

  (2) if he will make a further statement on the operation of his proposed rents into mortgages scheme.

  Mr. Grist
  The flexi-ownership scheme which I announced in September will he introduced on an experimental basis by the Development Board for Rural Wales. By combining a mortgage loan, discount entitlement and a deferred payment, the board's tenants will be able to buy their homes at a weekly outlay broadly the same as their existing rent payments. Next month I expect to be able to announce the formal start of the scheme. At this stage I cannot anticipate the possible take-up but I am confident that the experiment will have most positive results.

  River Pollution
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list those applications under section 31 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and section 107 of the Water Act 1989, respectively, for consents to discharge to the rivers Taff and Ely which are currently under consideration by Welsh Water authority;

  (2) to what extent, in considering whether to issue consents under section 31 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and section 197 of the Water Act 1989, respectively, to discharge into the rivers Taff and Ely, the Welsh Water
  306
  authority takes account of down stream build-up of pollutants which will arise when the Cardiff bay development corporation constructs a barrage across the mouth of the two rivers.

  Mr. Grist
  Schedule 26, part III of the Water Act 1989 provides that all applications made to a water authority under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which were under consideration on the transfer date of 1 September, are to be considered as if they were made to the National Rivers Authority (NRA). All new applications made under section 108 of the 1989 Act also fall to be considered by the NRA. I therefore suggest that the hon. Gentleman contacts the NRA's regional headquarters in Cardiff.

  Departmental Circulars
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action is being taken by his Department to ensure that circulars which are identical or nearly identical with those issued by English Departments of state are issued at the same time as those published by the English Departments of state.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Many of the circulars issued by my Department are issued jointly with the relevant Whitehall Department. Where they are separate, however, my Department seeks to issue them concurrently with their English equivalents unless there are good reasons for not doing so. In such cases they are issued as soon as possible.

  Water Industry
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure that there is effective, independent and balanced representation of Welsh consumers in the membership of the customer service committees covering the water industry in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Appointments to the customer service committees are a matter for the Director General of Water Services. My Department has on behalf of the director sought nominations in Wales from various interested groups.

  Health Service
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many beds there were at West Wales general hospital, Glangwili, Carmarthen, on the 1 January of each year from 1979 to the present time; and what are the projected figures for 1 January 1990.

  Mr. Grist
  The complement of beds on 31 December each year since 1978 is given in the table. Information on projected beds complement is not available centrally.

  Number

  1978

  526

  1979

  526

  1980

  526

  1981

  526

  1982

  526

  1983

  524

  1984

  524

  1985

  513

  1986

  513

  1987

  507

  1988

  515

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales with how many hospital beds the West Wales
  307
  general hospital, Glangwili, Carmarthen is staffed, in terms of the number of doctors, nurses. laboratory staff and support services.

  Mr. Grist
  At 31 March 1989 there were 511 available staffed beds at the West Wales general hospital. This figure refers to beds which were either occupied or ready for occupation and therefore may differ from bed complement.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for the number of beds at each of the major hospitals covered by the East Dyfed health authority.

  Mr. Grist
  The bed complement of hospitals in East Dyfed with 100 beds or more, at 31 March 1989, is shown in the table:

  Number

  Bronglais general

  272

  West Wales general

  515

  Llanelli general

  139

  Bryntirion

  124

  St. David's

  404

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for the total number of hospital beds in(a) East Dyfed health authority's catchment area and (b) Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  At 31 March 1989 the bed complement of hospitals in the East Dyfed health authority area was 1,638. The corresponding figure for Wales was 21,417.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of people in the catchment areas served by(a) West Wales general hospital Glangwili, Carmarthern and (b) East Dyfed health authority.

  Mr. Grist
  The total number of people in the catchment area served by East Dyfed health authority is approximately 220,000. The catchment population for West Wales general hospital is not available centrally.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of private beds in West Wales general hospital, Carmarthen, on 1 January 1979 and on 1 January 1989; and what are the projected figures for 1 January 1990.

  Mr. Ian Grist
  An authorisation permitting a maximum of three beds in West Wales general hospital, Carmarthen, to be occupied by private patients was in effect on 1 January 1979 and remained in effect on 1 January 1989. On 1 June 1989 a group authorisation came into effect for West Wales general hospital, Carmarthen; Bronglais hospital, Aberystwyth; and Llanelli hospital; this replaced the separate limits at each hospital, totalling seven beds, with an equivalent authorisation for a maximum of 2,555 bed days in one year. Authorisations for individual hospitals in East Dyfed are no longer specified.

  I understand that the health authority is considering whether to seek a change to the present group authorisation. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to establish the intentions of the health authoriy in this matter he should write to the chairman.

  EC Aid
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial compensation has been offered to South Glamorgan county council for the loss of grant from the European regional development fund for major infrastructure projects.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None. Negotiations with the European Commission on the eligibility of certain categories of expenditure, including infrastructure invest-ments, for European regional development fund support are continuing.

  Cadw
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about future management arrangements for Cadw.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have concluded that Cadw should become a candidate for executive agency status within my Department with effect from April 1991. Detailed proposals will now be drawn up in full consultation with the staff involved.

HEALTH

  Animal-related Injuries
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital admissions in 1983 and 1988 resulted from accidents or injuries caused by animals.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Children-at-risk Register
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by local authority district the numbers of children on the at-risk register.

  Mr. Mellor
  This information is published in the "Survey of Children and Young Persons on Child Protection Registers; year ending 31 March 1988, England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  NHS Property Sales
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by year and location for the last 10 years, the number of National Health Service properties that have been sold and then purchased by a private health company.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not available.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne can expect a reply to his letter of 17 July to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) concerning matters raised by Mr. Richard Pearn, of 15 Chapel close, Kehelland, Camborne, Cornwall.

  Mr. Freeman
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health has now written to my hon. Friend.

  Hospitals (Red Alert)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long Whipps Cross hospital and Wanstead hospital have been on red alert; for what reasons; what are the implications for services to patients; if he will ensure that the alert is lifted before the onset of the winter months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The number of emergency admissions to Whipps Cross hospital increased by up to 35 per cent. from mid-August to early October. To maintain in-patient services for emergency and urgent admissions it was necessary to restrict some planned admissions. To do this Waltham district health authority issued a red warning from 3 October to 16 October 1989. This has led to some patients experiencing delays in their planned admissions.

  The health authority has plans to allocate beds flexibly to deal with the increased winter workload. This has been the procedure in the last two years.

  Child Minders
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the average time being taken by local authorities social services departments to approve the registration of child-minders.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold centrally information about the time taken to register child-minders.

  AIDS
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, following the health circular HC(88)43 reference to ensuring that full use is made of family planning services as a resource in combating AIDS, those health authorities in England who have(a) allocated separate budgets for this work, (b) initiated staff training programmes and (c) plan to review both written and verbal information given to clients about HIV/AIDS.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect this information centrally.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) for what purposes the Macfarlane trust has made grants to haemophiliacs suffering from AIDS;
  310
  (2) how many haemophiliacs have applied for grants from the Macfarlane trust; how many applications have been successful; and how many were refused because their financial resources were considered to be too high;

  (3) how much of the £10 million provided by the Government have been distributed by the Macfarlane trust to haemophiliacs who have developed AIDS; and how much money remains.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: It is for the trustees to allocate funds in the way which they consider best meets the needs of those eligible for assistance within the terms of the trust deed.

  I understand, however, that in the period up to the 31 August 1989 the trust made 1,600 single payments totalling around £0·9 million and 578 regular payments totalling around £1 million. The single grants have been made for a wide variety of purposes covering needs arising from reasons of physical health and mental stress, general living conditions, mobility and travel, accommodation, employment and education. Regular payments help with the extra cost of living with HIV, principally diet and heating. Should the right hon. Member wish to know more detail I suggest he contact the trust administrator.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will request the Macfarlane trust to consider giving grants for legal fees that have arisen solely because haemophiliacs have become infected with the AIDS virus;

  (2) what advice or instructions were given to the Macfarlane trust regarding the imposition and level of means test to be applied to haemophiliac victims of AIDS;

  (3) what means test is applied by the Macfarlane trust to haemophiliac sufferers of AIDS; and if he will publish the income and capital limits in the Official Report.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: The Macfarlane Trust is an independent charitable trust. It is a matter for the trustees, and not the Department, to determine within the provisions of the trust deed the criteria for allocating funds. A copy of that deed is in the House Library. I understand that the trust considers it inappropriate to help with legal fees incurred by haemophiliacs with HIV who wish to pursue claims for compensation. Those who consider themselves in need of assistance can apply for legal aid in the normal way.

  Health in Old Age
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the three component parts of the health in old age programme.

  Mr. Freeman
  The four component parts of the health in old age programme of the Health Education Authority are:

  i. the Centre for Health and Retirement Education;

  ii. the Age Well Campaign;

  iii. the King's Fund Informal Carers Project; and

  iv. the production of a series of leaflets.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department funds any programmes designed to promote better health in later life other than the health in old age programme.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department funds a number of voluntary organisations under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, which in various ways promote the physical and mental well-being of elderly people. Among them is "Extend", an organisation concerned with exercise training and fitness for elderly and disabled people.

  We also finance the Keep Warm Keep Well campaign, which is organised jointly by the Government and leading voluntary organisations.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total annual cost of funding each component part of the health in old age programme; and what is the total cost of funding the entire programme.

  Mr. Freeman
  The total cost of funding the entire health in old age programme in 1989–90 is £342,000. The breakdown of this is: grant to centre for health and retirement education £117,000; support for the King's Fund Informal Carers Project £92,000; funding of the Age Well campaign £83,000; and £50,000 for the production of leaflets. The funding for the Age Well campaign includes £30,000 from the retail price index error funds and is paid direct to Age Well by the Department of Health.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what priority his Department is giving to the promotion of good health in later life.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government remain strongly committed to the promotion of good health in later life, and accept the Health Education Authority's view that this commitment will in future be served by ensuring that all their relevant programmes address the health education needs of elderly people.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the Health Education Authority's budget is allocated to funding the health in old age programme.

  Mr. Freeman
  For 1989–90, just over 2 per cent. (£312,000) of the Health Education Authority's non-AIDS budget is allocated to the health in old age programme. This is additional to the significant contributions to a healthy and active old age made by the authority's other health education programmes.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received regarding the future funding of the health in old age programme;
  312
  (2) what representations he has received regarding the health in old age programme.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department has received a total of 35 representations from organisations and individuals concerned with elderly people in relation to the operation and future funding of the health in old age programme.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure the continued development of the health in old age programme.

  Mr. Freeman
  In its strategic plan for the next five years, the Health Education Authority (HEA) proposes to take forward the health education needs of the elderly as an integral part of its work on other programmes rather than as a separate programme. This will ensure that the needs of the elderly are taken into account at all stages of development of health education work. We have now approved HEA's strategic plan.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women attended(a) their general practitioner and (b) a National Health Service family planning clinic for family planning advice and treatment in England in 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Mellor
  The number of women receiving contraceptive services from general medical practitioners in England is estimated at 2,555,000 in 1987 and 2,635,000 in 1988. These figures reflect the position at the end of the calendar year and include women accepted for contracep-tive services by a general practitioner other than their own.

  In the financial year 1987–88 in England 1,318,800 women were seen at health authority planning clinics. We do not yet have figures for 1988–89.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the use of training support programme moneys for multi-disciplinary training in the context of child abuse; to whom such moneys are paid; and what monitoring is taking place to ensure that such moneys are financing training for all relevant disciplines.

  Mr. Mellor
  Grant is payable to local authorities at the rate of 70 per cent. for agreed expenditure under the training support programme (child care) which is intended primarily for training staff of social services departments. However; local authorities are encouraged to make places available on courses funded under the training support programme to staff from other agencies (statutory or non-statutory). Local authorities may also use this grant to develop the social services department's contribution to the multi-disciplinary training responsibilities of area child protection committees.

  Arrangements have been made to monitor the use of the grant by local social services departments. Reports on achievements by social services departments are scheduled for return to the Department of Health after completion of the first year of the programme.

  Infertility
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many district health authorities provide dedicated infertility clinics;
  313
  (2) if he will list private clinics in each region which offer in vitro fertilisation;

  (3) if he will list those private clinics, in each region, which offer artificial insemination by donor or husband;

  (4) in which regions an in vitro fertilisation service is provided;

  (5) which health authorities (a) provide a service for artificial insemination by donor or by husband and (b) do not.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue guidance to district health authorities to establish dedicated infertility clinics.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. Decisions about the priority and resources to be given to infertility services should be left to individual health authorities. This is the case with nearly all NHS services, since health authorities are in the best position to determine priorities in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he intends to introduce legislation which will require married couples, partners or unmarrid women to go through strict vetting procedures, similar to those carried out prior to adoption, before treatment by artificial insemination;

  (2) whether he has any proposals for regulations to cover full and extensive medical examination of would-be donors of sperm for artificial insemination.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: The Government's proposals for the regulation of certain infertility treatments, including artificial insemination by donor, were set out in the White Paper "Human Fertilisation and Embryology: A Framework for Legislation". We intend to introduce legislation to deal with these matters at the earliest opportunity.

  Embryo Research
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to give the voluntary licensing authority on embryo research a statutory basis.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Government's proposals for dealing with the issue of embryo research are set out in the White Paper "Human Fertilisation and Embryology: A Framework for Legislation". We intend to bring forward legislation in this area at the earliest opportunity.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which clinics have had their licence from the voluntary licensing authority for embryo research withdrawn or suspended; and what were the reasons given in each case.

  Mr. Mellor
  None.

  Generic Medicines
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of generic medicines dispensed in National Health Service hospitals were(a) manufactured in the United Kingdom, (b) manufactured within the European Community and (c) manufactured outside the European Community, in respect of each of the years from 1980 onwards.
  314
  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Spectacles
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of spectacle frames were imported in 1979 and each succeeding year;

  (2) what proportion of spectacle lenses were imported in 1979 and each succeeding year.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. However, the value of imports of spectacle glass and frames in the period from 1979 to 1988—the latest year for which figures are available—is shown in the table.

  £ million

  1979

  29·0

  1980

  29·0

  1981

  26·6

  1982

  36·6

  1983

  37·8

  1984

  47·4

  1985

  61·1

  1986

  63·2

  1987

  76·8

  1988

  81·9

  Warrington DHA
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the spending per head of the population served by Warrington district health authority in the latest available year; and, what is the figure per head, on the most nearly comparable basis for(a) England and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 28 July 1989]: Figures for spending per head of resident population for 1987–88 (the latest year available) are shown in the table:

  Revenue expenditure per head of resident population—hospital and community health services (HCHS)1

  £

  Warrington district health authority

  265

  England—average for all district health authorities

  227

  United Kingdom

  238

  1 Includes hospital, community health, patient transport (i.e. ambulance), blood transfusion and other services.

  Sources

  (a) 1987–88 annual accounts of district health authorities in England and those of the analogous health authorities, boards and agencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—as submitted to the central health department in each country.

  (b) Mid-year estimates of populations—1987 (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys)

  Notes to the table

  1. Capital expenditure on HCHS is excluded. Expenditure on family practitioner services (which cannot be strictly attributed to particular districts) and expenditure on personal social services (which in Northern Ireland is accounted for by health and social services boards) is also excluded.

  2. Comparisons between the figures are influenced by a number of factors including:—

  (a) people travel across district boundaries for treatment and resource allocations reflect the pattern of service provision locally;

  (b) the population figures used make no allowance for people resident in one district who receive treatment in another or for differences in morbidity and age sex structure of particular populations.

  Foetal Tissue
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangement he has made for consultations on the recommendations of the Polkinghorne committee on foetal tissue.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: The committee reported in July and its main recommendations were accepted by the Government. Given the speed of recent developments in the field we decided to promulgate its new code of practice on the use of foetal tissue for research and treatment without delay. We are now taking forward the committee's other recommendations.

  Grading Appeals (Trent RHA)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many grading appeals have so far been considered by the Trent regional health authority; how many remain to be heard; and what is his estimate of the date by which the hearing of those appeals will be completed.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: Requests for regional appeals are handled by the regional appeals committee secretariat of the general Whitley council in accordance with an agreement of the general Whitley council. I presume the hon. Member is referring to appeals about nurse clinical grading. I understand that to date 346 appeals for hearing by the Trent regional health authority have been lodged with the secretariat. As soon as full statements of case are to hand, hearings can be arranged by the regional health authority. I understand that no cases are yet ready for hearing. I can offer no estimate of how long it will take for any particular regional appeal to be heard, but I know that regional health authorities will make every effort to operate the appeals process as quickly as they are able.

  Nurses (Grading Appeals)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has considered the effect of the changes in the composition of health authorities in regard to the hearing of appeals against decisions in regard to the grading of nurses.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: NHS appeals procedures are a matter for the general Whitley council which of course keeps under review the need for any change.

  Rotherham Health Authority
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the accuracy of the performance indicators issued by his Department earlier in 1989; and if those which purported to reveal the Rotherham health authority in an unsatisfactory light were accurate.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: In 1987–88 all information systems in England were substantially changed and many new data definitions introduced in accordance with the recommendations of the Körner reports. Health service indicators being published this year are the first to be based on data from the redesigned systems. The Department and health authori-ties were aware that with changes of this magnitude some
  316
  data inaccuracies were likely. Following consultation with health authorities in May a subset of the 1987–88 indicators were published in July with a warning about possible inaccuracies. Health authorities were asked to inform the Department of any inaccuracies found so that the full package could be based on more accurate data. Relatively few amendments proved necessary. Rotherham HA drew attention to problems with part of its data and the indicators based on this are being corrected.

  Wathwood Hospital
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has of the savings effected by the closure of beds at Wathwood hospital by the Rotherham health authority in relation to the cost to public funds of placements in private nursing homes; and if he will encourage the authority to retain those beds.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: The proposed closure at Wathwood hospital is a matter for Rotherham health authority and I suggest the hon. Member contacts the chairman of the health authority for the information he seeks.

  Consultants
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has conducted to establish whether the number of operations performed by a consultant in the National Health Service is related to that consultant's involvement in private practice.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: None.

  Erythropoietin
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there is any restriction on the freedom of doctors to prescribe erythropoietin for patients with kidney failure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action he intends to take to make erythropoietin freely available under the National Health Service;

  (2) what is the estimated cost to the National Health Service of providing erythropoietin to those likely to benefit from it.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: Erythropoietin has not yet been granted a product licence. However, it is open to doctors to prescribe the medicine on a named patient basis.

  We have been in touch with health authorities about the likely need for the drug and its expenditure implications. We are assessing the information to determine the best way forward.

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he is proposing any change to the boundary of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health district; and if under the terms of the White Paper "Working for Patients" he identifies the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority as the sole body responsible for identifying the health care needs of all the residents of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and for seeking to procure services to meet those needs.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: There are no plans to change the boundaries of the Cornwall and

  317
  Isles of Scilly health authority district. The answer to the second part of the question is yes, though large GP practices will be able to seek their own budgets which will cover a defined range of hospital treatments.

  NHS Reorganisation
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific Acts of Parliament and statutory instruments will be required to implement the changes in the National Health Service presently planned by the Government.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: We intend to introduce a Bill at the earliest opportunity to give effect to those of our proposals which require primary legislation. The Bill will be supplemented by statutory instruments as necessary.

  GP Computer Software
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the user specification for general practitioner computer programme software will be available that will enable general practitioners to provide the information required by the National Health Service authorities.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: If my hon. Friend has in mind general practitioners' annual reports, it will be left to individual practitioners to decide how best to collect the required information.

  Medicine Committees
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his practice to appoint to the Medicines Commission and the Committee on Safety of Medicines members without any financial interests in drug companies.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: No. Members are appointed for the expert advice they are able to give. Any involvements they may have in research sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry helps them keep in touch with important aspects of drug development. By following the ethical standards set by the code of practice on declaration of interests members are able to avoid conflicts of interest which might otherwise impair the objectivity of the advice they give.

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received in regard to settling out of court the claims of haemophiliacs who have been contaminated with the HIV virus by the injection of blood products supplied under the National Health Service; what replies have been sent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: We have received 19 representations from Members on the subject of compensation for people with haemophilia and HIV infection and two from the Haemophilia Society. To date seven replies have been issued to Members and one to the Haemophilia Society. The others will be replied to shortly.

  GP Referrals
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what current regulatory or administrative constraints prevent general practitioners contracted to the National Health Service from referring a patient to any unit of that service; and what constraints will be, or are likely to be, placed on such general practitioners not opting for budgeted practice status, after implementation of the proposals described by Cm. 555 "Working for Patients", and related consultation papers and statements.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: In principle, GPs currently are free to refer their patients to any unit in the National Health Service, the decision whether or not to accept a referral being a matter for the clinical judgment of the consultant. However, the choices open to GPs may be constrained in practice, for example if the preferred hospital is a victim of its own success and cannot accept additional patients because of budgetary constraints. Our proposals to enable money to follow patients are designed to overcome such problems. The future arrangements for securing GPs rights of referral are described in paragraphs 3.5–3.16 of the recently issued "Contracts for Health Services: Operational principles" copies of which are in the Library.

  Consultancy Service Register
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people annually contest their inclusion on his Department's consultancy service register; and whether the outcome of contested cases is made publicly available;

  (2) how many persons have information held on them by his Department's consultancy service register;

  (3) if there is an appeal procedure to contest being placed on his Department's consultancy service register;

  (4) what is the set of criteria for inclusion on his Department's consultancy service register referred to in his Department's circular LAC88/(19) annex A paragraph 8.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: The Department's consultancy service is intended to ensure that prospective employers take up appropriate references from previous employers who may hold relevant information about an applicant for a post working with children. Some 6,000 names are currently held on the register. Information held by the Department which led to a person's entry on the register is not generally made available to a prospective employer.

  Decisions to place a name on the register are taken jointly by the Department and the social services inspectorate, based on an assessment of whether a person's known past conduct is likely to injure the welfare of any child entrusted to his future care, or to lead to criminal or other harmful behaviour. Past conduct involving violence, sexual offences, supplying drugs or harming children is particularly likely to indicate inclusion.

  Once it is decided to place a person on the register he or she is informed in writing of the information held by the Department and the purpose of the registration. He or she is also given the opportunity to challenge the accuracy of the information and to make representations as to why his or her name should not continue to be placed on the register.

  No more than six people a year appeal against inclusion on the register. Each such case is carefully considered in

  319
  the light of the further information provided and the final decision, and the reasons for it, conveyed to the person. The outcome of contested cases is not made public as this is a confidential matter between the Department and the person concerned.

  Nurses
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many conversion to first-level nursing places are currently on offer to enrolled nurses throughout the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: We do not hold this information centrally. Information supplied by the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting shows that in England the number of schools of nursing approved to conduct conversion courses have increased from six at 31 March 1986 to 145 at 31 March 1989.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Primary Schoolchildren
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list by local education authority the number of primary school-children who were being sent home due to lack of teaching staff at the end of September.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This information is not available.

  Open University
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the report of the Open university visiting committee in the context of(a) the development of new courses, (b) current course maintenance and updating and (c) research, as referred to in his answer of 23 May 1988, Official Report, column 11.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Open university visiting committee reports to my right hon. Friend annually in the autumn. Following its report last year, the Government agreed to provide £12·9 million in additional grant to the university over the three financial years 1989–90 to 1991–92. As a result, the university has been able to avoid making many of the cutbacks in provision which it had earlier feared it would have to make. The visiting committee's report for this year is now being finalised and my right hon. Friend expects to receive it shortly.

  UN Data Systems
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what access to the United Nations global resource information database and the United Nations global environmental monitoring system is afforded to United Kingdom research institutes, univer-sities, polytechnics and colleges; and if he will make a statement on the utility of these United Nations data systems for developing environmental education in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand that United Kingdom researchers are able to gain access to data from the global 320
  resource information database through a local centre of the global environment monitoring system. This is situated at the monitoring and assessment research centre in the university of London, King's College. The databases are of considerable sophistication and would hence be inappropriate for general use in environmental education at school level.

  Environmental Research
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he received the Advisory Board for the Research Councils' latest document on spending advice for 1990 and beyond; what has been his response to proposals to increase environmental research commitment; and what information he has on the environmental research commitment in(a) other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development states and (b) other EEC member states:

  Mr. Jackson
  The ABRC's advice "Science and Public Expenditure 1989" was submitted to my right hon. Friend on 12 May. That advice included proposals for environmental research expenditure which have been fully taken into account during the course of the public expenditure survey discussions. I cannot anticipate the outcome of those discussions.

  Very little information is available on the environmen-tal research commitment of other countries. The OECD data bank of April 1988 gave the percentage distribution of Government direct appropriations to civil R & D in respect of the environment in 1987 or nearest year as follows:

  Percentage

  Portugal

  17·9

  Australia

  15·4

  Spain

  13·5

  Greece

  12·8

  Canada

  12·6

  Finland

  11·3

  Germany

  9·3

  United Kingdom

  8·0

  Norway

  7·1

  Belgium

  6·9

  Netherlands

  6·8

  EEC

  6·7

  Sweden

  5·3

  United States

  4·8

  Switzerland

  4·7

  Denmark

  4·2

  Italy

  3·9

  France

  3·4

  Austria

  2·7

  Iceland

  2·4

  Ireland

  2·0

  Education Records (Access)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will introduce regulations to allow young students access to their own education records modelled on regulations issued under the Access to Personal Files Act; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend plans shortly to issue a consultation paper on access to records of students in further and higher education.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science why his regulations which allow young
  321
  students access to their own education record prohibit parents access to that record if the student was under 18 years of age, where the record constitutes personal data; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Education (School Records) Regulations 1989 govern the keeping, disclosure and transfer of manual records on their pupils kept by maintained schools and non-maintained special schools. The regulations require that, from 1 September 1990, such records should be disclosed on request to parents of pupils aged under 18, and to pupils aged 16 or over. Certain categories of material, including those whose disclosure might cause serious harm to the pupil or any other person, are exempted from the disclosure requirement.

  Local Authority Service
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he intends to take with regard to the criticisms in the Audit Commission's report on advisers and inspectors working within the local authority service, of the service as being poorly managed and with unsystematic record-keeping.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend and I are considering our response to the Audit Commission's report on local education authority inspection and advisory services. We shall wish to take account of the views which the local authority associations express on behalf of LEAs, at whom the report's recommendations are mainly addressed.

  Plymouth Brethren
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from members of the Plymouth Brethren concerning the rights of parents to withdraw their children from school classes under the provisions of article 2 of the first protocol to the European convention on human rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I have received many representations from members of the Brethren that they should have a right to withdraw their children from elements of the secular curriculum in maintained schools to which they have religious objections. Article 2 of the first protocol to the European convention on human rights does not give parents this right. My right hon. Friend and I have decided, as a matter of policy, that we will not allow any group of parents the right to withdraw their children from the secular curriculum in maintained schools on grounds of religion or conscience. But they remain free to make alternative educational arrangements.

  School Bus Seats
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will consider reducing the age at which three children are allowed to sit on a double school bus seat, from under 14 to nine years, to take account of the three-tier education system.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The 1984 Public Service Vehicle (Carrying Capacity) Regulations are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. We are at present reviewing this aspect of the regulations, and will write to my hon. Friend when that review is complete.

  Teacher Morale
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he received in the summer recess on the morale of the teaching profession while teachers introduce the national curriculum and other reforms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We have received correspondence from teachers expressing support for the national curriculum but anxiety at the scale of the reforms facing them. We recognise that our reforms are a challenge to teachers. We value their hard work and commitment, and believe that they will rise to the challenge. In recognition of the demands already facing teachers, my right hon. Friend has decided to defer for the time being any requirement that all teachers should undergo appraisal.

  Teacher Shortages
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the effect of the campaign to recruit teachers to solve subject and geographic shortages.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Our action programme to combat teacher shortages was launched in 1986 at a cost so far of £50 million. Recruitment to initial teacher training in physics, maths and CDT was above the 1986 level in both 1987 and 1988. We shall continue to develop and intensify the programme further to improve teacher recruitment in the secondary shortage subjects.

  The £2 million education support grant scheme, announced last May, will help LEA's to develop local recruitment schemes to attract qualified teacher returners and mature entrants. Support will be concentrated to assist shortages both by locality and by subject.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has had recently in response to his announcement on teachers' pay made during the parliamentary recess; and if he will make a statement about the future of the machinery for determining teachers' pay.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about various aspects of the announcement from the teacher unions and individuals. He expects to meet the teacher unions and employers shortly for further discussions about new pay determina-tion arrangements.

  National Curriculum
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what resources are listed in the national curriculum for geography in relation to population.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The national curriculum will not specify the use of particular resources in relation to any subject or topic. This is a matter for decision by schools and teachers.

  The attainment targets and programmes of study for geography in the national curriculum are under consideration by a working group whose interim report is due to be submitted to my right hon. Friend by 31 October. I will arrange for a copy to be sent to my hon. Friend as soon as it is published.

  Local Management Schemes
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities have failed to provide training for school governors in connection with local management schemes.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  All authorities have been required to include in their schemes of local management details of their proposals for training governors. It is clear from these schemes and from our monitoring of the education support grant programme for school governor training that training in local management of schools occupies a high priority in authorities' plans.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that local education authorities provide training for school governors in connection with local management schemes.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 27 June 1989,Official Report, col. 410.

  Fire Safety, Schools
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken or proposes to take to establish the effectiveness of fire safety arrangements in schools.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ensure the safety of occupants of schools in the event of fire, the statutory provisions, and guidance regularly issued in support of them, emphasise the importance of maintaining adequate means of escape. The day to day responsibility for properly maintaining safety rests locally, but the Department issues guidance such as Building Bulletin 7 "Fire and the Design of Education Buildings" and "Safety in Education" Bulletin No. 5.

  Dyslexia
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many dyslexic children there were in the school population in each of the past seven years; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what guidelines his Department has issued to local education authorities concerning the testing for dyslexia amongst young schoolchildren; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what recent consultations have been carried out between officials of his Department and local education authorities concerning the detection of dyslexia amongst schoolchildren; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department does not maintain data on individual learning difficulties. The Education Act 1981 requires local education authorities to make an assessment of children in their area with special educational needs which require, or may require, the LEA to determine the appropriate provision. General advice to LEAs on their duties under the Education Act 1981 in relation to the making of assessments and statements of special educational needs is contained in Circular No. 22/89, which was issued on 29 September. I have made arrangements for the hon. Member to receive a copy of this circular, copies of which have already been placed in the Library.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the resource implications of allowing children to remain in school out of school hours in order to allow more women to return to work.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  None for schools' budgets. The Department's recent letter on this subject to local education authorities and schools specifies that school-based child care schemes must be provided on at least a full cost recovery basis as far as the school is concerned. This is because, under local management of schools, school budgets may not be used to subsidise non-school activities.

  Institute of Food Research
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what approaches have been made to the Institute of Food Research, Bristol from any quarter outside the United Kingdom concerning financial support for its activities as an alternative to Her Majesty's Government's current plans for its closure.

  Mr. Jackson
  There have been no such approaches.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  EC Documents
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has completed his review of the consideration by Parliament of European Economic Community documents; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Correspondence resulting from my predecessor's discussions with the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation was published in the first special report from that Committee, Session 1988–89 (HC 533).

  I will consider what further measures may be necessary when the Procedure Committee's recommendations are reported to the House.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Clergy Ordination Measure
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, (Mr. Alison), as representing the Church Commissioners, what representations the Church Commissioners have received following the debate in the House of the Clergy Ordination Measure.

  Mr. Alison
  None, Sir. The Clergy Ordination Measure is a matter for the General Synod. As a member of that body I have personally received a number of letters expressing views both of regret and approval at the outcome of the debate of the Measure on 17 July.

EMPLOYMENT

  Jobstart
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give details of the evaluation survey of the jobstart programme currently undertaken.
  325
  Mr. Eggar
  The evaluation of jobstart involves surveys of individuals who have received the allowance and of employers who have engaged such people. A copy of the report on the individuals' survey is in the Library of the House. The report on the employer survey will be available early next year.

  Training
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for employment if he will list the names of those employment training managers that have been given approved status as a training organisation.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No employment training managers have been given approved status as training organisations. All training managers are currently working towards full approved status and have until September 1990 to achieve it.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff were employed by the employment service for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The numbers of permanent staff employed by the employment service on the stated date of each of the last 10 years is as follows:

  Numbers

  1 January 1980

  *31,500

  1981

  *33,000

  1982

  *39,000

  1983

  *38,500

  1984

  *38,000

  1985

  *35,500

  1986

  *36,000

  1987

  *41,500

  1 April 1988

  38,801

  1989

  35,358

  In addition, the employment service employed 376 and 1,175 casual staff at 1 April 1988 and 1 April 1989 respectively.

  The starred figures are approximations which are roughly comparable to the permanent staff figures for 1988 and 1989—as the employment service did not exist before October 1987, it was necessary to construct them from staff returns for the various parts of the group which eventually formed or contributed to the formation of the employment service.

  Adjudication Officers (Decisions)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by standard Great Britain region, including Greater London, what is the current average length of time between an unemployed claimant receiving an adjudica-tion officer's decision on grounds of restricted availability and non-availability for work and a subsequent appeal.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is not collected and could he obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by standard Great Britain region, including Greater London, what is the current average length of time between a claimant's referral for adjudication and an adjudication officer's decision on grounds of restricted availability and non-availability for work.
  326
  Mr. Eggar
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. However, the speed with which adjudication officers make decisions (that is, the time between their receiving a referral and reaching a decision) is monitored in a 5 per cent. sample of cases. The sample shows that for the three-month period ending 30 June 1989, the percentage of restricted availability questions decided within four weeks of referral to an adjudication officer, for each employment service region, was as follows:

  Availability

  Restricted availability

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Southern

  77·5

  70·2

  Eastern

  92·3

  91·7

  Western

  68·0

  76·1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  91·0

  95·1

  South West

  65·9

  77·6

  Northern

  100·0

  96·6

  North West

  89·4

  83·4

  East Midlands

  86·3

  89·0

  West Midlands

  93·1

  93·1

  Wales

  96·5

  98·2

  Scotland

  84·9

  90·5

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish of 28 July,Officiol Report, column 1044, what is the average duration of appropriate training, in weeks, given to area directors who do not possess formal professional management qualifications, in order to ensure that they have the management skills necessary to perform their duties.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The amount of training undertaken by area directors employed by the Health and Safety Executive in order to ensure that they have the management skills necessary to perform their duties varies considerably depending upon their individual needs and experience. The average duration of such training, received over a period of time, is approximately six weeks.

  Executive Officers (Promotion Board)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment why no executive officer promotion board is to be held for the north-west region Department of Employment in 1990.

  Mr. Eggar
  The numbers of staff in the grade, and on the current promotion waiting list, are expected to meet the needs of the Employment Department Group in the north-west region for the coming year.

  Mr. V. M. B. Watkins, Redruth
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne can expect a reply to his letter of 25 August to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), on behalf of Mr. V. M. B. Watkins, of Elcon Western (Electrical) Ltd., Trewirgie Road, Redruth, Cornwall.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 18 October.

  Mrs. Nisbet, Redruth
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne can expect a reply to his letter to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) dated 3 August, concerning Mrs. Nisbet of 2 Sparnon Hill, Redruth, Cornwall.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 18 October.

  Trade Union Rights
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the needs for a statutory system to establish a trade union's right to represent its members in negotiations with an employer, and what has been his response.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I recently received a letter on this matter from the general secretary of the Banking, Insurance and Finance Union. My reply made clear the Government's view that it is for the individual employer to decide whether, and in what cirumstances, to recognise a trade union for collective bargaining purposes. Experience with the statutory recognition procedures contained in the Employment Protection Act 1975 and repealed by the Employment Act 1980 showed them to be highly unsatisfactory in practice.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, in order to reduce the costs incurred by trainees participating in those schemes, he will permit managers of employment training schemes to operate their courses on the basis of four rather than five days per week.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. Employment training is designed to be a full-time programme, offering training for a minimum of 30 hours per week over five days.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many filled employment training places there are in the Greater Manchester area; and what percentage this represents of the original departmental projections.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 13 October 1989, the latest date for which information is available, there were 9,456 people on employment training in Greater Manchester. Departmental projections are for internal management purposes only.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to increase the allowance offered to employers under employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employers are involved in employment training because they recognise the value of quality training. They do not receive allowances for taking part in the programme.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to review the progress of employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The progress of employment training, like that of all other programmes run by my Department, is kept under constant review.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what date the Wath Recycling Company was ordered or requested securely to contain toxic waste received from the United States of America; on what date the containment operation commenced; and on what date it was implemented.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 10 August 1989 the Health and Safety Executive served a deferred prohibition notice on Wath Recycling Limited prohibiting after 23 August 1989 the loose bulk storage of the toxic waste received from the United States of America. The commencement date of the prohibition was subsequently extended to 10 October 1989. The operation to pack the waste into drums commenced on 14 September and was completed on 8 October.

  Dyslexia
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many sufferers of dyslexia were assessed as registered disabled persons and had their names entered in the registered disabled persons' register in each of the past seven years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I regret that this information is available only at disproportionate cost. People who suffer from dyslexia are eligible to register as disabled under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. They are also eligible to receive help from the special schemes and services provided for people with disabilities by the employment service and the Training Agency.

  Construction Industry Training Boards
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will now make a decision on the future of the construction industry training boards.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 20 July 1989. Consultations with the board and organisations representing employers have now been completed. My right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek to ensure that the share of moneys received from the European social fund by local authorities is measured and distributed in accordance with real need.

  Mr. Eggar
  The British Government's aim is to secure the maximum support from the European social fund for the national plans and operational programmes which it has submitted. The distribution of European social fund moneys will be governed by the priorities decided upon by the European Commission in its Community support framework.

  Footwear and Leather Industries
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been employed in the footwear and leather industries in the following years(a) 1960, (b) 1965, ( c) 1970, (d) 1975, (e) 1980 and (f) each year since 1980 to the present date.
  329
  Mr. Nicholls
  The Department's statistics on employees in employment are arranged according to the standard industrial classification 1980 and a consistent series is available only from June 1971. Figures prior to that date are classified according to the standard industrial classification 1968. The available information (unadjusted for seasonal variations) is as follows:

  Employees in footwear and leather industries SIC 1980 Great Britain: June

  (Thousands)

  1Leather industries

  2Footwear

  1971

  39·7

  75·3

  1975

  36·1

  65·3

  1980

  30·0

  58·8

  1981

  26·9

  53·5

  1982

  25·0

  51·4

  1983

  22·9

  52·8

  1984

  21·8

  52·8

  1985

  21·1

  51·1

  1986

  20·4

  51·9

  1987

  20·9

  50·8

  1988

  20·9

  49·5

  1989

  19·2

  46·6

  1SIC 80, Class 44.

  1SIC 80, Group 451.

  Textile and Knitwear Industries
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons have been employed on the textile and knitwear industries in the following years(a) 1960, (b) 1965, (c) 1970, (d) 1975, (e) 1980 and (f) each year since 1980 to the present date.

  Mr Nicholls
  The Department's statistics on employees in employment are arranged according to the standard industrial classification 1980 and a consistent series is available only from June 1971. Figures prior to that date are classified according to standard industrial classification 1968. The available information (unadjusted for seasonal variations) is as follows:

  Employees in textile and knitwear industries (SIC 80, Class 43) Great Britain: June

  (Thousands)

  1971

  499·6

  1975

  418·3

  1980

  324·8

  1981

  273·0

  1982

  256·2

  1983

  238·8

  1984

  233·5

  1985

  234·5

  1986

  238·2

  1987

  229·0

  1988

  231·0

  1989

  217·8

  YTS
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total income of an 18 or 19-year-old on the basic level of income support, who is a trainee on employment training and a person of the same age and domestic circumstances, who is a trainee on YTS.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 27 July 1989]: People on Employment Training (ET) receive a training allowance
  330
  based on the benefits they would receive if they were unemployed plus a training premium of £10 a week. The basic income support for an 18 to 19-year-old is £27·40, which would give a training allowance of £37·40. Non-employed YTS trainees of similar age and circumstances on two year YTS receive minimum training allowances of £29·50 per week in the first year and £35 per week in the second year. Those eligible for one year YTS courses receive a minimum training allowance of £29·50 for the first 13 weeks and £35 per week thereafter. Employed YTS trainees receive a wage equivalent at least to the appropriate level of YTS training allowances. Both ET and non-employed YTS trainees also receive assistance with training-related travel and lodging costs where appropriate.

SCOTLAND

  Civil Legal Aid
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the average time taken to process civil legal aid applications in Scotland, in each of the past 10 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information has not been recorded in the past, but time taken to determine applications is one of the performance measures being implemented by the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his assessment of the prospects for the Scottish construction industry over the coming year.

  Mr. Lang
  Prospects for the Scottish construction industry over the coming year are very good with orders and output for the first half of 1989 at the highest levels since 1978 and 1980, respectively. Orders in the first half of 1989 were up 26·6 per cent. in real terms on those of the same period for 1988, with the private sector performing particularly well. Increased orders point to continued strong growth of output in the coming year, particularly in the private sector.

  This favourable picture is supported by the latest business surveys, ie. the Scottish chambers business survey and the civil engineers workload trends survey. These reveal high levels of optimism regarding the general business situation and future levels of employment during the coming year within the construction industry.

  Lithotriptor Centre
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the waiting list, by health board, for access to treatment at the Scottish lithotriptor centre.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of patients awaiting treatment at the Scottish lithotriptor centre on 16 October 1989 was 217. This figure includes five patients from north of England health authorities. The breakdown, by health boards, of the remaining 212 patients is:

  Number

  Lothian

  47

  Greater Glasgow

  52

  Fife

  19

  Forth Valley

  10

  331

  Number

  Tayside

  10

  Lanarkshire

  25

  Orkney

  Nil

  Shetland

  Nil

  Grampian

  7

  Borders

  6

  Highland

  10

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3

  Western Isles

  4

  Argyle and Clyde

  9

  Ayrshire and Arran

  10

  Milk
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland why the sale of unpasteurised milk is not permitted in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The retail sale of unpasteurised milk has been banned in Scotland since the introduction in 1983 of compulsory pasteurisation. This was in response to widespread public concern about the safety of untreated milk following a number of serious outbreaks of milk-borne disease in Scotland (3,500 cases in 12 years including 12 deaths). There are no proposals to relax the ban, which has resulted in the virtual eradication of milk-borne disease in Scotland.

  Dyslexia
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dyslexic children there were in the school population in each of the past seven years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Information on dyslexic children is not held centrally.

  Hospitals (Opting Out)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the names of those hospitals and medical units that have expressed an interest in opting out.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  To date, the Scottish Home and Health Department has been notified of two expressions of interest in possible self-governing status relating to a group of hospitals in Forfar and the Royal Scottish National hospital in Larbert. Self-governing trusts will remain an integral part of the National Health Service and they will not be "opting out" of the National Health Service.

  General Practitioners' Contract
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be in a position to announce final plans to safeguard rural practices from changes arising from the new general practitioners' contract.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The 1990 contract for general medical practitioners, issued in August 1989, makes it clear that practices serving sparsely populated areas will continue to be eligible for the inducement practice scheme through which income can be enhanced and that the Scottish rural practice fund, which is kept under continuous review, is considered to be currently well targeted. It is the task of the review body on doctors' and 332
  dentists' remuneration to advise the Government on the level of remuneration due to general practitioners and it is not possible at this stage to say what view the review body will take.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish regulations establishing a new contract for general practitioners in Scotland as has happened for England and Wales.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish regulations will be laid before Parliament on Wednesday 1 November 1989.

  Auction Marts
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report those auction marts which have MLC grading facilities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Aberdeen and Northern Marts Ltd, Aberdeen

  Thomson, Roddick & Laurie Ltd, Annan

  James Craig Ltd, Ayr

  Biggar Quality Meats, Biggar

  Thos Corson & Co. Ltd, Bridgend, Islay

  A. & J. Wilson & Co. Ltd, Campbeltown

  Wallets Mart Ltd, Castle Douglas

  Aberdeen and Northern Marts Ltd, Cornhill

  United Auction (Eastern), Cupar

  Hamilton Auction Marts Ltd, Dingwall

  Reith & Anderson Ltd, Dingwall

  Thomson, Roddick & Laurie Ltd, Dumfries

  Aberdeen & Northern Marts Ltd, Dundee

  Oliver & Sons Ltd, Edinburgh

  John Swan & Sons Ltd, Edinburgh

  W. Bosomworth & Sons Ltd, Edinburgh

  Aberdeen & Northern Marts Ltd, Elgin

  Angus Marts Ltd, Forfar

  Ben Nevis Auction Marts Ltd, Fort William

  L. S. Smellie & Sons Ltd, Hamilton

  Andrew Oliver & Son Ltd, Hawick

  Aberdeen & Northern Marts Ltd, Huntly

  Aberdeen & Northern Marts Ltd, Insch

  United Auction (Eastern), Inverness

  A. & J. Wilson & Co. Ltd, Kilmarnock

  Kirkwall Auction Mart, Kirkwall

  Lawrie & Symington, Lanark

  Aberdeen & Northern Marts Ltd, Laurencekirk

  Shetland Marts Ltd, Lerwick

  Harrison & Hetherington Ltd, Lockerbie

  Aberdeen & Northern Marts Ltd, Maud

  Montrose Auction Mart, Montrose

  John Swan & Sons Ltd, Newtown St. Boswells

  James Craig Ltd, Newton Stewart

  United Auction (Western), Oban

  A. & J. Wilson & Co. Ltd, Paisley

  Lawrie & Symington Ltd, Peebles

  Caledonian Marts, Perth

  United Auction (Eastern), Perth

  Hamilton's Auction Marts, Portree

  Berwick Auction Market Co. Ltd, Reston

  United Auction (Western), Stirling

  Caledonian Marts Ltd, Stirling

  Angus MacDonald & Son, Stornoway

  James Craig Ltd, Stranraer

  Strathaven Auction Mart, Strathaven

  West Mainland Mart Ltd, Stromness

  United Auctions (Western) Ltd, Tarbert

  Hamilton's Auction Mart Ltd, Thurso

  Aberdeen & Northern Marts Ltd, Thurso

  Aberdeen & Northern Marts Ltd, Turriff

  Aberdeen & Northern Marts Ltd, Wick

  National Parks
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the report and recommendations of the Countryside Commission on national parks; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I expect the Countryside Commission for Scotland to produce a report on its review of the management of popular mountain areas early next year.

  The issue under review is a complex one and a full statement must await consideration of the commission's report.

  Housing Finance
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a supplementary housing capital allocation to East Lothian district council for the current year following the Parliamentary Under-Secretary's comments on 16 June about his Department's overestimate of capital receipts and the impact of the negative capital allocation; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The estimate of capital receipts in 1989–90 was prepared earlier this year with the agreement of the district council. I am aware of the representations made by the council about a supplementary allocation in the light of more recent information. I am not yet in a position to make an announcement about supplementary allocations but hope to do so shortly.

  Roads
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his preferred routes for the proposed A1 dual carriageway at Gladsmuir, Haddington, East Linton and Dunbar; and what procedures will be adopted for public consultation about these proposals.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Our proposals for dualling the A1 as far as Haddington and, in the longer term, to Dunbar form part of strategic proposals on which we are currently consulting widely. Once these consulta-tions are complete and decisions taken, detailed proposals will be prepared for individual schemes. These proposals will be made public in the usual way in accordance with the statutory procedures supplemented where appropriate by local public exhibitions.

  Family planning (clinic) services1

  Premises in which family planning clinics are held

  Family planning clinic sessions held

  1987

  1988

  1987

  1988

  Scotland

  184

  168

  22,389

  20,728

  Argyll and Clyde

  16

  17

  1,975

  1,897

  Ayrshire and Arran

  9

  9

  760

  741

  Borders

  5

  5

  236

  236

  Dumfries and Galloway

  13

  13

  536

  537

  Fife2

  15

  n.a.

  1,096

  n.a.

  Forth Valley

  5

  5

  810

  799

  Grampian

  12

  12

  1,452

  1,338

  Greater Glasgow

  41

  41

  7,735

  7,644

  Highland

  6

  4

  242

  239

  Lanarkshire

  13

  14

  1,826

  1,862

  Lothian

  27

  27

  4,068

  3,855

  Police (Rent Allowance)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to make a decision about the Police Arbitration Tribunal's newly proposed system to calculate rent allowance for Scottish police officers; what representations he has received regarding the apparent delay; and what steps he intends to take.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The decision of the Police Arbitration Tribunal on rent allowance is still under consideration by the Police Negotiating Board. However, following an agreement reached by the hoard last April, my right hon. and learned Friend has now advised the chairman of the board of his intention to bring forward regulations as soon as possible to make provision for interim payments to Scottish officers. The regulations, which will be backdated to 1 April 1989, will have the effect of restoring to those officers whose circumstances have not changed since 31 March 1989 the level of rent allowance (including the rates element) which they were receiving at that date.

  Contraception
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many general practitioners were at 1 October 1987 and 1988 in contract with health boards to provide contraceptive services to their patients.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of general practitioners in contract with health boards to provide contraceptive services to their patients was 3,273 on 1 October 1987 and 3,328 on 1 October 1988.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients were registered with general practitioners for National Health Service contraception services for 1987 and 1988 in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of women registered with general practitioners for National Health Service contraception services was 272,598 for 1987 and 276,232 for 1988.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of family planning clinics and family planning clinic sessions in each health board in Scotland for the years 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows:
  335

  Premises in which family planning clinics are held

  Family planning clinic sessions held

  1987

  1988

  1987

  1988

  Tayside

  20

  19

  1,589

  1,518

  Islands3

  2

  2

  64

  62

  1 Includes all clinic services provided including hospital, and including any provided on an agency basis. Excludes any non-clinic services which might be given to hospital in-patients or day patients.

  2Excludes data from 1 December 1987 for Fife health board; this information is not available.

  3Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles health boards.

  Roads
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to provide specific details about the provision of adequate public funds for the road programme announced last May.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As the Secretary of State made clear in his announcement in May, detailed decisions about funding levels for the roads programme will be taken in the course of annual reviews of public expenditure. The current year's review is now in progress and I expect that, as is usual practice, the Secretary of State will announce his public expenditure plans for the three years 1990–91 to 1991–92 towards the end of this calendar year.

  Children's Panels
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider amendments to the Social Work Scotland Act 1968 to make statutory provision for educational resources to be made available to children's panels disposing of references to children's hearings as well as existing social work facilities and professional expertise; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: Social work authorities are responsible under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 for implementing compulsory measures of care decided by children's hearings, and I strongly encourage those authorities to co-operate with statutory and voluntary organisations in those cases where the latter have a positive contributon to make. I have no plans to amend social work legislation to oblige other services to provide resources.

  New Towns
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received for the clarification of his proposals for private new towns companies contained in his White Paper, "Scottish New Towns, The Way Ahead"; and what reply he has had.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: A number of inquiries from both the public and the private sector have been made to the Scottish Office for the purpose of clarifying in detail the White Paper proposals. My officials have met with a number of people who have expressed an interest in participating in some way in the setting up of private sector local development companies within the Scottish new towns. These discussions are yet at an early stage and are being treated as confidential.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Community Care
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average amount awarded for non-repayable community care grants in the first year of the social fund.

  Mr. Scott
  A total of 153,000 community care grants averaging £271 were paid in 1988–89.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what transfer of social security funds he anticipates making to social services authorities in the light of the recent statement on community care.

  Mr. Scott
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health explained in his statement on 12 July, the Government propose to transfer to local authorities the resources which would otherwise have been provided to finance care through social security payments to people in residential care and nursing homes. The precise amount of the transfer will not be settled until next year.

  Claimants
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he is doing to speed up the service for social security claimants.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We are building on the success of the 1988 social security reforms which have made the scheme easier for the public to understand and simpler for staff to operate. As a result in 1989–90 there has been a 20 per cent. improvement in the average time taken to process income support claims compared with 1987–88 and a 24 per cent. reduction in the average time income support and social fund callers spend in our offices.

  I am aware, however, that there is still room for further improvement particularly in certain inner cities. We are tackling this by relocating some work, which requires no face-to-face contact, away from London to areas where we have fewer problems over staff recruitment and retention. In addition between now and 1991, we expect our programme to computerise social security operations in all local offices to make a major impact on the speed and accuracy of the service they provide.

  Work Seekers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on what help is available to those moving from their home area to seek work.

  Mr. Scott
  An unemployed person who moves home can immediately claim housing benefit to help with rent
  337
  and rates payment or income support to help with mortgage interest payments. Also the travel to interview scheme operated by the employment service gives financial assistance to unemployed job seekers attending job interviews away from home.

  Community Charge Rebate
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people will be eligible for community charge rebate.
  338
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Community charge benefit is significantly more generous than rate rebates and will go to an estimated 1 million extra people. Our most recent estimate is that 1 in 4 of those liable to the community charge will receive community charge benefit. The numbers will of course be affected by the community charge transitional relief scheme but no estimates are yet available.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence he has of the way in which social fund officers are meeting individual need.

  Mr. Scott
  Social fund officers have met the individual needs of more than 1·5 million people since April 1988 by the payment of interest-free loans and non-repayable community care grants. Details of the purposes for which payments were made in 1988–89 are in the Secretary of State's annual report to Parliament published in July 1989.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on Government policy towards the transfer of unspent social fund allocations in social security offices from one year to the next.

  Mr. Scott
  Local office allocations are made for a financial year. Unspent balances at the end of a financial year are not available for expenditure in the following year. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of applications for grants and loans from the social fund rejected on original application are successful on appeal.

  Mr. Scott
  Between 1 April 1989 and 31 August 1989, nearly 26 per cent. (based on provisional figures) of applications for first review were successful. Information given to me by the social fund commissioner, shows that on second review, social fund inspectors either substituted their own decisions or referred cases back to the social fund officer in 38 per cent. (based on provisional figures) of the applications for review made to them.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people received help from the social fund in its first year of operation.

  Mr. Scott
  Over a million people received help from the social fund in 1988–89 through the payment of 884,000 interest-free loans and 153,000 non-repayable community care grants. Further details are in the Secretary of State's annual report to Parliament, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information is available regarding delays in forwarding applications for review to the office of the social fund inspectors; and whether he has received any representations on this subject from social fund inspectors or the social fund commissioner.

  Mr. Scott
  The Social Fund Commissioner drew attention to such delays in her annual report. Remedial action has been taken by the Department to ensure that applications are referred promptly and this matter will be kept under review.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he poposes to uprate child benefit for the next relevant year.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what extent child benefit changes this year will take into account inflation over the past three years.
  340
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  An announcement about benefit rates will be made shortly.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to make attendance at post-natal or child health clinics a condition of receiving child benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No. The promotion of perinatal care is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Budgeting Loans
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people on income support have received interest-free budgeting loans from the social fund in its first year of operation.

  Mr. Scott
  Some 505,000 budgeting loans were awarded in 1988–89. Further details are in the Secretary of State's annual report to Parliament published in July 1989.

  Disability Income
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress his Department is making towards the introduction of a comprehensive disability income scheme.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department is examining ways to introduce a comprehensive disability income scheme.

  Mr. Scott
  We have already spent some £7·3 billion on disability benefits, an increase of 90 per cent. in real terms since 1979. We have received a number of representations from disability organisations about the introduction of a comprehensive disability income. Whilst these proposals warrant consideration the extra cost of such a scheme is a significant obstacle. We shall, however, consider carefully all the comments made on the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys reports on disability.

  Homeless People
  Mr. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any proposals to increase the financial support for young single homeless people.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any proposals to increase the financial support for young single homeless people.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any proposals to increase the financial support for young single homeless people.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The normal range of benefits available to young single people is also available to those who are homeless. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State will be making the general uprating statement soon.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give details of the percentage of his Department's budget expended on the homeless each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The homeless are, in general, entitled to social security benefits on the same basis as everyone else. I regret, therefore, that the information requested is not available.
  341
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all benefits within his responsibility available to homeless persons.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There are no benefits specifically for the homeless, but they may claim a wide range of benefits subject to the usual qualifying conditions.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to prevent financial hardship being caused to homeless persons as a result of the recent changes in legislation.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  People without accommodation continue to be entitled to claim benefit in the usual way.

  Computerisation
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how plans for computerisation of the social security system will benefit claimants in Fylde.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department's plans for the computerisation of the social security system will benefit claimants in Fylde and the rest of the United Kingdom by introducing computer systems which will process claims faster, reduce payment errors and provide a quick and more efficient enquiry service.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress of the social security computerisation programme.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The social security computerisa-tion programme is coming to fruition according to plan. The three major computer projects, the departmental central index, the pensions and income support computer systems have been piloted in 23 social security offices. A rolling programme of national implementation, which will extend the systems to all social security offices, will start this month.

  Disability Benefits Review
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has formally to consult organisations of and for disabled people about the overall structure of the disability benefits review.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how he proposes formally to consult disability organisations on the review of disability benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  I have received a number of representations about the format of the disability benefits review and am keen to encourage comments on the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys reports from organisations of and for disabled people and others.

  The Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has had an opportunity to consider the financial implications of the disability benefits review.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) earlier today.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research his Department is undertaking into 342
  the benefits received by carers, including invalid care allowance, in preparation for the forthcoming review of disability benefits; and when the results of such research will be publicly available.

  Mr. Scott
  We have commissioned the social policy research unit at the university of York to undertake a study of invalid care allowance and its financial and economic effects for carers. We have not yet received the final report of the study or agreed a date for publication.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will seek to ensure that absent husbands and fathers accept their responsibility for supporting lone parent families.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government are naturally concerned that absent parents should meet their responsibilities for their children as far as possible.

  When a lone parent claims income support the Department tries to obtain maintenance from the absent parent for his dependants. The Department can take proceedings if he refuses to make payments which it appears he can afford. In addition the lone parent can apply direct to the courts for maintenance from the absent parent. It is for the courts to decide in the circumstances of the case whether and how much maintenance to award.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone mothers receiving income support do not receive any maintenance.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The most recent figures available are for May 1988 and show that maintenance was not paid for some 530,000 lone mothers in receipt of income support at that time.

  Source: Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiry 1988.

  Benefits (Uprating)
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy that the uprating of benefits next April will include an increase based on inflation for those in receipt of transitional protection.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Income support special transitional additions are increased in line with inflation. Other transitional protection, including housing benefit non-statutory payments, is not increased.

  Over-75s
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will introduce new pension rates for the over-75s to take account of the losses suffered from the severing of the link between pension and earnings rates.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Restoring the link between pensions and earnings is not the key factor in improving pensioners' incomes. In recognition of the fact that not all pensioners shared equally in the 23 per cent. real terms increases in pensioners' average total net income between 1979 and 1986, we introduced new and enhanced premiums into the income support and housing benefit schemes on 9 October this year. Disabled pensioners and those aged 75 and over will benefit by up to £2·50 a week (single) and £3·50 a week (couple).

  Pensions
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what percentage he intends to increase pensions in this year's uprating.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Retirement pension will be increased by 7·6 per cent. with effect from 9 April 1990. The increase will take full account of the movement in the retail prices index over the 12 months to September 1989.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which index he proposes to use this year in uprating pensions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This year, as in previous years, my right hon. Friend will uprate pensions in line with the movement in the retail prices index.

  Disability
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has, in the light of the findings of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' surveys, to increase the allocation of resources to people with disabilities.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what additional resources he is committing to implement the proposed review of disability benefits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) earlier today.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the average increase in costs of residential care homes for the elderly since 1 April.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The Government take account of a number of different pieces of evidence in reviewing the amount of income support available to people in residential care homes each year. These include detailed and differing representations received from various sources about the level of costs in homes. The results of this review will be announced shortly.

  Transitional Protection
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants he expects will not receive the full uprating of their benefit next April as a result of transitional protection.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) earlier today.

  Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how may people were in bed-and-breakfast accommodation at the latest available date; and what was the equivalent figure five years previously.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available information is that there were 88,500 income support beneficiaries living in board and lodging accommodation in February 1989.
  344
  No figures are available for February 1984 but there were 106,000 supplementary benefit recipients living in board and lodging accommodation in December 1984.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the number of eligible families who fail to claim family credit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest information relates to 1988 when a special examination of family expenditure survey returns indicated that the total eligible employee population was then about 500,000 families. This compared with an average live load (including eligible cases awaiting award) during the same period of about 253,000. The live load is now around 315,000, but the number of eligible families cannot be estimated until information from the 1989 family expenditure survey becomes available.

  Single Payments
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the amount paid in single payments in the last full year in which such payments were last available.

  Mr. Scott
  The amount paid in single payments in 1987–88 was £214 million.

  Child Poverty Action Group
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met the Child Poverty Action Group; and what matters were discussed.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My right hon. Friend met representatives of the Child Poverty Action Group on Tuesday 10 October. Discussion ranged widely and covered a large number of topics.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether further changes are planned to the rules governing mobility allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  We shall be looking at mobility allowance in common with all other benefits for the long-term sick and disabled as we assess the implications of all the results of the OPCS surveys.

  Personal Pension Plans
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest figure he has for the number of people opting for personal pension plans.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Just over 3·5 million people have so far applied for an appropriate personal pension.

  Family Benefits
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will detail the benefits which would be available to(a) a single unemployed parent with two school-age children, (b) a married unemployed couple

  345
  with two school-age children, (c) a single working parent with two school-age children and (d) a married couple with one parent working with two school-age children on (i) half average earning, (ii) national average earnings and (iii) twice average earnings.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  Married couple 2 children aged 13 and 16

  Multiples of Average Earnings1 (£pw)

  Not Working

  ½

  1

  2

  Income support

  84·95

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  Gross earnings

  0·00

  137·55

  275·10

  550·20

  Family credit

  n/a

  20·83

  0·00

  0·00

  Rent rebate3

  21·80

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  Rate rebate3

  7·20

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  Child benefit

  14·50

  14·50

  14·50

  14·50

  Total net income

  97·65

  119·35

  189·31

  380·94

  Lone Parent 2 children aged 13 and 16

  Multiples of Average Earnings2 (£pw)

  Not Working

  ½

  1

  2

  Income support

  63·75

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  Gross earnings

  0·00

  91·90

  183·80

  367·60

  Family credit

  n/a

  41·92

  0·00

  0·00

  Rent rebate3

  21·80

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  Rate rebate3

  7·20

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  Child benefit

  19·70

  19·70

  19·70

  19·70

  Total net income

  81·65

  115·52

  134·25

  259·39

  Unemployed families receiving income support are also eligible for free school meals and exemption from NHS charges. Working families receiving family credit are eligible for exemption from NHS charges.

  1 Average male earnings 1989–90 assumed to be £275·10 a week.

  2 Average female earnings 1989–90 assumed to be £183·80 a week.

  3 Each family is assumed to live in local authority accommodation appropriate to its size and paying estimated average rent and rates.

  Notes:

  Family credit for both family types runs out at gross earnings of £182 pw.

  Family credit eligibility is conditional upon one adult in the family working 24 or more hours a week.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the current level of child benefit was fixed; and by how much inflation has since increased.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The current level of child benefit is £7·25 per week and came into effect on 6 April 1987. The movement in the index of retail prices between April 1987 and September 1989 was 14·6 per cent.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when was the present level of single-parent child benefit increased last and by how much inflation has since risen.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  One-parent benefit was last increase in April 1989. Between April and September the index of retail prices rose by 2·1 per cent.

  Young People
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assistance is given by his Department to young people leaving local authority children's homes to live as independent adults, and whether he has any proposals for further assistance.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Those 16 and 17 year olds living independently who were in care immediately before their sixteenth birthday may claim income support for a period of 12–16 weeks after they leave school (known as the child benefit extension period), provided that they register for YTS or work. They may also claim housing benefit.

  Certain categories of young people are eligible to claim income support beyond the child benefit extension period. In addition, the Secretary of State has the power to direct that, where unavoidable hardship would result if benefit were withheld, a young person will be entitled to income support even though that person would not originally be entitled to it.

  Since July 1989, all 16 and 17-year-olds who have good reason to live independently, including those leaving care, have been entitled to the higher income support personal allowance payable to 18 to 24-year-olds. Housing benefit allowances were also increased for all 16 to 17-year-olds with housing commitments.

  Young people of 18 and over may claim income support provided that they are registered for work. They may also claim housing benefit.

  In assessing benefit entitlement for these young people, payments made by local authorities under section 1 of the Child Care Act 1980 or section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 are disregarded. We have recently extended this disregard to payments under sections 27 and 29 of the Child Care Act and sections 24 and 26 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act.

  Young people leaving care may also seek help from the social fund. In particular they may apply for community care grants to help with the expenses of setting up a home provided they meet the qualifying conditions.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what steps he proposes to take to alleviate the problems caused for those persons aged 16 and 17 years by the lack of availability of benefit, even when they become unavoidably homeless;

  (2) what steps he proposes to take to alleviate the problems caused within some low-income families by non-availability of benefit to those aged 16 and 17 years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The best course for 16 and 17-year-olds who leave school and do not take up further education or a job is to participate in the youth training scheme. We have developed the scheme to provide good quality training. Youngsters taking part are paid a weekly allowance and do not, therefore, need to rely on benefit.

  However, we have acknowledged that certain young people nevertheless need income support in their own right. In addition to lone parents, the disabled and the long-term sick, who can receive benefit without time restriction, young people forced to live independently cart claim income support during a limited period after leaving school, known as the child benefit extension period. They can also receive housing benefit.

  Moreover, we introduced a package of changes in July which recognised the particular difficulties being experi-enced by some 16 and 17-year-olds with no option but to

  347
  live away from home. An important element of this was to pay them higher rates of both income support and housing benefit.

  In addition, my right hon. Friend has discretion to enable income support to be paid to a 16 or 17-year-old to prevent "severe hardship". Factors taken into account in determining whether there would otherwise be severe hardship include the vulnerability of the young person, particularly to becoming homeless. Homeless young people in night shelters are now considered automatically under the severe hardship provisions.

  The parents of 16 or 17-year-olds who remain dependent may continue to receive child benefit during the child benefit extension period. During this time they may also be eligible for dependency additions to their own benefits, such as income support, family credit and housing benefit.

  We have therefore taken steps to ensure that benefit is available to all who need it, but we shall continue to monitor the 1988 social security reforms, including those affecting young people.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne can expect a reply to his letter of 4 April regarding pension arrangements affecting Mrs. E. D. Timmins of 27 Grovehill crescent. Falmouth, Cornwall.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no trace of having received this particular letter from my hon. Friend. If he could let us have a copy we will endeavour to reply as soon as possible.

  Dyslexia
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidelines his Department has issued to local social fund officers concerning applications for community care grants or crisis loans for the payment of fees for the assessment of dyslexia in the children of claimants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  None. However, the Secretary of State's directions to social fund officers preclude any award in respect of a medical service or an educational need. And, in the case of crisis loans, a social fund officer must be satisfied that an award is the only means by which serious damage or serious risk to the health or safety of the applicant, or to a member of his family, may be prevented.

  Hostels
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give details of the amount of benefit lost to persons who move from one hostel to another and the reasons for such loss.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  People in hostels who were receiving income support immediately before 9 October are eligible for compensatory payments to make good any shortfall in their total benefit income. The amount of any such payment varies according to an individual's circumstances. When a claimant leaves a hostel the compensatory payments to the claimant cease. This permits the Department to pay over the money due to the hostel instead, thus protecting hostel finances in 348
  accordance with the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) on 16 March, Official Report, column 546.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give details of the change in benefit entitlement of a person in a hostel who is in receipt of the protected sum.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  From 9 October 1989, people in hostels became eligible for housing benefit to help with their accommodation costs and normal income support personal allowances plus any appropriate premiums for other day-to-day expenses. People in hostels who were receiving income support immediately before 9 October are eligible for compensatory payments to make good any shortfall between the new and old levels of benefit for as long as they remain in the same hostel. They will therefore suffer no reduction in overall benefit entitlement as a direct result of the change in benefit arrangements.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give details of the financial savings to his Department arising from the changes in legislation regarding people's entitlement to benefit when living in a hostel.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The aim of the change is to achieve a simple, more rational and more comprehensible social security system while at the same time protecting hostels and claimants. There will be no reduction in the amount of money available to hostels.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give details on the entitlement to the protected sum paid to people when they transfer from one hostel to another; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Where an income support recipient changes or vacates his or her hostel, any entitlement to a compensatory payment ceases. The claimant is eligible for both income support personal allowances and premiums as appropriate, and housing benefit at the new address.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the circumstances under which the protective sum paid to people living in hostels will be reduced or removed.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  People in hostels are eligible for compensatory payments of income support if they would otherwise have received less benefit overall because of the changes in benefit arrangements introduced on 9 October 1989. These payments will be reduced by any subsequent increase in the normal rate of income support in payment. They will end either where the person changes or vacates his or her hostel or when he or she ceases to be entitled to income support. Exceptionally, entitlement to compensatory payments can continue where a person leaves his or her hostel for a period of 14 weeks or less because of hospitalisation or ceases to be entitled to income support for a period of eight weeks or less (or, in the case of certain persons who have become engaged in remunerative work for at least six weeks, 12 weeks or less), provided that in either case the person returns to or remains in the same hostel.

  Sickness Benefit
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the claim to sickness benefit of Mr. K. Oduntan (DSS Ref. RM 173P/C0999/71/083/3) and the reasons for the delay in resolving this matter.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The office for the determination of contribution questions sent a letter about Mr. Oduntan's claim to the hon. Member on 18 October 1989. The letter included a history of the case, detailed the up-to-date position and gave an explanation for any delay.

  Income Support Regulations
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security from what date the Income Support (General) Amendment No. 3 Regulations 1989, laid before Parliament on 15 September 1989 and due to be in force on 2 October, were not available to hon. Members; why they were not available after being laid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Scott
  Copies of the regulations were dispatched to the Vote Office on 15 September, the date on which they were laid before Parliament, according to normal practice. The regulations came into force on 9 October.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many officials of his Department and of what grade are engaged in drafting delegated medical officers' reasoned decisions on attendance allowance claims; and what training and guidance they receive from the Attendance Allowance Board.

  Mr. Scott
  Of the officials made available to act as officers and servants of the attendance allowance board 15 (1 HEO and 14 EOs) are engaged in drafting reasoned decisions on behalf of delegated medical practitioners, from whom they receive instructions and guidance about how the decisions should be expressed. The officials are not involved in the decision-making process.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will review the adjudication procedures for attendance allowance, in the light of the

  Table 1 England and Wales Structural comparisons: by proportion of total item

  Number of holdings accounting for given proportion of total item

  Item

  25 per cent, of total

  50 per cent, of total

  75 per cent, of total

  Total amount of item

  Wheat

  1988

  1,800

  5,600

  1,300

  1·8 million ha

  Barley

  1988

  2,700

  8,800

  20,100

  1·4 million ha

  Dairy cows

  1988

  3,100

  8,800

  17,400

  2·4 million cows

  Beef cows

  1988

  1,800

  5,700

  13,100

  0·74 million cows

  Pigs (total)

  1988

  250

  900

  2,400

  6·9 million pigs

  Sheep (total)

  1988

  2,800

  8,600

  19,500

  29·7 million sheep

  Area: crops and grass

  1988

  6,200

  21,500

  52,100

  9·5 million ha

  Total area

  1988

  5,700

  20,800

  52,000

  11·0 million ha

  350
  view expressed by the social security commissioners in decision CA/130/1988 in favour of a right of appeal to a medical appeal tribunal.

  Mr. Scott
  This is one of the aspects of the attendance allowance scheme that we shall be looking at in the light of the results of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys disability surveys.

  Haemophiliacs (HIV)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the Minister for the Disabled has received any representations in regard to settling out of court the claims of haemophiliacs who have been contaminated with the HIV virus by the injection of blood products supplied under the National Health Service; what replies have been sent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I have received two representations from the right hon. Member on this subject. I replied to the first letter on 2 October and will shortly reply to the other. I have today placed a copy of my reply of 2 October in the Library. A number of other representations have also been received by my hon. and right hon. Friends in the Department of Health, who have responsibility for this subject.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  EC Membership (Cost)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will bring up to date tables(a) D, (b) 4(e)1, (c) 4(e)2, (d)f1, and (e) B, in his Department's submission to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on the "Financial and Economic Consequences of United Kingdom Membership of the European Economic Community" in Session 1984–85 (HC 57-II).

  Mr. Curry
  The statistics requested at(a), (d) and (e) are shown in tables 1 to 3. The information at (b), relating to non-Community countries, is shown in table 4. Data on yields in the European Community are contained in the Commission's publication "The Agricultural Situation in the Community—1988 Report", available in the Library of the House. This publication also contains (pT/38) the information requested at (c).

  351

  TABLE 2

  Net farm income on full-lime farms by farm type: England 1986–87 and 1987–88

  1986–87

  1987–88

  All dairy farms

  Money terms (£'000)

  15·2

  18·5

  Index in real terms 1982–83= 100

  96

  112

  All livestock farms

  Money terms (£'000)

  3·9

  6·6

  Index in real terms 1982–83= 100

  56

  92

  All cropping farms

  Money terms (£'000)

  16·4

  6·0

  Index in real terms 1982–83= 100

  82

  29

  TABLE 3

  Structural comparisons: by size threshold England and Wales: 1988

  Item

  Size of threshold of item

  Number of holdings (thousands)

  Proportion of total item (per cent.)

  Size of threshold of item

  Number of holdings (thousands)

  Proportion of total item (per cent.)

  Wheat

  100 hectares or more

  4·5

  44

  50 hectares or more

  11·0

  70

  Barley

  100 hectares or more

  1·8

  20

  50 hectares or more

  7·3

  45

  Dairy cows

  100 cows or more

  6·5

  41

  50 cows or more

  19·8

  80

  Beef cows

  100 cows or more

  0·7

  13

  50 cows or more

  3·3

  37

  Pigs (total)

  1,000 pigs or more

  1·9

  69

  200 pigs or more

  5·4

  94

  Sheep (total)

  1,000 sheep or more

  8·2

  49

  500 sheep or more

  18·8

  74

  Area (crops and grass)

  100 hectares or more

  25·3

  55

  50 hectares or more

  56·7

  78

  Total area

  100 hectares or more

  29·8

  60

  50 hectares or more

  62·2

  81

  Table 4

  Yields of selected agricultural products—certain non Community countries: 1988.

  USA

  Canada

  Australia

  Japan

  Wheat

  tonnes/hectare

  2·29

  1·21

  1·52

  3·62

  Barley

  tonnes/hectare

  2·07

  2·45

  1·44

  3·50

  Sugar beet

  tonnes/hectare

  42·73

  34·74

  —

  52·96

  Oilseed Rape

  tonnes/hectare

  1·90

  1·16

  1·16

  2·00

  Potatoes

  tonnes/hectare

  31·56

  25·31

  27·18

  31·60

  Milk

  kg/cow

  6,444

  5,674

  2,850

  5,320

  Sources: 1988 FAO Production Yearbook, except Rapeseed, USA: Oil world.

  Sheep Imports
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sheep in each of the last three years have been imported into the United Kingdom from the Isle of Man; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The numbers of live sheep imported into the United Kingdom from the Isle of Man over the last three years are as follows:

  Financial year

  Numbers

  1986–87

  1,546

  1987–88

  2,119

  1988–89

  3,468

  Sheepmeat
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much sheepmeat has been imported into the United Kingdom from the Isle of Man in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The amount of sheepmeat imported into the United Kingdom from the Isle of Man over the last three years is as follows:352

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Pig and poultry farms

  Money terms (£'000)

  17·0

  14·3

  Index in real terms 1982–83= 100

  100

  81

  Horticultural farms

  Money terms (£'000)

  12·3

  18·0

  Index in real terms 1982–83= 100

  126

  177

  Source: Farm Business Survey.

  Note: Figures relate to an identical sample of farms. Full-time farms are defined as those of four British size units (BSU) or more. One BSU represents 2,000 ecu of standard gross margin at average 1978 to 1980 values.

  Calendar year

  Tonnes

  1986

  729

  1987

  694

  1988

  823

  Battery Fowls
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why his Department has withdrawn funding from research into the condition of battery fowls being transported to, and in the process of, slaughter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  We accord high priority to safeguarding poultry welfare, and as such commission a substantial programme of related research, amounting to some £1·1 million in 1988–89. The overall level of funding in this area is not being reduced.

  Much of the current research is investigating aspects of the condition of birds around the time of harvesting, transport and slaughter.

  An initial contract revealed the extent of bone breakage in laying hens, and the results of this work are being published. We are considering proposals for further work in this area, to complement ongoing research and address the underlying causes of bone breakages in poultry.
  353
  The current research is being carried out by the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, the Agriculture and Food Research Council and the universities.

  The industry, through the British Egg Industry Council is also funding two research projects on aspects of broken bones in hens.

  Battery Eggs Production
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department has undertaken any research on, or monitoring of, the decision of the Swiss Government to phase out battery egg production by 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I am aware of moves in a number of countries to phase out battery egg production. The Government will ensure that these developments are taken into account by the European Commission in the review of the EC directive on battery hens, which is due to be completed by the end of 1992.

DEFENCE

  Consultants
  Mr. Siliars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many consultant companies or groups have been commissioned by his Department in each of the past three years; what was the total value of the contracts; how many of these consultants were from Scotland and England, respectively; and what was the total value of contracts won by Scottish companies or groups.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Ministry of Defence holds records only for management and IT consultancies commissioned centrally. In the case of management consultancies the number of contracts and total fees paid in the last three financial years are as follows:

  FY

  £ million

  Consultants Commissioned

  1986–87

  6·2

  44

  1987–88

  5·1

  37

  1988–89

  3·1

  20

  In the case of IT consultancies, which are contracted through the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA), information exists only on total fees. This is as follows:

  FY

  £ million

  1986–87

  14·5

  1987–88

  14·8

  1988–89

  5·3

  The records do not make any distinction between Scottish or English companies. Most of the larger companies used do, however, have offices in Scotland.

  Proof and Experimental Establishments
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many proof and experimental establishments exist; and how many are located in Scotland.

  Mr. Neubert
  There are six proof and experimental establishments (P and EEs) of which one, P and EE Inchterf, is in Scotland (near Glasgow).

  Volunteer Reserves
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many volunteer reserves operate in Scotland; and what proportion of the total numbers that represents.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 1 April 1989, the total strength of the volunteer reserves operating in Scotland was 9,606, representing 11·8 per cent. of the overall total.

  Service Men (Benefits)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will detail the benefits which have been or will be removed from service men as mentioned in paragraph 518, page 42 of Cm. 675–I.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The new allowances package referred to in Cm. 675–I introduced a number of changes designed to improve assistance to service men when they are relocated, to remove to a large extent the differences of treatment between single and married personnel, and to benefit seagoers. The aim was that the overall expenditure on the new package should be broadly the same as the old. Those allowances which were considered less appropriate to modern conditions, and which have been or are being removed are as follows:

  (a) United Kingdom travel warrants for single personnel over 25 and married personnel were reduced from four to two per year. First class leave travel for senior officers was discontinued.

  (b) Army and RAF married personnel who opted to serve voluntarily unaccompanied on their next posting after 1 October 1988 were required to pay for their accommodation. They also lost entitlement to separation allowance and separation warrants.

  (c) Residence to place of duty travel reimbursement for those in private accommodation is being phased out, although in certain circumstances service personnel may be paid the cost of excess fares.

  (d) The resettlement and 50-plus assisted house purchase scheme will cease to be available from 30 September 1994.

  Contractors
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give a breakdown by region of the companies on the defence contractors' list.

  Mr. Neubert
  A breakdown by region of companies

  currently registered on the defence contractors' list (DCL) is as follows:

  Numbers

  South East

  3,051

  Greater London

  1,728

  East Anglia

  294

  South West

  1,080

  West Midlands

  1,269

  East Midlands

  644

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  833

  North West

  1,134

  North

  371

  Wales

  344

  Scotland

  784

  Northern Ireland

  113

  Channel Islands

  6

  Isle of Man

  7

  Total

  11,658

  Some companies have a number of sites registered on the DCL and the above figures therefore add up to more

  355
  than the number of individual companies on the DCL (10,371). The two figures could be reconciled only at a disproportionate cost.

  Security Zones
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the Warsaw pact strategies referred to in paragraph 206, page 6, of Cm. 675-I; and if he will make a statement on zones of different levels of security and the acceptability to Her Majesty's Government and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  On 9 March 1989, the Warsaw pact presented its initial proposals at the conventional armed forces in Europe (CFE) talks in Vienna. Those called, among other things, for NATO and the Warsaw pact to reduce their holdings of tanks, artillery, armoured troop carriers, aircraft, helicopters and military manpower to a level 10–15 per cent. below the holdings of the weaker alliance. The proposals also called for the establishment of"zones of reduced levels of armaments"

  along borders between NATO and Warsaw pact nations. Since then, they have put forward revised, alternative proposals on zonal arrangements.

  NATO has always opposed suggestions for zones of different levels of security, which imply that different nations within the Alliance should be obliged to accept different levels of security. The purpose of the NATO Alliance, and the CFE proposals which it has put forward, is to enhance and maintain security throughout Europe, and the Alliance's proposal for a series of geographical sub-limits on forces is designed to achieve equal security for all from the Atlantic to the Urals.

  Odessa (Challenge Inspection)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the name and rank of the United Kingdom personnel who exercised a challenge inspection of a Soviet exercise in the Odessa region; and what was the duration of their visit.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Two lieutenant colonels, one squadron leader, and one Army captain formed the inspection team which arrived at midnight on 9 April 1988 and left 46 hours later. It is not our policy to release the names of the individuals concerned.

  Staff Interchange Scheme
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the companies involved in his Department's staff interchange scheme.

  Mr. Neubert
  The following companies have par-ticipated in our interchange programme since 1 January 1988.

  MOD Interchange Programme

  Companies participating in 1988–89

  Alterplan '87

  Alvis

  Andrews Industrial

  Automated Security

  Babcock Thorn

  BDH Chemicals

  Better Made in Britain

  Bishop Price Partners

  British Aerospace plc

  356

  British Manufacturing and Research

  British Marine Technology

  British Nuclear Fuels

  British Petroleum

  British Telecom

  Brown and Root

  Cammel Lairds

  CAP Scientific

  Civil Aviation Authority

  Cleanaway Ltd.

  C & N Electrical

  Computing Services Association

  Computing Devices Ltd.

  Defence Technology Enterprises

  Devonport Management Ltd.

  Dowty Maritime

  Dowty Seals

  Easams

  EDO Western Corporation

  Eric Treades Systems

  Fairey Hydraulics

  Ferranti

  Fluor Daniel

  Frouds Consine

  GEC

  GKN

  Glaxochem

  Graviner Ltd.

  Grindleys Bank

  Hunting Engineering

  ICI

  ICL

  International Aeradio Ltd.

  J & S Marine

  Land Rover

  Lawrence Scott Electromotors

  Marconi

  Marr and Son

  Martin Baker

  MCP Electronic Materials Ltd.

  Morgan Grenfell & Co.

  Motorola

  Mott Hay & Anderson

  FEL TNO (Netherlands)

  North British Newsprint

  Oceonics SPL

  OCLI Optical Coatings

  Oxley Developments

  Pan Am World Services Ltd.

  Paxman Diesels

  Penny and Giles Ltd.

  Perkins Diesels

  Philips PRCS

  Philips Electronics

  Plessey

  Portsmouth Aviation

  Price Waterhouse

  Racal Electronics plc

  Rank Organisation

  Raytheon

  Robert Flemming Holdings

  Rolls Royce

  Rosyth Royal Dockyard

  Royal Ordnance plc

  Shell UK

  Sixth Sense Magazine

  Software Sciences Ltd.

  Storno Ltd.

  Strachan and Henshaw

  St. Bernard Plastics

  St. Ivel

  Systems Designers plc

  Thorn EMI

  Trend Communications Ltd.

  Unilever

  USEL Armaments

  Vaisala UK

  Vickers

  VSEL

  Vosper Controls

  357

  Westlands plc

  C. J. Williams Ltd.

  Wimpey Construction

  Yard Ltd.

  Research Establishments
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the non-nuclear defence research establishments, showing the numbers employed in each and their geographical location.

  Vessel

  Type

  Shipbuilder

  Acceptance date

  Cost (£M)

  HMS Amazon

  T21

  VT

  19 July 1974

  116·8

  HMS Sovereign

  SSN

  VSEL

  22 July 1974

  131·1

  HMS Herald

  Survey

  Robb Caledon

  31 October 1974

  15·2

  HMS Sheffield

  T42

  VSEL

  16 February 1975

  123·2

  HMS Antelope

  T21

  VT

  30 June 1975

  114·4

  HMS Ambuscade

  T21

  YSL

  23 August 1975

  116·5

  HMS Kingfisher

  PV

  R Dunston

  2 October 1975

  11·2

  HMS Arrow

  T21

  YSL

  16 May 1975

  120·2

  HMS Cygnet

  PV

  R Dunston

  1 July 1976

  10·9

  HMS Peterel

  PV

  R Dunston

  1 July 1976

  01·0

  HMS Jersey

  PV

  Hall Russell

  16 September 1976

  13·3

  HMS Birmingham

  T42

  CL

  26 November 1976

  131·0

  HMS Superb

  SSN

  VSEL

  29 November 1976

  141·3

  HMS Orkney

  PV

  Hall Russell

  20 January 1977

  13·3

  HMS Alacrity

  T21

  YSL

  2 April 1977

  123·8

  HMS Shetland

  PV

  Hall Russell

  25 May 1977

  13·6

  HMS Active

  T21

  VT

  2 June 1977

  124·1

  HMS Sandpiper

  PV

  R Dunston

  10 August 1977

  11·4

  HMS Ardent

  T21

  YSL

  10 September 1977

  126·3

  HMS Guernsey

  PV

  Hall Russell

  22 September 1977

  13·7

  HMS Lindesfarne

  PV

  Hall Russell

  26 January 1978

  13.9

  HMS Newcastle

  T42

  SHS

  25 February 1978

  134·6

  HMS Sceptre

  SSN

  VSEL

  11 March 1978

  158·9

  RFA Fort Grange

  FRS

  Scotts S/Building

  6 April 1978

  2

  HMS Avenger

  T21

  YSL

  15 April 1978

  127·7

  HMS Coventry

  T42

  CL

  20 October 1978

  137.9

  HMS Broadsword

  T22(bl)

  YSL

  21 February 1979

  168·6

  HMS Glasgow

  T42

  SHS

  9 March 1979

  136·9

  HMS Anglesey

  PV

  Hall Russell

  26 April 1979

  13·8

  RFA Fort Austin

  FRS

  Scotts S/Building

  22 June 1979

  2

  HMS Alderney

  PV

  Hall Russell

  30 August 1979

  13·9

  HMS Cardiff

  T42

  VSEL

  22 September 1979

  140·5

  HMS Spartan

  SSN

  VSEL

  10 October 1979

  168·9

  HMS Brecon

  MCMV

  VT

  6 December 1979

  1401

  HMS Battleaxe

  T22(bl)

  YSL

  20 December 1979

  169·2

  HMS Invincible

  CVS

  VSEL

  19 March 1980

  1184·5

  RFA Brambleleaf

  Tanker

  CL (Conv)

  10 April 1980

  11·0

  HMS Exeter

  T42

  SHS

  30 August 1980

  160·1

  HMS Ledbury

  MCMV

  VT

  18 March 1981

  124·1

  HMS Brilliant

  T22(bl)

  YSL

  10 April 1981

  102·2

  HMS Splendid

  SSN

  VSEL

  5 May 1981

  197·0

  HMS Southampton

  T42

  VT

  17 August 1981

  67·5

  HMS Leeds Castle

  PV

  Hall Russell

  25 August 1981

  9·2

  HMS Cattistock

  MCMV

  VT

  5 March 1982

  HMS Dumbarton Castle

  PV

  Hall Russell

  9 March 1982

  9·6

  HMS Liverpool

  T42

  CL

  12 May 1982

  92·8

  HMS Brazen

  T22(bl.)

  YSL

  11 June 1982

  112·0

  HMS Illustrious

  CVS

  SHS

  18 June 1982

  215·4

  HMS Brocklesby

  MCMV

  VT

  25 October 1982

  HMS Manchester

  T42

  VSEL

  19 November 1982

  110·0

  HMS Nottingham

  T42

  VT

  22 December 1982

  82·1

  HMS Cottesmore

  MCMV

  YSL

  28 May 1983

  HMS Trafalgar

  SSN

  VSEL

  13 July 1983

  RFA Protector

  FIPV

  CDD (Conv)

  24 August 1983

  3

  RFA Guardian

  FIPV

  CDD (Conv)

  14 September 1983

  3

  HMS Boxer

  T22(b2)

  YSL

  23 September 1983

  HMS Dulverton

  MCMV

  VT

  5 October 1983

  HMS Peacock

  HKPC

  Hall Russell

  12 October 1983

  6·9

  HMS Sentinel

  FIPV

  CDE (Conv)

  20 December 1983

  3

  RFA Diligence

  FRS(l)

  TSR (Conv)

  12 January 1984

  28·3

  HMS Plover

  HKPC

  Hall Russell

  18 April 1984

  7·0

  HMS Waveney

  MSF

  Richards

  2 May 1984

  4·6

  358
  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my predecessor to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 8 May at column 291–92.

  Navy Vessels
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Royal Navy vessels built in each of the past 15 years, showing the cost of each and the yards in which they were constructed.

  Mr. Neubert
  Details of major ships and submarines accepted into service since 1974–75 are as follows:
  359

  Vessel

  Type

  Shipbuilder

  Acceptance date

  Cost (£M)

  HMS Carron

  MSF

  Richards

  20 June 1984

  4·6

  HMS Starling

  HKPC

  Hall Russell

  21 June 1984

  7·1

  HMS Middleton

  MCMV

  YSL

  4 July 1984

  HMS Challenger

  SOV

  Scotts S/building

  13 July 1984

  153·4

  HMS Beaver

  T22(b2)

  YSL

  18 July 1984

  HMS Chiddingfold

  MCMV

  VT

  18 July 1984

  HMS Turbulent

  SSN

  VSEL

  30 July 1984

  160·0

  HMS Dovey

  MSF

  Richards

  5 October 1984

  4·6

  HMS Swallow

  HKPC

  Hall Russell

  17 October 1984

  7·4

  HMS Swift

  HKPC

  Hall Russell

  12 March 1985

  7·6

  HMS Humber

  MSF

  Richards

  14 March 1985

  4·6

  HMS York

  T42

  SHS

  25 March 1985

  118·7

  HMS Helford

  MSF

  Richards

  4 April 1985

  4·9

  HMS Gloucester

  T42

  VT

  16 May 1985

  120·8

  HMS Hurworth

  MCMV

  VT

  14 June 1985

  HMS Blackwater

  MSF

  Richards

  20 June 1985

  4·9

  HMS Itchen

  MSF

  Richards

  27 June 1985

  4·9

  HMS Ark Royal

  CVS

  SHS

  2 July 1985

  332·9

  HMS Edinburgh

  T42

  CL

  25 July 1985

  130·6

  HMS Helmsdale

  MSF

  Richards

  8 October 1985

  4·9

  HMS Tireless

  SSN

  VSEL

  30 October 1985

  HMS Orwell

  MSF

  Richards

  27 November 1985

  4·9

  HMS Bicester

  MCMV

  VT

  14 February 1986

  HMS Ribble

  MSF

  Richards

  19 February 1986

  4·9

  HMS Brave

  T22(b2)

  YSL

  21 February 1986

  HMS Spey

  MSF

  Richards

  4 April 1986

  5·2

  HMS Arun

  MSF

  Richards

  9 May 1986

  5·2

  HMS Roebuck

  CSV

  Brooke Marine

  22 August 1986

  13·1

  HMS Atherstone

  MCMV

  VT

  12 December 1986

  HMS London

  T22(b2)

  YSL

  6 February 1987

  HMS Torbay

  SSN

  VSEL

  2 March 1987

  HMS Berkeley

  MCMV

  VT

  20 November 1987

  RFA Sir Galahad

  LSL

  SHS

  25 November 1987

  HMS Cornwall

  T22(b3)

  YSL

  19 February 1988

  RFA Argus

  ATS

  H & W (Conv)

  3 March 1988

  HMS Sheffield

  T22(b2)

  SHS

  25 March 1988

  HMS Coventry

  T22(b2)

  SHS

  1 July 1988

  HMS Cumberland

  T22(b3)

  YSL

  18 November 1988

  HMS Quorn

  MCMV

  VT

  20 January 1989

  HMS Trenchant

  SSN

  VSEL

  7 February 1989

  HMS Campbeltown

  T22(b3)

  CL

  24 February 1989

  HMS Sandown

  SRMH

  VT

  17 March 1989

  2 Batch order for both vessels, total cost £75 million.

  3 The cost of the purchase and conversion of the three vessels FIPVs was £16·7 million.

  Costs, where shown, are at the price base that applied at the time the vessel was delivered or, if marked 1, are at out-turn prices as previously published in the Supply Estimates.

  Since 1987, it has not been our practice to give unit cost information for the reasons stated by my hon. Friend on 14

  Vessel

  Type

  Shipbuilder

  Order date

  HMS Upholder

  SSK

  VSEL

  2 November 1983

  HMS Talent

  SSN

  VSEL

  10 September 1984

  HMS Norfolk

  T23

  YSL

  29 October 1984

  HMS Triumph

  SSN

  VSEL

  3 January 1986

  HMS Unseen

  SSK

  CL/VSEL

  3 January 1986

  HMS Ursula

  SSK

  CL/VSEL

  3 January 1986

  HMS Unicorn

  SSK

  CL/VSEL

  3 January 1986

  RFA Fort Victoria

  AOR

  H&W

  24 April 1986

  HMS Vanguard

  SSBN

  VSEL

  30 April 1986

  HMS Marlborough

  T23

  SHS

  18 August 1986

  HMS Argyll

  T23

  YSL

  1 September 1986

  HMS Lancaster

  T23

  YSL

  1 September 1986

  HMS Inverness

  SRMH

  VT

  23 July 1987

  HMS Cromer

  SRMH

  VT

  23 July 1987

  HMS Walney

  SRMH

  VT

  23 July 1987

  HMS Bridport

  SRMH

  VT

  23 July 1987

  HMS Victorious

  SSBN

  VSEL

  6 October 1987

  RFA Fort George

  AOR

  SHS

  18 December 1987

  HMS Chatham

  T22(b3)

  SHS

  28 January 1988

  HMS Iron Duke

  T23

  YSL

  11 July 1988

  HMS Monmouth

  T23

  YSL

  11 July 1988

  HMS Montrose

  T23

  YSL

  11 July 1988

  360
  January 1988, Official Report, col. 373. Costs are therefore not shown for vessels where further vessels of the class were under construction in 1987.

  In addition to the above, the following vessels are currently under construction:

  361

  Legend

  Ship Type

  T21

  Type 21 Frigate

  SSN

  Nuclear Powered Fleet Submarine (costs only given for SWIFTSURE class)

  T42

  Type 42 Destroyer

  T22(b1/2/3)

  Type 22 Frigate (batch 1/2/3)

  PV

  Patrol Vessel

  FRS

  Fleet Replenishment Ship

  FRS(l)

  Forward Repair Ship

  MCMV

  Mine Countermeasures Vessel

  CVS

  Aircraft Carrier

  FIPV

  Falkland Island Patrol Vessel

  HKPC

  Hong Kong Patrol Craft

  MSF

  Fleet Minesweeper

  SOV

  Seabed Operation Vessel

  CSV

  Coastal Survey Vessel

  LSL

  Landing Ship (Logistic)

  SRMH

  Single Role Minehunter

  ATS

  Aviation Training Ship

  SSBN

  Vanguard Class Trident Submarine

  SSK

  Diesel Electric Powered Submarine

  AOR

  Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment vessel

  (Conv) = Conversion

  Shipbuilder

  SHS

  Swan Hunter Shipbuilders

  YSL

  Yarrow Shipbuilders Ltd

  VSEL

  VSEL Ltd

  H& W

  Harland & Wolff Holdings plc

  CL

  Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Ltd.

  VT

  Vosper Thornycroft (United Kingdom) Ltd.

  CDE

  Clyde Dock Engineering

  CDD

  Cardiff Dry Dock

  TSR

  Tyne Shiprepairers

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Territorial Army regiments and battalions located in Scotland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following Territorial Army regiments and battalions are located in Scotland:

  Royal Armoured Corps

  Queen's Own Yeomanry

  A Squadron

  Royal Artillery

  103 Air Defence Regiment

  207 Battery

  212 Battery

  Royal Engineers

  71 Engineer Regiment

  Regimental Headquarters

  102 Field Squadron

  104 Field Squadron

  124 Field Squadron

  117 Field Support Squadron

  131 Independent Commando Squadron

  300 Troop

  Royal Signals

  32 Signal Regiment

  Regimental Headquarters and Headquarters Squadron

  51 Squadron

  52 Squadron

  61 Squadron

  39 Signal Regiment

  2 Squadron

  Infantry

  1/52 Lowland

  Battalion Headquarters and Headquarters Company
  362

  A Company

  B Company

  C Company

  D Company

  E Company

  2/52 Lowland

  Battalion Headquarters

  1 Company

  2 Company

  3 Company

  4 Company

  1/51 Highland

  Battalion Headquarters and Headquarters Company

  A Company

  K Company

  2/51 Highland

  Battalion Headquarters and Headquarters Company

  A Company

  B Company

  C Company

  D Company

  3/51 Highland

  Battalion Headquarters and Headquarters Company

  C Company

  D Company

  E Company

  15 Para

  Battalion Headquarters and Headquarters Company

  A Company

  B Company

  C Company

  Special Air Service Regiment

  23 SAS(V)

  Two squadrons

  Royal Corps of Transport

  153 Regiment

  Regimental Headquarters

  212 Squadron

  230 Squadron

  231 Squadron

  239 Squadron

  154 Regiment

  Regimental Headquarters

  221 Squadron

  222 Squadron

  225 Squadron

  251 Squadron

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  205 General Hospital

  225 Field Ambulance

  252 Field Ambulance

  Detachment 144 Field Ambulance

  Royal Army Ordnance Corps

  94 Ordnance Company

  Stores Section 71 Engineer

  Regimental Workshop

  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  102 Air Defence Regiment Light Aid Detachment

  71 Engineer Regiment Workshop

  221 Squadron Royal Corps of Transport Workshop

  222 Squadron Royal Corps of Transport Workshop

  225 Transport Squadron Workshop

  251 Squadron Workshop

  Section Queen's Own Yeomanry Light Aid Detachment

  32 Signal Regiment Light Aid Detachment

  153 Transport Regiment Workshop

  Royal Military Police

  243 Provost Company

  363
  Headquaters and four platoons

  Intelligence Corps

  23 Security Company

  Miscellaneous

  Aberdeen University Officer Training Corps

  Edinburgh and Heriot Watt University Officer Training Corps

  Glasgow and Strathclyde University Officer Training Corps

  Taylforth University Officer Training Corps

  Royal Scots (V) Band

  Royal Highland Fusiliers (V) Band

  51 Highland Band

  Staff (Directorships)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those of his Department's senior staff who are non-executive directors of major companies, together with the companies.

  Mr. Neubert
  The following MOD senior staff are currently non-executive directors:

  Name

  Grade

  Company

  J. C. Mabberley

  3

  Automated Security

  M. J. Harte

  3

  Glaxochem

  B. A. E. Taylor

  3

  North British Newsprint

  D. E. Humphries

  3

  Thorn EMI

  K. G. Hambleton

  3

  Dowty Seals

  D. R. Morris

  5

  Rank Organisation

  A. J. D. Pawson

  5

  Cleanaway Ltd.

  Officers (Dismissals)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy in future defence estimate statements to indicate the number of officers and officers-designate whose reason for leaving the services comes within the categories "unsatisfactory" and "discipline".

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Outflow from the services of officers and officers-designate whose reason for leaving comes within the categories unsatisfactory and discipline are already included in table 4.18 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989" volume 2 (Cm. 675-II) under the heading "other reasons", which has a similar coverage to the "Unsatisfactory, disciplinary and other reasons" sub-heading shown for servicemen and service women. The officers' "other reasons" sub-heading will be changed in future editions of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" to make this clear. A more detailed breakdown in separate unsatisfactory and disciplinary categories is not available.

  Expenditure Statistics
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the proportions of expenditure in(a) Scotland and (b) the south-east of England for each industry group heading, in the year 1986–87, as set out in table 2.5 of Cm. 675-II.

  Mr. Neubert
  Estimates of the regional breakdown of the figures in table 2.5 are not available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what detailed studies his Department has conducted on recruitment and the demographic trough; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Army has undertaken a study on manning and recruiting in the lean years of the nineties, better known as the Marilyn report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The Ministry of Defence has also conducted a number of internal reviews covering the three services. As a result, a wide range of measures are being taken to step up our recruiting effort and to improve retention.

  East Germany and Poland (Defence Cuts)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has of East German and Polish cuts in troop numbers, tanks and aircraft over the period 1988–1991.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Following President Gorbachev's announcement in late 1988 about intended Soviet force reductions, East Germany announced that it would make unilateral cuts of 10,000 troops, 600 tanks, and 50 aircraft, and Poland announced that it would cut 40,000 troops, 850 tanks, and 80 aircraft, in the period up to 1991. Some of these cuts have already taken place. It is difficult to forecast progress, but we have no reason to believe that they will not adhere to their reduction programmes.

  Spares
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of expenditure on spares in 1988–89; and what proportion was taken by suppliers located in(a) Scotland and (b) south-east England.

  Mr. Neubert
  Total estimated expenditure on spares in 1988–89 was approximately £1,635 million. A breakdown of this expenditure by region could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  RAF Contracts
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total value of RAF contracts, in the latest available year, to external contractors, at Linton-on-Ouse, Shawbury and Church Fenton.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In the current financial year, the total value of RAF contracts placed with external contractors at RAF Linton-on-Ouse, RAF Shawbury and RAF Church Fenton is approximately £9·6 million.

  Medical Research
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what part of his Department's medical expenditure is devoted to medical research within military establishments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Volunteer Reserves
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the turnover rate of the volunteer reserves in Scotland in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I regret that this information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the turnover rate of the volunteer reserves in the past year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The outflow from the volunteer reserve forces during training year 1988–89 was 25,705, representing a turnover of 29·7 per cent. against strength at the beginning of the year. This outflow includes some 700 other ranks who left to take up commissions in the regular forces.

  Non-strategic Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when a decision on modernisation of the United Kingdom's non-strategic nuclear weapons is to be taken.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The studies into a number of options for the possible replacement of the WE 177 free-fall bomb are continuing. It is not yet possible to forecast when a decision may be taken.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether work undertaken at the Chemical Defence Establishment is capable of conversion to the production of offensive chemical weapons.

  Mr. Neubert
  The role of the Chemical Defence Establishment is to provide effective protective measures for the United Kingdom Armed Forces against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. The United Kingdom abandoned all offensive chemical warfare work over 30 years ago and CDE has no facilities capable of conversion to significant production of offensive chemical weapons.

  Major Equipment Projects
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which companies are the main contractors for the major equipment projects set out in table 3.2 of Cm. 675-II; and how many of these have head offices located in(a) Scotland and (b) England.

  Mr. Neubert
  The main contractors for the major equipment projects set out in table 3.2 of Cm. 675-II are as follows:

  Project

  Main contractor

  Trident

  VSEL Consortium plc

  Type 23 Frigate

  Yarrow Shipbuilders Ltd.

  Single Role Minehunter

  Vosper Thorneycroft (UK) Ltd.

  Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment Vessel

  Harland and Wolff plc

  Type 2400 Submarine

  VSEL Consortium plc

  Sea Dart missile

  British Aerospace plc

  Sea Wolf missile

  British Aerospace plc

  GWS26 MOD 1 vertical launch Sea Wolf

  British Aerospace plc

  366

  Project

  Main contractor

  Harpoon surface launched

  McDonnell-Douglas Missile Systems Company

  Stingray

  The Marconi Co. Ltd.

  Spearfish

  The Marconi Co. Ltd.

  Sonar 2054

  Plessey UK Ltd.

  Challenger MBT

  Vickers plc

  TOGS

  Barr and Stroud Ltd.

  Warrior MICV

  GKN Sankey Ltd.

  Milan

  British Aerospace plc

  Rapier Field Standard B

  British Aerospace plc

  Rapier Self-Propelled

  British Aerospace plc

  Rapier Field Standard C

  British Aerospace plc

  Blowpipe/Javelin

  Short Brothers plc

  High Velocity missile

  Short Brothers plc

  MLRS 1

  European Production Group

  LAW 80

  Hunting Engineering Ltd.

  Trigat Medium Range

  British Aerospace plc

  Trigat Long Range

  British Aerospace plc

  Ptarmigan

  Plessey UK Ltd.

  European Fighter Aircraft

  Eurofighter Jadflugzeug GmbH Eurojet Turbo GmbH

  Tornado GR1

  Panavia Aircraft GmbH Turbo Union Ltd.

  Tornado ADV

  British Aerospace plc

  E3-AEW

  The Boeing Company

  Harrier GR5

  British Aerospace plc

  Tristar 1st batch

  Marshall of Cambridge (Engineering) Ltd.

  Tristar 2nd batch

  Marshall of Cambridge (Engineering) Ltd.

  EH101

  EH Industries Ltd.

  Sky Flash

  British Aerospace plc

  ALARM

  British Aerospace plc

  JP 233

  Hunting Engineering Ltd.

  Foxhunter Al

  The Marconi Co. Ltd.

  Skynet 4 stage 1

  British Aerospace plc

  Of these, two have their major works in Scotland and 10 in England.

  Operational Fuels
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which companies have contracts to supply operational fuels to the armed services; and how many of these companies have their head offices in(a) Scotland and (b) England.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence currently holds contracts with 28 different companies for the supply of operational fuels to the armed services. Of these, two have their head offices in Scotland and 17 have their head offices in England.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which firms of consultants have been commissioned to study recruitment of ethnic minorities to the armed services; and what is the value of each contract.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The contract for the study into ethnic minority recruitment to the armed services was placed with Peat Marwick McLintock, who conducted the study in conjunction with their sub-contractors, Mass Observation. It is not our practice to disclose the value of such contracts.

  Belize (Accommodation)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration is being given to the replacement of locally-rented accommodation for service families on Belize by purpose-built accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Taking into account the uncertainty over the period British Forces will remain in Belize, it has been previously assessed that it would not be cost-effective to replace locally rented accommodation for families in Belize with purpose-built accommodation. We are currently in the process of looking at this matter again, although no decision has yet been reached.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to improve the single and married accommodation of Her Majesty's forces serving in Belize.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are currently in the middle of a five-year programme for the replacement of the older single accommodation in Belize, which is due to be completed in 1992. We are also in the middle of rebuilding the 10 old-style married quarters in Airport camp, which will be replaced by 1991.

  Private1

  Sergeant1

  Year

  Annual pay

  Increase amount

  Increase per cent.

  Annual pay

  Increase amount

  Increase per cent.

  1971

  1,296

  —

  —

  1,752

  —

  —

  1972

  1,445

  149

  11·50

  2,091

  339

  19·35

  1973

  1,657

  212

  14·67

  2,241

  150

  7·17

  1974

  1,869

  212

  12·79

  2,522

  281

  12·54

  1975

  2,405

  536

  28·68

  3,285

  763

  30·25

  1976

  2,718

  313

  13·01

  3,598

  313

  9·53

  1977

  2,854

  136

  5·00

  3,778

  180

  5·00

  1978

  3,245

  391

  13·70

  4,307

  529

  14·00

  1979

  4,055

  810

  24·96

  5,486

  1,179

  27·37

  1980

  5,011

  956

  23·58

  6,826

  1,340

  24·43

  1981

  5,482

  471

  9·40

  7,552

  726

  10·64

  1982

  5,785

  303

  5·53

  8,004

  452

  5·99

  1983

  6,215

  430

  7·43

  8,616

  612

  7·65

  1984

  6,676

  461

  7·42

  9,293

  677

  7·86

  1985

  7,154

  478

  7·16

  9,979

  686

  7·38

  1986

  7,687

  533

  7·45

  10,757

  778

  7·80

  1987

  8,136

  449

  5·84

  11,470

  713

  6·63

  1988

  8,625

  489

  6·01

  12,228

  758

  6·61

  1989

  9,224

  599

  6·94

  13,082

  854

  6·98

  Captain (Army)2

  Major2

  Year

  Annual pay

  Increase amount

  Increase per cent.

  Annual pay

  Increase amount

  Increase per cent.

  1971

  2,555

  —

  —

  3,322

  —

  —

  1972

  3,000

  445

  17·42

  3,950

  628

  15·90

  1973

  3,180

  180

  6·00

  4,170

  220

  5·57

  1974

  3,573

  393

  12·36

  4,679

  509

  12·21

  1975

  4,121

  548

  15·34

  5,103

  424

  9·06

  1976

  4,434

  313

  7·60

  5,416

  313

  6·13

  1977

  4,642

  208

  4·69

  5,624

  208

  3·84

  1978

  5,917

  1,275

  27·47

  7,457

  1,833

  32·59

  1979

  7,397

  1,480

  25·01

  9,432

  1,975

  26·49

  1980

  9,136

  1,739

  23·51

  11,994

  2,562

  27·16

  1981

  10,424

  1,288

  14·10

  13,494

  1,500

  12·51

  1982

  11,129

  705

  6·76

  14,498

  1,004

  7·44

  1983

  12,144

  1,015

  9·12

  15,830

  1,332

  9·19

  1984

  13,169

  1,025

  8·44

  17,115

  1,285

  8·12

  1985

  14,188

  1.019

  7·74

  18,509

  1,394

  8·14

  1986

  15,279

  1,019

  7·69

  20,049

  1,540

  8·32

  1987

  16,272

  993

  6·50

  21,352

  1,303

  6·50

  1988

  17,418

  1,146

  7·04

  22,849

  1,497

  7·01

  1989

  18,812

  1,394

  8·00

  24,433

  1,584

  6·93

  Service Pay
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the percentage and actual increases in pay for each year since 1964 for(a) at private rank, (b) at sergeant rank, (c) at captain rank and (d) at a major, and for the equivalent Royal Air Force and Royal Navy rank, in each case.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The present system of pay in the Armed Forces, which introduced what is known as the military salary, was implemented in two stages in 1970 and 1971.

  Prior to this, service men were paid partly in cash and partly by the provision of free food and accommodation, with different rates for married personnel. Information on these earlier rates of pay is not readily available and would not in any case be comparable with the present system. Rates of pay and the increase from 1971 are set out in the table. The variations in percentage increases between the ranks in some years of the 1970s arose in part from the effects of various income policies in force at the time and subsequent catching-up awards.
  369
  1The pay of non-commissioned ranks is divided into different pay bands according to their technical and other skills. The pay shown is for the middle pay hand and for personnel committed to between six to nine years service. Pay for RAF and RN personnel of equivalent ranks is broadly similar but full pay banding is not used in the RN and minor variations can therefore occur.

  2Officers are paid on a scale related to the number of years in rank. The rates shown are for the top of the scale. There is no difference for the pay of equivalent ranks in the RN and RAF.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to resolve the outstanding decision on the choice of radar for the European fighter aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Since taking office my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has met his German opposite number of two occasions during which the choice of radar for European fighter aircraft was considered. Further meetings will take place with the Defence Minister of European fighter aircraft nations as necessary. Senior officials are also in regular contact with their counterparts in the other European fighter aircraft countries. Every opportunity is taken during these meetings to seek an early resolution of this issue.

  Colonial Service Pensions
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to clear the back-log of claims for certification of war service submitted by colonial service pensioners at the Army records office, Hayes.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Of the 2,551 inquiries received by the Army record office at Hayes for verification of war service, 2,342 have been completed and returned to the Overseas Development Administration. The outstanding 209 await further information from the ex-service men themselves or from the Department of Social Security before they can be verified and returned to the Overseas Development Administration.

  Bird Strike Risk
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultation have taken place since 1983 between officials of his Department or service personnel and representatives of the Nature Conservancy Council to discuss bird strike risk in low-level flying exercises; and the possible effects of such exercises on seabird colonies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  I am not aware of any formal discussions between my Department and the Nature Conservancy Council on bird strike risk in low flying exercises, but areas of major bird concentrations, including the locations of major seabird colonies in Scotland, are notified to aircrew who will take account of the potential hazards in the planning and execution of their low-flying sorties. My Department also has regular discussions with the Nature Conservancy Council, at which matters of mutual concern, including the effect of low-flying aircraft on seabird colonies, are discussed.

  Land, Wales
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will indicate how much land has been purchased by his Department to add to that already owned by them on Mynydd Eppynt in Brecon and Radnor in the following years:(a) 1987, (b) 1988 and (c) the present year to 30 September.
  370
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 6 July 1988 at column 646. A further 25 acres in the Brecon and Radnor areas have been purchased from the Forestry Commission this year.

  Holy Loch
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has of the contribution to the local economy made by the United States Government as a result of the use of Holy Loch by the United States Navy and as to who benefits therefrom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on 9 May 1989 at column 426.

TRANSPORT

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of public subsidy for Network SouthEast in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Portillo
  Figures for Government support paid to the British Railways board, including public service obligations grant under EC regulation 1191/69 and section 3 of the Railways Act 1974, and level crossings grant under EC regulation 1192/69, are given in the table. Final claims have not yet been agreed.

  The table also shows the figures for total investment by British Rail in the railways.

  £m cash (rounded to nearest £m)

  Grant

  Investment

  1986–87

  709

  399

  1987–88

  782

  526

  1988–89

  557

  570

  In the annual report and accounts for 1987–88 British Rail estimated the PSO grant requirement for Network SouthEast at £231 million; in 1988–89 British Rail put NSE's requirement at £141 million.

  Air Traffic Movements
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all planning or other environmental measures limiting air traffic movements at(a) Heathrow airport and (b) other airports in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to seek it from the airports direct.

  BAA (Land)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the acreage and asset value of land owned by BAA at the time of its privatisation at each of the airports in its ownership; and what assurances were sought from the management of BAA plc regarding the future disposal of such land;
  371
  (2) what was the value of the total land owned by BAA at Prestwick airport at the time of privatisation.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The 1987 BAA company accounts show the following gross current cost valuations for freehold property, comprising land and buildings, at the seven BAA airports:

  £ thousand

  Heathrow

  624,100

  Gatwick

  181,000

  Stansted

  49,106

  Glasgow

  46,617

  Edinburgh

  27,942

  Prestwick

  27,552

  Aberdeen

  19,220

  The prospectus isued when BAA plc shares were offered for sale showed the acreages of the principal properties of the BAA group at 8 July 1987 as follows:

  Acres

  Heathrow

  2,750

  Gatwick

  1,642

  Stansted

  2,406

  Glasgow

  699

  Edinburgh

  873

  Prestwick

  555

  Aberdeen

  497

  In addition, the company held approximately 1,815 acres of land and buildings which were not directly or immediately required for airport operations.

  BAA's articles of association provide that the company may not dispose of an airport designated for the purposes of economic regulation under the 1986 Act without the prior consent of the holder of the special share. This may only be held by a Minister or other person acting on behalf of the Crown. Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are the BAA airports currently designated and my right hon. Friend holds the share.

  Scottish Lowlands Airports Policy
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those officials and advisers who will be involved in carrying out the consultation exercise on Scottish lowland airports policy.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. The consultation is being conducted by the Department of Transport in association with the Scottish Office. My right hon. Friend will consider the Government's policy in the light of the responses received.

  Flight Diversions
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions have flights been diverted from(a) Glasgow and (b) other airports to Prestwick airport since 1980.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This information is published monthly and annually by the Civil Aviation Authority, and copies are placed in the library. The relevant figures are as follows:372

  Year

  Landings diverted to Prestwick from Glasgow

  Landings diverted to Prestwick from United Kingdom and from overseas airports

  1980

  148

  67

  1981

  123

  100

  1982

  38

  47

  1983

  35

  62

  1984

  77

  59

  1985

  71

  74

  1986

  15

  65

  1987

  43

  74

  1988

  66

  87

  to end June 1989

  1

  39

  Total

  617

  674

  Source:

  CAA "Annual Statistics" 1980, 1981, 1982.

  CAA "UK Airports: annual statements of movements, passengers and cargo" 1983 to 1988.

  CAA "UK Airports: monthly statements of movements, passengers and cargo" January to June 1989.

  West London Assessment Study
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what consultation arrangements he is making to ensure that local opinion is taken into account before Government decisions are made on the issues covered by his consultants' stage 2B report of the west London assessment study;

  (2) when he expects to receive the stage 2B report of the west London assessment study from his consultants; and whether he will publish it without delay.

  Mr. Atkins
  We expect to receive reports from the consultants for all four London assessment studies in the next month or so. Arrangements for printing will be put in hand as soon as possible for publication early in December. The reports will be available for purchase and there will be free summaries. Displays will be offered at town halls and public libraries in the study areas.

  In order to reduce uncertainty we intend to announce at the time the reports are published which options will not be considered further. We shall be inviting comments from local authorities, other organisations and members of the public before reaching firm decisions on the remaining options.

  London Regional Transport (Anti-inflation Policy)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice, instructions or indications he has given to, London Regional Transport and its subsidiary undertakings concerning their part in supporting the anti-inflation policy of Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Portillo
  London Regional Transport is fully aware of the Government's determination to win the fight against inflation and I have satisfied myself that LRT appreciates the significance of its own pay and price increases. My right hon. Friend has no powers to issue instructions to LRT on these matters.

  Air Traffic (Near Misses)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many near-miss cases over Orkney involving both civilian and military aircraft have been reported to the Civil Aviation Authority since 1 January 1985.
  373
  Mr. McLoughlin
  There have been three reported airmisses over Orkney since 1 January 1985. Each involved civil and military aircraft and all were graded by the joint airmiss working group as category C—no risk.

  Transatlantic Flights
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average real or notional extra cost for each transatlantic flight which has to use Prestwick as a gateway airport.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department does not hold the information needed to establish this figure.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

British Telecom: Price Changes
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the average price change since British Telecom was privatised in 1984.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, there is no simple measure of the average change in all of the charges made by British Telecom. For the most commonly used services, which are controlled under British Telecom's licence, prices are now about 17 per cent. less in real terms than they were at the time of privatisation.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. The figures given prior to privatisation show that the average increase in charges for residential telephones was well above 13 per cent. In the light of the new user rebates, can my noble friend say what benefits residential users can expect?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, British Telecom has been revising its low-user rental rebates. It has recently made further improvements to the scheme which I am pleased to be able to say will especially help the disabled and elderly.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I did not understand the Minister's Answer. Can he tell the House simply how much prices have risen for the typical business and household users?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the calculation is not as simple as the noble Lord may imagine, but I do not criticise him for that. Since privatisation there has been a reduction in the prices which are controlled under British Telecom's licence of about 17 per cent. in real terms.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hate to be a nuisance, but I do not believe that the question has yet been answered. It was: what has been the average price change and how much extra does it cost in ordinary, everyday money? It cannot be a difficult question, because "real terms" means the actual increase minus the increase in inflation. I do not believe that the answer will be embarrassing to the Government and I wonder what it is.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the answer is not embarrassing to the Government but is rather difficult to arrive at in precise terms. BT is allowed different rates of increases for different services and
1136
therefore I cannot give the simple answer which the noble Lord requests. I should be happy to do so if my mathematics were sufficiently sophisticated. However, if the noble Lord wishes I shall write to him giving more detail.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what has been the increase in the cost of an ordinary local call?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as regards BT's latest proposals, the unit charge, which falls within the RPI minus 4·5 per cent. formula agreed with the Director General of Telecommunications, remains the same but there will be a small increase due to a shorter time allowance. Other charges within the same bracket will be treated differently, so, again, the calculation is not straightforward. Needless to say, all the charges have been agreed with the director general.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the expression "average" sensibly applicable only to sets of figures which relate to a single comparable series; and unless that is so is it not a totally meaningless figure?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not for one moment suggest that my noble and learned friend's question is meaningless. However, given the wording it is difficult to arrive at a precise answer. Since privatisation the charges to residential customers have been reduced by about 10 per cent. in real terms, and that is of considerable benefit to them.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, since the noble Lord has difficulty with his arithmetic I shall give him a simple problem. Can he tell the House how the cost of long-distance calls compares as between BT and Mercury? My experience is that Mercury is much cheaper.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct; Mercury's charges for long-distance calls are significantly cheaper. My department makes substantial use of the facilities provided by Mercury simply because of the better value for money that they represent. Indeed, I have a Mercury telephone on my desk.

Schools Outreach: Funding
2.41 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne Lord Ashbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have offered no financial support to Schools Outreach to assist its educational work in the field of preventive care.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Department of Education and Science offered grant to Schools Outreach in 1987 subject to that organisation's securing complementary funding from a local education authority. The department has also offered funding for an evaluation of Schools Outreach's work.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging Answer. Will he confirm that, provided Schools Outreach can obtain local authority funding for 50 per cent. of the wages of any workers it employs, the DES will provide the other 50 per cent., observing that the sums involved are small?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, at a meeting on 15th May, 1989, my honourable friend the Minister of State for Education and Science told Mr. Bailey that a six-year LEA commitment to Schools Outreach would not be a condition of DES funding. Last February Mr. Bailey was also told that if he put forward a firm proposition along the lines proposed by the DES we would take a good look at it and at the possibilities of joint funding even if the precise detail of the conditions we earlier laid down was not met.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can clarify the second part of his reply regarding discussions with Mr. Bailey. Does that mean that the DES is prepared to accept a shorter length of time than the six years?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I believe that that was implicit in my reply. I inform the House that the department and Mr. Bailey have been conducting discussions on the matter for over two years.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is it not cause for real concern that so many children are out of school on any one day in the school year? Research has shown that a number of children are not attending classes in school. Schools Outreach is one of the organisations that can assist in dealing with the situation. Should not that organisation be better supported than it is?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I agree. The Government fully recognise the valuable work done by Schools Outreach. However, it is not the Government's role to step in to support the work of voluntary organisations if those who actually use the services are not prepared to help to secure their continued existence.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I ask the Minister to clarify what I believe he said to his noble friend Lord Ashbourne: first, that the Government support Schools Outreach and believe that it is a good organisation; and, secondly, to the extent that Schools Outreach can raise some funding on its own the Government will be open to persuasion up to a point to match that funding. Is that the message that the Minister's department is seeking to get over?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is the message that I am seeking to get over to the House. I should like to add that the conditions attached to the 1987 offer of grant were certainly demanding but the sum of money offered at that time was not inconsiderable. My honourable friend the Minister of State has recently made clear to Mr. Bailey that what is crucial is specific evidence of LEA financial commitment but so far no such evidence has been produced.

Poland: Assistance
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve Baroness Macleod of Borve asked Her Majesty's Government:
What help, both national and international, is being given to Poland.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have established a know-how fund for Poland to help provide the skills needed to run a fully democratic system and a market-based economy. Through the European Community, we are helping to supply free food and to fund projects in the agricultural, training and environmental fields. International financial help will become available when Poland h as agreed a reform and adjustment programme with the IMF.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his encouraging reply. However, can he specify the quantities of food that have been sent by this country and by the other European countries to what we understand as that very beleaguered country which is part of Europe? We owe Poland and her people a great debt of gratitude for all that they did for us during the last war.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the know-how fund to which I have referred will represent £25 million over five years and the cost of Community food supplies is already over 100 million ecus, which is equivalent to about £70 million. In addition, Community project assistance, which is aggregated with that for Hungary, is valued at about 200 million ecus, which is about £140 million.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if we are to support Poland in the historic developments which have taken place there, should we not be doing rather more than the noble Lord described—although we welcome that? Is it not the case, for example, that Germany has offered £1 billion to Poland in order to assist its economy to develop further, and that Italy has offered £400 million? Can the Minister tell the House whether we are proposing additional assistance? Further, can the Minister say whether we propose to help Poland in rescheduling its debt?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, regarding rescheduling the debt, it is important for the Poles to agree with the IMF on a programme. I understand that the views of the Polish Government and the IMF are close on this matter and that therefore a programme is likely to be agreed in the not too distant future. It will then be possible for the Polish debt situation generally, which the noble Lord will be aware is considerable, to be considered carefully in the so-called Paris Club. We shall be anxious to play a full part in that. Indeed, once the IMF programme is in place and the Paris Club has done its work, that will open the way to substantial support for Poland in a variety of ways; and we shall be anxious to play our part.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that answer. However, does he not agree

1139
that one of the greatest threats to economic and political reform in Poland is inflation? Does the noble Lord further agree that the price of food is one of the most dangerous manifestations of that inflation? If therefore the £70 million in food supplies which we are giving Poland is not sufficient to increase supplies so that prices go down, will Her Majesty's Government keep an eye on the situation and be ready to increase that amount in order to achieve the objective that I have suggested?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, yes, I believe we shall. The sum of money to which I referred is the amount that has been agreed so far with the European Community. I am certain that the Community will hasten to agree further supplies as and when they prove to be necessary. I must agree with the noble Lord that that seems likely to be a little while ahead yet.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I spent a couple of weeks in Poland nearly 20 years ago looking at agriculture in that country, and I was impressed with it. Before we give aid now, should we not investigate why production has dropped so badly as to require aid?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if we were to delay unduly the provision of the food aid to which I have referred we would further exacerbate the serious problems that already exist in that country, where there are acute food shortages. We attach great importance to improving the competence of the Polish agricultural sector, and indeed of other sectors. That is why we attach such importance to the £25 million of know-how assistance that we are providing, which I hope the noble Lord will agree will contribute to a solution to the problems in that country.

Cambodia: Assistance
2.50 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the provision of aid for Cambodia through the United Nations.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we do support such provision: £100,000 was provided to the Food and Agriculture Organisation in June 1988 and £250,000 to UNICEF in December 1988. In addition, since 1979, we have given £13.7 million for displaced people, mainly Cambodian, on the Thai border. More than half of this went through UN agencies.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. Is he aware that well-informed journalists who have visited Cambodia can hardly believe that the Cambodians have received any assistance whatsoever? The journalists have said so on British television and radio. Is the Minister further aware that they have made the very dramatic appeal that perhaps this country can urge the United Nations to try to understand that 2 million human beings have been slain under the evil rule of Pol Pot, and that there is terrible agony and tremendous suffering? Does the Minister agree that there is still
1140
a great deal for the civilised world to do in order to try to ease the appalling burden that Cambodia now suffers? I ask the Government to raise this matter once more with the United Nations.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly agree that the situation in Cambodia is very bad. However, a little light is now appearing at the end of the tunnel. We have been told that the Vietnamese soldiers have withdrawn; but we would have preferred to see that verified by international observers. Considerable discussion is going on as to the future. For example, there was a conference held in Paris during July and August which unhappily did not reach a conclusion at that time. We hope that the conference will be reconvened in due course, and will reach a conclusion. We certainly agree that the influence of the evil Pol Pot (as the noble Lord referred to him) was a very grave matter indeed. We do not believe that he has any place in a reconstituted Cambodia.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister say what government-to-government aid Her Majesty's Government are giving to the coalition government of Kampuchea? The government is nominally led by Prince Sihanouk; but in fact it is dominated by the Khmer Rouge. Can the Minister also say how he regards the fact that the United Nations is feeding Khmer Rouge troops on the border?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have made it absolutely plain that the aid we can provide is not for the benefit of the Khmer Rouge. Indeed, we have received assurances from the United Nations agencies through which principally we have channelled our aid that none of it is getting into those hands. I quite agree with the noble Baroness that the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot have no sensible part to play in the future of Cambodia. We should like to see the Cambodian people choose for themselves the government that they wish to rule over them. If and when that government emerges, it will have our support.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the fact that he is seized of the grievous and serious situation in Cambodia. Can he appeal to our American allies to make a very big contribution? I ask that because the Americans bombed Cambodia more than they did Japan. Does the Minister agree that the Americans as well as the British Government have a responsibility to contribute? Following the appalling situation after the rule of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, does the Minister agree that we now need all civilisation to make some effort to ease the pain, suffering and agony that still exists in Cambodia?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the right way forward in this matter is for the United Nations to take the lead. We shall give them every support. Prince Sihanouk is involved in the discussions; and we also support what he is doing.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, my noble friend drew attention to an extremely important

1141
matter; namely, that Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge dominate the Cambodian representation at the United Nations. Can the Minister say whether there is any initiative that Her Majesty's Government and our allies can take to see that that dangerous farce is brought to an end?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the government in Cambodia is not, as the noble Baroness said, a coalition government. I am not surprised that she is confused on the matter because I was until I received the benefit of my advice this morning. It is a complicated issue. The government in power in Cambodia at the present time was originally put in place by the Vietnamese when they invaded the country some years ago. I would not go so far as to say that this government are still a tool of the Vietnamese, but they were certainly put in place by the Vietnamese all those years ago. The representation at the United Nations is not the representation appointed by that government, but comes from the coalition to which the noble Baroness referred. It is a matter for conjecture as to how representative it is of the Cambodian people. It is perhaps not for us to challenge the work of the United Nations credentials committee which authorised that particular representation.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister's response. However, as it is such an agonising issue, can the Minister confirm that I am right in understanding that the British Government on behalf of the British people, who have massive sympathy for any form of suffering, will raise this matter once more, as he has said, at the United Nations?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have consistently played a key role, including at the peace conference in Paris earlier this year.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am sorry to return to this issue. Can the Minister say why we cannot question and challenge the United Nations credentials committee in order to try to weaken the Khmer Rouge in its position of having a seat with the coalition at the United Nations?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure whether any representations that we made on that particular matter would have the effect for which the noble Baroness hopes. We want to see the people of Cambodia choose a government of their own preference; and then to send their duly selected representative to the United Nations. In the meantime, we may have to live with some inconsistencies which I agree are wholly undesirable. However, the main objective is quite clear.

Opticians Bill [H.L.]
2.57 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on recommitment).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on recommitment) accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Constitution and functions of the Council]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Rugby: In order to give effect to the consolidation of this Bill, I believe it would be helpful to do as follows. Those present today, and whose memories can recall the origins of this Bill and who are able to put into perspective the events, should be allowed to make a brief statement regarding not only the legal implications of the Bill today, but also what was implied and stated to Parliament.
The object of the Opticians Act was to acquire a monopoly in the sale of optical appliances generically termed spectacles and to shut out competition. The main thrust of the proposals was presented to Parliament under a Private Members' Bill. This Bill centred itself on the sale in particular of reading spectacles by personal choice as previously practised, but thereafter to enforce their acquisition only under compulsory eye testing and by prescription issued within outlets owned by opticians.
That is borne out by reference to Hansard and to statements made by Lord Crook, who chaired the Committee prior to the Act. The acceptance by Parliament of these proposals was gained against stiff opposition to the Bill. It stifled that opposition by offering to create a representative council whose membership would ensure fair play for the public and whose integrity would at all times be seen to be upholding the rights of the people in the face of this new jurisdiction over their personal freedom.
The recent decision by Parliament concerning the choice of reading spectacles has now been overturned; but this was the very pillar on which the entire Act stood. The arguments for this legislation have collapsed and the original Act concerning eye testing and the issuing of prescriptions now lacks any credibility. By the very implications of this reversal, it seems to me that it is now almost impossible to create a law. Therefore, instead of attempting to consolidate this Act, so clearly flawed by its example, we should be asking for a re-examination and a reassessment in order that a credible Act can be made viable in law—if such a law is needed.
I move therefore that this Chamber is unable to accept the consolidation of this Bill until such findings by a committee appointed by the Minister of Health are made available to Parliament.
3 p.m.
Lord Northfield: I do not know the position as regards order in connection with the Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, has just mentioned. In

1143
my view, we are on the more general debate regarding Clause 1. I should like to say just a few words. Clause 1 deals with the setting up of the General Optical Council, which was proposed by the 1958 Act. I wish to say something about the changing role of that council as shown in the Bill before us.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, said, the 1958 Act made the mistake—now, I think, belatedly recognised—of failing to distinguish between the technical job of testing sight and the commercial activity of selling spectacles. Both were left as a monopoly of opticians under the control of the General Optical Council. They were left so despite the warnings of the danger of overcharging and poor competition. We can imagine the position if we take a parallel: for example, if we had given doctors the sole right of selling medicines and had then begun to wonder, all too late, about possible over-prescribing and overcharging.
The changes made in the 1980s and consolidated in this Bill are very instructive. The optical council, the regulatory body set up by the 1958 Act, failed to deal with the abuses of monopoly. At first the Government tried persuasion and pressure. The result was that, very grudgingly, the council at last allowed the display of prices in the shop windows of opticians. That was a very small beginning towards real competition. Even now price display is not universally practised.
In 1982 when the Office of Fair Trading highlighted in a report the lack of real competition and the room for lower prices of spectacles, the Government clearly despaired of the General Optical Council. They began to amend the law to take regulation out of the hands of the council. The result of that amendment is now contained in Part IV of the present consolidation Bill: powers for the Secretary of State—not the optical council—to make rules about sight prescriptions, sale of spectacles by non-opticians and unrestricted sale of, for example, the reading spectacles championed by the noble Lord, Lord Rugby.
At that point, as we understood it, the Secretary of State wanted to go further. He wanted to allow people further freedom; that is, freedom to choose a simple, cheap refraction test instead of the present test which is supposed to include a very preliminary medical check of the eyes. A Back-Bench committee of Conservative Members in another place jibbed at this proposal and it was postponed. The Minister fled the battlefield.
However, this change must come. It will have a further effect on the optical council. I noticed that the Prime Minister was photographed at the Conservative Party conference having her prescription provided by the new high-technology machine called an autorefractor, which is used in tandem with an autotester to give normally a foolproof automatic print-out of the sight correction needed by the person who looks into the machine.
So far as I can see, Clause 26 of the Bill enables the Minister, by way of regulations in the future, to allow exactly this kind of simple refraction test. Therefore, once again we shall be diluting the powers of the optical council. However, such a new test may
1144
go some way towards preventing the allegations of over-prescribing which have been featured on television and, for example, in an article by Mr. Adam Raphael, the distinguished correspondent, which appeared in the Observer on 3rd September. In the article he described graphically how his daughter was wrongly, and more than once, told that she needed glasses. Moreover, when he complained to the consultant and asked him to examine the child he was told that opticians were in the business of selling spectacles and,
"You go in with a headache and you come out with glasses".
That is a bad commentary as regards the state of the profession.
The end result of these amendments to the Opticians Act made in the 1980s is that the optical council—I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will comment on this—now looks rather like a stranded whale. It has pages and pages of legislation about its membership and its disciplinary role; but it has lost, and will lose even more of, its other powers. At present it is undertaking a review of the optical services. I hope that that includes the issue of whether sight testing and selling of spectacles should be finally separated much more clearly. I also hope that an examination of the council's own role will be undertaken to see whether all its paraphernalia of discipline, committees and rules are now top-heavy, especially with automation so clearly on its way for technical testing.
We shall, subject to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says, be returning to this battle in future years. Prices of spectacles are moderating to some extent; but spectacles are still too expensive, as the price of cheap reading glasses clearly shows. For example, an average pair of prescription spectacles costs the optician between £12 and £20. They are then sold on to customers at £60—today's average price—£80 or even £100. That represents a 300 per cent., a 400 per cent. or a 500 per cent. mark-up.
Competition has a long way to go. Perhaps the advertisement featured in this weekend's newspapers—offering 25 per cent. off the price of all frames at Boots the chemist—will be followed by others. That certainly ought to be the case. As I said, we have a long way to go. I am sorry to see that, in a sense, the Government are perpetuating the present situation by means of the present Bill.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: I rise to support the remarks made by the noble Lords, Lord Rugby and Lord Northfield. Both noble Lords have carried out valiant work over a long period to try to eliminate the iniquitous monopoly which has been enjoyed by opticians in general. It seems to me that their work is worthy of enormous support by the present Government. Hitherto support has been given only in a somewhat half-hearted manner. I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be able to say something constructive on this issue today.
As an alternative, I venture to suggest that my noble and learned friend has been considering for some time—I believe he has set up a committee—the

1145
repeal of irrelevant and outdated legislation. It could be that the measure which we are considering today is an early candidate for inclusion in that category of laws. It may be that I am anticipating a little too far in this respect. However, I should like to think that at least we may make some progress today and that we may hear from him to the effect that these monopolies will not be allowed to be perpetuated. I also hope that the work which has been achieved with great diligence by the noble Lords, Lord Rugby and Lord Northfield, will be observed with great care and attention.
The Lord Chancellor: I must say first that this Bill is intended to consolidate the existing law with only such changes as are necessary to an appropriate consolidation as recommended by the Law Commissions; that is, the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Commission. Therefore, there is no question of any change of policy in relation to this matter represented by this Bill. But, as has been pointed out, there have been many changes in the legislation affecting opticians over the years, and for the clarity of the statute book it is only right that these should be brought together. That action will do nothing except make the statute book better than it was before.
If anyone wishes to have an Act repealed, that person must take the necessary steps in Parliament. This is not the place for repeal of any of the Acts being consolidated. We are at the moment in Committee endeavouring to ascertain whether this is a genuine consolidation or something more. I would regard it as absolutely plain that this is a genuine consolidation. I hope fairly soon to move some technical amendments to give effect to consideration of this Bill by the Joint Committee. It has also been considered by the two Law Commissions since the Joint Committee's hearing.
It is plain that the Government are generally committed to the promotion of competition. I have already had a certain responsibility for seeking to bring such principles into certain areas. But that does not mean that it is an appropriate time or place for me to make any policy announcement in relation to the legislation affecting opticians. All I am seeking to do is to carry out an important improvement to the statute book. One of the results will be that anyone who consults the statute book from now on, assuming that the Bill is passed, will have a better appreciation of the present law affecting opticians. I shall see to it that what has been said is brought to the attention of my colleagues in government who have responsibility for policy in this area. Apart from that, I feel there is no other observation that I can properly make.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 39 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Constitution Etc. of Council]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 31, line 32, leave out ("and the numbers and qualifications of members").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1 I should like to speak also to
1146
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. The purpose of the Bill is to consolidate the legislation relating to opticians. The Opticians Act 1958 provided for the establishment of the General Optical Council as the body to regulate the opticians' profession. Schedule I set out the original constitution of the council and gave the Privy Council power by order to alter,
"the membership of the Council and the numbers and qualifications of members".
It also has power to,
"make consequential alterations to the membership, and qualifications of members",
of the council's committees. The Privy Council has exercised this power from time to time, and the present membership is set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill.
Paragraph 1 of that schedule lists groups of persons who together make up the council. Under sub-paragraph (a) the Privy Council nominates six persons; under sub-paragraph (d) six are nominated by certain examining bodies. Paragraph 4 lists these bodies. The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission made certain recommmendations about this consolidation. They were considered in the Joint Committee and no point arises on this now. But the Joint Committee raised a further point. This has been considered by the Law Commissions, and they in turn made a further recommendation. Since this is of some importance, I shall, with the Committee's permission, read what the two Law Commissions said. The recommendation is headed: Recommendation supplementary to the Report of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission on the Opticians Bill (Cm. 738.) These recommendations are normally made before the consolidation is introduced. The Bill as introduced takes account of their recommendations. However, in this case the one I am referring to is a recommendation made since the Joint Committee considered the matter.
The Law Commissions said:
"In their report on the Opticians Bill the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills included the following observations—The Committee consider that the power of the Privy Council under paragraph 13 of Schedule 1 to the Opticians Act of 1958 to alter the list of examining bodies in paragraph 4 of that schedule is open to doubt and that the legislation should be amended to remove such doubt. Paragraph 13(1) gives power to alter 'the qualifications of members of the Council'. The question which we understand to have troubled the Joint Committee is whether this phrase simply refers to the characteristics of individuals or whether it is also part of a person's qualifications that he is nominated by a particular person or body. Though the power seems broad, we agree with the Joint Committee chat there is some scope for uncertainty and that the point should be clarified. We think however that amendments should also cater for nomination by non-academic persons or bodies. Paragraph 1(a) of the Schedule gives such power to the Privy Council. We recommend accordingly".
The Committee will see that Amendment No. 1 takes out the reference to the numbers and qualifications of members of the council. Amendment No. 2 deals with the committees. Amendment No. 3 sets out expressly the kinds of alterations that can be made. The Law Commissions have taken up the point made by the Joint Committee and have considered and recommended supplementary to their main report that this would be a suitable matter to be dealt with in a

1147
consolidation in order to achieve a proper consolidation. With that explanation, I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: Quite often when we have considered the consolidation of Bills we have mentioned the committee of our Members who together with those of another place make up the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. As somebody who has sat on that committee perhaps I may say that it is not the most interesting committee of your Lordships' House. However, the members of it—as I am not a member of it now I can say this with proper sincerity and modesty—work extremely hard, always under an able chairman who is either a Law Lord or a retired Law Lord. It should be noted on this occasion that it is because of the care of the committee that the item mentioned by the noble and learned Lord has come to light. It is a perfectly proper point. Indeed, had it been ignored it might well have led to difficulty later on. I believe that for one moment we should pause and possibly think with gratitude of the work that is done by a not very glorious but extremely useful committee of this Chamber and of another place.
Lord Northfield: The report of the Joint Committee seems to be mainly concerned with the powers regarding universities and teaching departments. Some may no longer have courses in optical matters and other, newer universities may have them and may need to be added to the list. That point seemed to concern the Joint Committee. However, the amendments seem to go much further. Unless I am very much mistaken, they seem to give a much wider power to the Government through the Privy Council to alter the membership and possibly the balance of the General Optical Council. Is that the case? If it is the case, does it mean that the present balance in the General Optical Council could be changed?
At the moment 22 of its members are opticians, dispensing opticians, examining bodies and medical practitioners, and only six persons, of whom some, I suppose, could be lay members, are nominated by the Privy Council. Could the amendments be used to give a greater representation of lay people on the General Optical Council? I should certainly be in favour of that.
The Lord Chancellor: The report of the Joint Committee to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred expressed it thus:
"The committee draw attention to paragraph 13 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. Paragraph 13 deals with the power of the Privy Council to alter the membership of the General Optical Council. This paragraph consolidates the relevant provisions of the Opticians Act 1958. The committee consider that the power of the Privy Council under paragraph 13 of Schedule 1 to the Opticians Act 1958 to alter the list of examining bodies in paragraph 4 of that schedule is open to doubt and that the legislation should be amended to remove such doubt".
The amendment gives effect to that and makes it clear that the Privy Council may make alterations in respect of these matters in this way.
I join heartily in what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about the Joint Committee. I served
1148
for a short time on that committee; I also served for a short time as its chairman before I found myself in another situation. The committee does a great deal of extremely important work, not loudly sung, as the noble Lord said, but requiring a great deal of application. I am pleased to say that in the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, who instructed me in the committee's work and who was most conscientious and attentive towards it.
As I said at the outset, the consolidation, and the amendments in particular, are not intended to effect any real change in the law, but merely clarify the powers originally conferred by paragraph 13.
Lord Northfield: I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon, but he has not answered my question. He may have intended to give powers to alter the people nominated by the examining bodies. But does not the amendment as drafted give the Privy Council much wider powers to recast the membership of the General Optical Council, if it so desires?
The Lord Chancellor: Paragraph 13 reflects existing law. It gives the Privy Council a power, after consultation with the council and any other body or person whom it thinks fit to consult, to make such alterations in the membership of the council, and the numbers and qualifications of members, as may be expedient in view of changes in circumstances.
The doubt which arose in the Joint Committee concerned the scope of that phrase. The phrase arises in a power to alter the membership of the council as well as its committees. The amendment seeks to make clear what that power is. The power applies to the council as well as to its committees. All I am saying is that what we propose makes the present position clear and would allow the Privy Council, if so advised after consultation, in the terms of Amendment No. 3, to make alterations not only as to matters which were thought to be covered, but alterations relating to the numbers of members, the qualifications which a person must have to be a member and who may nominate members. The result is that no change has been made. We are clarifying what we believe the Privy Council's power to have been in that connection. I hope that I have answered the noble Lord's question.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 31, line 34, leave out ("to the membership and qualifications of members of") and insert ("in relation to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 31, line 36, at end insert—
("(1A) In sub-paragraph (1) above "alterations in the membership of the Council" means alterations—

(a) as to the numbers of members;

(b) as to the qualifications which a person must have to be a member; and

(c) as to who may nominate members.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Local Government and Housing Bill
3.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 64 [Application of and orders under, Part V]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 56A:
Page 71, line 14, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 56C. The amendment arises out of the consultation document on local authorities' interest in companies which was received by the local authority associations last Tuesday, 17th October. I apologise to the House for the fact that the amendments are starred, indicating that they are new or have been amended, but when I say that they arise out of that consultation document which has been available for less than a week, noble Lords will understand the difficulty that we have in keeping up with and responding to the flood of consultation documents which come from government and with which local authorities and their associations are expected to be up to date. Having made that slightly ungracious point, let me say that in many ways the consultation document contains elements which we welcome.
In particular, we have been concerned with the status of housing associations in the part of the Bill which deals with controlled and influenced companies and which seeks to place restrictions on companies which are controlled or influenced by local authorities.
The original exemption for housing associations was in terms of registered housing associations; that is, housing associations registered with the Housing Corporation. There are of course a number of other types of housing association, which in our view should also be exempt from the provisions of Part V. We are talking here about unregistered housing associations and what are called "care and repair" organisations.
The National Federation of Housing Associations has been in contact with the Department of the Environment about this matter. It seems to us to be a logical piece of tidying up of the legislation and a removal of an unnecessary restriction on the housing association movement. I hope that the amendment, or something similar, will secure the support of the Government and the House. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. My name should probably also be attached to Amendment No. 56C. I hope that the Government will accept the amendments which seem to be highly desirable. I should have thought that the Government would have no difficulty in accepting them.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the amendments would exempt from the provisions of Part V all housing associations within the meaning of Section 1(1) of the Housing Associations Act 1985 and bodies established by such associations for the purposes mentioned in Section 4(2)(e) of that Act; that is, providing repair and improvement services.
As your Lordships know, both in another place and in the Committee of this House, we stated our intention that all housing associations registered with the Housing Corporation will be exempted from the provisions of Part V. The consultation paper on Part V which we sent to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the local authority associations last week confirmed that such a direction would be made and I think we can provide no firmer an indication of our intentions than that. I have explained before that we do not believe that it is appropriate for the exemptions to be put on the face of the Bill. If such things are enshrined in that way it removes the flexibility to add to the list without contemplating primary legislation. That would just not be practical and, indeed, not necessary. We have given a firm undertaking to exempt housing associations registered with the Housing Corporation.
The amendments, however, seek to take that exemption wider by including all housing associations, whether registered with the Housing Corporation or unregistered. We had good reason for not including all unregistered associations in the exemption. The definition of a housing association is wide. It covers any body which prohibits the division of resources between its members, and which includes among its objects certain activities in connection with housing. There is no limit on the other activities that may be included, and no requirement that the housing activities should actually be pursued. To exempt any organisation that meets this definition would therefore provide a major loophole.
The same problem faced us in attempting to isolate the voluntary bodies that should be exempted, given the wide interpretation that can be given to a voluntary organisation. We have, in fact, arrived at a suitable set of criteria whereby we can provide a wide exemption for such bodies. This is set out in the consultation paper, and I will be explaining this in detail when we come to Amendment No. 71 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hayter, Lord Ross of Newport and Lord McIntosh of Haringey. One of the main qualifications for such exemption will be that the body should be established solely for charitable purposes. I am happy to say that I understand from the National Federation of Housing Associations that it feels that, given this and the other criteria which I will be setting out when I speak on Amendment No. 71, the unregistered associations which it had in mind in contemplating this amendment would find themselves exempt.
We believe that this is a satisfactory solution to the concerns reflected in the amendment and I ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to consider withdrawing it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that response which I shall have to read

1151
carefully. It is an improvement to have the assurance which we have been given that charitable housing associations, even if they are not registered with the Housing Corporation, will be exempted. That goes a long way towards meeting the concerns expressed in the amendments, as the Minister said.
Without giving any undertaking that we might not wish to come back at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 56B:
Page 71, line 14, after ("company") insert ("whether or not made the subject of a direction under section 66(1) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 56B, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 59A and 62A. We have already started to discuss the issue of exemptions from Part V and the definitions of controlled and influenced companies. We spent a great deal of time in Committee, as did honourable Members in another place, discussing the nature of exemptions from Part V of the Bill.
In these amendments we propose something that we tried to do in another way in Committee. We indicated at Second Reading that it was high on our list of priorities. Our aim is not to have a series of individual exemptions which are either forced on the Government or which the Government have been persuaded are right by pressure here or from any outside organisation. We propose some way of cutting through the tangle of exemptions which is becoming more and more a feature of the Bill. We seek a rational approach which covers all kinds of organisations.
The amendment seeks to enable companies which would be influenced companies to apply to the Secretary of State. They could make a declaration that the relationship created by this part of the Bill between themselves and the local authority was not one which affected their purposes or activities. If the Secretary of State received such an application, he would have a duty to investigate. If he satisfied himself that the application was correct—in other words that the relationship was not one which affected the purposes or activities of the company—then he would declare the company exempt. He would recognise that the facts were in accordance with the application.
It is not as if there were not provision already for this kind of determination by the Secretary of State. The Government have already moved a considerable way towards exempting certain kinds of voluntary organisations from the provisions of Part V of the Bill. As we have just been discussing, they have already exempted registered housing associations and are now proposing to exempt housing associations which are charities.
There are a number of other categories where it has been indicated, either in terms of what regulations are to contain or in terms of consultation documents, that companies will be exempted. Let me give some examples: companies financed under
1152
Section 78(1) of the Local Government Act 1988. These are organisations like joint bureaux set out under that Act by local government to assist it in its purposes. Then there are companies where the only link with the local authority is a donation by that authority. That figure which was £500 has now been extended to £2,000 under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter.
We have already discussed companies which are registered charities. There are exemptions where fewer than half the directors are associated with the local authority under Clause 67. There are exemptions where the local authority concerned declares that the company is managed independently of the local authority or where it has not taken into account in settling the terms of any transaction with the company the borrowing or capital expenditure proposed to be undertaken by the company. Exemptions have been made for companies or organisations which are part of national networks, of advice centres such as the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux. Exemptions have been made for building preservation trusts which are registered with the Architectural Heritage Association. There is a considerable list of exemptions.
The problem with all these exemptions is that the process is irrational, responding to pressure rather than setting criteria which can be followed and understood by those who wish to seek exemption. The department itself does not seem to be entirely clear, in its consultation documents, what the position is. Paragraph 50 of the consultation document issued last week says:
"Why in spite of meeting these tests it was inappropriate for the company to be regarded as part of the local authority sector, and (if there are any) the reasons that ensure that the company cannot be used to avoid any of the controls to which it, or its parent local authority, would otherwise be subject".
In other words, these are the questions to which answers would otherwise have to be sought.
The Government are, in effect, proposing to saddle private companies and the local authorities with which they have dealings with a deemed legal relationship which may bear little relation to the facts. So putting the initiative on the companies or organisations themselves to apply to the Secretary of State seems to us an effective way of dealing with the problem. It is effective not only because it cuts out the elaborate process of exemption initiated by government, but also because it provides a continuing power, a continuing process, which can be effective after Royal Assent.
The problem with legislation which is as prescriptive as this is that conditions may change after the Bill has become law. It may be difficult for the wording of the Act then to reflect changed circumstances. After all, this is an area in which local government has been changing quite considerably. The whole process of the use of companies, which are influenced or controlled by the local authority, in joint ventures is one which I should have thought was no longer party political. It is, I believe, widely accepted that co-operation between local authorities and the voluntary sector and co-operation between local authorities and the private sector is effective

1153
and valuable in enabling local authorities to carry out actions for the benefit of the people in their area which otherwise they would find it difficult to do and to achieve greater influence and greater resources for those purposes.
This is not a matter of party controversy. We all want to see such joint ventures succeed and continue to succeed. I hope that the Government will feel that by accepting the amendments they would make the process easier and avoid the confusion, difficulty and obstruction which in our view is inevitable if the Bill is left unamended. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, Amendment No. 56B would apply all references in Part V to a company to all companies, whether or not they were exempted by a direction under Clause 66(1). The effect would be to override the power given by Clause 66(1) to the Secretary of State to exclude companies from the category of companies subject to local authority influence.
Because every reference to a company in that clause would apply whether or not there had been an exemption direction, it would cease to matter whether a company was directed to be exempted. Every company that met the tests in Clause 66 would become subject to the same rules under Clause 67. That would negate the effect of the undertakings that I have given that certain types of company would be exempted.
The purpose of Amendment No. 62A is to insert new subsections (1A) and (1B) into Clause 66. Subsection (1A) would make provision on the face of the Bill for influenced companies to make an application to the Secretary of State for exemption from the controls. Subsection (1B) would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to consider the application and, if he was satisfied that the company was not influenced, to make a direction exempting the company. Amendment No. 59A provides that any direction made under the new subsection (1A) should be exercised in the standard manner in relation to different cases.
The amendments seek to place requirements on the Secretary of State so that he would be under an obligation to consider applications from influenced companies which considered that their relationship with local authorities was such that they were not influenced, and then to exempt those companies if the Secretary of State was satisfied with their case.
I am sure that in tabling the amendments the noble Lord has in mind those cases in which companies satisfy both the business relations and personnel association tests required from an influenced company but nonetheless can demonstrate that they operate independently from their parent authorities. We believe that in such cases it may be appropriate to grant exemption. There is nothing between us on that. We have no intention of imposing unnecessary controls on companies which operate independently of local authorities even is they satisfy the conditions under strict interpretation of the rules.
1154
Under Clause 66(1) as drafted, the Secretary of State has a power to direct that, although a company may satisfy the tests for an influenced company, it should not be regarded as such for the purposes of these provisions. We have already demonstrated our willingness to use the power by agreeing to exempt all Citizens' Advice Bureaux which are registered with the national association. It is possible that a number of local bureaux may be influenced companies under the proposals. We have agreed, however, that they should be exempt because their constitution and other factors effectively mean that they operate independently of local authorities.
We remain prepared to consider all applications from other influenced companies in a similar position. We believe that there is no need to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to use his direction-making powers as proposed in the amendment. It is well established in law that in exercising his discretion to exempt persons from statutory provisions a Minister would have to consider each case on its merits and would have to act reasonably.
We should also not wish to limit the Secretary of State's flexibility as proposed in Amendment No. 59A. While a consistent approach will of course be adopted, the House will no doubt be aware that there are many different types of company in which local authorities have interests and an element of flexibility must therefore be retained.
I hope that I have shown that the aims of the noble Lord in tabling the amendments can and will be met under the Bill as drafted. More specifically, I can assure your Lordships' House that, where the Secretary of State can be satisfied that an influenced company operates independently of local authorities, he will consider the case for exemption on its merits. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down can he say whether the National Exhibition Centre would fall within the category which he has just described?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am not the Secretary of State. As I have explained, the case would be examined on its merits.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, what has been described is a bureaucratic nightmare. Some exemptions have been granted and we welcome that. However, there are a host of bodies which will be caught up by this clause, despite the small amount of flexibility which the Government have introduced since the Bill was first published.
I believe that the Government are shutting the door after the horse has bolted. The problem they are trying to tackle, and with which some of us have some sympathy, probably arose a good many years ago. It appears that the Government have no faith in the electorate. Local authorities are elected every four years or so. Only 25 per cent. of local authority

1155
revenues will now come directly from individuals. Ratepayers—or poll tax payers as they will be—can make up their minds whether a local authority is becoming too involved in business matters in which they think it should not be delving and vote accordingly.
I hope that the next government—perhaps of a different complexion—will make a bonfire of such bureaucratic nonsenses and return some real power to local authorities to do what they think is in the best interests of their constituents. That would allow them to get on with the job without having to make applications to the Secretary of State and hoping that he will act sensibly.
It bothers me a great deal, and I believe that everyone in this House should be concerned, that, under the type of arrangement that we are now setting up, very worthy bodies will have to apply to the Secretary of State in order to be able to continue in business. All the form filling and bureaucracy that goes with that is beyond belief. I loathe all of it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am particularly grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. However, I suspect that in a sense, he spoke against the amendment which I have been forced to put down. He rightly complained about the bureaucracy involved in making applications to the Secretary of State, whereas the amendment provides that there shall be on the face of the Bill a power to make application to the Secretary of State. I agree with him: I would rather sweep the whole lot away. I can give him an assurance that the next Labour Government will sweep the whole lot away.
In the meantime we have to deal with the Bill as we find it. Despite the honeyed words of the Minister and the assurances which have been given, I am far from satisfied that he has answered the point that is made in the amendments. That point is that there should be on the face of the Bill a recognised procedure which gives companies which are affected by the strict letter of the legislation, as the Minister described it, but which ought not to be affected because they are genuinely independent—as he recognised—a right to appeal to the Secretary of State.
The problem with the process of continuing exemption as pressure is exerted is that it becomes, in effect, the exercise of grace and favour by the Secretary of State. That cannot be a good way to legislate. It cannot be right that the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux has to take the initiative to protect itself and write to the Secretary of State seeking an exemption although there is no provision for such an exemption on the face of the Bill. It cannot be right that we have to go through the arguments about housing associations or architectural heritage trusts, or any of the other cases which have a good case for exemption.
It ought to be written on the face of the Bill that independence should be capable of being established easily and should give exemptions from the provisions of the Bill, regardless of the criteria which have been set out in Part V of the Bill. We would rather lose Part V of the Bill as a whole. Part V is a
1156
reflection of the paranoia about the activities of local government which has been a characteristic of legislation and the Government's attitudes over the past 10 years. But, failing that, I believe that the amendments make things clearer. They make it easier for those companies which should be exempted and which are not so well connected as to have lines of communication with the Secretary of State to take advantage of the provisions for exemption. In the circumstances, I think it right that I should seek the opinion of the House.
3.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 56B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 76; Not-Contents, 99.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Listowel, E.

Amherst, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Attlee, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Aylestone, L.

Longford, E.

Blyth, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mishcon, L.

Bottomley, L.

Molloy, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Nicol, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Northfield, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Peston, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Phillips, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Carter, L.

David, B.

Rochester, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ross of Newport, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rugby, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ennals, L.

Salisbury, Bp.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Seebohm, L.

Falkland, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Shackleton, L.

Galpern, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Somers, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayter, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Hylton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Walston, L.

John-Mackie, L.

White, B.

Kearton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Willis, L.

Leatherland, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Butterworth, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Caithness, E.

Allerton, L.

Carnock, L.

Annaly, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Arran, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Cockfield, L.

Auckland, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Barber, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Beloff, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Belstead, L.

Cox, B.

Bessborough, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Blatch, B.

Daventry, V.

Borthwick, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

1157

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Effingham, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elibank, L.

Nelson, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Norrie, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Faithfull, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Porritt, L.

Gainford, L.

Pym, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Gridley, L.

Reay, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Havers, L.

St. Davids, V.

Henley, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Shannon, E.

Hood, V.

Sharples, B.

Hooper, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Killearn, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Kimball, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Long, V.

Strathspey, L.

Luke, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lyell, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Terrington, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mancroft, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Manton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Margadale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Marley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Westbury, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Merrivale, L.

Wolfson, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.58 p.m.
[Amendment No. 56C not moved.]
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 57.
Page 72, line 5, at end insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 58 and 59.
These are comparatively simple amendments which remove passenger transport executives from the list of local authorities in Clause 64(3), where controlled or influenced companies are caught by the Bill. They replace it with a power by order of the Secretary of State to apply the legislation should the need arise. There is thus no loss of the ability ultimately to control the activities of passenger transport executives if the Secretary of State deems that necessary. All the other bodies in the list are local authorities; passenger transport executives are not. They are statutory corporations created under the Transport Act 1968 which are controlled by a board of directors.
There is a fundamental difference between the statutory position of local authorities and that of passenger transport executives in relation to the ownership of subsidiary companies. Under the Transport Act 1968, executives have specific power to acquire shares in companies for the purposes of their business. The Act then goes on to provide that an executive is prohibited from doing anything through a subsidiary company that it has not power to do itself. Thus, there already exists a statutory
1158
duty to control the activities of any such companies. So far as I am aware no similar power exists in the case of local authorities. Parliament thus envisaged that passenger transport executives would conduct some of their business through the medium of companies but it did not envisage making a similar provision for local authorities.
There are many examples of such companies in which PTEs, singly or acting together, have acquired shares in companies either by purchase of an existing business or by forming a new one. The Department of Transport is aware of those companies and their activities. We understand that it is not the general intention to restrict existing passenger transport executive companies and it is likely that on application they would be exempted from the controls.
PTEs (if I may be allowed to abbreviate) have thus shown that they are prepared to honour both the spirit and the letter of the law in the operation of subsidiary companies. It would therefore seem unnecessarily restrictive and bureaucratic to have to handle exemption applications for a considerable number of companies. My amendment would make that unnecesary and give the Minister power in the future to control the activities of any particular PTE if he felt it appropriate.
One other problem for the passenger transport executive that this amendment would redress is that of minority interests in companies under Clause 68. There are many instances in which PTEs have and will wish to acquire minority interests in companies: for example, a joint company with operators to promote and administer a travel card; with developers and operators for a light rail transport system; or jointly with a developer in order to exploit property, for instance, commercial development at a bus station.
Under this Bill as at present drafted in any instance where that occurred an application would have to be made for the exemption of the company, whereas if my amendment is accepted that would be unnecessary. The fact of having to apply for an exemption could unnecessarily delay the formation of such a company or, more important, deter commercial concerns from involving a PTE in the formation of a company. That could prevent a PTE from influencing the way in which a company was structured or even the value of its equity share if it were able to negotiate participation after exemption from the controls had been obtained.
Passenger transport executives were created to operate in a commercial environment. They have shown themselves capable of doing so. In my view it would be much more sensible to allow them to continue while retaining a power to control them if it seemed that any commercial activity was going beyond what was acceptable. The Department of Transport has been provided in advance with a copy of this amendment and I hope that my noble friend will feel able to accept it. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord in this amendment. He has covered the case and explained its purpose in very great

1159
detail. As he said, it must be emphasised that the PTEs function at arm's length from local authorities. There is no reason whatever why they should be listed in the very long list of bodies which could be described in any way as companies in which local authorities have an interest. A PTE has its own board of directors and must, I repeat, function as a company at arm's length from the local authority.
Where there is a joint authority covering a number of local authorities for transport purposes, it is already provided for in subsection (3)(k) of this clause. That factor is provided for. It does not affect the position of the PTEs.
An important provision emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is that this amendment in no way takes away from the Secretary of State the power to include a PTE in the list of local authorities for that purpose, if the need should arise in the future. There is therefore not the slightest reason why the Government should not accept this amendment, take the PTEs out of the mandatory provision and leave an optional power for the Secretary of State, should he decide to use it in the future.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I rise briefly to support this amendment. As the noble Lord said, it is a simple series of amendments. On the face of it it makes complete common sense in a practical kind of way. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has great experience in transport matters. I have heard him speak frequently on these matters in this House. I support the amendment.
Lord Reay: My Lords, these amendments would remove passenger transport executives from the list of local authorities whose interests in companies are regulated by Part V of the Bill, and instead give the Secretary of State a power to extend the provisions to passenger transport executives by order.
The Government fully understand the unease felt by the passenger transport executives in being described as "local authorities", even if only (as here) for one limited purpose. We agree that the passenger transport executives are a distinct kind of organisation. In many ways, they can be regarded as standing in the same relationship to their controlling passenger transport authority as a nationalised industry does to its controlling government department. We would not want to suggest that we are undermining that distinction.
The reason why Part V of the Bill exceptionally brackets PTEs together with local authorities is for the sake of simplicity. We consider that the policy that should be applied to companies controlled or influenced by PTEs should be broadly the same as for companies controlled or influenced by a local authority. Indeed, if PTEs were themselves limited companies, and not statutory corporations, there would be no need for any special reference to them.
That is not to say, however, that we think that the rules for PTEs and their companies should be exactly the same as for local authorities and their companies. There is sufficient difference in the circumstances and in the legislation to make it essential to examine the questions separately. Therefore it is and always has been our intention that PTEs and their
1160
companies should be dealt with in a separate order under Part V. There is no question of simply treating them on the same footing as ordinary local authorities.
Since the main effect of my noble friend's amendments would be that there was a separate PTE order and since that is our intention also, we believe that these amendments are unnecessary. However, they would also, I am informed, have the unwelcome side effect of casting doubt on whether references to local authorities in Part V always covered PTEs. In that respect, the amendments are defective.
I hope, therefore, that, with the assurance that it is our firm intention that there should be a separate order to deal with the application of Part V to PTEs, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, with all due respect to my noble friend, I am rather more than disappointed with his response. Should I put down a further amendment with the leave of the House, would there be any chance of any measure coming forward from the Government to deal with this situation?
From what I have said, I feel it is clear that the PTE situation is vastly different. I take his point that the PTE is not a limited company but a statutory corporation; even so, a statutory corporation with a board of directors is a very different entity from a local authority. With all respect to local authorities, I am very much of the same opinion as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in this matter. In fact during the last Division I abstained from voting because I felt it would be a matter of hypocrisy. I abstained on that account. It is totally out of order for me to vote on this matter on this part of the Bill.
My noble friend looks puzzled. I feel that the reference to the passenger transport executive should definitely be removed. Do I understand from my noble friend that there is no possibility that he could accept an amendment on this issue at Third Reading?
Lord Reay: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may answer. We believe that the main anxieties of my noble friend are and will be adequately taken care of. Of course I am quite willing to read his arguments and reconsider the matter; but I can give no assurance that I shall look with favour on another amendment.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I shall read very carefully what my noble friend has said and consider how to deal with the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 58 to 59A not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 72, leave out lines 15 to 17.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 80 and 81.
Amendments Nos. 60 and 81 are technical amendments which delete Clause 64(5) and Clause 36(7)(c). Amendment No. 80 is a consequential drafting amendment.
As they stand, Clauses 64(5) and 36(7)(c) enable the order-making powers available to the Secretary of State under Parts V and IV of the Bill respectively to be exercised differently in regard to certain companies in England and Wales. These powers are no longer required in the light of Clause 183 making separate provisions for Wales agreed to by your Lordships in Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [Companies controlled by local authorities and arm's length companies]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 60A:
Page 72, line 19, after ("directs") insert ("in accordance with published criteria").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 60A, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 61 A and 71 A. These amendments deal with the same issue. They refer to the requirement on the Secretary of State in Clause 65 that when he makes a direction that a company is controlled by local authorities, it should be in accordance with published criteria.
Although the House did not agree with me, I have already complained that much of this legislation gives the Secretary of State a free hand to exercise a grace and favour on whether companies shall or shall not be declared as controlled or influenced companies. The concept of controlled and influenced companies has not been wished on the Secretary of State. It has been introduced in this Bill in order to deal with preceived abuses by local government of its powers. However, the Secretary of State must not complain if and when he finds that the complexity of the legislation that he is introducing causes a great deal of additional administrative work. The administrative work will be, even greater if it is difficult for those who need to work within the law—as law it will be when this Bill is passed—if they are not given a clear idea of what is intended by the legislation and who are to be excluded and who are to be included by the legislation.
The Minister stated in reply to an earlier amendment that there were cases where companies would be genuinely independent even though they were covered by the strict letter of the law. If that is the case, the law is clearly inadequate.
Although we should like to get rid of the whole nonsense, with this amendment we are seeking a more modest approach. We are trying to get the Secretary of State to spell out in public his criteria for inclusion or exclusion. We propose to insert the words:
"in accordance with published criteria"
in order not only that justice shall be done, but that it shall be seen to be done. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The purpose of the three amendments is to place a requirement that any orders made by the Secretary of State are made in accordance with published criteria.
1162
Amendment No. 60A relates to the Secretary of State's power in Clause 65 to exempt a company from being regarded as under the control of a local authority. Amendment No. 61A relates similarly to Clause 66 with regard to local authority influenced companies. Amendment No. 71A relates to the order-making power in Clause 67 for regulating, forbidding or requiring the taking of certain actions in relation to influenced companies.
We intend no secrets in the criteria that we shall use in exercising the powers under this part of the Bill. We began a year last June by publishing a detailed consultation document on our proposals. We followed this with a further paper when the Bill was published, responding to the comments that we had received, and making further proposals. We have promised a further detailed consultation paper that we sent last week to the local authority associations, and we shall make it more widely available as soon as possible. Let me therefore turn to the three powers to which this requirement for publication of criteria would be applied.
The first two are the powers for exemption. We envisage using this power in two ways. First, there would be certain general exemptions which would cover all companies of certain descriptions. The consultation paper gives details of these, and they will be contained in general directions which, in the usual way, will form part of the circular that we shall issue.
The second type will be individual exemptions. The consultation paper describes the broad categories of such exemptions as we foresee at present. We shall be glad to consider others. To that extent we have already published the critieria that we shall apply. Any amendments as a result of the consultation process will be incorporated in the eventual circular.
However, there will remain the possibility that there will be one-off cases where we are persuaded either that a company which comes within the critieria is nevertheless genuinely independent of the local authority, or that for some reason we can be certain that it will never undertake activities contrary to the rules and that there is some advantage in not formally applying the controls. In these one-off cases it would be inappropriate to have to invent some further criterion and publish it before we could act.
In short, we think that we have already published our criteria. Any further ones that we are persuaded to accept will be in the general circular that explains the provisions. But we think that it would be advantageous to retain the flexibility of also being able to exempt one-off cases. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister is seeking to persuade the House not that justice is being seen to be done, but that justice is in practice being done. I do not doubt his good will. I do not doubt the improvements that have been made in the consultation documents which have recently been issued. However, the fact remains that the Government have been quite unable to define in

1163
legislation the criteria which shall determine the dependence or independence of companies which work with local authorities.
It is quite clear that the provisions in Clauses 64 to 70 do not work because of the provision for all these exemptions. It is also clear that even if the legislation were right, the Government do not have enough confidence in their understanding of the issue of independence from local authorities to be able to set down comprehensible and readily available published criteria for these determinations.
In effect, the argument that there may be one-off cases where the Secretary of State would wish to grant exemption, even though the published criteria do not apply, is a confession that the Government have failed and are continuing to fail to determine what they mean by this legislation. It is a most unsatisfactory situation. It is not one on which I can seek the decision of the House, but I hope that the House will recognise that this part of the Bill is in an ineffective and unsatisfactory state. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 72, line 43, at end insert—
("(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the Secretary of State shall exercise his powers of direction under that subsection in respect of any company which would otherwise be a controlled company for the purposes of this Part of this Act—

(a) whose activities, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, are predominantly designed to facilitate co-operation between local authorities in the discharge of statutory duties; and

(b) whose financial transactions, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, are such as to justify exemption from the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to controlled companies.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 61, which is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, who asked me to say that she was very disappointed she could not be here this afternoon. She has to be in Scotland.
During the Committee stage before the Summer Recess I brought to the attention of noble Lords the serious consequences which Part V of this Bill may have for those regional public library systems which have become companies. Since then there have been discussions with the Minister and his officials, and I thank them for that. But I regret to say that, so far at least, the Minister has not seen fit to accede to the very reasonable requests which have been made to him by myself, by the Library Association and by representatives of the regional library systems.
Under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, public libraries have to be provided in every part of the country by local authorities. Each local authority is independent in this respect, but it makes sense for them to co-ordinate their activities on a regional basis. They do this to make it possible to operate common services more economically and, in particular, to operate an interlending system which is one of the characteristics which make the British public library system one of the best and most envied in the world.
The 1964 Act acknowledged the importance of this regional co-operation by requiring the relevant Minister to group local authorities regionally for this purpose. I have to say that for the past 25 years successive governments have been in flat breach of their statutory duty to do this. It is almost unbelievable that this should be the case, but it is so and the Minister knows it. It is not a case of governments having failed to exercise a power, but of having failed to carry out a statutory duty. They have therefore acted unlawfully. This meant that the regional library systems were in legal limbo. The officers appointed to run them by local authorities were personally responsible for the financial affairs of the systems. That situation was clearly undesirable and so each regional system cast around for some way to regularise its position. Two of them found it convenient to convert themselves into commercial companies, owned and controlled by the local authorities in their areas. That of course is where the present Bill comes in. Because these two regional systems are commercial companies controlled by local authorities, they are governed by the provisions of Part V of this Bill.
The Government's view, which I perfectly understand although I do not agree with it, is that the activities of these regional systems are discharging local authority functions and therefore it is appropriate that any borrowing carried out by the systems should be governed by the provisions of this Bill. There is perfect logic in that. But there are times when logic should not be allowed to create immense and perhaps unmanageable practical difficulties for worthy public services if, by making an exception, no great breach of principle is involved. That is exactly what we are asking for.
The two regional library systems involved are the London and South-East Region—commonly referred to as LASER—and the North-West Region Library System, NWRLS. It will be convenient if I speak in terms of LASER, but the same considerations apply to the other case and indeed to other regional systems which are contemplating becoming companies.
The borrowing which a regional library system needs to undertake is infinitesimal in relation to the potential borrowing companies intended to come under the provisions of this Bill. LASER, for example, might need to borrow to acquire new premises and to acquire new computer facilities. There will be no truly new expenditure involved here. All that will be happening is replacement of existing facilities. Nevertheless, LASER will be caught by the provisions of the Bill unless the Minister is prepared to use his powers under Clause 65(1) to direct that a company is to be exempted. LASER will of course spread the cost of this borrowing among its 42 participating local authorities. The amount that each has to provide may be in the region of £50,000.
I ask your Lordships to imagine the problems involved in getting the treasurers' departments and the chairmen of finance of 42 local authorities to include amounts of that order in massive capital budgets. If just one of those 42 authorities fails to get the provision included, the whole package will

1165
fall to the ground and LASER will have to start again, increasing the amount to be shared among the remaining 41 authorities. This may go on for ever and in the meantime a valuable public service may find itself undermined, even destroyed. Is that really necessary in order to impose the very last word, letter and comma of a system which has the power of exemption built into it?
That point is important. The Bill already allows the Minister to exempt particular companies or classes of companies from Part V of the Bill. If any kind of company deserves to be so exempted, it is the regional library system companies which I have described. In our discussions with Ministers and officials about this matter, it has been suggested to us that there are other devices—I might even say dodges—by which LASER could escape the rigour of these provisions. So the Government are actually prepared to see any borrowing by LASER, for example, not counted in the total borrowing of local authorities. But instead of doing this in a straightforward, honest and sensible manner they suggest that we should do it by finding what I would regard as almost dishonest ways round the provisions.
Amazingly, the Government have suggested that an organisation like LASER, which is currently predominantly financed and therefore controlled by local authorities, might retain predominant financing by local authorities but allow control to pass to the other organisations which also participate in its activities. So there would be a separation between the people carrying the burden of cost and the people who actually controlled decisions. I continue to be amazed, and so is the Library Association, that government can come forward with this suggestion, which some might call irresponsible.
When representatives of the Library Association and I, together with a deputy county treasurer, saw the noble Lord a week ago on this matter, we pointed out to him that wisdom often consists of knowing when to avoid perfection. That is exactly what we are asking him to do in this case. My amendment suggests one way in which it would be possible for him to exempt a class of company without breaching his principles. He can do that or he can simply exempt LASER and the north-western system by name. In any event, it would be much better for him to do things in a straightforward manner than by the dodges which have been suggested to us.
I hope the Minister can indicate that he is willing to look at this point again. I know that his colleague in the Office of Arts and Libraries, Mr. Luce, fully recognises the difficulties for the regional library systems if nothing is done. I suggest that he and the noble Lord need to put their heads together and come up with something which has a bit of British common sense in it, instead of sticking to the letter of the law to the point of imbecility.
I spoke to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, last night on the telephone and she asked me to say that she supports this amendment very strongly indeed. She hopes very much that the Minister will be willing to take it away, if he does not accept it immediately,
1166
and come back with something else on Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I very much hope that the Minister has not only listened to what has been said but has taken it aboard. Otherwise he will have the book thrown at him, speaking in the context of the library service. It seems to me to be a most sensible suggestion. I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady David, who made an excellent case. At the end of it, she was really wanting the Minister to be helpful and was not at all being dogmatic in moving her amendment.
By the amendment, she wants the Minister to exercise the power that he has, I imagine, to control companies not remotely like the ones which have been created by local authorities to do this sort of work. They are not exceptional, but they are certainly unusual and out of the general run. The Minister and his advisers are being told: if this power is in the Bill to allow the Minister to make exemptions, then it is proper for the Minister to make exemptions in this situation.
What does the amendment say? It is intended to exempt the categories which the noble Baroness, Lady David, has mentioned,
"whose activities, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, are predominantly designed to facilitate co-operation between local authorities";
Not only that, but they are designed to facilitate co-operation between local authorities in the discharge of their statutory duties.
Unless the Minister is going to dig his toes in simply because this is something that he and his advisers did not think of in the first instance or they have a better way of doing it, then I honestly think that he has a very difficult case to make when one looks at the whole realm of the library service and the crucial part a proper service can play in making life better for our children and indeed for everyone in the community. We are asking the Minister to be sensible and to allow local authorities carrying out their statutory duties to be able to do so under the aegis they consider best. Perhaps I have stopped the Minister giving the House good news, in which case I shall stop talking.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this amendment, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, clearly drew to your Lordships' attention, is aimed at the position of companies such as those which provide inter-lending and similar services for library authorities in London and the South-East. The problems which have been laid before the House by the noble Baroness pose an interesting and difficult question. Part of the purpose of the proposals in Part V of the Bill and of the complementary proposals in Part IV is to ensure that the same rules apply to the capital finance raised by local authorities, whether they raise it directly themselves or through the intermediary of a company. As part of their general economic policy, the Government think that the highest importance must be attached to the control of demands for capital in the public sector of the economy.

1167
The local auhority sector forms a part of the public sector; it is therefore of great importance that there are effective rules for that sector as there are for the rest of the public sector. We think that the local authority sector of the economy must be taken to cover, in addition to local authorities themselves, those companies which local authorities control or dominantly influence. Just as private sector companies have subsidiaries and associated companies, so these play the same role in the local authority sector.
We believe there can be little dispute that these regional library companies are effectively a part of the local authority sector. They are there to help local authorities discharge statutory duties. Their income derives largely from payments from local authority funds. If they borrow, that borrowing will eventually be paid back from local authority resources, and the same would apply to any other company controlled by local authorities which, in the words of the amendment, is
"predominantly designed to facilitate co-operation between local authorities in the discharge of statutory duties".
We therefore think it is proper that borrowing by such companies should be regarded and controlled in the same way as borrowing by the rest of the public sector. The arguments for special treatment for the regional library companies rest on two points. The first is that the sums are relatively small; the second is that a large number of authorities are involved, thus making it difficult, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, pointed out, to get agreement on making the necessary provision within capital control systems.
It would be very nice to say that it is only a small amount. However, if our aim is to control public sector demands for capital we cannot simply disregard small amounts here and there. Eventually, they will add up to a large amount. If we make provision centrally for this type of expenditure, it is bound to be an expense out of the amount available for allocation to local authorities. That is the same as pre-empting local government's own decisions about priorities.
In other words, this amendment is either an invitation to nibble away at the controls on public sector finance or an invitation to pre-empt local decisions over priorities for capital finance. The regional library systems have an enviable record of success. I can say that personally, having met the delegation which came with the noble Baroness to visit me last week. However, we do not think it is fair to other causes to single them out for special treatment: nor do I think it is practical to do so. Everyone with a particular interest thinks that it should have priority. We would have a series of claims for special treatment, each pointing to some factor which makes the case unique, in the eyes at least of those making the claim.
I have so far addressed the arguments behind the amendment. I have to say in addition that the amendment would not constitute a satisfactory basis for legislation. The Bill already gives the Secretary of State power to make an exception. The amendment sets out to add a duty for him to do so,
1168
but only in cases where the financial transactions in his opinion justify that exemption. The amendment gives no indication as to how that justification is to be assessed. There are therefore no foundations for the edifice which the amendment would construct. In closing, I can only say that I personally gave very serious consideration to the visitation I received from the noble Baroness, and I hope that the arguments I have outlined will explain why we feel that we have to resist her amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, his case has rested very heavily upon the fact that this could be the thin end of a very big wedge so that if this easement, this kind of exemption, was made, the flood-gates would open. Can the Minister tell the House how many comparable situations there are to the one which has been pleaded by the noble Baroness, Lady David? If, as I suspect, they are very few indeed that can make the same case, surely the Minister would be quite safe in giving this exemption. If there are literally dozens or hundreds of other cases, surely that raises the basic question that the legislation itself is flawed because good cases are being kept out.
I believe that the Minister has made a very weak defence of the Government's position. Can he say how many comparable appeals or requests are likely to be made? If this is not the kind of exemption that is going to be made, can the Minister tell the House the kinds of exemptions he is prepared to consider?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my arguments were slightly broader than the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has indicated. I have to say that his premise rests on the fact that there are no other cases. It has to be faced, whether we like it or not, that if such an exemption were granted there would be every reason—as I stated clearly—to invite others to feel that they too could follow that route.
Lord Peston: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—I appologise to him for intervening in an area which is not normally my own—it does not seem to me that the control of public expenditure, which is what he referred to—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I thought that after the mover of the amendment has spoken and had been answered, the question was not open to general debate under the rules we have agreed.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it was my belief that the noble Lord had not completed his remarks. I was using the device of intervening "before the noble Lord sits down". However, I should not use it if it were remotely against Standing Orders.
A noble Lord: Carry on.
Lord Peston: My Lords, on the assumption that it is not, I was inquiring whether the noble Lord the Minister really is trying to argue that the public expenditure control criterion is central to this matter. I do not believe that the mover of the amendment had any intention of getting into quite so complicated or deep a field.

1169
The point at issue is one which I believe the noble Lord himself fully understands. Sometimes, in framing legislation, there are at the periphery almost unforeseen consequences. I for one find it impossible to believe that the noble Lord would wish to achieve any result that would place the regional library associations at risk in any way whatever. Essentially what is being put forward here is a de minimis argument which I, for one, standing somewhat outside this whole area, as I say, cannot believe that the Government would wish to reject. Indeed, I understood from the tone of the noble Lord's reply that he does not really wish to reject it. He simply cannot find a way out of it which is not the classic civil servant's "slippery slope" argument.
Would the noble Lord, since it is not too late, try to pursue the line of finding a way out of the problem in order to make sure that this is regarded as a special case? I think the whole point is to say that this a special case. It is not the usual slippery slope; it is a case which I was hoping the noble Lord would treat a little more sympathetically.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls intervened on a point of order. It is not in order for noble Lords other than the mover of the amendment to speak after the Minister has replied. The device of saying, "Before the noble Lord sits down" is familiar but there is a limit to which it can be streched. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, gave it a pretty good stretch when his question developed into a mini-speech. It is in the interests of all noble Lords to try to keep to the rule and I believe that noble Lords opposite are stretching it a little.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am extremely disappointed with the Minister's answer. I had not believed that the amendment was perfect but I had hoped that in the weeks since we saw him he would have thought of a way around the issue and that we should have had a more sensible response.
We are not asking for a great deal. Sticking to the rules in this way is being extremely rigid and dogmatic, especially when the sums involved are extremely small. Once again, I hope that the Minister will discuss the matter again with the Minister for Arts and Libraries, who, like himself, is sympathetic about the situation. A way should be found around it.
I shall not divide the House, but I warn the Minister that I shall come back at a later stage. Last night the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, told me that she also is ready to come back, so I warn the Minister that the amendment has support from his side of the House. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 [Companies subject to local authority influence]:
[Amendment No. 61A not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 74, line 21, leave out ("special category company") and insert ("banking or insurance company or a member of a banking or insurance group").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment made necessary by changes to the Companies Bill in Committee in another place. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for moving the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 62A not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 74, line 45, leave out ("not less") and insert ("more").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 64, 65 and 66. I express my gratitude to the Government for accepting the point that we made in Committee. It was that companies which are owned exactly 50–50 by the local authority and the private sector should not be covered by the definition of local authority-controlled companies. The four amendments give effect to the provision that a company must have a majority local authority ownership in order to be a controlled company. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 64, 65 and 66:
Page 75, line 1, leave out ("not less") and insert ("more").
Page 75, line 14, leave out ("equals or").
Page 75, line 22, leave out ("equals or").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 75, line 49, at end insert ("or
(cc) at any time within the preceding four years he has been associated with the authority by virtue of paragraph (a) above.
(5A) If and to the extent that the Secretary of State by order so provides, a person is at any time associated with a local authority if").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 67, 68, 69 and 70 give effect to a matter which we debated in Committee. I am grateful to the Government for their co-operation in the drafting. The Bill as drafted provided that former employees, consultants, spouses and business partners of members and office holders in local political parties counted towards the "personnel link" in local authority influence. We believed that to be going too far in tarring with the brush of local authority influence those people who could only remotely be thought to be under that influence.
Amendment No. 67 gives the Minister an opportunity to bring back those categories of people if there is an element of abuse or if their exclusion is used in avoidance schemes. We believe that by agreeing to put the provision on the face of the Bill and then only providing the Secretary of State with

1171
the power to bring them back the Minister has gone some way towards meeting the points raised in Committee. I am grateful and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 68, 69 and 70:
Page 76, line 17, leave out ("any of paragraphs (a) to (c)") and insert ("paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of subsection (5)").
Page 76, line 21, leave out ("paragraph (a)") and insert ("subsection (5)(a)").
Page 76, line 26, leave out ("(5)(g)") and insert ("(5A)(g)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 67 [Requirements for companies under control or subject to influence of local authorities]:
4.45 p.m.
Lord Hayter Lord Hayter moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 76, line 39, at beginning insert—
("(1A) No power exercisable under this section shall be taken to confer any power to make an order in relation to an independent voluntary organisation company within the meaning of subsection (1C) below.
(1B) A voluntary organisation company is a company which is also a voluntary organisation within the meaning of section 137(2D) of the Local Government Act 1972.
(1C) An independent voluntary organisation company is a voluntary organisation company for the purposes of subsection (1A) above, albeit that it may be deemed by virtue of Clause 66 above to be influenced by a local authority, where

(a) the company is established for charitable purpose; and

(b) the company is not a company under the control, within the meaning of section 65 above, of that local authority; and

(c) either

(i) no more than 49 per cent. of the total voting rights of all members having the right to vote at a general meeting of the company are at that time either members or officers of that authority; or

(ii) no more than 49 per cent. of the directors of the company are at that time officers of that authority; or

(iii) no more than 49 per cent. of the total voting rights at a meeting of the directors of the company are held either by members or by officers of that authority; and

(d) that local authority has obtained from the company before the commencement of the relevant financial year, a written statement signed by the Directors of the company that the company is managed independently of that local authority;

(e) in entering into any business relationship within the meaning of section 66 above with the company, that local authority has not taken into account any proposals by the company to borrow or enter into any credit arrangement; and

(f) that local authority has not provided undertakings to meet more than 49 per cent. of the company's liabilities to its creditors in the event of default by the company.

(1D) No power exercisable under this section shall be taken to confer any power to make an order in relation to any company, for which, in the relevant financial year, the financial assistance provided to the company by the local authority by which it is influenced by virtue of section 66 above, is less than the relevant minimum for the purposes of section 36 subsection (3) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, my noble friends and I are trying to bring some logic into the question of exemptions from some of the provisions of the Bill. The impact of Part V on independent voluntary organisations has been a source of concern to all sides of the House.
1172
I emphasise that fact that voluntary organisations are not always large. Sometimes they are small and it is then all the more important to consider their position.
In Committee we debated at length the ways in which voluntary organisation companies could fall into the definition of local authority-influenced companies and thereby become subject to controls particularly on capital borrowing. We also debated the unwelcome intrusion into the affairs of voluntary organisations in which the Bill could result, including local authorities having to discover to whom the members of voluntary organisation management committees are married. Noble Lords may not believe that, but I assure them that the provision appears in the Bill.
I am happy to say that the Government share many of our concerns and are keen to except the genuinely independent voluntary organisations. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, for writing to me on this subject and for meeting me and representatives of the National Council of Voluntary Organisations to discuss it. As a result we are in broad agreement about most, if not all, of the criteria for defining an independent voluntary organisation. My amendment sets down those criteria, which I shall explain.
However, we appear to disagree about the means for giving effect to the definition. I propose that the Bill should not relate to independent voluntary organisations. Therefore, when Clause 67 specifies requirements for:
"companies under the control of local authorities and companies subject to the influence of local authorities".
it should be made clear on the face of the Bill that none of the requirements relates to independent voluntary organisations.
I understand the Minister to be proposing that Clause 67 should relate to voluntary organisations but that certain categories of voluntary organisation will be exempt through regulations. The Minister has already indicated some of the categories.
There is an important difference in principle between those two positions. My position makes absolutely clear the fact that this part of the Bill does not relate to genuinely independent voluntary organisations. I believe that in the interests of both the Government and the voluntary sector that should be made abundantly clear. I understand the Minister's position to be that this part of the Bill could relate to independent voluntary organisations but that the Secretary of State is minded to exempt them through regulations. The voluntary sector is in no doubt as to which position it prefers, having considered the matter carefully. In the light of the meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, I shall listen with great attention to his reply.
I now move on to the amendment itself which, on the face of it, looks rather complicated. It begins with the definition of an independent voluntary organisation. This is the result of detailed discussions between officials and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. I believe it covers all the areas of potential abuse which the Government are seeking to stop. Its starting point is the definition of

1173
a voluntary organisation contained in Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. That would seem to be the logical starting point.
The amendment then states quite clearly that voluntary organisations must have charitable objectives. That also appears to be fair. It then states that the voluntary organisation must not be a local authority controlled company. Surely the Government agree with that. The amendment then covers a potential abuse whereby a local authority could maintain effective control of a company by co-opting members or officers onto the board in their own right rather than as representatives of the local authority. Subsection (b) of the amendment prevents that abuse. Surely the Government agree with that.
The amendment continues by stating that the voluntary organisation must provide the local authority with a statement confirming its independence. That would normally be done by reference to the organisation's constitution. Again, surely the government agree with that. Paragraphs (d) and (e) state that the voluntary organisation must not be used as a means of helping a local authority to circumvent capital borrowing controls through credit or borrowing arrangements or through loan guarantees above a certain proportion. This addresses the very heart of the Government's concerns clearly and explicitly. Once again, surely the Government agree with that. Finally, the amendment introduces a de minimis criterion as proposed by the Minister in his letter to me.
I therefore believe that these criteria provide a clear definition of what we mean by independent voluntary organisations and that we can, therefore, exclude them entirely from the Bill. There will, of course, be some voluntary organisations which do not statisfy the cirteria which I have just outlined and yet should be exempted, for one reason or other, from the proposed controls. Those situations could be dealt with in the regulations, as proposed by the Minister. However, it is essential to recognise that these organisations are in a different position from the much larger category of independent voluntary organisations to which this Bill should simply not apply in the first instance. I feel certain that the amendment will appeal to the many noble Lords who are associated with voluntary organisations. I beg to move.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, are we not being a little too pedantic in our approach, on Report, to this series of amendments? I consider that the battle has been won. To write this point into the Bill is one thing and to have it put into operation by regulation is another, but the end result is the same.
The battle is won in the sense that we have had from the Minister as clear an indication as is possible that the regulations will be able to do this. The noble Lord said that the independent voluntary organisations had various facets; that some were not easily identifiable and others were. When a measure can be carried out by regulations, that identification can be made in the light of the facts. The general point has been made, not only on this amendment but on others, that the measures should be looked
1174
at separately from those that are mandatory on local authorities. One understands that point and I have some sympathy with it. However, in order to rectify the position does it really matter whether we write it into the main Bill or whether it is in the form of a regulation which sets out how the Bill should be operated? I merely suggest to noble Lords that having won three quarters of the battle, and with such a long Marshalled List, is this the time to go into the sort of detail that we would do in Committee?
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, believes that these matters should be left to regulations. I should have thought he would support the view that it would be better if the voluntary organisations were not affected by the Bill at all, which would be so much simpler.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, on the progress he made. I recognise, too, that the Government have gone a long way towards meeting the argument put from all quarters of the House. The real reason why I believe it is important to have clearly spelt out in the Bill that voluntary organisations are not affected is that doubts will still exist until the regulations are published; and surely it is unnecessary if some find themselves caught by this situation.
We know the reasons behind this legislation. It is to seek to control the capital expenditure of local government, but there is another side to that coin. Local authorities are inundated with requests and calls for help of one kind or another. I cite Portsmouth cathedral as a case in point. I happen to be one of the people trying to assist Portsmouth cathedral to raise £3 million. So far the three letters I have written to charitable bodies have produced precisely nothing. Last week I received a letter urging me to telephone Portsmouth councillors because, though the cathedral authorities ad hoped to receive in excess of £100,000, if not rather more, it was rumoured that the chairman of the finance committee, or of the policies resources committee, was thinking of offering only £50,000. In fact, £1 million has already been raised by the cathedral workers and local people. It is sad that, having raised that money from their own resources, the local authority is not coming up to scratch. The local authority represents, as a whole, the citizens of Portsmouth and ought to have some concern for the cathedral, which is in a very desirable part of the town and is now in some trouble.
I give that as one example. When I was leader of my own county council we were constantly receiving requests for money. Quite rightly, probably on the recommendation of the chief executive, councillors occasionally said, "If you are going to to give money to this voluntary organisation, do you not think we ought to have someone representing the local authority to make sure that the money is properly spent?" That is the other side of the coin. Therefore, I believe that our request is reasonable. I believe that the Government are going some way to meet us and I thank them for that. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, for what he has already done in this field and I strongly support him.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, the position of voluntary bodies within local authorities is important and will become even more important if this Bill is implemented. To my mind it is essential that the proposals in the amendment should be on the face of the Bill. This aspect is now a vital part of local authorities. It is essential that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, should be accepted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, answered one part of the objection to the amendment put by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, when he said that it is necessary to put these proposals on the face of the Bill in order to make the position clear from the outset without waiting for regulations. There is a further point that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls might like to consider. Regulations which give can also take away, and the power of the Secretary of State to shift the goal posts in the exemption of voluntary organisations from coverage under Part V of the Bill can work in both directions. In my view, that is an additional reason why it is necessary—indeed essential—to have this amendment on the face of the Bill.
There cannot be any serious argument that independent voluntary organisations of the kind to which this amendment refers are going to be abused by local authorities or used as an excuse for the breach of public expenditure controls. That was the rather pathetic argument to which the Minister was reduced in responding to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady David. My noble friend made it clear in her amendment that the regional library associations spent so little in capital and had such a complex relationship with local authorities that it would be absurd to include them.
The argument here is slightly different in that the independent voluntary sector has no interest in breaching the public expenditure guidelines. However, the sector performs an absolutely essential function in assisting local authorities to carry out their very wide responsibilities. These organisations include such bodies as the National Housing & Town Planning Council, the Council of Voluntary Welfare Work and even the information technology centres that on many occasions are set up jointly by local authorities under the training agency.
It is clear that we are not talking here about major breaches of public expenditure controls but a commonsense extension to the non-profit sector in our society. I hope that whatever concessions have been made so far will not blind noble Lords to the absolute necessity for this amendment to be agreed and to be on the face of the Bill.
5 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I have been associated with a good many voluntary bodies and in some cases I have been a founder member. It becomes clear, as these amendments rumble on, that Part V of the Bill was far too widely drafted in the first place. I support and congratulate my noble friend on the clarity of his drafting. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, very properly mentioned that this
1176
amendment will remove a great deal of doubt. Once this amendment has been agreed, and if there is any doubt still left, that small amount can be removed by regulations. Such regulations are unamendable and this is a much better way of proceeding.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this amendment would exclude voluntary organisations, as defined in the amendment, from the scope of the controls on companies influenced by local authorities. I shall shortly be suggesting how the Government have come some way to meet the concerns which have been expressed. I am rather worried that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may be devaluing the currency of concessions in the light of his last remarks.
At the Committee stage I said that we will consider applications from voluntary bodies for exemption from these controls where there was a clear case that, in spite of being dependent on local authorities for more than half their funds, and having substantial links in personnel with the local authority, the organisation was nevertheless independent of the authorities involved. I was pressed to set out general rules of exemption. We have now sent to the local authority associations a consultation paper on the implementation of Part V which sets out our proposals in this, as well as other, areas. First, we are proposing that there should be a general exemption to cover all voluntary organisations where the business connection with the council is not more than a grant of £500 or less a year. We aimed this to be the same as the sum in Clause 35, which is the level below which reports are not required from voluntary bodies. The Chamber decided to raise this to £2,000, and we accept now the argument for a similar increase here. I give that commitment today.
This may seem a small item, but it will ensure that where a local authority does no more than give a small grant to a voluntary organisation, the authority need not consider whether the grant when aggregated with other local authority grants, might be significant. Secondly, and more importantly, we have proposed exempting all voluntary bodies which met a definition rather like that in the amendment, but with certain important differences. These differences are as follows. First, the organisation is for charitable purposes only. The reason for this is that voluntary organisations on the definition used in the amendment can cover an enormous range of activities many of which would not be recognised by bodies such as the NCVO as a genuine voluntary organisation. We must therefore have the safeguard that they are for charitable purposes.
I should say that in the consulation paper that we have circulated this requirement appears as being a registered charity. The noble Lord, Lord Hayter, has however convinced me in discussions we had that this is wrong. It is sufficient to require charitable status. Secondly, we think that the opinion as to the independence of the company should be formed by the local authority, not the company, It is the local authority that is affected by the outcome, and it should be able to control the process. Thirdly, we do not think that it is necessary to add the last of the conditions, that in paragraph (f) of the amendment.

1177
In addition, we have accepted Amendments Nos. 67, 68, 69 and 70. As long as we do not find avoidance schemes being developed, these will make it much simpler for everyone concerned to apply the rules, and should reduce the risk of inappropriate companies being caught by the controls. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that this package of proposals goes a long way, if not all the way, to meeting his concerns, and on that basis I hope that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty. I have not seen the consultation document, and whether I should have done, I do not know. There is no doubt that the Minister has been good enough to make some concessions which go quite a long way towards solving the problems of the voluntary organisations. My inclination, if I have the concurrence of my two supporters—they seem to be shaking their heads—is to ask to withdraw the amendment. I ask that the House agree that the amendment be withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 71A not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No 71B:
Page 76, line 49, at end insert—
("(1A) Any order made under subsection (1) above in relation to investigations by the Commissioner for Local Administration shall require the local authority to use its power of control to ensure that the company provides to the Commissioner information on request, to the extent that such requests are reasonable.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, since we have failed to get a rational overall look at exemptions, we now have to go through this part of the Bill virtually line by line. We have to tidy up what is a peculiarly clumsy and overbearing series of legislative provisions. This amendment would have the effect of placing on the face of the Bill the terms on which local authorities may be required by regulation to make control companies subject to the powers of investigation by the local ombudsman, the Commissioner for Local Administration. This amendment is affected by the consultation document that appeared last week. Paragraph 74 of that document lays down the requirement that will be imposed on local authorities and companies where there is a control or influence relationship.
The requirement is that in the case of control companies that do not operate at arm's length, the local authority has to use its powers to ensure that the company does not commit injustice through maladministration. If the local ombudsman decides to investigate a complaint that the local authority has failed to use its power to this end, the authority will be required to use its power of control to ensure that the company co-operates with the ombudsman in the investigation of a complaint.
That seems to be a proper extension of the power of the local authority ombudsman. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is such a doughty defender of the ombudsman system and I hope that she will feel able to support us in this amendment. I do
1178
not believe that it is particularly controversial. The amendment does not introduce any new obligations on the ombudsman, but it adds to the scope of his activities. I hope that this amendment will receive the support of the House. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this amendment would require an order under Clause 67 to require an authority to use its powers of control over a controlled company to ensure that a local ombudsman gets the information he needs. The amendment brings us to the role of the commissioner for local administration—the local ombudsman—in relation to companies under the control of the local authority.
The proposal contained in our consultation paper is that local authorities should be required to ensure that companies under their control do not commit injustice through maladministration. If there are then complaints of injustice caused through maladministration by local authority controlled companies, the local ombudsmen will be able to see whether the local authority has discharged that obligation.
It is an interesting question whether we need to add to the basic requirement of preventing injustice through maladministration by local authority companies a further requirement to get more information for the local ombudsman. This is exactly the kind of point which the consultation exercise is designed to bring out. I am therefore happy to give an undertaking that, in the course of the consultation exercise, we shall ensure that this question is fully examined. I can see strong arguments in favour of it. I hope with that undertaking the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is a little cheeky for the Minister to give me an undertaking that this matter will be examined in the course of the consultation process. The matter will be examined in the course of the consultation process whether or not the Government like it. Submissions to him in response to the consultation document will make the point that I have been making. I was drawing the attention of the House to the matter because it is something on which we need further assurances.
If the Minister can give me an assurance not only that it will be considered in the course of the consultation process but that the Government will listen seriously to what is said, pay attention to it and seek to give effect to it, I shall be happier that the assurance has some validity.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think that I can go most of the way with the noble Lord. I said that the Government see strong arguments in favour of it. That must be considered as indicative.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.
Page 76, line 49, at end insert
("1A) No order shall be made under subsection (1) above in relation to activities referred to in section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986, or to other activity considered to be pursued in the interests of securing political advantage, before the completion of consultation with such organisations representative of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment refers back to political restrictions, an issue of which the House may have hoped it had seen the last during our previous Report stage sitting. However, we think it necessary for there to be consultation with local authority associations before regulations are introduced under Clause 67, the clause which gives powers to make requirements for controlled and influenced companies, on the publication of materials which if a local authority published them would be in contravention of the political publicity provisions in Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986; and, secondly, on any action undertaken with the purpose of securing electoral advantage for a candidate in an election or for a political party.
We refer again to the consultation document which came out last week. I have not yet made the point which I should have made that it has been promised considerably before the date on which it was published. It was extremely difficult for us to give it adequate attention and to reflect it in the parliamentary consideration of the Bill. This is a matter which should and could have been available much earlier, in time not only for this Chamber to consider it at all stages of the Bill but also for another place to have considered it earlier.
I refer now to paragraph 75 of the document which is one of the most paranoid pieces of so-called consultation that I have yet seen. We already have in the 1986 Act, as amended by the Local Government Act 1988, provisions about political publicity by local authorities. As recently as last Thursday we talked about political activities by local government officers. Paragraph 75 of the consultation document now proposes that the order-making power in Clause 67 will be used to prohibit local authorities from using or allowing controlled or influenced companies to undertake either activities which the authority itself is prohibited from undertaking under Section 2 of the 1986 Act, or from doing,
"any other thing with the intention of securing electoral advantage for any particular candidate in an election or for a political party".
What basis do the Government have for believing that companies falling within Part V of the Bill will be used for that purpose? What basis do the Government have for saying that companies which now fall within Part V have done anything for a political purpose? After all, these companies have existed for a considerable time. Many of them are voluntary organisations. Many of them collaborate with private industry, which is hardly likely to encourage political propaganda at the expense of the company. All of them have a mixture of ownership and control which I should have thought would
1180
in itself inhibit them from taking part in political propaganda. In addition, the provisions of the 1986 Act have been in force for three years already so that everybody knows exactly what is meant by political publicity and party political activity.
It is not as if we are talking about a new kind of organisation or new definitions of political activity. What is happening now is that, seeing a whole new range of restrictions imposed on these companies by Part V, the Government are unable to stop themselves from seeking the most absurd and pettifogging restrictions on controlled and influenced companies. If there is a shred of evidence that controlled and influenced companies have been doing what is complained about and what is outlawed under the 1986 Act, I shall listen to it very seriously. I am not aware of any such evidence; and failing such evidence, the amendment should be agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this amendment would prevent the Secretary of State introducing an order to give effect to one of the proposed rules for local authority controlled companies before the completion of consultation with local government. This is the rule requiring local authorities to use their powers of control to prevent companies which they control issuing party political publicity or otherwise seeking party political advantage.
In the first place, we most certainly do not have any intention of introducing any order before we have properly consulted local authorities. That is why we have already prepared a detailed consultation paper, and sent it to the local authority associations. We further intend to circulate the paper to all principal local authorities, so that they are aware of the consultation process. I therefore regard the amendment unnecessary. Having said that we would consult, and having started the consultation process, I think that any court would regard it as a denial of legitimate expectations if we were to go ahead without waiting for, and considering, the comments.
I was puzzled about the choice of this one topic as that on which we must await for the outcome of consultation. Our proposals in this respect are simply to extend to companies controlled by local authorities the rule to which the authorities are subject; that they must not use their powers and resources for party political purposes. It seems to us to be one of the most obvious requirements of any system of regulating companies under the control of local authorities. On that basis, it would seem to be one of the rules about which there is likely to be the least disagreement, though from the noble Lord's remarks, I can see that that is not the case. However, we feel that there is a case, and therefore we shall resist the noble Lord's blandishments with his amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has chosen to give a procedural rather than a substantive answer. Of course it is possible to argue in relation to any of these amendments which reflect the consultation document that it would be wrong for Parliament to prejudge the results of the consultation

1181
and therefore to put on the face of the Bill amendments which deal with any matter which is in that consultation document. The argument has already been used and no doubt will be used again this afternoon. But if, as is the case here, the consultation document is produced so late during the passage of the Bill that consultation time does not expire until after the legislation has presumably received Royal Assent, then that becomes no more than a subterfuge to stop proper parliamentary consideration of what is in the Bill and what are clearly the Minister's intentions with regard to it and the regulations to be made thereunder.
The substantive point which the Minister completely failed to answer is my challenge to him to produce a single example of a case where a company which would be influenced or controlled by a local authority under the terms of this part of the Bill has actually been abusing the provisions of the Local Government Act 1986 by indulging in political publicity or advocating the support of a particular candidate. I still await any sort of answer, any single example, of such an abuse.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, our case is that if we are to have a strong set of rules for the local authority sector, they must be comprehensive. That is why they are comprehensive.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister knows perfectly well that that is no answer. The fact of the matter is that the Government are so paranoic about local government and so determined to bind it hand and foot that even where there are organisations which have existed in some cases for many years and even where there is legislation which has been on the statute book for three years, the Government are not even prepared to look for, let alone to report, any abuses before adding another shackle to the chains which already bind local government. In my view that was a thoroughly unworthy response from the Government. Therefore I think it is only proper that I should seek the opinion of the House on this amendment.
5.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 71 C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 99.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ardwick, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Aylestone, L.

David, B.

Birk, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Bottomley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Ennals, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Falkland, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Gallacher, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Galpern, L.

1182

Gladwyn, L.

Peston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Phillips, B.

Grey, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hampton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rochester, L.

Hayter, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Seear, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Shackleton, L.

Jeger, B.

Shepherd, L.

Kagan, L.

Somers, L.

Kearton, L.

Stedman, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strabolgi, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Underhill, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Lockwood, B.

Walston, L.

Longford, E.

White, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mellish, L.

Willis, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Nicol, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Northfield, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Kimball, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Long, V.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Allerton, L.

Luke, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lyell, L.

Annaly, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Arran, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Auckland, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Beloff, L.

Mancroft, L.

Belstead, L.

Manton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Margadale, L.

Blatch, B.

Marley, L.

Blyth, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Boardman, L.

Borthwick, L.

Merrivale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Nelson, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Norrie, L.

Cockfield, L.

Orkney, E.

Coleraine, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cowley, E.

Reay, L.

Cox, B.

St. Davids, V.

Craigavon, V.

Sharples, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Daventry, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Strathclyde, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Elibank, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Faithfull, B.

Strathspey, L.

Falmouth, V.

Sudeley, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Teviot, L.

Gainford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Thorneycroft, L.

Gridley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Havers, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hesketh, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Wynford, L.

Killearn, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 71D:
Page 76, line 49, at end insert—
("(1A) An order made under subsection (1) above may include requirements designed to secure that any company concerned seeks in its awarding of contracts for the supply of goods or materials and of services and the carrying out of works:

(a) the provision of fair wages;

(b) the furtherance of equal opportunity; and

(c) the promotion of health and safety.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment will give the Secretary of State the power to use the order-making provisions of Clause 67 to require local authorities to secure that any company in the influenced or controlled categories (at the Secretary of State's discretion) would have to seek when awarding contracts for the supply of goods, materials and services and the carrying out of works, such equal opportunity requirements as the provision of fair wages and the promotion of health and safety.
Your Lordships will recall debates during the passage of the Local Government Bill 1988 when a number of similar amendments about the issue of contracts compliance were rejected by the Government. One area which was accepted was in relation to work designed to secure the objectives of Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 relating to the employment of members of the black and ethnic minority populations. I do not wish to reopen the debate in respect of local authorities' general practices, but it is suggested that the Government might wish to avail themselves of this opportunity to seek further controls on the private and semi-public sectors by safeguarding fair wages and health and safety in such operations.
In their Part V proposals, the Government are setting apart those companies which do extensive business, or have other links through their boards of directors, and so forth, with local authorities, and subjecting them to a potential range of requirements under Clause 67 alongside the local authorities with which they are deemed to have a new legal relationship.
In those circumstances, however, the Government will doubtless wish to demonstrate that the companies concerned measure up to the public sector in all aspects of performance. The Government would probably argue that such orders would serve largely to confirm the position that already exists in those companies. They presumably would not wish to argue that fair wages, as generally understood within an industry after negotiations between employers and unions, and the promotion of health and safety both under existing British legislation and the developing provisions of the European Community, should not be areas that such companies would wish to take seriously as part of their personnel policies.
If that is the case, a requirement that a company in the influenced or controlled category should seek, in its own awarding of contracts for goods and services, to ensure that such provisions are upheld would doubtless proceed naturally from its concerns in that area and would clearly contribute to a
1184
well understood chain of such supportive provisions through the economy. Is the Minister prepared to accept the amendment? I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the amendment would permit an order under Clause 67 to include provisions to ensure that companies controlled or influenced by local authorities pursue policies aimed at fair wages, equal opportunities and the promotion of health and safety. The amendment is unneccessary because, if there were a case for making provisions under Clause 67 for any of those purposes, the power in the clause is already wide enough to cover them. To include specific provision on those three topics only would cast doubt on the width of the power. More importantly, however, the amendment is misconceived. It is our intention to ensure that companies that are properly regarded as part of the local authority sector are, where appropriate, subject to the same rules as local authorities.
Parliament discussed in great detail last year the rules to which local authority contracts should be subject. The results are embodied in the Local Government Act 1988. It is our view that companies which are subject to the influence or control of local authorities should observe the same rules as those to which local authorities themselves are subject under Part II of the 1988 Act. We therefore think that it would be wrong for the legislation on local authority interests in companies to suggest that different rules apply. For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am disappointed by the Minister's reply because what he says is not the case in the real world. The public sector, and the private sector working within the public sector, are not often bound by the same standards. Safety is one of the biggest areas for concern. There are good employers in the private sector who have the fullest regard for the safety of their workers and comply with the Acts, but there are a host of others who do not, especially in the building trade. One of the reasons for that is that, to reduce prices, corners are cut. Safety measures are one of the biggest casualties. That often results in casualties and sometimes fatalities.
I do not wish to repeat what has been said about the employment of coloured and ethnic people because that subject has been debated at length. The Minister has not satisfied me, and he will not satisfy many people in the public sector, that they will be subject to the same criteria as a result of the Bill. We say that they will not. Having heard what the Minister said, I can only express my disappointment and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 71E:
Page 76, line 49, at end insert—
("(1A) No order made under subsection (1) above shall have the effect:

(a) in the case of employees of a controlled company, of applying restrictions otherwise applicable under section 1(5) above to such employees; or

1185

(b) in the case of employees of an influenced company, of regarding such employees as holders of posts which are politically restricted within the meaning of Part I").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment requires consultations with the local authority associations before regulations are introduced under Clause 67 (the clause giving power to make requirements for controlled and influenced companies) in two areas: first, the publication of materials which, if published by a local authority, would be a contravention of Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986 on political publicity; and, secondly, any action undertaken with the intention of securing electoral advantage for a particular candidate in an election or for a political party.
Paragraph 75 of the current consultative document puts forward extraordinary proposals. It underlines the near paranoia which seems to characterise Part V. The Government have already legislated for alleged political publicity by local authorities under Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986, as amended by the Local Government Act 1988. Provisions concerning the political activities of local government officers are, as has been extensively debated, contained in Part I of the Bill. The interpretation and application of the clause bristle with difficulties.
Moreover, the practice of local authority publicity since the legislation was passed has yielded as few examples to clarify its intended application as existed when it was debated in Parliament. The practical interpretation of the legislation therefore remains as uncertain as it was when Parliament first looked at it three and a half years ago. The Government have yet to put forward a convincing case, as was further debated in both Houses early in 1988, for the legislation. Yet now they propose to extend such controls, with no evidence of any need for that, in order to influence and control companies under the legislation.
It would be useful if the Government could indicate what thought has been given to the possible effect on private sector trading companies of restrictions on their publicity activity which was designed for a different purpose but which nonetheless might complicate their commercial operations.
It is incumbent upon the Government to produce evidence before an order covering this kind of activity is made. The slur is even more serious than that made against the majority of local government officers under Part I of the Bill. Local authorities themselves are bound by statute to provide their services and conduct their activities within the community in a manner which is reasonable and fair. One local authority no longer in membership of the AMA has recently attracted some notoriety with a suggestion that some of its housing services might not have been provided on a wholly fair basis between different parts of its electoral areas. It may be that the Government have evidence that this or any other authority has been using influenced or controlled companies to further such alleged policies. If that is the case, then the Government will no
1186
doubt prefer to lay such evidence before the House and noble Lords might find it very interesting.
In its absence, however, surely it would be better if the Minister would state that this order-making power will not be used, at least until such time as an abuse has been identified or can at least be shown to be reasonably likely to occur. Legislating for abuses which would not occur is only one way of lowering the overall professional standards of local government, while increasing the atmosphere of suspicion which has been generated by so much of the Government's approach to the rest of the public sector over the past few years. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this amendment relates to the power under Clause 67 whereby the Secretary of State may make an order placing requirements on local authorities in relation to companies that they control or influence. The amendment states that any such order should not apply the restrictions on political activities set out in Clause 1(5) in the case of employees of local authority controlled companies. Similarly it states that any such order should not have the effect on employees of local authority influenced companies of being regarded as holders of politically restricted posts within the meaning of Part I of the Bill.
This amendment has to be looked at in two parts. First, the position of employees of a controlled company. As noble Lords are aware, our philosophy as regards such companies is that they are very much a part of the local authority and as such the rules and regulations that apply to the conduct of the local authority should also apply to any company that it controls. This also goes for the employees of the company for whom the same basic rules must apply as apply to employees of the local authority. Thus it is our intention that employees of controlled companies shall be subject to Section 80 of the Local Government Act 1972 which will prevent them from being elected and holding office as a member of the authority that controls them. Paragraph 18 of Schedule 11 to the Bill provides for this.
Regarding further controls, it would clearly be possible to require local authority controlled companies to impose conditions of employment on future new employees restricting their ability to undertake public political activity. We have not proposed to do so. However, if companies were shown to be being used as a means of evading the controls in Clauses 1 to 3, we should certainly wish to consider whether action was required.
The second part of the amendment deals with the employees of local authority influenced companies. They are in a different position. We recognise that the local authority in such cases does not have the same very close relationship with the company concerned. However, in the case of influenced companies, the order will require the local authority, by imposing an appropriate condition on their transactions with the company, to ensure that the company, as opposed to its employees in their personal capacities, does not do anything with the intention of securing electoral advantage for any particular candidate in an election or for a political

1187
party. It is for those reasons that we resist the noble Lord's amendments.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, before the Minister sits down and before we dispose of the amendment, can he give us a brief resume of the type of company he is talking about? Having spent a long time in local government, I find it difficult to obtain evidence that there are many of those companies about anyway. Perhaps they have mushroomed in the past 10, 12 or 15 years. I know of none influenced or owned to any degree by a local authority in the private sector where the local authority would have the deciding vote. I think such companies would be scarce and difficult to find. Perhaps the Minister can give us one or two examples.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, an example would be the NEC in Birmingham. I do not have a comprehensive list to hand. However, I propose to write to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, giving him a substantial list of both types of companies, as he has requested.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps if he sends that information to my noble friend he will send a copy to me. I have already mentioned the NEC this afternoon.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that brief reply. I understand the interest of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher; she has already spoken of the National Exhibition Centre at Birmingham.
I shall not press the amendment, I shall examine what the Minister has said. Some companies have been completely privatised by the Government and taken from local authorities. I am talking about some of the local airports. They were very valuable holdings controlled by the local authority; but because of what I think are the rather paranoid views of the Government on local authorities, the Government brought in legislation making them limited companies, to the detriment of the local authorities. We can now no longer question what is going on at some of those airports, either in another place or in this Chamber.
However, having said that, I shall examine with interest what the Minister says in his letter to me, and perhaps bring the matter back for further discussion on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 71F:
Page 76, line 49, at end insert—
("(1A) Any order made under subsection (1) above in relation to any criterion of independence in respect of a registered charity shall provide that a company shall fulfil the criterion if it is, or is in the process of becoming, such a charity").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment which is designed to secure an assurance
1188
that the definition of "registered charity" as a criterion for exemption from influence will not be interpreted too strictly. The amendment simply states that a company which is in the process of becoming a registered charity should be regarded as such for the purposes of seeking exemption, or gaining such exemption from the Part V "influence" category.
Paragraph 49 of the consultative document sets out proposed criteria for exemption where a company is a registered charity which is managed independently of the local authority. In those circumstances, such a company which would otherwise be regarded as influenced shall be exempted. The gaining of charitable status can be a lengthy process, and it would seem unreasonable for influence in some sense to be deemed still to exist where the company concerned was in the process of becoming a charity. The Government may object that it might be difficult to establish the point at which the company becomes a charity, or that some applications may fail. However, in relation to that latter point, the Government can presumably provide a direction so that a company in such a situation would then automatically become influenced if it did not otherwise fall outside the categories. As regards the point at which the process starts, it would be simplest to suggest that the point of application to become registered would be the simplest cut off point.
The Government would doubtless not wish the fairly complex provisions of Part V to cut across the process of becoming a registered charity, whether by introducing controls or deemed relationships which may cut across that application, or simply by diverting away from that process scarce resources within what will often be fairly small enterprises. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the amendment would prohibit any order under Clause 67 requiring a company to be a registered charity as a condition for being treated as independent.
Technically, the amendment is misplaced since the question of independence is relevant to exemption under Clauses 65 or 66 from the requirements of the rules, not to the content of the rules. That takes us back to the questions which we discussed under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter. The House will recall that we suggested certain criteria for the recognition of independence. If a voluntary organisation which is a company meets those criteria then its independence from any local authority would be recognised by exempting it, even if, prima facie, it meets the tests of being under local authority influence. One of those criteria was that the company should be a registered charity.
As I explained, after we had sent our consultation document to the local authority associations and I had given a copy to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I had a meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Hayter. In that meeting he convinced me that it was wrong to require a body to be a registered charity. The reason is not merely that given in the amendment; namely, that the charity might be in the process of

1189
registration. It is also possible that the charity may be an exempt charity, which does not need to be registered. As I made clear in relation to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, we therefore accept that it would be wrong to insist on registration. It is sufficient that the company is solely for charitable purposes.
In that way, we think that we have gone even further than the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has asked. We do not ask even for the process of registration to be started: it is sufficient that the body is charitable.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that generous reply. It gives us what we asked for. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 71G:
Page 76, line 49, at end insert—
("(1A) Any order made under subsection (1) above in relation to a declaration by a company of independence from a local authority shall provide for the manner and frequency of such declaration to be determined by the authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 71 G is designed to deal with the issue of the manner and frequency of declarations as to whether a company is managed independently of the local authority. That is a matter which, in our view, ought not to be laid down by central government. There are differences in the relationships between local authorities and the companies concerned which affect the best way in which declarations of independence should be made and how often they should be made.
It seems to us that the Government have gone much too far in specifying the detail of the reporting system which is to be imposed. It is referred to in paragraph 49 of a consultation document which went out last week. The reporting system provides that voluntary organisations which—I was going to say, are registered charities, but that point has been made—have charitable purposes may gain exemption from the influenced category if, for example, the local authority declares that the company is managed independently of itself. The point about a local authority declaration of independence has already been accepted by the Government. Our objective is to ensure that it is made in a flexible and effective way. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the amendment again takes us back to the discussion of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter. In that amendment, there was provision for recognising the independence of companies from local authorities on the basis of certain criteria. One of those was a declaration by the company that it was managed independently of the local authority.
As I explained, we propose to exempt companies that meet certain criteria which are similar to those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, but differ among other things on the point of Amendment No. 71G. We agree with the point of the amendment. It
1190
is the local authority, and not the company, which in the first instance is affected by a company being held to be under the influence of the authority. Therefore, the initiative for determining the question of independence ought to rest with the local authority. Otherwise, the local authority might be prejudiced by the failure of the company to act. As I explained, we propose that the' arrangements should be in line with the proposals in the amendment.
In the light of that explanation, r hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that this is another case of our having to respond very rapidly to a consultation document which ought to have been produced a long time ago. I am interested—I do not believe that I should say more than that—to hear what the Minister said. I shall read very carefully what he said. I do not believe that it is appropriate to seek to come to a conclusion on the matter now or to seek the opinion of the House on the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, be leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 71H:
Page 77, line 29, at end insert—
("No power exercisable under this section shall be taken to confer any power to make an Order in relation to a law centre").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very simple and straightforward amendment. It seeks to exempt law centres as a category from the provisions of Part V of the Bill. I believe it is universally accepted that law centres provide a valuable service which is complementary in many ways to the work of the citizens' advice bureaux. It has already been accepted that those should be exempted en bloc; that is, in regulations rather than on the face of the Bill. I hope the Government will feel that the analogy between their work and the work of other organisations which have been or will be exempted is close enough for them either o accept the amendment now or agree that regulations will be made which will exempt law centres. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that no order can be made under Clause 67 in relation to a law centre. It effectively provides a complete exemption for all law centres. The amendment is clearly intended to ensure that the important work carried out by law centres is not adversely affected by the proposals in Part V of the Bill. I am not sure, however, why they have been singled out in that way since there are numerous other advice agencies offering similar services.
It is no part of the Government's intention to frustrate the valuable contribution provided by law centres or any other advice agencies which clearly provide an essential service to local communities. That is borne out by our decision, which we have already made known, to exempt all citizens' advice bureaux from the scope of the provisions. As we have said, we remain willing to consider similar

1191
exemptions for other networks of advice agencies which find themselves in a similar position.
There is no need to make provision on the face of the Bill, however, as that merely limits the Secretary of State's flexibility. It is certainly not appropriate to single out law centres in the way proposed by the amendment. The Secretary of State will have the power to exempt by order any categories of companies or individual companies and will use that power as necessary. I repeat that the Government are willing to consider cases sympathetically for any network of advice agencies which, although caught by the strict interpretation of the provisions, can demonstrate that they operate independently of local authorities. That is why we resist the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can help me a little more. I appreciate what he said and I find his sympathy very helpful. I certainly do not wish to pursue the amendment. However, he used the phrase, "any network of advice centres". Law centres do not normally exist as part of a network of advice centres. Law centres are set up in a certain part of a borough, district or town by a local authority, or by neighbourhood initiative, and subsequently gain local authority support. Would the Minister be willing to reconsider the use of the word "network", which seems to be unnecessarily restrictive for this purpose?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the difference is that with citizens' advice bureaux we were dealing with a national association, which was why we were able to take the line that we did. I am sure that the same would be possible if there were a national association of law centres. The point touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is that they vary in many small ways. That is why I am not in a position to be able to say what I said in relation to CABs.
6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have made that difficulty for themselves in proposing a formulation that works perfectly well for citizens' advice bureaux which are part of a network, but does not, as I have indicated, work for law centres which are not necessarily part of a network. I apologise for this interrogation at Report stage, but we are dealing with something that could not be raised in Committee because the consultative document had not come up. Is the Minister willing to think about the restriction that the use of the word "network" imposes on the Secretary of State's freedom of action? He expressed sympathy for the proposal to exempt law centres, and expressed appreciation of their work. It would be a pity if they were to suffer because they are not part of a network. I wonder whether the Minister can help us any further.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I cannot help the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in the way that he wants. The advantage of having a national association or federation is that it can provide the imprimatur—if I may put it like that. The noble Lord asks me to say that we will change the basis. We looked at the
1192
citizens' advice bureaux on that basis because they had a national association. The problem arises here with the individuality.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that that is a purely fictitious problem. I do not think that the question of having a national association or not is anything other than for the convenience of the Secretary of State rather than of the essence of the nature of law centres. There is an association of law centres, but I do not know whether all law centres belong to it. This is perhaps a matter about which the Minister might be willing to talk to me before Third Reading. The Government are causing themselves difficulty which I am sure that they would not wish to do on mature reflection. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 [Control of minority interests etc. in certain companies]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 71J:
Page 78, line 3, at end insert—
("(2A) In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) above whether a company, which is a non profit making company using a facility which is financially assisted by a local authority, is an authorised company, no use by or benefit to residents of the area concerned shall be interpreted to mean a benefit or use available exclusively to such residents.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, which again relates to the consultative document, refers to the type of authorised companies in which a local authority will be permitted to hold minority interests. A number of different kinds of companies are set out in an annex to the consultative document. They are not even set out in the main text of the document. One of the additional companies authorised is a non-profit-making company which provides a facility used by or for the benefit of residents in a local authority's area, and to which the local authority gives or has given financial assistance.
That information is far from being enshrined in law. It is not even in regulations or in a consultative document issued towards the final stages of the passage of the Bill. It is in an annex to the consultative document. Since we cannot write regulations or consultative documents, the only way in which we can deal with matters of this kind which indicate, whether well or badly, the Government's intentions, is by proposing amendments to the Bill.
The point that we are trying to make here is that the measure should cover not only companies that provide a facility, used by or for the benefit of residents in a local authority's area, but should cover matters that affect the area or its residents as well as being for the benefit of residents outside the area. In many social issues it is difficult for the coverage of an organisation to be restricted by the local authority boundaries. The wording of the annex to the consultative document appears to indicate that unless they are restricted by the boundaries of the local authority area, they will not be covered by the exemption. I cannot believe that that was the intention. I hope that the Government will be able to help us on this point. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this amendment brings us to the question of the companies in which it is proper for a local authority to be involved as the holder of a minority interest.
The Government take the view that it is entirely proper and appropriate for local authorities to be involved in companies—that is, to have a vote at the general meeting or to appoint to the board of directors—where an important policy end related to the functions of the authority is thereby served. They do not consider it appropriate in other cases because they do not think that local authorities should be participating in companies simply for the sake of having a say in the running of the company.
One of the categories of company in which we think it entirely proper for local authorities to be involved are companies which are set up on a non-profit-making basis and which provide some facility for the benefit of the local authority's area. A "non-profit-making basis" of course refers to the common provision which forbids the distribution of profits, dividends or resources to members of the company.
Until we read the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, we had not thought that anyone would have taken the second element of our definition of this class of company to mean a benefit exclusively for the inhabitants of the area. We most certainly had no such intention. I am therefore happy to give an undertaking that we shall not, in drafting the order to implement this part, attempt to introduce any such restriction.
On the basis of that undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that assurance which goes a long way to meeting the point that I sought to make in moving the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 78, line 9, leave out ("the authority") and insert ("that or any other local authority or by a company which is under the control of a local authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 72 is another of those amendments which reflect discussion in Committee. I must thank the Minister and the department for their assistance with the amendment.
Clause 68(4) forbids a local authority to take steps whereby someone disqualified from membership becomes a director of a company in which the local authority is involved, but an exception is made for those who are disqualified only because they are employed by the local authority. That exemption should extend to those who are employed by other local authorities or by companies controlled by local authorities. It is a common sense improvement and widening of the exemptions which would otherwise be somewhat harsh and restrictive. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 78, line 42, leave out ("account to the authority for") and insert ("make a declaration to the authority, in such form as they may require, of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment also follows on from debate in Committee. Then we discussed the rules about payment from companies to councillors and officers of a local authority. In the Bill as drafted, councillors and officers who receive payment from a company must surrender any remuneration that they would receive from that company for work which they would otherwise do for the local authority.
We have also discussed the whole question of councillors' remuneration and it looks as if the proposals in the Bill would be unnecessarily complicated. All that is required in the terms of the amendments is that the officer or councillor should declare the receipts. The authority then has freedom to decide whether he should be forced to surrender the income. The phrase,
"in such form as they [the authority] may require",
means that the authority can say that it is not interested in travelling or subsistence payments, for example, which are in line with local government rules and which there would not 11:, any need to declare. This is a useful little piece of tidying up which I hope will be acceptable to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I should just like to give my heartfelt thanks to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I commend this amendment to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 78, leave out lines 45 to 51.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 73. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 70 [Authorities acting jointly and by committees]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 79, line 14, leave out from ("would") to ("local") in line 15 and insert ("not to be under the control of any one").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 75 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 76, 77 and 78. These amendments are concerned with authorities acting jointly which jointly influence companies, as well as with the rules which would affect whether a company is controlled or influenced if it is supported jointly by more than one local authority. That joint influence will only apply if each local authority meets both part of the personnel test (that concerns the people who are involved in the company) and the business relationship test, which is the question of how much of the business of the company is with the local authority.
There are three questions which have to be put in order to decide whether a company is controlled or influenced: first, is the business relationship satisfied by a group of local authorities or companies under their control?; secondly, is the personnel test satisfied by that group collectively?; thirdly, is part of the personnel test met by each of the local authorities concerned?
It is a very complex formulation which is not easy to grasp at first sight. However, the conclusion is that all three tests have to be satisfied if the company is to be controlled or influenced. The difference between control and influence is that a majority means control and influence is 20 per cent. or more.
In our mind there is some doubt which has arisen since the amendment was tabled in my name; it is a doubt about the relationship of these amendments, particularly Amendment No. 78, to Clauses 65 and 66. I wrote to the Minister on this point last Friday and he was good enough to give me an indication of his response. It is so complex a matter that I shall not weary the House with it, especially since it will not affect the passage of these amendments. In very simple terms what worries us is that Clause 65 states that for control to take place the local authority should have either a majority at the annual general meeting or power over a majority of the directors. Clause 66 makes similar provision at the 20 per cent. level for influence. We are worried that Clause 70 could mean that just one person would bring the company into the orbit of influence or control.
I am prepared to read carefully the initial response that the Minister has given to me on this matter. I am certainly prepared to be convinced, if such be the case, that my worries are not well founded. Subject to that proviso, as a whole the amendments seem to us to be a valuable additional provision. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in the broad overview we very much welcome these amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for writing to me about what he rightly describes as a particularly complex area in which he requires clarification. I believe that he has seen the first part of my reply and I feel he has the certain knowledge that my door is always open in order to provide further exemplification if that is required.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 76, 77 and 78:
Page 79, line 18, leave out from ("be") to ("of") in line 19 and insert ("under the control").
Page 79, line 21, leave out from ("control") to first ("of").
Page 79, line 22, at end insert—
("(1A) In any case where, apart from this section, a company would not be treated as being subject to the influence of any one local authority, it shall be treated as being subject to the influence of each of a number of local authorities (in this section refered to as a "group") if the conditions in subsection (1B) below are fulfilled with respect to the company and the group of authorities.
(1B) The conditions referred to in subsection (1A) above are—

(a) that at least one of the conditions in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (3) of section 66 above would be fulfilled—

1196

(i) if any reference therein to the company being under the control of a local authority were a reference to its being under the control of any one of the authorities in the group or of any two or more of them taken together; and

(ii) if any other reference therein to the local authority were a reference to any two or more of the authorities in the group taken together; and

(b) that at least one of the conditions in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of section 66 above would be fulfilled if any reference therein to the local authority were a reference to those local authorities who are taken into account under sub-paragraph (i) or sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) above taken together; and

(c) that if the condition (or one of the conditions) which would be fulfilled as mentioned in paragraph (b) above is that in subsection (1)(a) of section 66 above, then, so far as concerns each local authority in the group, at least one person who, in terms of subsection (5) of that section, is associated with that authority has the right to vote at a general meeting of the company; and

(d) that, if paragraph (c) above does not apply, then, so far as concerns each local authority in the group, a person who, in terms of section 66(5) above, is associated with the authority is a director of the company.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 78A not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Clause 36 [Application of Part. IV]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 43, line 45, at end insert—
("(bb) a trust to which, by virtue of an order under section 69 below, the provisions of section 66 below are applicable; or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 36(5) provides an order-making power for the Secretary of State so that the new system for capital finance can be applied to companies either controlled or influenced by local authorities as defined in Part V of the Bill. As such companies operate as an extension of their parent local authorities we think it is quite right that their capital transactions are brought within the scheme of controls contained in Part IV.
It is possible, however, for trusts, as opposed to companies, to operate in very much the same way as companies. There is an order-making power, therefore, in Clause 69 in Part V of the Bill whereby the Secretary of State could bring non-charitable trusts influenced by local authorities within the new statutory framework.
Amendment No. 79 is required so that the new system for capital finance could also, if necessary, be applied to influenced trusts. There are no hidden motives here. We have no intention of discouraging local authorities which wish to retain interests in trusts. We simply wish to ensure that trusts in which local authorities have a dominant influence do not provide a means of avoiding controls on local authority capital finance. The amendment will achieve that and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 80 and 81:
Page 44, line 24, at end insert ("and").
Page 44, line 26, leave out from ("case") to end of line 28.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 37 [Capital purposes]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 81A:
Page 45, line 13, leave out from ("investments") to end of line 15.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we move from one extremely complex area to another which I certainly find particularly complex. Part IV deals with definition of expenditure for capital purposes. In the consultation paper Capital Expenditure and Finance which the Government issued in July 1988 there was introduced the concept of what they called approved investments. The significance of approved investments is that under the new capital expenditure control system they would not count as expenditure for capital purposes. When the investments are realised they would not be subject to what are called the reserved part provisions which apply to capital receipts.
I shall not weary the House with the provisions of the consultation paper but I think it is worth saying that in the response to that paper a number of financial institutions—City institutions—expressed views which deserve consideration by Parliament. The purpose of these amendments is to give expression to that and to enable the Government to tell us more about their thinking on approved investments.
The group which submitted evidence in response to the consultation paper included County NatWest, Gartmore, Hambros, Lloyds, Mercury, Rothschild, Scrimgeour, Citicorp and a number of others. They argued that the definition of approved investments could be widened. In other words, more investments could be taken out of capital expenditure controls, yet the Government would not lose any effective measure of control and there would not be any breach of the interests of poll tax payers. I have moved the amendment to give the Government an opportunity to indicate the definition of approved investments, and to ask whether they have given any constructive thought to the suggestions put forward by the City institutions. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said, we do indeed now move to a complex part of the Bill. It is so complex that I had to inspect three separate, alternative, possible answers to the noble Lord's question when reviewing the matter over the weekend.
As it stands, the Bill recognises three classes of investment. First, there are approved investments which will be specified in regulations made under Clause 63. The acquisition of approved investments is not expenditure for capital purposes and need not be charged to a revenue account. The realisation of approved investments is not subject to the requirement to set aside a reserved part for debt redemption. Approved investments are the sort of investment in which it is appropriate to hold
1198
temporarily surplus funds, such as revenue balances, unapplied capital receipts and moneys set aside as provision for credit liabilities. A proposed list of approved investments was set out in a consultative paper sent to the local authority associations last week. They include bank and building society deposits, gilt-edged securities, eligible bank bills, Treasury bills, and certain others.
The suggestions from the City were considered in drawing up the list of approved investments, although only a certain number of their suggestions, such as eligible bank bills and short Treasury bills, were taken up. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question on the point of approved investments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it goes some way to meet the points that were made. When the Minister refers to gilt-edged securities and loans to, and deposits with, banks, building societies and other recognised financial institutions, he goes some way towards the definition which we are seeking. I would have hoped that he might go further and include in approved investment loans to the authority in substitution for external borrowings, loans to other local authorities that are subject to the new system, and loans to other public bodies whose external finance or capital expenditure is classified as public expenditure.
However, it is not a matter on which I expect the Minister to respond immediately. I simply read that series of requests into the record. I shall read carefully what he has said and consider whether any further action needs to be taken. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 [Expenditure excluded from section 38(1)]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 47, line 2, leave out ("defrayed") and insert ("met").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 82, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 101, 108, 110 and 111. These are all technical amendments concerned with accounting terminology. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 [Register of loan instruments and certain existing loans]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 50, line 28, at end insert ("and, if they think it appropriate, a local authority may appoint as a registrar for some or all of the purposes of such a register a person who is neither an officer nor any other employee of the authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, local authorities which have issued stocks or bonds have to keep a reigster of the holders. They do not necessarily keep the register themselves. Some authorities use outside registrars, such as the Bank of England registrar's department.
In another place, the Government was pressed from the Opposition Benches to confirm that this

1199
practice of contracting out could continue under the Bill, and my right honourable friend gave the undertaking. However, we have looked again at the text of the Bill and perceive that there could be some doubt. The purpose of this amendment is to make the matter clear beyond peradventure. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 50, line 31, leave out ("made to") and insert ("in respect of which any payment or repayment falls to be made by").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House would not thank me for a summary of all the changes that there have been in recent years in the structure of local government. Suffice it to say that, as a result of local government reorganisation, some loans which were originally raised by authorities which have been abolished are now the responsibility of other authorities.
This amendment secures that a local authority's register will contain particulars not only of the authority's own borrowings but also of loans which have been inherited and for which the local authority is now responsible. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 51, line 7, after ("regulations") insert—

("(a) generally with respect to the keeping of a register required to be maintained under this section;

(b) modifying all or any of the particulars specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (4) above; and (c)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as it stands, Clause 43 permits regulations to be made to specify additional particulars which must be entered in the register. It does not, however, permit any variation in the manner in which particulars are to be entered. Let me give one small example. Where stock is held by several joint owners, it is universal practice nowadays for only four, rather than all of them, to be named in stock registers or on certificates. The first amendment would permit regulations to be made to enable local authority stock registers to be maintained in accordance with standard practice.
The second amendment is concerned with the evidence and the jurisdiction of the courts. It secures that copies of register entries are prima facie evidence of the matters specified in the entries, defines the nature of any certification by a registrar as to the transfer of a loan instrument, and confers jurisdiction on the courts to rectify incorrect register entries and to determine questions of title as to loan instruments. These provisions follow closely the corresponding provisions in the Companies Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 51, line 8, at end insert—
("(7) A copy of an entry in a register maintained under this section which is certified by a registrar of the register and purports to show particulars entered pursuant to subsection (4) or subsection (6) above shall be prima facie evidence of the matters specified in the entry.
(8) A certification by a registrar of a register maintained under this section of any instrument of transfer of a loan
1200
instrument is to be taken as a representation by him to any person acting on the faith of the certification that there have been produced to the registrar such documents as on their face show a prima facie title to the loan instrument in the transferor named in the instrument of transfer; but such a certification shall not be taken as a representation that the transferor has any title to the loan instrument.
(9) If—

(a) the name of any person is, without sufficient cause, entered in or omitted from a register maintained under this section, or

(b) default is made or unnecessary delay takes place in making any entry required to be made in such a register,

the person aggrieved may apply to the High Court or a county court for rectification of the register.
(10) Where an application is made under subsection (9) above, the court—

(a) may refuse the application or order rectification of the register;

(b) may decide any question relating to the title of a person who is a party to the application to have his name entered in or omitted from the register; and

(c) generally may decide any question necessary or expedient to be decided for rectification of the register.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 [Basic credit approvals]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 86A:
Page 58, line 2, leave out ("Before the beginning of each financial year") and insert ("By a date not later than 20th December in the financial year preceding that in which it is to have effect").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 86B and 86C.
This matter received some consideration at Committee stage. My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton moved an amendment which provided that there should be a deadline of 30th November for the issue of credit approvals for the ensuing year. In response, the Minister said that it was far better to rely on the goodwill of the parties concerned and the Government's desire to issue credit approvals as soon as possible rather than to impose a deadline.
When we were considering the matter in Committee, we did not realise the extent to which deadlines were necessary. It is 23rd October. The overspill will carry on until 16th November. The Queen's Speech will not be until 21st November. The Chancellor's Autumn Statement will hardly be made before the very end of November. Indeed it is now being suggested that it should be called a Winter Statement rather than an Autumn Statement. This not only erodes parliamentary time—that would not matter quite so much—but the time available for local authorities to prepare their budgets for the ensuing year and to engage in the consultations with government about the very detailed approvals which will be necessary from government in order for the authorities to produce their budgets. In a sense, the same thing happens to central government. However, in considering this Bill I am not concerned with their difficulties but with those of local authorities.
In Committee my noble friend moved a deadline of 30th November. To show how reasonable we are, we now propose that it should be 20th December. In Amendment No. 86B we propose that the period

1201
of consultation shall be not less than three weeks. It was stated in Committee that government liked a period of six weeks for the consultation process to be completed. We are squeezing the local authorities as well as government. I think that noble Lords will feel that that is fair. It is a tough task for local authorities to respond effectively to consultation about credit approvals within a period of three weeks. But the overriding importance of getting the credit approvals agreed before Christmas is such that we think that local authorities will be prepared to live with this shorter consultation period. Then, in Amendment No. 86C, we add that:
"No regulations shall be made in respect of a financial year after the date"
of 20th December, which we have already specified.
I have talked about the delay that there will be this year. Of course the delay in preparatory work this year, as this legislation is still proceeding, is even greater. The very regulation for establishing the process of credit approvals was first issued in a consultation paper only last Thursday. So it is extremely difficult for us to understand what is in the Government's mind and extremely difficult for us to repsond in responsible way to it. But we have tried to do that. We have tried to be reasonable. We have squeezed the local authorities as well as the Government.
However, we cannot imagine how local authorities will be able properly to consider the basic credit approvals for the year beginning 1st April, unless they have the full period from 20th December until the end of March, in order to take account of the limits which have been set by government, in order to make their plans for the following year accordingly and in order to set a community charge level at the time that they are supposed to do it. There are already indications that the complexity of the community charge for 1990 is such that many local authorities will not get valid demands out until April or even May of next year. That is a very serious situation and one caused not by any dilatoriness on the part of local authorities, but by the sheer complexity of the legislative provisions which are being forced upon them. If the basic credit approvals for the forthcoming year are not available until the new year, then the risk of the whole process falling behind is very much greater.
I hope that the Government will see these amendments in the spirit in which they are put down, a spirit of compromise, with the proposals which we put at Committee, and that they will find the support of the House. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure how my noble friend the Minister will reply to this amendment, but I want to speak strongly in support of the thrust behind the amendment. It is reasonable to expect that this year there will be delays in getting to local authorities information that they require for making their budgets. If the Bill remains as drafted then, instead of information getting to local authorities by the beginning of the financial year, it could in extremis get to local authorities after
1202
their budget-setting meeting, and the information about credit approvals will have an impact on the community charge.
So I am not sure whether the date of 20th December is a correct date or whether it should be written into the body of the Bill. But what I want to support is that the information on credit approvals is got to local authorities as soon as possible, preferably before the end of the year preceding the year in which the credit approvals apply, and almost certainly before the budget-setting meeting of most local authorities, which probably takes place in early to mid-February.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, these amendments cover issues which we discussed in Committee and which were also considered extensively in another place. Let me deal first with Amendment No. 86A. It is hard to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and my noble friend Lady Blatch, and we do not disagree that we have emphasised the importance of stability and forward planning in the system.
More importantly, we have given assurances, both in this House and in another place, that we will issue credit approvals as early as practicable. I will repeat these assurances tonight, but I will also explain again why we do not think a statutory deadline is sensible.
Let me start with my assurance, because I know the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will be keen to have that on the record again. We fully in tend to do our utmost to issue credit approvals to the same timetable as we have issued capital allocations in the past. I would remind your Lordships in passing that we have achieved the present timetable without a statutory deadline. That means that we would aim to have basic credit approvals issued before Christmas; in other words, in line with the statutory deadline which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is now proposing.
The deadline in the Bill at present is technical. No government will issue basic credit approvals as late as 31st March. The difficulty with a realistic statutory deadline is simple. What date should one make it? If it is too late—say, 28th February or even 31st January—it is worthless. Indeed it may be worse than worthless, because there is always a danger it will be seen as a target and will cause credit approvals to be issued later than they might have been. If it is too early—say, 30th November—then it is not attainable. That is because as I explained in Committee, credit approvals cannot be issued before the Autumn Statement. And one has to allow a reasonable time for consultation after the Autumn Statement.
So that means one must go for a date round about Christmas, as this amendment has done. That is about the right date, and it is a date we would hope to meet. But if it is statutory, then it is not possible to miss it, even by a week, if for an exceptional reason it is sensible to do so.
So for example if, as a result of consultation, we wanted to consider a slight change in the distribution of credit approvals, it may not be possible to do so because there might not be time to make the change. Or if, for whatever reason, local authorities were late

1203
with their bids for expenditure for some particular and perfectly valid reason, we may not be able to give them a few days' grace.
In brief, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, we want an opportunity for meaningful consultation, and we want to take account of the latest possible information and bids from local authorities. That is not compatible with a fixed statutory deadline close to the point where we hope to issue credit approvals, because we will meet the deadline without difficulty nine times out of ten. But the tenth time, when it is sensible to issue credit approvals a week later, we will be caught and have to make a less sensible distribution.
That brings me to Amendment No. 86B concerning consultation. This subject has been thoroughly aired both here and in another place. In one sense, there is very little between us. We both believe that it is important for dialogue and consultation to take place between the Government and local authorities on this matter. But the difference between us is that the Government do not believe that it is useful to make this consultation statutory.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said in Committee that the present ad hoc arrangements need to be strengthened by statutory—presumably central—consultation. He implied that this was a bad thing. But if there is anything ad hoc about the present arrangements, it is because we carry out consultations at a service block level. The Department of the Environment consults on housing allocations, the Department of Transport consults on transport allocations and so on.
Thus, it is not surprising that practices vary from department to department. I would be worried if they did not. Planning for a road programme is very different from planning for local environmental services. So why should the discussion between the Department of Transport and local authorities on roads be the same as that between the Department of the Environment and local authorities on local environmental services?
In a nutshell, we think it is right that consultation should take place at departmental level where needs can be sensibly discussed. Consultation at a central level would be less meaningful because one can only look at need when one looks at what the money is being spent on. And if consultation is to take place at departmental level, then we think there is no reason why it should be contrained to take place in a common format by legislation.
I would add that the departmental consultation seems to work very well. Let me take housing as an example. We have been consulting with local authorities since last year on the review of the generalised needs index which will be fed into the calculation of annual capital guidelines. The HIP process, in which each authority submits bids and discusses them with the department is well established. On 23rd November a meeting of the Housing Consultative Council will consider proposals developed by this department in consultation with the local authority associations for the distribution of housing annual capital guidelines for next year.
1204
We believe that the necessary consultation processes already operate well at present. We firmly intend to continue them and we leave open the offer made by the Minister for Local Government in his letter of the 12th July to consider proposals for their further development. We remain of the view that there is nothing to be gained from a move to statutory consultation.
Finally, Amendment No. 86C seeks to require that any regulations requiring basic credit approval to specify amortisation periods would have to be made not later than 20th December in the financial year preceding that in which the regulations are to be have effect. We have, as your Lordships will be aware, responded to consultations with the local authorities by adopting the reducing balance method set out in Schedule 3 in place of our earlier proposals for equal instalments of principal. We therefore have no reason at present for wishing to make use of the regulation-making power to specify amortisation periods. The only credit approvals which will carry specific amortisation periods will be supplementary credit approvals issued in relation to expenditure which is only expenditure for capital purposes by virtue of the Secretary of State so directing under Clause 37(6). Subsequent special credit approvals must by virtue of Clause 51(5) themselves specify an amortisation period. If at some future date we were to decide that there was a case for making such regulations, I have to tell your Lordships that this amendment does not add anything. The regulations would have to be made before basic credit approvals were issued: otherwise the basic credit approvals would not specify a borrowing period. So whatever date is set for basic credit approvals being issued under Subsection (1) is in effect also a deadline for these recommendations.
In summary, on Amendments Nos. 86A and 86B we are very close both to the Opposition and to my noble friend Lady Blatch in terms of our objectives, but in both cases we disagree that a statutory framework is appropriate. I have explained the reasons why and I hope that the assurances I have given will be of some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. We believe that Amendment No. 86C is unnecessary for the reasons I have just given; and I hope the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may see fit to withdraw his amendments.
6.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, let me deal first with Amendment No. 86C. I understand the point which the Minister makes about the amortisation period and I am glad to have his assurance that it is not intended that there should be any change in the system for amortisation, which was amended, as he has reminded us, at Committee stage.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 86A and 86B, I am bound to say that I do not think there is any real understanding of the nature of the problem which is facing local authorities. I referred to the consultation paper which was issued last week. It was not really a consultation paper but a note about capital finance

1205
regulations and it was received by local authority associations on 19th October, last Thursday. It states:
"the following statutory instruments will need to be made under Part IV of the Local Government and Housing Bill:

(a) Local Authority Capital Finance Regulations;

(b) Local Authority Capital Finance (Rate of Discount) Regulations, to be made annually to prescribed a rate of discount under Clause 46 of the Bill;

(c) Local Authority Approved Investments Regulations, to be made under Clause 63(1)"—

that is the matter we have been debating this evening—

"(d) Local Authority Borrowing Regulations, to be made under Clauses 40(5) and 43(6);

(e), Local Authority Companies Order, to be made under Clause 36(5) of the Bill;

(f) an order under Clause 36(5) of the Bill to make provision in respect of Passenger Transport Executives;

(g) Parish and Community Councils (Capital Finance) Regulations to be made under Clause 36(3);

(h) Local Authority Capital Finance (Repeals and Consequential Amendments) Order, to be made under Clause 186(2)".

This is a very long list of statutory instruments which will have to be made under only one part of this Bill. It is not that they are actually being made or that we have any indication that they will be ready when Royal Assent is given to the Bill. This is just a note from the department saying that these statutory instruments will be required. The note goes on to say that there are technical legal reasons why they have to be in separate statutory instruments.
Then it gets worse, because the next paragraph states that Annex A gives proposals for regulations to be included in the Local Authority Capital Finance Regulations and Annex B lists proposed repeals and consequential amendments. Separate consultation has taken place on the Local Authority Capital Finance (Rate of Discount) Regulations, and the content of the the Local Authority Companies Order is in the letter for local authorities which was sent out on 17th October.
Annex C indicates other provisions that are currently envisaged, and states that consultations on these other items will take place as soon as practicable. What that means is that for many of the statutory instruments not only are there no draft regulations and not only is there no draft of the statutory instrument, but the consultation has not yet taken place.
The prospect of getting proper decisions out of the Government on these essential elements to local authority finance in time for local authorities to plan their finance for 1990–91 is minimal. There is hardly a chance that any of these things will take place. The idea that under one part alone of this Bill we have eight separate lots of statutory instruments and that for the majority of them even the consultation as to their content has not yet taken place by 23rd October is—I was going to say farcical—an outrage. It is totally unacceptable and it is equally unacceptable that this legislation should be forced through this House at this time in October in such a short interval before the end of this Session when the next Session cannot come before the 21st November. That means that the Autumn Statement which will determine the capital allowances cannot come until the end of
1206
November and thus local authorities are being held over a barrel. Everything is being done for the convenience of the Government, who are complicating legislation in ever greater detail and complicating the way in which local authorities are controlled and bound hand and foot by central government legislation.
I suggest to the House that this simply shows that the Government have got their regulation machinery totally out of control and that there is no prospect whatsoever of our achieving a reasonable deadline in 1989 for decisions about the 1990–91 budget. The Minister's reply was so complacent, so weak and so inadequate in the face of the facts that I am strongly tempted to seek the opinion of the House on it. But before doing so I want to give the Minister an opportunity to try to rescue the situation from the Government's point of view.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fear I am not going to be able to satisfy the requirements of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. He will expect me to say that we are trying to achieve the impossible. I deny that, and I really feel I can do no better than remind him of the remarks that I made earlier. He knows what they are and he disagrees; he will not thank me for repeating them to him.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think the Minister gives me any choice. He has not sought to defend the timetable as it has taken place up to now, 23rd October. He cannot possibly expect us to believe that this is going to be one of the nine times out of ten when there will be a final decision by the 20th December. I think it is necessary to show the Government that this is not a matter on which local authorities can continue to be led by the nose. I think the noble Baroness wishes to intervene and I will gladly give way.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He knows that I am sympathetic with the plea to government about getting information to local authorities n time for them properly to plan their expenditure. Therefore I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, whether he would not think again about the reply that he received. Given that this year is a special case in terms of this legislation, I would argue very strongly on the side of local authorities that we do not delay this legislation and that it is put into place as quickly as possible. Also I urge that we should accept the assurances that the aim will always be to have the information out well before Christmas of the financial year in which the new legislation applies. It would be unfortunate to press the matter to a vote because of all the arguments about a specific date in the year. With all the support that I can muster for the plea being made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I ask that information should be made available to local authorities as early as possible in order to enable proper planning.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that was a somewhat lengthy intervention. I must remind the noble Baroness and the House that we raised all these matters in Committee. We proposed a

1207
timetable which was brushed on one side. We were given the same smooth words about "doing our best" and "nine times out of 10 it will work". If in Committee we had said to the Government that they must have eight separate sets of statutory instruments on Part IV of the Bill; if we had said, "You will not get out the first consultation paper until 17th October"; if we had said, "On 18th October you will be issuing a note to the working party saying that some of the consultation has yet to take place", we should have been howled down and told that we were scaremongering.
This is no longer scaremongering. The ability of Government to make the financial provision for local government in 1990–91 is at stake. Unless we express our detestation of the complexity of these regulations and the failure of Government to make them within an adequate timescale we shall be failing in our duty. If the result of having a deadline is that the whole legislation must be delayed for a year—and I suspect that we are moving towards that—so be it. However, we cannot allow local authorities to be browbeaten in the way that is now being proposed.
The amendments are reasonable. They take account of the arguments put forward in Committee. In particular, they make life hard for local authority associations. They are the minimum that we should be requiring and the House should take a decision on them.
6.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 86A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 76.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Airedale, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lockwood, B.

Avebury, L.

Longford, E.

Barnett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Birk, B.

Nicol, B.

Blackstone, B.

Ogmore, L.

Bottomley, L.

Phillips, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Rea, L.

Rochester, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Sainsbury, L.

David, B.

Seear, B.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Stedman, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Galpern, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Grey, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Underhill, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Walston, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kagan, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Beloff, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Belstead, L.

Arran, E.

Blatch, B.

Auckland, L.

Blyth, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Boardman, L.

1208

Borthwick, L.

Marley, L.

Caithness, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Mersey, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Moran, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mottistone, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cox, B.

Munster, E.

Craigavon, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

Elibank, L.

Onslow, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Orkney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gainford, L.

Pender, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gray, L.

Reay, L.

Greenway, L.

Renwick, L.

Gridley, L.

Sharples, B.

Halsbury, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hesketh, L.

Hooper, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Teviot, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Trefgarne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trumpington, B.

Lawrence, L.

Ullswater, V.

Long, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Lyell, L.

Wise, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wynford, L.

Margadale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7 to 8 p.m.]
[Amendments Nos. 86B and 86C not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 86D:
Page 58, line 23, at end insert—
("(5A) When issuing to an authority its basic credit approval for any given finanacial year the Secretary of State shall specify whether—

(a) a provisional total for credit approval of that authority for each of the succeding two financial years together with an indication of the proposed allowance for capital receipts; or

(b) provisional totals for the annual capital guidelines and allowances in respect of capital receipts for those years will be issued, and such totals shall be issued within one month of such determination.")

To require one or other of the mechanisms specified by the Minister for provisional credit approvals, within a timetable.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. As the House will be aware, his amendment deals with Clause 50 and supplementary credit approvals. The purpose and basis of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to issue forward planning figures for credit approvals and/or annual capital guidelines and to state what allowance he intends to make for the use of capital receipts.
A similar amendment was moved in Committee. One of the pleasures in preparing for a debate is to

1209
look at what the Minister said the last time round. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said:
"We have not yet decided whether it would be sensible to give forward indications for credit approvals in total or for the annual capital guidelines and receipts allowances separately. That depends to some extent on how we take account of receipts. It is something we wish to discuss with local authorities".—[Official Report, 26/7/89; col. 1505.]
We wonder whether the Minister can tell the House what he meant by the words:
"It is something we wish to discuss with local authorities".
My advice is that since that time there have been no discussions on that point between the department and local authority associations.
Can the Minister tell the House, as I think he should, that the Government are still committed to giving forward planning totals and, specifically, whether in issuing credit approvals or 1990–91 they will announce provisional totals for 1991–92 and 1992–93? The absence of any firm proposals on the form of guidelines for future years casts suspicion on the Government's commitment to forward planning.
I do not raise this matter in any sinister way but the Minister will understand that people outside the House are somewhat concerned to see that the Minister makes what we think is a proper commitment and they are also anxious to see the colour of his money. They want to know precisely what is going on.
The information required of local authorities by some government departments in determining capital resources casts doubt on the usefulness of forward planning totals to authorities. For example, the Department of Health, in inviting bids for personal social services capital expenditure seeks information on expenditure plans on priority areas for one year only; that is, 1990–91. How can the department possibly determine guidelines for future years when they have only partial information on expenditure plans for one year?
Perhaps the Minister can assist the House and, more importantly, the anxious men and women outside the House who are trying to give some credence to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have considered this matter further since it was raised in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, might like me to respond first by saying what we propose to do.
As the noble Lord is aware, basic credit approvals will be calculated for each authority as the sum of annual capital guidelines for that authority less a central amount of receipts taken into account. There will be an annual capital guideline for each service block for which the authority is responsible. These will be distributed between authorities by the relevant service departments. The "receipts taken into account" variable will be a central deduction and will reflect authorities' relative ability to finance expenditure from capital receipts.
We have decided now that we will issue to each authority a provisional total for their annual capital guidelines for each of the two years following that for which they have received their basic credit approval. We would then not expect to issue actual
1210
ACGs for these years less than this provisional total. At the same time we will announce ceilings for the national totals in these two years of receipts taken into account. Again, we would not expect the actual receipts taken into account to be greater than this ceiling.
This information will give authorities a good indication of the minmum basic credit approval they can expect to receive in these two years. It delivers the second of the two mechanisms put forward in the amendment, and it is consistent with the proposals we made on this in the consultation paper on the new system last year, which were set out in paragraph A.17 of that paper.
There are two reasons why we do not accept this amendment. The first is technical and is one that I set out in Committee. Annual capital guidelines have no statutory basis in Part IV. They are a stage in the administrative process through which we propose to calculate credit approvals so it would not be possible simply to include them in one provision here without a more substantive amendment.
The second reason is more important. The amendment would not actually do local authorities very much good. It is not as good as the procedure we are proposing. It seems to me the noble Lord is in a dilemma. Does he trust us or does he not? If he does, why does he not accept the proposal included in the consultation paper, which we have stated our intention of meeting ever since, and which I have restated? If, on the other hand, he does not trust us—which is a possibility—why has he proposed this amendment? If he believes we do not want to give these provisional figures—and I do not know why he should—we could simply accept his amendment and render it meaningless by issuing very low figures. Even then we would not have to stick by them.
The noble Lord can trust us. Providing authorities with provisional figures for future years is not a policy that has been forced on an unwilling Government. It is a firm intention that we came forward with ourselves last year in the consultation paper. We have said nothing since to suggest that we do not intend to go through with it. On the contrary, we have reiterated our intention on several occasions and I can assure the noble Lord again that we intend to operate it in the way I have set out today. I hope that the noble Lord can therefore withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If the Minister is saying that local government is safe in his hands there are those outside the House who, from bitter experience, would take issue with that. The Minister was shrewd in saying, "You either trust me or you do not". The Minister knows that we on these Benches convey to this Chamber the substantial anxieties of people outside this House. Therefore, this amendment owes its genesis to those in local government who have suggested the kind of amendment necessary and who are anxious for the Minister to say a little more.
I am certainly prepared to accept that the Minister has said a little bit more, but I drew attention to his statement in July that these matters would be

1211
discussed with local authorities. I am told that no such discussions have taken place so the Minister does not need to look beyond his own words to understand why people are uneasy—I will not use the word "suspicious".
The Minister has had his own experience in local government, which I respect. He has many contacts and all the vibes. Being a local government man or woman in 1989 is far from a picnic. Frankly, the Government have created a minefield through which people must pick their way in order to keep out of trouble.
Other than arguing vehemently against the whole philosophy of this Bill, what we have sought to do here is to say what the local authorities want. They want something firmer than they have had until now; namely, some provisional figures to work on. I have listened very carefully to what the Minister said. I believe he said it in good spirit. I do not remotely challenge either his sincerity or his integrity in these matters. My advice to those outside the House would be to trust the Minister, certainly on this issue and on many others. However, he must understand that their concerns are not idly based; they have been through this situation before and they have their own store of information and experience to guide them. Their experiences are not happy ones. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 [Criteria for issuing credit approvals]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 86E:
Page 59, line 4, after ("factors") insert ("expressed in a formula which shall be expressed in papers laid before both Houses of Parliament").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 86F. These amendments refer to a debate which took place at the Committee stage and rely to some extent on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh. When this matter was debated in Committee he said he considered that the proper mechanism would be one which set an objective figure for each local authority. He expected to discuss the method with the local authorities before it was adopted. The Minister said that he expected the method to be based in part at least on the use of a formula.
I am sorry, but I have introduced the matter right in the middle. I should have explained the purpose of the amendments before going into the argument. The amendments require the Secretary of State to set out in a formula the factors that he takes into account in determining local authorities' credit approvals and, as regards Amendment No. 86E, to consult local government before deciding on the formula.
Credit approvals are not a simple matter. Nobody is suggesting that the formula can be expressed in an algebraic manner with a very small number of expressions. It is well known that the formula for credit approvals—that is, the amount of money that local authorities are able to raise—will be based in part on capital receipts from the disposal programme and also in part on the needs indicators of
1212
deprivation and other elements which differentiate one local authority from another.
Needs indicators have never been simple to decide. Despite valiant attempts to simplify them, they have become more and more complicated as the years have gone by. There was a time in the mid-1970s when I thought I understood them. I certainly do not claim to understand the formulae which are now used for the assessment of needs as between one local authority and another. The amendment requires specifically that the Secretary of State will do what the Minister indicated—in other words, he will spell out in public his assessment of the expected receipts at individual local authority level. That would be one part of the formula. As I have said, the other part would be based on needs.
The Minister went further than saying that he would expect the method to be based on a formula. He continued by stating that it was not really a problem because local authorities are well aware of the criteria of capital allocations. With due respect, I suggest that is not the case. Local authorities are not aware of the criteria for capital allocations. The fact that such allocations are quite frequently underspent means that local authorities do not have an opportunity far enough in advance to anticipate what the credit approvals are likely to be. Therefore, they are unable to undertake the capital programmes which they would need to undertake in order to make full and good use of credit approvals.
In all those respects the requirement for a formula and for some degree of consistency and continuity in establishing credit approvals is one that ought not to be controversial. The second requirement in Amendment No. 86E for consultation with local government is self-explanatory. It is clear that if the formulae are properly set out and are the basis of proper consultation, there is a greater chance that local authorities will be able to contribute to the process of establishing what credit approval shall be; to contribute to the process of seeing that credit approvals are adequate to the needs of the local communities, but not excessive for those purposes; and also to contribute to the ability of local authorities to use credit approvals well and wisely in the course of the municipal year.
These amendments follow closely the observations of Ministers during the Committee stage and I hope they will find the approval of the Government and the House. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the question of a statutory requirement for consultation with the local authority associations has been aired at many stages during the passage of this Bill both in your Lordships' House and in another place. I do not propose to go over all the same ground again in detail as I think the Government's views are well known. However, the arguments against a requirement that there should be statutory consultation on a formula in respect of the criteria for issuing credit approvals highlight our case.
Starting with a requirement for a single formula is neither realistic nor practical. We would have to devise it, consult on it, presumably amend it, and

1213
then consider applying it before credit approvals could be issued. There is no way that this could be done for the coming financial year, 1990–91, when the new system is due to start. It is not possible to set out a neat formula covering all the relevant factors which might be taken into account in the criteria for issuing credit approvals. First, listing the factors would be an extremely difficult task. One has to bear in mind that the basic credit approval will cover spending on most local authority services. Secondly, the task of evaluating these factors one against another would be immensely complex.
At the moment each service department has a different method of approach in the distribution of resources. That is only right and proper because the way to plan ahead varies from service to service. For example, transport capital allocations are to a considerable extent derived on the basis of the estimated costs of particular road schemes. In no way could such a distribution be achieved by the use of anything that could be described as a formula. Nevertheless, it is a perfectly sensible way of issuing capital allocations and one which I expect will continue in the new sysem.
I can see that there may be disagreements between the Department of Transport and the local authorities about the level of provision for road schemes and the relative priority of individual schemes. But I do not think that the general approach has been seriously questioned. Indeed, the formula approach would in effect prevent local authorities from undertaking big schemes because no formula would produce the abnormally large amounts that would be required in the years in which such schemes were carried out.
It is important to bear in mind that the amendment applies not only to basic credit approvals but also to supplementary credit approvals. Supplementary credit approvals will be used for the purposes for which specific capital allocations are issued now. To take one example, is it really the intention that there should no longer be specific allocations for coast protection schemes? I very much doubt it. If that is the intention—that is to say, to preclude government departments from issuing specific credit approvals covering particular projects—then I have to say that not only the Government but many of the local authorities would be most unhappy. Many of the representations that we receive are to the effect that we are far too ready to distribute resources by means of broadly based formulae and that we are far too reluctant to recognise the merits of individual projects.
That is not to say that it is never appropriate to use formulae. A large part of the resources distributed for housing are in fact distributed in accordance with what is known as the generalised needs index, which has been the subject of extensive consultation with the local authority associations. Equally, much of the resources available in the other services block have been distributed by means of formulae recommended by the local authority associations. But I cannot agree that a formula or several formulae should always be employed. Revenue expenditure is different from capital expenditure. It is more stable
1214
from year to year and lends itself to a formula, but a formula could not cope by itself with the peaks and troughs of a capital programme.
I now turn to Amendment No. 86F. Consultation focusing on a formula would concentrate consultation at the wrong level. I have to reiterate that the appropriate level for consultation is with the appropriate service department. That is the level at which the details of expenditure plans are worked out. There is already considerable consultation at this level. The then Minister with responsibility for local government wrote to the chairmen of the local authority associations in July. He said that if they considered there was scope or need for development of the existing opportunities for consultation, he would invite them to discuss this, in the first instance with officials in the relevant service department. Although they have not responded at all to that letter, we believe that that is the way to proceed. We are firmly committed to continuing consultation and building on it.
That said, we do accept, however, that there are some general matters relating to the level of capital expenditure which have a bearing on the level of credit approvals and annual capital guidelines under the new system. We are perfectly ready to discuss this with the associations at the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance or in the appropriate office subgroup. But we do not think that it is appropriate for this to become the main vehicle for detailed discussion. I suggest that the amendment is not the way to proceed, which is why the Government resist it.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I understand that I can speak at this stage to seek elucidation. I have not followed what the Minister said. I wonder whether he would like to comment on my view of the clause itself and of the amendment. There is a basic difference here. The clause says:
"the Secretary of State or other Minister may have regard, subject to the following provisions of this section, to such factors".
The amendment seeks to insert the words,
"expressed in a formula which shall be expressed in papers laid before both Houses of Parliament".
Is the difference simply that the Minister knows the answer—he knows it all—as distinct from both Houses of Parliament having a contribution to make to what would be an important formula? In both Houses there is a wealth of experience in this kind of work. Unless there is some other factor which the Minister has not mentioned in his reply, if the formula is expressed in papers laid before both Houses of Parliament (which presumably would be debatable) we are more likely to come to a better answer than we would under the clause as it stands.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fully understand what the noble Lord is saying. The difficulty is that he makes the assumption that the formula will be there in order to be discussed in front of both Houses of Parliament.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister. There were times when he almost convinced me—I shall not say that he

1215
convinced me of the argument—that a respectable attempt was being made by the Government to give adequate guidance both to local government and to the community as a whole. However, as soon as he referred to the willingness of the Government to discuss these matters at the Central Consultative Committee on Local Government Finance, he lost me. He knows as well as I do that the consultative committee has increasingly become a dead letter under this Government. It used to be a serious negotiating forum. It used to be a conference at which papers, properly prepared, were issued in advance so that sensible discussion could take place on important matters. More recently it has been used by Ministers as an opportunity to harangue local government rather than to discuss matters with it. Any idea that the Central Consultative Committee will be a forum for a sensible two-way discussion of financial aspects of local government is frankly laughable.
The Minister resists the idea of formulae and resists the idea of exposing publicly the Government's thinking on local authority finance. I quite understand why the Government should resist the idea of exposing the thinking, because very often there is no thinking. Secretaries of State decide for political rather than social or financial reasons the way in which they will distribute the largesse of central government grants to local government. When the Minister referred in his response to the happy example and to the success as he called it of formulae in housing finance, I fear that he exposed the bankruptcy of Government thinking in this respect as well. The housing finance formulae have become more and more complicated and have moved further and further from reality. They have enabled the Secretary of State to increase or decrease grant support to individual local authorities as he thinks fit on the basis of reward or blame for political conformity or otherwise.
The same is clearly true, and will be seen to be true on Wednesday, about the poll tax. In the amendments on the poll tax put down for Report stage the Government have given up any pretence that there will be a rational or consistent approach to the setting of the tax. It will be done on a basis of political favouritism. The formulae that are used—they can barely be dignified by the name of "formulae"—are devised for that purpose. It is blatantly so. The negotiations are taking place not with local authorities which know what is happening. They are taking place with Sir Rhodes Boyson who knows what the political effect of any determination will be. The political effect is dominant in all these matters.
It is not surprising therefore that the Government, who are determined to use local finance not for social or economic purposes but for political purposes, should resist the simple idea put forward in the amendments. It is what we used to call in arithmetic at school "show working"—show the way in which the conclusion was reached. They are resistant to the idea of showing the way in which they reach a conclusion because they cannot admit in public that the way in which they reach a conclusion is political and not financial, social or
1216
economic. It is a poor display of secret government as opposed to open government. I am not in the least surprised by the Minister's response but that cannot lessen my disappointment in it and my dissatisfaction with the conclusion that he reaches. It is only because of the hour of night that I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 86F not moved.]
Clause 55 [Capital receipts]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 62, line 28, leave out ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 88 to 90. Under the existing capital control system capital receipts are defined at Section 75 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. In very broad terms these are sums received for the disposal of land and other tangible assets. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has a power to provide that specified classes of sums received which would otherwise be receipts should not be treated as receipts for the purposes of the capital control system. He can do this through a regulation-making power at Section 75(5) of the 1980 Act.
That power has been exercised. It has been used to exclude the proceeds of disposals of land and other tangible assets held for the purposes of or in connection with the police, probation and after care and magistrates' court services and the Central Criminal Court. These exclusions were made because expenditure on these services is at present controlled separately from the existing capital control system.
In contrast, the new system of capital finance will cover expenditure on all local authority services, including police, probation and after-care and magistrates' courts services. From 1st April 1990 these services along with other local government services will be subject to the new system of capital finance. The new system requires authorities to set aside on 1st April 1990 the appropriate part of their accumulated capital receipts as provision for credit liabilities. The amendment allows the Secretary of State to provide by regulations that accumulated receipts on the law and order services are treated the same way as other receipts in this respect. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 88 to 90:
Page 62, line 28, at end insert ("either").
Page 62, line 29, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(a)").
Page 62, line 30, at end insert ("or
(b) did not constitute such receipts by virtue of regulations under section 75(5) of that Act but are specified for the purposes of this subsection by regulations made by the Secretary of State").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
8.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Strabolgi): My Lords, I must inform the House that if Amendment No. 90A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 90B.
Clause 56 [The reserved part of capital receipts]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 90A:
Page 63, leave out from beginning of line 39 to ("50") in line 42.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to reduce the reserved part of housing capital receipts—for example, that part to be used to repay debt—from 75 per cent. to 50 per cent. More generally, the amendment is intended to allow a debate on central government constraints on local authority housing capital expenditure.
In responding to similar amendments during earlier stages of the Bill, the Government highlighted the trade-off between spending power from capital receipts and from credit approvals. The argument is being put forward that the higher the level of spending power from usable capital receipts, the lower the level of credit approvals within a predetermined—by the Government—spending ceiling.
I see that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is now sitting in his seat. I suspect that he will probably deal with this amendment. He exemplified that argument in Committee in the following terms:
"let us assume the Government consider that £6 billion is an appropriate level of capital expenditure. If we allow £2 billion to be spent from receipts, then we can issue £4 billion worth of credit approvals. If we allow £4 billion to be spent from receipts, then we can only issue £2 billion of credit approvals".—[Official Report, 26/7/89; col. 1528.]
If the total of credit approval is reduced, it becomes more difficult for the Government to allocate resources to high need/low resource authorities.
During the debate on the reserved parts of capital receipts in Committee in another place the former Minister, Mr. Trippier, estimated that a reduction in the reserved part of housing capital receipts from 75 per cent. to 50 per cent. would reduce credit approvals by £900 million. That does not allow individual authorities to gauge the likely level of spending power from capital receipts and credit approvals.
Local authorities are concerned that the new capital expenditure control system will result in an overall reduction in capital resources available to them. That is why they are opposed to the restrictions on the amount of capital receipts which can be used to finance additional capital expenditure. That is understandable because the capital receipts they hold are the only certain source of capital finance.
The concerns of authorities could have been allayed by the Government giving forecasts of lighter levels of credit approvals so that authorities might have an indication of overall capital resources next year. Even at this late stage the Government appear unwilling to give any illustrative figures based upon reasonable assumptions.
This amendment also has the support of the National Federation of Housing Associations. There have been many references during the debates on various amendments today to responses such as, "Leave it to the Secretary of State to deal with by regulation". I was taught in another place that unless a provision appeared on the face of the Bill it could not really be taken as the Bible and indeed it may not happen.
Over the past two or three months we have seen a dramatic change in some respects in the attitude of the present Secretary of State for the Environment as compared with that of his predecessor. In fact, the new Secretary of State has reversed in a number of fields very important decisions which were taken by his predecessor.
I believe that we are mainly talking about the fact that there are capital receipts from the sale of various properties, land, and so on, which local government sells. I think that I am right in saying that the largest sum is that which is collected from the sale of council houses—or it must represent a large chunk of what we are discussing here.
The right-to-buy policy was introduced by a previous Conservative Government but it really concerns the present Government. It was almost written in tablets of stone by the then Secretary of State (who is now a Member of this House but is not present this evening and I make no comment about that) that the main reason for the introduction of the Bill and why people should accept the proposal was as follows. The total financial resources gathered would be made fully available to local authorities which were being forced to sell off the assets to fund other building programmes of local authority housing.
We must all now accept that only last week the Government declared themselves against that policy and against any increased dimension therein. The Minister's answer from the Dispatch Box was that the Government no longer see local authorities as being involved in substantial local authority building contracts. If the Government have their way that is to be the future role of housing associations. Indeed the Minister said that to me a week ago last Monday. It seems that we must now forget local authorities in terms of building houses in volume.
What an absolute fraud has taken place on local authorities if the same Government can now say that to such local authorities after having pushed the Bill through both Houses of Parliament. The Secretary of State and Ministers had given guarantees that local authorities could be absolutely sure of a copper-bottomed guarantee that that was their money and they could use it to build council houses.
There was a calculation at the time that in order to build one council house from the proceeds of the sale of council houses local authorities would have to sell two such houses. I am not a mathematical genius but if you take the discounts over which the Government have consistently moved the goalposts as sales tapered off so as to bribe more people to buy council houses—by increasing the percentages—I suspect that, with the present cost of house-building local authorities must carry out, they would now need to sell three to four local authority houses because of the massive discount. However, even then, they are on a twist by this Government, because the Government have not kept their word. They funked out of a guarantee which was given.
I am sorry if Ministers think we are being a little abrasive in the matter, but when we are told by Ministers today what this really means, I do not

1219
believe one word of it. I say that even if the Minister says that he is 100 per cent. sincere. This Government have proved their capacity more than any previous government to rat on undertakings which have been given.
The amendment is an attempt to write into the Bill some guarantees of increased resources for local authorities that have been treated outrageously. When we challenge Ministers in another place and this place as to why they have suddenly ratted on their promises to return all the receipts from the sale of council houses to the local authorities, they say that the market has changed and that they have collected more money than they expected. Debate after debate has taken place in the past three years on this subject. Those debates were not motivated by political bodies although they had a political context. There was a report from the Duke of Edinburgh's committee and also Faith in the City, to name but two. They called for more funding from a government who had done a Dick Turpin on local authorities.
The local authorities are asking only to have more of their own money made available. They are not asking for additional money from the Government. They are asking for the right to use some of their own money. I do not think that that is unreasonable. I await the Minister's reply with interest. I shall not accept his reply if he says that if we give the Secretary of State the power, he will be sympathetic to this and that. The Government's track record in keeping undertakings, which they have given in both Houses but which have not been written on to the face of the Bill, has proved to be completely fraudulent, and local authorities no longer trust them.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I support the amendment. The Minister who is to reply is unfortunately wearing a Treasury rather than his former housing hat. It might have been better if he were still in his former role. It is not just local authority housing which we know the Government wish to phase out; housing association housing will be hit if we do not allow local authorities to spend more of their capital receipts.
Wandsworth is supposed to be the feather in the cap of the present Administration. The Conservative Party did well the other day to hold its seat in a crucial by-election. Wandsworth supports housing association schemes by some £8 million of a housing investment programme of £16·6 million out of some £30 million of capital receipts. If we restrict the help that is going on in Wandsworth—I support what is happening there in the way of building housing for housing associations—the programme will collapse.
We understand that it is the Government's policy to switch social housing to those who need it and who cannot afford to buy. God knows, it is hard enough to buy now! If that essential housing provision is to be made, the Government must be more sensible about the way in which local authority capital receipts are used. They must be a bit more generous than they have been up to now. I believe that the whole amount should be made available; but I shall support the amendment as a better alternative than what we have at present.
8.45 p.m.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has explained, the main purpose of the amendment is to reduce the deserved part of capital receipts from council house sales from the 75 per cent. proposed in the Bill to 50 per cent.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I assume that when the noble Earl says "deserved" he means "reserved".
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have been told that I did say "reserved". I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, did not hear me clearly.
This is a more modest reduction than the noble Lord suggested in Committee or has been suggested in another place. I am afraid that it is still a significant change and is not acceptable to the Government for the same reason as the previous amendments were not. That reason is simple—the need to get a sensible distribution of capital spending power. The growth in local authority capital receipts in recent years has been phenomenal. They have more than doubled in the space of three years. The effect on the distribution of capital spending power has been equally dramatic. We have heard a lot in discussion of Part IV about "cuts" in capital spending. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, referred this evening to the overall reduction. It is worth reminding your Lordships that between 1985–86 and the present year, local authority capital spending power has increased from £5·7 billion to £8·1 billion, an increase of 44 per cent.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords—
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, that local authorities have been treated shabbily, and I am not giving way to him. Within that total, capital allocations have fallen from £3 billion to £2·5 billion.
So local authorities can spend more, and they have been spending more. Capital expenditure this year is 46 per cent. up on 1985–86. It is not the authorities that need to spend more that are able to spend more, because while spending power is rising, allocations have been falling. That is where the cuts have been. That is not something that we can ignore. If the noble Lord is honest—and I hope he will be—it is not something he would want us to ignore.
With the percentages that we have chosen, the total for credit approvals and capital grants next year will be significantly higher than capital allocations this year. I cannot say how much higher. That will have to await the Chancellor's Autumn Statement. The amendment would reduce the total for credit approvals by £900 million because of the extra spending it would produce from receipts. That is not something we can accept. I cannot recommend that to the House.
In the second part of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Dean, was a little intemperate. Some of his remarks were unnecessary, particularly in view of the fact that my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding

1221
was not present. I made the situation clear in Committee. I do not wish to weary your Lordships now with a further reply to the noble Lord.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I understand the Minister rising to the defence of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. If he thinks that I took a mean advantage, I have to say that I only repeated what I have said more than once in your Lordships' House. At this time of the year the Government are in consultation—I shall not say negotiating—with authorities. I was always led to believe that consultations meant consultations on the basis of forming a decision or of consultations being taken into consideration when a decision was being arrived at. One was to be consulted about a decision whether or not it was in one's favour.
The Government have stood that procedure on its head. They make decisions and then say to local authorities, "We have done that, and that is your consultation". There are no consultations beforehand. Local authorities are faced with a coup d'état and then the consultation takes place.
The Minister has the advantage over me of being provided with figures by his civil servants. They appear to put most circus jugglers in the shade by the way in which they mislead people. The information that came to me after the Question I put to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, last Monday, was that his reply, given to him by his civil servants, was an appalling sleight of hand. If it was examined in detail, it could have been blown sky-high. I am not too sure that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness is not doing the same thing. He talks about the "substantial increases" being made available to local authorities. What are the local authorities spending it on? They are not building houses. Is he saying that they are receiving more money now than under Lord Stockton? They were building 300,000 houses a year then. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, was boasting that last year they built 140,000 houses and that the building programme had increased. I remember when the annual figure for houses built under any government was over 300,000. All the figures from people dealing with housing, not just the local authorities, show us that we need a target in excess of that if we are to deal with the housing situation.
So I do not accept Ministers blithely trawling figures out which they have been given by the civil servants or the Treasury. Whose figures are they? Nigel Lawson's or the Prime Minister's financial adviser's at Number 10? Which figures concern capital assets, which concern what should be spent, and what effect do they have?
We are not talking about the Government's money, but other people's money which belongs to those who have elected the Government. I find it strange. If the Minister is saying that they have received enough money, with what they have been allowed to spend of their own money, to build 200,000 houses a year, I wish to know why they have not done that. But I am told this by political people, not only from my own party—voices are now being raised in the rural areas, by the Association of County Councils. I have received correspondence,
1222
not from the Labour areas, the Labour cities, but from the hinterland. People say that they cannot build houses, and that they have no houses left because of the Government's policy. I do not accept for one moment what the Minister says to me: that the Government have allowed local authorities enough funds to build a lot of houses. Let the Minister tell me where it has been used.
Perhaps I may put my last question to him. It might pre-empt an Answer or a Statement in the House in a few months' time. What considerations are the Government giving to the bids of the local authorities for next year in the housing investment programme? I know from my own experience as a former chairman of housing, and from when I was in another place as an MP, that authorities made bids and received roughly 50 per cent, across the board, irrespective of need. There was no machinery to determine between individual local authorities, so we made our bid. If Manchester bid for £80 million, they received £40 million. If Leeds (which historically bid lower) bid for £60 million, they received £30 million.
However, the situation now, as I understand it, is that last year people received a third or less than a third of what they wanted. So where are all these assets and capital spending which the Minister tells me local authorities have had? I think he is falling for a sleight of hand from his civil servants. Local authorities do not accept one iota of it. All they know—whether they are Conservative, SDP, Liberal, Labour or whatever their political colour—is that they can no longer build houses. They have sold public assets on the Government's instructions under government legislation in order to raise money which is now being denied to them.
If the Minister wishes to retain credibility—I do not know whether he is speaking on behalf of housing or in his job in the Treasury—he will have to do better than he has. He may accuse me of being intemperate. I shall tell him why I am becoming intemperate. I have been persistently questioning Ministers over the past three years in the most temperate way on a variety of matters to do with housing, with homelessness, with single-parent families, and with repairs. You name it, my Lords, we have done it. We are always fobbed off with a mass of statistics which have been produced by the Minister's civil servants. I am getting a little fed up with it, to the point where it is becoming almost an exercise. I have to say this with the utmost sincerity to the Minister: is it worth asking a Question on housing? Will we receive a reasonable Answer? Will the Government tell the truth? I am getting a little sick of it, whether that is intemperate or not. I am not the only Member of this House who has arrived at that position. The Government and the Ministers will have to do a little better than the hogwash and the whitewash that we have heard tonight.
On the basis of that, and knowing the number of people present and what will take place if I press the amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it. However, what I have said needed saying.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, perhaps I might say

1223
something. I think that what I have heard is a most unfortunate expression. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it on further consideration.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I have no intention of withdrawing anything because I believe that what I have said represents the overwhelming view of local authorities in this country. Not only that, people like myself who have been involved in housing over a number of years feel this. In my opinion, the Government will have to start being less economical with the truth at the Dispatch Box when they talk about housing.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 90B:
Page 63, line 41, after ("per cent.") insert ("(aa) in the case of a receipt from the disposal of dwelling houses built for sale, 0 per cent.")
The noble Lord said; My Lords, this amendment may not generate the same heat as the last one. I hope it will not. It is a probing amendment designed to establish whether the prescribed proportions applying to receipts from the disposal of dwelling houses built for sale under the present system will be carried through to the new system.
Under the present capital control system, receipts from the disposal of dwelling houses built for sale have a prescribed proportion of 100 per cent. That is, they are available in full for reinvestment in the year in which they arise. However it is not clear whether under the proposed system they will have a reserve power of zero—that is be available in full for additional capital expenditure without a proportion having to be set aside to repay debt.
The recent consultation paper issued by the DoE, covering the reserved part of capital receipts does not appear to address this issue. If the Government do not intend to replicate the treatment of these receipts in the new system, I think it only fair that we should ask them to justify that decision. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I spoke earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. His amendment is to follow that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, which has just been spoken to. My answer to the amendments of both noble Lords, will be the same since I have to refer to later government amendments starting with Amendment No. 91. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, would like to comment.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, perhaps I may wait until the amendment arises. I promise to do the right thing.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall therefore cover many of the points on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, apologises for his absence. He has been unavoidably called away. It was not my intention to move Amendment No. 90C, since I was going to withdraw it in favour of later amendments. I do not
1224
know whether the Minister wishes to wait for that or respond now. I promise not to use the wrong procedure.
9 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, what I wish to do is, in answering the amendment which has been moved, to speak to the Government's amendments because they cover the points of concern. As I have just said, I do so because of the government amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Hesketh, Amendments Nos. 91 to 94, 96 to 99, 102 to 104 and 106. Those amendments concern the powers in the Bill to vary the reserved part of capital receipts. The reserved part of a receipt is the part that has to be set aside for debt redemption.
Some of the amendments are technical, but there are two changes of substance. First, Amendments Nos. 91, 93 and 94 enable the reserved part to be set as an amount rather than as a percentage of the capital receipt. Secondly, Amendments Nos. 99 and 102 enable different provision to be made for non-monetary consideration from that made for normal cash receipts.
The amendments result to a large extent from the consideration which I promised we would give to the amendment to Clause 58 which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, moved at Committee stage. I should remind your Lordships that the broad principle behind Clause 58 is that when a local authority sells something in return for non-monetary consideration—in other words sells it for some benefit in kind—then it should make the same provision for debt redemption as it would have to make if it received the benefit in cash. The intention of the noble Lord's amendment was that Clause 58 should not apply to disposals made to registered housing associations. Thus when a local authority provides land to housing associations at reduced prices—or at zero price—for the provision of subsidised rented housing, it would not have to provide for debt redemption on the land, even if it received non-monetary consideration in the form of nomination rights to the housing.
We have thought about that carefully, and I am pleased to tell your Lordships that in this case we agree that an exception to the principle underlying Clause 58 is warranted. Indeed we should go further than the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. He proposed that the exemption should apply only to disposals to housing associations. We see no reason why it should not apply to any case where the authority disposes of land for the provision of subsidised rented housing. So we intend to use those powers to prescribe that where a local authority receives nomination rights in return for the disposal of land, there should be no debt redemption in respect of those nomination rights. We intend to make a similar provision in respect of non-monetary consideration received before 1st April 1990, through the regulation-making power we are taking at Schedule 3. So transactions which have already taken place, or which take place before the end of the financial year will also benefit.
We are also considering urgently whether those powers should be used to assist certain other low-cost

1225
home ownership initiatives for which there is some help in the present system. Those include build under licence, build for sale and shared ownership schemes.
There are already some exemptions for such schemes in the present capital control system. They cover several low cost home initiatives. The need for an exemption arises in the case of build for sale because the local authority incurs expenditure on the building of the houses and then generates a receipt on the sale. The prescribed proportion rules in the present system, or the debt redemption rules in the new system, would normally mean that build for sale schemes would have a cost in terms of the authority's capital resources.
I am pleased to tell the House that we have decided that in the case of build for sale that cost would be an undesirable disincentive for such schemes. Therefore we propose to give an exemption by regulations to ensure that it does not arise. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and in due course, the noble Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will be happy to withdraw their amendments.
We have not yet reached a decision on the other low-cost home ownership exemptions, but I hope that we shall be able to announce decisions on all of them shortly. I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that the announcement of how we intend to use the powers will be welcome news to local authorities and will encourage them to make use of their surplus land to facilitate the provision of subsidised rented housing.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down perhaps he could help me on the question of debt redemption. No doubt I ought to know the answer, but I do not. I dare say that a number of your Lordships also do not know the answer. Is he talking about debt redemption on a debt attaching to the particular site sold or about the total pooled debt of the particular local authority?
The reason I ask is that, if a local authority sells a site which it owns and which is free of debt, it seems extraordinarily unfair that the authority should not be allowed to use the proceeds for whatever it sees to be its most urgent need in terms of capital expenditure.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I understand it, it is the global debt, because a great many local authorities cannot define what part of debt refers to which site.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have departed to some extent from the rules of procedure at Report. Although my noble friend Lord Dean moved only one amendment the Minister has taken the opportunity to respond not only to that amendment but also to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and a whole series of his own amendments which appear to be significant. We shall have to read very carefully what he said, because it appears that he has signalled significant changes in government policy on debt redemption and reserved amounts.
Under the circumstances it is virtually impossible to debate the announcement effectively. Since the
1226
changes will presumably be in the form of regulations, perhaps the Minister will make sure that we see at least a draft of the regulations in good time before Third Reading so that we can return to the matter at that stage.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know the answer to that question. I shall try to find out and let the noble Lord know. We shall try to get the regulations to him.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, on the basis of the exchange that has just taken place I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 90C:
Page 63, line 42, at end insert ("with the exception that, where land is being disposed of to enable low cost housing provision for rent or shared ownership the reserved part of the capital receipt shall be nil.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the statement which the Minister has just made to the House, which I very much welcome, I shall not move Amendment No. 90C standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.
[Amendment No. 90C not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 91 to 94:
Page 63,line 45, after ("receipt") insert ("or provide that the amount which is the reserved part of any capital receipt shall be determined in accordance with the regulations").
Page 64, line 2, leave out from first ("and") to ("100") and insert ("where the regulations specify a percentage, it may be any percentage from nil to").
Page 64, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("subsection").
Page 64, line 23, leave out from ("if") to ("the") in line 26 and insert ("it provided that the reserved part of the receipt were a percentage thereof specified in the direction or, according as the direction provides, an amount determined in accordance with").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 57 [The usable balance of capital receipts.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 65, line 14, leave out from ("falls") to ("section") in line 15 and insert ("within").
The noble Earl said: This is a consequential amendment to an amendment moved in Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [Directions and guidance]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 66, line 4, leave out ("is either") and insert ("either is").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 96A:
Page 66, line 16, at end insert—
("and;
(d) the disposal is not to a registered housing association.").
The noble Lord said: The Minister paid warm tribute to the amendment and to the happy exchange of views which led to his announcement five minutes

1227
ago. Do I take it from what he said, which I followed carefully and found helpful, that the Government accept Amendment No. 96A, or that, if it were withdrawn, something else would be substituted in its place? Amendment No. 96A deals with the exemption from the capital provision for housing associations. Perhaps the Minister will help me. I shall certainly move and speak to the amendment and perhaps, in the light of his reply, withdraw it.
As he reminded the House earlier in responding to a comparable amendment, the Minister convinced me and many people outside the House that he understood our arguments. Perhaps I may tell the House that Mr. Alan Kilburn, chief officer of the North Housing Association, invited me to Epping to look at one of the developments for which his housing association had been responsible. I was taken round the housing development, which—I speak as one who knows the work of the North Housing Association—was well planned and had a very nice atmosphere. However, as Mr. Kilburn told me, what was so crucial to the association being able to charge affordable rents was the fact that Epping Council had been willing—on the basis of a substantial weighting of nominations in favour of the council, but leaving some to the housing association—to make a satisfactory deal under which the land was made available, if not free, certainly very cheaply. As a consequence, the council was discharging some of its responsibilities by providing affordable rents and the housing association was doing its job and had a number of places that it could make available.
The North Housing Association is not the only such example. I am told that such authorities as Bournemouth, Bromsgrove and Wychavon, which are not Labour controlled, and other authorities such as South Buckinghamshire, Three Rivers and Arun are anxiously waiting for the Minister to tell them that they can proceed in their wish to work closely with a housing association. If the kind of easement that we are seeking here is not carried out—in other words, if Clause 58 is not amended—the choice will not be between doing a cheap deal with a housing association or selling the land to a developer; the alternative will be that the council will leave the land sterile. It knows that it cannot house local people at affordable rents if it sells the land to a developer because the developer will pay the proper market price and the cost, whether of renting or buying, will be beyond people's means.
I hope that I have given the Minister a peg upon which to hang his hat and, as I believe he wanted to do earlier, accept the amendment. I am delighted if it is a straightforward amendment. However, if the Minister wishes me to withdraw it in order for a better procedure to be substituted, I shall be happy to do so. I am grateful for the sense of the Minister's words, which, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, genuinely represent an easement. Common sense has prevailed. Housing associations have a major part to play in ensuring that people are housed where they want to be housed at affordable rents and are left to occupy their houses sensibly. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I should perhaps have said that I wanted to cover this amendment in what I said earlier, because the matter is related. I cannot accept his amendment because it does not go far enough, in our view. That was the burden of what I said earlier. We shall accept the principle of the amendment. We fully understand the point that the noble Lord has made. It is very helpful and I am grateful to him for having made it. We shall make it wider by means of regulations.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, am I to understand that the amendment is accepted but that, in interpreting it, the Government will go further by way of regulations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we shall extend the scope of the amendment because the noble Lord's amendment is confined, as I understand it, to housing associations. We do not see why it should not be extended to any subsidised rented housing. We shall take all that into account under regulations. The principle of what the noble Lord wants is agreed. I believe that he will find that in Amendment No. 99.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful and will take the advice of the Minister on this occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has already spoken to Amendments Nos. 97, 98 and 99. Does he wish to move them en bloc?
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness: moved Amendments Nos. 97 to 99:
Page 66, line 24, after ("paid") insert ("or is payable").
Page 66, line 26, at end insert ("or will actually apply when the payment is received").
Page 66, line 31, after ("amount") insert ("which, except in so far as regulations made or directions given by the Secretary of State otherwise provide, shall be").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 66, line 47, at end insert—
("(7) In making regulations under subsection (6) above, the Secretary of State shall take into account the amount and nature of capital development that will be undertaken as a result of the terms of any proposed disposal.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. The company of which I am chairman, Consortium Developments, is not in fact involved in the kind of arrangements with local authorities that are mentioned in this clause. However the individual members of my consortium—the 10 biggest housebuilders—individually are concerned. My interest is therefore only an indirect one.
As background to this amendment, it seems from what is happening at the moment that the Government's action in the inner cities is beginning

1229
to flag; indeed, it is so obviously losing momentum that it has aroused a certain amount of public comment. That comment is summarised by a paragraph in The Times last Tuesday which read:
"After a great fanfare and initial action with the help of the private sector, the Government's programme for aid seems to have run out of steam".
That is about the inner cities. It is my impression also. But my impression and the picture of the general background that I want to paint goes a good deal further. As I shall show in a moment. I am not alone in trying to formulate a sense of dismay.
Some years ago there was a White Paper called Lifting the Burden in which the private sector was asked to produce all kinds of initiatives to take off government the burden of activity and expenditure in the public sector. The private sector responded in many ways. There have been initiatives of all kinds. Indeed, in the inner cities today in most cases it is the private sector that has taken on voluntarily the refurbishment of rundown public sector housing, tower blocks and the rearrangement of very badly rundown areas generally.
The Minister takes pride in the fact that 10,000 acres have been put on the register of public land and that 6,000 acres have already been used. It is the private sector that is buying that land, using it and building houses on it. It was the private sector that demanded the public register in the first place. There is no doubt about the commitment of the private sector to helping the inner cities. Beyond that the private sector has tried to formulate ideas for such things as toll roads and new towns (in my own case) at no cost to the public purse. However, it has proved the case that in nearly every instance these initiatives have been stultified.
The Government seem to have lost the courage of their convictions as set out in the White Paper, Lifting the Burden. There are bureaucratic rules; there is a total lack of imagination in responding to many of the initiatives. I must tell the Minister quite bluntly that my colleagues in the private sector are bruised, disillusioned and angry about the way that the Government are not responding to the urgent needs of the inner cities and breaking through a lot of bureaucracy to get things moving.
We expend enormous sums of money to set up schemes only to find that they are turned down or run into a mass of bureaucracy and never get moving. Indeed, I have with me the correspondence that took place between the Government and a scheme called the Lewisham Phoenix. If there were a prize for the Minister who most frequently misses the essential point of a scheme, there are about six Ministers at the DoE who deal with this matter who would win the prize out of hand. I am astonished that they have put so many obstacles in the way of that essential scheme, which I shall come on to in a moment.
I have made those comments as a member of the private sector. I am not alone. Perhaps the Minister will consider what the Audit Commission, an independent body, said in September last:
"Government support programmes"—
for the inner cities—
1230
"are seen as a patchwork quilt of complexity and idiosyncrasy … They baffle local authorities and business alike. The rules of the game encourage compartmentalised policy approaches rather than a coherent strategy. Key organisational structures have fallen into disrepair".
Those are the words of the independent Audit Commission, not mine; they are not the words of a politician. The commission comprises individual people who watch over government spending. The words echo those of the CBI over a year ago:
"One of the clearest messages to emerge is that the efforts to turn around Britain's cities will be shackled so long as the present uneasy relations between central and local government persist".
It is interesting to see the contrast highlighted in the article in The Times. There is a whole page about the flagging of the Government's initiatives in the inner cities and an interesting contrast is drawn with what is happening in Wales, where one has the Welsh Development Agency. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will remember that her committee recommended such a body in 1980. If one had such a body in England the position would be similar. However, through bureaucracy and lack of imagination the opportunity has been lost and time has gone by.
The proposal for Lewisham is a good peg on which to hang the amendment, which I shall explain in due course. A body called the Phoenix initiative was set up by the private sector in order to develop inner city areas by co-operation between the local authorities and the private sector. With regard to Lewisham there was a proposal for the borough to hand to a private sector-led development body or corporation parcels of land that are difficult or impossible to redevelop in isolation but useful when they are added to plans for adjoining land in a time-consuming, complex regeneration package. The proposal attempted to incorporate pieces of local authority land inside a private sector-led initiative for the regeneration of parts of Lewisham.
The gearing—the favourite word of the Government—is 1:15. For every £1 of possible value of public investment through this land the private sector was willing to spend £15. That is much better than the gearing which applies in Docklands today and in most of the other areas where these schemes occur. It is a very good initiative indeed.
Secondly, in setting up the Lewisham Phoenix scheme, the private sector made it quite clear that it did not want the normal government grants. It does not want City grants or expenses. It does not want the expenditure that the Government would normally offer to such an area. There was therefore a saving for the Treasury.
Thirdly, any profits of the complex redevelopment process, would be spent on urban regeneration projects inside Lewisham. In the end, therefore, the private sector would be setting up a regeneration process in which money that was made by upgrading, increasing land values—exactly as we have done in the statutory new towns—would be ploughed back into the community in urban regeneration projects of great value.
We now come to the DoE ruling set out in the correspondence that I have here, and to Clause 58.

1231
Clause 58 states that in cases where, as a result of barter or handing over of land, no payment is received by the local authority, 50 per cent. of the notional value has to be paid by the local authority under the proposals for the Government to redeem public sector debt.
In the case of Lewisham, if it goes into the scheme, the local authority will have to pay a penalty from other projects, other parts of its activity, or its reserves. It has to find 50 per cent. of the notional value of that land in order to free it for the private sector-led consortium. The authority has to find the money elsewhere. If it has to do so, I am sure that the whole package will fall. It will say that it is not worth it. It does not have the reserves to find the money.
What will my amendment provide? It states that, in these circumstances, in making regulations for the application of Clause 58—which I presume could mean that he could make regulations reducing that 50 per cent. to 40 per cent., 30 per cent., 10 per cent. or nil—the Minister "shall take into account" the gearing, the amount of desirable capital investment, that will take place as a result of the terms of the proposed disposal. That seems to me to be a fair suggestion to put before the Minister.
What, then, do I want? I want first to say this to the noble Earl. There should be a pledge tonight that in the case of schemes such as Lewisham a way will be found, instead of the foul-up and the snarl-up of correspondence into which the whole thing is jammed at this stage—as I said, the private sector is bruised and disillussioned—by someone of imagination to break through and say that these schemes must not run into the ground. A way forward must be found.
Secondly, if Ministers stick to their idea that some payment must be made in the future—a deferred payment is the idea that they have been putting up; it does not attract the local authorities because, as I said, they are scared of having to find the money from somewhere else—the figure will be very low indeed. Instead of 50 per cent. it will be 10 per cent. or some figure that will not frighten anybody, which might be found in the process of regeneration in this scheme as a whole. Some way of eking out some cash to go to the Treasury might be found in the whole process of renegerating this part of Lewisham.
The Government have to become a partner in all this. Instead of sitting on the edge of it, picking bureaucratic points about it and being unable to give it the go-ahead, they should be entering into the spirit of saying, "Yes, we are all in partnership to regenerate the inner cities—the Government, too—and we are not prepared to have bureaucratic restraints of this kind which are stopping the whole process from starting".
Thirdly, I hope that in order to start this process the Government will at last begin to state some faith in local government and in projects of this kind. I was not at all surprised when my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick exploded this evening. My goodness, the noble Earl has had it coming for years with the amount of knocking, criticising and
1232
confining of local government that has gone on. Somebody was bound to explode at some time, and the noble Earl must accept that. But now we understand there has been a change of heart and local authorities will be loved again. Let us hear it. I shall believe it when I see it, not when I hear it. It will be very helpful if the Government say, "Yes, we believe in these schemes and they will get going. We believe in the faith of local authorities in starting inside them and making them a success".
Lastly, I hope the noble Earl will say that some mechanism will be set up inside the Department of the Environment to stop this kind of bureaucracy and stalemate. The private sector will not much longer go on putting up initiatives if all we find at every stage is that ideas of taking these things off the public purse and starting regeneration going are stultified by rules that there is an unwillingness to bend and make flexible in order to allow the process to get going. I warn the noble Earl. The private sector is running out of patience in these matters and will no longer offer these initiatives if they are continuously turned down. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend has a powerful case to make and he has made it powerfully. There will have to be some very good answers to the horrific experience that he has described in Lewisham. He approaches the matter from a slightly different point of view from mine, in that his interest in this is that of the private sector collaborating with local authorities, whereas mine tends to be that of local authorities collaborating with the private sector. But from the point of view of what they are concerned with, it comes to the same thing.
We are all concerned that where there is good will on both sides for effective development and capital development—I nearly said consortium development, but that could have been misunderstood—between local authorities and the public sector there should be no bureaucratic barriers to it. I very much hope that the Minister either has a more effective reply than I can imagine to my noble friend's amendment or that he finds it possible to accept it.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I was recently taken round the Salford Docks regeneration. There you have an ancient industrial inland dock which I understand was totally derelict a few years ago. Now you find beautiful yuppie houses right up to the waterfront, with the water cleaned and purified and everything looking lovely. Nearby are office buildings and other very recent private sector developments. I will bet any amount of money that any other noble Lord wants to wager that this would not have happened if at the time there had been this idea of a notional capital receipt, which I feel must have been dreamt up by some very strange Treasury mandarin. I strongly support the amendment.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I appreciate the objectives behind this amendment, which the noble

1233
Lord, Lord Northfield, has expressed with his usual clarity. I shall of course want to read carefully what he has said when the Official Report is printed.
I should like to start by saying that we have no intention of using the regulation-making powers in subsection (6). We envisage that the power in this subsection would be used only if changes in the definition of capital receipts in Clause 56 were made. The power would allow us to make the corresponding changes for Clause 58. However, I think the noble Lord is referring to regulation-making powers generally. In framing regulations we have always intended to use the terms of this amendment to take account of the amount and nature of the capital development to be undertaken as a result of the terms of any proposed disposal. One of the factors to which we shall have regard is the question of whether or not there could be a disincentive to certain capital development. I can illustrate this point through some examples of our intended use of the regulation-making powers in Part IV.
First, I remind your Lordships that I have already indicated that we would use the appropriate regulation-making power to exempt non-monetary consideration in the form of nomination rights from debt redemption. We are doing this because we accept that if we do not there could be a disincentive to local authorities to provide social rented housing.
Secondly, we shall operate an in-and-out scheme under the new system of capital finance. I should explain that the in-and-out scheme will relax or extinguish debt redemption requirements for certain types of transaction. I shall not go into the technicalities now. We intend to operate the new scheme through regulations. In formulating those regulations, one of our objectives will be to mitigate any disincentive to property rationalisation. For example, one category of transaction which may come within in-and-out is the replacement of an existing asset. Thus, if a local authority contracts to sell a library, say, because of a town centre redevelopment it may be able to use part or all of the receipt to finance the construction of a replacement library; but it must replace like with like. It cannot replace a library with a swimming pool or vice versa; otherwise the whole debt redemption regime would be undermined. In addition, the amount of expenditure on the replacement asset would have a bearing on how much has to be set aside for debt redemption by the local authority.
Another category of transaction which may come within in-and-out is resale. Again, this class of transaction is included because we recognise the clear benefits it can have, particularly in helping local authorities in their role as enablers. Resale will facilitate private sector investment. Indeed, that is why we propose to include it in in-and-out. We envisage it applying where local authorities use their planning or slum clearance powers to assemble sites which will be redeveloped by the private sector. In such a case land will pass in and out of local authority ownership and debt redemption will only apply to any fortuitous profit the authority made in the transaction.
1234
I should add that we are at present consulting the local authority associations on the use of the regulation-making powers in Part IV. We have proposed an in-and-out scheme along the lines I have indicated. So I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that it is not as black a picture as he painted, and we are fully aware of the need to do something in this area. I have already announced something along positive lines this evening.
I turn to the specific case of Lewisham Phoenix mentioned by the noble Lord. I understand that the London Borough of Lewisham wished to transfer land to Lewisham Phoenix for no consideration. Although I have not read it I believe 1hat the article in The Times is inaccurate. It states that Clause 58 inhibits local authorities in the disposing of land with nil or negative value. I find it hard to agree with that. If the land has no value I should not expect the authority to receive anything in return for it. In that case Clause 58 would not apply. It is not true that 50 per cent. of the notional value must be set aside; it is 50 per cent. of the non-monetary consideration received, if any. Therefore, if it receives nothing it sets nothing aside.
If the land has a positive value such a disposal as proposed by Lewisham would require the consent of the Secretary of State. A request for such consent has not been made so I cannot prejudge his decision. However, it appears to me to be a clear subsidy from the council to Phoenix. We have no objections to such a subsidy but we see no reason why it should not pass through the capital finance system. It would thus seem preferable for Lewisham to sell the land at its proper price and make whatever subsidy it wishes. Officials at the Department of the Environment have had discussions with Lewisham Phoenix and have suggested alternative ways forward. I hope that Lewisham Phoenix will consider those carefully.
I have also seen the Salford Quays development, as has the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. It has proved to be particularly successful and has depended a great deal on derelict land grant from the public sector.
Although I understand the point being made by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, I hope that he will see that we have gone a long way towards recognising the problem. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the care that he has taken in responding to my remarks. However, I could make many comments. First, he says that he cannot comment totally on the Lewisham proposal because it has not been received in final form. No, of course it has not because in correspondence representatives have been trying to iron out the lack of agreement with the department before formally submitting the proposal. To say that he cannot comment because it has not been formally received is no answer at all. The essentials of the scheme are known to the department and should have been commented upon.

1235
I am disappointed that the noble Earl has not said—and I hope that he will say—that he personally will ensure that a meeting is arranged to make sure that the scheme in an appropriate form gets off the ground. It will be a precedent for others. I repeat my warning that if it does not get off the ground the private sector will not continue to proffer similar schemes in order to help inner city regeneration. It is a most important test case and, if the department fails by engaging in many more reams of letters, correspondence and bureacracy, the blame will be on the head of the Government and, in particular, on Ministers in the Department of the Environment.
I hope that the noble Earl will take back the message that a great deal depends on finding a way to ensure that the scheme goes ahead. A great deal more than the prospects for Lewisham depends on it.
Secondly, I wish to read carefully the noble Earl's remarks about the general use of the regulatory powers. He will correct me if I am wrong but I understood him to say that the Government will be taking account of gearing the amount of capital investment which will be provoked by the terms of any proposed disposal. I should like to know what that means. Does it mean that in similar cases there will be a possibility of an agreement with the local authority on the transfer of land at nil value?
As the noble Earl has already spoken I do not expect him to reply to my final point tonight. It is that it is no good the Minister saying that he expects the local authority to dispose of this land. I went to great lengths to explain to him—I am afraid that Phoenix is despairing, having said it six times in letters—that this land has no value in isolation. It has value only if it is redeveloped in conjunction with adjoining land, which then gives it value and, as we have done in the statutory new towns, begins to raise land values generally by a programme of total regeneration. Therefore, there is no point in saying, "Sell it to the private sector" because the private sector will say, "What are we supposed to do with it?" A body like Phoenix is necessary to take on the land at nil value, negotiate with the adjoining owners, set up a total plan for regeneration and start the process going.
On top of that, as I tried to explain to the noble Earl, the saving for the Government is that Phoenix will not ask for grants that would otherwise be payable. As with the city grants, it will do it all through the private sector and the creation of value by that process of regeneration. As I said, I am not a member of Phoenix. I have only just come across this problem. I hope the noble Earl will say to Ministers and officials in the Department of the Environment that in view of all that I have said and in view of the half pledges—I do not mean that patronisingly—which the noble Earl has tried to give me this evening, something must be done to get this scheme off the ground. If the noble Earl can assure me on that point I shall be pleased to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the case put forward by the noble Lord, but to
1236
say that the land has no value is frankly a nonsense. The marriage value of that land to whoever owns it when the adjoining land is negotiated is considerable. The value will be vast. I understand the case that has been made, but no land in this country has nil value. The marriage values of land—one pocket to another—are extremely high.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, it is not possible to assess the value because no one except Phoenix is prepared to try to get a scheme moving. That is the point. There can be no value until someone is willing to set up marriage schemes or put forward total regeneration proposals. That is the basis of the whole project. As I keep saying, none of this will be lost in the end because whatever profits are made from the process will all be put back into regeneration; so I do not know why the Government are being difficult about this.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, specifically asked me to reply, with the leave of the House I shall do so. Clearly I cannot give him the assurance that he seeks because I am not in a position to do so. I do not know enough about the scheme at the moment, but I assure the noble Lord and the House that I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what the noble Lord said and in fact the whole of the debate.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 [Aggregate credit limit]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 68, line 11, leave out ("defrayed") and insert ("met").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 60 [Duty to set certain amounts aside as provision to meet credit liabilities]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 101A:
Page 68, line 32, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 34 and insert ("in accordance with proper practice").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. It refers to Clause 60 and its purpose is to allow local authorities to determine their own provisions for debt redemption in their revenue accounts in accordance with proper practices. We are seeking to strike out the words on page 68:
"being not less than the minimum revenue provisions for that year referred to in Part IV of Schedule 3 to this Act".
We are suggesting that proper practices should be observed.
The amendment is familiar because it has been before the House at a previous stage and the Government have now issued proposals on what the

1237
minimum revenue provision should be. I understand that this is set out in a paper to be considered next week by the capital programme working party.
In the light of the response of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, in Committee and the department's latest proposals I am bound to say that there are a number of issues I must raise.
On 26th July at col. 1544 of the Official Report the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, referred to the method of debt redemption set out in Schedule 13 of the Local Government Act 1972; namely, the annuity method. If the annuity method was good enough in 1972 why are the Government now proposing what is known as the reducing balance method? In any event the method provided for in that Act did not prevent other methods of debt redemption being used. For instance, there was the sinking fund or equal instalments of principal. These methods were consistent with good accounting practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, also referred to authorities changing the method of providing for debt redemption from year to year:
"so as artificially to defer or bring forward expenditure".
He forgot the role of the authorities' external auditors and the Audit Commission in highlighting bad accounting practice. Whatever nefarious schemes the Government believe are in the minds of local authorities, the policemen and monitors from outside, like the Audit Commission and external auditors, will ensure that the bodies concerned do not get away with it.
One issue that was not addressed during the debate in Committee was the likely effect of the Government's proposals on the revenue account and ultimately on poll tax and council house rent levels. Some authorities will be required to increase their debt redemption provision in order to meet the Government's minimum requirements. Others may reduce it if the current provision is above the minimum requirement. That is a further example of poll tax levels being driven not by local authorities' own expenditure decisions but by those imposed through central government.
When the Government's proposals for the reducing balance method were first issued the department stated in a letter to the local authority associations dated 2nd December 1988:
"To secure that loan charges in aggregate would be roughly the same as we are now, it would be necessary to set the percentage for the housing revenue account at between 1½% and 2% and the percentage for other liabilities at between 3½% and 4½%".
The percentages now proposed are 2 per cent. for the the housing revenue account and 4 per cent. for other liabilities. As these are minimum requirements and because authorities which are currently providing for debt redemption at a higher level will probably continue to do so for reasons of prudence, it can be seen that the Government's proposals will result in authorities making a higher provision for debt redemption in aggregate than they currently do. In the light of the Government's policy of forcing authorities to repay debt out of capital receipts it is difficult to accept that the consequences of the debt redemption proposals are unintended.
Bearing in mind this marginal impact on the Government's macro-economic policy as it affects housing and local government, I hope that the Government will reflect on what the local authority associations are saying. They are saying, "Trust us". The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, earlier said that we have to make up our minds. In speaking to me he said that you either trust us or you do not.
I say to the noble Earl that he has to make up his mind whether to trust local authorities. If he trusts them the Government will accept the amendment, but if not then the Government will reject it. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has said, this amendment would allow local authorities to choose what minimum provision they should make from a revenue account each year to meet debt redemption, provided that accorded with proper practices. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who said in Committee that this was an area where we are likely to remain in disagreement.
We believe that we cannot simply leave matters to be decided entirely in this way. Indeed, in so far as the noble Lord's amendment refers to existing proper practices within the interpretation at Clause 63(4), then these are practices which local authorities have been required to follow under legislation which this Bill repeals. The CIPFA draft code on local authority capital accounting recognises that the method for determining the level of debt repayments would be in accordance with statutory provision.
We believe that it is right in the interests of accountability that central government should seek to ensure that authorities' borrowing and other forms of credit are reflected in revenue accounts on a consistent basis and that we should set out minimum requirements. It is for authorities to choose whether they make provision at this minimum level or at a higher level. This practice is not a new departure. There is, as I have said, a method of debt redemption set out in existing legislation together with prescribed maximum loan periods. We are repealing that legislation in this Bill and replacing it with the provisions in Clause 60.
The reasons we believe the reducing balance method is the right way for the Government to set a minimum figure for debt redemption should now be familiar to all noble Lords. But perhaps I may remind the House of what I think is the crucial one. The Government will pay needs grant on the basis of the reducing balance method. They always have done so, and indeed unless they are to collect data on every single loan of each authority, which even the noble Lord, Lord Graham, may consider to be a rather centralist approach, it is the only practical way they can pay grant. Surely, therefore, the noble Lord must accept that the Government have a right to ensure that local authorities provide for debt redemption at a rate at least as fast as is assumed in the needs grant we are paying. That is what we are

1239
saying. They are free to choose whatever proper practices they wish for individual loans but in total they must pay as a minimum at least as much as we are providing in grant.
We are currently consulting the associations on proposals for regulations on minimum revenue provision. As the noble Lord said, we have suggested that authorities be required to set aside each year 2 per cent. in respect of principal on outstanding liabilities relating to the housing revenue account and 4 per cent. in respect of other liabilities. We believe that those percentages are within the ranges which we put forward with the reducing balance method proposal last year and which would secure average loan charges roughly in line with those that have obtained under the present system. As long as authorities met those minimum provisions they could, if they wished, continue to operate different methods for individual loans.
We have responded to the wishes of local authorities in prescribing a method for calculating minimum revenue provision different from the equal instalments of principal originally proposed. We shall of course be most interested to hear their response to our proposals for the detailed regulations in this area. However, we remain firmly of the belief that it is right for minimum requirements to be set out in legislation so that no one can be in any doubt where the baseline lies.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister has made out a case to show why the amendment is unacceptable to him. It disappoints me but I know that those outside the House respect his integrity in these matters. There will be a further opportunity to debate the issue at the meeting next week. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 101B:
Page 68, line 47, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to a matter which was debated in Committee and on which the Government gave a certain undertaking. When my noble friend Lord Dormand raised the matter of European regional development fund grants, the Government responded that they would make an announcement shortly. Indeed, they have done so. The Government's proposals were discussed at the capital programmes working party on 5th October. This amendment is produced in response to that government announcement. But in order to cover the ground properly, I have to go a little further back and also discuss the nature of the Government's announcement.
I have to go back as far as the consultation paper on capital expenditure and finance in July 1988. In that document the Government said that they had an open mind about the issue of additionality of European Community funds—in this case, regional development funds. By additionality I mean whether
1240
they are to treated as a genuine addition to public expenditure or whether they are simply to be in effect cancelled out by a reduction in other forms of capital approval.
The Government, having received the responses to the July 1988 consultation paper, admitted that the consultees—that is the horrible word used by the department; fancy being addressed "Dear Consultee" in a letter—generally favoured additionality and favoured the principle that when a grant is obtained from the European Community it is presumably on some basis of whether the project is worth while. Otherwise the development fund does not have a great deal of purpose.
When my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington raised the matter in Committee he received a stalling answer about the announcement which the Minister said would be made shortly or, in any case, before the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. The capital programmes working party met on 5th October and heard the results of this thinking. The result of such thinking is that the amount of money from the other services' block—in other words, the block other than housing, transport and education services—would be earmarked for the expected distribution of the ERDF grant receipts in determining individual authorities' capital spending guidelines. The money was to be fed in through additional credit approvals. That sounds all right, except that the amount of money to be provided is only of the order of £25 million which in turn is only 25 per cent. of the expected European regional development fund grant receipts. Therefore what we have is not additionality; we have 25 per cent. of additionality. In other words, we have a very poor response to what I thought was a very powerful case put forward by my noble friend and one which I think received widespread recognition.
I must remind the House that the European Commission has firm views about additionality and quite firm views about the way in which public expenditure should be adjusted, or not adjusted as the case may be, when European regional development fund grants are made. In a letter dated 7th December 1988 to Mr. Tom Megahy, MEP, Mr. Henning Christopherson the Vice-President of the Commission of the European Communities said:
"I would draw your attention in this connection"—
I hope your Lordships will forgive me; this is the most bureaucratic part of it all—
"to Article 9(2) of the Commission's proposals for a Council regulation laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards the co-ordination of the activities of the different structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, which reads as follows"—
that is, presumably Article 9(2)—
"In establishing and implementing the Community support frameworks, the Commission and the Member States concerned shall ensure that the annual increase appropriations for the Funds provided for in Article 12(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 has a genuine additional economic impact in the regions concerned and results in corresponding increases in total public expenditure, in particular on investment. The Member States shall transmit to the Commission the information necessary for this purpose, in accordance with arrangements to be determined by the Commission".

1241
It is nice to see the Secretary of State being treated in the way that he treats local authorities. I refer especially to the words,
"The Member States shall transmit to the Commission … in accordance with arrangements to be determined by the Commission".
That is the way the Secretary of State always treats local government; in other words, that they shall give him information in accordance with directions which he will set out as to how what is proposed is to be done.
The impact of this is very clear. The European Regional Development Fund grants are to be treated as additional to other public expenditure. They are to be used for the purpose for which they have been allocated, and the local authorities concerned will not have to cut other schemes if they receive a grant.
The Government's proposals which were made on 5th October indicate that only 25 per cent. of the grant will be available as additional expenditure, and that the remainder of what they receive will have to be used, as they say, to reduce credit liabilities. In other words, it will have to be used to pay off the long-term debt of local authorities. That is not additionality; that is a sham. The Government ought not to be allowed to get away with it both from the point of view of the local authorities concerned and from the point of view of the prospect of receiving future European regional development fund grants.
Why should the European regional development fund give grants to Britain if they are merely going to be absorbed by the Treasury and taken away from the credit approvals of the local authorities which produce the schemes that are presumably thought to be worthy? The Government's delayed response to the Commission on that matter is unsatisfactory and they should not be allowed to get away with it. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the effect of the amendment would be to remove from Clause 60 the requirement for any grant received from the EC to be set aside as provision for debt redemption. It is, of course, aimed at providing that the grant can be used directly by that authority to supplement its capital programme.
Doing that would have two effects. First, it would achieve what I believe those proposing this amendment are after. It would mean that the capital programmes of individual authorities were enhanced by the amount of grant. Secondly, it would make life much less certain for those authorities that had applied for grant. I know that a number of authorities are in the position at the moment where, because of delays in the system of approvals for schemes for Europe, schemes for which they have applied for grant have had to be started even though it is far from certain whether grant will eventually be given. Imagine the difficulties if that grant which was sought was not just a cash benefit to the authority but in fact was what it was depending on to have authority to capitalise a major capital expenditure scheme.
1242
When we consulted on those proposals, respondents drew attention to such fears, and to the fact that since grant was often paid substantially in arrears, they could have difficulty financing the expenditure while they were waiting for the grant to arrive. It is to meet those difficulties that the Bill provides that such capital grants should not permit the capitalisation of the expenditure which the grant reimburses. Instead, the expenditure will need to be capitalised under the authority of a credit approval.
I know that your Lordships are concerned about whether individual authorities should get extra spending authority to match their ERDF. The proposal that has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is not as attractive as it may seem at first sight. As the Government have explained on a number of occasions, the estimated level of ERDF receipts is used to enhance the national total of allocations (or credit approvals) available. So ERDF has already enhanced the total available for spending. If ERDF grant were to convey spending power directly, the result would be that less would be available for distribution to local authorities in the form of credit approvals. It would be a reduction in the credit approvals that we should otherwise issue to authorities for their general purposes. The effect would be a considerable restriction upon local authorities' discretion to decide their own spending priorities.
The Government have considered carefully whether any allowance should be made in the distribution of credit approvals for the expected likely distribution of ERDF receipts. They have considered carefully the representations made to them. They have, however, decided that it is best to continue the present approach; that is, in general, that capital allocations should be given to local authorities based on overall assessments of their need. That approach does not take explicit account of whether expenditure which needs to be incurred may be financed through ERDF grant. Instead, the national total available for credit approvals is enhanced.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, it is only in the case of resources for local environmental services that we intend to tie some £25 million of allocations to expected ERDF grant for individual authorities. The reason for that is that resources for local environmental services are distributed on a formulaic basis at the recommendation of the local authority associations. There is therefore nothing in the local environmental services distribution which takes account of individual project needs. The treatment here is intended to rectify that. Our proposals ensure more certainty for local authorities seeking to plan their capital programmes. They ensure more local authority discretion to decide locally on their spending priorities and they provide a firm financial incentive to authorities to apply for an ERDF grant.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I found a large part of that answer only peripherally related to the thrust of the amendment. The noble Lord closed by saying that his proposals would provide more

1243
certainty for local authorities. Oh, yes, they certainly provide certainty—the certainty that there will not be any real increase in capital approval if a local authority uses its initiative and applies for and obtains a European Regional Development Fund grant. That is a certainty, but it is the certainty of the damned rather than any prospect that there could be any genuine benefit from the European Regional Development Fund.
If, as the Minister says, there is a prolonged period of uncertainty between applying for a grant and notification of obtaining the grant, it is not for us to devalue the grant. It is for us to make effective representations at Brussels to reduce that period. If, as the Minister says, there is often a delay in payment after the grant has been approved, before the finance is received, then it would not be too difficult for the Government, when a grant is approved, to provide short-term finance to make up the gap.
1244
In other words, these are really peripheral, trivial objections to the amendment, rather than serious answers to the problem. We come away from the issue, after the Minister's reply, in the same position as we started. Only 25 per cent. of the European Regional Development Fund grant will be reflected as a genuine addition to public expenditure. At some stage the European Commission will rumble this and will not put up with it. Mr.Christophersen's statement on this seems to me perfectly clear. The Government are simply not abiding by it.
It is too late at night to divide the Committee on the amendment, but I am completely dissatisfied with the response made. This may be a matter to which we have to return at the later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, Amendments Nos. 102 to 104 have been spoken to. Does the noble Earl wish to move them en bloc?
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 102 to 104:
Page 175, line 31, at beginning insert ("Except in so far as regulations made or directions given by the Secretary of State otherwise provide").
Page 175, line 32, after ("which") insert ("(a)").
Page 175, line 33, at end insert ("and
(b) is received in respect of a disposal or a right to a repayment or payment of the description in question").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 176, line 47, at end insert—
("12A. If, at any time on or after 1st April 1990 a local authority apply or transfer under subsection (2) of section 61 of this Act an amount set aside as mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, the authority's credit ceiling shall at that time be increased by an amount equal to the amount so applied or transferred.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 105 and, with the leave of the House, speak to Amendments Nos. 107 and 112. These amendments address the position of local authorities which have become debt free. Not many authorities will be in this happy state at the start of the new system, but we expect there to be a few. More may join them in future, particularly those authorities which go down the road that some are now taking and dispose of their entire housing stock.
I will briefly explain the amendment and then go on to say a bit about our policy on how authorities which have no debt should be treated in the new system. As your Lordships are aware, local authorities will be required to set aside various amounts for debt redemption—or, in the language of Part IV, as provision for credit liabilities. Debt-free authorities may have money set aside in this way but will have no debt to repay. This amendment will enable us to prescribe through regulations additional ways in which such surplus money may be used. They may specify purposes for which the surplus may be applied or they may specify bodies to which it may be transferred. So it would be possible to allow the authorities to spend the money in particular ways. Or, for example, it would be possible to allow a shire district to transfer surplus money to a shire county to be spent on schools in their area.
I turn now to our policy. I should first remind your Lordships of the two reasons for the debt redemption provisions in the new system. The first is that they ensure that prudent provision is made for debt redemption when assets are sold. The second is that they allow the total for credit approvals to be increased and so ensure that resources can be targeted in accordance with need.
The first reason obviously no longer applies once an authority has repaid all its debt. But the second one still does, and very much so. However, the impact of debt-free authorities on our ability to
1246
target depends very much on the number of those authorities and their significance in rational terms.
Our policy has to be framed in that light. The likely number of debt-free authorities in the medium term is very uncertain. In particular the trend for authorities to dispose voluntarily of their entire housing stock—to which I referred earlier—is still in its infancy. In those circumstances it is sensible for the Government to maintain a flexible approach. It is also necessary to keep that approach under review. That is why we have taken a regulation-making power.
Having said that, let me tell the House what we propose for the start of the system. Once an authority has become debt free it should generally be free to spend 100 per cent. of its future receipts. By "debt free" we mean, in the terms of the Bill, that at the end of the previous financial year the authority had a negative credit ceiling and no long-term borrowing.
There may be some minor technical exceptions to that but there is one exception of substance that I should mention here. It concerns the large-scale housing transfers to which I have already referred. Those could result in an authority receiving very large amounts of money, over and above that required to repay its debt. That would occur at a time when it was relinquishing the function which had been responsible for the major part of its capital programme, although I fully appreciate that even local authorities without housing will continue to play an important role in catering for housing needs in that area. Because of the potential size of the sums in relation to individual authorities, we are looking separately at the policy we should apply in those cases.
For that reason, the freedom to spend 100 per cent. of future receipts will not apply to receipts from sales of housing to people who are not sitting tenants. We are still considering how such receipts should be treated. It will be possible to use the regulation-making power provided by the amendments to allow the receipts to be applied in various ways. We hope to make a further announcement on the subject soon.
We believe that those proposals represent a sensible response to the concerns that have been expressed by authorities that expect to be debt free in the new system. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with all the charity in the world, that sounds to me like a half baked policy, half presented. Of course we are glad to know that in principle 100 per cent. of the receipts from the disposal of capital assets will be available to local authorities for their own uses. However, I note that the amendments say that the Secretary of State shall, by regulations, specify what those uses shall be. The Minister did not volunteer any indication of what the regulations might say. Perhaps he could help us on that score.
The news that local authorities will be discriminated against by losing a significant part of their capital receipts may help to discourage them

1247
from opting out of housing provision by voluntarily disposing of their housing stock. Since we are opposed to the wholesale disposal by local authorities of their housing stock, that could be regarded as a good thing.
In policy terms the Government are leading themselves by the nose. They cannot see further than the next expedient to deal with the embarrassment resulting from their initial policy initiatives. The Chancellor has had a similar problem in the sense that he suddenly found himself with huge surpluses which he could not spend by increasing public expenditure without increasing inflation. Therefore he invented the neat wheeze of repaying the National Debt—presumably over tens, dozens or hundreds of years. It was a nonsensical idea in the first place. The National Debt has been a great advantage to us in inflationary times over the past 200 years. Successful economies are increasing their national debt much faster than we are. I refer in particular to Germany and Japan.
When applied to local government the idea of reducing the local version of the National Debt is even more daft. As the Minister is now forced to admit, it is not a suitable solution to the problems of capital receipts because many local authorities will run out of debt to be redeemed. The Government do not have even the glimmer of an idea what to do about that and why there should be a difference between those who have redeemed their debts and those who have not redeemed their debts.
In business you borrow money when you need money and when you can do something with the money you borrow, which adds value to it; and you can do better than you would by investing in gilts. Otherwise most people would not be in business at all. That sort of business consideration is completely foreign to the Government's mind. They do not consider for a moment whether it is desirable for a local authority to borrow money because it can do something better with the money than the banks which lend it to the local authority. Such business considerations do not come anywhere near the Government's thinking.
We are therefore left with the Government's pathetic statement: "We know that we are now faced with local authorities which will redeem all their debts. In principle, except for very important reservations, we shall leave them free to spend 100 per cent. of it. However, we shall lay down regulations which restrict the uses, but we shall not tell you what is in the regulations". That is a pretty feeble excuse for policy-making.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 177, line 41, leave out ("between nil and") and insert ("from nil to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61 [Use of amounts set aside to meet credit liabilities]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 107 and 108:
Page 69, line 6, after ("may") insert ("subject to subsection (2) below").
Page 69, line 8, leave out ("defray") and insert ("meet").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 69, line 9, after ("borrowed") insert ("by the authority").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 113. These are technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 110 to 112:
Page 69, line 10, leave out ("defray") and insert ("meet").
Page 69, line 14, leave out ("defray") and insert ("meet").
Page 69, line 15, at end insert—
("(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section if, on the date which is the relevant date for any financial year, a local authority's credit ceiling, as determined under Part III of Schedule 3 to this Act, is a negative amount, any such amount as is referred to in subsection (1) above may in that financial year—

(a) be applied for purposes specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State; or

(b) be transferred to a body so specified.

(3) The aggregate of the amounts which may be applied by a local authority in accordance with subsection (2) above in any financial year shall not exceed the amount by which the authority's credit ceiling on the relevant date is less than nil.
(4) References in subsections (2) and (3) above to the relevant date shall be construed as follows—

(a) for the financial year beginning on 1st April 1990, the relevant date is that date; and

(b) for any subsequent financial year, the relevant date is the last day of the preceding financial year.

(5) Regulations under subsection (2) above may specify conditions with which a local authority must comply in applying or transferring any amount as mentioned in that subsection and with respect to any amount so applied or transferred; and an amount shall not be taken to be applied or transferred under that subsection unless any such conditions are complied with.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 110 to 112 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 62 [Information]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 112A:
Page 69, line 23, leave out from ("Part") to end of line 25.
The noble Lord said: My Lords in Clause 62 we come to a very jolly little provision. According to

1249
the clause, the Secretary of State has the power to require from local authorities information in such a form that he shall specify. That includes:
"for the purpose of deciding whether to exercise his powers … under this Part" or "for the purpose of ascertaining whether an authority have acted, or are likely to act, in accordance with this Part" or
—this is the jolly bit—
"for the purpose of assisting the formulation of government economic policies".
Apart from the initial absurdity of talking as if there were government economic policies, which economic policies will they assist—the Lawson policies, the Walters policies, the policies of Sir Alfred Sherman or any other policies in between? We can take our pick. Any member of the Cabinet will give us a set of economic policies and someone will no doubt claim that they are government policies.
But the Government should have an economic policy before they require local authorities to give them assistance in the formulation. At the moment, local authorities have considerable obligations in terms of the information that they must give to central government. They must give their level of capital receipts at the end of the financial year; their annual capital estimates including capital receipts; capital payments on receipts on a quarterly basis; and capital expenditure and receipts on an annual outturn basis.
We can imagine all sorts of things the Government might require from local authorites, some of which might be rather difficult to collect. Will they want indications of land and property values? That is a substantial asset for economic policies. Will they require an assessment of the stock of the local authority assets? That would be very helpful for the national income and expenditure accounts. Will they require information on the projected exercise of the right to buy? I am simply picking out examples. There may be many more items which the Government might wish local authorities to require.
In a debate in Committee on how in future years capital receipts might be taken into account in determining credit approvals, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, talked of a formula which might include all those different aspects. Are the Government saying that such things as land and property values, stock of assets and so on and the propensity of tenants to increase the right to buy are to be demanded from local authorities?
The concept of demanding information for the Government's purpose from local authorities is somewhat at variance with the way in which the Government approach private business. I am in the survey business and am very well aware of the restrictions that government, in my view quite properly, impose on themselves as to what they demand as statutory information from private business. There are, for example, the demands for census information and the demands for what is required for Customs and Excise. All those things are deliberately, and in my view rightly, kept to a minimum. Yet here are the Government arrogating to themselves the power to demand from local authorities anything they like for themselves in the
1250
way of information, which is not for the benefit of local authorities but for the benefit of central government.
The only charitable explanation is that central government intend to involve local authorities in decision-making about economic policy. I hope that my interpretation is correct and that it is the only interpretation to be given to this provision in the Bill. Unless the Government are to show us, for example, that high interest rates are caused by high local authority capital expenditure—and they would have some difficulty in proving that case—then what is happening is that local authorities are not only being kicked hither and thither but are being required to run for sticks on behalf of central government. It is not a proper use of central government powers. It ought to be deleted. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am a much happier man now than I have been for the past four or five weeks when I thought that I was not going to continue to debate with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I am glad to see that he has joined the long list of speakers on the Opposition Benches who want to speak on Treasury matters. I feel sure that we shall be discussing these matters ad nauseam far into the future. It makes me a much happier man.
I hope that the following two propositions are sufficiently straightforward to be uncontroversial in your Lordships' House. The first is that it is the responsibility of central government to manage the national economy, and the second is that local authority capital expenditure is sufficiently large in aggregate to be a factor which must be taken into account in managing the national economy. I should say in passing that local authority capital expenditure in England and Wales is likely to be nearly £8 billion in the current financial year.
It has accordingly been the practice for many years for the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office to collect from local authorities information about their capital expenditure and receipts and their borrowing and investments. Information from those returns is used for several purposes. Let me mention two of those purposes in particular. First, such information is aggregated and then included in the Treasury's database of all public expenditure. It can then be taken into account by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his management of the economy. Secondly, the information is used to determine what overall scope there is for allocating resources to local authorities. In the present capital finance system, this takes the form of capital allocations; in the new system it will take the form of credit approvals.
It is to the advantage of local authorities that accurate and timely information should be received. If the Government do not have the facts, then decisions will have to be based on estimates. If estimates are used, they will have to allow a margin for uncertainty. It will not surprise noble Lords if I say that those margins would not work to the advantage of local authorities. Indeed, I recall the

1251
noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, asking us many times in your Lordships' House to work on facts, not estimates. We are taking the opportunity to fulfil what he desires.
The amendment proposed would in effect prevent information being collected except in the context of particular decisions. That is not a way to run an economy or indeed local authority capital programmes. The noble Lord has argued at earlier stages that local authorities should be given the information by forward indications of annual capital guidelines. The Government accept that that is desirable. By the same token it is reasonable for the Government to plan ahead and to obtain the information necessary to do so effectively.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister is suitably modest about the role of the Treasury in the formulation of government economic policy. He knows that economic policy is made only in part in the Treasury. It is made in part in the advisers' offices of No. 10 Downing Street. I had not noticed any adequate provision being made for the demands of Sir Alan Walters for information from local government. Perhaps there will be an amendment at Third Reading to ensure that this excessive favouritism to No. 11 Downing Street is corrected.
The Minister has quite properly indicated that local authorities play an important part in the economy. That part is reflected only in having to provide information to central government. There is no suggestion that their help should be sought, or their co-operation obtained by central government, or that they should be participants in economic policy. It is centralist government gone mad. It ought not to be reflected on the face of the Bill. It is only because of the time that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 63 [Interpretation of Part IV]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 71, line 6, at end insert—
("(5A) If, under or by virtue of any enactment, all or any of the liabilities of an authority (in this subsection referred to as "the original authority") in respect of a loan to or borrowing money (or money borrowed) by the authority have become liabilities of another local authority (in this subsection referred to as "the current authority") then in so far as regulations made by the Secretary of State so provide:—

(a) in relation to the current authority, any reference in this Part to a loan to or borrowing (or money borrowed) by that authority includes a reference to the loan to or borrowing (or money borrowed) by the original authority; and

(b) if the original authority is a local authority for the purposes of this Part, any reference to a loan to or borrowing (or money borrowed) by that authority excludes a reference to the loan, borrowing (or money borrowed) in respect of which the liabilities have become those of the current authority.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past ten o'clock.

  ANGLO-ARGENTINIAN TALKS
  ANGLO-ARGENTINIAN TALKS
  AIR TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTIONS
  AIR TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTIONS
  A.4 HAMMERSMITH/CHISWICK SECTION: LITTER
  A.4 HAMMERSMITH/CHISWICK SECTION: LITTER
  NURSING AIDES: USE IN CHILDREN'S WARDS
  NURSING AIDES: USE IN CHILDREN'S WARDS
  ROAD ACCIDENT NO-FAULT SCHEME: STUDY
  ROAD ACCIDENT NO-FAULT SCHEME: STUDY
  CIGARETTE ENDS AND THE LITTER PROBLEM
  CIGARETTE ENDS AND THE LITTER PROBLEM
  ECOFIN COUNCIL, 9TH OCTOBER 1989
  ECOFIN COUNCIL, 9TH OCTOBER 1989