Sitting of 26 October 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    NEW SOUTHGATE CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM LIMITED BILL (By Order)
    Orders read for consideration of Lords amendments.
    To be considered on Thursday 2 November.

    CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)
    Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.
    To be considered on Tuesday 31 October.

    ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—[23 May]—That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    Debate to be resumed on Thursday 2 November.

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be further considered on Thursday 2 November.

    BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Thursday 2 November.

    CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Tuesday 31 October.

    CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 2 November.

    MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order. for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 31 October.

    ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL
    Motion made,
    That the Promoters of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
    That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
    That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time;
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered on Wednesday 1 November at Seven o'clock.

    CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL (LORDS)
    Motion made,
    That the Promoters of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
    That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
    That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
    That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
    That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered on Thursday 2 November.

    BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL
    Motion made,
    That the Promoters of the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later

    1031
    than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
    That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
    That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered on Thursday 2 November.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Policing (Leicestershire)
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement concerning current policing levels in Leicestershire.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): My right hon. Friend approved 27 extra police posts for Leicestershire constabulary this year, bringing to 54 the new posts approved under this Government. In addition, 130 police officers have been returned to operational duties as a result of civilianisation and other efficiency measures.
    My right hon. Friend is able to approve a further 1,100 police posts covering provincial forces and the Metropolitan police for 1990–91. He will consider the Leicestershire police authority's application for a further 75 police posts in that year with advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary along with applications received from other authorities. My right hon. Friend hopes to announce his decisions as soon as possible and before the end of the year.
    Mr. Janner: I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment and I hope that he will start well by answering yes to my questions. Is he aware of the appallingly high level of crime in the city of Leicester, where violent crime has more than doubled since his party came to power? Is he aware that his predecessor saw fit to make no allocation whatever of additional police officers to Leicestershire in 1988, despite the chief constable's call for more, and last year granted only one third of those requested? Will the Minister now answer yes to my request for a firm assurance that he will listen properly to our chief constable and help us to keep crime off the streets by getting more police on them?
    Mr. Lloyd: We always listen properly to Leicestershire's chief constable. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman, to whom I am grateful for his welcome, is so dismissive of the successes of the Leicestershire police. The crime rate in the county is well below the national average and the clear-up rate well above it. Last year total crime in the county fell, falling by 9·3 per cent. for sex offences and by 5·7 per cent. for burglaries. The force has an extra 130 officers because the chief constable also listened to the suggestions of the Home Office and found that he could replace 130 officers and free them to go back on the beat by recruiting civilian staff. The hon. and learned Gentleman is heavy on hyperbole but short on the salient facts.
    Mr. Latham: I, too, warmly welcome my hon. Friend to his new position and wish him well in it. Is he aware that my rural constituents are pleased at the increasing emphasis being placed on rural policing by Chief Constable Hurst and Superintendent John Mousley who has just retired? That is a welcome development, but it will require still more resources. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear that in mind when he considers a new allocation of police.
    Mr. Lloyd: Of course my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will bear that in mind. He will also bear in mind that Leicestershire had additional police constables this year. He will listen carefully to my hon. Friend's suggestion that the county should have more next year.
    Mr. Vaz: I join the demand by my two hon. Friends for additional police officers for the Leicestershire constabulary. The Minister should be aware that this week hon. Members representing Leicestershire constituencies received a report by the lesbian and gay organisations in Leicester showing that police officers were being regularly deployed inside public lavatories. Does the Minister agree that a better use of police officers in a constabulary that is under strength would be on the streets catching criminals rather than acting as agents provacateurs in public lavatories harassing people going about their lawful business?
    Mr. Lloyd: I have not seen the report and I will not comment on it. Obviously, its content is a matter for the chief constable as an operational consideration and not for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or for me.

    Crime Prevention
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretay of State for the Home Department what further crime prevention initiatives he intends to introduce.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): In addition to the 11 safer cities projects which are now operating, a further five are planned to start between now and March 1990. Four new projects will be announced in the following financial year. We also launched yesterday the next phase of our national crime prevention advertising campaign which will provide further advice for the public on how they can help to reduce crime. Much excellent work is also being done with all-party support by the organisation Crime Concern.
    Mr. Thurnham: I welcome my hon. Friend's excellent new campaign announced yesterday on practical ways to crack crime. It is essential to reduce violent crime. In that context, perhaps he could say more about what he thinks individuals could do. Does he agree that neighbourhood watch schemes are an excellent example of what people can do to help the police?
    Mr. Patten: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. Much can be done to prevent crime. Many efforts have been concentrated thus far on the prevention of property-related crimes, domestic burglaries and related acts. We can helpfully use some of the techniques being developed in neighbourhood watch areas to try to begin to deal with the difficult task of preventing violent crime and sexual attacks on women.
    Mr. Heffer: Would it not be best if the Government totally supported the police in having far more foot patrols in areas where there is a high level of crime? My mother-in-law, who is 84 years of age, recently had her home broken into. Luckily, she did not wake up; we do not know what would have happened to the old lady if she had woken up when those people broke in. She is a supporter of crime watch in that area. Is it not time that the Government recognised that the real answer is far more foot patrols by police doing what they used to do in the old
    1034
    days and looking after our people? At present the Government engage in all sorts of propaganda but little real action.
    Mr. Patten: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that we have far more police. The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that we all want to see far more police on foot patrol. At the same time, modern policing with its speed of communications demands that there be people able to deploy others in the event of attacks on people or property. I was extremely sorry to hear of the unfortunate event affecting the hon. Gentleman's mother-in-law. On the next of my regular visits to Liverpool perhaps he will arrange for me to call on her to discuss these matters at first hand.
    Dame Peggy Fenner: I was pleased to read in the press yesterday my hon. Friend's special night time guidance for women. He is clearly aware that women who walk out now do so in a climate of fear. In his new crime prevention activities, will he pay special attention to the special needs of women in this rather violent era?
    Mr. Patten: I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome of our crime prevention publicity campaign. The giving of advice to women or men on how to conduct themselves is sensitive and I dare say that every bit of advice will not suit every person. However, it is critically important that every one of us does everything that he can to help to diminish the numbers of attacks on women and to promote women's safety.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that we shall not get safer cities and towns on the back of show business gimmicks and advertising campaigns? Will he look again at backing democratically elected local authorities such as Southwark, which initiated a new campaign yesterday, so that they can lead the way in a positive partnership between the local authority, police, private enterprise and the community? Will he stop starving local authorities and thus preventing them from doing that?
    Mr. Patten: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not confusing the giving of useful public information with glitzy advertising campaigns. We are trying to act with all-party support, and I was glad to see that spokespersons—one has to be even-handed when dealing with the Labour party—such as the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) welcomed yesterday's campaign without any reservation. It is important that we have an information campaign and not an advertising campaign.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to say that at the same time we need to mobilise local authorities, which have an important role to play in crime prevention. That is why we have already consulted the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils in preparing a new crime prevention circular, which I hope will be widely welcomed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think that crime prevention is a matter for party politics.

    Criminal Justice Act 1988
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to review the workings of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
    Mr. John Patten: Criminal justice legislation is kept under constant review. The 1988 Act was a wide-ranging and substantial measure. As yet, it is naturally too early to judge the Act's effectiveness overall.
    Mr. French: In reviewing the Act, will my hon. Friend consider extending the arrangement whereby children under 14 years of age can give evidence by closed circuit television from outside the courtroom? That arrangement is available in the higher courts but not yet available in the magistrates courts.
    Mr. Patten: We are keeping this under review, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will look at it when he considers further the report on this and related issues just received from his honour Judge Pigot, the Common Serjeant in the City of London.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister realise that, despite the effects of the 1988 Act, crimes of violence against the police in Gwent are still at a record level, and the Gwent police remain the most bruised and battered in Britain? What does he intend to do to increase the Gwent police force to the proper level that the chief constable demands? Will he have some talks with the magistrates to ensure that anybody convicted of crimes of violence against the police can look forward with certainty to a period behind bars?
    Mr. Patten: I am happy to meet anyone from Gwent who wishes to come to see me to talk about these issues. There is an adequate range of penalties for those who attack police.
    Mr. Favell: My hon. Friend will have heard of the tragic events in Stockport last Thursday, when a temporary member of the Stockport shooting centre tried to leave with a pistol. He shot dead another member and then shot dead someone nearby. [Interruption.] It is not funny.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are making slow progress and this does not help.
    Mr. Favell: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will want to join me in expressing sympathy for the families of the two men who were shot dead, one of whom had acted extremely bravely. Will he consider ensuring that temporary members of shooting clubs are vetted by the police before they enter the premises to shoot? Secondly, will he ban the use of targets shaped like human beings, which I understand to be illegal in West Germany?
    Mr. Patten: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I extend our deepest sympathies to the relatives of those who were killed. My right hon. Friend is looking closely at the serious issue of temporary membership of gun clubs. The International Shooting Union has, from 1 January this year, laid down standards for target shooting which involve circular black targets. These are the targets that should be used in gun clubs, rather than those purporting to represent human beings. I hope that we never see those again.
    Mr. Hattersley: The Minister will know from the public reaction to the wrongful arrest and conviction of the men and women involved in the Woolwich and Guildford affair that there is a growing national demand for a change in the law to prevent suspicion being converted into conviction of men and women who make confessions which are not substantiated by any other sort of evidence. Can we be told
    1036
    whether the Government intend to give the House an opportunity to come to a judgment on this matter next year?
    Mr. Patten: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the public inquiry which has been set up. As soon as that inquiry has reported and its contents have been made known to the House, the House will doubtless wish to express its views.
    Mr. Jessel: As we now have nine months' experience of the abolition of peremptory jury challenges, can my hon. Friend say how it has worked out?
    Mr. Patten: It seems to be working exceptionally well, like the rest of the Act from which it stems.

    West Midlands Police (Investigation)
    Dr. Reid: 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 on how many occasions since 1979 persons in the custody of the West Midlands police have confessed to crimes of which they were subsequently acquitted or on which charges were subsequently dropped.
    Mr. Fisher: 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.
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the light of the recent decision to disband the West Midlands serious crimes squad, he will review all convictions for serious crimes based wholly or mainly on confessions obtained from people in the custody of the West Midlands police.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The information requested about the number of confessions of people held in the custody of the West Midlands police since 1979 is not readily available. In 1988 alone, the West Midlands police prosecuted more than 32,000 people for criminal offences, most of whom would have spent some time in custody.
    I last met the chief constable of the West Midlands on 5 September, when we discussed a number of policing matters.
    The assistant chief constable of West Yorkshire, Mr. Donald Shaw, was appointed on 14 August to carry out an investigation into the work and practices of the West Midlands serious crime squad, under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority. His inquiries will concentrate on the period since the beginning of 1986, when complaints about the squad started to emerge. As I said in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) when making my statement last Thursday at column 283, if anything arises from the investigation which causes doubt about the safety of any conviction I would have to consider whether intervention on my part would be justified.
    Dr. Reid: The Home Secretary has said that the inquiry will cover two years. Is not the stark truth that the rot in the West Midlands serious crime squad goes back as far as the inquiry into the Birmingham pub bombings? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to face that fact sooner rather than later. Eventually he or one of his successors will have to do that in the same manner as it was done over the Guildford

    1037
    Four. I ask him for the sake of police morale, humanity and the good name of British justice to order an urgent and thorough inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding the arrest, conviction and incarceration of six men for the Birmingham pub bombings, whom many of us on both sides of the House believe to be wholly innocent of the charges laid against them.
    Mr. Hurd: Mr. Shaw's investigation will concentrate on the cases that gave rise to it. I say for the third time that if the investigation reveals a line of inquiry that leads further into the past I would expect the police to follow it up. The point that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Reid) has omitted is that I did act in the same way in the two cases although at a year's distance. In January 1987, I referred the Birmingham case to the Court of Appeal. There then followed a rigorous police investigation by the Devon and Cornwall police which was comparable with the one that the Avon and Somerset police undertook for the Guildford case. After that investigation, the Court of Appeal spent a month hearing the case again. That hearing took place at the end of 1987. The Court of Appeal came to the conclusion, on the information available to it and after the police inquiry, that the convictions were sound.
    Mr Fisher: Will the Home Secretary not reconsider what he has just told the House? Did he not read the report in The Guardian yesterday that one of the officers concerned saw that the Birmingham Six were beaten up? Does not that indicate that there is new evidence available to Mr. Shaw and that unless the Home Secretary requires Mr. Shaw specifically to examine all the circumstances surrounding the Birmingham Six, there is a real danger of another miscarriage of justice taking place?
    Mr. Hurd: The circumstances surrounding the confessions in the Birmingham pub case, including the question of violence, were considered in the Court of Appeal review at the end of 1987. It took account of all those points. If there are new points, they are matters that must be considered—but nothing that I have so far heard or seen goes beyond material that was available in the very long and thorough rediscussion in the Court of Appeal. It resulted in a reaffirmation of the original verdict being given at the beginning of 1988.
    Mrs. Mahon: Is not the Home Secretary aware that three of the officers currently under investigation for fabricating confessions were involved in obtaining confessions out of the Birmingham Six? The fourth, detective sergeant Brian Norton, has served time in gaol for obtaining confessions on that basis. Should not the right hon. Gentleman follow that line of inquiry?
    Mr. Hurd: I understand that one member of the serious crime squad, which was disbanded in the summer, was involved in the investigation into the Birmingham pub bombing. That is to say, his period of service in the serious crime squad spanned those years.
    The chief constable of the West Midlands set up the investigation by Mr. Shaw because of complaints and doubts about a certain number of recent cases. As the hon. Lady knows, certain procedures and papers were criticised, were not in the right order or were missing altogether. That was the purpose of the inquiry, and it is on that that it is concentrating.
    1038
    If that investigation were to lead back, by any means, to an earlier period or to the sorts of confessions to which the hon. Lady referred—I am not talking only about the Birmingham pub case—and any convictions were called into question, we would have to reconsider them. However, that is not the current position.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Although my right hon. Friend could not give a total figure relevant to the question, is it not clear to anyone who has studied these matters, and therefore only fair to say so, that the number of cases of defective evidence relating to confessions is infinitesimal compared with the total?
    Mr. Hurd: Of course that is true. It is also true that since the Birmingham, Guildford and Woolwich cases the Police and Criminal Evidence Act has completely changed the framework and the circumstances——
    Mr. Hattersley: Except for terrorism.
    Mr. Hurd: No, including terrorist suspects, except in the case of tape recording. The Act has changed the framework and the way in which the police have to conduct their proceedings.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: In the interests of the confidence and morale of the vast majority of good police officers in the west midlands, will my right hon. Friend confirm that whatever the activities of certain individual members of the serious crime squad, the West Midlands force enjoys the confidence of the majority of people, as evidenced by the fact that last year crime in the west midlands fell faster than in any other metropolitan authority? That is despite the fact that the chief police officer in Birmingham has not only investigated the serious crime squad but has abolished it.
    Mr. Hurd: Each time I go to the west midlands and discuss crime and policing matters with all parties, I am impressed by the high reputation of the force, which performs very well under outstanding leadership.
    Mr. Maclennan: In the light of the cases to which the Home Secretary has referred, will he further consider the possibility of allowing police officers to have a right of confidential access to the Police Complaints Authority where they believe that misfeasance or malpractice within the police force cannot be put right without external intervention?
    Mr. Hurd: I should like to consider that point against the background of what is available under present procedures.
    Mr. John Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members are sickened by the way in which certain other hon. Members seek to act as apologists for the IRA?
    Mr. Hurd: That has not surfaced today when we have had a serious set of exchanges about the course of justice in Britain, but I am sure that all Opposition Members will have taken note of what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Corbett: Will the Home Secretary take this opportunity to say sorry to the Guildford Four, since no member of the judiciary or the Government has yet been able to get that word past his or her lips? When the Home Secretary had talks with the chief constable on the investigation into the former West Midlands serious crime

    1039
    squad, did he undertake to keep an open mind on its outcome, especially if wrongdoings by officers raise renewed doubts about the safety of the convictions in the Birmingham Six and Carl Bridgewater cases? Will he assure the House that his mind remains open on those matters?
    Mr. Hurd: Mr. Shaw's investigation was set in hand not by me but by the chief constable, Mr. Dear, of his own volition. It is taking place under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority, which is completely independent. However, the hon. Gentleman is right. If the investigation, which was set up because of complaints about recent cases and so rightly and naturally will concentrate on those cases, gave rise to a train of thought or evidence that led to earlier cases, any convictions that arose from those cases would clearly have to be looked at. That is not the position at the moment and I have no reason to suppose that it will be.
    I expressed regret in the House a week ago. I did that very clearly. But I hope that Opposition Members, in their pursuit of this matter, will take into account the fact that the people who suffered most from it were not those who were wrongfully imprisoned, but those who were murdered at Guildford.
    Mr. Speaker: Question No. 5.
    Ms. Short: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the Home Secretary will, on reflection, want to retract what he has just said. He has smeared the four people who were wrongly convicted in Guildford and he is wrong to do so.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I did not call the hon. Lady.
    Mr. Hurd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was making a statement of fact and I am surprised that anyone should contradict it.
    Mr. Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Points of order take time out of questions. Points of order at Question Time must be on matters which require a ruling from me. What is the point of order?
    Mr. Hattersley: My point of order to you, Mr. Speaker, is that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and I understand your ruling that Question Time must continue in its normal way, but if the Home Secretary wishes to pursue the arguments, so will my hon. Friend and you must call the Home Secretary to order in just the same way.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not responsible for what is said, provided that it is in order. Question No. 5.
    Mr. Hurd rose——
    Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: We have reached only question No. 5 and we are making slow progress. I must hear the point of order if it arises out of this and if it is a matter needing my intervention.
    Mr. Heffer: I raise my point of order because of what the Home Secretary has implied. Of course, every one of us
    1040
    agrees that those who were killed were the victims, but surely that does not lead anyone to say that those who were wrongly imprisoned were not as badly treated——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to pursue that through the Front Bench, not through the Chair. That is not a matter of order. The Chair cannot be held responsible for answers that are given to questions.
    Sir Bernard Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since when has it been the practice to permit points of order to be raised during questions, wasting the time of hon. Members on both sides, when we all know that points of order can only be accepted by you after questions?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It has always been the practice that, if an hon. Member raises a point of order requiring my intervention—and I cannot judge whether it is such a point of order until I have heard it—it is dealt with at the time. What is not in order, as the whole House knows, is to seek to raise points of order immediately after questions on matters arising out of them. I heard that point of order at the time, to judge whether it was a point of order for me.

    Drug Abuse
    Mr. Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the work of the ministerial group on drug abuse.
    Mr. Hurd: The ministerial group on the misuse of drugs last met, under my chairmanship, on 16 October. It endorsed my proposals for the establishment of locally based drug prevention schemes in nine areas most at risk from drug misuse, and in particular from the threat of cocaine and crack.
    Other issues discussed included plans for the next phase of the national drug misuse prevention campaign, developments in drugs education, drug-related development assistance overseas under the aid programme and plans for the world ministerial summit on drugs, to be held in London next April.
    Mr. Baldry: While it must be right not to risk glamorising crack by dramatising its effects, is my right hon. Friend confident that every parent, teacher, school governor and community or youth worker—especially in vulnerable communities—is fully aware of the dangers that crack poses to all our children? Is he confident that they are aware of the collective action that is being taken, and can be taken, to fight back against crack?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes. Whatever we do about enforcement, I think that education to reduce demand is the key. That is why it is so important that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science put drug liaison officers into each local education authority, and why the national curriculum will now ensure that every primary and secondary school provides proper education so that young people understand the acute dangers and miseries resulting from the misuse of drugs.
    Mr. Randall: Is the Home Secretary aware of the various press reports suggesting that major drug suppliers in north America, the Caribbean and South America intend to target Europe and, in particular, the United Kingdom, with cocaine, crack and other hard drugs? Is he also aware that, according to Home Office statistics, the

    1041
    Government's policies have failed even to contain the growth in drug taking? How can the people of Britain be confident that the Government understand the scale of those threats to our country? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a considerable increase in resources will be needed from the Government to crush this evil trade?
    Mr. Hurd: I can certainly answer yes to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, without accepting the earlier part. We need to strengthen our defences at all points. That includes help for Third world countries, a serious effort to stifle the production of dangerous drugs, increasing the Customs and police presence at our ports and airports and retaining the necessary checks there, and substantially more expenditure on the communities at greatest risk, on education and on the treatment of addicts. All those measures are necessary, and all are being strengthened.

    EC Border Control
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about border control between Britain and the other European Community countries.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): Discussions with our Community partners are continuing. We have continued to emphasise the importance of retaining at United Kingdom ports and airports effective checks to control immigration by non-EC nationals, and to deal with terrorism, drug trafficking and other serious crime. At the same time, we have shown our commitment to joining other Community countries in practical measures to strengthen the external frontier of the Community and co-operation between states in counterterrorism and law enforcement. I believe that our position is increasingly well recognised within the Community.
    Mr. Knox: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government will try to get rid of every unnecessary bureaucratic control on movement within the Community?
    Mr. Renton: Yes, I can certainly give that assurance: every unnecessary control will be removed. My hon. Friend will know that in March we introduced a new immigration channel that merged the British and EC channels, so that both British and all other EC nationals could enter the United Kingdom with the minimum of difficulty. I have no doubt, however, that frontier checks will remain an indispensable part of our control, to impose proper control on third-country nationals entering this country, and to prevent the entry of terrorists and major criminals.
    Mr. Darling: Is the Minister aware of the growing concern about the quality of decision-making as it affects individual tourists visiting Britain? As we move towards a common regime for entry throughout Europe in 1992, will he consider the need to set up a review procedure so that badly taken decisions can quickly be looked at, especially as he himself has abandoned any pretext of reviewing decisions by individual officers?
    Mr. Renton: No. I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman. There is constant and increasing pressure due
    1042
    to the number of people who want to enter the United Kingdom. In 1978, 27 million people came into this country and in 1988 the figure was 45 million. Every time we try to improve the procedures, the Opposition vote against it. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down. There are other questions to follow.

    Cocaine and Crack
    Mr. Lord: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to combat the threat from cocaine and crack.
    Mr. Hurd: We are already pursuing a comprehensive programme of action to tackle both the supply of and the demand for drugs including cocaine and crack. Recent measures include agreement to provide a substantial package of drug-related assistance to Colombia in the form of law enforcement training and equipment. We are also providing £2·3 million to set up locally based drug prevention teams in areas most at risk from drug misuse and in particular from the threat of cocaine and crack.
    Mr. Lord: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the measures he has already taken, may I urge him to take even sterner measures against the villainous men who organise drug trafficking, with particular reference to the sentences that they serve and the confiscation of their profits so that they are left in no doubt whatsoever that if they are caught and convicted they will serve long prison sentences and will never benefit from their ill-gotten gains?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend on sentencing and on the confiscation of assets. Our new legislation is beginning to work well and the total confiscated is now £14 million. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this week signed the 11th agreement that we have with other friendly countries to provide for the mutual confiscation of assets.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Home Secretary agree that while it is all very well to talk in these global terms, perhaps a little more investment in police dogs and good equipment for the police forces would help them in the war against crime?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, of course. That is why every police regional crime squad in the country has a drugs wing.

    Police Establishments
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has further to increase police establishments.
    Mr. Hurd: I will be able to approve a further 1,100 police posts, to be allocated between provincial forces and the Metropolitan police, in 1990–91. I will take advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary on the increases for provincial forces, and I hope to announce the approvals as soon as possible before the end of the year.
    Mr. Pawsey: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that typically helpful response? Is he aware that in Warwickshire motorway mileage has increased substantially and police establishments have not kept pace with that growth? Therefore, I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could reconsider the establishment in Warwickshire, particularly as officers are being taken from

    1043
    the beat to supervise motorways. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that Warwickshire is successfully policed only because of the action of special constables who do a marvellous job? We would be grateful if he were able to reconsider the numbers of police in our county.
    Mr. Hurd: I do not know of any police force that does not have a persuasive case for having a good many more police. Warwickshire had an extra 11 men last year and it has applied for another 35. As I have said, I shall consider that carefully when I look at the totals. My hon. Friend is quite right about the specials. He and I spent an impressive Sunday morning at a parade of the Warwickshire specials and I was deeply impressed by the people who came forward to help the community.
    Mr. Nellist: Will the Home Secretary consider increasing the police establishment allocated to Mr. Shaw in his investigation of the West Midlands regional crime squad specifically to allow him to go back beyond the two-year limit set for that investigation so that the suspicion that the techniques involved in the Birmingham Six and the Carl Bridgewater murder case, both of which involved disputed confessions, little forensic evidence and officers from that now-disbanded squad, could be properly tackled by the investigation?
    Mr. Hurd: There is no limit of time such as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Mr. Shaw is naturally and properly concentrating on those cases, doubts about which caused his inquiry to be set up.

    Electronic Surveillance Devices
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce measures to regulate the manufacture and sale of electronic surveillance devices.
    Mr. Renton: None, for the reasons given in my response to the debate on electronic surveillance devices initiated by my hon. Friend on 13 March.
    Mr. Cran: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to condemn the Tandy Corporation stores group, which is currently marketing an electronic scanner device that facilitates eavesdropping on other people's telephone conversations? That has ramifications for security, the police and individuals in business. Does he agree that that is a gross invasion of privacy, and is he prepared to say what the Government will do about it?
    Mr. Renton: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's deep concern about the subject, but I am not aware of the equipment to which he refers. I ask him not to overlook the 1985 legislation, which dealt with the interception of the public telecommunications system. If the use of the electronic scanner involves such interception, criminal offences and penalties, as set up by the Interception of Communications Act 1985, will come into play.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Day: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 October 1989.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided over a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Day: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proportion of income tax paid by Britain's high-rate taxpayers is greater than it was in 1979? Does she therefore agree that any proposal to increase that high rate to 50 per cent. or more would have a disastrous effect on the British economy? Does she further agree that that would lead to a reduction in revenue for the Exchequer? In view of that, has she any special message for my constituents in Cheadle, who would be adversely affected by such a proposal?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The top 5 per cent. of income tax payers now pay 28 per cent. of income tax yield, whereas they paid only 24 per cent. in 1979. Lower taxes have led to a higher yield. That higher yield and the extra wealth created by our policies of tax incentives and enterprise have not only meant a higher standard of living throughout the whole income tax scale but a much higher standard of social services.
    Mr. Kinnock: Has it come to the Prime Minister's notice that since she was last at the Dispatch Box in July, Britain's balance of payments has moved a further £5·9 billion in the red, that Britain's home buyers and businesses have been hit again by higher interest rates and that in the meanwhile the number of Chancellors has doubled? In the interests of team spirit, will she get rid of the part-time one?
    The Prime Minister: Interest rates will stay as high as is necessary for as long as is necessary to get inflation down. With regard to interest rates and mortgage rates, the right hon. Gentleman must be very glad that we do not have a Socialist Government, because in Australia mortgage rates are 18 per cent.
    Mr. Kinnock: I understand the Prime Minister's reluctance to answer the question about Sir Alan, or indeed any other Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would be wholly inappropriate for her to dismiss Sir Alan when she so completely concurs with everything he says, and everybody knows it. Is she aware that the confusion that is at the heart of Government policy will remain as long as Sir Alan does?
    The Prime Minister: Advisers advise and Ministers decide. Ministers in this Government have a very sound economic policy, which is more than the Opposition have.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the report that the Prime Minister concurs with the view of her adviser faithfully represent her position?
    The Prime Minister: Had the right hon. Gentleman listened to previous replies, he could not have asked that

    1045
    supplementary question. Advisers advise and Ministers decide. Ministers have decided, and we have an excellent economic policy.
    Sir Anthony Grant: When the subject of sanctions on South Africa arises, will my right hon. Friend always recall that the Labour Government spent substantial sums of public money to promote trade with South Africa, and in that context treat anything that the Opposition say on that subject as total humbug?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I recall that. The Labour Government did promote trade with South Africa. Labour also opposed comprehensive sanctions in the United Nations.
    Mr. Ashdown: Given the worries expressed today in the City about the possibility of a recession, will the Prime Minister tell the House whether she agrees with her Chancellor of the Exchequer that Britain's having a £20 billion trade deficit is not a serious problem?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, I have always supported my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his management and handling of the economy. He does not say that the deficit is not a problem. He says that the measures which he has taken will bring down inflation and the trade deficit.
    Mr. Cash: Has my right hon. Friend noticed President Mitterrand's remarks on the question of a new treaty, as opposed to a revision of the treaty of Rome? Does she agree that this is a dangerous path upon which to embark? Does she agree that it would be extremely dangerous and not in the interests of either the European Community or any of the member states to pursue this proposal to a logical conclusion at the summit or in the run-up to the intergovernmental conference?
    The Prime Minister: We have yet to absorb the consequences of the Single European Act and all the changes that will be brought about when we come to 1992 with a real common market. There will be a major change in the whole of Europe. It would be premature to have another intergovernmental conference before we properly come to 1992, and even then it will take years to absorb the consequences. It is, however, clear that an intergovernmental conference can be called by a simple majority at a meeting of Heads of Government, but in order for it to make any effective proposals decisions would have to be agreed with unanimity.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Campbell: Will the Prime Minister abolish the tax on workplace nurseries?
    The Prime Minister: No. Workplace nurseries are treated just as other extra facilities are—as benefits in kind for those earning over a certain salary. It would be quite wrong if those who have nurseries available at work were not to regard that as a benefit in kind while other people who had to make their own arrangements had to pay out of net taxed income.
    Mr. Watts: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Watts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the statement yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security contained unparalleled good news for the disabled and those who care for them, providing an extra £100 million a year over and above normal indexation to more than 500,000 people?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security decided that the disabled were most in need of extra help and added to our excellent record on the disabled. We already spend, over and above inflation, 90 per cent. more on people who are disabled than was spent when the Labour party was in power. I notice that a family with a very severely disabled child will get up to £65 a week extra in benefits. That is very good news.
    Mr. Lofthouse: When the innocent Guildford Four were found guilty does the Prime Minister think that they should have been hanged?
    The Prime Minister: If the death penalty had been available, it would have been a matter for the courts and not for us. I believe however, speaking personally, because it is always a matter for the individual vote, that a death penalty should be available to the courts in cases of the most hideous murder. No one should be able to go out and perform the most hideous, bestial, and vicious murders and know that their own life is not forfeit.
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with a few exceptions, the British people pay themselves far too much money? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Evans: Does the Prime Minister view with alarm the engineers' threatened strike for a 35-hour working week, which will leave Britain with the shortest working week in the industrial world?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct. In the past year earnings seem to have gone ahead of increases in productivity, and that has put up our unit labour costs and will make us uncompetitive with those people in our industrial competitor countries—in Germany, the United States and Japan. It is vital that we stay competitive. I share my hon. Friend's concern about the possibility of a 35-hour week. Some of us do 35 hours in two days and then again in another two days.
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Prime Minister consider repudiating what the Foreign Secretary said yesterday and will she rule out the use of force when repatriating the Vietnamese boat people?
    The Prime Minister: No. Most countries repatriate illegal immigrants, unless they are not really illegal immigrants but refugees, in which case it is totally different. Some 13,000 of the Vietnamese boat people have so far been found to be refugees. Most countries repatriate illegal immigrants involuntarily. We also put back over the Chinese border from Hong Kong over two years some 35,000 illegal immigrants from China. The United States repatriates people to Mexico and Haiti. There is nothing unusual about deporting to repatriate.
    Mr. Kirkhope: To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the Government's inner cities policies.
    The Prime Minister: Excellent progress continues to be made in the regeneration of our inner cities under the Government's action for cities programme, spending on which is planned to increase from £ billion in 1988–89 to about £.3·5 billion this year. Unemployment in the 57 inner city target areas has fallen by 23 per cent. over the past year.
    Mr. Kirkhope: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our policies have set the people free from the shackles of Labour local authorities, enabling them to take a full role in implementing all the improvements that are going on around them?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, the regeneration of the inner cities is due to our policies. We formed urban development corporations in many cases to get round extreme Left-wing councils. Secondly, the policy of enterprise and personal
    1048
    responsibility has paid off handsomely, both in increased jobs and in an increased sense of responsibility and co-operation between industry and the people in inner city areas. The story is a good one and could never have happened under the arrogant controls of Socialism.
    Mr. Livingstone: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether she shares the concern that is widespread in society, that convictions should not be based——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a definitive question to the Prime Minister.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend reflect, when dealing with the problems of the inner cities, that health problems are important? Will she call to the attention of her right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health the fact that the problems of Manchester and Liverpool should be taken into account when setting the regional health budgets and not only, as proposed, the problems of London?
    The Prime Minister: I take my hon. Friend's point and I will draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health to it. I have, of course, visited Liverpool comparatively recently and seen the great improvements taking place there.
    Mr. Vaz: The Prime Minister may recall that on 18 October 1972 in this House, a Conservative Minister, in response to the plight of the expelled Ugandan Asians, stated that there was always a small number of nasty people seeking to make their lives difficult. Is that not the perfect example of the Government's current policy on the proposed compulsory repatriation——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do inner cities.

Commonwealth Conference
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government held in Malaysia on 18 to 24 October, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. A copy of the final communiqué of the meeting has been placed in the Library of the House. Apart from the customary debates on global prospects and current international, political and economic matters, the Heads of Government themselves dealt with five main issues: the global environment, southern Africa, the future of the Commonwealth, drugs, and the choice of a new Commonwealth Secretary-General to succeed Mr. Ramphal in July next year. I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the enormous contribution which Sonny Ramphal has made to the Commonwealth during his 14 years as secretary-general.
I will deal with the main subjects in order—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an important statement, which the House wishes to hear.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: They are applauding Sonny Ramphal.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a running commentary.
The Prime Minister: First, I shall deal with the environment. The meeting agreed a statement—the Langkawi declaration—setting out a Commonwealth programme of action to deal with the main environmental problems facing the world. Particular points to which I would draw attention are the commitment to take more account of environmental considerations in reaching economic decisions, the support expressed for existing international environmental organisations, especially the United Nations environment programme, the endorsement of the United Kingdom's initiative calling for the negotiation of an international framework convention on global climate change and the encouragement given to developing countries to improve the management of their rain forests, which is very important to arrest the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Our particular concern in the debate on these issues was that any additional resources should not go to creating new bureaucracies, but directly to measures to protect and improve the environment. This concern is fully met in the Commonwealth's statement. The Langkawi declaration is a major achievement for the Commonwealth and particularly for our Malaysian chairman, Dr. Mahathir, on whose initiative it was drafted.
Secondly, I shall deal with southern Africa. Heads of Government issued a statement entitled "Southern Africa: The Way Ahead", which marks a significant step forward on a number of points from earlier Commonwealth statements. It recognises that important changes are under way in South Africa, that sanctions ought not to be punitive and that, if sufficient political progress is made in South Africa, the process of relaxing some of the international restrictions against South Africa should begin. This is the first time that the entire Commonwealth
1050
has adopted this approach. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for the skilful manner in which he negotiated those improvements.
The Commonwealth statement also contains four main points with which the United Kingdom does not agree and our disagreement is explicitly stated on the face of the document, but without explaining either the view we take or the reasons for it. It was to fill that gap that my right hon. Friend and I decided to issue a separate statement setting out Britain's views on those points. A copy of the statement has been placed in the Library of the House.
We believe that the approach set out in our document is the more positive and constructive one and takes more account of the significant changes that are actually happening in South Africa, including the decision taken by the South African Government during the Commonwealth meeting that a major African National Congress rally may be held for the first time in 30 years, and addressed by Mr. Sisulu. In the light of this and other recent steps, our aim must surely be to reward progress and encourage South Africa further down the path of reform, rather than to respond with more punitive sanctions.
We made it clear in our statement that, instead of making a financial contribution to the proposed agency to report on South Africa's international financial links or to the continuing work of the Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers on South Africa, we shall make available an equivalent amount of money for additional help to black South Africans. I would remind the House of the substantial sums that the United Kingdom is already making available for such help, as well as to the front-line states.
Our statement also announces our willingness to provide financial help to an independent Namibia as well as—if asked—military training for Namibia's armed forces after independence. We of course give similar help to Zimbabwe, Mozambique and many other Commonwealth countries in Africa.
Thirdly, Heads of Government had a discussion of the Commonwealth in the 1990s and beyond. They decided to set up a group of Heads of Government—of which Britain will be part—to identify the enlarged roles that the Commonwealth might need to play. We welcome that.
Fourthly, we discussed the problem of drugs, recognising the very serious threat that they posed in all our countries and the consequent need for training—particularly for smaller states—in customs procedures, law enforcement, in methods of detection, in education and in treatment of addicts. I expressed the hope that by the time of our next meeting in 1991 a large number of Commonwealth countries would have concluded bilateral agreements on freezing and confiscating the assets of drug smugglers. Britain has taken a lead both in the Commonwealth and more widely in concluding such agreements. We have now signed 10 of them, the last one of which was in Malaysia.
Fifthly, the meeting elected Chief Emeka Anyaoku as the new Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. He has lived in Britain for many years and is a great friend of our country. The whole House will wish him well
I would draw attention to four further points in the final communiqué. The first, was a most welcome reference to the importance of Hong Kong's continued success, and a commitment to assist in any way possible in promoting

1051
the continued prosperity of Hong Kong. That was a major British objective at the meeting and will, I believe, offer welcome reassurance to Hong Kong's people.
The second was the reaffirmation of the need for speedy action to deal with the problem of Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong, including as a matter of priority the return to Vietnam of all those who do not qualify as genuine refugees.
The third was a recognition of the need to increase aviation security world wide, particularly important in the wake of the Lockerbie disaster—[interruption]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
The Prime Minister:—coupled with a strong denunciation of terrorism in all its forms and a call for the immediate safe release of all hostages.
The fourth was a call on all Commonwealth Governments to accede to or ratify international covenants on human rights, which a surprising number have regrettably not yet done.
Despite the difference of views on South Africa, this was a valuable and successful meeting and its success owes much to the very skilful chairmanship of Prime Minister Mahathir.
We have disagreed before on South Africa within the Commonwealth, indeed many times, but this has not damaged our relations with individual Commonwealth countries or the institution itself. The Government will persevere with their present policy on South Africa, because it offers the best prospect of peaceful negotiations and of achieving a new South Africa which will inherit a strong economy.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I first associate myself fully with the Prime Minister's tribute to Sir Sonny Ramphal and offer my congratulations and good wishes to Chief Emeka Anyaoku on his election as secretary-general? May I also take this opportunity to welcome the whole of the constructive communiqué from the Heads of Government meeting in Kuala Lumpur and regret that the Prime Minister could not do the same thing?
The Kuala Lumpur meeting exposed discrepancies in the British Government's approach. On the environment, for instance, is it not clear that the Prime Minister's professions of concern for the global environment have yet again been equalled only by her resistance to backing that concern with practical commitments? On overseas aid, the Prime Minister pledged in the Kuala Lumpur communiqué to make
"renewed commitment and effort to meet the United Nations aid target"
of 0·7 per cent. of GNP. How does the Prime Minister reconcile that with the Government's record of cutting overseas aid to 0·3 per cent. of GNP during their time in office?
I turn now to the issue of sanctions against apartheid. In Kuala Lumpur, the Prime Minister put her signature to a Commonwealth agreement which her Foreign Secretary helped to compile and which she herself proposed for adoption, which states:
"this is not the time to consider any relaxation of existing sanctions and pressures … all existing sanctions and measures should be maintained."
How can the Prime Minister reconcile that with her action a short time later when she put out a statement, apparently
1052
without reference to her Foreign Secretary, which was hostile to all sanctions and which stated that the effect of such sanctions would be to "increase resistance to change"? Is that not a gross inconsistency? Would it not be more honest if in future the Prime Minister were to sign all international agreements with invisible ink—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] No, it is true—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Kinnock: In the wake of the Commonwealth meeting, is it not clear that it is difficult for anyone to trust a Prime Minister who signs a document at 5 and repudiates it at 6 o'clock? Does the Prime Minister understand that nobody doubts her right to free speech, but what disgusts people is the way in which she exercises that right with a forked tongue? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Kinnock: Finally, is the Prime Minister aware that the editorial in Tuesday's edition of the South African National party newspaper was headlined simply "Thanks, Maggie"? Does that not say all that needs to be said about a Prime Minister who has moved from being an appeaser of apartheid to being the agent for it?
The Prime Minister: With regard first to the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the global environment, he is aware that this Government have done more to protect the environment than any previous Government; that we have committed the sum of £2 billion to get rid of sulphur dioxide in coal in power stations; that this year, for example, we are spending £1·3 billion on improved water and sewerage, whereas the Labour Government cut such expenditure; that we have the best record in Europe on rivers that flow into the North sea, and so on and so forth. We hosted the ozone layer conference. We are committed to reduce substantially the amount of CFCs and to move to a 100 per cent. reduction, provided that the relevant research has produced proper alternative substitutes. It was our proposal to have a global convention on CO2 and the greenhouse effect—a proposal which was taken up by other nations. On the environment, the Labour party cannot touch this Government's record—[Interruption.]—and nor can many other people.
On the right hon. Gentleman's totally inaccurate comments on our document on sanctions, I must advise him that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary actually wrote part of that document, so for the right hon. Gentleman to say that my right hon. Friend did not even see it is to be just about as plum stupid as anyone can get. That document was in response to the four parts of the original document with which we disagreed on the face of the document. We thought it best to set out the reasons for our disagreement in writing, so that people could not quarrel with them.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's general proposals on sanctions, I remind him that the Labour party, when in power, said before the United Nations:
"We voted against comprehensive sanctions together with France, West Germany, the United States and some other Western countries because we do not agree that the far-reaching economic measures which the resolution calls for would produce the changes in South Africa which we would all like to see."
That was said on 16 January 1978 by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), and the

1053
right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). The right hon. Gentleman also said, in the Official Report for 7 July 1976:
"I do not believe that a policy of general economic sanctions would be in the interests either of the British people or of South Africa."—[Official Report, 7 July 1976; Vol. 914, c. 1354.]
Moreover, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should read Archbishop Tutu on sanctions when it was proposed that they should be actively imposed on Panama:
"These sanctions have led to the destruction of the country's economy, caused immense suffering on the poorest of the poor, increased unemployment and aggravated social problems. The majority of Panamanians are opposed to sanctions. These sanctions inflict a double oppression on the people of Panama."
Finally, two out of three black South Africans, when asked whether sanctions would cause unemployment and whether they wanted them, said no. It is this Government who are in step with the people of black South Africa, not the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Julian Amery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that early editions of the British newspapers and the communiqués on the World Service of the BBC after the communiqué was issued carried headlines that ran, "Thatcher tightens sanctions"? It was absolutely essential that she and our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary should have put the matter right in their subsequent communiqué.
Would it not also be of interest, given that the Leader of the Opposition protests strongly against the line that my right hon. Friend took—with wide popular support in this country—to see whether he is prepared to put the matter to the test in a debate in this House?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I have not heard what the BBC said, but what he says gives extra support to the path that we took of making our views absolutely clear in writing. That was much better than giving unattributable briefings, as many other Heads of Government did. Some of them made speeches in public at the opening session of the Commonwealth conference clearly setting out their views. They are therefore not at liberty to criticise us for setting out ours. They must not deny to others the freedom of speech that they adopt for themselves.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: May I take this opportunity of welcoming the Commonwealth statement, particularly the passage in respect of Hong Kong? But have not Singapore, Canada and Australia all expanded their immigration programmes considerably to help Hong Kong, and is not the United States planning to quadruple theirs? When will the Government end their impotent silence and honour what they have signed in the agreement?
On South Africa, surely the Prime Minister must realise, whatever her intentions, that the effect of her inept unilateral statement was to give succour to those who would wish to prolong apartheid in South Africa, to undermine the effectiveness of the Commonwealth statement and to bring discredit on the name of Britain?
Finally, is it just a coincidence that, at every single international meeting that the Prime Minister attends, she ends up as a lonely, discredited, minor, single voice?
The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said about Hong Kong. Singapore has
1054
given about 25,000 certificates to people in Hong Kong. They are not to be taken up immediately but holders may have citizenship of Singapore and not go there for some years. I know that that has been a great comfort to many such people. Some people from Hong Kong have taken houses in Australia and Canada. I think that in the case of Canada people have left Hong Kong to take up residence in cities such as Vancouver. Some reassurance is needed for people in Hong Kong whose residence there is vital for the future prosperity of Hong Kong. They need to be given some assurance that they may leave if things should turn out very badly in order that they may stay there to help Hong Kong to keep its prosperous standing. We hope to bring proposals forward by about the turn of the year.
The right hon. Gentleman is totally and utterly wrong about sanctions. We have made clear our abhorrence of apartheid and did so in the statement. We not only oppose sanctions but give practical help to black South Africans and to the front-line states. For example, we are supporting financially about 1,000 black South Africans on graduate or postgraduate work. We also support black South Africans who wish to purchase houses and special housing for black South Africans. We have given about £1·1 billion to the front-line states so that they may be better able to deal with their economic problems.
We note that some of those who are most ardent about sanctions do not impose them. I find utterly repugnant the fact that the only way the trade sanctions can work is by being punitive on black South Africans. I gave a specific example of a pineapple canning factory that closed a few days ago; because it no longer had the demand from Canada and the United States it was not able to keep going. That put 40 white South Africans out of work—and 1,100 black South Africans. That will please the right hon. Gentleman, but it does not please me.
Sir Peter Blaker: Since I understand that the other countries would not agree to include in the communiqué an explanation of the British point of view on the four points on which the communiqué said that we differed from the rest, was it not absolutely essential for us to find some means of putting on record our point of view? What better means than a written statement? Was that not particularly important in view of the continuous misrepresentation of the Government's point of view, not least by the Opposition?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my right hon. Friend. It was absolutely vital for us to put it in writing for everyone to see. My right hon. Friend is also quite right when he says that it set out in detail views that we were not able to have put into the communiqué. It starts off by saying:
"Britain is fully at one with the rest of the Commonwealth in utterly condemning apartheid and wishing to see its total eradication so that all the inhabitants of South Africa can live in dignity and play a full part in the political life of their country."
When South Africa gets its constitution reformed and a new Government, that Government will inherit a strong economy. For that there will be one country in the Commonwealth that it can thank—Britain.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Is there not a real danger that the demand for unanimity among almost 50 countries—all differently situated—will in the end be used to blackmail us into accepting policies that the House would not approve?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that it would be very difficult to blackmail this Government or me in particular, and all my colleagues. We are not likely to be blackmailed in any way. I should add that before the Commonwealth conference ended—and it ended very amicably, as one would expect—barely was the ink dry on the communiqué than I received a letter from a Head of Government of an African country saying that if the financial sanctions that the rest of them had agreed actually worked, it would be very tough on his country and would make things much worse, and could he please have extra aid to deal with it. I said no. People must suffer the consequences of that which they put their hand to.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, since we had made an explicit reserve about our attitude towards sanctions in the communiqué, nothing could have been more normal than that we should either explain that reserve or continue to advocate the policies that seemed sensible to us? Therefore, will she dismiss the synthetic indignation on this subject as the cant that it is? My right hon. Friend enjoys the strongest support in this country for the robust line that she took in the face of the hypocritical pressure on sanctions. Will she tell some of her colleagues in the Commonwealth that if the Commonwealth desires to turn itself into an international tribunal of human rights, there are a great many better targets, from China to Peru and including one or two in the Commonwealth, which might better repay their attention?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of two things happens with economic sanctions. If they do not work, it is because other countries take up the trade. To some extent, that has already happened in South Africa. Our share of the trade in South Africa is less than it was, and Germany and Japan have taken up that trade. If they do work, they work by punishing the most vulnerable—as Archbishop Tutu said about Panama—and making them suffer poverty and even starvation in a country with no social security.
I find it repugnant that people at the Commonwealth conference should sit round a table, having been entertained in excellent hotels with excellent facilities, and decide who will suffer poverty and starvation in another country. We support Operation Hunger, which is aimed at relieving poverty in South Africa. It is absurd that other people in the Commonwealth are trying to magnify what we are trying to relieve.
Miss Joan Lestor: In reiterating the statement on substantial aid to the front-line states, will the Prime Minister take into account that, since 1979, aid has decreased to only 83 per cent. of what it was when we left office, representing in 1985 prices a reduction of £20 million? Therefore, when does she intend to increase aid to the front-line states? Will she deal with a point raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? How is it that she can sign a communiqué pledging herself to the GNP target of 0·7 per cent. of aid for the Third world when aid has, until last year, been steadily reducing under this Government?
The Prime Minister: Since 1980, we have spent the considerable sum of £1·1 billion on aid to the front-line states, in assisting them to create new transport routes so
1056
that they do not have to go through South Africa. In addition, we are providing military training in Zimbabwe. When I went there recently, there was an unusual occasion when I went to the eastern highlands and, with President Mugabe on one side and President Chissano on the other, watched British military officers training the Zimbabwean army and the Mozambican army. That is considerable extra help.
Few countries have reached the target of 0·7 per cent. of aid. However, the amount of private investment from this country to other Commonwealth countries is considerable, and one of the highest. It would be higher still if some were to take off some of the central planning and control that prevents a good deal of investment from going to their countries.
Sir Giles Shaw: If acts rather than words are important in this massively hypocritical debate about sanctions, has not the share of United Kingdom trade to South Africa declined far faster and further than that of any other Commonwealth country? I believe that, since the last Heads of Government meeting in Canada, Canadian trade with South Africa has increased.
The Prime Minister: Yes, Canadian trade with South Africa has gone up since we last met in Vancouver.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Can I have an open, honest and frank response? Whose decision was it to issue the dissenting statement? Was it that of the Foreign Secretary or that of the Prime Minister? Is it not true that, if this had been left to the Foreign Secretary, there would have been no statement?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend and I both decided to issue the statement. What people are complaining about is that it was an effective statement. That is why there was such a row about it. The dissent was on the face of the original communiqué. The explanation was on the face of the communiqué which my right hon. Friend and I jointly issued.
Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in two short months the Government of South Africa have made dramatic changes in their way of thinking? Does she further agree that the one certain way of throwing all that into reverse is to follow the line that has been put forward by the Opposition and by the other Heads of Government in Kuala Lumpur?
The Prime Minister: Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend. The de Klerk Government have done extremely well, first, in making it quite clear that the demonstrations could take place without interference, which they have. Secondly, the South African Government have released political prisoners. Thirdly, even while some people were trying to curb our freedom of speech in Kuala Lumpur, the South African Government were agreeing to an ANC demonstration at which Mr. Sisulu could speak freely. It was an ironic juxtaposition of events.
Dr. David Owen: How can the Government justify snubbing the ANC delegation at Kuala Lumpur and not meeting it when the former Foreign Secretary had met the ANC and when the Government have recently seen Jonas Savimbi? In similar stages in the liberation struggle, the Government have been prepared to meet the Patriotic Front and SWAPO.
The Prime Minister: We treat it in precisely the same way as we have done the PLO, for example, and said that if it would renounce violence my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would see members of the ANC. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Eminent Persons Group concept is negotiations in return for the suspension of violence. In these days, that is perhaps handled in a slightly different way by saying "peaceful negotiations". That means precisely the same thing. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not get a reply from the ANC which indicated that it was prepared to suspend or renounce violence, and that is why he did not see it.
Sir Ian Lloyd: Having recently visited some of the excellent projects that the British Government are funding in South Africa, projects which the shadow Foreign Secretary failed to visit when he was there, I must endorse heartily what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said about that assistance. May I express my profound admiration for her cheerfulness and for the moral courage which she exhibited in Kuala Lumpur?
I suggest that when the agenda for the next Commonwealth conference is prepared, my right hon. Friend suggests to the new secretary-general that he places three documents before all the delegates. The first, if I may say so, is the wonderful cartoon that she and I and those of our generation will remember when Low published it in the Evening Standard in June 1940—"Very well, then—alone!" I suggest that the second document should be the Amnesty International report, which should be left open at the page marked "India" for all those concerned to see. Finally, may he lay before all the delegates the wonderful speech which was made by Burke in this place just over 200 years ago when he reminded the House that there was no way known to him in which one could "condemn an whole people"?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made his own points extremely effectively. I am grateful to him for the confirmation that he gives that our approach of alleviating problems of black South Africans is one of practical help and not of posturing. I notice that many of the states in Africa that demand comprehensive sanctions do not apply them themselves. There are, for example, no airlines flying from the United States directly to South Africa, but they fly to the capitals in black Africa, from where the passengers are then promptly flown down to Johannesburg. That hardly seems to be doing what they are preaching.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Following the Prime Minister's unhappy exchanges with President Mugabe of Zimbabwe, when he called the right hon. Lady "despicable" and she called him "ritualistic", what was the point of her comment that he was only too happy to accept British aid? Was this not a patronising and insulting way of telling him that freedom of speech was the payment for any economic assistance from Britain?
The Prime Minister: Mr. Mugabe said some things about our attitude to apartheid which he knew were entirely untrue, and which were shown to be untrue on the face of the document which we ourselves issued, which stated that Britain is fully at one with the rest of the Commonwealth in utterly condemning apartheid. We have been very generous, and will continue to be, in
1058
helping Zimbabwe—I made that perfectly clear—both with military training and with aid. I do wish sometimes that people would not use some of the language that they do, which tempts one to reply in the same coin. I did not, in fact.
At the same time I expressed to President Mugabe considerable sympathy with the difficulties that he is in over the ivory ban. There are far too many elephants in Zimbabwe, and they have to cull them, which they do very well. They finance that operation by selling the ivory from the elephants which are properly culled. President Mugabe does not lack support from me in the things which I agree he is doing extremely well.
Mr. James Kilfedder: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on injecting clarity and common sense into the deliberations of the Commonwealth conference? Will she visit the Republic of South Africa after the long-awaited release of Nelson Mandela and after further political progress has been made in that country—political progress that has been prompted by the actions of this Government?
The Prime Minister: I have not made up my mind about visiting South Africa. I should like to go there some time. but I do not think that now is the right time. More steps must be made towards solving the fundamental constitutional problem, and then I shall consider going. I repeat that we give practical help to black South Africans. Those who wish to impose economic sanctions will create poverty and hardship in South Africa, and that is not our way.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it not the case that, when the draft agreement was presented to the Heads of Government, some Prime Ministers sought to make changes to it but the right hon. Lady insisted that it could not be changed because it was an agreed document, so the document was proposed in its entirety? Therefore, are not her protestations that she has been exercising free speech and clarification quite preposterous?
Is the right hon. Lady aware that her demeanour at the Dispatch Box today absolutely confirms that her intention in producing that statement an hour later was to repudiate the part that related to sanctions? That is quite clear. Is not the reason for all that the fact that she has a secret agenda with de Klerk, and that her part of that agenda is to prevent change taking place? She makes so much noise about people losing their jobs, but is she aware that people in South Africa are afraid of losing their lives—or perhaps that is what she prefers?
The Prime Minister: The main parts of that document are agreed and were a compromise agreement. If anyone wished to change those parts of the document, we also would have wished to change them. We agreed to leave them precisely as they were. The four main parts of the document were disagreed, and it states, "with the exception of Britain" or "Britain disagrees". It is on those parts that we issued an especially clear statement.
Our view on apartheid is clear and our practical help for South Africa is clear, as is our hatred of economic sanctions. The hon. Gentleman is one of those who wish to impose punitive economic sanctions—[Interruption.]Economic sanctions are punitive. That is the only way in which they can work. If the hon. Gentleman is not in

1059
favour of that, he must be very glad that our way prevailed and that black South Africans will not suffer from punitive economic sanctions.
Mr. Robert Banks: While I give a warm welcome to the statement that there will be a study into the role of the Commonwealth in the 1990s, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm this country's commitment to the Commonwealth institution and seek ways to improve its functions in the areas of mutual help, of trade, of education and of the understanding of democratic principles?
The Prime Minister: Yes. Some people were arguing that perhaps we needed to have a new role for the Commonwealth. I do not necessarily envisage a new role, but the Commonwealth exists on the basis of principles set down in the Singapore declaration in 1971, and those are the principles of freedom under a rule of law and democracy. The 48 and 49 of us co-operate closely on many matters, especially those mentioned by my hon. Friend such as scientific and technical co-operation and the advice upon education and other matters that we give. We also girdle the world and so have an instant way of seeking local views on any matter which may arise anywhere in the world.
One of the most impressive things about the Commonwealth conference is that it is the only big international conference that I attend which requires no translation or interpretation of any kind, making the debate active, without rancour and very clear. Such an organisation has a great future ahead.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to take into account the subsequent business. We have business questions and a heavy day in front of us. I shall call three more hon. Members from each side and then we must move on.
Ms. Diane Abbott: Does the Prime Minister agree that, notwithstanding her ritual condemnation of apartheid, her performance at Kuala Lumpur demonstrates what everybody, particularly black South Africans, know—that she is and remains, at every international occasion that she attends, an indefatigable fifth columnist for apartheid?
The Prime Minister: Nonsense. As the hon. Lady knows, and as I reminded the Commonwealth conference, when there was naked racialism on the part of some African countries, throwing out the Indians because they were highly successful, it was Britain that took them; a considerable number came to my constituency, where they have been very successful indeed.
Mr. John Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if South Africa did not exist, it would soon be invented by many Commonwealth leaders to cover up the problems in their own backyard, particularly the violation of human rights? Is it not time that we considered leaving that club, the members of which seem intent on inflicting poverty and hunger on those whom they purport to try to represent in South Africa?
The Prime Minister: South Africa exists. It has the strongest economy in Africa. Many people vote with their
1060
feet and go to work in South Africa in order to get a better living there and they remit a good deal of their earnings to the front-line states. If the economy of South Africa were to collapse, the economies of the front-line states would quickly follow. It is important to keep that economy strong and not to cause more poverty. Britain relieves the people who are being fed under Operation Hunger at a cost of £1·3 million and tries to reduce the hardship there; other people seem to wish to increase it.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: With regard to the Prime Minister's strictures earlier about language, her reported statement that she felt sorry for the other 48 members of the Commonwealth may be good language, but would it not be interpreted as supreme arrogance by any Head of State?
Secondly, will the Prime Minister try to clarify the Foreign Secretary's role in relation to the statement? A recorded press interview shows that when the Foreign Secretary was interviewed he did not know anything about the statement that was issued. Will she clarify that, please?
The Prime Minister: Nonsense. The hon. Gentleman saw my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. He is totally and utterly misrepresenting the Foreign Secretary. My right hon. Friend wrote part of the document and we both agreed to issue it. However much the hon. Gentleman tries to use language to counter that, it is not true. We both wrote and we both issued the statement.
Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the Commonwealth countries that are critical of the United Kingdom Government's stance on South Africa have themselves been criticised for their actions in their own countries by the latest report from Amnesty International? Is it not the height of hypocrisy for some of our critics, when their own house is not in order and when there are violations of human rights there, to criticise anybody, whether it be about South Africa or not?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Four countries in the Commonwealth have states of emergency, and a number do not have democracy at all in our sense of the term. Nevertheless, most of us recognise that it is our task to try to sustain them through periods of difficulty, hoping that they will eventually come through with freedom, the rule of law, full democractic rights and a plurality of parties.
Mr. Pat Wall: The Prime Minister referred to the election of Chief Anyaoku as Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, and a joint declaration against all forms of terrorism. Did she use the opportunity of her visit to Kuala Lumpur to discuss with representatives of the Nigerian Government the introduction of a state of emergency there, and the arrest of trade unionists and other elements of opposition within Nigeria, who have been held without trial and often without charge? Did she raise with Chief Anyaoku the farce of a Government who are calling an election in which they nominate the two parties allowed to stand, and forbid the Nigerian Labour party its right to stand?
The Prime Minister: I did not discuss those particular matters with the Nigerian representatives, but the hon. Gentleman knows that the members of the military

1061
Government have made it quite clear that they will not stand in the democratic elections that they hope will be held fairly soon.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: As we are now undoubtedly out of step with the rest of the Commonwealth—old and new—on the question of sanctions against South Africa, is it not all the more important for my right hon. Friend to emphasise Britain's appreciation of the value of membership of this worldwide, multiracial, English-speaking organisation, the source and raison détre of which—fruitfully for us—is the British connection?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The origin of the Commonwealth is its historic connection with Britain. It is, after all, the first empire in the world that has finally resolved itself into a commonwealth of friendly nations agreeing to co-operate and help on many matters, and I think that it is extremely valuable and important.

Business of the House
4.18 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week:

MONDAY 30 OcToBER—Remaining stages of the Football Spectators Bill Lords]

Remaining stages of the Brunei (Appeals) Bill [Lords]

TUESDAY 31 OCTOBER—Opposition day (20th Allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The crisis for mortgage payers, tenants arid homeless people".

Motion on the Licensing and Clubs (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order.

WEDNESDAY I NOVEMBER—Until 7 o'clock motion relating to the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations.

Motion to take note of EC document on control of nitrate pollution. Details will be given in the Official Report.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.

THURSDAY 2 NOVEMBER—There will he a debate on economic and monetary union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Details of the EC Documents relevant to the debate will be given in the Official Report.

FRIDAY 3 NOVEMBER—There will be a debate on road safety on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

MONDAY 6 NOVEMBER—Progress on consideration of Lords Amendments to the Local Government and Housing Bill.

[Relevant documents:
Wednesday 1 November
Relevant European Community Document

(a) 4136/89

Water pollution by nitrates

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee
(a) HC 15-xiv ( 1988–89), para 2
Thursday 2 November
Relevant European Community Documents

(a) unnumbered

Economic and Monetary Union

(b) unnumbered

Co-operation between Central Banks

(c) unnumbered

Convergence of economic performance

(d) 7550/89

European Currency Unit

Relevant reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 15-xxi (1988–89), para 5

(b) HC I5-xxxv (1988–89), para 2

(c) HC 15-xxxv (1988–89), para 3

(d) HC I5-xxviii (1988–89), para 2]

Mr. Frank Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. I also thank him for doing as we asked and providing prime time for the debate on the GPs' contracts, and also for providing a day for a debate on the Delors report on economic and monetary union.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us when we are likely to have the report of the Clapham rail crash inquiry? Could he also oblige us by not presenting that report to the House next Tuesday, in an exercise of news

1063
management intended to keep the debate on the housing crisis out of the first items in the television news broadcasts?
Is there any possibility of an early debate on the release of the Guildford Four and associated matters, particularly as at present the case is not sub judice but should any prosecutions commence it would become so? Can the Leader of the House guarantee that there will be no more instant guillotines announced next week? In particular will he ensure that no more business statements are made without proper notice being given to the Opposition?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his appreciation of the arrangements made through the usual channels for handling the debate on general practioners' contracts and on economic and monetary union. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport proposes to make a statement on the Clapham report shortly. I had not thought of the idea that the hon. Gentleman suggested, but I will bear it in mind. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer on when there will be a debate on the Guildford Four, but I shall certainly look into the matter.
On the hon. Gentleman's final point, I shall have to make, at whatever time and stage it is necessary, whatever arrangements are needed to secure the continued dispatch of the business before the House. I regret that, owing to a misunderstanding, when I intervened last night in a move to report progress—I intended at the same time to make some proposals about the remainder of business—the normal conventions for giving notice were not observed. I apologise for that to the hon. Gentleman and to the other parties. However, the substance of the matter has been for the convenience of the House and such matters may have to be considered again.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I fully appreciate the pressure of business facing the Government, it is extraordinary that in the statement on the Commonwealth conference no question was put on a matter which is perhaps more relevant than any other—the independence process in Namibia. Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for either a debate or for a Government statement, where an assurance could be given to the House that the United Kingdom Government will insist upon the 1982 principles being adhered to in Namibia and that they will not recommend that the Security Council should recognise any government that may result from the elections in the constituent assembly unless the 1982 principles have been fully honoured?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot be accountable for topics that hon. Members raise during questioning on statements such as the one we have just listened to. My hon. Friend's interest in Namibia is well known and understood. Of course, Her Majesty's Government are intensely interested in the elections that are to take place shortly in Namibia. We will bear in mind the points that were made by my hon. Friend. I have no doubt that he will be as ingenious as ever in finding other opportunities to express his concern on this matter.
Mr. David Steel: Will the Leader of the House consider an early debate on procedure? Does he recognise that eight Bills this Session have been subject to the guillotine and that there is
1064
growing irritation not just in the House but in the other place and outside? The early clauses of Bills are discussed at inordinate length and the later clauses are discussed hardly at all. That is not a satisfactory way of legislating. Will he look again at a process of voluntary timetabling of major Bills from the beginning?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am obviously studying the wide range of proposals that have been made over the years affecting procedures on matters of this kind. However, I cannot promise to come to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman urges upon me. The volume of amendments concerned in some of the Bills—for example, the Children Bill—reflect the Government's willingness to respond positively to the wide-ranging debate that has taken place.
Sir Philip Goodhart: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that some of us deeply deplore the decision forcibly to repatriate the Vietnamese boat people. Can we have a debate before that depressing decision is implemented?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am familiar with my hon. Friend's continuing interest in this matter which he has brought before the House on a number of occasions and which he will no doubt raise again. He must recall that the international community has accepted for some time that all those screened out as non-refugees should be returned to Vietnam. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out earlier, it is increasingly feared that voluntary returns cannot provide a comprehensive solution to the problem. However, I shall bear in mind the points that my hon. Friend makes.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: In view of the hon. Gentleman's letter to me, I call Mr. Anthony Banks.
Mr. Tony Banks: You are very kind to an old man, Mr. Speaker.
Does the Leader of the House agree that dealing with 48 Commonwealth Prime Ministers is a mere doddle compared with dealing with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) during the early watches of the morning?
As the Prime Minister made quite lengthy mention of elephants and elephant ivory and said—and I disagree entirely—that in certain parts of southern Africa there are large elephant populations that should be culled——
Dame Peggy Fenner: Zimbabwe.
Mr. Banks: In southern Africa. Will the Leader of the House please arrange for a statement from the responsible Minister who was in Lausanne for the CITES conference discussing the future of the ivory trade? In view of the fact that in Hong Kong there are so many tonnes of ivory that should be destroyed rather than put on to the market, we must have that debate. There is a great deal of public concern.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Even in response to a question from the hon. Gentleman after some secret exchange with which he is so pleased, I shall not respond to his invitation to pay tribute to his colleague the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
On the serious topic with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned, whatever the differences of opinion, he

1065
appreciates that there are differences between the stocks in certain southern African countries and those in other parts of the world. He also appreciates that Hong Kong's possession of substantial existing stock is different again. Clearly it would be helpful to find an opportunity to debate these matters. I do not know whether we will be able to find such an opportunity, but I shall bear in mind the general point that he raised.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Although the House will be grateful for next week's debate on the Delors report on economic and monetary union, that debate is taking place four months after 'the Madrid summit at which we might have had some influence on the Government's thinking had there been a debate at that time. As a former Foreign Secretary with new responsibilities, will my right hon. and learned Friend start to have some sympathy for the point of view that we continually debate European matters either too late in the political process or too late at night and that some reforms in that sphere of parlimentary business really are necessary?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Having been concerned with such matters from the first moment of introduction of the European Communities Act 1972 and the Foster report which laid the foundations of our present procedure, I fully understand the importance of that point to the whole House. As my hon. Friend knows, it is now being considered by the Procedure Committee, and obviously we shall look forward to the opportunity of considering that report when it is forthcoming.
Mr. Alfred Morris: At Blackpool two weeks ago, the right hon. and learned Gentleman urged his colleagues to do more listening. Will the Government be listening next Monday as Britain's war widows launch their new campaign for justice, a campaign that is massively backed on both sides of the House? Will there be a statement next week and will the Leader of the House put it to his ministerial colleagues directly involved that to listen is to understand and to understand is to want to help?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The whole House will acknowledge that there is scarcely any group whose case is likely to be listened to with more attention than that mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. They will certainly be listened to, although I cannot promise what the consequences will be.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: What plans does my right hon. and learned Friend have for a proper parliamentary debate on the implications of and the implementations of the Polkinghorne report?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my hon. Friend's interest in the Polkinghorne report which was delivered to health Ministers shortly before the summer recess. Given the speed of recent developments, Department of Health Ministers decided that the new code of practice on the use of foetal tissue for research and treatment should be published without dalay. I shall take account of my hon. Friend's expression of interest in the prospect of a debate.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that when the proceedings of the House are televised, thousands of deaf people will be deprived of their basic rights to follow them because they
1066
will not be subtitled? Can the Leader of the House help with that urgent matter because we are being televised in a few weeks' time? May we please have a debate next week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The point made by the right hon. Gentleman was drawn to my attention in Blackpool two or three weeks ago. It is touched on in the report of the broadcasting Select Committee, and I am examining the matter in the light of those references. I shall do so with more energy in the light of the urging of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: May I return to the terrible plight of the haemophiliac AIDS victims? We still have not had a statement from a Minister on the subject. The Government's record is extremely good and they have shown their sympathy in the past, but the plight of these people is desperate. If they have to wait for the courts, they will mostly be dead. May we please have a statement next week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The matter has already been drawn to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health, and the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) has been asking my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) questions about it. I shall ensure that the point raised by my hon. Friend is drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: May I draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 1293?
[That this House welcomes the united efforts of Hertsmere Borough Council and the Hindu community to find an equitable solution to maintain the continuity of Hindu worship presently accommodated at Bhaktivedanta Manor in Hertfordshire; and supports the recognition of very special circumstances as defined in planning law, of the needs of the Hindu community in this case.]
It is an all-party motion on Hindu worship and Hertsmere borough council. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot arrange an early debate, will he draw the matter to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, because I understand that the ball is in his court? The matter has been a vexatious problem for several years, but agreement has been reached between the borough council and the Hindu community. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman kindly assist in this respect?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the significance of the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman. My right hon Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is currently considering appeals against an enforcement note order and a discontinuance order made by the council and also two appeals, including one on a temple and other accommodation that will, in part, replace those activities. He expects to announce his decision shortly, taking into account the possibility of there being special circumstances that could override the strong presumption against development in the green belt.
Mr. Tim Smith: May I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said about the haemophiliac AIDS victims and draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to early-day motion 1307?

1067
[That this House is gravely concerned by the tragic situation facing 1,200 sufferers from haemophilia who were treated by the National Health Service with the blood product Factor VIII which has subsequently been shown to have been contaminated with the HIV virus; is deeply saddened by the deaths of 100 of these patients who developed full blown AIDS; is seriously worried about the future well being of their families and asks the Government to recognise that the patients are the victims of a medical accident brought about by a lack of knowledge rather than negligence and that they be compensated without the costly, time-consuming process of law during which many of them may die.]
This is, by definition, an urgent matter. I very much hope that it will be possible for the Government to make a statement in this Session.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand, if only for the reason that the point has been raised with me by hon. Members at each of my appearances at business questions, that there is widespread feeling about this matter, and that by definition there is a degree of urgency about it. As I have said already, I shall draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. Alex Salmond: After the Leader of the House left us this morning, he may be aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told the House that a decision on a decommissioning scheme for the fishing industry would be made before Christmas. Given that statement, should we not have a debate in Government time on this most urgent matter so that the House can fully explore the role of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in blocking and sabotaging proposals for a decommissioning scheme emanating from the Scottish Office? I am sure that the Leader of the House will be aware of the urgency of the position, given the crisis in the fishing industry in Scotland. I hope for a favourable reply.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot give an undertaking about the prospect of a debate in any particular form. I can confirm what was implicit from what was said from the Dispatch Box last night—that this is an urgent matter and that the Government are urgently considering the measures necessary to deal with it.
Mr. Charles Wardle: My right hon. and learned Friend may recall a debate on drug abuse on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on 21 July. Will he consider finding time for another such debate before long, perhaps early in the new Session, to concentrate on the growing and terrible menace of crack? Does he agree that crack not only ruins the lives of those who succumb to it but threatens the public with a spiral of violence by addicts, who need money to buy it? Should not the House continue to give the matter the closest possible attention?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot undertake to arrange a debate on the topic at any particular time. My hon. Friend is entirely right about the need to keep this desperate problem well to the fore of our agenda.
Mr. Stuart Bell: In view of the exchanges that we have just had on the Prime Minister's statement on Kuala Lumpur, will the Lord President of the Council promise us an early debate on the Commonwealth, because we had some interesting exchanges with the Prime Minister and her Back Benchers? In the debate, it would be interesting to elucidate what she meant when she got on the plane and said to a Daily Mail reporter, "1 think they are jolly lucky that we colonised them, not someone else." It may be that during the debate we should be able to elucidate what the Prime Minister meant by that remark.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman will be able to regale the House with this interrogation when my right hon. Friend has the opportunity to discuss this topic in. for example, the debate on the Gracious Address.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. and learned Friend try to find time for a full debate on the laws of defamation? Several recent events have caused grave disquiet, not just in the legal profession but in the world of journalism. I refer in particular to two recent decisions, one of which was the decision by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to prevent two retired intelligence officers from giving evidence in a libel case. At the same time he is allowing a retired intelligence officer to bring a libel case against a senior academic. We need a debate at the earliest possible moment to clarify the Government's policy on this issue.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot comment on any security matters raised expressly or by implication in my hon. Friend's question. On the wider matter of press relations with the rest of society, no doubt there will be opportunities as the year's business proceeds to discuss these matters.
Mr. Harry Ewing: May I raise with the Leader of the House a serious and important matter involving the Scottish Office? Will he arrange for a statement to be made next week as a matter of urgency, preferably by the Prime Minister in her role as head of the Civil Service? The Secretary of State for Scotland, through his private secretary and, I understand, with the support of the permanent under-secretary, has given an instruction that all background and discussion documents on Government policy must be sent to the chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland whose office is in Chester street, Edinburgh. Does not the Leader of the House see a serious and dangerous situation in that? If the chairman of the Tory party in Scotland is to get all these documents, why should not the chairmen of the Labour and Scottish National parties and of the Liberal Democrats—all of which are represented in the House—get them also?
I put it to the Leader of the House that, once these lines of communication are open between senior civil servants in the Scottish Office and Tory party headquarters and its chairman at Chester street, Edinburgh, it will be difficult for the incoming Labour Government and their Ministers. once they go into New St. Andrew's house, in a few years' time, to have any confidence that those lines have been closed.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman must understand that the chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland is a member of Her Majesty's Government and receives communications about matters in that capacity.

1069
The other office holders whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned—the chairman of other political parties—are not, and I hope for a very long time that they will not hold that position.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I support the call by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for a debate or statement on the future of the ivory trade. Could such a debate be wide enough to take account of the fact that elephants in some areas are nearly extinct?
May we also have a proper debate on sanctions against South Africa rather than short statements, such as the one that we have had this afternoon, which do not allow all hon. Members who wish to speak to do so? Could such a debate be wide enough to take account of the views recently expressed by Mr. Jim Baker, the United States Secretary of State who said that further sanctions against South Africa would he inappropriate at the present time and that we should support my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in her support for President de Klerk as the best means of moving South Africa towards an improvement?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has made such an all-embracing set of observations on that topic that I doubt the need to provide any further special occasion to discuss them.
Mrs. Ann Clywd: Will the Leader of the House consider having an early debate on Government policy on Cambodia? There was yet another example of double-speak at the Kuala Lumpur conference. The Prime Minister signed a communiqué on the section on South-East Asia which clearly stated the right of the Cambodian people to determine their destiny without foreign interference. At the same time, Jane's Defence Weekly says the United Kingdom has been training Cambodian guerrillas at four secret bases in Thailand over the past four years. Given the great public interest in this subject, people have a right to know exactly where the United Kingdom Government stand on this issue.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Although the hon. Lady may have difficulty in securing any very large space in it, there is to be an Adjournment debate on this topic on Wednesday next week. I shall draw the attention of the Minister who is to reply to that debate to the point that she has made.
Mr. Stephen Day: Incitement to murder is still a criminal offence in Britain as I understand it. Therefore, will my right hon. and learned Friend make it possible for the Home Secretary to make a statement as to why certain leaders of the Moslem community have remained immune from prosecution under that law and allow the House to express the view that I am sure will be supported by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides, that such incitements to murder have no place in a multi-religious, multicultural and multiracial free society?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The whole House will readily agree with my hon. Friend that incitement to murder should not be tolerated in any society, and certainly not in our own. However, for action of the kind that my hon. Friend has in mind to be taken, a decision has to be made, not by the Home Secretary or any other Minister, but by the prosecuting authorities, who are, no doubt, considering the matter.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to the reply that the Leader of the House gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), will he be more specific about when a debate could be held on the innocence of the Guildford Four and the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings, on the methods that the police used to obtain confessional evidence on which the convictions were made, why that information was not made available to defence lawyers or anybody else during the past 15 years, and the practice of the police investigating the police when malpractice appears?
We should also discuss the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974, bearing in mind that my constituent Paul Hill has just been released after serving 15 years for a crime that he did not commit and that he was the first person to be accused under that Act. Does the Leader of the House agree that a debate on these matters is urgent and important in view of the miscarriages of justice that have taken place?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not able to offer any conclusion about a proposal for a Government debate of that kind. It is clearly a matter that could he considered by the official Opposition as a topic for debate if they so wish. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of the Home Secretary.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House press the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement next week on the Department's response to the Silberston report on the multi-fibre arrangement? The Government do not seem to be sufficiently seized of the serious nature of this report, which affects the clothing and textile industry which employs almost 500,000 people. In Bradford that industry employs about 14,000 people in wool and textile mills. The phasing out of the multi-fibre arrangement, which has been suggested by Professor Silberston, would put their jobs in jeopardy. The report suggests the loss of about 33,000 jobs and it is causing a good deal of concern among workers who have been most helpful and co-operative for many years in the development of the industry. I hope that the Leader of the House will press the Department for a statement so that we can ask questions about it.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Member understands that Professor Silberston's report on the implications of the multi-fibre arrangement for the United Kingdom economy represents the professor's own view. That does not mean that it is not helpful to the Government and others when they are considering this issue. However, I cannot undertake to find Government time for consideration of the report before the House prorogues. I have little doubt that there will be a chance to consider it once we return.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that when he had to come to the House to change Government business last night, after midnight, some people said—hon. Members on both sides of the House but particularly Opposition Members—that he had been left holding the baby because of the Whips' inability to keep the troops in? As the right hon. and learned Gentleman probably now knows, the Government have to have 100 people in the Chamber to close a debate. The Leader of the House had to come and pick up the pieces.

1071
One of the bones of contention in that debate, apart from the legislation itself, which is in a tidy old mess, is that the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill is scheduled for consideration next week. It is on——
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is the business for next week——
Mr. Skinner: It is on next week, on Wednesday, after 7 o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: But I do not think it was announced——
Mr. Skinner: Sometimes this place is in a hubbub and I know that you cannot hear everything, Mr. Speaker. I know that you turn a deaf ear to some of the words and expletives that are used as well—[HON. MEMBERS: "From the Tory Benches".] If the present Leader of the House had done what the last one did and had had consultations with interested parties about this flawed Bill which had as its chairman an adviser to the British Chemical Engineering Contractors Association, which had some connection with the promoters of——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Yes, but it is indeed set down for business next week and that is the time to make these comments.
Mr. Skinner: But, I mean, the lad is new and I am trying to put him in the picture and explain why the Bill ought to be taken off. If the Government want the Bill they should start it again next year. If the Leader of the House does that he will make a more promising start and he might not get dragged out of bed after midnight.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Chairman of Ways and Means, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has identified the Bill to which he referred for discussion in opposed private business at 7 o'clock next week. During the discussions I have learnt quite a lot about this interesting piece of legislation and I have no doubt I shall learn more next Wednesday, possibly even from the hon. Gentleman. He has not enlightened me greatly in his discussion of last night's proceedings because despite his lurid expectations, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Whip had a well-manned majority in the House. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Sir Geoffrey Howe.

Companies Bill [Lords]and Children Bill [Lords] (Allocation of Time)
4.46 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe) rose——
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I beg to move——
Hon. Members: On a point of order.
Hon. Members: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?
Mr. Madden: Earlier this afternoon the Home Secretary was invited to apologise for the gross miscarriage of justice experienced by the Guildford Four. Mr. Speaker, you will have heard that he gave what must have been the most graceless apology for what is clearly a serious miscarriage of justice. At the time, justified protests were made. My point of order is that the Guildford Four are in the process of submitting claims for compensation for the miscarriage of justice that they have suffered, and the view that was expressed this afternoon on their conviction may influence the amount of compensation awarded.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, but that is not a matter for the Chair or for order in the House. I said at the time, and I took the points of order at the time because they arose immediately out of the answer to that question, that it is a matter not for me but for the Government.
Mrs. Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this afternoon the Home Secretary informed my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) that I had given my unreserved support to the so-called women's safety charter. He was referring to a press report in which I make it quite clear that I do not give that charter unreserved support. I accuse Ministers of using the charter to obscure their failure to tackle the root causes of violence against women. It is important that Ministers of such high rank do not misrepresent matters.
Mr. Speaker: Again that is not a matter for me.
Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: We have already started on the timetable debate.
Mr. Devlin: This is an important matter.
Mr. Speaker: Very well.
Mr. Devlin: May I refer you to column 871 of yesterday's Hansard Mr. Speaker in which the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) referred in a point of order to part-time Tory Members, following a point of order that I raised at 4.45 pm. Can you advise me, Mr. Speaker, as a relatively junior Member of the House—in fact a very junior Member—whether it is in order for one hon. Member to refer to another as a part-time

1073
Member when the hon. Member who did the calling has a worse voting record and was referring to an occasion when he too was absent?
Mr. Speaker: We must never attribute any dishonourable actions to each other in this House, but being called a part-time Member does not quite come within that category and it is not an issue in this debate, which has already started.
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to upset a new Member of Parliament. My comment may have caused him embarrassment in his constituency, but I must point out to him that what was said in the course of heated debate was not meant to cause him any personal harm or embarrassment. In his particular case, I withdraw my comment.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Companies Bill [Lords] and the Children Bill [Lords]:—
Report and Third Reading

Companies Bill [Lords]and Children Bill [Lords] (Allocation of Time)

  COMPANIES BILL [Lords]
  1—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Companies Bill [Lords] shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at the Times shown in the following Table:—

  TABLE

  Proceedings

  Time for conclusion of proceedings

  New Clauses, new Schedules and amendments relating to Parts I to IV of the Bill.

  9.50 pm

  New Clauses, new Schedules and amendments relating to Part V of the Bill.

  11.00 pm

  New Clauses, new Schedules and amendments relating to Parts VI and VII of the Bill.

  Midnight

  Remaining new Clauses and amendments and Third Reading.

  1.00 am

  CHILDREN BILL [LORDS]
  2. The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Children Bill [Lords] shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of adjourned proceedings on consideration.
  CHILDREN BILL [LORDS]
    Dilatory Motions
    3. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on either Bill shall be moved except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
    Order of proceedings
    4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on Consideration of either Bill are taken.
    Extra time on allotted days
    5. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on both Bills.

  COMPANIES BILL [LORDS]
  6.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings on the Companies Bill [Lords] which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

  1074

  (c) the Question that all new Clauses standing in the name of, or moved by, a member of the Government and all new Schedules standing in the name of a member of the Government be added to the Bill;

  (d) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of, or moved by, a member of the Government be made to the Bill;

  (e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

  CHILDREN BILL [LORDS]
  7.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings on the Children Bill [Lords] which are to be brought to a conclusion at the time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

  (c) the Question that all new Clauses and new Schedules standing in the name of a member of the Government be added to the Bill;

  (d) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a member of the Government be made to the Bill;

  (e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

  CHILDREN BILL [LORDS]

    Supplemental orders
    8.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
    (2) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which proceedings on either Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

    Saving
    9. Nothing in this Order—

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

    (b) prevents any business (whether on the Bill in question or not) from being proceeded with after the completion of all such proceedings on that Bill.

    Re-committal
    10. No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit either Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

    Interpretation
    11. In this Order "allotted day", in relation to the Companies Bill [Lords] or the Children Bill [Lords] means any day on which that Bill is put down as first Government Order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day.
    The House does not need me to remind it that it is fundamental to the way in which the House operates that the elected Government are entitled, on reasonable terms, to look to the House for the passage of their business. That does not mean that we do not have a responsibility to listen to the points made by hon. Members of all parties. In the case of these two Bills, we have been listening with great

    1075
    care, and that has been reflected in many amendments designed to improve and clarify the two measures. We also have a responsibility to respect the right of hon. Members of all parties, including, of course, the official Opposition, to debate and challenge the Government's legislation.
    In the case of the Companies Bill and the Children Bill, it cannot be argued that the Opposition, or indeed the whole House, have not been given that chance. We have almost completed consideration of both measures and it would be most unwelcome to many outside the House if the Government were to allow the Bills to be put at risk at this late stage, when they have been successfully piloted to this stage with the agreement of the House at each stage.
    At about this time last year, the House agreed to a somewhat similar approach by my predecessor, when a timetable was put on the last stages of the School Boards (Scotland) Bill and the Housing (Scotland) Bill to ensure that those important measures would be allowed to complete their passage. My motion today is in no sense unprecedented and it is even more justified in light of the way in which progress on these Bills has been delayed.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House tell us how many amendments there were to the Bills that he has just cited as precedents? Were there more than the 1,000 Government amendments on the Companies Bill or the 400 amendments on the Children Bill? Surely it is the weight of Government amendments that has caused the difficulties. The Government have not provided adequate time for scrutinising the many, often complicated, amendments to two complicated Bills.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is not the substance of the matter. In the case of the Children Bill, the overwhelming majority of the amendments were tabled, as my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State pointed out in the course of the debate earlier this week, in response to representations made by organisations outside the House and by the Opposition. During the period when the matter was proceeding normally, amendments were considered and disposed of by the hundred and dozens were dealt with each hour. That was no obstacle to progress and was a sensible way to handle matters in response to the wishes of the House. It is a matter of particular regret that we have been unable to make the good progress that was not merely expected but actually being achieved on the Children Bill.
    The Children Bill is the most comprehensive and far-reaching reform of this branch of the law ever introduced. It meets a long-felt need for a comprehensive and integrated statutory framework to ensure the welfare of children. The establishment of a new statutory scheme to protect children in emergencies is particularly important and it was introduced in response to the Cleveland and other tragedies involving child abuse. Nobody doubts that and it has been made clear by Opposition speakers that, although there are disagreements on points of detail, the Bill commands wide support in the House. That was made apparent in Committee, when my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, a man who is not always given to high exhilaration, described his time in Committee as a "happy experience" and hon. Members will know that that cannot be said of all Committees. In 16 Committee sittings which considered 439 amendments, the Committee
    1076
    divided only seven times. Many amendments made were designed to ensure that the Bill continued to command an overwhelming measure of cross-party support.
    When the Bill returned to the Floor of the House on Monday, the House was content to consider 290 amendments in eight and a half hours with only one Division. In the first 23 minutes, we completed consideration of the first 53 clauses and in that time only two Opposition Members spoke. Until that point, proceedings on the Bill had been characterised by a mass of common sense.
    The question is why it was then thought necessary to divide at the first opportunity on Tuesday night—a Division in which 183 hon. Members voted in favour and none against. The House knows why that Division took place and the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) was kind enough to put it on record for the House. The Division was obviously not related to opposition to the clause because the hon. Member for Monklands. West said:
    "The Front Benches have endeavoured to co-operate to ensure that the Bill reaches the statute book."—[Official Report, 24 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 806.]
    He went on to explain that other hon. Members representing mining areas felt it necessary to demonstrate because of their feelings that they had a grievance. It was not related to the Children Bill which, as he said, every hon. Member, including the Opposition Front Bench, supported.
    The hon. Member for Monklands, West was kind enough to observe that I was a "reasonable man" and I am content to accept that description for the purposes of this presentation. However, I could not easily sustain that reputation if I were to tell the public and the organisations that have devoted thousands of hours to working for and improving this measure that the Bill was to be lost as a result of a grievance quite unrelated to this necessary and widely expected Bill.
    We have already spent 12½ hours this week on Report, as well as five and a half hours on Second Reading debate and 39 hours in Committee. It would be a tragedy for the Bill to be lost at this stage after so much hard work and, above all, after such a welcome measure of co-operation.
    Mr. Madden: As an hon. Member who was here on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning and was, with other hon. Members, eagerly awaiting the passage of the Children Bill, which we widely support, may I ask the Leader of the House to explain why, at 1.30 am, it was the Minister of State who moved the adjournment of consideration of the Bill, which was then debated for half an hour? There was a Division at 1.55 am in which 110 Conservative Members voted to adjourn the business while 22 hon. Members—all Labour—voted against adjourning the business. We were perfectly happy, as we made clear several times, to stay here all night and through the next morning to ensure that the Bill was carried. The protests of the Leader of the House ring extremely hollow. This is the most cosmetic controversy that the House has known for a considerable time.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is not quite so simple as he sounds. He knows the background to those events perfectly well. The whole House, in line with the agreements and understandings made through the usual channels, was expecting to proceed to a conclusion on the matter that night. The hon. Member for Monklands, West

    1077
    was as startled and dismayed as every other hon. Member by what happened. It was wholly sensible, and made more sensible by the events the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has described, to move to next business at that stage so that we could get to the stage that we have now reached.
    The Companies Bill, as the House knows, is aimed primarily at creating an up-to-date framework of company law within which enterprise can flourish and it also provides the necessary safeguards for investors and creditors. It contains provisions to implement European Community directives on consolidated accounts and the regulation of orders, both of which have to be implemented by the end of this calendar year, and it also includes certain reforms to ease the statutory requirements on companies. The Bill also contains a number of other less important but significant provisions.
    In this case, some of the provisions are undeniably politically controversial, in contrast to those in the Children Bill. Others, as always with companies legislation, are technical. Even so, good steady progress was made in Committee, when about 600 amendments were considered over 15 sessions. Four hundred amendments were accepted by the Government, the level of debate was generally constructive and there was no evidence of what might be called obstructive tactics. In other words, the Bill was duly and carefully considered, sensible amendments were made and it came back to us for those changes to be confirmed. Sadly, last night we moved into a wholly different story.
    Until 9 pm we had had three lively but well-contested debates on the areas of prime political controversy in the Bill. That was entirely as expected and reflected the interest of hon. Members on both sides in such matters as political donations. What followed was less edifying and, in some respects, rather strange. Only three of the remaining groups of amendments were considered during the next two hours simply because Divisions were forced by Opposition Members on each and every amendment as it came before the House.
    That those Divisions were scarcely motivated by any consideration of the substance or merit of the amendments was demonstrated not just by the lack of any debate, but by the nature of some of those which attracted such unexplained opposition. That conduct was extremely strange, especially as two of the amendments, nos. 13 and 14, on which Opposition Members forced Divisions were tabled to fulfil pledges specifically given to the Opposition in Committee. I commend to the House the view that that underlies the conclusion that the Opposition Front Bench has now entirely lost control of its ability to co-operate in managing the business of the House. It is difficult to see more convincing evidence of that than that provided by the Divisions on those amendments.
    In the face of those circumstances, the motion will allow more time for consideration of the remaining amendments than was in prospect under earlier arrangements that Opposition Members failed to deliver.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give the Labour deputy Chief Whip the opportunity to explain why he voted against an amendment which merely replaced the word "part" with "section"?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is for the hon. Gentleman to explain that remarkable proposition. There will be ample time for further explanation to be forthcoming as the timetable motion has been carefully drafted to allow sufficient time for the Opposition to make their points—even points as important as the difference between "part" and "section"—provided that they do so with a normal degree of reason and restraint. There is the opportunity to spend additional time on the Companies Bill if we finish this debate in less than three hours.
    I am sure that many hon. Members would agree that the time would be better spent on further consideration of the Bill than on debating the merits of this unarguably sensible and necessary measure. The amount of time available will increase for every minute that can be shaved off the debate on the motion. If the Opposition are truly interested in debating the Companies Bill, they will save their powder for later. I urge them to do so and I commend the motion to the House.
    5.2 pm
    Mr. Frank Dobson: What a mess the Government are in.
    The speech we have just heard is nothing more than a confession of failure and an acknowledgement that the Government have totally mismanaged their business. The Government have an overall majority of almost 100 and they have a majority of almost 150 over Labour. Now they are reduced, however, to having to introduce more guillotines in one Session than at any time in the history of parliamentary Government.
    What a sad spectacle the Leader of the House presents today. When he took up his present job he told a BBC audience:
    "I think the Government as a whole needs the support of somebody of my experience, particularly when we are facing a new round of problems on the home front".
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman was putting himself over as a sort of philosopher king in Hush Puppies. Later briefings to newspapers suggested that, relieved of the pressing demands of the Foreign Office, he would abandon his usual abrasive image and would be able to stand back from the day-to-day hurly-burly to take a strategic overview and to steer the SS Thatcher to calmer waters by his characteristic delicate touch on the tiller. What went wrong? What happened to the long view? What has happened to all that wisdom and experience? As soon as we have a few votes late at night and a few demoralised Tory Back Benchers refuse to stay up to do their duly, blind panic sets in.
    Last night, as we awaited the chimes at midnight, the deputy Prime Minister shuffled into the Chamber—or so I am told, as I was in the Tea Room at the time——
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): Why?
    Mr. Dobson: I was contemplating the advice given in Hamlet:
    "It has now struck 12; get thee to bed Francisco"
    I thought that we would all be better off in bed apart from those enthusiastic people who wanted to discuss the Bill. The deputy Prime Minister, however, shuffled into the Chamber to announce that the Government would guillotine the Children Bill and the Companies Bill. Such was their panic that the Government business managers could not even find time to follow the convention of this

    1079
    place by warning the Opposition that they intended to change the business. To be fair, the Leader of the House apologised for that in business questions today. I thank him, and accept his apology.
    I am not sure what will happen now the Prime Minister has got home. If she complains that she has come back to a legislative shambles, I suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should tell her not to pick on him as that shambles only imitates the shambles in Kuala Lumpur and the general shambles in Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street.
    It is unfair to blame the new Leader of the House for much of this. He inherited this fine mess from his predecessor and from the Government Chief Whip, who appears to be absent at the moment. The Leader of the House must be rather daunted as he gradually discovers just how badly the Government business has been managed since the election. In case his colleagues have not entirely come clean, I shall spell out the facts.
    The Government have an overall majority of almost 100. After the 1987 general election, the first Session of Parliament stretched from June 1987 until November 1988, a total of 218 sitting days—the fourth longest this century. With that majority and all that time, the Government got through just 49 Government Bills. The average for the first Session of a Parliament is 70, and the record is 104. For the Government even to achieve that measly total of 49 meant that they had to guillotine six Bills—one more than in any Session in this century.
    The Government preach efficiency and improved output to everyone else, but, this year, their productivity has been even worse. This Session is likely to last for about 175 days, yet the number of Government Bills is likely to total just 37 and that will be the lowest number of Bills passed in an ordinary Session in an ordinary year since the second world war.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The shirkers on the Conservative Benches are cheering their own incapacity. To make things absolutely clear, those 37 Bills include four consolidation measures which usually go through on the nod. I say usually, as there is one in the House of Lords at the moment.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman might like to swap a quotation from Hamlet with a quotation from Tacitus, who prudently said that his society, whereas it formerly suffered from crimes, had come to suffer from laws. That is why the Government believe in less law and not more.
    Mr. Dobson: I am sure that everyone will recognise that the Government is led by a sub-Tacitus. She believes that we do not have a society. We certainly have more crime, but, apparently, in response to that we shall have fewer laws.
    The Leader of the House should get things sorted out because, until fairly recently, Mr. Bernard Ingham and people from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor's office were constantly briefing the press—people who are not easily misled—about the massive load of legislation that they were pushing through. That was done in an effort to convince Tory Members that they should turn up at night and vote occasionally.
    Mr. Cryer: Although the boasts of the Leader of the House about the reduction in the amount of legislation
    1080
    passed reverberate through our deliberations with such dynamism, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the number of statutory instruments which the Government are pouring out has increased year by year? This is the Government who threatened to take legislation off our backs. They are simply using the Chamber to hand over power to Ministers so that they can oppress us even more.
    Mr. Dobson: What my hon. Friend says is certainly true. He has had rather more experience of this than most hon. Members, because he chairs two Committees on Statutory Instruments. Indeed, my hon. Friend is, rightly, so concerned about this problem that he has been involved in organising an international conference so that hon. Members from this House can meet people from other legislatures to see what we can do about improving our scrutiny of statutory instruments. That should be a good development. I only hope that we learn a little from other members of the Commonwealth at the conference with which my hon. Friend is involved, even if we cannot learn in Kuala Lumpur.
    The Government have already used a guillotine on six Bills. Even before today, they had repeated the record total. However, they now propose to guillotine two more Bills, setting a new record of eight guillotined Bills in one Session. The Prime Minister sometimes says, "Winston did this; Winston did that," so I have been checking what Winston did. In this one Session of Parliament, the Government will have used guillotines on more Bills than the Churchill and Eden Governments used in total, in the period of their combined Prime Ministerships. Turning to a slightly more up-to-date Tory Government, the Heath Government used a total of only five guillotines in four years.
    So what about the guillotines that are proposed today? One applies to the Children Bill, which, as the Leader of the House pointed out, has all-party support for most but not all of its provisions. Probably the most important point that I can make about the Children Bill is that, on Tuesday night, after the Division to which the Leader of the House referred, we had a debate from just before 11 pm to 1.18 am on proposals covering the registration and regulation of day care facilities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) said, that matter is central to the protection of children. That was a serious and well-argued debate in which hon. Members of all parties participated, at the end of which the Minister did not criticise what any hon. Member had said—nor did he suggest that any hon. Member had wasted time.
    There was then a vote, in which other Opposition parties, apart from the Labour party, joined Labour Members to try to put that important new clause on the statute book. The Government—as they are entitled to do—voted it down. However, as soon as the Division on that important matter was over—at the end of that careful and well argued debate—the Minister of State jumped up and said that he wanted the House to adjourn, and used the Government's majority to push through the adjournment. The Government adjourned their own business.
    Mr. Keith Vaz: I served on the Standing Committee on the Children Bill and spoke at 2 o'clock this morning to pay tribute to the work of the Minster of State, Department of Health. I pointed out that

    1081
    hon. Members of all parties wished to proceed with the Bill in a spirit of all-party agreement because it is very much a consensus Bill.
    Early on Tuesday morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and I pressed the Minister to continue with the debate in that sitting. We said that we did not feel it appropriate that the sitting should be adjourned, and were happy to stay on to complete our consideration of the outstanding matters in the Bill, such as those relating to grandparents' rights and wardship. We did so because we felt that those issues were important and we wanted to retain the consensus felt about the Bill. We did not want our consideration of it to end in this squalid way.
    Mr. Dobson: I believe that the Minister of State intends to reply to this debate, so perhaps he will explain his activities. However, I should explain that adjourning our consideration then means that 232 new clauses and amendments remain to be dealt with. Since that point, the Government have not approached the Opposition to ask us to agree to any informal timetable so that we can get the remaining parts of this important Bill through the House. Instead, they have insisted on this guillotine motion which, at most, provides 180 minutes to debate those 232 new clauses and amendments. That works out at about 46 seconds for each provision. The Government's actions are treating the Children Bill with contempt. I am not suggesting that the Minister of State who has been pursuing the Bill through Committee is party to all this, because I suspect that he is embarrassed by it.
    I turn now to the Companies Bill. When the Bill was first presented, it was put before the House as the sort of measure that could be commended on Second Reading—as I recall, it had its Second Reading late at night—and as a worthwhile measure that should be passed and made company law. However, since then, over 1,000 amendments have been tabled, mainly by the Government. About 250 of them remain to be considered, of which all but four are Government amendments, for which the Government's guillotine provides about four and a half hours. According to my calculations, that works out at about 64 seconds per amendment, which is marginally better than the Government are providing for the remaining amendments to the Children Bill.
    However, that does not provide much time for us to scrutinise carefully the important aspects of a Bill that covers exployees' rights, mergers and the technicalities of company accounts. God knows, nearly all the fraud in the City takes place because the present legislation was not carefully enough drafted or scrutinised. We should ensure that the stuff we are considering now is up to the task. Those are the restrictions that the guillotine motion will impose. It is symbolic that more time will be provided for the completion of the Companies Bill than for the completion of the Children Bill.
    Most of the Government's problems spring from their arrogance. They are arrogant not only abroad but at home. They have certainly displayed arrogance over their legislative programme. Generally speaking—I exclude the Children Bill from this description—the genesis of the Government's legislative programme goes something like this. They come up with some half-baked idea from a Right-wing think tank. The idea gets a standing ovation at the Tory party conference. It is then brought back from Blackpool or Brighton and goes to Whitehall, where some
    1082
    hapless parliamentary draftsman is expected to turn lunacy into workable law. A Bill is produced. It is inevitably full of contradictions and riddled with inconsistencies and is incapable of reflecting what happens in the real world. Comments are then made about it by practical people in the real world and points are raised in Committee by my assiduous hon. Friends, and even by some Conservative Members. At that point, Ministers realise that they need to amend the Bill——
    Mr. Tim Smith: Can the hon. Gentleman name one provision in the Companies Bill that fits that description?
    Mr. Dobson: I am told by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who has spent rather more time on this subject than I have, that the Insolvency Bill suffered from the same shortcomings and, as we know, the Financial Services Bill needed massive corrections at this stage. If the Bill did not need correcting—if it had no shortcomings—why were 1,000 amendments tabled? Hundreds were produced in Committee——
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: One of that series of amendments was designed to deal with the crookedness of the City and the casino economy. As my hon. Friend knows only too well, because his constituency is close to the City, crookedness in the City is growing rapidly. Every time the Government introduce such a Bill, they have to amend it substantially. This latest Bill is an attempt to keep the legislation in line with the present crookedness of Lloyd's and others. Hence the tabling of several, if not scores of, Government amendments. A number of things are happening at Lloyd's—money is being lost by so-called "names" and there are prospective losses. The Government are trying to tighten things up because some of the accountants whom the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) represents have not been doing their jobs properly. Ferranti is a good example.
    Mr. Dobson: I quite agree. As ever, my hon. Friend puts it in a nutshell. These shoddily drafted Bills are brought before the House, and then hundreds of amendments are produced in Committee and on Report, here and in the House of Lords. As I have said, more than a thousand were tabled to the Companies Bill.
    For some reason that I cannot understand, the Government purport to be surprised—and they certainly panic—when hon. Members insist on doing their job properly and on scrutinising the legislation. Some amendments are politically contentious, others are not. For instance, I assume that Conservative Members want to catch the fraudsters—we certainly do—so it would be as well if the technicalities of the Bill permitted them to be caught, prosecuted and gaoled on the basis of proper evidence, not of confessions.
    Some amendments are not politically contentious but are produced in response to points made by the Opposition, and we welcome that. The Minister responsible for the Children Bill has responded to many points made by outside organisations and hon. Members in the Committee to try to improve the Bill. However, the fact that he has produced amendments does not guarantee that they will achieve what they are intended to achieve. All of them need to be examined carefully to ensure that they are soundly worded.

    1083
    This applies with equal or even greater force to Bills such as the Children Bill, the aspirations behind which we all support. All hon. Members want the time and opportunity to do this part of the job that we were elected to do. The Government have failed to provide the time, partly because no conceivable amount of time can compensate for the sloppy drafting and the multitude of amendments made in Committee and in the House—in some cases only a matter of hours before they are to be debated.
    Mr. David Martin: When will the hon. Gentleman come to the real reason for the guillotine, which has nothing to do with the merits of the Companies Bill or the Children Bill and everything to do with those who are supposed to be in charge of the Opposition losing control of their wild boys over the issue of coal? I sat up a great many hours last night waiting to get on with the Bill and saw the 10 o'clock business motion opposed by the Opposition when we wanted to get on with discussion of the real issues.
    Mr. Dobson: Apparently, everything was caused by some wild coalmen, but I did not see any about last night.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman was not here.
    Mr. Dobson: I was here most of yesterday evening. I popped out at about midnight, just about the time when the Leader of the House shuffled in and caused us to hold those debates——
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman has just said that he was here most of the evening. Can he explain why he did not vote in any of the Divisions?
    Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman is witless, blind and stupid, because I did vote in some of the Divisions. He had better start by finding the right Hansard.
    Mr. Frank Haynes: We had a serious debate yesterday on business contributions to the Conservative party. The Conservative Members all stood up blocking our new clause and wasting time, but our case was first class and we were doing our job as an Opposition—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) will listen to me, because I am responsible to the Chair, not to him.
    The new clause would have done a first-class job on behalf of a community that is crying out for it. The Government have told the trade unions to hold ballots on raising money for a political levy to give to the Labour party, but when we suggested that companies should consult shareholders with a ballot on whether they wanted the business to contribute to Conservative party funds they turned down the idea. Conservative Members went into the Lobby and voted against it. They were filibustering nearly all night and they should be ashamed of themselves.
    Mr. Dobson: In his usual mild-mannered and persuasive way, my hon. Friend has put his finger on the Government's double standards where contributions to the Labour party by trade unions are concerned. Trade unions must set up a separate fund and conduct ballots of all their members, and if they decide to set up such a fund
    1084
    and ask their members to make contributions every one of them can opt out. Last night the Tories stuck by their position, as ever, that there should not be a ballot, a separate fund or opting out for companies.
    As the point made by hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) shows, there are other double standards. We put forward a new clause; Conservative Members can speak against it at considerable length and then vote against it. Such debates are legitimate, as are such votes, but when we want to debate and vote on amendments that the Government table they do not want us to. Apparently we are breaking their rules. The rule of this arrogant Government is, "We tell everyone what to do, including the House." But as a distinguished former Cabinet colleague of the Leader of the House told me yesterday, the Government have forgotten one iron rule: in the part of the Session coming up to July, the Government have the Commons over a barrel; in the spill-over period, the Commons have the Government over a barrel. So the Government would be wise to run their business so as not to expose themselves as badly as they have done on this occasion by their incompetence.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. David Mellor) rose——
    Mr. Dobson: I shall not give way now—I am sure that we shall hear the hon. and learned Gentleman's point later.
    These guillotines will make matters worse. They will prevent the House from doing justice to either of these important Bills. Forty-six seconds per new clause or amendment for the Children Bill cannot be right. Tonight we shall vote, not against the Children Bill, but against the guillotine that imposes those 46 seconds.
    5.28 pm
    Mr. Roger Sims: I rise to support the motion, but with somewhat mixed feelings. One of those feelings is relief that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House has stepped in to save the Children Bill, progress on which was being followed anxiously by many organisations. There seemed to be a real danger that the Bill could he wrecked by a handful of hon. Members who may claim to represent the interests of the miners but are clearly not concerned with the interests of children in this country.
    My other feeling is one of sadness. In 15 years in the House I cannot recall a Bill for which a timetable motion was less appropriate. The Bill is the product of years of inquiries. White Papers, campaigns and representations by people and organisations. It was given detailed scrutiny in both Houses in a non-partisan atmosphere. That we should have been expected to complete the final stages of such an important Bill in the small hours of the morning merely because the Opposition insisted on inserting into our business a debate on the economy was regrettable. That we are now obliged to complete the Bill as the second business on a Friday and subject to a timetable is to be deplored.
    I know the frustrations of being in opposition. I sat on the Opposition Benches for five years. Happily, in our system we do not engage in fisticuffs or worse, and even the use of strong language is somewhat circumscribed. I can therefore well understand why some people feel that they want to demonstrate their annoyance and, sometimes, their sense of outrage at some of the things that the Government of the day are doing.

    1085
    To use parliamentary procedural tactics to delay and upset Government business is perfectly legitimate. When we were in opposition we did that individually and collectively, but such tactics need to be employed with discretion. It is one thing for the Opposition to use all the available means to impede a measure which is clearly contrary to their political philosophy, but it is quite another to do so in respect of legislation which is not subject to party political differences and is supported in all parts of the country. There can he no better example of that than the Children Bill.
    We should have been able to finish consideration of the Bill on Tuesday night. Some Opposition Members would no doubt argue that we could have done so. The evidence that I heard and saw suggested that we could well have spent a long and unproductive night and possibly part of the morning. We saw that pattern beginning to emerge last night. I do not suggest that Oppossition Front Bench Members or their colleagues with an interest in the Bill would have been party to any such tactics, but we all know that a small number of hon. Members can frustrate progress.
    We also know that agreements and understandings, however well meant, do not always work. The shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), made the plea that nobody had approached him to come to some understanding about how the Bill should be handled. However, I am afraid that we have learned that such understandings are worthless. We have seen that the Opposition simply cannot control their Members. In the circumstances, the Government's business managers had no alternative but to introduce a timetable motion. Its term allow three hours, which should be adequate to consider the amendments. Despite all the statistics expounded by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that many of the amendments are purely technical and that many of them meet points made in Committee.
    Mr. Dobson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that many of the amendments are technical. Does he agree that there is considerable evidence that many of them are technically faulty and incorrect and need to be improved if the Bill is to work properly? I am rather fortified in my view about that by a former Tory Cabinet Minister who is now a Member of the House of Lords. He sought me out and told me how much he agreed with what I had said during a debate on a previous guillotine motion when I talked about this very aspect.
    Mr. Sims: I have seen few amendments to amendments tabled by the Opposition. If they have spotted faults they should have drawn attention to them in that manner.
    The three hours proposed in the motion will give us more time to discuss the Bill than the time allowed in the original understanding between the two sides. I have no great complaint about the three hours, but it is unfortunate—to put it no higher—that we shall have to discuss these matters tomorrow under some pressure of time. That is a sad end to the proceedings on the Children Bill which up to now had shown Parliament at its best. It is a turn of events which discredits the Labour party—a matter which does not distress me particularly—but it also discredits the House, which distresses me considerably.
    5.34 pm
    Mr. Stuart Bell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) because I know how hard he has worked on the Children Bill for many years. He was right when he said that its history goes back several years through a variety of law commissions and reviews of the law. It also had the impetus of the Cleveland child abuse crisis. I do not agree with the views that he expressed in the latter part of his speech because they contradict some of his earlier statements when he said that the guillotine had been used by previous Governments.
    The tactics that we have seen this week were used in the past by the Conservatives. When the deputy Leader of the House referred to the Churchill-Eden era, he reminded me of my first visit to the House of Commons. I was in the Strangers' Gallery and listened to Sydney Silverman advancing an argument during a debate on a guillotine motion not dissimilar to that advanced by the hon. Member for Chislehurst. He said that there are times when the guillotine is appropriate and times when it is not.
    Without wishing to incur the wrath of Conservative Members I can say that I think that the guillotine was appropriate in 1976 when we had to push the shipbuilding and dockyard nationalisation schemes through. We had to do that because of the tactics used by the Conservative Opposition at that time. They did everything that they could legitimately and within parliamentary means to prevent a Labour Government with a mandate putting on the statute book two vital elements of their legislative programme. The guillotine was used at that time by the then Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). In 1968 he and Enoch Powell frustrated the will of a Labour Government about the reform of the House of Lords and they used parliamentary tactics to do that.
    We all know that the guillotine goes back to the time when Irish Members frustrated the business of the House to such an extent that it had to be used to make progress. The Children Bill was at the heart of the speech by the hon. Member for Chislehurst. That Bill reflects what the Lord Chancellor said, that the upbringing of children is the fundamental responsibility of parents. The object of the Bill is to establish rights for children and parents and to look at the erosion of parental rights. It looks at the means by which we can protect children such as Doreen Mason, about whom the hon. Member for Chislehurst spoke, and Kimberley Carlile, about whom I have spoken in the past.
    We all know that children are at risk in society, and that we must protect them while not intruding in family life as we understand it. That is the balance that we sought to strike in Committee. The Bill was non-political and the Minister of State and the Solicitor-General took us through it on a non-political basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) took us through it carefully. We had long discussions and amendments proposed by Back Benchers were considered by the Government and by civil servants. After careful consideration we came up with a Bill which we hope, with foresight rather than hindsight, will protect children and will do so without unnecessary intrusions. In Committee we saw the abolition of the place of safety order which was used extensively in Cleveland and we created an emergency

    1087
    protection order and child assessment orders for the protection of children. We had legitimate debate on all those matters.
    The shenanigans on Tuesday evening which prevented us from moving forward were in a sense a parliamentary occasion. I have often looked upon my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) as being rather like Blucher at the battle of Waterloo. They plough in from the side, change the nature of our business, make their point and then go across and shake the hand of the Duke of Wellington and a great victory has been won. We are all more aware today of the Associated Ports (No. 2) Bill than we were two days ago.
    I gave a commitment to the National Union of Mineworkers in Durham that I would support them in their efforts to prevent a coal terminal coming to Middlesbrough. I did that as part of the strategy to have proper planning for all our energy requirements and to keep the Durham coal field, with its 10,000 miners, going. Therefore, I was not particularly enamoured of any technique on the Floor of the House to try to prevent the Children Bill going through.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) said, at 1.30 in the morning we were prepared to stay here throughout the night. In the six years that I have been in Parliament, there have been many occasions when the Opposition have taken the Government through the night, through to 1.30 the following day, and the Government have lost the business of the House for that day. We had assurances from those who were wishing to make a point on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill that they would not prevent the Children Bill from reaching its remaining stages by the close of business.
    The Government had their quorum in place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Madden) said, there were aye votes of 101 and 102 at 1.30 in the morning. The Opposition were prepared to go through the night, and if we had done so the Children Bill would have gone through its remaining stages in this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East made that proposition to the Minister, but other decisions had been made, and the Government moved the adjournment of the House. Until tonight, when the Leader of the House referred to discussions with the usual channels, I had thought that there had been discussions through the usual channels and that we could reach a reasonable agreement on the remaining stages of the Bill that would have allowed us the proper amount of time to discuss it.
    Mr. Mellor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I hold him in great respect generally, and particularly on the issue of children. He has had the grace to acknowledge that a group of Members with no great interest in the Children Bill took action because they wanted to make a point. Does the hon. Gentleman really think that it would be in the right spirit of the debate on the Bill that had otherwise proceeded so sensibly that we should have to run the gauntlet of people ready to have a Division on matters of no substance in order to make a point? In those circumstances, is it not better to get back to a framework of discipline, within which we can take a common-sense approach to the Bill?
    Mr. Bell: I understand the point that the Minister is making, because there is no doubt that we would have had a disruptive evening, with votes on a variety of amendments. However, our view is that it was up to the House of Commons to force a passage through such obstacles and to discuss the amendments as best we could. All the Opposition Members who had served on the Committee were in their place. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), who had tabled new clause 10 dealing with the rights of grandparents, was there, as were those who supported him. I agree with the Minister that we would have had to run the gauntlet, but we were prepared to be here and to have that discussion over and above what was happening on the sidelines, with Blucher coming in from the wings.
    As the hon. Member for Chislehurst and my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) have said, we are now left with 46 seconds for each amendment. Many of them are technical amendments, but we have lost control over the remaining stages of the Children Bill, and we shall not be able to cover those final amendments in the way that we would have done if we had had a proper Report stage. If we had a proper debate, we could pick up, even at this late stage, the rucks in the texture, as Lord Denning once described parliamentary evasion or lack of clarity. In the final stages of the Bill, we have lost the opportunity to exercise foresight, rather than hindsight.
    The guillotine represents the power of the Executive over the Legislature and the Opposition must submit to that power because we do not have a majority. However that power should be used sparingly and wisely. It ought not to be used simply because the quorum of Conservative Members who had to be in the Palace of Westminster for the duration of the business wanted to get home early. The time of 1.30 in the morning may seem late to members of the public, but hon. Members on both sides of the House know that it is not late in parliamentary terms. The power to guillotine was used unwisely on this occasion. I can only hope that, in the final stages of the Bill, the other place will look carefully at the amendments that we have not been able to go through properly so that when the Bill reaches the statute book and is used to protect children and parents in the best possible way it will be as good as if it had left the House of Commons without being guillotined.
    5.44 pm
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am particularly angry at the guillotine motion because, along with others who are here tonight, I served on the Standing Committee on the Children Bill and both sides of the Committee played a constructive part in bringing forward progressive helpful and long-overdue legislation. I am angry about the way in which the Government have tried to deflect responsibility for the shambles that has occurred in their business management. They have had plenty of opportunities to allow time for the Bill to be properly considered at a sensible time of day rather than in the middle of the night. Now we have just 46 seconds for each amendment.
    I am worried about that because a number of important amendments have still to be discussed. I accept that many of the amendments are technical, so there will possibly be no debate on them and they will be nodded through. However, a number deal with detailed concerns. For

    1089
    example, new clause 10 deals with grandparents. Like many other hon. Members, I have constituents who are grandparents and who feel deeply aggrieved at the way in which the law affects them and their relationship with their grandchildren. The granddaughter of a woman who lives near to me has recently been adopted, and the grandmother no longer has contact with the child whom she raised for the first six years of the child's life. I feel strongly about that and I know that both the child and the grandmother also do. This is a deeply emotional issue for many people. Many other hon. Members have similar cases, and some that are even more heart rending.
    I am concerned about the rights of children in care, which are affected by a number of amendments that remain to be discussed. I have experience in social work and I have seen how children get into care and how our treatment of those children negates basic human rights. I am particularly concerned about care-leavers because, as a result of the way in which the Government have changed the rules in social security, vast numbers of young people are left vulnerable to exploitation when they leave care. I hope to raise this issue when we debate tomorrow two of the amendments that I have tabled. However, I suspect that they will be dealt with only briefly. Only yesterday I was talking to a probation officer who told me of the way in which the Government's changes in social security legislation, which have changed single payments to a loan, have resulted in one client, a young girl who had left care, going out as a prostitute to get some furniture for her flat. That is happening directly as a result of the Government's policy.
    I respect the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who made an important contribution to the Bill. However, he seems to see the legislation in narrow terms. He sees it as being the answer to problems, but wider issues, many related to the Government's policies, should be addressed.
    I know that there is concern about the exclusion orders, or ouster orders. I have experience of social security work, and I mentioned this case in Committee at some length. I had to remove a girl whose sister had made allegations about sexual interference by the mother's boyfriend. It was an awful experience. I had to take police officers to surround the house, get hold of the 12-year-old girl who had just come out of hospital after having her appendix removed, and take her into care. The law is wrong in such cases. The person who should be removed is the perpetrator of the abuse, not the child who was the victim. We have to do someting about that, and we cannot do it on the nod. It is criminal to allow only 46 seconds to discuss such serious issues and I am appalled at what democracy has come down to.
    Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend will recall that, a week ago, in discussions with the Minister of State, hon. Members on both sides of the House said that they were concerned that we would not get the full two days that we were promised to discuss the provisions of the Bill. Clearly, we shall not get those days. I can see only one Tory Back Bench Member who served on the Standing Committee here this afternoon, although others have issued press statements about this matter. If they were honest, they would tell the House that they had originally asked for more time to discuss this measure.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I well recall the meeting that we had in the Cathedral room
    1090
    at the Department of Health the week before last when the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) criticised the way in which the Government were arranging the business and causing the Children Bill to be considered in the early hours of the morning. The hon. Lady opposed that because she considered it to be unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Sims: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, it having been arranged originally that we should have two full days to debate the Bill, his right hon. and hon. Friends then insisted that there should be a full day's debate on the economy. That was why the Government had to make the arrangement that they did.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I shall deal with that argument in a few minutes. There is a clear connection between what happens to the economy of our society and what happens to children in that society. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Chislehurst fails to recognise that connection.
    It has been alleged that time has been wasted during oar consideration of the Bill. When the Minister replies, I challenge him to produce one example of time wasting in Committee. I attended virtually every sitting when the Bill was being considered in Committee and I do not recall an irrelevant speech being made from either side of the Committee. The debate which took place on the Floor of the House the other night on day care, for example, was extremely interesting. Some valuable comments were made by hon. Members who had not hitherto been involved in the Bill. I read the report of the debate in Hansard and I could not find one area of it that was not directly relevant to the issues that were before us.
    Mr. Mellor: Although the hon. Gentleman and I have disagreed about certain parts of the Bill, and although we can always argue about how long it should take to formulate a point, I am not criticising him or any of his hon. Friends who served in Committee for advancing their arguments. Our consideration of the Bill in Committee remains for me one of the more pleasurable experiences of my time in this place. If the hon. Gentleman is being fair, and I know that he wants to be, he must explain why it was that at the beginning of the second day of our consideration of the Bill on Report an entirely uncontroversial amendment was made the subject of a Division. The Division was called by two hon. Members who had played no previous part in our consideration of the Bill. It was clear, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) has conceded today, and as the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) conceded on Tuesday night, that that was part of a tactic that would have continued and would have had the effect of souring the atmosphere. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) cannot delude us about that. However sincere he and his hon. Friends who were members of the Committee which considered the Bill may be, others were determined to make a monkey of the business of the House, and that is a fact.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I am happy to tackle head-on the issue of the private Bill to which the Minister has referred obliquely. There is a direct connection between the implications of that Bill and the welfare of children. I shall come to that. The Minister is seeking to dodge the reality that the Government have their priorities wrong. Bearing in mind the time that they have had and the issues that we have debated—many of them have been far less serious

    1091
    than those raised by the Children Bill—there has been sufficient time for the Bill to be considered fully at a normal time of day. It is the Government, not the Opposition, who have their priorities wrong.
    The hon. Member for Chislehurst referred to the debate on the economy which took place yesterday. It is not the Opposition's fault that there is a slight problem with the balance of trade. It is not our fault that there is a trade deficit, that inflation is increasing and that interest rates are going through the roof. Equally, it is not our fault that people are having to go on council house waiting lists because they cannot meet mortgage repayments. All these factors have a direct bearing on children. There are families in my constituency who will become homeless because their houses are being repossessed because they cannot afford the huge repayments which are the result of increased interest rates. If Conservative Members—[Interruption.]It seems that some hon. Members wish me to name names. If they wish to see some of the details, I shall be happy to supply them. I shall certainly do so if the people concerned are prepared to have their names put forward. I shall be quite happy to take Conservative Members to see these people. I do not make up these stories. Some of us have surgeries every week—in some instances, several times a week—and we meet the people. We are aware of the day-to-day realities in our constituencies as a result of the Government's actions. There is a direct connection between the economy and the welfare of children, and it angers my hon. Friends and me that that is not recognised by the Government.
    Mr. Mellor: I took the hon. Gentleman's word that he wanted seriously to explore the matters which lie behind the Children Bill. I put the argument to him again. How can he explain the decision taken at the beginning of the second day of consideration of the Bill on Report by two of his hon. Friends, who had hitherto taken no part in the consideration of the Bill, to call a Division on a purely technical amendment? Does he not know as well as I do that it was common currency and discussion around the House that his two hon. Friends intended to call Divisions throughout the night if we had gone on with our consideration of the Bill? That was the truth of the matter.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To be fair, following the Minister's previous intervention I said that I would deal with that matter. It is something about which I feel strongly. I happen to understand and sympathise with the actions of my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North, who called the Division to which the Minister has referred, was not fully aware of the issues raised by the clause. When he was made aware of them, he did not vote against the clause, and nor did anyone else. No one wished to see that clause defeated. My hon. Friends and I continued to support it. There would have been Divisions only on issues that were contested, and there were a number of those. There are serious issues which separate the two sides of the House.
    Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Perhaps my hon. Friend will care to put to the Minister that the debate which we were due to have on the evening of Tuesday following the Division to which he has referred was on new clause 10, which concerned grandparents.
    1092
    There would have been no rogue vote on that new clause. Hon. Members had come to the Chamber ready to debate the new clause. We were no later reaching it than we expected earlier. It was clear, however, that the Government would not be able to keep their troops in the House. The Government were concerned and they brought the consideration of the Bill to an end. There would have been no rogue votes. The debate on grandparents would have taken place whatever the circumstances and whatever the attitude of my hon. Friends to any other measure.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend is correct. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North, who called what has been described as the rogue vote, is a grandfather. I know that he feels deeply about the issues that we were to debate and the surrounding issues. I have no doubt that he would have contributed to the debate, as he did to the debate on day care.
    The central issue is that the Children Bill deals with the needs of the most disadvantaged in our society. Unfortunately, the Government are attaching less priority to it than to numerous other measures that are designed further to advantage the advantaged. Privatisation measures are designed to allow those who have plenty to have even more. That is the kernel of the debate. Under this Government Bills which deal with human need, such as the Children Bill, take second place to Bills which deal with human greed.
    I shall give an example. We learnt today that next Wednesday we are to be faced with a squalid little measure, the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. Can anyone explain why that private Bill is being given prime time?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot go into those matters now. Those issues are not referred to in the motion before the House. The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to that motion.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I accept your ruling. As one who has been a Member of this place for only two years, I find it strange that we have to sit up for half the night, as we did on Tuesday, to discuss disadvantaged children, the care of children and child abuse because, we are told, there is no other Government time when time can he made available for a squalid private Bill which involves the interests of certain hon. Members. Hon. Members have been on freebies to South Africa——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said a few minutes ago, that he must confine his remarks to the motion before us. The matters to which he referred are set down for debate next week, and I think that we had better wait for next week to discuss them.
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that the House is discussing the effects of our proceedings last night and the fact that the Government are now in a complete shambles, but I want the Government spokesman to tell us when the Government will make a statement about the resignation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which has just been announced on the tapes. Why is it that in the middle of a debate, which has been brought about because of the

    1093
    shambles within the Government, there is no spokesperson available to tell us about the dramatic resignation of the Chancellor? Why is not the Prime Minister in the Chamber to tell the House why that has happened? Has the Chancellor been driven out by Sir Alan Walters? Who will succeed the Chancellor? Those are very important questions
    I know that the debate is important and that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) is doing a fair splash job on the question of the guillotine, but the resignation of the Chancellor is a most important matter. Obviously there has been a dramatic confrontation between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor during the past few hours, which has reached its untimely conclusion with the resignation of the Chancellor. Why is there no one on the Government Front Bench ready to explain what has happened? They have a duty to explain to this House why the Chancellor has resigned.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House knows that I have no responsibility for the resignation of the Chancellor.
    Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely you have a responsibility if a request is made by the Government to make a statement about the Chancellor's resignation. You would have to consider whether and how to fit in an emergency statement with the business of the day. The question would then arise whether any statement would come out of guillotine motion time because we have recently resolved to have a three-hour debate. Not only would there need to be consideration of whether a statement on this important economic matter should be allowed, but on what effect it would have on this three-hour debate. I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a time of great economic crisis and I wish to know whether the Prime Minister has sought leave to come to the House to make a statement on what appears to be the biggest crisis of this Parliament.
    Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House was swift to come to the Chamber at midnight to make a statement. He is here now, and I wonder whether he has approached you and confirmed what is now being reported on the tapes and on BBC television news—that the Chancellor has resigned in the middle of one of the most profound economic crises that this country has faced. It is right and proper that a Government Minister, and preferably the Prime Minister—who is First Lord of the Treasury—should come to the House and explain what is happening.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear that we are trapped in the procedures of the House. The debate is due to continue for a set time, yet decisions will be taken at the end of that time that will pre-determine what happens tomorrow. I do not wish further to venture into the seriousness of the present situation, but it is clear that the House will wish to have an opportunity to question and to discuss the matter. Either there must be a statement this evening or there must be one early tomorrow.
    In order to ensure that this debate can proceed in a sensible manner, would it not make sense to have a brief Adjournment of the House while the usual channels discuss the way in which we can deal both with the business before us and with the problems that we all wish to address?
    Mr. Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although I understand your position, the Opposition sat through Prime Minister's questions this afternoon when the right hon. Lady gave her backing to the Chancellor. The question is whether, when the right hon. Lady made that statement, she knew of the pending resignation and whether she was deceiving the House. We have a right to know whether she made that statement in the full knowledge of the facts or whether she was unaware of the facts.
    It is for the Government of the day to control the business of the House and to make the necessary statement at this time. We sympathise with our hon. Friends who are trying to discuss the guillotine motion, but in the national interest it is right that the Prime Minister should make a statement now, especially in the light of the probable impact on interest rates. The Prime Minister said today that the Chancellor had her full support and that the civil servant at No. 10 did not have that same support. It is therefore right and proper not only that there should be a statement, but that that statement should be made by the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I press on you the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) that there should be a short adjournment of the House so that the matter can be dealt with sensibly and reasonably? It is extremely unsatisfactory for the House not to be told the full facts. A proper statement must be made at the earliest opportunity. There would be little point in continuing to raise points of order and to force the Government to make a statement. It would be simple for the Leader of the House to stand up and ask for an adjournment, which would enable the Prime Minister to come to the House and make a clear statement about what has happened. It is the right hon. Lady's duty to report to the House before making statements outside.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Good news does, indeed, move quickly. As the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip are both here, it is right to ask them for a statement. The implications of the Chancellor—even this Chancellor—resigning will be profound upon the stock market and on international confidence in the pound. I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that many of my constituents will be worried about their gold stocks, their shares and all the other assets that they have managed to accumulate during the past 10 years. In those circumstances—[Interruption.] I note, Sir, that I have your close and undivided attention.
    I suggest that there is a statement because I, for one, am becoming rather concerned about the fate of the Chancellor. He is not the most lovable person, but if he jumped from No. 11 Downing street there would now be a very large hole in the road, which could be catastrophic for the Prime Minister as she rushes back in her bullet-proof chauffeured limousine. It is because we feel such great concern for the Chancellor that we must know exactly what has happened to the poor fellow. He must be having a very rough time.
    Dr. John Reid: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not opportune to remind the Leader of the House that less than three hours

    1095
    ago the Leader of the Opposition asked a specific question about the Chancellor and about part-time advisers—[Interruption] We are completely in the dark. The Prime Minister gave no sign of what was to happen. It is a crucial time, yet we have absolutely no idea of who is now to marshal the economic resources of this country. However, a few moments ago I did notice that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) had been called from the Chamber, so perhaps interesting developments are taking place. Because this matter was discussed no more than three hours ago and because of the grave implications for the stock market and the economy, we are in order to demand a statement to the House.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the matters being raised are not the responsibility of the Chair. Equally, I well understand the seriousness of the situation. I very much hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind in their points of order.
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for calling me as I have a genuine point of order—as, indeed, has every Opposition Member. There has been a suggestion that the House should adjourn while we consider the economic crisis that is engulfing the country because of the incompetence of the Government's conduct of affairs, the resignation of the Chancellor and the issues arising from the guillotine motion that is currently before the House.
    My right hon.Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) requested an adjournment of the House, and I wonder whether that would be treated as a dilatory motion or whether it would be accepted. If it were to be treated as a dilatory motion under the terms of the guillotine, it could be moved only by a Government spokesman. It is incumbent upon the Government to rearrange the proceedings of the House and to make a statement. It is outrageous that such events can happen and that the arguing and bickering between No. 10 and No. 11 about Professor Walters can result in the resignation of the Chancellor, with the information being given to television and radio but not to this House. We are the accountable body.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he had a genuine point of order, but he is now raising matters that have nothing remotely to do with me. Only a Minister can move a dilatory motion and even that would not make provision for added injury time.
    Mr. Skinner rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must keep his seat while I am standing.
    That would not of itself add to the time allowed for the guillotine motion.
    Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the exception of the wind-up speeches and the interrupted speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), there are not many Members any longer wishing to take part in the debate on the guillotine motion.
    1096
    I seek your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we are to ensure that the opportunity arises within the rules of order for a statement to be made, would it not be necessary for us to pass the guillotine motion? As I understand it, that would then foreclose the proceedings for the rest of the day. I hope that either by your ruling, or by discussions through the usual channels, we can ensure that the most senior member of the Government has the opportunity to come to the Chamber to explain what has happened and why, in the middle of an economic crisis, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has resigned. That is a most important matter to the British people and to people abroad. It will affect markets and it must be cleared up. It will not be satisfactory to hon. Members on either side of the House for the situation to be explained and clarified by Mr. Bernard Ingham. The place for it to be clarified and reported to the British people is in the elected House of Commons. That is our job.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Further to the points of order in which Opposition Members have expressed some interest, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would suggest two things. First, the resignation, or proffered resignation, of a member of the Government does not normally lead to the making of a statement, and so it does not follow that that should happen as a matter of course. Secondly, it would certainly not follow that there should be any deflection of the business before the House for a variety of reasons, including those referred to by the shadow Leader of the House. I suggest that the business of the House, the debate now taking place and that which is to follow, should proceed. I shall see whether I can consider through the usual channels the possibilities that have been suggested, but I do not want to imply that the business would be interrupted or any presumption of a statement on the matter. However, I can show my willingness to listen.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It might be helpful if the House were to reflect on what the Leader of the House has said. The Chair has not yet received any intimation from the Government of a wish that a statement be made, but if there were such an intimation the Chair would have to consider it seriously. I am advised that whatever happens, at 7.46 pm, when the three hours provided for the guillotine motion expire, the Question must be put, notwithstanding the seriousness of other matters that have intervened. I am sure that the House will wish to consider whether it would like to have a view from the Front Bench spokesmen before the House is required to make its decision on the guillotine motion. In the meantime, the Chair will listen to any further genuine points of order and, while those are being dealt with, those responsible may wish to consider the appropriate response in the circumstances.
    Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I recognise all the problems that the Leader of the House faces and the dilemma that you face. May we have a clear ruling on whether, if the guillotine motion were to be passed, the Government could interrupt the then guillotined business in order to make a statement? We should not proceed with the discussion on the guillotine motion until we know that.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let me respond to that immediately. I have made it clear to the House that the

    1097
    time available for the guillotine motion will expire at 7·46 pm and at that time, if not before, the Chair will be required to put the Question. If the hon. Gentleman is asking what might be the situation if there were a request for a statement to be made at a time after that, doubtless, as in the past, arrangements can be made for a subsequent statement to be made.
    Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that under normal circumstances any hon. Member wishing to make an application under Standing Order No. 20 would have had to have submitted an application to Mr. Speaker before 12 o'clock today unless circumstances arose after that time which, in the view of the Chair, were sufficiently urgent to allow a later application? Must not the Chancellor's resignation, and hence the collapse of the Government's direction of economic policy, be the one occasion in this Session when an application under Standing Order No. 20 from me or from one of my hon. Friends should be accepted by the Chair and the business of the day set aside for a debate, if for no other reason than to find out whether the deputy Prime Minister is going to get his house back?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Our Standing Orders rule out any application under Standing Order No. 20 being made in the course of this day's sitting. Equally, an application for an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 20 cannot be made on a Friday. If there were a request for a statement to be made and the Chair conceded that a statement should be made after the conclusion of the motion that is before the House and before the first guillotine falls, it would take time out of that provided in the motion before the House.
    Mr. Ron Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you give us some guidance? We are not sure who is running the country or who is speaking for the Government. Yesterday, we were assured by Ministers, and it was confirmed by the Prime Minister today, that advisers advise but Ministers decide. Now the Minister has resigned, so what credence can we give to the guarantees that have been given to us? The House of Commons needs to know who is running the Government. Is it the advisers or is it the Ministers? Are other Ministers going to resign? I want a clear statement in the House of Commons on the present position.
    Mr. Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will not go unnoticed in the country that the vast majority of these points of order are an abuse and that the Labour party's response was to start singing the "Red Flag" in Committee Room 10 and to turn this Chamber into something like a knockabout Whitehall farce.
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Further complications have arisen during the past two or three minutes which make the passage of the guillotine motion on the Companies and Children Bills more problematical.
    The Foreign Secretary has now been given the Chancellor's job. That being so, it could well be that the Leader of the House is going back to the Foreign Secretary's job. If that is the case, we have not got a Leader of the House to carry the guillotine through.
    1098
    I believe that the House needs to adjourn, because while this pack of dominoes is falling we are not sure which Minister is in what charge of which Department. I think it imperative at this point, as the Leader of the House has now left the Chamber—presumably to get the Foreign Secretary's job, his own job, back—for us to adjourn for the matter to be resolved.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let me remind the House that these are very grave matters, which should be dealt with very seriously by the House.
    Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These are indeed very serious matters, and I think that that is all the more reason why it is right and proper for a senior Minister—whoever he may be at the moment—to come to the House and explain what is going on, who is being reshuffled and who has resigned. If the matter is to be dealt with properly, I think that the sitting should be briefly suspended to give the Government the opportunity to sort out who is going to make the statement, and then deal with this in a proper and seemly manner; otherwise, there is no possibility of the current debate continuing in any sensible way.
    I hope that you will accept my request for a brief suspension of the sitting, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that there would be no objection on either side of the House.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Waddington): Unaccustomed as I am to public speaking, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in an effort to help the House, may I tell the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that serious consideration is now being given to the making of a statement at the end of the debate on the guillotine motion?
    Mr. Alan Williams: We are obviously very grateful to the——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not call the right hon.Gentleman. I wonder whether——
    Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are very grateful for the intervention: it was helpful. The question remains, however, not only of the statement but of who makes the statement. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We could continue with such points of order interminably, and that would not help us. I should have thought that the House might have found the statement that has just been made very helpfully constructed.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If, as now seems very likely, we will not be able to return immediately to the guillotine motion, and are going to lose time, it might make sense for the House to have a brief cooling-off period. I suspend the sitting for 10 minutes.
    Sitting suspended.
    On resuming——
    6.33 pm
    Mr. Speaker: Procedurally there is no way in which we can change the motion before the House. The Question will have to be put at 7.46 pm. If the Government decide that a statement should be made, it could be made at that time. We should now proceed with the debate.
    Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to your ruling, the Opposition agree entirely that the best way of dealing with this serious matter, following the brief suspension of the sitting, is that the Government should make a statement following the Division at the end of the debate. Therefore, we think that the debate should proceed.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I am grateful for the support that I have had from hon. Members during—[Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members kindly leave the Chamber quietly?
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I was making the point—it now seems quite pertinent—that there is clearly a direct connection between the economic circumstances affecting many families, which are the direct consequences of the Government's policies, and the need to pursue some of the legal provisions that are contained within the Children Bill.
    I wish to express my concern at the narrow view held by many Conservative Members concerning the way in which the legislation affects children. Clearly, we need to look at the reasons why young people are abused or have to be removed from home. It is clearly connected with the Government's policies on poverty, homelessness, the economy and unemployment. That is where my view differs from that of hon. Members who have criticised some of my hon. Friends from the miners group who, quite rightly, have been fighting valiantly the various ports Bills.
    The issue concerning hon. Members—including myself—and others representing coalfield areas is how unemployment affects children, families and communities. In my area, communities have been wiped out as a direct result of the Government's policies on the coal industry. When the Government took office in 1979, within the Wakefield district 17,000 people were employed in 20 pits. That figure has now been reduced to some 3,000 employed at five pits. Fourteen thousand jobs have been wiped out, and that has a direct bearing on the prosperity of families, children and the lives that people lead. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members can see why some of my hon. Friends are concerned about the way in which children will be affected by the Bill coming before the House next week.
    My constituency has been affected directly by pit closures. In addition, there has been a knock-on effect in the mining-engineering industry where 1,000 jobs have gone since 1979 in companies within my constituency supplying materials to the coal mining industry. It is important that we make the point that the ports Bills have a direct bearing on the worsening of the problems. I am deeply concerned about the impact those Bills will have on many coalfield communities in my area, the wider parts of Yorkshire and the midlands. The coalfield communities campaign said that if imports went ahead at projected levels 36 more pits would close.
    Mr. Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and I have served for many hours on the Standing Committee of the Children Bill. The Prime Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary was conducting a conversation in the corner of the Chamber but he has now gone. Surely it would be fair and proper for the House to listen to what my hon. Friend has to say.
    Mr. Skinner rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There has been a good deal of Back-Bench discussion on both sides of the House. That is understandable, but I think that we should hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
    Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to make sure that my hon. Friend, who was rudely interrupted by a number of people, including myself, when we heard that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had resigned, should be listened to decently. When the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Prime Minister comes in here, we know what his game is. He is doing two things. He is saying to the Government Back Benchers, "This is the line. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is saying that he wanted Alan Walters sacked. That is not true"—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. But he has not said it in the House or to me, so it is not a proceeding of Parliament. It is not a matter for the Chair.
    Mr. Skinner: The second point, which is very important, concerns what happens in future. If the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Prime Minister says to Conservative Back Benchers. "Say what I say and what the Prime Minister says", they do so, hoping to get a job in the reshuffle. There will be a number of jobs available in that reshuffle, so instead of listening to my hon. Friend they have been sorting out jobs for themselves in the Tory reshuffle.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I fully appreciate the points that have been made. I am concerned that there is a clear connection between the impact that the ports Bills will have on the coalfield communities in Yorkshire, north Derbyshire, the midlands and across the country, and the lives of families and children. I see a clear connection between what is contained in the Children Bill about the welfare of children and the action that has been taken by some of my hon. Friends to draw attention to the way in which the ports Bills will have a direct effect on people's lives in their constituencies.
    If the ports Bill that we are to discuss next week in time that should have been accorded to the Children Bill and other Bills about the welfare of individuals goes ahead, 36 more pits will close and 51,000 jobs will go. Those jobs directly affect the lives of children for whom we are legislating in the Children Bill.
    We differ in our views on child welfare in that Opposition Members believe that child abuse is not just about nasty people. It is about marital stress, marital problems, isolation, deprivation, poverty and, above all, unemployment. Research after research shows a clear connection between job losses—[Interruption]
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I would be very much obliged if those hon. Members who wish to carry on conversations would do so on the other side of the swing doors. We must now get on with the business of the House.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: My voice is going, so I will conclude my remarks.
    My central point is that the Government take a very narrow view of child protection. Child protection is not just about legal measures but involves wider social and economic policies. It is about poverty, inequality and unemployment. I urge the House not just to look at the

    1101
    symptoms that have been dealt with by the legislation, but at the causes. Some of those causes are sitting on the Government Benches tonight
    6.42 pm
    Mr. Keith Vaz: The House should pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who began the discussion on the Children Bill and whose speech was interrupted by the suspension of the sitting. As many hon. Members on both sides of the House have said—and as the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) said in his speech—the Children Bill was an all-party Bill. Indeed, if the former Chancellor of the Exchequer were here today, he would he supporting the measure. One of the features of the Children Bill is the fact that it has been a consensus Bill.
    As we all know, it was introduced last November by the Lord Chancellor and received Second Reading in the House of Lords. At that stage it was clear that hon. Members on both sides of the House who were to take part in its deliberations would do so in a constructive and positive way. They would ensure that constructive comments were made concerning the improvement of the Bill. I am delighted to say that when the Bill was considered in the House of Lords and in Standing Committee the response of the lead Ministers both here and in the House of Lords has been remarkably fair.
    I hope that it will not damage the hon. and learned Gentleman's career if I pay tribute to the Minister of State at the Department of Health, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), for the way in which he has conducted himself during the passage of the Bill. He has been fair and reasonable. As a relatively new Member of the House, I have occasionally discussed with other more senior colleagues the way in which the Minister has approached the Bill. They were very surprised when I told them that the Minister adjourned the Committee over a crucial aspect of policy in the Bill—the rights of social workers to take emergency action to remove children during periods of stress. He adjourned the Committee and offered us his officials—Rupert and other people who have assisted in the passage of the Bill. We had a long discussion on ways in which we could improve the Bill.
    Unfortunately, the Minister could not accept the amendment in my name and that of other hon. Members, which sought to introduce the child production notice. However, he listened to our comments, and came back during the recess and at the start of the new session with constructive suggestions. Until last Wednesday and Thursday he was prepared to discuss with us at great length the circumstances surrounding the child assessment orders. Indeed, he was so reasonable that when he had a visitor from America, the actor Charlton Heston, he was able to bring along Mr. Heston, who has played God in the movies on a number of occasions, and introduce him to members of the Committee. I was disappointed that the all-party nature of the Bill was broken when Charlton Heston was introduced to Conservative Members and not to the Opposition. However, despite that minor circumstance, the Committee proceeded in an all-party fashion.
    When the matter was brought before the House last Monday, it was agreed that Members on both sides of the House should co-operate as best as they could in deciding on the many Government amendments. Some people may
    1102
    regard the fact that the Government tabled more than 400 amendments as a sign of weakness. I do not believe that that was the case. I think that it was a sign that those who drafted the Bill and were responsible for the conduct of the Bill were concerned to ensure that the Bill was perfect, simply because we have waited more than 100 years for this radical piece of legislation. The last time that child care law was reviewed to such an extent was more than 100 years ago.
    The Bill is a radical measure. It seeks to repeal completely six existing statutes including landmark legislation such as the Children Act 1975. It amends 30 other pieces of legislation——
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that it is an unusual day and that an afternoon is a long time in politics, but we were wondering about the consequential changes in the Government team. I happen to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is supposedly the Secretary of State for Health, who is on the Front Bench, whether he has become the Leader of the House. He says he does not know.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Had the hon. Gentleman been doing his duty he should have been listening to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). No breach of our Standing Orders has been committed.
    Mr. Skinner: If I may continue——
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a genuine point of order.
    Mr. Skinner: On another point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: It had better be a new one.
    Mr. Skinner: Yes, it is. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) is more interested than many others in the Children Bill, as he has demonstrated several times during the consideration of the Bill. Because he has reservations about the Bill—we have discussed it—he wants to know who is to pilot it through its latter stages. We all want to know. If the Secretary of State for Health has been shifted, there may be consequential changes for those who have piloted the Children Bill. I want to know from the Secretary of State for Health whether he is still in charge.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Leicester, East is articulate enough to ask the right questions for himself.
    Mr. Vaz: I do not know whether the Secretary of State for Health wishes to intervene, but he is free to do so during my speech.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The hon. Gentleman will be reassured to learn that I am still Secretary of State for Health. I am present because the Bill is part of my departmental responsibility. It is being ably handled by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health.
    Mr. Vaz: Will the Secretary of State for Health nod from a sedentary position to indicate whether the Minister for Health will remain in charge of the Bill? I am inviting him to intervene, but he does not wish to do so. I see that he is giggling. The Secretary of State is such a charming person. He was described by my hon. Friend the Member

    1103
    for Monklands,West (Mr. Clarke) as "Mr. Nice"—or was it "Mr. Nasty"? I cannot remember the description. I assume that the hon. and learned Gentleman will remain in charge of the Bill.
    The Bill was designed radically to reform the law on child care. It aims to replace six statutes and amend 30 others.
    One of the features of the Bill when it was introduced by the Lord Chancellor in another place was the desire to ensure that it is enacted on a fixed date—1 April 1991. Those involved with child care matters were concerned about the large amount of legislation which had been passed by the House, some of it on an all-party basis, but which had not been brought into effect. Many of the provisions of the Children Act 1975, which was regarded as landmark legislation, have never been brought into effect, and because of the Children Bill they will never be brought into effect. It is important to remember the Lord Chancellor's explanation that when the Bill becomes law it should take effect immediately.
    Last week, we had meetings with the Minister for Health and his officials to discuss the crucial rights of social workers to intervene in child care proceedings. With the assistance of the Family Rights Group—I place on record my gratitude for its assistance—I drafted new clause 5, which aimed to change the way in which social workers notify parents of their concerns. My proposal for a child production notice and the Minister's proposal for a child assessment order were discussed at half-past nine last Wednesday in the Cathedral room at the Department of Health. Twenty four hours later, in keeping with the way in which the Minister had approached the Bill, we again discussed with officials the possibility of limiting the amount of time for which the child assessment order should continue. The Minister was prepared to reduce the period of the child assessment order from 14 days to seven.
    At that stage, hon. Members registered their first concerns that we were not to be given the full two days to discuss the Bill. One of the reasons why I and other Labour Members who served on the Committee were so co-operative with the Minister and did not speak unnecessarily in Committee was the promise that we would have much time to discuss the Bill on Report.
    In Committee,we had lengthy discussions on a new clause moved by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), who is not present, which introduced proposals for a family court. I was pleased to second the proposal because I believed that it was an all-party issue. We took an entire sitting of the Committee to discuss it. We did not press it to a Division because we wanted to consider on Report whether we had had sufficient time to convince the Government of the need for family courts. That is why, when we discussed the allocation of time with the Minister last week, we wanted the two full days that we were promised.
    The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) said that she did not believe that it was right for the two days to be curtailed. At that stage—looking back, it was probably appropriate—the Opposition decided to hold a debate on the economy. Although hon. Members believed that it was necessary to discuss the Children Bill for a full day on Monday and a full day on Tuesday, we accepted the need to discuss the economy. Therefore, we did not
    1104
    dissent from the fact that a large chunk of Tuesday would be spent discussing the economy, and as a result of the resignation of the Chancellor today that seems to have been an appropriate decision.
    We were told that the second discussion on the Children Bill would begin at 10 o'clock on Tuesday evening and continue until 2 am on Wednesday. We were happy to agree to that. Indeed, when I spoke to new clause 1 on Monday evening, I ensured that I kept my remarks to a minimum to enable other clauses to be debated at length. I further ensured that there was no dispute about the way in which we proceeded.
    Labour Membersdid not oppose the proposal for child assessment orders, although there were differences among us about how best to proceed, because we did not believe that it would be helpful to do so. I could have pressed a vote on new clause 5. Indeed, I raised a point of order with Mr. Speaker and asked him to call a Division on new clause 5. He said that he did not feel that that was appropriate because the matter had been dealt with by the House agreeing to new clause 13. I did not press the matter to a vote because we had to discuss the 400 amendments introduced by the Government and because it was necessary to prepare for the debate, which was ably and eloquently dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong).
    Other hon.Members came into the Chamber to take part in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) raised the issue of transracial adoptions and gave us the benefit of his personal experience. Other hon. Members took part in the debate and raised issues which concerned them. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and others were concerned about grandparents' rights, which is an important issue. Grandparents were left out when representations and rights were allocated under the Children Act 1975.
    Before I became an hon. Member, I worked as a senior solicitor for the London borough of Islington. My entire case-load was concerned with child care work. One of the reasons why we decided not to institute proceedings in the juvenile court under the Child Care Act 1980 or the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 but instead to ward children who came within those categories in Islington was that we believed that it was extremely important for grandparents—as interested parties concerned about their grandchildren, and who in many cases looked after them and gave them parental support—to be able to appear before the High Court in wardship proceedings, declare their interests and submit affidavit evidence. That is why I and so many other solicitors in local authorities in London and throughout the country decided to ward. We believed that the High Court was a much better and safer venue to deal with such cases.
    Many of my concerns about wardship were met by the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore. I was ready late on Tuesday night to debate grandparents' rights. Labour Members decided to place the arguments before the Minister in the hope that he would take on board our constructive comments and continue in the same spirit in which he began the Bill—a spirit of compromise and reasonableness. We were not able to do that.
    In an intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, the Minister raised his concerns about the activities of the miners group, or

    1105
    whatever it is called. The Children Bill was so important that we were prepared to sit all night on Tuesday and into the early hours of Wednesday to resolve the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), who has an interest in grandparents' rights, raised this issue. I have re-read his contribution on Second Reading in April this year. The issue was one of the first matters that he raised with the Minister of State.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would have been necessary for us to sit all through the night to provide the time for debate that was originally agreed—the second of two days? It was only the intervention of an important economic debate, which we initiated and which appears even more important now in the light of present circumstances, that produced a debate on the Children Bill after 10 o'clock, which by virtue of two Divisions meant 10.30 pm. In effect, the Government curtailed debate shortly after the second day of consideration had begun. If we had started at the usual time of half-past 4 or 5 o'clock, that action would have been equivalent to the Government curtailing the debate at, say, 7 or 7.30, which is patently absurd.
    Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend is right. We were prepared to discuss this important measure. Many hon. Members had decided to drive into Westminster that evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) told me that he did so because he wanted to raise a number of points. It was no secret that our deliberations were to start at 10 o'clock and go on until 2 o'clock in the morning.
    I was surprised when the Minister of State rose in his place and moved that the House should adjourn. I do not think that he wanted to do that. Judging by his handling of the Bill, I believe that he would have liked to proceed. It was not a matter of the hon. Gentleman wanting to get back home. I have lived in Richmond, which adjoins Putney. It takes about 20 minutes to get to Richmond, and I am sure that it takes the hon. Gentleman a similar time to return to his constituency. I believe that he would have liked to continue the discussion, but he is not responsible. He is not yet Leader of the House, although he may be by the end of my speech, so he is not responsible for the way in which the business of the House is managed. The Opposition do not hold him responsible for what happened.
    The Opposition were prepared to continue the debate because of the amendments that had been tabled. The House should know about the contribution of the voluntary sector to the passage of the Children Bill. We want it to reach the statute book. I wish that the Minister had accepted my amendment rather than proceeded with the child assessment order, but I accept the decision of the House. As one who has practised law, I feel that it is vital to codify child care law and that, instead of the piecemeal law which has existed for more than a century, there should be one definitive statute to which we and parents can go to find out what the law is. We have a legal duty and a moral responsibility to ensure that the Bill reaches the statute book. We were prepared to sit throughout Tuesday night, into the early hours of Wednesday morning, through lunchtime and into the afternoon to ensure that the Bill was saved. The voluntary sector believed that that was necessary.
    As Ministers know, ever since the Lord Chancellor introduced the Bill in the other place, voluntary
    1106
    organisations have been writing to him, his officials and members of the Committee about the operation of child care law.
    Mr. Ray Powell: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about the Minister's co-operation on the whole Bill. Were any reasons given to my hon. Friend or other members of the Committee as to why the Government wanted to pull stumps at that time in the morning, when the Opposition had offered to debate the whole Bill? The 400-odd Government amendments and other issues which we wanted to raise could have been given a full, open debate. Instead, the Government are trying through the guillotine motion to curtail discussions on certain items on which most of us would like to contribute if there is time.
    Mr. Vaz: I was happy to give way to my hon. Friend, who was not in the House when I paid tribute to him——
    Mr. Powell: I was.
    Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend was here. I paid tribute to him for his work on the grandparent amendments. The Minister of State gave no reason why the debate had to be adjourned. In his intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, he said that he did not feel that it was proper for the debate on the Children Bill to proceed while many Divisions were being forced on largely technical amendments. The hon. Gentleman may not have felt that that was an appropriate way to proceed, but the way in which the Government are proceeding now is much worse. What a squalid way to end this landmark piece of legislation. What an appalling way to treat such an important statute. This is not the proper way to proceed on a measure on which there is consensus and to which many people have been waiting many years to contribute.
    Before every Committee sitting we met representatives of the voluntary sector, including the Family Rights Group, the Children's Legal Centre, the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering and the British Association of Social Workers. The Minister and his officials made a great effort and took much time to ensure that they had the support of the Association of Directors of Social Services and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children before introducing the new clause on the child assessment order.
    I vividly remember the Minister coming before the Committee in the middle of a sitting with a piece of paper and stating that at last the war between the ADSS and the NSPCC about the idea of a child assessment order was over and they were happy with it. Those organisations—two of the most powerful agencies dealing with child work—wrote to us saying that a compromise had been reached. Because of that news, the sitting was adjourned.
    Groups such as the well-respected Family Rights Group, which is located in Islington, and the Children's Legal Centre, which had prepared an enormous amount of work through briefing materials and amendments, need to be carried with us. If they know, as the country now knows, that the Government wish to proceed on this historic measure in this squalid way, they will be bitterly disappointed that, after all the concessions and co-operation achieved in the past, this is how it ends.

    1107
    The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) has joined us. I do not know whether during his absence he has issued another press release. During my speech, he made some comments from a sedentary position.
    Mr. Tim Devlin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I always enjoy interrupting his speeches. He has said that this is a squalid way to conduct matters. If a guillotine were not imposed on the Bill now, would not the legislation fall at the end of the Session? When I was here last night, the hon. Gentleman said that he was prepared for this important legislation to be carried over into the new Session. He knows as well as I know that many voluntary bodies which have been briefing him and me during the Bill's passage in Committee have been anxious to ensure that the Bill reaches the statute book and is implemented as soon as possible. It is a sad turnaround that the Labour party is prepared to sell this Bill down the river in pursuit of narrow mining interests.
    Mr. Vaz: That is the ultimate cheek, coming from the hon. Member for Stockton, South who was not present during the second, late sitting on the Children Bill. The hon. Member told me that he stayed for the Division on child registration fees and then went home because he did not believe that there was anything of importance left to discuss, despite the fact that we have all these amendments to consider. It is a cheek to come to this House, having issued a press release which received a lot of coverage in The Times criticising the Labour Opposition for what they had done.
    I am sorry if this is beginning to sound like a mutual admiration society—I assure the House that it will last only for the duration of the Children Bill—but I must again commend the Minister, who was brave enough to repudiate the words of the hon. Member for Stockton, South and issue a denial that any Opposition member of the Committee was responsible for the delay.
    Mr. Devlin: It is clear from Hansard that, during that evening's proceedings, an agreement that had been reached was broken. It had not been intended that there would be any further Divisions that evening. That was accepted on both sides of the House. Then a group of Labour Members came to the House, forced a Division in which no Labour Member voted, and subsequently claimed that they had not spoken and had had nothing to do with it. Yet it was quite clear from the atmosphere in the House at the time that that group of hon. Members intended to continue to force Divisions on matters which, until that time, had not been in any way controversial.
    Mr. Vaz: The hon. Member for Stockton, South must have bionic sight as he talks about the mood of the House at 1.30 am on Wednesday, when he was not even here but in bed at the Barbican, or wherever his flat is. He could not possibly know the mood of the House. It is no wonder that his colleagues refer to him as the Peter Bruinvels of the current Session. He is not able to be present for the debate but apparently he has no need to take part to judge the mood. What an extraordinary person he must be—although he is away from the House he knows its mood and what agreements have been reached.
    1108
    Yes, there was an agreement that this issue should be dealt with by 2 am this morning, but because of the passionate debates which had occurred earlier, and because the debate on registration charges went on a little longer than anticipated, the debates proceeded more slowly than had been intended.
    The hon. Member cited the support of the voluntary sector. Of course the voluntary sector wants the Bill to become law. Of course we want it on the statute hook. If the hon. Gentleman had been here at the start of my speech he would have known what I said—that we want the Bill to become law as soon as possible. If the hon. Member for Stockton, South has read the Bill—perhaps that is what he is doing now—he will know that the date for its implementation is 1 April 1991, so it will make no difference if it is introduced in the new Session. Members have come to the House to confuse the public by talking about the new Session as though it were 100 years away. As far as I know, prorogation is between 15 and 22 November, which is only a week. If the Government believe that the Bill needs to be considered carefully, it is important that we should take time to ensure that we discuss the amendments in detail.
    Mr. Devlin: If the Bill is not passed by the end of this Session, it falls and has to start through all its parliamentary stages once again. As the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) knows, because he is a lawyer, there could be a carry—over motion. The hon. Member for Leicester, East has been studying my activities with great care, and has just said that he thought I might he reading the Bill. During many hours in Committee I have had ample opportunity to study the Bill, its provisions and all the amendments, including my own amendment which the hon. Gentleman supported.
    On Tuesday the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), the Front Bench spokesman for the Labour party, said
    "That said, however—I say this especially in the presence of the Leader of the House, the Deputy Prime Minister, who is, of course, a reasonable man—when other reasonable hon. Members representing mining areas feel it necessary to demonstrate, as they have done, because they genuinely feel that they have a grievance about Associated British Ports—"
    which is exactly what the hon. Member for Leicester, East has just said. Then the hon. Member——
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very long intervention.
    Mr. Devlin: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Leicester, East has been watching my actions with great care. I should like to direct him to the next sentence which states that
    "the Front Benches have endeavoured to co-operate to ensure that the Bill reaches the statute book. That remains our position. I hope, of course, that time will be found in which to continue the Bill's remaining stages. I repeat that our position is that we shall not seek to oppose the Bill. We want to see it on the statute book".—[Official Report, 24 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 806]:
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to a conclusion.
    Mr. Devlin: I ask the hon. Gentleman what he thinks about that in the light of his remarks.
    Mr. Vaz: That intervention does not take us any further. The hon. Member for Stockton, South should put his comments to my hon. Friend the Member for

    1109
    Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who is not able to be present in the House this evening due to pressing constituency business—he has had to attend a funeral—and who was not aware that this issue would be debated this afternoon. The first we knew about it was at 2 am today, when we were here to take part in discussions on the Companies Bill, and I was here to present a petition on the problem of gipsy encampments near my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West is therefore not able to be here to answer.
    Mr. Madden: Despite the bluff and bluster that we have heard from Conservative Members throughout the debate on the guillotine motion, there were hon. Members present during the early hours of Wednesday morning who were willing, able and would have been pleased to complete all the remaining stages of the Children Bill and who would have given it their blessing on its way to the other place.
    The other fact that Conservative Members seem to wish to avoid is that, after just two hours of Committee debate, the Minister moved an adjournment motion which the Government carried, despite the fact that 22 Labour Members voted against it, demonstrating their willingness to complete all stages of this important Bill, which we have supported throughout.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is another very long intervention.
    Mr. Vaz: I greatly respect my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), who assisted me when I first came into the House when we were on the Immigration Bill Committee together. He has great knowledge of these issues, and he is right. Opposition Members wished to proceed with the debate. I and other hon. Members went into the Division Lobby to ensure that the House did not adjourn. I was happy to stay late last night because I had a petition to present and therefore had to be here.
    The hon. Member for Stockton, South talked about the wishes of the voluntary sector. I believe that the voluntary sector wants us to get this Bill right and to take a great deal of time debating and analysing the amendments which have been put forward, quite properly, by the Minister. The voluntary sector believes that it will be a long time before Parliament will find the time and political will to debate these issues again, because we have waited until the very end of this Government's term of office to consider legislation covering children. It is a sign of the fact that it is not given a high priority. If it were, we should have been discussing it in 1979, rather than at this stage.
    A Labour Government will clearly be elected at the next general election and will wish to ensure that time is made available, but I am worried that there will be so many other pieces of legislation that we shall have to implement that the children issue and the area of social policy concerning children may not come back again. I assure the Minister that when we come back to new clause 13 the new Labour Government will amend that provision fairly swiftly.
    The voluntary sector wants to ensure that the Bill is a good Bill and that all the technical difficulties have been sorted out. A short delay at the final stage would not go amiss. As the hon. Member for Stockton, South knows, the Minister of State was in negotiation with Labour Members and others in Committee. His officials had emergency meetings with the Association of Directors of
    1110
    Social Services and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children last Thursday evening to get through the provision on the child assessment order. Had we waited another week, the period of seven days for child assessment orders might have come down to three days as a result of the negotiations taking place. A short delay might well have been in order.
    The hon. Member for Stockton, South says that the House will have to introduce a carry-over motion. I do not know what a carry-over motion is, but I accept that the hon. Gentleman has read the necessary documents. I am sure that the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), could come to some arrangement to enable us to agree a carry-over motion so that the Bill could be dealt with after the new Session begins.
    We must bear in mind our long wait for the Bill and the fact that it will not even come into effect until 1 April 1991, because many of its provisions need to be the subject of scrutiny by local authorities and many of the provisions concerning legal proceedings and the amendments introduced by the Solicitor-General require rules of court. It is not possible to implement the Children Bill unless the rules of court have been sorted out.
    The hon. Member for Stockton, South, as a lawyer, will remember that those points were raised in Committee when we discussed the need to have the Government's proposals brought before the Committee so that we could discuss issues such as the time necessary for the local authority to serve a notice on parents. We had a discussion on time limits. When I pressed the Minister in Committee on why he had suggested a period of 72 hours as the necessary time for a parent to challenge an emergency protection order, he said that he had to come to some decision on time. He had decided on 72 hours because it was a reasonable time and he believed that it gave parents a reasonable chance to challenge the order that was to be made. He then went on to promise me and the other members of the Committee that rules of court would be made. That shows that there is plenty of time to decide on the necessary rules of court and plenty of time in which to conduct negotiations on the most appropriate time available.
    Mr. Robert Key: It is important to clear up this matter. As I understand it, there is no way in which there could be a carry-over motion. There is no question of the Bill being able to go into the next Session. If we do not get it now, we shall not get it at all. I think that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, can confirm that no carry-over motion is possible. Either we get the Bill this Session, or it is lost.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That is the case. I refer the House to the proposal for suspending or resuming Bills. Proposals have been made for provision either by statute or by Standing Orders for the suspension of public Bills from one Session to another or for resuming proceeding upon such Bills, notwithstanding a Prorogation. There is no mechanism by which there can be a carry-over motion for a public Bill. It is up to the Government to get their Bill through during this Session.
    Mr. Vaz: I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, your Clerk and the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) for correcting the misleading information given

    1111
    by the hon. Member for Stockton, South. It is so reminiscent of Peter Bruinvels in Leicester that the information given was clearly not necessarily correct.
    Mr. Madden: I am grateful for the advice that you gave the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you also confirm that there was no impediment to the Bill completing its Report stage and Third Reading during the early hours of Wednesday morning?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot tempt the Chair down that road. I have given a factual statement about carry-over motions.
    Mr. Vaz: Obviously, we accept your advice and I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not advice—it is fact.
    Mr. Vaz: I am grateful for the facts that you have given, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Clerk for researching the point. In view of that, I urge the Government to look at the business of the House until 15 November. We now know when the Queen's Speech will be, so we can decide on our priorities. If the Children Bill is a priority, as I believe it is, it is necesary to remove some of the other pieces of legislation proposed for the next three weeks. I suggest the Football Spectators Bill, for example. I was a member of the Committee on that Bill and I believe that if the Minister spoke to his hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and suggested that the Bill should wait until the new Session, when we have the Taylor report, the Children Bill could be debated for the whole of Friday, which would give us sufficient time.
    It is important that we hear the Minister's response. However, I want to mention one point that will be discussed tomorrow because, unfortunately, I shall not be able to be in the House tomorrow afternoon to make the point then. We need a discussion on wardship. The Minister of State has said often that he accepts the advice given by the NSPCC. Its advice at present is that clause 84 should be amended and that the Government should delay the implementation of the wardship provisions. The Opposition, the NSPCC and other voluntary organisations do not believe that wardship should be curtailed. I urge the Minister to consider that point.
    This is a squalid way to end a Bill of such importance, but there is a way out. I accept the guidance that you have given, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I ask the Government and the Minister, in all honesty, to find the extra time that we need next week to discuss the Children Bill. It is a very important piece of legislation and it is unlikely that we shall return to consider this area of law for many decades to come.
    7.27 pm
    Mr. Alan Williams: My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in his opening speech this afternoon described the situation as a shambles. Subsequent events perhaps have rather dwarfed this debate and given it an element of anticlimax, but they do not alter the fact that we are discussing the chaotic position of the Government's legislation. I would wager that what the Prime Minister said at Kuala Lumpur
    1112
    was a model of diplomacy compared with what she said to her Leader of the House and her Chief Whip when she returned to London yesterday.
    I recall an item in, of all newspapers, one much liked by Conservative Members—The Sun—which said five years ago:
    "Come home, Maggie. Rarely can any bunch of Government Ministers have presented such a spectacle of bungling, pathetic incompetence as was unveiled at Westminster yesterday.
    At the centre of this comedy of errors—or, more accurately, tragedy of errors—was the hapless Sir Geoffrey Howe…Has someone stolen his political judgment, or his political instincts?"
    Although that was written five years ago, it could have been rerun this morning and it would have been absolutely relevant.
    But what happened last night at midnight? The Leader of the House recovered his diplomatic touch. He crept in here when he thought that no one would notice and at a stroke destroyed the links and the channels between the Opposition and the Government. He abandoned them unilaterally and arbitrarily. He came with a statement about which he had not warned us and he introduced not one but two guillotines about which he had not told us. All that was done without warning and without discussion. His actions were arbitrary and unilateral—exactly the same as those that he pursued at GCHQ when he tore up existing agreements.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman skulked in here and launched on the House his double-bladed guillotine. His timing was superlative. We are in the final two weeks of the Session and the date for the one state opening of Parliament has been set. This is the time that the Government most need the co-operation of the Opposition, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman managed to destroy it. If we now echoed what he did to us last night, the Government would already be dismantling the arrangements for the State opening of Parliament.
    The Prime Minister must dread going away—that is even more apposite in view of today's events. I have a cartoon with me from the Sunday Express which appeared five years ago at the same time as the quote that I read from The Sun. It shows two monks carrying candles in some vaults peering into a barrel and saying:
    "You can't hide here for long, Sir Geoffrey. She'll get you sooner or later now she's back".
    She got him just before midnight last night and we are now debating the consequences. At least we should give the man credit. He has beeen in the job for three months and he is already in the record books. In this one Session of Parliament eight guillotines have been introduced. Today, when we complained about lack of time, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had the impudence to suggest that we should guillotine the two guillotines by not taking the full three hours to debate the motion.
    I do not blame the Minister for Health. I have been impressed by the good will he has engendered on our Benches. The biggest obstacle to both Bills has been the Government, not the Opposition. The problem is not just the number of amendments tabled, but their sheer complexity and intricacy. The Children Bill attracted 38 pages of amendments and the Companies Bill 99 pages. The Government then complain that we wasted 15 minutes on what they considered an unnecessary vote.
    By the time we finished at 11.26 pm on Monday, we had dealt with 293 amendments and new clauses to the

    1113
    Children Bill—288 of which had been tabled by the Government. The following night, however, at 1.30 am, well before any agreed deadline, the Minister moved the adjournment of the debate. We voted against that and a study of the vote shows that only 110 Tory Members voted, among whom there were only 19 Ministers or Whips. The debate was adjourned because the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip panicked. They were afraid that they would not be able to muster 100 Tory Members to vote and, despite our willingness to continue, they ended the debate. The sole excuse that they could offer was that we had dared to have one vote—there were not attendant speeches—which took up 15 minutes on an item which the Government considered did not warrant a vote. That is a measure of the indictment against us.
    Mr. Devlin rose
    Mr. Williams: I have little time available to me. The hon. Gentleman has already made his speech. Earlier, I wondered whether I should interject in his interjection.
    The Government have also complained about the Companies Bill, but who came here with a statement that lasted an hour and a quarter before we started our deliberations on that Bill? We did not do that—they did. Who tabled 300 amendments on the day of the debate? Not us. The Government should not pretend that the Opposition are responsible for the chaos, as they made the Bill up as they went along. On the last day of our deliberations in Committee, the Minister tabled 15 new clauses. In effect, those new clauses represented a new Financial Services Bill, but the Opposition were not given time to debate them. The Companies Bill is such a masterpiece of the draftsman's art that the Government have moved 1,100 amendments altogether—400 in the Lords, 400 in Committee and 300 yesterday. Now 700 of those amendments must go back to the Lords, so we shall start the process all over again. It is the Government, not the Opposition, who have sabotaged the Bill. They have drowned it in amendments.
    I accept that much of the responsibility rests with the Chief Whip and perhaps with Ministers rather than with the Leader of the House. When the Prime Minister appointed the right hon. and learned Gentleman, she might have felt that she now had a winning team in charge of Government business. I am afraid that she must have a poor memory. What a Session the next one promises to be if the right hon. and learned Gentleman remains in post.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman's credentials are exciting and, five years ago, they were noted by the newspapers. The Daily Telegraph, no great supporter of us, ran the headline:
    "Howe centre of Tory disarray"
    The Guardian carried the headline:
    "The disaster zone around Geoffrey Howe".
    The Sun noted:
    "Fury as Howe slips up again".
    The Daily Mirror ran the headline, "Howe blunder", the Sunday Mirror spoke of a "Whitehall farce" and the main headline in The Times read, "Embarrassed Howe". My favourite headline is one that appeared on the front page of the Daily Mirror. It showed a photograph of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as though standing on his head and the headline ran:
    "Dear Sir Geoffrey…Have you ever had one of those weeks when nothing goes right?"
    1114
    That takes us back to where we started when I quoted from The Sun. The Daily Mirror should rerun that headline tomorrow as it is every bit as relevant today as it was five years ago.
    We do not yet know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be doing in the next Session, but let us remember that the man who helped to create this mess is the man who sank the economy in one Budget. He is the man who bungled the GCHQ sackings so badly that he gave the Government the worst three days of headlines that they have ever had—until, I suspect, the three days that are about to come. This is the man who will be in charge of the business of the House—we think—for the next 12 months. It promises to be an exciting year for me.
    Last night, the right hon. and learned Gentleman demonstrated his fine touch. I look forward to the new Session, assuming that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not in charge of a nuclear power station in the Outer Hebrides.
    7.37 pm.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. David Mellor): If a week is a long time in politics, I have found that three hours is equally long. I appreciate that some of the interest in this debate may have dissipated during its course. I congratulate all of those who, notwithstanding the eruptions around them, nevertheless sought to keep their eye on the ball. I shall seek to follow in that noble tradition, although I shall not criticise the House if, on this occasion, hon. Members find other matters more compelling than my oratory to talk about. I shall do my best to play out elegantly the time remaining in the debate.
    We agree about a lot of things this evening, not least that it is important that the Children Bill should go on the statute book. Far too much work has been done on the Bill for it to be lost. I am grateful that the co-operation across the Chamber on this Bill has been recognised. Such recognition is always the first thing to go out of the window when things get tough. There has been genuine co-operation on the Bill. I have no complaint against the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) or the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), who have worked extremely hard on the Bill. They were supported by an able team in Committee. I believe that the Bill, as it emerged from Committee, is stronger for the careful consideration it was given during 17 sittings.
    I believe, however, that there was something missing from the speech of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). He did not recognise the new factor that entered into our discussions at 10.30 pm on Tuesday. We had arranged for the Children Bill to pass into law. However, an unnecessary Division was called by two hon. Members. Whatever other involvements they have in this House—and both are active hon. Members—neither had been active in our deliberations on the Children Bill. They were plainly activated by a grievance other than any objections to the inoffensive technical amendment under consideration. Both the hon. Members for Monklands, West and for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) candidly acknowledged that the dispute was about the Associated British Ports Bill and said that it was likely that several Divisions would be called—not because of any objections to what was being proposed by the Government, but simply to advance that grievance.

    1115
    That is a parliamentary tactic for which there are precedents. However, one parliamentary tactic may be met by another kind of parliamentary tactic and the tactic now being deployed is that of confining the debate. It is being done for three reasons. Once we move from the necessary battle lines that have to be drawn in the artificial huff and puff that has characterised the past three hours—fun though it has been for all kinds of reasons—I imagine that we can agree about those three things.
    First, the Bill is necessary. It has been a good thing that, in the course of a busy Session, it has proved possible to find the time for a Bill that could easily have been squeezed out by other more contentious measures. As the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) eloquently said, we will not have the chance to return to this issue for quite some time, and we cannot afford to lose the Bill. It must become law.
    Secondly, we have to acknowledge the price that has had to be paid. First, there is the care and skill that the parliamentary draftsmen have brought to bear on the legislation. Secondly, as changes have been made in deference to the wishes of the House, the Bill needs to be further considered in the Lords. It is therefore necessary that the Bill is delivered to the other place in good time to allow that consideration to take place. It cannot be left hanging around any more than can the Companies Bill.
    Thirdly—this point is highly relevant—there was an arrangement through the usual channels that the Bill must be completed, notwithstanding the amount of time that had been eaten into as a result of the emergency motion on the economy on Tuesday. Perhaps Friday should have been chosen for that debate, but there we are, it happened on Tuesday. Indeed, we know that the Bill's passage could have been completed already if common sense had prevailed among hon. Members throughout the House.
    Notwithstanding the fact that it has been necessary to curtail our debate on the Bill, we still have three hours of debate tomorrow. That is actually more than the time that it was originally envisaged that the Bill would take to complete once the last contentious piece of business had been disposed of. There would also have been plenty of time for the Companies Bill to be further considered tonight if it had not been for the point that was argued at length in the House yesterday evening, which in itself was not contentious.
    It has been suggested that there was some doubt about whether it would have been possible for us to complete our progress on the Children Bill. There was also some doubt about whether the Government could move as they did. Any doubt that might have existed about whether progress was possible must surely have been washed away by what happened in the House last night when some of the following exchanges took place—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Mellor: I know that the House remains riveted by the problems of the Companies Bill. I remind hon. Members that at the bottom of page 4 clause 2 contains the words.
    "in the case of a company incorporated after the commencement of that Part, the last day of the month in which the anniversary of its incorporation falls."
    A deeply radical and searching amendment of the utmost controversy was tabled in which it was suggested that the
    1116
    word "Part" should be removed and the word "Section" be inserted. One might have assumed that that would pass relatively unnoticed, but no. It caused a Division that took 20 minutes of parliamentary time. Then, lo and behold, if we move on to clause 4(2), we find that it states:
    "Schedule 4 to the Companies Act 1985…is amended in accordance with Schedule 1."
    Again, a deeply damaging amendment was tabled by the Government that would have added the words "to this Act" to the end of that sentence, yet notwithstanding the relative inoffensiveness of those words a Division was forced.
    It was perfectly obvious that, whatever else was motivating hon. Members last night. it was not a deep concern about improving the Companies Bill. That was made abundantly clear by the fact that the Tellers for those Divisions were not the official Opposition Tellers, but were from the group concerned about the Associated British Ports Bill.
    There are many precedents for guillotines in the House. Indeed, on one famous occasion the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) managed to bring five guillotines to the House in one evening. When pressed about that in a debate last year, he said:
    "Those five guillotines were introduced on 20 July. That is quite late in the Session. If we had not had the guillotine motions, all those five measures would have been destroyed. There is not the slightest doubt about that."—[Official Report, 22 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 39.]
    From that impeccable parliamentary source has come the reason for tonight's guillotine.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 98.

    Division No. 354]

    [7.46 pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Amess, David

    Colvin, Michael

    Amos, Alan

    Conway, Derek

    Arbuthnot, James

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Atkinson, David

    Cormack, Patrick

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Couchman, James

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Cran, James

    Baldry, Tony

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

    Batiste, Spencer

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Day, Stephen

    Benyon, W.

    Devlin, Tim

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Dicks, Terry

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Dover, Den

    Boswell, Tim

    Dunn, Bob

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Durant, Tony

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Evennett, David

    Bowis, John

    Fallon, Michael

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Favell, Tony

    Brazier, Julian

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

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

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Forman, Nigel

    Burns, Simon

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Burt, Alistair

    Forth, Eric

    Butcher, John

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Butler, Chris

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Butterfill, John

    French, Douglas

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Gale, Roger

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Gardiner, George

    Carrington, Matthew

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Carttiss, Michael

    Gill, Christopher

    Cash, William

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Chapman, Sydney

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Chope, Christopher

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    1117

    Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Norris, Steve

    Gregory, Conal

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Page, Richard

    Ground, Patrick

    Paice, James

    Grylls, Michael

    Patnick, Irvine

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hague, William

    Pawsey, James

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Portillo, Michael

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Redwood, John

    Hayes, Jerry

    Riddick, Graham

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Hayward, Robert

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Shersby, Michael

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Sims, Roger

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Irvine, Michael

    Squire, Robin

    Jack, Michael

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Jackson, Robert

    Steen, Anthony

    Janman, Tim

    Stern, Michael

    Jessel, Toby

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Stradling Thomas. Sir John

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Key, Robert

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Kilfedder, James

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Knapman, Roger

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Knowles, Michael

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Tracey, Richard

    Lord, Michael

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Walden, George

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Waller, Gary

    Maclean, David

    Ward, John

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Warren, Kenneth

    Mans, Keith

    Watts, John

    Maples, John

    Wheeler, John

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Mellor, David

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Wood, Timothy

    Mills, lain

    Yeo, Tim

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Moss, Malcolm

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Mr. Stephen Dorrell and

    Needham, Richard

    Mr. Tom Sackville.

    Nelson, Anthony

    NOES

    Allen, Graham

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Clay, Bob

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Ashton, Joe

    Cohen, Harry

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Cousins, Jim

    Beith, A. J.

    Cox, Tom

    Bell, Stuart

    Cryer, Bob

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Cummings, John

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

    Darling, Alistair

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Dewar, Donald

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Dixon, Don

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Dobson, Frank

    Buchan, Norman

    Doran, Frank

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    1118

    Eastham, Ken

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Fearn, Ronald

    Mowlam, Marjorie

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

    Nellist, Dave

    Flannery, Martin

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Flynn, Paul

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Foster, Derek

    Patchett, Terry

    Foulkes, George

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Prescott, John

    Galloway, George

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Randall, Stuart

    George, Bruce

    Reid, Dr John

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Richardson, Jo

    Gould, Bryan

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Haynes, Frank

    Ruddock, Joan

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Sheerman, Barry

    Hinchliffe, David

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

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

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Soley, Clive

    Illsley, Eric

    Spearing, Nigel

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Kennedy, Charles

    Vaz, Keith

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Wall, Pat

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Wallace, James

    Leighton, Ron

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Livsey, Richard

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Winnick, David

    Maclennan, Robert

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Madden, Max

    Wray, Jimmy

    Meacher, Michael

    Meale, Alan

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Mr. Robert N. Wareing and

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Mr. Martyn Jones.

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Questions accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved
    That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Companies Bill [Lords] and the Children Bill [Lords]:—

  COMPANIES BILL [Lords]
  1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Companies Bill [Lords] shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at the Times shown in the following Table:—

  TABLE

  Proceedings

  Time for conclusion of proceedings

  New Clause, new Schedules and amendments relating to Parts I to IV of the Bill.

  9 50 pm

  New Clauses, new Schedules and amendments relating to Part V of the Bill.

  11.00 pm

  New Clauses, new Schedules and amendments relating to Parts VI and VII of the Bill.

  Midnight

  Remaining new Clauses and amendments and Third Reading.

  1.00 am

  CHILDREN BILL [LORDS]
  2. The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Children Bill [Lords] shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of adjourned proceedings on consideration.
  CHILDREN BILL [LORDS]
    Dilatory Motions
    3. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on either Bill shall be moved except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
    Order of proceedings
    4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on Consideration of either Bill are taken
    Extra time on allotted days
    5. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on both Bills.

  COMPANIES BILL [Lords]
  6.—(l) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings on the Companies Bill [Lords] which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (hut no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

  (c) the Question that all new Clauses standing in the name of, or moved by, a member of the Government and all new Schedules standing in the name of a member of the Government be added to the Bill;

  (d) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of, or moved by, a member of the Government be made to the Bill;

  (e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

  CHILDREN BILL [Lords]
  7.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings on the Children Bill [Lords] which are to be brought to a conclusion at the time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

  (c) the Question that all new Clauses and new Schedules standing in the name of a member of the Government be added to the Bill;

  1120

  (d) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a member of the Government be made to the Bill;

  (e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (i) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

  CHILDREN BILL [Lords]

    Supplemental orders
    8.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
    (2) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which proceedings on either Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

    Saving
    9. Nothing in this Order—

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

    (b) prevents any business (whether on the Bill in question or not) from being proceeded with after the completion of all such proceedings on that Bill.

    Re-committal
    10. No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit either Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
    Interpretation
    11. In this Order "allotted day", in relation to the Companies Bill [Lords] or the Children Bill [Lords] means any day on which that Bill is put down as first Government Order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day.

Chancellor of the Exchequer (Resignation)
7.57 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe) rose——
Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?
Mr. Eric S. Heller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that we are going to hear a statement from the deputy Prime Minister. Have you been informed of why the Prime Minister is not present?
Mr. Speaker: Who makes statements from the Front Bench has never been a matter for the Chair.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make—[Interruptionl]
Mr. Speaker: Order. These are grave matters.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: With permission, Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order at this stage of the proceedings?
Mr. Bruce: In view of the seriousness of the situation, is it really fit, when the City may be in crisis, for this statement to be made in the absence of the Prime Minister? Could she not be in the House?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman evidently did not hear what I said—that it is not for me to state who makes statements from the Government Front Bench.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief statement to the House. As the House will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) has resigned as Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister learned of his intention to resign just before 2.30, immediately before she went over to the House to prepare for Questions and her statement on the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. In the course of a subsequent conversation between them following her return to No. 10 Downing street, the Prime Minister was unable to dissuade my right hon. Friend. The decision was therefore announced at about 6 pm and the letters that have been exchanged have since been published.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has decided to appoint my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) as Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) as Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington) as Secretary of State for the Home Department. There is no change in the successful economic policies—[Interruption.]—that the Government have pursued in the past and will continue to pursue in the future. In due course the House will no doubt wish to return to the business on which we have just been voting.
Mr. Frank Dobson: I thank the deputy Prime Minister for his statement. The Chancellor's resignation clearly resulted from the Prime
1122
Minister's high-handed, intolerable and disloyal treatment of Cabinet colleagues. Her subsequent decision to shift the newly appointed Foreign Secretary to be the new Chancellor showed a great office of state being cast off and passed around like an old coat. It undermines confidence in the Prime Minister's claim to be fit to conduct the nation's affairs. More important, it may undermine confidence in our economy, our currency and our country.
The underlying problems of the economy cannot swiftly be resolved, but changes in the personalities involved will not restore confidence. Changes in policy are required. It is imperative that, at the earliest opportunity, the Government put before the House their proposals to deal with the deepening economic crisis which they have ignored for far too long. The Government must answer to the House. In so doing, they will answer to the people of this country. Tonight, our people, all our people, must wonder what lies ahead for their homes, their jobs, their families and their future. They have already paid too high a price for the consequences of public squabbles between the highest in the land. The Prime Minister must accept responsibility for what has happened. She must answer to the House and to the country, and she must answer soon.
Sir William Clark: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take it from me that we on this side of the House very much regret the resignation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? May I press my right hon. and learned Friend to take no notice of the obvious glee with which the Opposition received that news, culminating in the singing of "The Red Flag"? Does he agree that the basic economy of the country is still sound despite the resignation? We welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) to his job as the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, because we know that the sound policies that the Government have pursued over the years will continue. Consequently, there is no necessity for the City or the markets to get panicky.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the long and magnificent service to the Government and the country given by our right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby. I join him also in expressing confidence in his successor, our right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon. I shall respond to the shadow Leader of the House by saying that the reasons for the changes are exactly as stated in the letters of integrity exchanged between my right hon. Friends. The economic policies of the Government will remain unchanged, effective and sensible, exactly as set out by my hon. Friend. The one thing that will enable the people of the country to continue to sleep soundly is the certainty that there is no prospect of our economic policies being replaced by those of the Opposition.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I suspect that many hon. Members feel a good deal of sympathy for the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) whose job has been made impossible, whose position has been made untenable and who has taken the only honourable course open to him. Does the Leader of the House not realise that what is at stake is not the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer but the integrity of the Government and of a Prime Minister who has shown herself to be arrogant, dictatorial and isolated? We have been told for the last 10 years that there is no alternative. There is an alternative. She must go.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The integrity of the Government is well maintained by the quality of the appointments that I have just disclosed to the House. Each one of my right hon. Friends moving into these important offices of state has long and substantial experience in those fields. The House may rest assured that the integrity of the Government is in good hands and will remain so.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, in what might have been for him the difficult moment of making his statement, he had the great advantage of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) coming to his aid—in the same way as the Leader of the Opposition normally comes to the aid of the Prime Minister? Will he take it from the House, from all of us I believe, that we wish my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) well in whatever activities he engages in ? [Interruption.] At least we on this side of the House appreciate the work that he has done. Will my right hon. and learned Friend also convey our best wishes to those who have now taken over the heavy burdens of high office that he listed in his statement? Will he take to the Prime Minister a message of thanks that we have been assured that the economic policies of the Government will not change one jot?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will certainly convey those sentiments, firmly expressed by my right hon. Friend, not only to the Prime Minister but to the country. The policies remain unchanged, and the Government remain confidently in charge.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Leader of the House aware—he must be—that the Prime Minister is also First Lord of the Treasury, and that this afternoon she made a statement of confidence in her Chancellor knowing full well that it was his intention to resign? Therefore, she misled the House and her absence to explain that is another sign of her failure to take responsibility for actions that are hers and hers alone.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As is clear from the statement that I have made, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, together with the rest of her colleagues in government, plainly regrets her inability to dissuade my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby from resigning, but that resignation did not become effective until the conclusion of that discussion. There will be ample opportunities for discussion of these matters in the days, weeks and months ahead-opportunities that the Opposition have available to them in the ordinary way. I have no doubt that, throughout those opportunities, the country's confidence in the competence of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will reman undiminished and fortified.
Dr. David Owen: Since confidence in sterling tomorrow is the most crucial element, and since the Government have already stated that it is their policy to enter the exchange rate mechanism when the time is appropriate, will the Leader of the House convey to the new Chancellor, who carries all our best wishes for restoring confidence, that it would be wise to enter the exchange rate mechanism in the next few days and to announce it publicly?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his good wishes to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The position of the
1124
Government on the question that he has raised remains as stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the conclusion of the Madrid summit.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Leader of the House aware that the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) was in an impossible position? He had the responsibility for running the economy without the powers for so doing. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that, if the Prime Minister is to remain long in her job, she does not subvert from next door the policies of the new Chancellor?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no question of that. The circumstances surrounding this matter are as set out by my right hon. Friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer in his letter of resignation. The matter will now proceed on the basis that not only he but also Professor Sir Alan Walters have resigned, and under the confident guidance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Is this a case of the Chancellor of the Exchequer losing his grip on the economy, or of the Prime Minister losing her grip on reality? Did the Prime Minister have no confidence in the Chancellor or did the Chancellor have no confidence in the Prime Minister? Either way, is it not time to test whether the country has confidence in the Government?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: This is the place in which to test the continuing confidence of the country in the Government, and we may have no doubts about the competence of my right hon. and hon. Friends in this Administration—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will those on the Liberal Democrat Bench please listen to what is going on?
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Surely it would have made much more common sense and benefited the economy if the ex-Chancellor could have been persuaded to resign on Saturday or Sunday. Was not resigning now an act of deep vindictiveness, which showed the depth of the split within the Cabinet and the shambles to which he has reduced the economy?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is a totally wrong-headed view of the situation. If my right hon. Friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer had reached the conclusion that he had and sustained it after the discussion that took place, it would be wrong of him to do anything other than resign at the end of that conversation.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The Leader of the House said that this is the place to test the confidence of the country in the Government. Will he make time available in the next few days for a motion of confidence to be debated?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Opposition have their own time available for whatever motion they care to table.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Is it not clear to all of us—I am sure that Conservative Members agree, whether they say this or not—that the Government are economically and politically in a deep mess from which they do not know how to extricate themselves? At a time like this, surely we have the right to expect a Prime

1125
Minister to have the courage to come here and speak to us herself instead of being such a coward about it and not coming.
Hon. Members: Oh!
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a reflection on the honour of the Prime Minister. Will the hon. Gentleman please withdraw the word?
Mr. Flannery: I will change the word. To quote the Prime Minister, she is "frit". Therefore, is it not time for us to test the atmosphere by having a general election?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There are ample opportunities, and there will he ample opportunities during the months and years ahead, for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to answer whatever questions are put. I have no doubt that she will do so with the continuing confidence of the House.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Will the deputy Prime Minister accept that there will be loud groans from one end of the country to another not because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has resigned but because the Deputy Prime Minister has said that the same policies will continue, with the same high interest rates, the same high balance of payments deficit and the same high unemployment? There will be no hope for the people of our country until the Government go.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government's policies will continue. The real disaster for the people of this country would be if the Labour party were to come into office.
Mr. Heffer: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that not only has the Chancellor of the Exchequer resigned, but so has Professor Walters. As I am one of those who believe that people should resign from Governments on the basis of principle, could he explain what the principle is? Is it that the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) cannot stand the Prime Minister because of her interference in everything or is it because they now know that the economy is in such an unholy mess that the Government's policies have failed and the time has come for the rats to get off the ship before it sinks?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has resigned for the reasons plainly set out in his letter. Equally plainly, he has made it clear that he will continue his support for Government, as will all my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The House has been reminded that the Prime Minister is the First Lord of the Treasury. What reasons did she give the deputy Prime Minister for not coming along to face her responsibilities this evening?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no question of giving any reason for that. The House has business before it. I tabled a timetable motion, on which the House has just voted. There is business still to be done as a result of that motion, and I have fulfilled a commitment given to the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the former Chief Whip that I would make a statement as soon as possible. I have done so, and that is right.
Mr. Ron Leighton rose——
Mr. Michael Colvin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That question has already
1126
been asked by three other hon. Members. This is becoming a ritual performance by Labour Members. Can we not get on with the business of the House?
Mr. Speaker: We have a heavy evening ahead of us. I propose to allow questions to run for no longer than 10 minutes more and then we must get on, because the first guillotine falls at 9.50.
Mr. Leighton: Is not the real issue the way that the absent Prime Minister runs her Government and her Cabinet, and the arrogant, authoritarian and dictatorial way that she behaves, which has lost her the right hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Blaby (Mr. Lawson)? If the deputy Prime Minister had any guts, considering the way in which he has been treated as a door mat, he would resign as well.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The question now before us is whether we can get on with the business before the House.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the Leader of the House recognise how discourteous the Prime Minister has been in not coming here, in view of the disarray of her Government and the crisis with which we are now faced? Bearing in mind the fact that the real deputy Prime Minister is Mr. Bernard Ingham, and that Mr. Powell is also a senior adviser to her, is it not a fact that, like most dictators, the Prime Minister wants a court Cabinet and takes more notice of those people than she does of her real Cabinet?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister conducts her Government in accordance with the normal constitutional proprieties, and has, during the time since my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer resigned some two and a quarter hours ago, appointed three senior, experienced and immensely worthwhile colleagues to new offices. The House may have confidence in them.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Leader of the House accept that the nation is tired of the incompetence and arrogance of the Prime Minister, which have been demonstrated so forcibly by today's startling events? How will the squabble between the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, which has been made transparent today, help hard-pressed mortgage payers, who are now wondering every week how they will meet their repayments? How will it help us repay and recover from the biggest balance of trade deficit in the nation's history?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Along the lines frequently stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and every other member of the Administration, on the basis that our policies are correctly designed to sustain the health and strength of the economy.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Considering that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer resigned because his job was incompatible with the Prime Minister having the ear of Sir Alan Walters or vice versa, and as Sir Alan has resigned as well, has it not been possible for the Prime Minister to invite the former Chancellor of the Exchequer back, and if not, why not?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The sequence of events has unfolded as it has unfolded.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Leader of the House accept that tonight the Government should be preoccupied with the national interest to ensure stability in the foreign exchange markets tomorrow and to ensure again that the pound does not slide too far? Is that the Government's conviction tonight? Will every statement from Downing street be made with that objective in mind?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The conviction of the Government will be to sustain the totality of the Government's economic policies, and one part of that is the continuation of the business of the House.
Mr. Peter Shore: The Leader of the House has referred to the totality of the Government's economic policies and their continuity. Surely it is for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to inform the House and the nation exactly what the policies are that are to be continued. Are they the policies advocated in respect of the European monetary system by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or are they the policies that have been advocated by Sir Alan Walters and the Prime Minister?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have already told the House, they are the policies that were enunciated following the Madrid summit of the European Council, as rehearsed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer only a few days ago and as rehearsed by me. The policies remain as there stated and remain unchanged.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: But, following the point that the Leader of the House has just made, if it is as easy as that that the Government are following the policies laid down at Madrid, why did the former Chancellor of the Exchequer resign?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: For the reasons stated in my right hon. Friend's letter, which do not in any sense call in question the policies to which the Government remain committed.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: With apologies to Shakespeare, does the Leader of the House really believe that the Prime Minister's wimpled, whingeing, purblind, wayward boy is fit to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer? When the pound sinks tomorrow, what does the boy intend to do, or has not the Prime Minister told him?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The question deserves to be dismissed with contempt.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: May I put it to the Leader of the House and deputy Prime Minister that his statement is seriously inadequate? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us who the new Foreign Secretary is, who the new Home Secretary is and who the new Chancellor of the Exchequer is. What he has not told us concerns the most important job of all: who will the Prime Minister appoint as her new economic adviser?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is not an office of continuity or an office under the Crown. It is an office that has often not existed. I dare say that that will be the position.
Dr. John Reid: First, may I congratulate the deputy Prime Minister on having for the time being avoided reappointment to the Foreign Office? I am sure that another clipping is the last thing that he needs at the moment. Will he agree with me that to lose one economic adviser is bad enough and careless, but to lose two in the same afternoon and 6,000 miles apart takes tremendous incompetence?
Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Prime Minister, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) asked earlier, did know of the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to resign when she responded to the questions of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? Secondly, given the sequence of events, can he confirm that, as Sir Alan Walters resigned out of "shock" on hearing of the resignation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and despite the Chancellor of the Exchequer's threat of resignation and its effect on the pound, Sir Alan was never asked for his advice, consulted or informed before the Chancellor of the Exchequer was allowed to go? Does that not show the utter contempt in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was held by the Prime Minister?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can do without the hon. Gentleman's sympathy and advice in respect of my own position. I cannot add anything to what appears in the statement that I have made or to the letter of my right hon. Friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer as published.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I congratulate the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) on his new appointment? It seems that he has only to stand up to attract great offices of state. One trembles to think what he might be by this time next week. For how much longer are Ministers to accept the humiliations that are being heaped upon them by the Prime Minister? Is the Leader of the House not aware that a representative of Phillips and Drew said yesterday that the British economy was a banana economy? That was most apposite, given that we are led by a tinpot dictator.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's abuse does not add any strength to his case.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that it will not have gone unnoticed that only two Tory Members were prepared tonight to defend the changes that have been made? Does the House understand that there has been continuing internecine warfare between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer over more than 12 months, and that it was characterised by the attendance of Cabinet Ministers to listen to the Chancellor of the Exchequer participate in an important economic debate yesterday? Only two of them were prepared to turn up to hear him.
There is no doubt that the Prime Minister has been wanting the Chancellor of the Exchequer's job and that at the same time the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to get out from under because of the economic mess that he and others had created. The net result is that we have managed to get rid of both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Sir Alan Walters and have shifted several of the top jobs. I should like to know the housing arrangements for all those who are engaged in this reshuffle.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's rhetoric and fantasy has exhausted itself as usual. My right hon. and hon. Friends are remaining silent because the House wants to get ahead with the business that is before it.
Mr. A. J. Beith: The question that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House cannot dismiss is this: what is now the Government's exchange rate policy? Is it the one favoured by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer of supporting the exchange rate by interest rates or the one favoured by the Prime Minister, who believes that one cannot buck the market?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no dichotomy of that sort. I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that, in the course of the past 10 days in the House, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have each reiterated our support for the same central Government economic policy, built upon the foundations set out in the statement after the Madrid European summit.
Mr. Dave Nellist: As the Prime Minister's support earlier this afternoon for the former Chancellor of the Exchequer was obviously about as welcome as the rope to the hanged man, is not the real issue the fact that, unlike the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Professor Sir Alan Walters, millions of ordinary people in this city cannot walk away from the consequences of high interest rates and the coming recession? As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) said, only rats can leave a sinking ship.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Millions of ordinary people can rest a great deal more confident with the continuity of this Government's economic policy than with the prospect of any sort of economic policy that commends itself to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. George Galloway: Can we have an assurance that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) will bring to his individual office all the strength of character and independence of spirit that he displayed last week in Kuala Lumpur? Is not the major question this afternoon whether a poodle can stand tall enough to open the door of No. 11 Downing street?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend will bring to his office all those qualities that have so long commended him to my hon. Friends.

Orders of the Day
  Companies Bill [Lords]
  As amended ( in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Companies Bill [Lords]
    Schedule 2

      FORM AND CONTENT OF GROUP ACCOUNTS
      Amendments made: No. 15, in page 204, line 14, at end insert—
      '11 A.—(1 ) Where a group is acquired, paragraphs 9 to 11 apply with the following adaptations.
      (2) References to shares of the undertaking acquired shall be construed as references to shares of the parent undertaking of the group.
      (3) Other references to the undertaking acquired shall be construed as references to the group; and references to the assets and liabilities, income and expenditure and capital and reserves of the undertaking acquired shall he construed as references to the assets and liabilities, income and expenditure and capital and reserves of the group after making the set-offs and other adjustments required by this Schedule in the case of group accounts.'.
      No. 16, in page 206, line 44, leave out from 'matters' to end of line 27 on page 207 insert—
      (4) The provisions of paragraphs 5 to 11 of Schedule 10A (rights to be taken into account and attribution of rights) apply in determining for the purposes of this paragraph whether an undertaking holds 20 per cent. or more of the voting rights in another undertaking.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 6

      ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED IN NOTES TO ACCOUNTS
      8.30 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 11, line 37, at end insert—
      '(3A) Where advantage is taken of subsection (3), that fact shall be stated in a note to the company's annual accounts.'
      I am grateful that we can now proceed with the Companies Bill. I hope that we can make fairly rapid progress with the technical and fairly straightforward amendments before us, so that we may have real debates on some of the interesting amendments that arise later. As I try to steer my first Bill through Parliament, I cannot but wonder what I have done wrong because every night there seems to be some show arranged that takes hon. Members' minds off the Bill.
      Clause 6 of the Bill includes a provision re-enacting existing exemptions from disclosure of the names of certain subsidiaries and related undertakings that date back to the Companies Act 1967 introduced by the then Labour Administration.
      This amendment would require a company to disclose in its accounts the fact that it had taken advantage of those exemptions from disclosure. I bring it forward in response to a commitment given in Standing Committee in response to an amendment having the same purpose as this amendment moved by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett). We have considered this carefully in the light of our obligations under the fourth and seventh

      1131
      company law directives and accept that an amendment is needed to give proper effect to article 45.1(b) of the fourth directive and article 35(1)(b) of the seventh directive.
      Mr. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central): Will the notice of the exemption be reflected in the short statement of company accounts, which is also provided for in the Bill? It is important that all shareholders should be aware of the fact that the exemption is being taken advantage of, and it should therefore form part of the information that is provided in short company statements.
      Mr. Redwood: I shall endeavour to ensure that it does so appear because I accept the hon. Gentleman's point.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 18, in page 13, line 2, at end insert `to this Act'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Schedule 3
    [SCHEDULE 5 TO THE COMPANIES ACT 1985]
    Schedule 3

      COMPANIES NOT REQUIRED TO PREPARE GROUP ACCOUNTS
      Amendments made: No. 20, in page 212, line 30, leave out 'in'.
      No. 19, in page 212, line 44, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert
      —
      '(4) For the purposes of any of those provisions, shares held by way of security shall be treated as held by the person providing the security—

      (a) where apart from the right to exercise them for the purpose of preserving the value of the security, or of realising it, the rights attached to the shares are exercisable only in accordance with his instructions, and

      (b) where the shares are held in connection with the granting of loans as part of normal business activities and apart from the right to exercise them for the purpose of preserving the value of the security, or of realising it, the rights attached to the shares are exercisable only in his interests.'.

      No. 21, in page 219, line 28, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
      '(4) Shares held by way of security shall be treated as held by the person providing the security—

      (a) where apart from the right to exercise them for the purpose of preserving the value of the security, or of realising it, the rights attached to the shares are exercisable only in accordance with his instructions, and

      (b) where the shares are held in connection with the granting of loans as part of normal business activities and apart from the right to exercise them for the purpose of preserving the value of the security, or of realising it, the rights attached to the shares are exercisable only in his interests.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Schedule 4

      DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION: EMOLUMENTS AND OTHER BENEFITS OF DIRECTORS AND OTHERS
      Mr. Redwood: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 221, line 34, at end insert—
      '(4) References to pensions include benefits otherwise than in cash and in relation to so much of a pension as consists of such a benefit references to its amount are to the estimated money value of the benefit.
      The nature of any such benefit shall also be disclosed.'.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) moved an amendment in Standing Committee with exactly the same purpose as this amendment. He graciously withdrew it when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Consumer Affairs promised to bring forward a Government amendment on Report with the same purpose. The effect is to extend slightly what is meant by directors' pensions for the purposes of the disclosure requirements in schedule 4 of the Bill, so that it includes benefits paid in kind and not just cash benefits.
      Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing the amendments. I wish to take this brief opportunity to ask him to explain how he intends to take into account amendments, other than Government amendments, under the guillotine this evening.
      Mr. Redwood: I want to make rapid progress so that we can consider as many amendments as possible in our debates. I understand that there is a power for the Government to move other amendments if they so choose, when the guillotine falls.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 9

      AUDITORS' REPORT
      Mr. Redwood: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 17, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 38.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we shall discuss Government amendments Nos. 27 to 29, 68, and 111 to 119.
      Mr. Redwood: This series of amendments completes the process started in Committee of bringing the provisions on auditors together in part 5 of chapter XI of the 1985 Act.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 10

      PUBLICATION OF ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS
      Amendment made: No. 24, in page 18, line 26, at end insert—
      '(6) Where copies are sent out under this section over a period of days, references elsewhere in this Act to the day on which copies are sent out shall be construed as references to the last day of that period.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 11

      LAYING AND DELIVERING OF ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS
      Amendments made: No. 25, in page 20, line 43, leave out from begining to end of line 10 on page 21.
      No. 26, in page 21. line 28, at end insert—
      'Civil penalty for failure to deliver accounts.
      242A.—(1) Where the requirements of section 242(1) are not complied with before the end of the period allowed for laying and delivering accounts and reports, the company is liable to a civil penalty.
      This is in addition to any liability of the directors under section 242.
      (a) The amount of the penalty is determined by reference to the length of the period between the end of the period allowed for laying and delivering accounts and reports and the day on which the requirements are complied with, and whether the company is a public or private company, as follows:

      Length of period

      Public company

      Private company

      Not more than 3 months.

      £500

      £100

      More than 3 months but not more than 6 months.

      £1,000

      £250

      More than 6 months but not more than 12 months.

      £2,000

      £500

      More than 12 months.

      £5,000

      £1,000

      (3) The penalty may be recovered by the registrar and shall be paid by him into the Consolidated Fund.
      (4) It is not a defence in proceedings under this section to prove that the documents in question were not in fact prepared as required by this Part.'.—[Mr. Redwood.']

    Clause 12

      REMEDIES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS
      Mr. Hanky: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 25, leave out lines 8 and 9.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss the following amendments: No. 285, in page 25, line 39, at end insert—
      `( ) Where the court makes an order under subsection (4) it shall have regard to whether the directors party to the approval of the defective accounts knew or ought to have known that the accounts did not comply with the requirements of this Act, and it may exclude one or more directors from the order or order the payment of different amounts by different directors.'.
      No. 6, in page 26, line 1. leave out section 245C.
      Mr. Hanley: Clause 12 introduces procedures for the revision of defective accounts. This largely replaces the present criminal offence of non-compliance with the accounting requirements of the Act. It also implements one of the recommendations of the Dearing report.
      New sections 245B and 245C enable the Secretary of State, or any person to whom the Secretary of State delegates his powers, to apply to the court for an order requiring the directors of a company to prepare revised accounts. It is envisaged that this power would in practice be delegated to the review panel, a body to be set up to implement another recommendation of the Dearing report. It might also be delegated to other bodies, such as the stock exchange.
      In the view of the combined consultative accounting bodies, however, if responsibility for action is divided among more than one body, there will inevitably be buck passing and inaction. For enforcement to be effective, it has to be the responsibility of only one person or body. This must be the Secretary of State. We discussed this matter at reasonable length both on Second Reading and
      1134
      in Committee. Amendments Nos. 3 and 6 would ensure that the Secretary of State takes full responsibility by removing the possibility of any delegation of his powers.
      New section 245B(4) enables the court to require directors who approve defective accounts to meet the cost of preparing revised accounts. Whether accounts are defective may well be a matter of opinion. Directors could find that they prepare the accounts in good faith, but that the court takes a different view from them of how the accounts should have been prepared. The costs that they would have to meet in such a case might be substantial. This would be unjust if the directors have indeed been acting in good faith.
      Amendment No. 285 provides a remedy for this injustice by requiring the court, whenever it makes an order against directors to pay costs, to have regard to whether the directors involved knew or ought to have known that the accounts did not comply with the requirements of the Act. In this way, innocent non-compliance will not be punished unduly.
      Amendments Nos. 3 and 6 should be dealt with together, with amendment No. 285 being dealt with separately. I should be grateful to my hon. Friend if he would respond to my points.
      Mr. John Garrett: As the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) explained, these amendments seek to restrict power to the Secretary of State to take a company to court to have its accounts revised if they are defective. We discussed this matter in Committee and the Opposition supported that general concept.
      The Bill implements the Dearing proposals and introduces a new statutory power under civil law for certain authorised bodies or the Secretary of State to apply to the courts for an order requiring revision of accounts that do not appear to show a true and fair view.
      The Dearing report suggested that the authorised bodies should be the review panel of the proposed Financial Reporting Council and the stock exchange. However, we believe that the possible exercise of such a power should be restricted to the Secretary of State. In Committee we adduced two main arguments in favour of that. First, if more than one body is responsible for applying to the courts to seek the revision of accounts there could be an argument about who is ultimately responsible for bringing such a case. The hon. Gentleman referred to that as buck passing. We think that such an arrangement makes for confusion about whose responsibility it properly is to bring such a case and it would lead to uncertainty as to which of the various bodies have the power, authority and will to require the revision of a defective set of accounts.
      As was also pointed out in Committee, bringing a case against a company for the revision of its defective accounts could prove to be very expensive, especially if the director's of the company took the case to the House of Lords—which is what happened in the Lonrho case. The review panel's finances are likely to be limited. The stock exchange might also feel that its funds were limited in the light of its cool response to the Dearing proposals. Therefore, it is more appropriate for the Secretary of State and the Department to take upon themselves the responsibility for bringing such matters to proper redress. The chance of defective accounts would be lessened if it was known by the directors, who might otherwise let

      1135
      defective accounts be published, that the Secretary of State had this power and was known to be willing to use it. In general, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes has the right approach to the matter.
      Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) and to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) for the way in which they have put forward their ideas. I recommend that we accept amendment No. 285. There is a problem which that amendment tackles well.
      On amendments Nos. 3 and 6 I have more difficulties. I understand the arguments that have been put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House but I am afraid that I am not persuaded by them. I am unconvinced that giving more power to more than one person will prove a recipe for buck passing and inaction. It is likely in practice that the Financial Reporting Council and the proposed review panel under it will be concerned only with large companies. In other cases, where the public interest dictates, it will be for the Secretary of State to take action.
      The point has been made that the cost of bringing such actions will prove too great for the FRC review panel. I recognise that the financing arrangements for the new arrangements for accounting standards will need to provide adequate resources for that purpose. That will emerge in due course as Sir Ronald Dearing carries out his work.
      Let me conclude by saying why the Bill is correct in its present form on those points.
      For large companies the likelihood is that the review panel will be in the lead in enforcing accounting standards. A power to apply to the courts strengthens the panel's position and adds weight to its powers of persuasion.
      In a wide sense we do not seek legislation to require everything to be funnelled through the Secretary of State. That would be unwelcome in the overall balance of the Dearing proposals.
      Above all, it must be right at this stage, when the new institutional arrangements are not yet in place, to keep the options open. The provision in the Bill is permissive; it does not require other bodies to be authorised for this purpose.
      Therefore, I ask the House to reject amendments Nos. 3 and 6.
      Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for accepting amendment No. 285. In the light of his statement, I shall withdraw amendments Nos. 3 and 6. That is a vote of confidence in Sir Ronald Dearing's appointment yesterday. It would be right to allow Sir Ronald to tackle the job. A person is now in place to look at the issue. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to consider carefully the funding arrangements of the exercise as they are crucial to the success of the accounting standards programme.
      During the recess we heard that the CBI disagreed with the funding arrangements. The accounting profession feels that they are not the right way forward. It has already been said in Committee that a levy on all companies might be a more sensible and equitable way forward. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will discuss with Sir Ronald the funding arrangements in due course. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 3.
      Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 285, in page 25, line 39, at end insert—
      '( ) Where the court makes an order under subsection (4) it shall have regard to whether the directors party to the approval of the defective accounts knew or ought to have known that the accounts did not comply with the requirements of this Act, and it may exclude one or more directors from the order or order the payment of different amounts by different directors.'.

    Clause 14

      DORMANT COMPANIES
      Amendments made: No. 27, in page 30, line 39, leave out 'sections are' and insert 'section is'.
      No. 28 in page 30, line 43, leave out from 'the' to 'in' in line 44 and insert
      'provisions of this Part relating to the audit of accounts'.
      No. 29, in page 31, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 32 and insert—
      '(4) Where a company is, at the end of a financial year, exempt by virtue of this section from the provisions of this Part relating to the audit of accounts—

      (a) sections 238 and 239 (right to receive or demand copies of accounts and reports) have effect with the omission of references to the auditors' report;

      (b) no copies of an auditors' report need be laid before the company in general meeting;

      (c) no copy of an auditors' report need be delivered to the registrar, and if none is delivered, the copy of the balance sheet so delivered shall contain a statement by the directors, in a position immediately above the signature required by section 233(4), that the company was dormant throughout the financial year; and

      (d) the company shall be treated as entitled in respect of its individual accounts for that year to the exemptions conferred by section 246 on a small company, notwithstanding that it is a member of an ineligible group.

      (5) Where a company which is exempt by virtue of this section from the provisions of this Part relating to the audit of accounts—

      (a) ceases to be dormant, or

      (b) would no longer qualify (for any other reason) to make itself exempt by passing a resolution under this section,

      it shall thereupon cease to be so exempt.".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Schedule 7

      SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR BANKING AND INSURANCE COMPANIES AND GROUPS
      Amendments made: No. 30, in page 228, line 35, leave out from beginning to '(information' and insert—
      '1. In paragraph 10(1)(c) of Schedule 9 to the Companies Act 1985 (disclosure of outstanding loans in connection with certain cases of financial assistance for purchase of company's own shares), after "153(4)(6)" insert ", (bb)".
      1A. In paragraph 13 of that Schedule".
      No. 31, in page 229, line 11, leave out from 'particulars' to end of line 12 and insert
      'of any material departure from those standards and the reasons for it shall be given.'.
      No. 32, in page 230, line 13, leave out from 'for' to end of line 14 and insert
      'the words from "paragraphs 15" to the end substitute "and paragraph 15".'. [Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 20

      POWER TO ALTER ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 33, in page 39, line 34, leave out 'and' and insert—
      '(bb) make consequential amendments or repeals in other
      provisions of this Act, or in other enactments, and'
      No. 34, in page 39, line 35, after 'such' insert 'transitional and other'—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 21
      PARENT AND SUBSIDIARY UNDERTAKINGS
      Amendment made: No. 35, in page 40, line 5, leave out `Act' and insert 'Part'—[Mr. Redwood.]
    Clause 22

      OTHER INTERPRETATION PROVISIONS
      Amendments made: No. 36, in page 43, line 5, leave out `Act' and insert 'Part'
      No. 37 in page 44, line 20, leave out 'Act' and insert 'Part'
      No. 38, in page 45, leave out line 5 and insert—

      'annual accounts

      section 262(1)

      (generally)

      section 261(2)'.

      (includes notes to the accounts)

      No. 39, in page 45, line 8, at end insert—

      'balance sheet (includes notes)

      section 261(2)'

      No. 40, in page 45, line 43, column 2, leave out '261' and insert `261(1)'.
      No. 41, in page 45, leave out lines 51 and 52 and insert—

      'profit and loss account (includes notes)

      section 261(2)

      (in relation to company not trading for profit)

      section 262(2)'—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Schedule 10

      AMENDMENTS CONSEQUENTIAL ON PART I
      Amendments made: No. 42, in page 237, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 13
      No. 43, in page 237, line 36, after `343(2)' insert 'and (4)'
      No. 44, in page 237, line 38, leave out paragraph 12.
      No. 45, in page 238, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 and insert—
      '702—(1) An oversea company shall in respect of each financial year of the company deliver to the registrar copies of the accounts and reports prepared in accordance with section 700.
      If any document comprised in those accounts or reports is in a language other than English, the directors shall annex to the copy delivered a translation of it into English, certified in the prescribed manner to be a correct translation.'
      No. 46, in page 238, line 32, leave out 'the delivering of' and insert 'delivering'
      No. 47, in page 238, line 39, leave out from 'Britain' to end of line 42
      No. 48, in page 238, line 45, leave out `for delivering accounts'
      No. 49, in page 239, line 9, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 and insert—
      '703.—(1) If the requirements of section 702(1) are not complied with before the end of the period allowed for
      1138
      delivering accounts and reports, or if the accounts and reports delivered do not comply with the requirements of this Act, the company and every person who immediately before the end of that period was a director of the company is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine and, for continued contravention, to a daily default fine.
      (2)It is a defence for a person charged with such an offence to prove that he took all reasonable steps for securing that the requirements in question would be complied with.
      It is not a defence in relation to a failure to deliver copies to the registrar to prove that the documents in question were not in fact prepared as required by this Act.'
      No. 50, in page 239, line 22, at beginning insert "'balance sheet" and'.
      No. 51, in page 239, line 25, leave out 'and' and insert—"'parent company" and "parent undertaking",
      No. 52, in page 239, line 26, leave out from 'account"; to end of line 27
      No. 53, in page 239, line 27, at end insert ', and "subsidiary undertaking".'
      No. 54, in page 239, line 44, leave out from '(1)' to 'and' in line 46 and insert
      omit "paragraph 60(2) of Schedule 4, or paragraph 19(3) of Schedule 9";'
      No. 55, in page 240, line 2, leave out '(2)' and insert `(1)'
      No. 56, in page 240, line 5, leave sub-paragraph (5) and insert—
      '(5) In paragraph 4—

      (a) in sub-paragraph (1) omit "(whether as personal representative or otherwise)", and

      (b) in sub-paragraph (2) omit ", paragraph 60(2) of Schedule 4 and paragraph 19(3) of Schedule 9"; and at the end add—

      "(3) as respects sections 145, 146 and 148, sub-paragraph (1) above applies where a company is a personal representative as it applies where a company is a trustee.'".'
      No. 57, in page 241, line 15, leave out
      '(whether as personal representative or otherwise)'.
      No. 58, in page 241, line 25, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
      '(2) "Undertaking" and "shares", in relation to an undertaking, have the same meaning as in Part VII.'
      No. 59, in page 241, line 37, at end insert—
      '19A.—(1) Part II of Schedule 3 (prospectuses: auditors' and accountants' reports to be set out) is amended as follows:
      (2) In paragraph 16 (auditors' reports), in sub—paragraph (2) for "subsidiaries" substitute "subsidiary undertakings" and for sub-paragraph (3) substitute—
      "(3) If the company has subsidiary undertakings, the report shall—

      (a) deal separately with the company's profits or losses as provided by sub-paragraph (2), and in addition deal either—

      (i) as a whole with the combined profits or losses of its subsidiary undertakings, so far as they concern members of the company, or

      (ii) individually with the profits or losses of each of its subsidiary undertakings, so far as they concern members of the company,
      or, instead of dealing separately with the company's profits or losses, deal as a whole with the profits or losses of the company and (so far as they concern members of the company) with the combined profits and losses of its subsidiary undertakings; and

      (b) deal separately with the company's assets and liabilities as provided by sub-paragraph (2), and in addition deal either—

      (i) as a whole with the combined assets arid liabilities of its subsidiary undertakings, with or without the company's assets and liabilities, or

      1139

      (ii) individually with the assets and liabilities of each of its subsidiary undertakings, indicating, as respects the assets and liabilities of its subsidiary undertakings, the allowance to be made for persons other than members of the company.".

      (3) For paragraph 18 (accountants' reports) substitute—"18.—(1) The following provisions apply if—

      (a) the proceeds of the issue are to be applied directly or indirectly in any manner resulting in the acquisition by the company of shares in any other undertaking, or any part of the proceeds is to be so applied, and

      (b) by reason of that acquisition or anything to be done in consequence of or in connection with it, that undertaking will become a subsidiary undertaking of the company.

      (2) There shall be set out in the prospectus a report made by accountants upon—

      (a) the profits or losses of the other undertaking in respect of each of the five financial years immediately preceding the issue of the prospectus, and

      (b) the assets and liabilities of the other undertaking at the last date to which its accounts were made up.

      (3) The report shall—

      (a) indicate how the profits or losses of the other undertaking would in respect of the shares to be acquired have concerned members of the company and what allowance would have fallen to be made, in relation to assets and liabilities so dealt with, for holders of other shares, if the company had at all material times held the shares to be acquired, and

      (b) where the other undertaking is a parent undertaking, deal with the profits or losses and the assets and liabilities of the undertaking and its subsidiary undertakings in the manner provided by paragraph 16(3) above in relation to the company and its subsidiary undertakings.

      (4) In this paragraph "undertaking" and "shares", in relation to an undertaking, have the same meaning as in Part VII.".
      (4) In paragraph 22 (eligibility of accountants to make reports), for sub-paragraph (2) substitute—
      "(2) Such a report shall not be made by an accountant who is an officer or servant, or a partner of or in the employment of an officer or servant, of—

      (a) the company or any of its subsidiary undertakings,

      (b) a parent undertaking of the company or any subsidiary undertaking of such an undertaking.".'.

      No. 60, in page 242, line 12, leave out paragraph 22 and insert—
      '22.—(1) In Schedule 15A (renumbered 15B) (provisions applicable to mergers and divisions of public companies), paragraph 6 (documents to be made available for inspection) is amended as follows.
      (2) In sub-paragraph (1)(b) (directors' report on merger or division), after "directors' report" insert "referred to in paragraph 4 above".
      (3) For sub paragraph (1)(d) and (e) substitute—

      "(d) the company's annual accounts, together with the relevant directors' report and auditors' report, for the last three financial years ending on or before the relevant date; and

      (e) if the last of those financial years ended more than six months before the relevant date, an accounting statement in the form described in the following provisions."

      (4) In sub-paragraph (1), after the paragraphs add—
      "In this paragraphs (d) and (e) "the relevant date" means one month before the first meeting of the company summoned under section 425(1) or for the purposes of paragraph 1.".
      (5) For sub-paragraphs (2) to (5) substitute—
      "(2) The accounting statement shall consist of—
      1140

      (a) a balance sheet dealing with the state of the affairs of the company as at a date not more than three months before the draft terms were adopted by the directors, and

      (b) where the company would be required to prepare group accounts if that date were the last day of a financial year, a consolidated balance sheet dealing with the state of affairs of the company and its subsidiary undertakings as at that date.

      (3) The requirements of this Act as to balance sheets forming part of a company's annual accounts, and the matters to be included in notes thereto, apply to any balance sheet required for the accounting statement, with such modifications as are necessary by reason of its being prepared otherwise than as at the last day of a financial year.
      (4) Any balance sheet required for the accounting statement shall be approved by the board of directors and signed on behalf of the board by a director of the company.
      (5) In relation to a company within the meaning of Article 3 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, the references in this paragraph to the requirements of this Act shall be construed as reference to the corresponding requirements of that Order.".'.
      No. 61, in page 242, line 40, at end insert—
      '22A. In Schedule 22 (provisions applying to unregistered companies), in the entry relating to Part VII, in column 1, for "Schedule 10" substitute "Schedules 10 and 10A".'.
      No. 62, in page 243, line 39, at end insert—
      '(4) In the entry for section 703(1) (failure by oversea company to comply with requirements as to accounts and reports), in column 2 for the words from "s.700" to the end substitute "requirements as to accounts and reports".'.
      No. 63, in page 244, line 22, at end insert—

      AMENDMENTS CONSEQUENTIAL ON PART I

        'Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 (c.3)
        26A.—(1) Section 17 of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 (British Shipbuilders: accounts and audit) is amended as follows.
        (2) In subsection (1)(c) (duty to prepare consolidated accounts) for "subsidiaries" substitute "subsidiary undertakings".
        (3) In subsection (9) (copies of accounts to be sent to the Secretary of State) for "subsidiaries" substitute "subsidiary undertakings" and for "subsidiary" substitute "subsidiary undertaking".
        (4) After subsection (9) add—
        "(10) In this section "subsidiary undertaking" has the same meaning as in Part VII of the Companies Act 1985.".

        Crown Agents Act 1979 (c.43)
        26B. In section 22 of the Crown Agents Act 1979 (accounts and audit), in subsection (2) (duty to prepare consolidated accounts) for "subsidiaries" (three times) substitute "subsidiary undertakings", and at the end of that subsection add—
        "In this subsection "subsidiary undertaking" has the same meaning as in Part VII of the Companies Act 1985.".'.
        No. 64, in page 244, line 25, leave out '(3)(c)(i)' and insert '(1)(c)(i)'.
        No. 65, in page 244, line 33, at end insert—

        'Oil and Pipelines Act 1985 (c. 62)
        29A. In Schedule 3 to the Oil and Pipelines Act 1985 (Oil and Pipelines Agency: financial and other provisions), in paragraph 9(2) (duty to prepare consolidated accounts) for "subsidiaries" (three times) substitute "subsidiary undertakings", and at the end of that sub-paragraph add—
        "In this sub-paragraph 'subsidiary undertaking' has the same meaning as in Part VII of the Companies Act 1985.".

        Patents, Designs and Marks Act 1986 (c. 39)
        29B. In Schedule 2 to the Patents. Designs and Marks Act 1986 (service marks), in paragraph 1(2) (provisions in which reference to trade mark includes service mark) for sub-paragraph (ii) substitute—
        "(ii) Part I of Schedule 4 and paragraphs 5(2)(d) and 10(1)(b) and (2) of Schedule 9 (form of company balance sheets); and".'.
        No. 66, in page 245, line 25, at end insert—
        '(1A) In section 46(2) (duties of auditors of authorised institution), in paragraph (c) for "section 236" substitute "section 235(2)" and for "section 237" substitute "section 235(3) or section 237"; and in section 46(4) (adaptation of references for Northern Ireland) for "236 and 237" substitute "235(2) and 235(3) and 237".'.
        No. 67, in page 245, line 48, at end insert—

        Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1987 (c.1)
        33.—(1) The Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 is amended as follows.
        (2) In section 180 (annual return of registered profit related pay scheme), in subsection (3) for "section 242(3)" substitute "section 244(3)".
        (3) In section 565(6) (conditions for exemption from provisions relating to sub-contractors in construction industry: compliance with requirements of Companies Act 1985), in paragraph (a) for "section 277 and 241" substitute
        "sections 266, 241 and 242".'.

        Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988 (c.20)
        34. In section 33 of the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988 (duty to lay before Parliament copies of accounts of persons appointed to levy tolls), for subsection (2) substitute—
        "(2) In relation to a company "accounts" in subsection (1) means the company's annual accounts for a financial year, together with the relevant directors' report and the auditors' report on those accounts.
        Expressions used in this subsection have the same meaning as in Part VII of the Companies Act 1985.".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

    New Clause A

      POWER TO MAKE CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such amendments of enactments as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the provisions of Part II of this Act having effect in place of section 389 of the Companies Act 1985.
      (2) That power extends to making such amendments as appear to the Secretary of State necessary or expedient of—

      (a) enactments referring by name to the bodies of accountants recognised for the purposes of section 389(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1985, and

      (b) enactments making with respect to other statutory auditors provision as to the matters dealt with in relation to company auditors by section 389 of the Companies Act 1985.

      (3) The provision which may be made with respect to other statutory auditors includes provision as to—

      (a) eligibility for the appointment,

      (b) the effect of appointing a partnership which is not a legal person and the manner of exercise of the auditor's rights in such a case, and

      (c) ineligibility on the ground of lack of independence or any other ground.

      (4) The regulations may contain such supplementary, incidental and transitional provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
      (5) The Secretary of State shall not make regulations under this section with respect to any statutory auditors without the consent of—

      (a) the Minister responsible for their appointment or responsible for the body or person by, or in relation to whom, they are appointed, or

      (b) if there is no such Minister, the person by whom they are appointed.

      (6) In this section a "statutory auditor" means a person appointed auditor in pursuance of any enactment authorising or requiring the appointment of an auditor or auditors.
      (7) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Forth]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government new clause 18—Power to make provision in consequence of changes affecting accountancy bodies—and Government amendments Nos. 74 to 77.
      Mr. Forth: This group of amendments concerns the consequential amendments which will have to be made to other enactments when section 389 of the Companies Act has been repealed and replaced by the provisions in part II of the Bill. Some of the amendments which need to be made are presently set down in schedule 15 to the Bill, but there is a considerable number of others. The amendments replace that schedule with a power to make all the necessary consequential amendments by regulations.
      There are a number of reasons for this change in approach. As hon. Members will know, part II of the Bill will for the first time permit bodies corporate or partnerships which do not have separate legal personality to be appointed as company auditors. However, a number of the other enactments which make provision for the appointment of auditors proceed on the assumption that only individuals or partnerships with separate legal personality will be appointed. This reflects the present position under the Companies Act. In some cases, catering for the possibility that the auditors may be a body corporate or a partnership of this type will involve lengthy, if wholly technical, adjustment to the present provisions. We think this task will be better done at more leisure in the form of regulations which we will lay before the House in due course.
      8.45 pm
      Another reason is that we are not in a position to say definitively which other enactments need amendment. References in public Acts to section 389 and to the accountancy bodies specified in that section may of course be picked up by a computer search. But we know that there are some references in local and private Acts. Since these Acts have not been placed on a database, we cannot be sure of picking all of them up at this stage. The ability to make regulations will enable us to make the necessary provision for any references which only later come to light.
      The third reason I would commend this approach to consequential amendments is that it will allow for some flexibility in later years in specifying which accountants a re to be eligible to carry out the auditing functions in other enactments. The effect of part II will be that the number of persons eligible in law to audit companies will fall. It may well also be that company auditing will become an even more specialised branch of the accountancy tree than it is at present. If that happens, one might wish not to follow the standard provision and restrict some of the functions to company auditors alone. One might wish to add certain other qualified accountants. This amendment will allow for that possibility.
      I ought to mention one other amendment in this group, new clause 18. If a recognised supervisory body or one of the bodies presently recognised under section 389 were to change its name or merge with another body or otherwise be affected by a transfer of engagements, the Secretary of State would have discretion to recognise the new body. But he would not always be able to use the regulation-making power in new clause 17 to deal with the position under

      1143
      other enactments since that may only be used where a consequential amendment is necessary or the provision is concerned with auditing, and not with some of the other functions with which other enactments are concerned. New clause 18 therefore enables the Secretary of State to make by regulations such amendments of enactments as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of a change of name, merger or transfer of engagement affecting accountancy bodies recognised under enactments. I should mention that this new clause is supported by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, which had expressed concern about the legal position should one of them merge with another body.
      Mr. John Garrett: Will the Minister confirm that new clauses 17 and 18 are items of secondary legislation which can be enacted by negative resolution? Is that not yet another example of a number of cases of secondary legislation in the Bill which is subject to the negative rather than to the positive form of resolution? Will he tell us why?
      Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman may well be teasing me and the House slightly. I suggest that he knows the answer to the question, but I shall give it to him again. The ground was covered in Committee, but there is no reason why it should not be covered again on Report.
      In this area we are dealing with complex matters which are not yet fully resolved and may not even be fully seen yet. Therefore, the only practical way forward is to give the Secretary of State the sort of delegated powers in the new clauses and amendments and they would be dealt with by negative resolution.
      That is a familiar way to deal with such matters. It would be impractical for the House to attempt to deal with such a measure by positive resolution in the kind of detail and complexity which may well arise. Business managers and Opposition Members are familiar with the negative resolution procedure, which is a satisfactory, effective and practical way of dealing with matters of such complexity. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept and understand that explanation. I think that he well understands the complexity of these matters and the importance of dealing with them in a practical and realistic way. It is for those reasons that the new clauses have been drafted in the way that they have.
      Mr. Cousins: The procedural point has been clarified, but we are still left with the substantive issues.
      As the Minister has said, we are faced with considerable and rapid changes in the structure of the accountancy world. As the hon. Gentleman admitted in his short elucidatory statement, those changes make some difficulties for us, raising substantially new and different issues. He has not enlightened us about how he proposes to deal with the matters of substance contained in the new clause.
      We are faced with the possibility of the issuing of regulations at a later date to deal with significant matters: the eligibility for appointment as auditors, the effect of appointing partnerships that are not legal persons and, in particular, ineligibility because of a lack of independence. I need not detain the House unduly by referring to recent events which give those matters considerable moment and significance. The Minister, however, has moved the new
      1144
      clause very late in the proceedings, when we are all at a disadvantage—and he will recognise that we are at an additional disadvantage owing to the timetable motion.
      I apologise to the House for raising the matter, but it has to be raised. I feel that the Minister owes it to the House to give some indication of the substantive nature of the regulations that he proposes with regard to the three issues that I have raised, particularly that of ineligibility on the ground of lack of independence.
      The matter is of considerable public interest, at a time when we are seeing the accountancy world shrink into a small number of large partnerships—which, moreover, may change their status. It is important to the markets and to everyone concerned with such issues, and the Minister should elucidate a little more.
      Mr. Hanley: I welcome the new clause. Throughout the summer—and, indeed, in Committee—the Government have been talking to the requisite authorities, including the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. The new clause is the result. I assure the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) that there is nothing sinister about it or its fellows; if anything, they enable the Government to deal with problems that might arise in the accountancy world very much more quickly and effectively. They would, in fact, deal better than any existing legislation with exactly the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
      The initial reason for discussion was the proposed merger between the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and the ICA in Scotland. In the end that merger did not occur, regrettably in my view. Rationalisations will, however, take place in the accountancy world. These proposals will enable the law and the requisite protection of the consumer to continue without the need for any legislation. They will enable the existing protections of the Department of Trade and Industry to move quickly from one body to another, new body, and I believe that accountancy welcomes them. Certainly they are not easier than the regulations that have obtained in the past, but they will speed up, as well as tighten, the process of consumer protection.
      Mr. Forth: I understand why the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) wanted to pursue this point; however, I think that he provided the explanation in the terms in which he put his question. He conceded what we all know, and then gave examples. As he said, considerable changes are taking place in the accountancy world, and that is precisely why we have cast the new clauses and amendments as we have.
      Surely the hon. Gentleman must also concede that, given that background of change and development, to attempt to set any of our proposals in concrete would be counter-productive, and might even go against the objectives that he himself has set out. I suggest that the new clause is the best way to deal effectively with the profession in the face of such a rate of change.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) for adding his expert and knowledgeable comments. Following our dealings in Committee, I think we all agree that few know as much as he does about the profession, and his words of support are very welcome.

      1145
      My hon. Friend mentioned that we had been careful to consult the profession. We have tried, I think successfully, to bring to the House a form of words that will provide the right framework for a modern and effective profession.
      Mr. Cousins rose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken. I do not think that the Minister is giving way.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 18

      POWER TO MAKE PROVISION IN CONSEQUENCE OF CHANGES AFFECTING ACCOUNTANCY BODIES
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such amendments of enactments as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of any change of name, merger or transfer of engagements affecting—

      (a) a recognised supervisory or qualifying body under Part II of this Act, or

      (b) a body of accountants referred to in, or approved, authorised or otherwise recognised for the purposes of, any other enactment.

      (2) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Forth.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 24

      INTRODUCTION
      Amendment made: No. 68, in page 46, line 29, leave out from beginning to first 'and' in line 30 and insert
      'Chapter V of Part XI of the Companies Act 1985;'.—[Mr. Forth.]

    Schedule 11

      RECOGNITION OF SUPERVISORY BODY
      Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in page 248, line 19, leave out 'not unqualified' and insert
      `qualified persons or, if the body consists of two persons only, that at least one of them is a qualified person'.
      The amendment takes advantage of an option in the eighth directive to the effect that, in the case of a firm that has a management body of two, member states need not require that a majority of that body be qualified. Obviously, in the case of a two-member body, a majority would mean both members, and it seems right to allow in the primary legislation for the possibility of one of them being unqualified.
      Hon. Members who sat on the Committee may recall that an amendment with that intention was made to the Bill then. On consideration, however, we decided that it did not accurately reflect the requirements of the directive. We believe that this amendment will give proper effect to the relevant part of the directive.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 70, in page 250, line 21, at end insert—

      RECOGNITION OF SUPERVISORY BODY

        `Taking account of costs of compliance
        14A. The body must have satisfactory arrangements for
        1146
        taking account, in framing its rules, of the cost to those to whom the rules would apply of complying with those rules and any other controls to which they are subject.'.
        The amendment fulfils a commitment that I gave in Committee to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). It requires a recognised supervisory body to have satisfactory arrangements for taking account of costs of compliance with its rules, and any other controls to which its members are subject. An analogous requirement is placed on recognised bodies under the Financial Services Act by clause 189 of the Bill.
        Ms. Joyce Quin: The Opposition are not happy with the amendment, which requires the recognised supervisory bodies to be set up to take costs into account in the training of their rules. It seems to imply that if it is considered too expensive to comply with the rules a less good and less effective system will be introduced.
        We expressed our worries in Committee, not in relation to this amendment—which had not yet appeared—but in relation to a Government new clause relating to the amendments to the Financial Services Act in which the principle of cost compliance was again introduced. At that time we expressed our concern that that might mean that cost-cutting would take precedence over investor protection. The concerns that we expressed were shared by other organisations, in particular the Consumers Association, which felt that that might lead to a second-rate regulatory service for consumers and investors.
        We had an interesting discussion on the matter in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) talked about how those costs would be defined. He wanted to know whether they would be the direct costs of complying or the indirect costs. The former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs seemed to imply in his reply that it would be both direct and indirect costs. My hon. Friend referred also to something about which I am concerned which is the possible dangers of talking-up the costs of compliance and thereby introducing the danger of giving a convenient financial excuse for not having adequate regulation.
        9 pm
        The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) seemed to share some of the concerns that were expressed by the Opposition. He said that writing cost compliance into the Bill was unnecessary since those responsible would presumably seek to implement the provisions in the most cost-effective way. However, writing cost compliance into the Bill makes it seem as if costs are more important than implementing the necessary measures of regulation.
        In Committee the Minister said that he would look carefully at the reservations expressed by the Opposition and such bodies as the Consumers Association. He said that he would see whether he could respond to them positively on Report. Unfortunately, the reverse seems to have happened and cost compliance has also been put forward for inclusion in this part of the Bill. Instead of removing the principle, we now see it reinforced in this amendment. I do not know whether the Minister felt strongly enough to introduce that extra reference to the principle of cost compliance or whether it was his ex-colleague, the former Under-Secretary of State, who decided that he did not agree with the reservations

        1147
        expressed in Committee and wanted to reinforce the principle. Perhaps the Minister can explain exactly how that was arrived at.
        I realise that it was one of the Government's supporters—the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley)—who urged the Government to include a provision of this kind. In Committee the hon. Gentleman declared an interest as the parliamentary adviser to the Institute of Chartered Accountants. He said that it was the institute that instigated the idea of cost compliance at this stage of the Bill. Can the Minister tell us that the amendment is not simply being introduced in response to one sectional interest? Opposition Members would like to be assured that the Minister has consulted widely before introducing the new amendment. Perhaps he can give us details of the consultations that he has had with various interests.
        In Committee the Minister's former colleague tried to assure us that the interpretation of the principle of cost compliance would not be detrimental to consumers, the regulatory system or to investor protection. He said that he felt that it would simply mean that the regulator would seek to achieve compliance with the rules in the least costly and most cost-effective way. That emphasis on cost is still open to the other interpretation, which is simply that certain measures of investor protection or regulation might not be introduced simply because of the cost involved. We are concerned that the Bill might be interpreted in that way. We feel strongly that it should not be able to be interpreted in a way which would undermine the measures to have adequate and proper regulation of auditing. For that reason, we are unhappy about the proposed change and feel inclined to oppose it.
        Mr. Hanley: The hon. Lady has rightly pointed out certain fears which may be present in the minds of those who view the clause from outside. I am happy in my conscience to state that in my view the clause is wholly reasonable because, as I said in Standing Committee, it mirrors one that has already been accepted by the House in the Financial Services Act. It merely brought into line the regulatory bodies such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales with the other direct regulatory bodies which exist under the Financial Services Act.
        That point was aired in Standing Committee. I can do little better than to quote my hon. Friend the Minister, who said on 13 June 1989:
        "The Government believe that it is vital that regulatory bodies pay proper regard to the direct and indirect costs of complying with the rules. It is all too easy, even for practioner-based bodies, to decide upon an approach to a regulatory problem without having assessed the cost of the various alternatives and, unless costs are properly assessed, the regulatory system risks being more burdensome than necessary."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 13 June 1989; c.340.]
        I feel strongly that the system must be cost-effective, as the hon. Lady rightly said, but it does not necessarily follow that it has to be the most costly. There has to be a balance or the whole system will collapse. We need a system that is reasonably cost-effective. We need the best system that we can get, without its imploding through too great expense.
        Mr. John Garrett: The hon. Gentleman drew a direct analogy between the arrangements for taking into account the cost of compliance proposed here with what happened in the Financial Services Act. We are here discussing a largely self-regulatory profession which might take a different view of the costs and benefits of assiduity in controlling departures from standards from that taken by a body such as the Securities and Investments Board which acts directly on the authority of the Secretary of State under the Financial Services Act, so is the analogy entirely apt?
        Mr. Hanley: It is indeed, but the hon. Gentleman is right to raise the subject. The joint monitoring unit that I visited recently is not the poodle, the child or the creature of a regulatory body such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales or the other bodies to which it refers. It is a very separate unit, and therefore analogous to FIMBRA or the other bodies which are made up of individual companies sending in subscriptions, acting not only as a regulatory body but as an advocate of the particular industry.
        The way in which the self-regulatory organisations have developed shows that they have a dual role. They are not cosy clubs for members of the organisations concerned, but genuine regulatory organisations which are close enough to the bodies that they represent to understand the industry and to know any wrinkles that members of those organisations might try to use to dodge regulations. The self-regulatory system is therefore the most effective that we have.
        The differences between the recognised professional bodies and the self-regulatory organisations are fewer than the hon. Gentleman might think. In my view, the similarities are greater. Of course, the self-regulatory organisations were set up specifically to take up a task with the recognised professional bodies. With the exception of one, they have existed as self-regulatory bodies for many years. They are based on a system of ethics which I believe has been proven over the years. It is a cost-effective system, but the Government have nevertheless inserted a clause providing that there must be satisfactory arrangements for taking the costs into account. That is acceptable, and shows a trust that the organisations will have to maintain.
        If the hon. Gentleman's fears are borne out in future, I shall support him in calling for an end to the system. At the moment, happily, I believe that we have an extremely effective system. I am grateful to the Government for having added to its confidence by the clause, which is no more than reasonable and mirrors the Financial Services Act.
        Mr. Cousins: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) for kindly referring to the remarks that I made in Committee.
        The debate on the amendment, and similar amendments, in Committee was inhibited by a sense of outrage among certain sections of the financial community about the apparent costs of the regulatory mechanisms set up under the Financial Services Act 1986. There was far too much of a stampede to give in to those pressures. As it has turned out, the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board has conducted himself extremely well in this matter. He has been calm, persistent in putting forward the correct

        1149
        definition, and at the same time has drawn up coherent proposals to deal with the underlying concerns that people have expressed.
        The debate in Committee was far too inhibited by what one may regard as the Poujadist section of the financial markets. A number of unfortunate public statements contributed to the attempted undermining of the public standing of the regulatory bodies set up under the Financial Services Act. It has transpired that because of the chairman's integrity and persistence, and because of the way in which he bent to his task and was not distracted from it by all the noises to which he was subjected, that danger has been avoided. So long as that individual holds his current position and continues to work with the people with whom he currently works, we shall have no fears in that respect.
        None the less, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East was right to draw the matter to our attention, because we are dealing not with regulatory bodies but with individual professional standards and performance. The only consideration should be securing the highest possible standards of personal professional repute.
        There has been a train of examples of what can go wrong. Serious questions are being asked, not least in reports by inspectors of the Department of Trade and Industry. It is unfortunate that a shadow is being cast over the new bodies that will be set up and the current bodies, if they are to take over the task of regulation. The only consideration for the regulatory bodies, when exercising their regulatory powers over the individuals in their profession and the standards that they attain, must be to ensure that those standards are the highest.
        The amendment is unfortunate, and before moving it the Government would have been better advised to have recovered from their temporary panic about the costs of setting up regulatory mechanisms.
        Mr. Forth: I have been trying to understand why Labour Members are expressing concern, because I believe that they are missing the blindingly obvious. Perhaps in the wake of this evening's excitement that is understandable.
        We are trying to achieve a measure of practicality and effectiveness. If we are to make the rules precisely to achieve the high standards that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) mentioned, it is only sensible and essential to ensure that regard is paid to their cost. We do not want to end up—I do not think that it is a great danger, but let us ensure that it does not happen—with an over-enthusiastic regulatory body which rushes off and seeks to lay down rules so onerous that they drive these activities out of existence.
        9.15 pm
        That is the answer to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) who asked about the consumer's interest. We have an effective profession operating in the interests of the community as a whole, which includes the business community and consumers. Consumers want a profession which operates effectively, so its rules must not only be effective but must not be so onerous as to drive people out of business. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) ably illustrated that point.
        The hon. Member for Gateshead, East asked what the costs mean. That was a slightly strange question, given the
        1150
        profession that we are discussing. If she does not know what the costs mean, I cannot say with greater confidence what is meant.
        Mr. Cousins: The Minister must descend from his talent for occasional Poujadism and return to the subject of the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) put a clear question to him. Does it mean direct costs, including indirect costs, or does it mean direct costs alone? That can make a considerable difference. The Minister would be better occupied using fewer knockabout tactics and applying his mind to those specific questions.
        Mr. Forth: We are talking about professional accountants, not shopkeepers. The hon. Gentleman is in danger of getting the two confused. I shall not attempt to give a detailed answer to that question. It is not my job to set about defining the framework of costs to be taken into account. The bodies concerned will know well the kind of relevant costs involved. It would be inappropriate for me to answer, although it might be appropriate for my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes to give us a long dissertation on the relevant costs.
        Mr. Hanley rose——
        Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is about to do so. I give way to him.
        Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his brief invitation. The best way to regulate the investment business is to have a full-time inspector based permanently on site as an independent advisers business. That would cost so much that the independent adviser would give up doing the job. He would not bother to help the public. For chartered accountants, it would mean that a person who was professionally qualified and whose ethics were such as to lead him to concentrate not only on independence but on truth and fairness would be driven out of giving investment advice.
        It cannot be in the consumer's interests for all those who currently give independent advice, especially when they are backed by a royal charter and a history of service to the public, to be driven from giving a particular service to the public purely because the costs are so great that it is not worth being in the business. That is why we need. a balance between having a regulated trade, such as one advising the public, and having costs that are reasonable in terms of providing regulation over those who practise.
        Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
        I have tried to answer the Opposition's questions, and I hope that I have succeeded. As I am conscious of the passage of time and wish to ensure that we have every opportunity to consider the Bill in detail, I shall leave it at that and hope that the House will support the amendment.
        Ms. Quin: Having listened to the Minister's few words, I am not reassured. He has not responded to some of my questions. I asked him what consultations he had had and whether he had spoken just to the one sectional interest which we knew was keen on getting the amendment introduced. He also did not answer my question about how exactly it was decided to include in the Bill references to cost compliance in addition to the one reference that had been decided in Standing Committee discussions on amendments to the Financial Services Act 1986.
        The Minister said that he could not understand why we were raising these matters. Perhaps I should remind him

        1151
        that his former ministerial colleague in the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude), said that he could well understand the concerns that we were raising about this and also those expressed by the Consumers Association and others, although he felt that they were unfounded. I found that response easier to cope with than the present Minister's complete lack of awareness about why we feel that this issue is so important.
        We want adequate and proper regulation, not cost-cutting regulation. That is why we are concerned about the amendment and why I urge my hon. Friends to oppose it.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 57.

        Division No. 355]

        [9.20 pm

        AYES

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Alexander, Richard

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Amos, Alan

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Arbuthnot, James

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Atkinson, David

        Gregory, Conal

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Ground, Patrick

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Hague, William

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

        Boswell, Tim

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Bowis, John

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Brazier, Julian

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

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

        Harris, David

        Browne, John (Winchester)

        Hayes, Jerry

        Buck, Sir Antony

        Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

        Burns, Simon

        Hayward, Robert

        Butcher, John

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Butler, Chris

        Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

        Butterfill, John

        Hunter, Andrew

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Irvine, Michael

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Jack, Michael

        Carrington, Matthew

        Jackson, Robert

        Carttiss, Michael

        Janman, Tim

        Cash, William

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Chapman, Sydney

        Key, Robert

        Chope, Christopher

        Kilfedder, James

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Knapman, Roger

        Colvin, Michael

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Conway, Derek

        Knowles, Michael

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Cran, James

        Lilley, Peter

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

        Lord, Michael

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Lyell, Sir Nicholas

        Day, Stephen

        Maclean, David

        Devlin, Tim

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

        Dicks, Terry

        Malins, Humfrey

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Mans, Keith

        Dover, Den

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Dunn, Bob

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Durant, Tony

        Mellor, David

        Evennett, David

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Fallon, Michael

        Mills, Iain

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Mitchell, Sir David

        Fishburn, John Dudley

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Fookes, Dame Janet

        Morrison, Sir Charles

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Moss, Malcolm

        Forth, Eric

        Nelson, Anthony

        French, Douglas

        Neubert, Michael

        Gale, Roger

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Gardiner, George

        Norris, Steve

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Gill, Christopher

        Page, Richard

        1152

        Paice, James

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Pawsey, James

        Thurnham, Peter

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Tracey, Richard

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Portillo, Michael

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Walden, George

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Waller, Gary

        Redwood, John

        Ward, John

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Riddick, Graham

        Watts, John

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Wheeler, John

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Wood, Timothy

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        Stern, Michael

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        NOES

        Allen, Graham

        Illsley, Eric

        Ashton, Joe

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Leighton, Ron

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Macdonald, Calum A.

        Battle, John

        Madden, Max

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Meale, Alan

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

        Michael, Alun

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Buchan, Norman

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        Nellist, Dave

        Clay, Bob

        Patchett, Terry

        Cousins, Jim

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Cox, Tom

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Cryer, Bob

        Reid, Dr John

        Cummings, John

        Richardson, Jo

        Dewar, Donald

        Robinson, Geoffrey

        Dixon, Don

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Dobson, Frank

        Skinner, Dennis

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

        Spearing, Nigel

        Flannery, Martin

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Flynn, Paul

        Wall, Pat

        Foster, Derek

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Foulkes, George

        Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

        Fyfe, Maria

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Galloway, George

        Winnick, David

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        George, Bruce

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Gould, Bryan

        Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ken Eastham.

        Hinchliffe, David

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Question accordingly agreed to.

    Schedule 12

      RECOGNITION OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION
      Mr. Hanley: I beg to move amendment No. 304, in page 253, line 44, leave out from 'as' to end of line 45 and insert
      'auditor under the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 or under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom where it appears to the Secretary of State that the law and practice with respect to the audit of company accounts is similar to that in the United Kingdom.'.
      Ever since statutory requirements on auditors' qualifications were introduced into United Kingdom law in the 1940s, members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland have been qualified for appointment as auditors in the United Kingdom regardless of whether their training was received in the Republic or in Northern Ireland. Correspondingly, persons qualified in the United Kingdom have always been able to audit the accounts of companies incorporated in the Republic. The

      1153
      justification for that is that company law in the Republic is similar to that in the United Kingdom. I taught company law in Ireland for many years and the similarities between the Companies Act 1948 and the Irish Companies Act 1963 were striking, except for one thing—the Irish Act was twice as long because it was printed in Irish on one side.
      A common body of accounting and auditing standards also applies throughout the British Isles. The amendment would allow the present situation to continue by enabling the Secretary of State to recognise, for the purpose of an auditor's qualification, training in the company audit work of any country in which the law and practice are similar to that in the United Kingdom. The amendment therefore goes slightly further than facilitating auditors in the Republic. After 1992, qualifications and practice may become increasingly similar in various countries.
      Mr. John Garrett: Will the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) explain what is meant by
      "where … the law and practice with respect to the audit of company accounts is similar to that in the United Kingdom."?
      Is he also saying that accounting standards would to all intents and purposes he the same? Is the hon. Gentleman also making observations on the level of qualifications required so that they are comparable in both countries, so that auditors in Britain and in the Irish Republic would be qualified to the same standards and operating within the same codes of practice?
      Mr. Hanley: Exactly that. The qualifications of Irish and United Kingdom chartered accountants are, I believe, exactly the same both in terms of the nature of their training and in terms of the audit work that they carry out once qualified and in order to become qualified.
      Although the hon. Gentleman is extremely wise and knowledgeable and may well know this fact, it may interest the House to know that the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland covers both Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, so part of the United Kingdom already receives qualifications according to a law of Ireland. It therefore seems wholly sensible that the training leading to qualification should be recognised in statute as being exactly analogous. The provision would also facilitate United Kingdom accountants training in the Republic of Ireland.
      The provision merely recognises the existing realities of training and qualification and I believe that it will be seen by the Irish Republic as a friendly gesture from our Government.
      Mr. Cousins: I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) and the Minister could clarify a few points. I well recollect our discussions on this matter in Committee when I believe that it was the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes who informed us that the Prime Minister of Ireland, Charles Haughey, was an accountant and would be qualified under these provisions. Even the most devoted Unionist might have a slight feeling of trepidation about that eventuality. None the less, horse racing is popular in both the United Kingdom and the South of Ireland, so we may look forward to a happy coming together on that point. Is my thinking correct?
      Mr. Hanley: A chartered accountant, whether trained in the Republic of Ireland or the United Kingdom, divorces himself from his political feelings and preferences
      1154
      when practising as a chartered accountant, so whatever the hon. Gentleman's feelings about the President of the Republic of Ireland, I assure the hon. Gentleman that as a chartered accountant Mr. Haughey would be totally independent. In other words, the hon. Gentleman's thinking was indeed correct.
      Mr. Forth: As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) has just said, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland is specifically recognised in the present provisions on the qualifications of auditors in section 389 of the Companies Act 1985. All its members—whether trained in the Republic or in Northern Ireland—are therefore qualified in law to audit the accounts of British companies. That reflects the way in which company law and auditing practices in Britain and Ireland have developed hand in hand. Auditing standards and guidelines developed by the Auditing Practices Committee apply equally to the Republic of Ireland and to Great Britain. That answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins).
      There may be a case for considering whether the work involved in auditing companies in the Irish Republic is so similar to United Kingdom company audit work that practical training in such work could count towards the Bill's requirements on the content of practical training. In any case, I am happy to give my support to the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes, and I hope that the House will join me.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 43

      TIME LIMITS FOR PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES
      Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 71, in page 56, line 27, after 'tried' insert 'on an information laid'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 72.
      Mr. Forth: These two amendments take account of a point that came to light only at a late stage in our proceedings. They bring the period in clause 43, within which prosecution in England and Wales of a person who has committed an offence under part II must take place, into line with the standard provisions on time limits for the prosecution of offences. At present clause 43 has the effect that the trial must commence no later than three years after its commission. The amendments correct that to three years after the relevant information was laid, which is already the effect of the clause as far as Scotland is concerned.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 72, in page 56, line 40. after `information' insert 'laid'.—[Mr. Forth.]
      Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 73, in page 59, line 28, leave out 'the order' and insert 'an order under section 46'.
      This is a consequential amendment to an amendment agreed in Committee which enabled the Secretary of' State to make further orders after the delegation order conferring more functions on the statutory body or resuming functions already conferred. This amendment extends the immunity and damages given to the statutory body in clause 48 so that it covers functions conferred on

      1155
      it by further orders. The immunity conferred on the statutory body will therefore, as intended, be co-extensive with any functions and exercises under the Bill.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 74, in page 60, line 16, leave out clause 50.
      No. 75, in page 261, line 33, leave out schedule 15.—[Mr. Forth.]

    Clause 52

      MINOR DEFINITIONS
      Amendment made: No. 76. in page 61, line 8, at end insert—
      '"enactment" includes an enactment contained in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978;'.—[Mr. Forth.]

    Clause 53

      INDEX OF DEFINED EXPRESSIONS
      Amendment made: No. 77, in page 61, line 38, at end

      'enactment

      section 52(1)'.—[Mr. Forth.]

    New Clause 45

      INVESTIGATION OF UNREGISTERED COMPANIES
      '. In Schedule 22 to the Companies Act 1985 (provisions applying to unregistered companies), for the entry relating to Part XIV substitute—

      "Part XIV (except section 446)

      Investigation of companies and their affairs; requisition of documents.

      —".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 78 to 80.
      Mr. Redwood: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      As a consequence of certain repeals of provisions in the Companies Act 1985 by the Financial Services Act 1986, unregistered companies which at present fall within the scope of section 447 of the 1985 Act would no longer be covered. Section 447 gives the Secretary of State power to require documents for inspection. These amendments will ensure that section 447 powers continue to apply to unregistered companies.
      The purpose of this amendment is to preserve the status quo. There will be no widening or narrowing of the powers.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 46

      AMENDMENT OF THE BUILDING SOCIETIES ACT 1986
      '. In section 53 of the Building Societies Act 1986 (confidentiality of information obtained by the Building Societies Commission), in subsection (7)(b) (functions of Secretary of State for purposes of which disclosure may be made) after sub-paragraph (ii) insert—
      1156

      ", or (iii) Part II, III or VII of the Companies Act 1989;",'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 47—Amendments of the Banking Act 1987—and Government amendments Nos. 81 and 82.
      Mr. Redwood: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      These amendments are consequential on other provisions in parts II, III and VII of the Bill. They amend the Building Societies Act 1986, the Banking Act 1987 and clause 84 of the Bill, to provide gateways for the disclosure of restricted information for the purpose of enabling or assisting the Secretary of State's functions under parts II, III and VII of the Bill.
      Mr. Cousins: Some dimensions of the new clause commend themselves to me, because I believe that it is important to have gateways through which information about activity in the building society world can be made available to the Government in pursuit of their necessary regulatory activities.
      Those of us who have dealt with constituency and other problems arising from the demutualisation of Abbey National are very well aware of the need for much better information to be available to the public authorities to carry out their duties. The Minister has been perfectly fair but a little mysterious about how he proposes to use the powers that he is taking under the new clause. A little elucidation on that point would not come amiss in view of public disquiet about Abbey National and the way in which that affair was conducted.
      Mr. Redwood: The idea is to provide gateways for information such as that passed to inspectors appointed under sections 94 or 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986, as well as inspectors appointed under part XIV of the Companies Act 1985. These are the normal types of investigations launched when there is reason to suspect fraud or malfeasance or other such problems.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 47

      AMENDMENTS OF THE BANKING ACT 1987
      '.—(1) In section 84(1) of the Banking Act 1987 (disclosure of information obtained under that Act), the Table showing the authorities to which, and functions for the purposes of which, disclosure may be made is amended as follows.
      (2) In the entry relating to the Secretary of State. in column 2, for "or the Financial Services Act 1986" substitute ", the Financial Services Act 1986 or Part II, III or VII of the Companies Act 1989".
      (3) For the entry relating to inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State substitute—

      "An inspector appointed under Part XIV of the Companies Act 1985 or section 94 or 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986.

      Functions under that Part or that section.".

      (4) For the entry beginning "A person authorised by the Secretary of State" substitute—

      1157

      "A person authorised to exercise powers under section 44 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982, section 447 of the Companies Act 1985, section 106 of the Financial Services Act 1986 or section 80 of the Companies Act 1989.

      Functions under that section.".

      (5) For the entry relating to a designated agency or transferee body or the competent authority (within the meaning of the Financial Services Act 1986) substitute—

      "A designated agency (within the meaning of the Financial Services Act 1986).

      Functions under the Financial Services Act 1986 or Part VII of the Companies Act 1989.

      A transferee body or the competent authority (within the meaning of the Financial Services Act 1986).

      Functions under the Financial Services Act 1986.".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

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

    Clause 62

      SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWER TO REQUIRE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 78, in page 65, line 22, at end insert—
      '(1A) Omit subsection (1) (bodies in relation to which powers exercisable), and—

      (a) in subsections (2) and (3) for "any such body" substitute "a company",

      (b) in subsections (4) and (5) for "any body" and "a body" substitute "a company", and

      (c) in subsections (5) and (6) for "the body" substitute "the company".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 64

      PROVISION FOR SECURITY OF INFORMATION OBTAINED
      Amendment made: No. 79, in page 68, line 3, at end insert—
      '(aa) in the opening words for "body" (twice) substitute "company";'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 65

      PUNISHMENT FOR DESTROYING, MUTILATING, &C. COMPANY DOCUMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 80, in page 69, line 37, at end insert—
      '(1A) In subsection (1) for the opening words down to "insurance company" substitute "An officer of a company, or of an insurance company", for "body's" substitute "company's" and for "the body" substitute "the company".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 84

      EXERCISE OF POWERS IN RELATION TO NORTHERN IRELAND
      Amendment made: No. 81, in page 84, line 27, after '1985,' insert 'section 53 or 54 of the Building Societies Act 1986.'.
      No. 82, in page 84, line 28, after '1986' insert ', section 84 of the Banking Act 1987'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

    New Clause 20
      CHARGES REQUIRING REGISTRATION
      '. The following sections are inserted in Part XII of the Companies Act 1985—
      CHARGES REQUIRING REGISTRATION

        Registration in the company charges register Introductory provisions
        395.—(1) The purpose of this Part is to secure the registration of charges on a company's property.
        (2) In this Part—
        "charge" means any form of security interest (fixed or floating) over property, other than an interest arising by operation of law; and
        "property", in the context of what is the subject of a charge, includes future property.
        (3) It is immaterial for the purposes of this Part where the property subject to a charge is situated.
        (4) References in this Part to "the registrar" are—

        (a) in relation to a company registered in England and Wales, to the registrar of companies for England and Wales, and

        (b) in relation to a company registered in Scotland, to the registrar of companies for Scotland;

        and references to registration, in relation to a charge. are to registration in the register kept by him under this Part.

        Charges requiring registration
        396.—(1) The charges requiring registration under this Part are—
        (a) a charge on land or any interest in land, other than—

        (i) in England and Wales, a charge for rent or any other periodical sum issuing out of the land,

        (ii) in Scotland, a charge for any rent, ground annual or other periodical sum payable in respect of the land;

        (b) a charge on goods or any interest on goods, other than a charge under which the chargee is entitled to possession either of the goods or of a document of title to them,
        (c) a charge on intangible movable property (in Scotland, incorporeal moveable property) of any of the following descriptions—

        (i) goodwill,

        (ii) intellectual property,

        (iii) book debts (whether book debts of the company or assigned to the company),

        (iv) uncalled share capital of the company or calls made but not paid,

        (d) a charge for securing an issue of debentures, or
        (e) a floating charge on the whole or part of the company property.
        (2) The descriptions of charge mentioned in subsection (1) shall be construed as follows—

        (a) a charge on a debenture forming part of an issue or series shall not be treated as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) by reason of the fact that the debenture is secured by a charge on land or goods (or on an interest in land or goods);

        (b) in paragraph (b) "goods" means any tangibie movable property (in Scotland, corporeal moveable property) other than money;

        (c) a charge is not excluded from paragraph (b) because the chargee is entitled to take possession in case of default or on the occurrence of some other event;

        (d) in paragraph (c)(ii) "intellectual property" means—

        (i) any patent, trade mark, service mark, registered design, copyright or design right, or

        (ii) any licence under or in respect of any such right;

        (e) a debenture which is part of an issue or series shall not be treated as a book debt for the purposes of paragraph (c)(iii);

        (f) the deposit by way of security of a negotiable instrument given to secure the payment of book debts shall not be treated for the purposes of paragraph (c)(iii) as a charge on book debts;

        1159

        (g) a shipowner's lien on subfreights shall not be treated as a charge on book debts for the purposes of paragraph (c)(iii) or as a floating charge for the purposes of paragraph (e).

        (3) Whether a charge is one requiring registration under this Part shall be determined—

        (a) in the case of a charge created by a company, as at the date the charge is created, and

        (b) in the case of a charge over property acquired by a company, as at the date of the acquisition.

        (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsections (1) and (2) so as to add any description of charge to, or remove any description of charge from, the charges requiring registration under this Part.
        (5) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
        (6) In the following provisions of this Part references to a charge are, unless the context otherwise requires, to a charge requiring registration under this Part.
        Where a charge not otherwise requiring registration relates to property by virtue of which it requires to be registered and to other property, the references are to the charge so far as it relates to property of the former description.".'.—[Mr. Forth.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 21—The companies charges register.
        9.45 pm
        Mr. Forth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        New clause 20 would replace clause 89 in the Bill. It contains a number of amendments to clauses 395 and 396. The amendments mostly make some technical but important alterations to terms and provisions that determine whether a charge is registrable. The broad aim is to ensure that we do not require registration if it will cause undue damage to commercial practice. New clause 21 would replace clause 90 of the Bill. It contains amendments to new section 397 but inserts no new provisions. The amendments simply omit an illustrative list and a provisional notice that is replaced by a new provision in clause 30.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 21
      THE COMPANIES CHARGES REGISTER
      '.The following section is inserted in Part XII of the Companies Act 1985—
      THE COMPANIES CHARGES REGISTER

        The Companies Charges Register
        397.—(1) The registrar shall keep for each company a register, in such form as he thinks fit, of charges on property of the company.
        (2) The register shall consist of a file containing with respect to each charge the particulars and other information delivered to the registrar under the provisions of this Part.
        (3) Any person may require the registrar to provide a certificate stating the date on which any specified particulars of, or other information relating to, a charge were delivered to him.
        (4) The certificate shall be signed by the registrar or authenticated by his official seal.
        (5) The certificate shall be conclusive evidence that the specified particulars or other information were delivered to the registrar no later than the date stated in the certificate; and it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that they were not delivered earlier than that date.".'.—[Mr. Forth.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 22
      DELIVERY OF PARTICULARS FOR REGISTRATION
      `. The following sections are inserted in Part XII of the Companies Act 1985—
      DELIVERY OF PARTICULARS FOR REGISTRATION

        Company's duty to deliver particulars of charge for registration
        398.—(1) It is the duty of a company which creates a charge, or acquires property subject to a charge—

        (a) to deliver the prescribed particulars of the charge, in the prescribed form, to the registrar for registration, and

        (b) to do so within 21 days after the date of the charge's creation or, as the case may be, the date of the acquisition;

        but particulars of a charge may be delivered for registration by any person interested in the charge.
        (2) Where the particulars are delivered for registration by a person other than the company concerned, that person is entitled to recover from the company the amount of any fees paid by him to the registrar in connection with the registration.
        (3) If a company fails to comply with subsection (1), then, unless particulars of the charge have been delivered for registration by another person, the company and every officer of it who is in default is liable to a fine.
        (4) Where prescribed particulars in the prescribed form are delivered to the registrar for registration, he shall file the particulars in the register and shall note, in such form as he thinks fit, the date on which they were delivered to him.
        (5) The registrar shall send to the company and any person appearing from the particulars to be the chargee, and if the particulars were delivered by another person interested in the charge to that person, a copy of the particulars filed by him and of the note made by him as to the date on which they were delivered.

        Effect of failure to deliver particulars of registration
        399.—(1) Where a charge is created by a company and no prescribed particulars in the prescribed form are delivered for registration within the period of 21 days after the date of the charge's creation, the charge is void against—

        (a) an administrator or liquidator of the company, and

        (b) any person who for value acquires an interest in or right over property subject to the charge,

        where the relevant event occurs after the creation of the charge, whether before or after the end of the 21 day period.

        This is subject to section 400 (later delivery of particulars).
        (2) In this Part "the relevant event" means—

        (a) in relation to the voidness of a charge as against an administrator or liquidator, the beginning of the insolvency proceedings, and

        (b) in relation to the voidness of a charge as against a person acquiring an interest in or right over property subject to a charge, the acquisition of that interest or right;
        and references to "a relevant event" shall be construed accordingly.

        (3) Where a relevant event occurs on the same day as the charge is created, it shall be presumed to have occurred after the charge is created unless the contrary is proved.

        Late delivery of particulars
        400.—(1) Where prescribed particulars of a charge created by a company, in the prescribed form, are delivered for registration more than 21 days after the date of the charge's creation, section 399(1) does not apply in relation to relevant events occurring after the particulars are delivered.
        (2) However, where in such a case—

        (a) the company is at the date of delivery of the particulars unable to pay its debts, or subsequently becomes unable to pay its debts in consequence of the transaction under which the charge is created, and

        (b) insolvency proceedings begin before the end of the relevant period beginning with the date of delivery of the particulars,
        the charge is void as against the administrator or liquidator.

        (3) For this purpose—

        (a) the company is "unable to pay its debts" in the circumstances specified in section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986; and

        1161

        (b) the "relevant period" is—

        (i) two years in the case of a floating charge created in favour of a person connected with the company (within the meaning of section 249 of that Act),

        (ii) one year in the case of a floating charge created in favour of a person not so connected, and

        (iii) six months in any other case.

        (4) Where a relevant event occurs on the same day as the particulars are delivered, it shall be presumed to have occurred before the particulars are delivered unless the contrary is proved.".'.—[Mr. Forth.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Forth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to consider Government new clauses 23, 24 and 25.
        Mr. Forth: The new clauses contain various amendments to existing provisions of part IV that relate primarily to the delivery of particulars for registration. New clause 22 would replace clause 91 of the Bill. It amends new sections 398, 399 and 400. The amendments are largely improvements to the drafting of the new sections. The principal amendment is that in new section 399(1). This makes it clear that an unregistered charge will not be void in respect of those acquiring an interest in property subject to the charge before the charge's creation.
        New clause 23 would replace clause 92 of the Bill. It amends new section 401. Although the new clause contains a number of drafting changes, the only substantive amendment is in new section 401(1). This would allow further particulars of a variation to a charge to be delivered before the variation has become effective.
        New clause 24 would replace clause 93 of the Bill. It contains a number of drafting amendments to new section 402. There are no substantive amendments.
        New clause 25 would replace clause 94 of the Bill. It contains amendments to new section 403. We have widened the circumstances in which a memorandum may be delivered to the registrar. We have also amended new section 403 to ensure that a charge cannot become void if a memorandum is fraudulently delivered by the company while the charge still affects its property.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 23
      DELIVERY OF FURTHER PARTICULARS
      '. The following section is inserted in Part XII of the Companies Act 1985—
      DELIVERY OF FURTHER PARTICULARS

        Delivery of further particulars
        401.—(1) Further particulars of a charge, supplementing or varying the registered particulars, may be delivered to the registrar for registration at any time.
        (2) Further particulars must be in the prescribed form signed by or on behalf of both the company and the chargee.
        (3) Where further particulars are delivered to the registrar for registration and appear to him to be duly signed, he shall file the particulars in the register and shall note, in such form as he thinks fit, the date on which they were delivered to him.
        (4) The registrar shall send to the company and any person appearing from the particulars to be the chargee, and if the particulars were delivered by another person interested in the charge to that other
        1162
        person, a copy of the further particulars filed by him and of the note made by him as to the date on which they were delivered.".'.
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 24
      EFFECT OF OMISSIONS AND ERRORS IN REGISTERED PARTICULARS
      '. The following section is inserted in Part XII of the Companies Act 1985—
      EFFECT OF OMISSIONS AND ERRORS IN REGISTERED PARTICULARS

        Effect of omissions and errors in registered particulars
        402.—(1) Where the registered particulars of a charge created by a company are not complete and accurate, the charge is void, as mentioned below, to the extent that rights are not disclosed by the registered particulars which would be disclosed if they were complete and accurate.
        (2) The charge is void to that extent, unless the court on the application of the chargee orders otherwise, as against—

        (a) an administrator or liquidator of the company, and

        (b) any person who for value acquires an interest in or right over property subject to the charge,
        where the relevant event occurs at a time when the particulars are incomplete or inaccurate in a relevant respect.

        (3) Where a relevant event occurs on the same day as particulars or further particulars are delivered, it shall be presumed to have occurred before those particulars are delivered unless the contrary is proved.
        (4) The court may order that the charge is effective as against an administrator or liquidator of the company if it is satisfied—

        (a) that the omission or error is not likely to have misled materially to his prejudice any unsecured creditor of the company, or

        (b) that no person became an unsecured creditor of the company at a time when the registered particulars of the charge were incomplete or inaccurate in a relevant respect.

        (5) The court may order that the charge is effective as against a person acquiring an interest in or right over property subject to the charge if it is satisfied that he did not rely, in connection with the acquisition, on registered particulars which were incomplete or inaccurate in a relevant respect.
        (6) For the purposes of this section an omission or inaccuracy with respect to the name of the chargee shall not be regarded as a failure to disclose the rights of the chargee.".'.
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 25
      MEMORANDUM OF CHARGE CEASING TO AFFECT COMPANY'S PROPERTY
      The following section is inserted in Part XII of the Companies Act 1985—
      MEMORANDUM OF CHARGE CEASING TO AFFECT COMPANY'S PROPERTY

        Memorandum of charge ceasing to affect company's property
        403.—(1) Where a charge of which particulars have been delivered ceases to affect the company's property, a memorandum to that effect may be delivered to the registrar for registration.
        (2) The memorandum must be in the prescribed form signed by or on behalf of both the company and the chargee.
        (3) Where a memorandum is delivered to the registrar for registration and appears to him to be duly signed, he shall file it in the register, and shall note, in such form as he thinks fit, the date on which it was delivered to him.
        (4) The registrar shall send to the company and any person appearing from the memorandum to be the chargee, and if the memorandum was delivered by another person interested in

        1163
        the charge to that person, a copy of the memorandum filed by him and of the note made by him as to the date on which it was delivered.
        (5) If a duly signed memorandum is delivered in a case where the charge in fact continues to affect the company's property, the charge is void as against—

        (a) an administrator or liquidator of the company, and

        (b) any person who for value acquires an interest in or right over property subject to the charge,
        where the relevant event occurs after the delivery of the memorandum.

        (6) Where a relevant event occurs on the same day as the memorandum is delivered, it shall be presumed to have occurred before the memorandum is delivered unless the contrary is proved.".'.—[Mr. Forth.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 26
      FURTHER PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO VOIDNESS OF CHARGES
      '. The following sections are inserted in Part XII of the Companies Act 1985—
      FURTHER PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO VOIDNESS OF CHARGES
        FURTHER PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO VOIDNESS OF CHARGES

          Exclusion of voidness as against unregistered charges.
          404.—(1) A charge is not void by virtue of this Part as against a subsequent charge unless some or all of the relevant particulars of that charge are duly delivered for registration—

          (a) within 21 days after the date of its creation, or

          (b) before complete and accurate relevant particulars of the earlier charge are duly delivered for registration.

          (2) Where relevant particulars of the subsequent charge so delivered are incomplete or inaccurate, the earlier charge is void as against that charge only to the extent that rights are disclosed by registered particulars of the subsequent charge duly delivered for registration before the corresponding relevant particulars of the earlier charge.
          (3) The relevant particulars of a charge for the purposes of this section are those prescribed particulars relating to rights inconsistent with those conferred by or in relation to the other charge.

          Restrictions on voidness by virtue of this Part.
          405.—(1) A charge is not void by virtue of this Part as against a person acquiring an interest in or right over property where the acquisition is expressly subject to the charge.
          (2) Nor is a charge void by virtue of this Part in relation to any property by reason of a relevant event occuring after the company which created the charge has disposed of the whole of its interest in that property.

          Effect of exercise of power of sale.
          406.—(1) A chargee exercising a power of sale may dispose of property to a purchaser freed from any interest or right arising from the charge having become void to any extent by virtue of this Part—

          (a) against an administrator or liquidator of the company, or

          (b) against a person acquiring a security interest over property subject to the charge;
          and a purchaser is not concerned to see or inquire whether the charge has become so void.

          (2) The proceeds of the sale shall be held by the chargee in trust to be applied—
          First, in discharge of any sum effectively secured by prior incumbrances to which the sale is not made subject;
          Second, in payment of all costs, charges and expenses properly incurred by him in connection with the sale, or any previous attempted sale, of the property;
          Third, in discharge of any sum effectively secured by the charge and incumbrances ranking pari passu with the charge;
          Forth, in discharge of any sum effectively secured by incumbrances ranking after the charge;
          and any residue is payable to the company or to a person authorised to give a receipt for the proceeds of the sale of the property.
          (3) For the purposes of subsection (2)—
          1164

          (a) prior incumbrances include any incumbrance to the extent that the charge is void as against it by virtue of this Part; and

          (b) no sum is effectively secured by a charge to the extent that it is void as against an administrator or liquidator of the company.

          (4) In this section—

          (a) references to things done by a chargee include things done by a receiver appointed by him, whether or not the receiver acts as his agent;

          (b) "power of sale" includes any power to dispose of, or grant an interest out of, property for the purpose of enforcing a charge (but in relation to Scotland does not include the power to grant a lease), and references to "sale" shall be construed accordingly; and

          (c) "purchaser" means a person who in good faith and for valuable consideration acquires an interest in property.

          (5) The provisions of this section as to the order of application of the proceeds of sale have effect subject to any other statutory provision (in Scotland), any other statutory provision or rule of law) applicable in any case.
          (6) Where a chargee exercising a power of sale purports to dispose of property freed from any such interest or right as is mentioned in subsection (1) to a person other than a purchaser, the above provisions apply, with any necessary modifications, in relation to a disposition to a purchaser by that person or any successor in title of his.
          (7) In Scotland, subsections (2) and (7) of section 27 of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970 apply to a chargee unable to obtain a discharge for any payment which he is required to make under subsection (2) above as they apply to a creditor in the circumstances mentioned in those subsections.

          Effect of voidness on obligation secured
          407.—(1) Where a charge becomes void to any extent by virtue of this Part, the whole of the sum secured by the charge is payable forthwith on demand; and this applies notwithstanding that the sum secured by the charge is also the subject of other security.
          (2) Where the charge is to secure the repayment of money, the references in subsection (1) to the sum secured include any interest payable.".'.—[Mr. Forth.]
          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Mr. Forth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          This new clause inserts new provisions restricting the effect of avoidance. It is designed principally to ensure that the sanctions of avoidance and partial avoidance should not have unduly adverse effects on those dealing with charges. If we do not limit the effect of avoidance in the ways proposed in the new clause, people might be less willing to deal with charges or the property subject to them. As a consequence, creditors might become reluctant to offer secured finance to companies in certain circumstances. The objective of much in the new clause is, therefore, to disapply the effect of avoidance either where it is unnecessary or where the disadvantages flowing from it would outweigh the benefits.
          Question put and agreed to.
          Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 27
      ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE REGISTERED
      '. The following sections are inserted in Part XII of the Companies Act 1985—
      ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE REGISTERED

        Additional information to be registered Particulars of taking up of issue of debentures
        408.—(1) Where particulars of a charge for securing an issue of debentures have been delivered for registration. it is the duty of the company—

        1165

        (a) to deliver to the registrar for registration particulars in the prescribed form of the date on which any debentures of the issue are taken up, and of the amount taken up, and

        (b) to do so before the end of the period of 21 days after the date on which they are taken up.

        (2) Where particulars in the prescribed form are delivered to the registrar for registration under this section, he shall file them in the register.
        (3) If a company fails to comply with subsection (1), the company and every officer of it who is in default is liable to a fine.

        Notice of appointment of receiver or manager, &c.
        409.—(1) If person obtains an order for the appointment of a receiver or manager of a company's property, or appoints such a receiver or manager under powers contained in an instrument, he shall within seven days of the order or of the appointment under those powers, give notice of that fact in the prescribed form to the registrar for registration.
        (2) Where a person appointed receiver or manager of a company's property under powers contained in an instrument ceases to act as such receiver or manager, he shall, on so ceasing, give notice of that fact in the prescribed form to the registrar for registration.
        (3) Where a notice under this section in the prescribed form is delivered to the registrar for registration, he shall file it in the register.
        (4) If a person makes default in complying with the requirements of subsection (1) or (2), he is liable to a fine.
        (5) This section does not apply in relation to companies registered in Scotland (for which corresponding provision is made by sections 53, 54 and 62 of the Insolvency Act 1986).

        Notice of crystallisation of floating charge, &c.
        410.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require notice in the prescribed form to be given to the registrar of—

        (a) the occurrence of such events as may be prescribed affecting the nature of the security under a floating charge of which particulars have been delivered for registration, and

        (b) the taking of such action in exercise of powers conferred by a fixed or floating charge of which particulars have been delivered for registration, or conferred in relation to such a charge by an order of the court, as may be prescribed.

        (2) The regulations may make provision as to—

        (a) the persons by whom notice is required to be, or may be, given, and the period within which notice is required to be given;

        (b) the filing in the register of the particulars contained in the notice and the noting of the date on which the notice was given; and

        (c) the consequences of failure to give notice.

        (3) As regards the consequences of failure to give notice of an event causing a floating charge to crystallise, the regulations may include provision to the effect that the crystallisation—

        (a) shall be treated as ineffective until the prescribed particulars are delivered, and

        (b) if the prescribed particulars are delivered after the expiry of the prescribed period, shall continue to be ineffective against such persons as may be prescribed,
        subject to the exercise of such powers as may be conferred by the regulations on the court.

        (4) The regulations may provide that if there is a failure to comply with such of the requirements of the regulations as may be prescribed, such persons as may be prescribed are liable to a fine.
        (5) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
        (6) Regulations under this section shall not apply in relation to a floating charge created under the law of Scotland by a company registered in Scotland.".'.—[Mr. Forth.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Forth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        1166
        This new clause would replace clause 95 of the Bill. It contains amendments to the new sections that require additional particulars to be delivered to the registrar. The amendments make changes to the additional particulars to be delivered in respect of debentures, the duties of the registrar to file notices relating to receivers and managers, and the application of new section 410 in the new clause under Scots law.
        Mr. Cousins: When we talked earlier in another context about the costs of compliance of regulatory bodies, the Minister was keen that such bodies should take the cost of compliance into account. I was a little disturbed by what the Minister said in speaking to this new clause. I do not think that he took the legal sanctions in matters of this kind as seriously as they deserve to be taken. The new clause creates a new offence for which a fine may be imposed. Will the Minister outline what the size of that fine might be? This is referred to in section 408.
        Mr. Forth: I cannot tell the hon. Member at this stage what the size of the fine will be.
        Mr. Cousins: That is disgraceful.
        Mr. Forth: In the nature of this sort of provision, it is unusual to specify the exact level of the fine. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would know that by now. I am surprised that, having sat through the Committee stage, he even has to ask the question. Throughout these important provisions, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been following them, we have tried to strike a balance between endeavouring——
        It being ten minutes to Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
        Question agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
        MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on new clauses and new schedules, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at ten minutes to Ten o'clock.

    New Clause 28
      COPIES OF INSTRUMENTS AND REGISTER TO BE KEPT BY THE COMPANY
      `.The following sections are inserted in Part XII of the Companies Act 1985—
      COPIES OF INSTRUMENTS AND REGISTER TO BE KEPT BY THE COMPANY
        COPIES OF INSTRUMENTS AND REGISTER TO BE KEPT BY COMPANY
        '. The following sections are inserted in Part XII of the Companies Act 1985—
        COPIES OF INSTRUMENTS AND REGISTER TO BE KEPT BY COMPANY

          Copies of instruments and register to be kept by company Duty to keep copies of instruments and register
          411.—(1) Every company shall keep at its registered office a copy of every instrument creating or evidencing a charge over the company's property.
          In the case of a series of uniform debentures, a copy of one debenture of the series is sufficient.
          (2) Every company shall also keep at its registered office a register of all such charges, containing entries for each charge giving a short description of the property charged, the amount of the charge and (except in the case of securities to bearer) the names of the persons entitled to it.
          (3) This section applies to any charge, whether or not particulars are required to be delivered to the registrar for registration.
          (4) If a company fails to comply with any requirement of this section, the company and every officer of it who is in default is liable to a fine.

          Inspection of copies and register
          412.—(1) The copies and the register referred to in section 411 shall be open to the inspection of any creditor or member of the company without fee; and to the inspection of any other person on payment of such fee as may be prescribed.
          (2) Any person may request the company to provide him with a copy of—

          (a) any instrument creating or evidencing a charge over the company's property, or

          (b) any entry in the register of charges kept by the company, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed.

          This subsection applies to any charge, whether or not particulars are required to be delivered to the registrar for registration.
          (3) The company shall send the copy to him not later than ten days after the day on which the request is received or, if later, on which payent is received.
          (4) If inspection of the copies or register is refused, or a copy requested is not sent within the time specified above—

          (a) the company and every officer of it who is in default is liable to a fine, and

          the court may by order compel an immediate inspection of the copies or register or, as the case may be, direct that the copy be sent immediately.".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

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

    New Clause 29
      POWER TO MAKE FURTHER PROVISION BY REGULATIONS
      '. The following section is inserted in Part XII of the Companies Act 1985—
      POWER TO MAKE FURTHER PROVISION BY REGULATIONS

        Supplementary provisions Power to make further provision by regulations.
        413.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision as to the application of the provisions of this Part in relation to charges of any description specified in the regulations.
        Nothing in the following provisions shall be construed as restricting the generality of that power.
        (2) The regulations may require that where the charge is contained in or evidenced or varied by a written instrument there shall be delivered to the registrar for registration, instead of particulars or further particulars of the charge, the instrument itself or a certified copy of it together with such particulars as may be prescribed.
        (3) The regulations may provide that a memorandum of a charge ceasing to affect property of the company shall not be accepted by the registrar unless supported by such evidence as may be prescribed, and that a memorandum not so supported shall be treated as not having been delivered.
        (4) The regulations may also provide that where the instrument creating the charge is delivered to the registrar in support of such a memorandum, the registrar may mark the instrument as cancelled before returning it and shall send copies of the instrument cancelled to such persons as may be prescribed.
        (5) The regulations may exclude or modify, in such circumstances and to such extent as may be prescribed, the operation of the provisions of this Part relating to the voidness of a charge.
        (6) The regulations may require, in connection with the delivery of particulars, further particulars or a memorandum of the charge's ceasing to affect property of the company, the delivery of such supplementary information as may be prescribed, and may

        (a) apply in relation to such supplementary information any provisions of this Part relating to particulars, further particulars or such a memorandum, and

        (b) provide that the particulars, further particulars or memorandum shall be treated as not having been delivered until the required supplementary information is delivered.

        (7) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 30
      OTHER SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
      '. The following sections are inserted in Part XII of the Companies Act 1985—
      OTHER SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

        Date of creation of charge
        414.—(1) References in this Part to the date of creation of a charge by a company shall be construed as follows.
        (2) A charge created under the law of England and Wales shall be taken to be created—

        (a) in the case of a charge created by an instrument in writing, when the instrument is executed by the company or, if its execution by the company is conditional, upon the conditions being fulfilled, and

        (b) in any other case, when an enforceable agreement is entered into by the company conferring a security interest intended to take effect forthwith or upon the company acquiring an interest in property subject to the charge.

        (3) A charge created under the law of Scotland shall be taken to be created—

        (a) in the case of a floating charge, when the instrument creating the floating charge is executed by the company, and

        (b) in any other case, when the right of the person entitled to the benefit of the charge is constituted as a real right.

        (4) Where a charge is created in the United Kingdom but comprises property outside the United Kingdom, any further proceedings necessary to make the charge valid or effectual under the law of the country where the property is situated shall be disregarded in ascertaining the date on which the charge is to be taken to be created.

        Date of creation of charge

          Prescribed particulars and related expressions
          415.—(1) References in this Part to the prescribed particulars of a charge are to such particulars of, or relating to, the charge as may be prescribed.
          (2) The prescribed particulars may, without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), include—

          (a) whether the company has undertaken not to create other charges ranking in priority to or pari passu with the charge, and

          (b) whether the charge is a market charge within the meaning of Part VII of the Companies Act 1989 or a charge to which the provisions of that Part apply as they apply to a market charge.

          (3) References in this Part to the registered particulars of a charge at any time are to such particulars and further particulars of the charge as have at that time been duly delivered for registration.
          (4) References in this Part to the registered particulars of a charge being complete and accurate at any time are to their including all the prescribed particulars which would be required to be delivered if the charge were then newly created.

          Notice of matters disclosed on register
          416.—(1) A person taking a charge over a company's property shall be taken to have notice of any matter requiring registration and disclosed on the register at the time the charge is created.
          (2) Otherwise, a person shall not be taken to have notice of any matter by reason of its being disclosed on the register or by reason of his having failed to search the register in the course of making such inquiries as ought reasonably to be made.
          (3) The above provisions have effect subject to any other statutory provisions as to whether a person is to be taken to have notice of any matter disclosed on the register.

          Power of court to dispense with signature
          417.—(1) Where it is proposed to deliver further particulars of a charge, or to deliver a memorandum of a charge ceasing to affect the company's property, and—

          1169

          (a) the chargee refuses to sign or authorise a person to sign on his behalf, or cannot be found, or

          (b) the company refuses to authorise a person to sign on its behalf,

          the court may on the application of the company or the chargee, or of any other person having a sufficient interest in the matter, authorise the delivery of the particulars or memorandum without that signature.
          (2) The order may be made on such terms as appear to the court to he appropriate.
          (3) Where particulars or a memorandum are delivered to the registrar for registration in reliance on an order under this section, they must be accompanied by an office copy of the order.
          In such a case the references in sections 401 and 403 to the particulars or memorandum being duly signed are to their being otherwise duly signed.
          The registrar shall file the office copy of the court order along with the particulars or memorandum.".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]
          Brought up. read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 31
        INTERPRETATION, & C.
        '. The following sections arc inserted in Part XII of the Companies Act 1985—
        INTERPRETATION, & C.

          Regulations
          418. Regulations under any provision of this Part, or prescribing anything for the purposes of any such provision—

          (a) may make different provision for different cases, and

          (b) may contain such supplementary, incidental and transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.

          Minor definitions
          419.—(1) In this Part—
          "chargee" means the person for the time being entitled to exercise the security rights conferred by the charge;
          "issue of debentures" means a group of debentures, or an amount of debenture stock, secured by the same charge; and
          "series of debentures" means a group of debentures each containing or giving by reference to another instrument a charge to the benefit of which the holders of debentures of the series are entitled pari passu.
          (2) References in this Part to the creation of a charge included the variation of a charge which is not registrable so as to include property by virtue of which it becomes registrable.
          The provisions of section 414 (construction of references to date of creation of charge) apply in such a case with any necessary modifications.
          (3) References in this Part to the date of acquisition of property by a company are—

          (a) in England and Wales, to the date on which the acquisition is completed, and

          (b) in Scotland, to the date on which the transaction is settled.

          (4) In the application of this Part to a floating charge created under the law of Scotland, references to crystallisation shall be construed as references to the attachment of the charge.
          (5) References in this Part to the beginning of insolvency proceedings are to—

          (a) the presentation of a petition on which an administration order or winding-up order is made, or

          (b) the passing of a resolution for voluntary winding up.

          Index of defined expressions
          420. The following Table shows the provisions of this Part defining or otherwise explaining expressions used in this Part (other than expressions used only in the same section)—

          charge

          sections 395(2) and 396(6)

          charge requiring registration

          section 396

          chargee

          section 419(1)

          1170

          complete and accurate (in relation to registered particulars)

          section 415(4)

          creation of charge

          section 419(2)

          crystallisation (in relation to Scottish floating charge)

          section 419(4)

          date of acquisition (of property by a company)

          section 419(3)

          date of creation of charge

          section 414

          further particulars

          section 401

          insolvency proceedings, beginning of

          section 419(5)

          issue of debentures

          section 419(1)

          memorandum of charge ceasing to affect company's property

          section 403

          prescribed particulars

          section 415(1) and (2)

          property

          section 395(2)

          registered particulars

          section 415(3)

          registrar and registration in relation to a charge

          section 395(4)

          relevant event

          section 399(2)

          series of debentures

          section 419(1).".'.—[Mr. Redwood]

      New Clause 32

        CHARGES ON PROPERTY OF OVERSEAS COMPANY
        '. The provisions set out in Schedule (Charges on property of oversea company) are inserted in Part XXIII of the Companies Act 1985 (oversea companies), as a Chapter III (registration of charges).'.—[Mr. Redwood.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
        MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at ten minutes to Ten o'clock.
        Amendment made: No. 83, in page 86, line 26, leave out Clauses 89 to 98.—[Mr. Redwood.]

      Schedule 16

        AMENDMENTS CONSEQUENTIAL TO PART IV
        Amendments made: No. 84, in page 267, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 31.
        No. 85, in page 267, line 41, column 1, leave out '404(3)' and insert '408(3)'.
        No. 86, in page 267, line 43, column 2, leave out
        'each issue of debentures of a series'
        and insert
        'taking up of issue of debentures'.
        No. 87, in page 268, line 1, column 1, leave out '405(4)' and insert '409(4)'.
        No. 88, in page 268, line 9, column 1, leave out '406(4)' and insert '410(4)'.
        No. 89, in page 268, line 13, column 2, leave out `s.406' and insert `s.410'.
        No. 90, in page 268, line 14, column 1, leave out '407(4)' and insert '411(4)'.
        No. 91, in page 268, line 21, column 1, leave out '408(4)' and insert '412(4)'.
        No. 92, in page 268, line 29, column 1, leave out '703C(5)' and insert '703D(5)'.
        No. 306, in page 268, line 50, leave out '703C' and insert '703D'.—[Mr. Redwood.]
        Amendment made: No. 93—new schedule—

        AMENDMENTS CONSEQUENTIAL TO PART IV
          'CHARGES ON PROPERTY OF OVERSEA COMPANIES
          The following provisions are inserted in Part XXIII of the Companies Act 1985—
          CHAPTER III REGISTRATION OF CHARGES

            Introductory provisions
            703A.—(1) The provisions of this Chapter have effect for securing the registration in Great Britain of charges on the property of a registered oversea company.
            (2) Section 395(2) and (3) (meaning of "charge" and "property") have effect for the purposes of this Chapter.
            (3) A "registered oversea company", in relation to England and Wales or Scotland, means an oversea company which has duly delivered documents to the registrar for that part of Great Britain under section 691 and has not subsequently given notice to him under section 696(4) that it has ceased to have an established place of business in that part.
            (4) References in this Chapter to the registrar shall be construed in accordance with section 703E below and references to registration, in relation to a charge, are to registration in the register kept by him under this Chapter.

            Charges requiring registration
            703B.—(l) The charges requiring registration under this Chapter are those which if created by a company registered in Great Britain would require registration under Part XII of this Act.
            (2) Whether a charge is one requiring registration under this Chapter shall be determined—

            (a) in the case of a charge over property of a company at the date it delivers documents for registration under section 691, as at that date,

            (b) in the case of a charge created by a registered oversea company, as at the date the charge is created, and

            (c) in the case of a charge over property acquired by a registered oversea company, as at the date of the acquisition.

            (3) In the following provisions of this Chapter references to a charge are, unless the context otherwise requires, to a charge requiring registration under this Chapter.
            Where a charge not otherwise requiring registration relates to property by virtue of which it requires to be registered and to other property, the references are to the charge so far as it relates to property of the former description.

            The register
            703C.—(1) The registrar shall keep for each registered oversea company a register, in such form as he thinks fit, of charges on property of the company.
            (2) The register shall consist of a file containing with respect to each such charge the particulars and other information delivered to the registrar under or by virtue of the following provisions of this Chapter.
            (3) Section 397(3) to (5) (registrar's certificate as to date of delivery of particulars) applies in relation to the delivery of any particulars or other information under this Chapter.

            Company's duty to deliver particulars of charges for registration
            703D.—(1) If when an oversea company delivers documents for registration under section 691 any of its property is situated in Great Britain and subject to a charge, it is the company's duty at the same time to deliver the prescribed particulars of the charge, in the prescribed form, to the registrar for registration.
            (2) Where a registered oversea company—

            (a) creates a charge on property situated in Great Britain, or

            (b) acquires property which is situated in Great Britain and subject to a charge,

            it is the company's duty to deliver the prescribed particulars of the charge, in the prescribed form, to the registrar for registration within 21 days after the date of the charge's creation or, as the case may be, the date of the acquisition.
            This subsection does not apply if the property subject to the charge is at the end of that period no longer situated in Great Britain.
            (3) Where the preceding subsections do not apply and property of a registered oversea company is for a continuous period of four months situated in Great Britain and subject to
            1172
            a charge, it is the company's duty before the end of that period to deliver the prescribed particulars of the charge, in the prescribed form, to the registrar for registration.
            (4) Particulars of a charge required to be delivered under subsections (1), (2) or (3) may be delivered for registration by any person interested in the charge.
            (5) If a company fails to comply with subsection (1), (2) or (3), then, unless particulars of the charge have been delivered for registration by another person, the company and every officer of it who is in default is liable to a fine.
            (6) Section 398(2), (4) and (5) (recovery of fees paid in connection with registration, filing of particulars in register and sending of copy of particulars filed and note as to date) apply in relation to particulars delivered under this Chapter.

            Registrar to whom particulars, &c. to he delivered
            703E.—(1) The particulars required to be delivered by section 703D(1) (charges over property of oversea company becoming registered in a part of Great Britain) shall be delivered to the registrar to whom the documents are delivered under section 691.
            (2) The particulars required to be delivered by section 703D(2) or (3) (charges over property of registered oversea company) shall be delivered—

            (a) if the company is registered in one part of Great Britain and not in the other, to the registrar for the part in which it is registered, and

            (b) if the company is registered in both parts of Great Britain but the property subject to the charge is situated in one part of Great Britain only, to the registrar for that part;
            and in any other case the particulars shall be delivered to the registrars for both parts of Great Britain.

            (3) Other documents required or authorised by virtue of this Chapter to be delivered to the registrar shall be delivered to the registrar or registrars to whom particulars of the charge to which they relate have been, or ought to have been, delivered.
            (4) If a company gives notice under section 696(4) that it has ceased to have an established place of business in either part of Great Britain, charges over property of the company shall cease to be subject to the provisions of this Chapter, as regards registration in that part of Great Britain, as from the date on which notice is so given.
            This is without prejudice to rights arising by reason of events occurring before that date.

            Effect of failure to deliver particulars, late delivery and effect of errors and omissions
            703F.—(1) The following provisions of Part XII—

            (a) section 399 (effect of failure to deliver particulars),

            (b) section 400 (late delivery of particulars), and

            (c) section 402 (effect of errors and omissions in particulars delivered),
            apply, with the following modifications, in relation to a charge created by a registered oversea company of which particulars are required to be delivered under this Chapter.

            (2) Those provisions do not apply to a charge of which particulars are required to be delivered under section 703D( 1) (charges existing when company delivers documents under section 691).
            (3) In relation to a charge of which particulars arc required to be delivered under section 703D(3) (charges registrable by virtue of property being within Great Britain for requisite period), the references to the period of 21 days after the charge's creation shall be construed as references to the period of four months referred to in that subsection.

            Delivery of further particulars or memorandum.
            703G. Sections 401 and 403 (delivery of further particulars and memorandum of charge ceasing to affect company's property) apply in relation to a charge of which particulars have been delivered under this Chapter

            Further provisions with respect to voidness of charges
            703H.—(1) The following provisions of Part XII apply in relation to the voidness of a charge by virtue of this Chapter—

            (a) section 404 (exclusion of voidness as against unregistered charges),

            1173

            (b) section 405 (restrictions on cases in which charge is void),

            (c) section 406 (effect of exercise of power of sale), and

            (d) section 407 (effect of voidness on obligation secured).

            (2) In relation to a charge of which particulars are required to be delivered under section 703D(3) (charges registrable by virtue of property being within Great Britain for requisite period), the reference in section 404 to the period of 21 days after the charge's creation shall be construed as references to the period of four months referred to in that subsection.

            Additional information to be registered
            703I.—(1) Section 408 (particulars of taking up of issue of debentures) applies in relation to a charge of which particulars have been delivered under this Chapter.
            (2) Section 409 (notice of appointment of receiver or manager) applies in relation to the appointment of a receiver or manager of property of a registered oversea company.
            (3) Regulations under section 410 (notice of crystallisation of floating charge, &c.) may apply in relation to a charge of which particulars have been delivered under this Chapter; but subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as may be specified in the regulations.

            Copies of instruments and register to be kept by company.
            703J.—(1) Sections 411 and 412 (copies of instruments and register to be kept by company) apply in relation to a registered oversea company and any charge over property of the company situated in Great Britain.
            (2) They apply to any charge, whether or not particulars are required to be delivered to the registrar.
            (3) In relation to such a company the references to the company's registered office shall be constructed as references to its principal place of business in Great Britain.

            Power to make further provision by regulations
            703K.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision as to the application of the provisions of this Chapter, or the provisions of Part XII applied by this Chapter, in relation to charges of any description specified in the regulations.
            (2) The regulations may apply any provisions of regulations made under section 413 (power to make further provision with respect to application of Part XII) or make any provision which may be made under that section with respect to the application of provisions of Part XII.

            Provisions as to situation of property
            703L.—(1) The following provisions apply for determining for the purposes of this Chapter whether a vehicle which is the property of an oversea company is situated in Great Britain—

            (a) a ship, aircraft or hovercraft shall be regarded as situated in Great Britain if, and only if, it is registered in Great Britain;

            (b) any other description of vehicle shall be regarded as situated in Great Britain on a day if, and only if, at any time on that day the management of the vehicle is directed from a place of business of the company in Great Britain;
            and for the purposes of this Chapter a vehicle shall not be regarded as situated in one part of Great Britain only.

            (2) For the purposes of this Chapter as it applies to a charge on future property, the subject-matter of the charge shall be treated as situated in Great Britain unless it relates exclusively to property of a kind which cannot, after being acquired or coming into existence, be situated in Great Britain; and references to property situated in a part of Great Britain shall be similarly construed.

            Other supplementary provisions
            703M. The following provisions of Part XII apply for the purposes of this Chapter—

            (a) section 414 (construction of references to date of creation of charge),

            (b) section 415 (prescribed particulars and related expressions),

            (c) section 416 (notice of matters disclosed on the register),

            1174

            (d) section 417 (power of court to dispense with signature),

            (e) section 418 (regulations) and

            (f) section 419 (minor definitions).

            Index of defined expressions
            703N. The following Table shows the provisions of this Chapter and Part XII defining or otherwise explaining expressions used in this Chapter (other than expressions used only in the same section)—

            charge

            sections 703A(2), 703B(3) and 395(2)

            charge requiring registration

            sections 703B(1) and 396

            creation of charge

            sections 703M(f) and 419(2)

            date of acquisition (of property by a company)

            sections 703M(f) and 419(3)

            date of creation of charge

            sections 703M(a) and 414

            property

            sections 703A(2) and 395(2)

            registered overseas company

            section 703A(3)

            registrar and registration in relation to a charge

            sections 703A(4) and 703E.

            situated in Great Britain

            in relation to vehicles

            section 703L(1)

            in relation to future property

            section703L(2)".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

      New Clause 33

        EFFECTING OF INSURANCE FOR OFFICERS AND AUDITORS OF COMPANY
        '.—(1) In section 310 of the Companies Act 1985 (provisions exempting officers and auditors from liability), for subsection (3) (permitted provisions) substitute—
        "(3) This section does not prevent a company—

        (a) from purchasing and maintaining for any such officer or auditor insurance against any such liability, or

        (b) from indemnifying any such officer or auditor against any liability incurred by him—

        (i) in defending any proceedings (whether civil or criminal) in which judgment is given in his favour or he is acquitted, or

        (ii) in connection with any application under section 144(3) or (4) (acquisition of shares by innocent nominee) or section 727 (general power to grant relief in case of honest and reasonable conduct) in which relief is granted to him by the court.".

        (2) In Part I of Schedule 7 to the Companies Act 1985 (general matters to be dealt with in directors' report), after paragraph 5 insert—

        EFFECTING OF INSURANCE FOR OFFICERS AND AUDITORS OF COMPANY

          Insurance effected for officers or auditors
          5A. Where in the financial year the company has purchased or maintained any such insurance as is mentioned in section 310(3)(a) (insurance of officers or auditors against liabilities in relation to the company), that fact shall be stated in the report.".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]
          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Mr. Redwood: I beg to move, That the clause be read a second time.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 257.
          Mr. Redwood: There have been problems if companies pay for liability insurance for directors under the provisions of section 310 of the Companies Act. New clause 33 would enable companies to take out insurance against those liabilities for negligence, default or breach of trust on behalf of its officers and auditors, without that insurance being void. It also requires the existence of such insurance to be disclosed in the directors' report. The remainder of the new clause simply tidies up the drafting.

          1175
          Amendment No. 257 is a consequential amendment to the Building Societies Act 1986. This will enable the provision in that Act that is analogous to section 310 to be amended so as to ensure that companies and building societies continue to be subject to equivalent provisions.
          I know that many hon. Members will welcome this change in the law. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) moved a similar amendment in Committee. It will be especially beneficial to non-executive directors, paid only a few thousand pounds a year for their services, but jointly liable in law with their executive colleagues for substantial sums. It may be of some help to the House, which showed considerable enthusiasm for non-executive directors in previous debates.
          Mr. Nicholas Baker: I welcome the introduction of this new clause and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister has moved it. I have two small worries, however, which he may want to look at, but perhaps at a later date. The first concerns the problem that, although there is permission for companies to enter into insurance policies under which legal costs of impending proceedings can be paid, this does not appear to be so if somebody loses the case. The new clause says that the cost will be paid if the case is won. Should not one consider the alternative, which is if the case is lost?
          Secondly, section 310 of the Companies Act 1985 does not prohibit the relief provision, but renders it void. The drafting of the permission for this kind of insurance that the new clause provides does not take account of it. It is not clear what the position will be in relation to the policies in force. If they were rendered void under section 310, it is not clear whether the new clause brings them to life again. I hope that my hon. Friend will take away these small but significant concerns and see whether some later amendment should be made.
          Mr. Hanley: The new clause amends section 310 of the Companies Act 1985 so as to clarify that a company is able to purchase insurance for its officers and auditors against any liability that may be incurred by the company. The effect of section 310 was uncertain and the clarification is most welcome. The amendment, however, does nothing to address auditors' fundamental liability problems. Through the operation of the legal principle of joint and several liability, an auditor is liable to be required to meet the whole of a loss for which he is only partially responsible. Secondly, for larger firms the professional indemnity insurance cover at levels that they would regard as desirable is almost impossible to secure at any price. Measures to limit the liability of auditors are therefore extremely necessary. I have raised this issue in new clause 50, which we shall reach later in our proceedings. This is an ideal opportunity to raise the matter, however, because it is linked to new clause 33.
          In 1986, a group known as the Heads of the Profession saw the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). The delegation met representatives of the DTI and of the Lord Chancellor's Department. The result was that in 1987 and 1988 the Government appointed a series of fact-finding studies into the liability problems of various professions, including the auditors. The report on the auditing profession is believed to have been in the
          1176
          Department's hands at least since May. Unfortunately, it has not yet been published and the Department has made no statement on it.
          Members of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill will remember that in June the then Minister with responsibilities for these matters, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude), issued a consultation paper on one of the proposals set out in the study team's report. That proposal I have reproduced as new clause 50. In essence, it allows the shareholders of a company to fix a reasonable limit to the auditor's liability to the company. This is not a solution to the problem but it would be a step in the right direction. The Government have not taken up the proposal in their consultation paper and have made no statement on the results of their consultations.
          It would be most helpful, therefore, if my hon. Friend the Minister could provide some information about the Government's actions in respect of liability problems of the auditors' profession and of the many other professions that participated in the consultation process to state their great difficulties. The problems were aired in a debate in another place at some length. I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will explain the timescale for the results of the consultation process, which was set in place when the Bill was being considered in Committee. Many of us have been surprised that there is no reference to the matter being brought before the House on Report.
          Mr. Redwood: I have taken some quick advice on the two issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker). The new clause is as neutral as possible in respect of existing policies. The position would have to be determined in accordance with existing law. My hon. Friend will know that it is a moot point whether existing policies are valid under that law. My hon. Friend asks why there should not be protection if the case is lost. In that event, the director would have been found liable in respect of one of the points set out in section 310. I think that it would be inappropriate that the company should have to pay his costs.
          I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) that the Likierman report should be published soon, which I think that he will welcome. I cannot offer him any joy in respect of new clause 50 and the arguments that he is advancing in this debate. I believe that auditors have to be held liable, that auditors owe a duty and there has to be a fair trial in the courts if there is any potential negligence. The sums involved can be large but only because the amounts that may be lost by relying on inaccurate accounts can also be large. Any limitation on auditor's liability would inevitably mean that in some instances people who lost money in that way through no fault of their own would not be able to recover their losses in full. The onus must be on those who propose a change in the law to demonstrate that such a change would be in the overall public interest. I do not believe that that has been established.
          Question put and agreed to.
          Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 34

        COMPANY CONTRACIS AND EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS BY COMPANIES
        '.—(1) In Chapter III of Part I of the Companies Act 1985

        1177
        (a company's capacity; the formalities of carrying on business), for section 36 (form of company contracts) substitute—

        COMPANY CONTRACIS AND EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS BY COMPANIES

          Company contracts: England and Wales.
          36. Under the law of England and Wales a contract may be made—

          (a) by a company, by writing under its common seal, or

          (b) on behalf of a company, by any person acting under its authority, express or implied;
          and any formalities required by law in the case of a contract made by an individual also apply, unless a contrary intention appears, to a contract made by or on behalf of a company.".

          (2) After that section insert—

          Execution of documents England and Wales.
          36A.—(1) Under the law of England and Wales the following provisions have effect with respect to the execution of documents by a company.
          (2) A document is executed by a company by the affixing of its common seal.
          (3) A company need not have a common seal, however, and the following subsections apply whether it does or not.
          (4) A document signed by a director and the secretary of a company, or by two directors of a company, and expressed (in whatever form of words) to be executed by the company has the same effect as if executed under the common seal of the company.
          (5) A document executed by a company which makes it clear on its face that it is intended by the person or persons making it to be a deed has effect, upon delivery, as a deed; and it shall be presumed, unless a contrary intention is proved, to be delivered upon its being so executed.
          (6) In favour of a purchaser a document shall be deemed to have been duly executed by a company if it purports to be signed by a director and the secretary of the company, or by two directors of the company, and, where it makes it clear on its face that it is intended by the person or persons making it to be a deed, to have been delivered upon its being executed.
          A "purchaser" means a purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration and includes a lessee, mortgagee or other person who for valuable consideration acquires an interest in property.".
          (3) After the section inserted by subsection (2) insert—

          Execution of documents: Scotland
          36B.—(1) Under the law of Scotland the following provisions have effect with respect to the execution of documents by a company.
          (2) A document—

          (a) is signed by a company if it is signed on its behalf by a director, or by the secretary, of the company or by a person authorised to sign the document on its behalf, and

          (b) is subscribed by a company if it is subscribed on its behalf by being signed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a) at the end of the last page.

          (3) A document shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, to have been subscribed by a company in accordance with subsection (2) if—

          (a) it bears to have been subscribed on behalf of the company by a director, or by the secretary, of the company or by a person bearing to have been authorised to subscribe the document on its behalf; and

          (b) it bears—

          (i) to have been signed by a person as a witness of the subscription of the director, secretary or other person subscribing on behalf of the company; or

          (ii) (if the subscription is not so witnessed) to have been sealed with the common seal of the company.

          (4) A presumption under subsection (3) as to subscription of a document does not include a presumption—

          (a) that a person bearing to subscribe the document as a director or the secretary of the company was such director or secretary; or

          (b) that a person subscribing the document on behalf of the company bearing to have been authorised to do so was authorised to do so.

          (5) Notwithstanding subsection (3)(b)(ii), a company need not have a common seal.
          (6) Any reference in any enactment (including an enactment contained in a subordinate instrument) to a probative document shall, in relation to a document executed by a company after the commencement of section (Company contracts and execution of documents by companies) of the Companies Act 1989, be construed as a reference to a document which is presumed under subsection (3) above to be subscribed by the company.
          (7) Subsections (1) to (4) above do not apply where an enactment (including an enactment contained in a subordinate instrument) provides otherwise.".
          (4) After the section inserted by subsection (3) insert—

          Pre-incorporation contracts, deeds and obligations
          36C.—(1) A contract which purports to be made by or on behalf of a company at a time when the company has not been formed has effect, subject to any agreement to the contrary, as one made with the person purporting to act for the company or as agent for it, and he is personally liable on the contract accordingly.
          (2) Subsection (1) applies—

          (a) to the making of a deed under the law of England and Wales, and

          (b) to the undertaking of an obligation under the law of Scotland, as it applies to the making of a contract.".

          (5) In Schedule 22 of the Companies Act 1985 (provisions applying to unregistered companies), at the appropriate place insert—

          "Section 36

          Company contracts.

          Subject to section 718(3).

          Sections 36A and 36B

          Execution of documents.

          Subject to section 718(3).

          Section 36C

          Pre-incorporation contracts, deeds and obligations.

          Subject to section 718(3).".

          (6) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations applying sections 36 to 36C of the Companies Act 1985 (company contracts; execution of documents; pre-incorporation contracts, deeds and obligations) to companies incorporated outside Great Britain, subject to such exceptions, adaptations or modifications as may be specified in the regulations.
          Regulations under this subsection shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
          (7) Schedule (Company contracts, seals &c.: further provisions) contains further minor and consequential amendments relating to company contracts, the execution of documents by companies and related matters.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]
          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Mr. Redwood: 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. 123 and 151.
          10 pm
          Mr. Redwood: The present clause permits companies to dispense with the requirement of having a company seal and makes alternative provision for executing documents. The revised provisions make the following changes to the Companies Act. First, the new clause incorporates reforms proposed by the Scottish Law Commission on the

          1179
          execution of documents by companies under Scottish Law. Secondly, it takes up proposals suggested in another place that to execute documents other than by sealing, two directors or a director and the secretary should be permitted to sign instead of just a director and the secretary as first proposed. Thirdly, it clarifies and improves the proposals in the present clause 123 in respect of companies executing documents in England and Wales. Fourthly, it makes provisions with respect to the execution of documents by companies incorporated outside Great Britain.
          In all those changes, we are grateful for the comments of several professional bodies in both Scotland and England. I should add that, in respect of Scotland, it had originally been intended that the provisions would be included in a separate private Member's Bill backed by the Scottish Law Commission on the Law of Writings. Unfortunately, that Bill failed to gain a Second Reading and we are therefore pleased, through the Bill, to pick up those provisions affecting companies. I hope that the House will welcome that.
          Mr. Nicholas Baker: I welcome the new clause. I have one concern, which I hope my hon. Friend can allay. The new clause provides that companies will be deemed to have delivered deeds when they execute them. Subsection (5) states
          "A document executed by a company which makes it clear on its face that it is intended by the person or persons making it to be a deed has effect, upon delivery, as a deed; and it shall be presumed, unless a contrary intention is proved, to be delivered upon its being so executed."
          In that form, it appears that completion meetings will have to change because, as I understand the clause, a company will not be able to execute a document before a meeting and then send it to that meeting a day or two later to have the date put on it and for it to be brought into effect upon that date.
          The subsection would have the effect of making the document come into effect when it is executed—possibly two days before the meeting. That could make life difficult for many commercial transactions. Can my hon. Friend allay that concern?
          Mr. Redwood: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would allow me to write to him on that point at my leisure, when I have had time to consider it.
          Question put and agreed to.
          Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 8

        DAMAGES
        '.—(1) Section 651 of the Companies Act 1985 (power of court to declare dissolution of company void) is amended as follows.
        (2) In subsection (1) omit the word "Where" and insert "Subject to the provision of section 651 A below, where".
        (3) After section 651 of the Companies Act 1985, insert new section 651A:
        "(1) Any person seeking damages

        (a) in respect of personal injuries (including any sum claimed by virtue of section 1(2)(c) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 (funeral expenses)), or

        (b) under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 or the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976,

        in consequence of any act or omission of a company which has been dissolved and removed from the Register of Companies shall be entitled at any time within the period permitted by the Statute of Limitations to bring or pursue such action directly against the relevant public or employer (as the case may be) liability insurers of that company who, but for the dissolution of that company, would have been contractually bound to indemnify the company in respect of that action for damages, and such insurers shall have no greater liability to that person than its contractual obligations to indemnify the dissolved company in respect of the action.
        (2) This section shall apply to any claim or proceeding that exists at the date of or shall arise after the commencement of this Act.".'.—[Ms. Quin.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Ms. Quin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss the following amendments: No. 287, in clause 131, page 141, line 36, leave out from 'time' to 'but' in line 37.
        No. 288, in clause 131, page 142, line 1, leave out from beginning to `do' and insert—
        '(4) An application may be made under section 651(5) of the Companies Act 1985 as inserted by subsection (3) above (proceedings for damages for personal injury, &c.) in relation to a company dissolved before the commencement of this section notwithstanding that the time within which the dissolution might formerly have been declared void under that section had expired before commencement.
        But no such application shall be made in relation to a company dissolved more than twenty years before the commencement of this section.
        (5) Except as provided by subsection (4), the amendments made by this section.'.
        No. 283, in clause 131, page 142, line 2, leave out 'two' and insert 'twenty'.
        Ms. Quin: The amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) are very much in line with our amendment No. 283. The issues raised by the new clause and the amendment were originally raised in Committee. We do not make any apology for raising them again on Report because they are important matters that were not satisfactorily resolved in Committee. They affect many individuals who are not only experiencing severe health problems, but find themselves in financial difficulties.
        The new clause and the amendment are about the difficulty that an individual faces in claiming compensation in cases of personal injury or the contracting of industrial disease when the company for whom the individual worked has been dissolved.
        We all know from cases in our constituencies just how prevalent some industrial diseases are, particularly asbestosis, pneumoconiosis, byssinosis, and so on. Those who, like me, represent an industrial constituency know the problems vividly, in particular, the physical and financial difficulties that many of our constituents are facing.
        Besides ourselves, many organisations are worried about the problems that the law creates, making it so difficult for people to claim compensation, particularly when they contract diseases several years after leaving the employment of a certain employer.
        I particularly want to mention the good work done by the citizen action compensation campaign in highlighting the issue. That has been rightly active in contacting

        1181
        members of the Committee and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House who are concerned with the issue.
        The case that brought the problem to the fore is that of Bradley v. Eagle Star Insurance Company which dates from this year where it was decided that the claimant could not bring a claim against her past employers' insurance company for injuries that she alleged she had received while at work. Mrs. Bradley had contracted the respiratory disease byssinosis because of the work that she had done over several years in the card room of a Bolton cotton mill, the Dart mill.
        In 1984 she brought a claim against the Eagle Star Insurance Company because her employers had gone out of business almost 10 years before. However, she could not re-register the company under the present provisions because of the two-year time limit.
        Mr. John Pickering, Mrs. Bradley's solicitor, described her position as a clear injustice which was evident to any man in the street. The victim exists, the insurance company exists and the right to seek compensation for the injury has been paid for. Despite that, Mrs. Bradley was unable to obtain justice or compensation.
        There is also the case of Norman Burden who worked for many years as a docker on the Newcastle quayside unloading bags of asbestos, as a result of which he contracted asbestosis. Because of the same legal difficulty, his family is left without compensation.
        New clause 8 represents the optimum position. It is what we would ideally like to achieve if the Government were prepared to accept our new clause, simply because it provides for three things which do not exist at present.
        The new clause would allow claimants to claim directly against the insurance company in the event that a former employee's company had been dissolved. That is important because it would overcome the problem of having to re-register the company for the purpose of making a claim against the insurer, which is the case at present and which can be a costly process—up to £400 for each re-registration.
        Companies must be continually re-registered, depending on the number of claims that claimants want to make against that particular company's insurers. Some trade unions find it expensive to cope with the cost of the re-registration of companies. For example, the General and Municipal Workers Union has to re-register the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders at a cost of £3,000 or more a year. That is expensive, and if the law were changed it would be an unnecessary procedure.
        The new clause also raises the issue of retrospectivity. We wish the period during which a claim can be made against an insurer to be extended from two years to 20 years. As the Bill stands, a claim can be retrospective for only two years. We feel that, especially as so many industrial diseases take a long time to manifest themselves, an alteration to 20 years would be an important step. We also wish the period to be unlimited in the future, which is why the new clause refers to the statute of limitations rather than to a 20-year period.
        We hope that the Minister will respond positively. In Committee, his predecessor seemed to feel that our demands were excessive and that we should show some sympathy for the insurance companies. We were pleased to note, however, that certain Conservative Members took a rather different view, including the hon. Member for
        1182
        Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), although we were disappointed that that independent view was not reflected in a vote. We hope that that will not happen again.
        We do not feel that the concern felt by insurers about the new clause and amendment are justified. They wrote to members of the Committee, and one point raised in Committee was that insurers, when working out the cost of their premiums, take into account that a number of companies will go into liquidation. We do not think that that complaint is justifiable, particularly as before the Bradley v. Eagle Star ruling the legal position was not really clear, and it would therefore have been very unwise for insurance companies to make such a calculation. We feel that, when premiums have been paid and claims cannot be made because of the existing legislation, the insurance companies are benefiting from a windfall.
        The insurers also say that it is very unfair for them to be held liable for diseases that may manifest themselves in the future, and could not be foreseen by the industries in question. Insurance companies, however, know that that is the position—industry cannot possibly be aware of future scientific discoveries, for example—and they must deal with their customers on the basis of present knowledge.
        Mr. Cousins: Like me, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) represents a constituency that has had to deal with industrial diseases such as "vibration white finger" and asbestosis, which were being discussed many years ago. Workers and their trade union representatives had to fight the social security and legal systems for many years to establish the identity of those conditions—and others like them—as recognised diseases requiring compensation. Does my hon. Friend feel, as I do, anger that we should be told now after so many years of fighting that those problems could not have been anticipated?
        Ms. Quin: I fully accept what my hon. Friend has said, and I hope that the anger that many of us feel about people who are in difficulties because of their past employment will be shared by the Minister and his colleagues.
        The insurers have also said that, in certain circumstances, it may be very difficult for companies to track down the files on claimants over a 20-year period. That may be a problem, but it is not sufficient reason not to change the law. It may mean difficulties for certain claimants, but those claimants for whom records exist will be able to obtain justice.
        Finally, the insurers are saying that future premiums would become more expensive if the law is changed in the way that we are suggesting, but we are reinforced in our feelings on the subject by the representations made to hon Members by Mr. Robert Kiln, an insurer with more than 50 years' experience who was an insurance adviser to the Department of Trade and Industry. He feels that any such effect would be marginal.
        10.15 pm
        Another case, the Cartledge case, of which I am sure the Minister is aware, resulted in one occasion in the past where a case of retrospectivity was accepted by both sides of the House. Because of that, we urge the Minister to respond positively to our desire for retrospectivity, at least within the 20-year period, on this occasion. I urge the Minister and his colleagues not simply to accept the views of industry, but to see it from the point of view of the many individuals whose future has been blighted and who are

        1183
        unable to claim compensation at present. Of course it is true that no amount of money can properly compensate for a permanent loss of good health or a permanent disability, but at least we should try to create the legal conditions under which some of those who have been so badly affected can seek compensation, and by doing so alleviate the problems faced by individuals and their families.
        Mr. Redwood: It may help the House to make progress if I intervene at this point in the debate. I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady. I know the strong views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) in previous debates. I have problems with new clause 8. They are legal difficulties with which I shall not detain the House unduly but which relate to the very point raised by the hon. Lady. Substituting the company's insurer for the company itself as the defendant to an action for damages or personal injuries poses a number of legal difficulties which the Government find difficult to accept.
        However, it is much more important for the House to learn not about the legal problems but about what I propose to do about the underlying problem which has been described in Committee. I suggest that the House accepts amendments Nos. 287 and 288 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North. Clause 131 already extends the two-year period to 20 years, because the Government wanted to tackle that problem. If the House accepts both my hon. Friend's amendments, I hope that it will agree that we have gone a long way towards dealing with some problems which can be quite tragic.
        That would require the House to accept the principle of retroaction. When I first examined the case and read the Committee proceedings, that caused me some difficulty. I have been swayed by legal representations that I have seen in which many good lawyers suggest that on this occasion it would be reasonable. If the House is united in wanting retroaction, I shall happily accept my hon. Friend's amendments.
        Mr. Nicholas Baker: I am absolutely delighted by what my hon. Friend has just said. I moved the amendments in Committee because it seemed to me that there was an injustice. The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms.
        1184
        Quin) described the problem. She is more familiar with it than I am as she has more constituents affected by industrial diseases. It is clearly an injustice that people should be prevented from claiming compensation simply because a company has been dissolved. As a lawyer, I, too, was concerned about the retrospective element but medical science has advanced so much, we know so much more about industrial disease and we know that they take longer to appear. To that extent, one could argue that this is not a retrospective piece of legislation. It is recognising that there is a wrong and I am delighted that we are doing something about it.
        Amendment No. 288 provides for claims to be made for up to 20 years against companies that have been dissolved. I have difficulties with direct remedies against insurers and in making the time unlimited. I think that 20 years should be sufficient.
        This is a great step forward for people who have suffered industrial injuries, and I am delighted with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that the House will join me in supporting the amendment.
        Ms. Quin: I should like to welcome the comments that the Minister made. Obviously, we still favour new clause 8, but the acceptance of the 20-year period and retroactivity is a considerable victory for those who are concerned about the many cases of injustice that have occurred.
        There was some confusion in Committee when we debated the amendment. The Minister's predecessor believed that the Bill's provisions would deal with the majority of cases. We subsequently realised that the Bradley case and others would not be covered by clause 131, but they will now be covered by the new formula that the Minister has accepted.
        Mr. Redwood: I confirm that what my predecessor said was right. The amendments make small but important improvements to the original good suggestion in the clause.
        Ms. Quin: I do not want to introduce dissent into what appears to be agreement. Mrs. Bradley's case, and others, will be dealt with effectively by the amendments, the principle of which has been accepted. I welcome that, and we will therefore not press new clause 8 to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 9

      EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS TO INFORMATION
      'The following sections are inserted in Part XI of the Companies Act 1985:
      365A—(1) The directors of every company to which this section applies shall communicate to each person in the company's employment at the end of its financial year general but explicit information as to the performance, structure, activities and financial year general but explicit information as to the performance, structure, activities, financial position, employment position, investment prospects and plans of the company during that year.
      (2) This section and section 365B apply to every public limited company and every private company which is a subsidiary or a parent company of a public limited company if either the company or the group of companies to which it belongs have not less than 200 employees at the end of the financial year in respect of which information under this section is to be supplied or at the time at which the consultation required by section 365B is to take place as the case may be.
      (3) If at the end of the financial year the company is a parent company or a subsidiary company the information referred to in subsection (1) shall be provided in respect of the group of companies of which it is a member and in respect of the company itself.
      (4) The information required to be provided by this section shall be delivered in writing to each employee no later than the end of the period applicable to the company under section 244 (period allowed for laying and delivering accounts and reports).
      (5) If the requirements of this section are not complied with before the end of the period referred to in subsection (4) every person who immediately before the end of that period was a director of the company is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine and for continued contravention to a daily default fine.
      (6) It is a defence for a person charged with such an offence to prove that he took all reasonable steps for securing that those requirements would be complied with before the end of that period.'.—[Mr. John Garrett.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. John Garrett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10—Employees' right to consultation—
      'The following sections are inserted in Part XI of the Companies Act 1985:
      365B—(1) Subject to subsection (5) the directors of every company to which this section applies shall communicate in writing to the representatives of its employees precise information of the kind laid down in subsection (2) as to any proposed decision by the board of the company or, in so far as they are aware of it, of its holding company as to the matters specified in subsection (3).
      (2) The information required to be communicated by subsection (1) is that which will reveal to the employees' representatives the grounds for the proposed decision, its legal, economic and social consequences for the employees concerned and the measures planned in respect of those employees.
      (3) The obligation in subsection (1) shall apply to any proposed decision liable to have serious consequences for the interests of a significant number of employees of the company or of other companies in the group of which it is a member and in particular proposed decisions relating to the closure or transfer of the whole or a substantial part of the company or group's undertaking, substantial restrictions or modifications of the activities of that undertaking, major changes in working practice or production methods, the introduction, cessation or variation of co-operation or structural links with other undertakings, companies or businesses and measures relating to the health and safety of employees of the company or group.
      (4) The information to be provided under subsection (1) shall be supplied not less than thirty days before it is proposed
      1186
      to make the decision in question and before that decision is made the directors shall formally consider any representations submitted by the employees' representatives.
      (5) Information, the disclosure of which could substantially damage the interests of the company or group of companies, is not subject to the requirement of disclosure in subsection (1) but formal notification of the fact that a decision may be made to which subsection (3) applies must be served on the employees' representative and full information must be disclosed to the industrial tribunal if an application is lodged by the employees' representatives under subsection (6) for a decision as to whether the information falls within this subsection.
      (6) The employees' representative may apply to an Industrial Tribunal for a ruling that a decision is proposed to which this section applies or that information as to which a notification under subsection (5) has been received is not such that its disclosures would damage the interests of the company or group of companies.
      (7) Any application made under subsection (6) shall be made by the employee's representative within seven days of receiving notice under subsection (5) or of receiving information leading him to believe that a proposed decision is likely. Such application shall be determined by the Tribunal within fourteen days of the application and there shall be no appeal against its decision. The Tribunal may dismiss the application or make such order as it thinks fit for the disclosure of information and the consultation of the employee's representative under this section. The Tribunal shall not disclose to the employees' representative or any other person the information it has received which the company claims is subject to subsection (5) unless the application of the employees' representative is upheld as regards that information.
      (8) During the period from the submission of art application under subsection (7) to its determination by the Industrial Tribunal no steps shall be taken by the company to make or execute the proposed decision.'.
      Mr. Garrett: I am pleased to see an outbreak of harmony, which was the rule in Committee, with the Government and the Opposition arriving at a much better Bill as a result of discussing the issues. I hope that that will be true in relation to new clauses 9 and 10.
      The new clauses embody proposals for an European Community directive on procedures for informing and consulting employees—the Vredeling directive, which was last discussed at the EC's labour and social affairs council in 1986 and is due to be discussed again this year.
      The EC charter of fundamental social rights produced in May this year, and due to be discussed at the summit in December, includes the main principles of the new clauses, and it is right that the House should have the opportunity to consider them again.
      The charter foresees a particular need for rights of information and consultation to be extended to workers where technological change has far-reaching implications for the work force, where restructuring or mergers have an effect on employment or where workers from other member states are particularly affected by their employers' policies.
      In nine of the 12 member states, works councils representing employees have to be kept informed by management about important developments. Unfortunately, the United Kingdom is one of the three states where no such rights exist.
      The new clauses are self-explanatory. They differ from the Vredeling directive in that they refer to a company or group of companies having not fewer than 200 employees. The original Vredeling draft referred to 100 employees, but after a vote in the European Parliament the figure was

      1187
      raised to 1,000 employees. We see no reason why medium-sized companies should not be covered by these provisions.
      We are aware—who is not?—that the Prime Minister is resolutely opposed to the provisions of the proposed social charter. I understand that the Department of Employment this week issued a document opposing any legislation on worker participation. Our view is that consultation with employees along the lines proposed in our new clause will eventually be enacted and enforced.
      The requirement is modest—that a company should explain its performance and financial and employment prospects to its employees once a year and discuss its plans with its employees. New clause 10 proposes that companies shall consult employees' representatives on decisions that are likely to have serious consequences for the interests of a significant number of employees in respect of such matters as closures, transfers, changes in production methods and health and safety at work. Refusal to provide such information on the grounds of potential harm to the interests of a company may be referred to a tribunal for adjudication.
      We are all aware of the value of freely sharing information with the workers in an enterprise and encouraging participation in its conduct. These new clauses are in the mainstream of European thought, but I am sure that the Government are likely to demonstrate that they are outside it.
      Indeed, like so many of our proposals for the improvement of the Bill, the new clauses are in line with good management practice in Britain. They would give momentum to the wider adoption of good practice in relation to consulting employees on the major issues that affect their lives at work. In a British Institute of Management discussion paper which I received today, the results of a survey of company employee paticipation in Britain show the extent to which formal methods exist for participation in our companies. The most common form of paticipation is the briefing meeting at which company policies are explained to employees—very much along the lines of what we propose. Nearly half of all companies have them and 70 per cent. think that they are effective or very effective.
      In the Netherlands and France, these provisions have already been enacted. In West Germany, the two-tier board structure provides for them. It is time that we moved in that direction. Although the number is dwindling, too many companies in this country are remote, authoritarian and still treat their employees as chattels. In the great wave of redundancies which took place in 1980 and 1982 and which are beginning to recur, certainly in my constituency, as a result of current levels of interest, thousands of workers were dismissed with minimum notice, little consultation and little sharing of experience between managers and workers. We believe that workers have a right to be consulted and to be involved in the decisions that shape their lives.
      Mr. Cousins: My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) has rightly referred to the Prime Minister's attitude to workers' rights. In one moment of enthusiasm she even described this modest proposal, and proposals like it, as "Marxist". It may well be that a few small bonfires are being lit in Highgate tonight, and
      1188
      Heaven knows, there may be some reason for that. Those of us who recollect the discussions in Standing Committee will recall the reference to Karl Marx of Brent which enlivened our proceedings a little.
      The proposals in new clauses 9 and 10 have nothing to do with Marxism. Tonight the Government are being tested. The philosophical position which gives rise to the new clauses goes back not to the Communist manifesto of 1848 but to the papal encyclical "Mater et Magister" of the 1890s. The test is whether the Conservative party is prepared to accept the new clauses and start becoming a proper European Christian Democrat party or to remain stuck in an isolationist, reactionary mould which will ultimately exclude them and their successors from all significant influence in Europe's political affairs.
      This is an important matter. The new clauses raise issues which are fundamental to the Government's position in Europe. Every Christian Democrat party in Europe, which in their politics are generally thought of as Right-wing parties, associate themselves with the principle of consulting workers by statute. So far, however, the British Government do not, but today they have the opportunity to reverse their stance and to start engaging in the sensible dialogue that will ultimately be inevitable and necessary, not with us but with their own future political candidate allies, should any be foolish enough to take the conservative party seriously.
      10.30 pm
      The new clauses advance limited, simple proposals which, if the Government do not accept them tonight, they will have to confront in other forms on other occasions in the near future. The proposals are some way down the track that the Government will have to accept. Would it not be better for the Government, for workers and for the Government's standing in Europe if they moved now, before being pushed into another humiliating retreat and surrender on such a simple and fundamental matter?
      It is not simply a case of falling into line with Europe. Steps have already been taken which will inevitably raise the issue of workers' rights in a concrete form throughout British industry. European company statutes have already gone so far as to create the European economic interest group—a curious term for the European company.
      The European company is with us. Because of the statutory position of companies and the tradition of social legislation, which is not a matter of controversy between the political Left and the Right in other European countries, the Government will have to accept, if not now, then later, incorporation in company statute of the principles of consulting workers and of workers' rights.
      It is even more curious that the Government accepted that what leads them down this track in the Employment Act 1982, which was incorporated in the Companies Act 1985. I refer to the requirement for a company to demonstrate in its annual accounts what it has done about employee involvement. Companies are required to report on four issues, two of which are precisely what new clauses 9 and 10 propose.
      It is curious that the Government made a great point of philosophical principle about a company not being required to consult its employees and workers or to give them information about key matters of concern to them, but they are willing to require companies to lodge in their accounts a requirement to consult shareholders about what the company does about informing workers. What

      1189
      tortured logic is it that makes the Government happy to advocate that a company should talk to its shareholders but not to its workers about what it does about workers' rights?
      In 1982, the Government quite voluntarily got into an untenable position. In 1985, they shifted that contradiction from employment legislation to companies legislation. It is entirely logical that we should ask the Government to confront that, and to come up with a sensible reply.
      We have heard a lot tonight about compliance. It would be interesting to know what the Government have done to ensure compliance with the provisions on employee involvement which they themselves created in the Companies Act 1985. All that appears to have been done in that respect is to carry out two surveys on a sample basis of what companies were up to. Those surveys demonstrate clearly that there is a declining number of companies—and that is to be welcomed—which fail to carry out the provisions originally in the Employment Act 1982 and now in the Companies Act 1985 on the requirement to report their shareholders about workers' rights. None the less, in the last survey carried out in 1988, of the sample taken, more than 10 per cent. of companies failed completely to carry out any of their requirements under the Companies Act 1985.
      If the Government are not prepared to accept new clause 9 and new clause 10 to carry them gently a little further forward towards taking workers seriously, as they will inevitably have to do later, it would be interesting to find out tonight what they propose to do to carry out the proper enforcement of their own legislation requiring companies to report to shareholders on these matters under the Companies Act 1985. We have heard much about compliance and high standards tonight, yet there is not a shred of evidence that any company has had any action taken against it to force it to carry out its duties under the 1985 Act on its responsibilities on employee involvement. That is a shameful state of affairs, which can only reduce still further the credibility of the Government's position on the matter.
      It is no wonder that our European partners are suspicious of the Government's intentions in this respect. But for the other sensational matters which have come before the House today, this debate and the Government's position on new clause 9 and new clause 10 might well have been recorded and studied closely elsewhere. I appreciate, of course, that after today's events, this humble matter is unlikely to catch the headlines. None the less, there will be and there are already people—including the partner Governments in Europe and the other Christian Democrat politicians in Europe, whom the government would like to see as their political partners—who will look carefully at the Government's response on this. They will be disappointed if the Government do not respond to new clauses 9 and 10 in the same fashion as the Minister responded to new clause 8.
      It is not just a question of bringing about compulsory compliance with matters which will eventually be raised against the Government from European sources, but a matter that the Government themselves should be considering. What was the logic of putting into the Companies Act 1985 the requirement to consult shareholders about employee involvement if the matter was not taken seriously?
      There are areas which the Government are prepared to admit are significant enough to warrant companies
      1190
      studying their relationships with their workers most carefully. One of the most significant of those is training. Training is an issue that the Government have sought to detect in the employee involvement statements which have been delivered as a result of that requirement in the Companies Act 1985. What a sad story the statements tell, and how inadequately companies have reported to their shareholders on such key matters. The truth is that the economy will not be turned around unless workers are consulted and informed and unless they play a pan in taking key decisions in their companies.
      We should not imagine that when we refer to workers we mean manual industrial workers. Our work force is increasingly comprised of highly skilled, non-manual workers. Above all the Government should seek to mobilise the energy of those workers in the service of their companies and they should do so other than through shareholding schemes.
      Tonight we have said much about accountancy. The turnover of labour in accountancy firms is now running at about 20 per cent. or more. The country is in the grip of a philosophy which advocates advancement through change of job. There is nothing wrong with that, but we should remember that we are approaching a time when the number of workers will decline. It is desperately important to retain skilled workers who can work together on a continuing basis with their colleagues.
      All too often, teams of highly skilled, non-manual workers are thrown to the wind. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) saw the loss of such workers—priceless assets—from Marine Design Consultants based in his constituency. In the past, workers whose experience was of great value not only to their companies, but to the economy, were simply discarded. The Government cannot continue to shirk their obligations in this respect.
      We are not talking about the industrial workers of the past, but about highly skilled and motivated non-manual workers who want to be part of a team within their company. I hope that the Government recognise that new clauses 9 and 10 present them with an opportunity to mobilise the energy and integrity of such workers in support of their economic policies. I note that the Leader of the House is present. No doubt he is familiar with the Government's economic policies, although they appear obscure to some of us.
      Mr. David Winnick: He probably has his mind on other matters.
      Mr. Cousins: That would be entirely forgiveabie. Tonight we have witnessed a sensational example of the difficulties which arise if an enterprise fails to involve its senior workers in achieving its objectives. That failure at worker involvement may come to haunt the Government.
      New clauses 9 and 10 pose a simple test of the Government's attitude to the work force and of how they intend to respond to the European social charter. It is most important for the Government to sort out whether they want to be a Christian Democratic Government in the social tradition of Europe or whether they wish to remain an isolationist, localised Government obsessed with their own ideas. Tonight, above all nights, we have seen them in that light.
      I hope that the Government will accept the new clauses.
      The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I am delighted to respond to the points made by the hon. Members for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins).
      The new clauses do different things. New clause 9 gives employers the duty to make an annual report to their employees. I agree that it is good practice to do so. Indeed, all companies have to publish a report of some sort—[Interruption.]Yes, they do—an annual report, and in the main, they have to cover many of the issues referred to here. I should have thought that it would be eminently sensible to cover all the matters which are relevant to shareholders, customers and workers, and to ensure that copies of the report are made available to employees. That seems an excellent example of the best sort of industrial practice.
      10.45 pm
      The difference between us is whether it is right to turn from good practice to trying to impose a requirement of that sort by statute. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central asserted that there is a great ideological dispute between us—between Marxism and liberal Tory economics, but I very much doubt that. Throughout these highly successful 10 years of industrial regeneration, we have sought to put minimum burdens on industry, whereas the hon. Gentleman is always hankering for controls, regulation and statutes.
      New clause 10 goes much further and requires employers to give 30 days' notice of decisions which might have serious effects such as closure; transfer; changes in the activity of the company, its working practices or production methods; mergers; takeovers; and health and safety matters. If it so happens that a company believes that the decisions that it has to make will be of a sensitive nature, it can apply to the industrial tribunal on the grounds that it might do substantial damage to the company if these were to become public. The company must then await the verdict of the industrial tribunal before approaching a decision.
      New clause 10 is a far more serious and inhibiting provision than new clause 9. It would mean considerable delay before decisions could be taken. The judgment of what could be a sensitive decision which could do great damage—not only to that company, but perhaps to other companies and to the whole operation of the market in buying and selling those industrial units—would no longer be within the jurisdiction of the directors but would lie with the industrial tribunal. That in itself is an inhibition which would place a great disadvantage on our boards of directors. Furthermore, the delay inherent in these procedures would have serious consequences for the ability of directors to take decisions in what are sometimes fast-moving situations.
      The curious thing about these provisions is that they seem to apply to the company itself and its board of directors. Presumably, if the company is a foreign and not a European company, and the members of the board of directors are not resident here, it would be hard to enforce the provisions. That would give an enormous advantage to foreign rather than European owned companies in this country.
      Mr. John Garrett: Why?
      Mr. Ridley: Because, as the hon. Gentleman should recognise, the board of directors are not resident in this country——
      Mr. Garrett: Where is the advantage?
      Mr. Ridley: The advantage is that they would not have this great delay and uncertainty about their ability to take decisions.
      An even stronger example is that the real upset and worry that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central mentioned is for workers whose companies are taken over—not for those in the company doing the taking over. How a company seeking to take over another is supposed to give notice and go to the industrial tribunal about its intentions to take over that other company certainly beats me.
      These proposals do not remotely fit the modern fast-moving industrial world of which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central spoke. He described the difference between the two sides of the House as being between Marxism and market economics, and then pretended that he understood about the fast-moving industrial changes of today. His contention that his proposals are designed to facilitate those changes does not remotely fit the facts—that in such a world the decision makers must be given the chance to take decisions properly.
      An example of the sort of inhibitions that new clause 10 might cause was to be seen in an action brought by the trade unions in the High Court in 1987. The unions claimed that they had not been consulted on the transfer involved in the privatisation of the dockyards, as was required by the Dockyard Services Act 1986, which contains the very provisions the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central seeks in the new clause. They arise under the relevant provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, which implemented a European directive negotiated by the Labour Government.
      The unions admitted at the hearing that their aim throughout had been to delay privatisation and the High Court found that all reasonable steps had been taken to inform and consult the workers. Mr. Justice Millett said in his judgment:
      "If there is a lesson to be learned from what has taken place, it is that effective consultations cannot take place with those who do not wish to be consulted".
      The Opposition would vest these sometimes genuine and sometimes obstructionist powers in the hands of people who sometimes do not want to be consulted.
      There are two defects in the Oppositions's approach. First, they want to enshrine in statute, regulations and controls that which we believe should be left to the judgment and decisions of boards of directors, operating in their own best interests and in the best interests of their workers in a highly competitive economy. All unnecessary regulations will make them less likely to be able to provide the improvements in conditions and pay that the employees rightly deserve and expect.
      Secondly, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)—typically of the Opposition—has waged a war against the shareholder. He is, I suppose, the most extreme example of this syndrome. Yesterday he boasted about his book. It might be interesting for the House if I gave it a little more publicity——
      Mr. John Garrett rose——
      Mr. Ridley: I have not finished my sentence. The hon. Member says in his book:
      "Where there is no substantial public equity stake on which to build, we shall establish voting control without necessarily buying the equity … The golden share already establishes the principle of separating voting rights from the other incidents of equity ownership"
      He says elsewhere:
      "Our concern is to provide mechanisms …which provide real control to employees over the enterprise to which they devote their working lives …We also believe that employees should have increasing access to such major decisions as plant closures …and takeovers or mergers".
      That is what lies behind the new clause. It is also what lies behind the social charter and the European initiatives that the hon. Gentleman has so prophetically—or perhaps I should say pathetically—advocated.
      There is a better book than the one by the hon. Member for Dagenham, and it is free. I shall give a copy to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett). It is about the improvement and progress in employee involvement in Britain and the great benefits that have come by leaving such matters to those who practise industrial policy. They have responded and have found many important ways to involve workers in the affairs of their companies. That is why we have seen a great increase in industrial productivity and in the standard of living of people in successful industries. Those things are the result of not adopting Opposition policies.
      Mr. John Garrett: It is my pleasant duty to welcome the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on, I think, his first appearance, at the Dispatch Box in his new role. We can look forward to many hours of entertainment from him and fully expect him to do for British industry what he did for the environment.
      The right hon. Gentleman was not present in Committee, but he will know that the Opposition moved many amendments aimed at creating companies which are accountable not only to their employees, as the amendment proposes, but also to shareholders, consumers and potential investors. Far from opposing the shareholder, our amendments have tried to advance the concept of the accountable company. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has sat down or whether he gave way to me.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): My understanding was that the Secretary of State had given way.
      Mr. Ridley: I had sat down, but I shall attempt to intervene in the hon. Gentleman's speech if he goes on in that way.
      Mr. Winnick: I know that my hon. Friend is a generous person. He should perhaps try not to be too harsh on the Secretary of State bearing in mind that the right hon. Gentleman has not been appointed to any of the offices discussed earlier. My hon. Friend should have some sympathy for the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Garrett: The right hon. Gentleman needs no sympathy from me. He will get that from his own party as he deals with these important matters in the future.
      The Minister's answer to the proposals in our new clause is unsatisfactory and I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Division Lobby.
      Question put,that the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House deveded: Ayes 39, Noes 137.

      Division No. 356]

      [10.58 pm

      AYES

      Allen, Graham

      Leighton, Ron

      Anderson, Donald

      Livsey, Richard

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Madden, Max

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Meale, Alan

      Battle, John

      Michael, Alun

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

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Nellist, Dave

      Buchan, Norman

      Patchett, Terry

      Clay, Bob

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Cousins, Jim

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Cryer, Bob

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Dewar, Donald

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dixon, Don

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Dobson, Frank

      Wall, Pat

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

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Foster, Derek

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Foulkes, George

      Winnick, David

      Galloway, George

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Haynes, Frank

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Mrs. Llin Golding and

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Mr. Ken Eastham.

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Freeman, Roger

      Amess, David

      French, Douglas

      Amos, Alan

      Gale, Roger

      Arbuthnot, James

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Gill, Christopher

      Atkinson, David

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Benyon, W.

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Boswell, Tim

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Gregory, Conal

      Bowis, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Brazier, Julian

      Hague, William

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

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

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Burns, Simon

      Harris, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Hayward, Robert

      Butterfill, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourn)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cash, William

      Irvine, Michael

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Jack, Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Janman, Tim

      Chope, Christopher

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Kilfedder, James

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Conway, Derek

      Knapman, Roger

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Cran, James

      Knowles, Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Day, Stephen

      Lilley, Peter

      Dicks, Terry

      Lord, Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Maclean, David

      Dover, Den

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Dunn, Bob

      Malins, Humfrey

      Durant, Tony

      Mans, Keith

      Evennett, David

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Fallon, Michael

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Favell, Tony

      Mellor, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Mills, lain

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Forth, Eric

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Moss, Malcolm

      1195

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Neubert, Michael

      Thurnham, Peter

      Norris, Steve

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Paice, James

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Walden, George

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Waller, Gary

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Ward, John

      Portillo, Michael

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Watts, John

      Redwood, John

      Wheeler, John

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wood, Timothy

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Steen, Anthony

      Stern, Michael

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Mr. Irvine Patnick and

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mr. Tom Sackville.

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Robert Hayward: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you please clarify, for a relatively new Member, how, under the Companies Bill, we can give full and due consideration to the fact that this evening the Conservative party in Westminster city council dramatically increased its majority in a byelection?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a total waste of the time of the House. It has nothing to do with the Bill or with the Chair.
      It being after Eleven o'clock,MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question, That all new clauses and new schedules relating to part V of the Bill standing in the name of, or moved by, a member of the Government, be added to the Bill

    New clause 52

      ORDERS IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS ON SHARES
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulation made by statutory instrument make such amendments of the provisions of the Companies Act 1985 relating to orders imposing restrictions on shares as appear to him necessary or expedient—

      (a) for enabling orders to be made in a form protecting the rights of third parties;

      (b) with respect to the circumstances in which restrictions may be relaxed or removed;

      (c) with respect to the making of interim orders by a court.

      (2) The provisions referred to in subsection (1) are section 210(5), section 216(1) and (2), section 445 and Part XV of the Companies Act 1985.
      (3) The regulations may make different provision for different cases and may contain such transitional and other supplementary and incidental provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.
      (4) Regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Tim Smith.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 49

      ISSUE OF REDEEMABLE SHARES
      '.—(1) In Part V of the Companies Act 1985 (share capital, its increase, maintenance and reduction). Chapter III (redeemable shares, purchase by a company of its own shares) is amended as follows.
      (2) After section 159 (power to issue redeemable shares) insert—

      ISSUE OF REDEEMABLE SHARES

        Terms and manner of redemption
        159A.—(1) Redeemable shares may not be issued unless the following conditions are satisfied as regards the terms and manner of redemption.
        (2) The date on or by which, or dates between which, the shares are to be or may be redeemed must be specified in the company's articles or, if the articles so provide, fixed by the directors, and in the latter case the date or dates must be fixed before the shares are issued.
        (3) Any other circumstances in which the shares are to be or may be redeemed must be specified in the company's articles
        (4)The amount payable on redemption must be specified in, or determined in accordance with, the company's articles, and in the latter case the articles must not provide for the amount to be determined by reference to any person's discretion or opinion.
        (5) Any other terms and conditions of redemption shall be specified in the company's articles.
        (6)Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring a company to provide in its articles for any matter for which provision is made by this Act."
        (3) In section 160 (financing, &c. of redemption)—

        (a) omit subsection (3) (which is superseded by the new section 159A), and

        (b) in subsection (4) (cancellation of shares on redemption) for "redeemed under this section" substitute "redeemed under this Chapter"

        (4) In section 162 (power of company to purchase own shares), for subsection (2) (application of provisions relating to redeemable shares) substitute—
        "(2) Sections 159, 160 and 161 apply to the purchase by a company under this section of its own shares as they apply to the redemption of redeemable shares".".—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
        Amendment made:

    New Schedule 151
      `COMPANY CONTRAUIS, SEALS, &C.: FURTHER PROVISIONS

        Execution of deeds abroad
        1.—(1) Section 38 of the Companies Act 1985 (execution of deeds abroad) is amended as follows.
        (2) In subsection (1) (appointment of attorney to execute deeds), after "A company may" insert "under the law of England and Wales".
        (3) For subsection (2) (effect of deed executed by attorney) substitute—
        "(2) A deed executed by such an attorney on behalf of the company has the same effect as if it were executed under the company's common seal.".

        Official seal for use abroad
        2.—(1)Section 39 of the Companies Act 1985 (power to have official seal for use abroad) is amended as follows.
        (2) In subsection (1), after "A company" insert "which has a common seal" and for "the common seal of the company" substitute "its common seal".
        (3) For subsection (2) (effect of sealing with official seal) substitute—
        "(2) The official seal when duly affixed to a document has the same effect as the company's common seal.".
        (4)In subsection (3) (instrument authorising person to affix official seal), after "by writing under its common seal" insert "or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland. subscribed in accordance with section 36B,".

        Official seal for share certificates, &c
        3.—(1) Section 40 of the Companies Act 1985 (official seal for share certificates, &c.) is amended as follows.
        (2) After "A company" insert "which has a common seal" and for "the company's common seal" substitute "its common seal".
        (3) At the end add—
        "The official seal when duly affixed to a document has the same effect as the company's common seal."

        Authentication of documents
        4. In section 41 of the Companies Act 1985 (authentication of documents), for the words from "may be signed" to the end substitute "is sufficiently authenticated for the purposes of the law of England and Wales by the signature of a director, secretary or other authorised officer of the company.".
        Share certificate as evidence of title
        5. For section 186 of the Companies Act 1985 (certificate to be evidence of title) substitute—

        Certificate to be evidence of title.
        186.—(1) A certificate under the common seal of the company (or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B) specifying any shares held by a member is—

        (a) in England and Wales, prima facie evidence, and

        (b) in Scotland, sufficient evidence unless the contrary is shown, of his title to the shares."

        Share warrants to bearer
        6. For section 188 of the Companies Act 1985 (issue and effect of share warrant to bearer) substitute—

        Issue and effect of share warrant to bearer.
        188.—(1) A company limited by shares may, if so authorised by its articles, issue with respect to any fully paid shares a warrant (a "share warrant") stating that the bearer of the warrant is entitled to the shares specified in it.
        (2)A share warrant issued under the company's common seal (or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B) entitles the bearer to the shares specified in it; and the shares may be transferred by delivery of the warrant.
        (3)A company which issues a share warrant may, if so authorised by its articles, provide (by coupons or otherwise) for the payment of the future dividends on the shares included in the warrant".

        Identification of company on common seal
        7. In section 350 of the Companies Act 1985 (identification of company on company seal), for subsection (1) substitute—
        "(1) A company which has a common seal shall have its name engraved in legible characters on the seal; and if it fails to comply with this subsection it is liable to a fine.".

        Floating charges under Scots law
        8. In section 462 of the Companies Act 1985 (power of company to create floating charge), for subsections (2) and (3) substitute—
        "(2) In the case of a company which the Court of Session has jurisdiction to wind up, a floating charge may be created only by a written instrument which is presumed under section 36B to be subscribed by the company.".
        9. In section 466(2) of the Companies Act 1985 (execution of instrument altering floating charge)—

        (a) at the beginning of the subsection insert "Without prejudice to any enactment or rule of law regarding the execution of documents,";

        (b) omit paragraph (a);

        (c) at the end of paragraph (b) insert "; or", and

        (d) omit paragraph (d) and the word "or" preceding it.

        10. In section 53(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (execution of instrument appointing receiver), in paragraph (a) for "in accordance with the provisions of section 36 of the Companies Act as if it were a contract" substitute "in accordance with section 36B of the Companies Act 1985".'—[Mr. Redwood.]
        MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on amendments, relating to part V of the Bill, standing in the name of, or moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to he concluded at Eleven o'clock.

    Clause 101

      A COMPANY'S OBJECTS AND THE POWER OF DIRECTORS TO BIND IT
      Amendments made: No. 94, in page 102, line 48, leave out from 'or to end of line 50 and insert
      'anything in the company's memorandum.'
      No. 95, in page 103, leave out lines 1 to 8 and insert—
      `(2) A member of a company may bring proceedings to restrain the doing of an act which but for subsection (1) would be beyond the company's capacity; but no such proceedings shall lie in respect of an act to be done in fulfilment of a legal obligation arising from a previous act of the company.
      (3) It remains the duty of the directors to observe any limitations on their powers flowing from the company's memorandum; and action by the directors which but for subsection (1) would be beyond the company's capacity may only be ratified by the company by special resolution.
      A resolution ratifying such action shall not affect any liability incurred by the directors or any other person; relief from any such liability must be agreed to separately by special resolution.
      (4) The operation of this section is restricted b) section 30B(1) of the Charities Act 1960 and section 105(3) of the Companies Act 1989 in relation to companies which are charities; and section 322A below (invalidity of certain transactions to which directors or their associates are parties) has effect notwithstanding this section.'.
      No. 96, in page 103, line 21, at end insert—
      `(c) a person shall be presumed to have acted in good faith unless the contrary is proved.'.
      No. 97, in page 103, leave out lines 22 to 26 and insert—
      '(2A) The references above to limitations on the directors' powers under the company's constitution include limitations deriving—

      (a) from a resolution of the company in general meeting or a meeting of any class of shareholders, or

      (b) from any agreement between the members of the company or of any class of shareholders.'

      No. 98, in page 103, line 29, leave out from `directors;' to end of line 31 and insert
      'but no such proceedings shall lie in respect of an act to be done in fulfilment of a legal obligation arising from a previous act of the company.
      (3A) Nor does that subsection affect any liability incurred by the directors, or any other person, by reason of the directors' exceeding their powers.'.
      No. 99, page 103, leave out lines 32 to 41.
      No. 100, in page 103, line 41, at end insert—
      '(4) The operation of this section is restricted by section 30B(1) of the Charities Act 1960 and section 105(3) of the Companies Act 1989 in relation to companies which are charities; and section 322A below (invalidity of certain transactions to which directors or their associates are parties) has effect notwithstanding this section.'.
      No. 101, in page 103, line 43, leave out from 'is' to 'or' in line 44 and insert
      'permitted by the company's memorandum'.
      No. 102, in page 103, line 46, at end insert—
      '(1A) In Schedule 21 to the Companies Act 1985 (effect of registration of companies not formed under that Act), in paragraph 6 (general application of provisions of Act), after sub-paragraph (5) insert—
      "(6) Where by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) or (5) a company does not have power to alter a provision, it does not have power to ratify acts of the directors in contravention of the provision.".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 102

      INVALIDITY OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING DIRECTORS
      Amendments made: No. 103, in page 104, leave out lines 3 to 29 and insert—

      1199
      '322A.—(1) This section applies where a company enters into a transaction to which the parties include—

      (a) director of the company or of its holding company, or

      (b) a person connected with such a director or a company with whom such a director is associated, and the board of directors, in connection with the transaction, exceed any limitation on their powers under the company's constitution.

      (2) The transaction is voidable at the instance of the company.
      (3) Whether or not it is avoided, any such party to the transaction as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b), and any director of the company who authorised the transaction, is liable—

      (a) to account to the company for any gain which he has made directly or indirectly by the transaction, and

      (b) to indemnify the company for any loss or damage resulting from the transaction.

      (4) Nothing in the above provisions shall be construed as excluding the operation of any other enactment or rule of law by virtue of which the transaction may be called in question or any liability to the company may arise.
      (5) The transaction ceases to be voidable if—

      (a) restitution of any money or other asset which was the subject-matter of the transaction is no longer possible, or

      (b) the company is indemnified for any loss or damage resulting from the transaction, or

      (c) rights acquired bona fide for value and without actual notice of the directors' exceeding their powers by a person who is not party to the transaction would be affected by the avoidance, or

      (d) the transaction is ratified by the company in general meeting, by ordinary or special resolution or otherwise as the case may require.

      (6) A person other than a director of the company is not liable under subsection (3) if he shows that at the time the transaction was entered into he did not know that the directors were exceeding their powers.
      (7) This section does not affect the operation of section 35A in relation to any party to the transaction not within subsection (1)(a) or (b).
      But where a transaction is voidable by virtue of this section and valid by virtue of that section in favour of such a person, the court may, on the application of that person or of the company, make such order affirming, severing or setting aside the transaction, on such terms, as appear to the court to be just.
      (8) In this section "transaction" includes any act; and the reference in subsection (1) to limitations under the company's constitution includes limitations deriving—

      (a) from a resolution of the company in general meeting or a meeting of any class of shareholders, or

      (b) from any agreement between the members of the company or of any class of shareholders.".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 103

      STATEMENT OF COMPANY'S OBJECTS
      Amendment made: No. 104, in page 104, line 36, leave out from 'formation),' to 'A' in line 46 and insert
      `after section 3 (forms of memorandum) insert—

      STATEMENT OF COMPANY'S OBJECTS

        Statement of company's objects: general commercial company
        3A. Where the company's memorandum states that the object of the company is to carry on business as a general commercial company—

        (a) the object of the company is to carry on any trade or business whatsoever, and

        (b) the company has power to do all such things as are incidental or conducive to the carrying on of any trade or business by it.".

        (2) In the same Chapter, for section 4 (resolution to alter objects) substitute—

    Clause 104

      CHARITABLE COMPANIES
      Amendments made: No. 105, in page 105, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 106 and insert—
      '30B.—(1) Section 35 of the Companies Act 1985 (capacity of company not limited by its memorandum), and section 35A of that Act (power of directors to bind company) so far as it relates to acts which but for section 35 would be beyond the capacity of the company, do not apply to the acts of a company which is a charity except in favour of a person who—

      (a) gives full consideration in money or money's worth in relation to the act in question, and

      (b) does not know that the act is not permitted by the company's memorandum or, as the case may be, is beyond the powers of the directors,
      or who does not know at the time the act is done that the company is a charity.

      (2) However, where such a company purports to transfer or grant an interest in property, the fact that the act was not permitted by the company's memorandum or, as the case may be, that the directors in connection with the act exceeded any limitation on their powers under the company's constitution, does not affect the title of a person who subsequently acquires the property or any interest in it for full consideration without actual notice of any such circumstances affecting the validity of the company's act.
      (3) In any proceedings arising out of subsection (1) the burden of proving—

      (a) that a person knew that an act was not permitted by the company's memorandum or was beyond the powers of the directors, or

      (b) that a person knew that the company was a charity, lies on the person making that allegation.

      (4) Where a company is a charity, the ratification of an act under section 35(3) of the Companies Act 1985, or the ratification of a transaction to which section 322A of that Act applies (invalidity of certain transactions to which directors or their associates are parties), is ineffective without the prior written consent of the Commissioners.'.
      No. 106, in page 106, line 22, after 'company,' insert—
      '(cc) in all conveyances purporting to be executed by the company,'.
      No. 107, in page 106, line 24, at end insert—
      '(1A) In subsection (l)(cc) "conveyance" means any instrument creating, transferring, varying or extinguishing an interest in land.'—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 105

      CHARITABLE COMPANIES (SCOTLAND)
      Amendments made: No. 108, in page 107, line 8, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—
      '(3) Section 35 of the Companies Act 1985 (capacity of company not limited by its memorandum), and section 35A of that Act (power of directors to bind company) so far as it relates to acts which but for section 35 would be beyond the capacity of the company, do not apply to the acts of a company which is a charity except in favour of a person who—

      (a) gives full consideration in money or money's worth in relation to the act in question,

      (b) does not know that the act is not permitted by the company's memorandum or, as the case may be, is beyond the powers of the directors,
      or who does not know at the time the act is done that the company is a charity.

      (4) However, where such a company purports to transfer or grant an interest in property, the fact that the act was not permitted by the company's memorandum or, as the case may be, that the directors in connection with the act exceeded any limitation on their powers under the company's constitution, does not affect the title of a person who subsequently acquires

      1201
      the property or any interest in it for full consideration without actual notice of any such circumstances affecting the validity of the company's act.
      (5) In any proceedings arising out of subsection (3) the burden of proving—

      (a) that a person knew that an act was not permitted by the company's memorandum or was beyond the powers of the directors, or

      (b) that a person knew that the company was a charity, lies on the person making that allegation.'.

      No. 109, in page 107, line 32, after 'company,' insert—
      '(cc) in all conveyances purporting to be executed by the company.'.
      No. 110, in page 107, line 33, at end insert—
      '(6A) In subsection (6)(cc) "conveyance" means any document for the creation, transfer, variation or extinction of an interest in land.'.
      No. 111, in page 115, line 33, leave out from 'section' to end of line 35 and insert
      '388A (dormant company exempt from obligation to appoint auditors).'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 112
      APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS
      Amendments made: No. 112, in page 118, line 12, at end insert—
      APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS

        'Dormant company exempt from obligation to appoint auditors
        388A.—(1) A company which by virtue of section 250 (dormant companies: exemption from provisions as to audit of accounts) is exempt from the provisions of Part VII relating to the audit of accounts is also exempt from the obligation to appoint auditors.
        (2) The following provisions apply if the exemption ceases.
        (3) Where section 385 applies (appointment at general meeting at which accounts are laid), the directors may appoint auditors at any time before the next meeting of the company at which accounts are to he laid; and auditors so appointed shall hold office until the conclusion of that meeting.
        (4) Where section 385A applies (appointment by private company not obliged to lay accounts), the directors may appoint auditors at any time before—

        (a) the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which copies of the company's annual accounts are next sent to members under section 238, or

        (b) if notice is given under section 253(2) requiring the laying of the accounts before the company in general meeting, the beginning of that meeting;
        and auditors so appointed shall hold office until the end of that period or, as the case may be, the conclusion of that meeting.

        (5) If the directors fail to exercise their powers under subsection (3) or (4), the powers may be exercised by the company in general meeting.'.
        No. 113, in page 118, line 19, at end insert—
        '(3) In section 46(2) of the Banking Act 1987 (duty of auditor of authorised institution to give notice to Bank of

        "389A(2)

        Officer of company making false, misleading or deceptive statement to auditors.

        389A(3)

        Subsidiary undertaking or its auditor failing to give information to auditors of parent company

        389A(4)

        Parent company failing to obtain from subsidiary undertaking information for purposes of audit.

        '(4) In schedule 22 to the Companies Act 1985 (unregistered companies), in the entry for sections 384 to 393, for "393" substitute "394A".'.
        England of certain matters) for "appointed under section 384" substitute "appointed under Chapter V of Part XI"; and in section 46(4) (adaptation of references in relation to Northern Ireland) for "sections 384," substitute "Chapter V of Part XI and sections".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 113

      RIGHTS OF AUDITORS
      Amendments made: No. 114, in page 118, line 20, leave out 'section is' and insert 'sections are'.
      No. 115, in page 118, line 22, at end insert—

      RIGHTS OF AUDITORS

        'Rights to information
        389A.—(1) The auditors of a company have right of access at all times to the company's books, accounts and vouchers, and are entitled to require from the company's officers such information and explanations as they think necessary for the performance of their duties as auditors.
        (2) An officer of a company commits an offence if he knowingly or recklessly makes to the company's auditors a statement (whether written or oral) which—

        (a) conveys or purports to convey any information or explanations which the auditors require, or are entitled to require, as auditors of the company, and

        (b) is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.

        A person guilty of an offence under this subsection is liable to imprisonment or a fine, or both.
        (3) A subsidiary undertaking which is a body corporate incorporated in Great Britain, and the auditors of such an undertaking, shall give to the auditors of any parent company of the undertaking such information and explanations as they may reasonably require for the purposes of their duties as auditors of that company.
        If a subsidiary undertaking fails to comply with this subsection, the undertaking and every officer of it who is in default is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine; and if an auditor fails without reasonable excuse to comply with this subsection he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine.
        (4) A parent company having a subsidiary undertaking which is not a body corporate incorporated in Great Britain shall, if required by its auditors to do so, take all such steps as are reasonably open to it to obtain from the subsidiary undertaking such information and explanations as they may reasonably require for the purposes of their duties as auditors of that company.
        If a parent company fails to comply with this subsection, the company and every officer of it who is in default is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine.
        (5) Section 734 (criminal proceedings against unincor-porated bodies) applies to an offence under subsection (3).'.
        No. 116, in page 119, line 8, leave out subsection (2).
        No. 117, in page 119, line 10, at end insert—
        '(2A) In section 734 of the Companies Act 1985 (criminal proceedings against uncorporated bodies), in subsection (1) (offences in relation to which the provisions apply), after "under" insert "section 389A(3) or".
        (2B) In Schedule 24 to the Companies Act 1985 (punishment of offences) at the appropriate place insert—

        1. On indictment.

        2 years or a fine; or both.

        2. Summary.

        6 months or the statutory maximum; or both.

        Summary.

        One-fifth of the statutory maximum.

        Summary.

        One-fifth of the statutory maximum.".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 116

      STATEMENT BY PERSON CEASING TO HOLD OFFICE AS AUDITOR
      Amendments made: No. 118, in page 125, line 43, leave out `Section' and insert
      `Sections 733 (liability of individuals for corporate default) and'.
      No. 119, in page 126, line 13, at end insert—
      '(2A) In section 733 of the Companies Act 1985 (liability of individuals for corporate default), in subsection (1) (offences in relation to which provisions apply) after "216(3)" insert ", 394A(1)".'.
      No. 120, in page 126, line 17, at end insert—

    Clause 120

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO COMPANY RECORDS AND RELATED MATTERS
      Amendments made: No. 121, in page 130, line 32, at end insert—
      '(7) In Schedule 22 to the Companies Act 1985 (unregistered companies), in the entry for Part XXIV for "sections 706, 708 to 710, 712 and 713" substitute "sections 706 to 710A, 713 and 715A".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 122
      MEMBERSHIP OF HOLDING COMPANY
      Amendment made: No. 122, in page 132, line 29, after `paragraphs' insert `1(1),'.—[Mr. Redwood.]
    Clause 123
      ABOLITION OF REQUIREMENT TO HAVE COMPANY SEAL
      Amendment made: No. 123, in page 132, line 32, leave out clause 123.—[Mr. Redwood.]
    Clause 126

      ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR RECOGNITION: DEFAULT RULES, & C.
      Amendment made: No 305, in page 134, line 24, at end insert—
      `The order bringing the above amendment into force may make such provision as appears to the Secretary of State appropriate as to the obligations of a person whose interest in a company's shares becomes notifiable by virtue of the amendment coming into force.'.—[Mr. Nelson.]

    Clause 129

      ANNUAL RETURNS
      Amendments made: No. 124, in page 137, line 43, leave out `company's' and insert 'type of company it is and its'.
      No. 125, in page 138, line 24, at end insert—
      '(1A) The information as to the company's type shall be given by reference to the classification scheme prescribed for the purposes of this section.'.
      No. 126, in page 139, line 4, leave out from first 'or to`and' in line 5 and insert
      'issued shares of the company at the date to which the return is made up'.
      No. 127, in page 139, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 13 and insert
      'issued shares of that class at the date to which the return is made up.'.
      No. 128, in page 139, line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 35 and insert—
      '(4) The return shall contain a list of the names and addresses of every person who—

      (a) is a member of the company on the date to which the return is made up, or

      (b) has ceased to be a member of the company since the date to which the last return was made up (or, in the case of the first return, since the incorporation of the company);
      and if the names are not arranged in alphabetical order the return shall have annexed to it an index sufficient to enable the name of any person in the list to be easily found.

      (5) The return shall also state—

      (a) the number of shares of each class held by each member of the company at the date to which the return is made up, and

      (b) The number of shares of each class transferred since the date to which the last return was made up (or, in the case of the first return, since the incorporation of the company) by each member or person who has ceased to be a member, and the dates of registration of the transfers.'.

      No. 129, in page 140, leave out line 28 and insert—
      "`(1) section 363 (duty of company to make annual returns);".'.
      No. 130, in page 140, line 28, at end insert—
      '(5) In section 565(6) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (conditions for exemption from provisions relating to sub-contractors in construction industry: compliance with requirements of Companies Act 1985) in paragraph (d) for "sections 363, 364 and 365" substitute "sections 363 to 365".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 132

      ABOLITION OF DOCTRINE OF DEEMED NOTICE
      Amendments made: No. 131, in page 142, line 16, at end insert—
      `(a) section 416 of this Act (under which a person taking a charge over a company's property is deemed to have notice of matters disclosed on the companies charges register), or
      (b)'.
      No. 132, in page 142, line 22, at end insert—
      '(2) In Schedule 22 to the Companies Act 1985 (unregistered companies), in the entry for Part XXIV at the appropriate place insert—

      'Section 711A

      Abolition of doctrine of deemed notice

      Subject to section 718(3)".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 133

      RIGHTS OF INSPECTION AND RELATED MATTERS
      Amendments made: No. 133, in page 142, line 45, at end insert—
      '(4A) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different classes of case.'.
      No. 134, in page 144, line 11, at end insert—
      '(11) In Schedule 22 to the Companies Act 1985 (provisions applying to unregistered companies), in the entry relating to Part XXV at the appropriate place insert—

      "Section 723A

      Rights of inspection and related matters.

      To apply only so far as this provision has effect in relation to provisions applying by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this Schedule.".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

    Clause 134

      DISCLAIMER OF PROPERTY, RESCISSION OF CONTRACTS, &C.
      Amendment made:No. 286, in page 146, line 39, at end insert—
      '(5) So much of section 23(3) of the Interpretation Act 1978 as applies section 17(2)(a) of that Act (effect of repeal and re-enactment) to deeds, instruments and documents other than enactments shall not apply in relation to any repeal and re-enactment effected by regulations made under this section.'.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

    Schedule 18
      MINOR AMENDMENTS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1985
      Amendments made: No. 135, in page 274, line 22, at end insert—
      MINOR AMENDMENTS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1985

        'Correction of cross-reference
        0A. In section 131(1) of the Companies Act 1985 (merger relief) for "section 132(4)" substitute "section 132(8)".
        This amendment shall be deemed always to have had effect.'.
        No. 136, in page 274, line 26, leave out from `directors)' to end of line 27 and insert—
        '—

        (a) in sub-paragraph (i) for "Christian name and surname" and in sub-paragraph (ii) for "Christian name or surname" substitute "name", and

        (b) for sub-paragraph (vii) substitute—"(vii) the date of his birth;".'.

        No. 137, in page 274, line 31, leave out '01 and insert `(1)(a)'.
        No. 138, in page 275, line 4, leave out `(twice)' and insert
        `and "Christian name or surname"'.
        No. 139, in page 275, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 and insert—
        (3) Section 289(2)(a) and (b) apply for the purposes of the obligation under subsection (1)(a) of this section to state the name or former name of an individual.".'.
        No. 140, in page 275, line 26, at end insert—
        '3A.—(l) Section 686 of the Companies Act 1985 (documents to be delivered to registrar on registration of company not formed under companies legislation) is amended as follows.
        (2) In subsection (1) (particulars to be delivered to registrar), for paragraph (b) (particulars of directors and managers) substitute—
        "(b) a list showing with respect to each director or manager of the company—

        (a) in the case of an individual, his name, address, occupation and date of birth,

        (b) in the case of a corporation or Scottish firm, its corporate or firm name and registered or principal office,".

        (3) After that subsection insert—
        "(IA) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(i) a persons's `name' means his Christian name (or other forename) and surname, except that in the case of a peer, or an individual usually known by a title, the title may be stated instead of his Christian name (or other forename) and surname or in addition to either or both of them.".
        3B. In section 691 of the Companies Act 1985 (documents to be delivered to registrar on registration of oversea company), for subsection (2) (particulars of directors and secretary) substitute—
        "(2) The list referred to in subsection ( I )(b)(i) shall contain the following particulars with respect to each director—
        (a) in the case of an individual—

        (i) his name,

        (ii) any former name,

        (iii) his usual residential address,

        (iv) his nationality,

        (v) his business occupation (if any),

        (vi) if he has no business occupation but holds other directorships, particulars of them, and

        (vii) his date of birth;

        (b) in the case of a corporation or Scottish firm, its corporate or firm name and registered or principal office.
        (3) The list referred to in subsection (1)(b)(i) shall contain the following particulars with respect to the secretary (or, where there are joint secretaries, with respect to each of them)—

        (a) in the case of an individual, his name, any former name and his usual residential address;

        (b) in the case of a corporation or Scottish firm, its corporate or firm name and registered or principal office.

        Where all the partners in a firm are joint secretaries of the company, the name and principal office of the firm may be stated instead of the particulars required by paragraph (a).
        (4) In subsections (2)(a) and (3)(a) above—
        (a) "name" means a person's Christian name (or other forename) and surname, except that in the case of a peer, or an individual usually known by a title, the title may be stated instead of his Christian name (or other forename) and surname, or in addition to either or both of them; and
        (b) the reference to a former name does not include—

        (i) in the case of a peer, or an individual normally known by a British title, the name by which he was known previous to the adoption of or succession to a title, or

        (ii) in the case of any person, a former name which was changed or disused before he attained the age of 18 years or which has been changed or disused for 20 years or more, or

        (iii) in the case of a married woman, the name by which she was known previous to the marriage.".'.

        No. 141, in page 275, line 29, after `directors)' insert—`(a)'.
        No. 142, in page 275, line 30, at end insert
        `; and (b) for the words from "and, in the case" to the end substitute "and his date of birth".'.
        No. 143, in page 275, line 33, leave out '3(a)' and insert `3(1)(a)'.
        No. 144, in page 275, line 36, leave out '1 and 3' and insert '1(a) and 3(1)(a)'.
        No. 145, in page 278, line 46, at end insert—

        'Correction of cross-reference
          'Meaning of "officer who is in default"
          13A.In section 730 of the Companies Act 1985 (punishment of offences), in subsection (5) (meaning of "officer who is in default"), after "company" (twice) insert "or other body".

          Offences committed by partnerships and other unincorporated bodies
          13B In section 734 of the Companies Act 1985 (criminal
          B.proceedings against unincorporated bodies), at the end add—
          "(5) Where such an offence committed by a partnership is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, a partner, he as well as the partnership is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
          (6) Where such an offence committed by an unincorporated body (other than a partnership) is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance

          1207
          of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any officer of the body or any member of its governing body, he as well as the body is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.".'.
          No. 146, in page 279, line 21, column 2, after 'sections' insert `261(2)'.
          No. 147, in page 279, leave out line 26 and insert—
          'balance sheet and balance sheet sections 261(2), 262(1) and date 742(1)'.
          No. 148, in page 280, line 31, column 2, leave out 'section 258' and
          insert 'sections 258 and 742(1)'.
          No. 149, in page 280, leave out lines 36 to 38 and insert—

          'profit and loss account

          sections 261(2), 262(1) and 742(1)'.

          No. 150, in page 281, line 3, column 2, leave out 'section 258' and insert 'sections 258 and 742(1)'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

      New Clause 12

        MERGER REFERENCES
        '. In section 76 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 (functions of director in relation to Merger Situation), leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
        "(b) to recommend to the Secretary of State to make a merger reference to the Commission unless he is satisfied that such arrangements or transactions will not operate against the public interest.".'.—[Mr. John Garrett.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. John Garrett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss new clause 11—Merger references—
        '. In section 64 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 (merger situation qualifying for investigation) after subsection (2) insert—
        "(2A) The Secretary of State shall make a merger reference to the Commission unless he is satisfied that the merger situation will not operate against the public interest.".'.
        Mr. Garrett: These two new clauses deal with the onus of proof in merger cases. Under the Fair Trading Act 1973, if a proposed merger involves net assets of a value of more than £30 million or a 25 per cent. product market share it is scrutinised by the Director General of Fair Trading, who recommends to the Secretary of State whether the merger should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. This new clause accepts these arrangements but establishes new guidelines that a merger shall be referred unless it is clear that it will not operate against the public interest.
        According to the Government, mergers are generally a case of market forces successfully at work for the benefit of the economy as a whole. Mergers are good because they are good management driving out bad; because they yield economies of scale; and because the threat of a takeover serves to keep managers on their toes. It is argued from this that on the whole the only reason for a proposed merger to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is the possibility of its having anticompetitive, monopolistic implications. This doctrine was first publically announced in 1984 by the right hon.
        1208
        Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), then the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in the so-called Tebbit doctrine.
        During the Second Reading debate of the Companies Bill in the House of Lords, the subsequent Secretary of State, Lord Young, stated:
        "In the vast majority of cases, decisions on mergers should be left to shareholders…It is normally only when a merger threatens the interests of customers by reducing competition that the law should intervene."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 January 1989; Vol. 503, c. 7–8.]
        We believe that that approach is deficient. Lord Young retained a reserve power to make a reference on wider public interest grounds when, for example, he referred the Kuwait Investment Office shareholding in BP. The practice of retaining golden shares in privatised industries also represents a recognition of public interest issues beyond the promotion of competition. We therefore have ad hoc intervention in the merger process without any coherent public interest criterion.
        A survey in February this year by Channel 4's "The Business Programme" showed the incoherence of the Government's policy—the way that it varies from one specific case to another. The survey covered the top 20 financial advisers in the United Kingdom mergers and acquisitions field, and 19 of the 20 experts agreed that the Government's mergers policy was neither consistent nor clear-cut. The survey cited confusion over the referral ofs such as Elders' bid for Scottish and Newcastle, where analysts felt that there was no threat to competition, and the decision not to refer the Nestle takeover of Rowntree in spite of concern over Swiss non-reciprocity.
        11.15 pm
        The Director General of Fair Trading has supported the idea that the onus of proof should change. In December 1986 he suggested that the reversal of the onus of proof, perhaps on mergers above a certain size, could be a way of tackling the problem of financial markets taking an excessively short-term view which could be against the public interest.
        The scale of merger activity has been on an upward trend during the 1980s. In 1988, the total value of mergers and acquisitions exceeded a record £22 billion involving 1,200 companies. Mergers are generally reckoned to be an inefficient means of growth compared with new investment in plant and equipment, yet total spending on acquisitions is twice the level of manufacturing investment and over half the level of investment in all companies. All the research evidence is that more than half of all mergers lead to a decline in or, at best, a neutral effect on performance, as measured by profits and the return on assets.
        Mr. Tim Smith: If mergers are an inefficient means of securing growth, why did the Labour Government go out of their way in the 1960s to promote huge mergers through the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation?
        Mr. Garrett: That policy was unsuccessful but it must be put in the context of the management ideology of the time. I was a manager in industry at that time and it was generally thought that large conglomerate organisations were the appropriate way to growth. Management has changed since then, partly as a result of the greater ability to manage smaller companies through the development of inflation technology, about which the hon. Gentleman will know as well as anybody else. It was generally thought at

        1209
        the time that what we now call "gigantism" but was then thought to be "economy of scale" were widely appropriate. The Labour Government of the day was as wrong about that as most of the great industrialists. At that time Lord Weinstock was putting together GEC. One can remember the growth of large conglomerates in the private sector which are now no doubt being unbundled as management fashions change. The hon. Gentleman has, as so often, made a valid point.
        In other mergers, improvements in efficiency tend to be no greater than what would have been expected in the absence of a merger. Such findings are supported by the Government's 1978 Green Paper, Cmnd. 7198—the Leisner report on mergers policy. That considered several studies but attempted to evaluate the benefits of mergers by looking at post-merger profitability and before the mergers took place. Those studies produced the finding that in roughly half the cases examined the merger had resulted in an unfavourable or a neutral effect on the profitability of the companies concerned.
        The Department of Transport's 1988 report on mergers policy referred to later studies, on the same lines as the Leisner study, which on other criteria
        "reinforced the findings of poor post-merger performance." The growth of virtually unregulated mergers led to defensive management, what we called in Committee "short-termism", rather than risk-taking management which makes a company vulnerable to takeover. It also means that companies aim for size rather than competitiveness. Managers are preoccupied with short-term survival and a cautious attitude to investment, training and research and development, because any drop in short-term profits will be translated into falls in the share price and increase vulnerability to takeover.
        As the—I was about to say the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that is wrong. He was the Chancellor of the Exchequer until 5 or 6 o'clock this evening.
        Mr. Tim Smith: It is rather an old speech.
        Mr. Garrett: I wrote it yesterday. Things change so fast. In June 1986, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) said:
        "The big institutional investors nowadays increasingly react to short-term pressure on investment performance…They are unwilling to countenance long-term investment or a sufficient expenditure on research and development."
        Incentive schemes for pension fund managers, for example, are based on short-term horizons—quarterly and annual performance—so that their tendency is also to favour the short term.
        We have had the example of virtually bid-proof companies in Switzerland, but much the same is true elsewhere in Europe, and certainly in Japan. In Germany and France, the equivalents of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are much less likely to allow control of domestic companies to move abroad. I remember that, when I was a manager in industry, German law—or German convention or practice—laid down that what was called "mind and management" of a company operating in Germany should reside there. In 1988, European acquisitions in the United Kingdom were at nearly twice the value of United Kingdom acquisitions in Europe.
        Lately we have seen the effects of an import from the United States—the colossal highly leveraged or "junk bond" bid—in the £13·4 billion Hoylake bid for British American Tobacco, which the Minister has refused to refer
        1210
        to the MMC, although the potential victim is one of our largest companies. We discussed the possible effects of that bid with him late one night. But for the late Chancellor's constant increases in interest rates, there would no doubt have been many more bids based on the issuing of high-interest bonds on very little security, which can be redeemed only by the break-up of the victim company and the consequential loss of jobs.
        We think that it is time that a brake was applied to this merger mania by our putting the public interest first, and that is the purport of the new clauses. By "public interest" we mean not only competition but consumer interest, innovation and development, the balanced distribution of industry, and the international competitive position of British producers. If those criteria sound familiar, it is because they are all in the Fair Trading Act 1973.
        Mr. Cousins: The two new clauses do not require us to take a view about whether mergers are right or wrong; they simply require the reference of a merger for considerations of public interest. What the judgment of public interest would be in any particular case would be a matter for the relevant regulatory body. I do not feel that we need to debate the values or otherwise of mergers, as such.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) referred to the takeover bid for BAT by Hoylake. One of the things that I find most objectionable about that attempt is the fact that a pleasant seaside resort on the Wirral peninsula should have its name flung into the centre of a debate of this kind: I think that the good name of Hoylake the town will suffer considerably for a long time, to the disadvantage of its inhabitants.
        That bid may be right or it may be wrong, but it raises very relevant questions of public interest. The stated purpose of a great many of the major acquisitions of the past few years has been to deconcentrate and demerge; the purpose of the takeover of BAT is to dismember it, to liberate brand names, asset values or public good will—the particular aspects of a company's operation—and to put them on the market and find buyers for them.
        Mr. Tim Smith: If the Labour party is now so opposed to conglomerates, why is it so unhappy about the proposal to unbundle BAT? The hon. Gentleman said earlier that we were not discussing the merits of mergers. At present the law is so constructed that the presumption is in their favour; the Labour party proposes to create a presumption against them.
        Mr. Cousins: BAT is a good example. We are not required to decide whether what is proposed for BAT by the misnamed Hoylake, or by the board of directors is right or wrong. Incidentally, at a recent annual meeting, one shareholder who, since his name has already been mentioned tonight, ought to get a small record in the history books—a man called Antonio von Marx—objected to that proposal. I cannot be sure whether Mr. Antonio von Marx is related to the other Marxes who have been referred to tonight, but at the most recent annual general meeting of BAT, a Mr. Marx was very unhappy about the proceedings.
        The point is not whether we, in our own personal judgments decide whether the proposed takeover of BAT—the unbundling version proposed by Hoylake, or the defensive version proposed by the board of directors—is right or wrong. Our concern is that matters of public

        1211
        interest are involved in that operation. In the final judgment, what weight should be put upon any or all the proposals involved in that exercise is quite another matter. We all have our own views about that and about each specific proposal.
        Matters of public interest are raised in deciding whether the exercise should be launched in such a manner, and if it is, whether it is right that we should have no regulatory mechanism available whereby the particular proposals that are made, either offensively by Hoylake or defensively by the board of directors, are appropriate and in the long-term interests of the public and the country.
        In any specific case it may be right or wrong to dismantle conglomerates, but the two clauses proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) make no judgments as to what might be the outcome in particular cases. They require only that the public interest involved in bids such as the one for BAT should be tested in an appropriate regulatory arena. That is all they ask, and it is a modest, limited and sensible request.
        Other Opposition Members—I suspect, at least one hon. Member present today—have reservations about takeover bids financed on the so-called junk bond basis. Yet the clauses do not require us necessarily to take the view that bids financed by junk bonds are wrong. The clauses ask only that the public interest aspects of those suggestions, and the counter suggestions from the board of directors conducting the defence against those operations are tested.
        Insurance is a very productive industry. If we are ever to get the balance of payments right, we should talk up the part played by industries such as insurance.
        Mr. John Garrett: Hear, hear.
        Mr. Cousins: I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South would like that one.
        Just before the single market in 1992 and when the fate of our insurance industry is so important to the country, it is important that major insurance companies such as Eagle Star and Pearl should not be exposed to the risks to their operations that they face today.
        We are not saying that it would be wrong to stop the proposed mergers, but it must be right to suggest that we require a regulatory mechanism that would test those bids against some consideration of public interest. That is the modest demand that the new clauses make, and surely no sensible person could refuse or refute it.
        11.30 pm
        Mr. Redwood: It will come as no surprise to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) that I find the new clauses difficult to accept. He claimed that the Government are implying that mergers are good because they may lead to economies of scale and keep management on their toes. That is not the burden of the Government's case. The Government's case is much simpler—it is that in most cases shareholders and bankers should decide about mergers, particularly shareholders, who have the votes and own the assets. As past Labour Governments have shown, Governments should not attempt to meddle and make decisions about how best to construct or reorganise industry. Governments in the past have left industry with
        1212
        little profit, little return on capital and little chance of employing more people and making the investment that we need.
        The hon. Member for Norwich, South mentioned the Tebbit doctrine and the competition criterion, which has been important to the Government's merger policy. He pointed out that we have kept the public-interest criterion, but we have made it clear that it rarely applies. Its most notable manifestation is where competition will be limited and market dominance will be created by a merger that may be against the public interest.
        I rebut the idea that there has been no coherence to the Government's approach to merger policy. The Tebbit doctrine, the Blue Book and the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have provided a continuity of policy and have made it quite clear that the criterion is usually competition, but that public-interest matters may have to be judged by the Director General of Fair Trading or the Secretary of State.
        The hon. Member for Norwich, South made much of the fact that some studies, including the Leisner study, which is about 10 years old, have suggested that half of all mergers, or more, might produce disappointing profits and returns on assets. Again, the Government's case is that shareholders should take that into account when making their decisions. There is no evidence that Governments would be better at making those decisions. If the Labour party's policies were implemented, the Government of the day might succeed in blocking half of the mergers. That would add to profitability and investment but let through the half that did not. Such intervention, based on the experiences of the 1970s, would be far from helpful for the industrial recovery that is now under way.
        We were told that companies aim for size rather than competitiveness. That is an unreasonable description of the way that companies behave. Large bids, particularly in the United Kingdom, show that size is not a bar to a bid being made or, in the United States, to a takeover being completed. Companies simply aiming for size and not taking into account the need for competitiveness, good performance and earnings and dividend progression, will not succeed in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. That is not a good argument against the Government's merger policy.
        Companies can defend themselves against predatory attack, and many have done so successfully by showing a basis of achievement and often by stressing their belief in long-term investment, long-term projects and research and development, which all hon. Members wish to see as the hallmark of good industrial practice.
        The hon. Members for Norwich, South and for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) expressed their displeasure at certain types of highly leveraged bids. I cannot comment on a particular case because I do not want to put my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in any difficulty. He must retain his powers and be entirely independent in judging specific bids.
        I should like to make one or two brief comments on the general question of leveraged bids. A break-up of a company through a merger does not necessarily lead to a loss of jobs or a worse performance, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central accepted. He was in some muddle about whether demerger was good or bad because he was in some muddle about whether conglomerates were always, or sometimes, bad. There are types of break-up that may create independence for

        1213
        subsidiaries which could help them by giving them greater morale, separate access to capital and so on, which they may have lacked under the conglomerate.
        Mr. John Garrett: Can the hon. Gentleman give an example?
        Mr. Redwood: I can think of companies where that would happen, but I do not want to go into that, for the reasons which I described earlier. I do not in any way want to prejudice any case that might come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
        Mr. Garrett: What about cases in the past?
        Mr. Redwood: I shall give the hon. Gentleman a good example in the past. The demerger of some companies from British Leyland, which was probably the worst conglomerate and was organised through a Government action, was extremely helpful. There are good cases of companies that have done much better in their demerged condition.
        Mr. John Garrett: What is the market share in the domestic market of the former companies which were part of British Leyland compared with when they were part of British Leyland?
        Mr. Redwood: Most of the decline in the market share of the Austin Rover Group occurred when it was a nationalised conglomerate, investing a large amount of money voted by the House. Much of that money went into investments in a model range that was not popular. The counter-argument can be shown by the way in which Jaguar's profitability and investment improved greatly after it was demerged from British Leyland.
        Mr. Anthony Nelson: I very much agree with the sentiments behind my hon. Friend's address. I followed what he said about leveraged bids. I should like ' to put to him one scenario which is relevant when casting policy. Leveraged bids tend to be a function of bull markets. If a bull market ceases to be a bull market, as it did for a few days recently in the United States and this country, one sees what happens to leveraged bids. For example, in the case of United Air Lines, they fall by the wayside. Happily, in a sense the bids were not under way. In other words, although the debt might have been underwritten, the company had not been acquired.
        The problem arises in a bear market when shares are falling steeply or successively and a leveraged bid has been made. The company making the leveraged bid finds itself owning the company that it acquired in the hope that it could sell off sections of it in part or in whole to redeem the debt. It finds that they do not begin to recover the debt. It therefore has to sell most, if not all, of the company at knockdown prices and perhaps even go into receivership. This is why such deals are often carried out through vehicle companies rather than subsidiaries of major companies. No Government can afford to ignore a future scenario in which that may happen for cyclical reasons. The Government, the employees and the industrial companies may be left in a position where the companies have to be sold off or shut down.
        Does my hon. Friend feel—I am sure that he does—that in a changed market that might be a legitimate criterion for a reference and for assessment of whether such a merger was in the public interest?
        Mr. Redwood: I thought that I was going to agree with my hon. Friend, but at the end was not able to do so. He was right to say——
        Mr. John Garrett: Answer.
        Mr. Redwood: I will answer, if the hon. Gentleman will contain himself.
        My hon. Friend is right—there could be dangers in certain kinds of leveraged bids. I have no particular case in this country in mind, for reasons which I have outlined. I have made it clear that shareholders and bankers—the principal interest groups concerned—should be very aware exactly how that debt will be serviced and repaid when considering any proposal which they may be financing or to which they may be responding. If the debt is to be repaid primarily out of asset sales, they might want to ask questions about the price at which assets would be sold, whether it was feasible to sell them and the timescale within which that would be achieved. They may well have to take market conditions into account as my hon. Friend said.
        If the bidder and the banks that are backing the transaction intend to finance it out of increased profitability through merger benefits—increased efficiency, performance and the like—I hope that shareholders and bankers will ask the right questions, such as, "What happens if the underlying market for the product declines, or if there is a slowdown in economic growth in the major world markets in which the company is operating." Usual questions of prudence should be asked. The people who make the judgments should have a good understanding of the relative risks that are being run.
        If a company is highly leveraged in its operations, and added to that is high leveraging through its financing, the risk of corporate failure or of disaster is multiplied considerably. I hope that shareholders and bankers will take such considerations into account.
        The Government's case is that it cannot be the task of Government to make such decisions. Whether a bond is junkie must be determined by those who might buy or sell it. It is discovered whether the bond is junkie only some years later. If the paper is issued and it turns out that the transaction was very good, the company's profits go up, the debt is repaid, and it does not turn out to be junkie. If a wrong judgment is made and the company is saddled with too much debt, trading conditions deteriorate and things go wrong, the bond turns out to be junkie. That is the problem.
        The Government cannot make hundreds of decisions about the junkiness or otherwise of financing. We have made it quite clear that our policy on these matters is to trust the judgment of shareholders, bankers and others, and refer only if leveraging is allied with some other characteristics which may operate against the public interest. That is a clear policy that has been laid down by successive Secretaries of State, and I think that it will serve us well. The Governor of the Bank of England has recently commented on financing systems in various sectors of the economy.
        The requirement to make a reference, as suggested by the Labour party, would make a substantial difference to the way in which merger policy operates. At the moment, about 10 out of 300 mergers are referred. It is difficult to calculate how many might be caught under Labour's

        1215
        recommendations, but I think that at least four or five times as many would because they would represent quite a substantial shift.
        Labour's proposal reminds me of a return to the bad old days when businesses were run from Whitehall, and when it was assumed that three or four politicians sitting in certain Whitehall offices were able to make all these judgments about the future of British industry which enterprising business men were unable to make.
        In the 1970s, when that belief was rife, industrial profitability fell to record low levels, there was a large number of redundancies from nationalised industries and Government policy seemed to be based on organising conglomerate mergers and public monopolies which did not serve the customer any better than the people who worked in them or the markets in which they operated.
        It is better to trust business men to make business judgments. Politicians are here to defend the public interest. That is exactly what our largely competition-based reference policy produces. There is great coherence in the policy. It has been stated clearly on several occasions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the director general are always prepared to examine a case if a public interest issue arises. If one arises, the merger should be referred and investigated exhaustively.
        I urge the House to reject the new clause.
        Mr. John Garrett: I am not very hapy with the Minister's response. I have met him across the Dispatch Box several times now. We are beginning to size him up. He is really just a housetrained version of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). Underneath that shy, fawn-like exterior is a marketeer, red in tooth and claw. Moreover, he is a follower of policies which, in spite of what he said at the end of his speech, have left us with an unbelievably high balance of payments deficit. Unemployment is officially registered at about 2 million, but is probably more than 3 million, and inflation is the highest in western Europe, so the Minister may come to regret his words.
        11.45 pm
        We regard the reversal of the burden of proof in mergers as serious and central to our beliefs about the way in which mergers should be regulated. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends, therefore, to join me in the Division Lobby in support of the new clause.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 29, Noes 122.

        Division No. 357]

        [11.45 pm

        AYES

        Allen, Graham

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        Battle, John

        Meale, Alan

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

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Nellist, Dave

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Patchett, Terry

        Clay, Bob

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Cousins, Jim

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Cryer, Bob

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Dixon, Don

        Skinner, Dennis

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

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Foster, Derek

        Wall, Pat

        1216

        Wallace, James

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Mrs. Llin Golding and

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Mr. Frank Haynes.

        NOES

        Alexander, Richard

        Heddle, John

        Amess, David

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Amos, Alan

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Arbuthnot, James

        Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Hunter, Andrew

        Atkinson, David

        Irvine, Michael

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Jack, Michael

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Janman, Tim

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Boswell, Tim

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Knapman, Roger

        Bowis, John

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Brazier, Julian

        Knowles, Michael

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

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

        Lilley, Peter

        Browne, John (Winchester)

        Lord, Michael

        Buck, Sir Antony

        Maclean, David

        Burns, Simon

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

        Burt, Alistair

        Malins, Humfrey

        Butterfill, John

        Mans, Keith

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Carrington, Matthew

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Carttiss, Michael

        Mills, Iain

        Cash, William

        Mitchell, Sir David

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Chapman, Sydney

        Moss, Malcolm

        Chope, Christopher

        Nelson, Anthony

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Neubert, Michael

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Norris, Steve

        Conway, Derek

        Paice, James

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Patnick, Irvine

        Cran, James

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Day, Stephen

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Dover, Den

        Redwood, John

        Dunn, Bob

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Durant, Tony

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Favell, Tony

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        Fishburn, John Dudley

        Stern, Michael

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Forth, Eric

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Freeman, Roger

        Thurnham, Peter

        French, Douglas

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Gill, Christopher

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Walden, George

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Waller, Gary

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Ward, John

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Gregory, Conal

        Watts, John

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Wheeler, John

        Hague, William

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

        Winterton, Nicholas

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Wood, Timothy

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Harris, David

        Mr. Tom Sackville and

        Hayward, Robert

        Mr. Michael Fallon.

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Question accordingly negatived.

      Clause 139

        TEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS ON SHARE DEALING
        Mr. Nicholas Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 310, in page 156, line 6, leave out 'any enterprise' and insert 'an enterprise'.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider also the following: Amendment No. 311, in page 156, line 8, leave out 'any such' and insert 'such an'.
        Amendment No. 312, in page 156, line 15, after 'relates', insert
        'other than the enterprise referred to in paragraph (a) above'.
        Mr. Baker: I am glad of the opportunity to move these three simple amendments. Clause 139 is designed to prevent a bidding company from acquiring shares in the target while a Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigation is taking place. The effect of the clause as drafted——
        Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could the conference taking place behind the Chair please be stopped?
        Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that hon. Members are paying attention.
        Mr. Baker: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The effect of the clause as drafted is to prevent a member of a group of persons who control the bidder from buying any further shares in the bidder. That does not seem to be what the clause should be aimed at. It goes beyond the original intention of the clause and those which drafted it. I hope that my lion. Friend the Minister will consider favourably my amendments which would put that matter right.
        Mr. Redwood: The objective of the amendments appears to be to relax the temporary prohibition on share dealings following a reference so that parties on one side of a merger can continue to acquire one another's shares. Although we are not unsympathetic to the reasoning behind that, we consider that it would be a mistake to tackle the issue by amending the Bill rather than by using the Secretary of State's power to issue consents.
        Clause 139 makes it unlawful for the duration of the MMC inquiry for any parties to propose a merger which is referred, or to acquire shares or interests in shares in any of the parties, except with the Secretary of State's consent. The prohibition extends to all those covered by the reference and their subsidiaries and associates. This prohibition puts on a permanent statutory basis the standard practice of making individual orders in each case under the Fair Trading Act 1973 to limit the holding which bidders can acquire.
        The purpose of the prohibition is to prevent the outcome of MMC inquiry or any action necessary following it from being prejudiced by the merger going ahead in the meantime. The complexity of many merger arrangements has led us to make the prohibition in the Bill a general one which applies to all possible relevant parties to a merger. It would otherwise be very difficult to catch everyone whom we might conceivably wish to catch. Rather than have a complicated——
        It being Twelve o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [26 October], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
        Amendment negatived.
        MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on new clauses and new schedules relating to parts VI and VII of the Bill, standing in the name of, or moved by, a Member of the Government to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Twelve o'clock.
        Amendment made: No. 151, New Schedule—

        TEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS ON SHARE DEALING
          'COMPANY CONTRACTS, SEALS, &C.: FURTHER PROVISIONS

            Execution of deeds abroad
            1.—(1) Section 38 of the Companies Act 1985 (execution of deeds abroad) is amended as follows.
            (2) In subsection (I) (appointment of attorney to execute deeds), after "A company may" insert "under the law of England and Wales".
            (3) For subsection (2) (effect of deed executed by attorney) substitute—
            "(2) A deed executed by such an attorney on behalf of the company has the same effect as if it were executed under the company's common seal."

            Execution of deeds abroad

              Official seal for use abroad
              2.—(1) Section 39 of the Companies Act 1985 (power to have official seal for use abroad) is amended as follows.
              (2) In subsection (1), after "A company" insert "which has a common seal" and for "the common seal of the company" substitute "its common seal".
              (3) For subsection (2) (effect of sealing with official seal) substitute—
              "(2) The official seal when duly affixed to a document has the same effect as the company's common seal.".
              (4) In subsection (3) (instrument authorising person to affix official seal), after "by writing under its common seal" insert "or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B,".

              Official seal for share certificates, &c.
              3.—(1) Section 40 of the Companies Act 1985 (official seal for share certificates, &c.) is amended as follows.
              (2) After "A company" insert "which has a common seal" and for "the company's common seal" substitute "its common seal".
              At the end add—
              "The official seal when duly affixed to a document has the same effect as the company's common seal.".

              Authentication of documents
              4. In section 41 of the Companies Act 1985 (authentication of documents), for the words from "may be signed" to the end substitute "is sufficiently authenticated for the purposes of the law of England and Wales by the signature of a director, secretary or other authorised officer of the company.".
              Share certificate as evidence of title
              5. For section 186 of the Companies Act 1985 (certificate to be evidence of title) substitute—

              Certificate to be evidence of title
              186.—(1) A certificate under the common seal of the company (or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B) specifying any shares held by a member is—

              (a) in England and Wales, prima facie evidence, and

              (b) in Scotland, sufficient evidence unless the contrary is shown, of his title to the shares.".

              Share warrants to bearer
              6. For section 188 of the Companies Act 1985 (issue and effect of share warrant to bearer) substitute—

              Issue and effect of share warrant to bearer
              188.—(1) A company limited by shares may, if so authorised by its articles, issue with respect to any fully paid shares a warrant (a "share warrant") stating that the bearer of the warrant is entitled to the shares specified in it.
              (2) A share warrant issued under the company's common seal (or, in the case of a company registered in

              1219
              Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B) entitles the bearer to the shares specified in it; and the shares may be transferred by delivery of the warrant.
              (3) A company which issues a share warrant may, if so authorised by its articles, provide (by coupons or otherwise) for the payment of the future dividends on the shares included in the warrant.".

              Identification of company on common seal
              7. In section 350 of the Companies Act 1985 (identification of company on company seal), for subsection (1) substitute—
              "(1) A company which has a common seal shall have its name engraved in legible characters on the seal; and if it fails to comply with this subsection it is liable to a fine.".

              Floating charges under Scots law
              8. In section 462 of the Companies Act 1985 (power of company to create floating charge), for subsections (2) and (3) substitute—
              "(2) In the case of a company which the Court of Session has jurisdiction to wind up, a floating charge may be created only by a written instrument which is presumed under section 36B to be subscribed by the company.".
              9. In section 466(2) of the Companies Act 1985 (execution of instrument altering floating charge)—

              (a) at the beginning of the subsection insert "Without prejudice to any enactment or rule of law regarding the execution of documents,";

              (b) omit paragraph (a);

              (c) the end of paragraph (b) insert "; or", and

              (d) omit paragraph (d) and the word "or" preceding it.

              10. In section 53(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (execution of instrument appointing receiver), in paragraph (a) for "in accordance with the provisions of section 36 of the Companies Act as if it were a contract" substitute "in accordance with section 36B of the Companies Act 1985".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]
              `.—(1) The powers conferred by this section are exercisable in relation to a recognised UK investment exchange or recognised UK clearing house.
              (2) Where in any case an exchange or clearing house has not taken action under its default rules—

              (a) if it appears to the Secretary of State that it could take action, he may direct it to do so, and

              (b) if it appears to the Secretary of State that it is proposing to take or may take action, he may direct it not to do so.

              (3) Before giving such a direction the Secretary of State shall consult the exchange or clearing house in question; and he shall not give a direction unless he is satisfied, in the light of that consultation—

              (a) in the case of a direction to take action, that failure to take action would involve undue risk to investors or other participants in the market, or

              (b) in the case of a direction not to take action, that the taking of action would be premature or otherwise undesirable in the interests of investors or other participants in the market.

              (4) A direction shall specify the grounds on which it is given.
              (5) A direction not to take action may be expressed to have effect until the giving of a further direction (which may be a direction to take action or simply revoking the earlier direction).
              (6) No direction shall be given not to take action if, in relation to the person in question—
              1220

              (a) a bankruptcy order or an award of sequestration of his estate has been made, or an interim receiver or interim trustee has been appointed, or

              (b) a winding up order has been made, a resolution for voluntary winding up has been passed or an administrator, administrative receiver or provisional liquidator has been appointed;
              and any previous direction not to take action shall cease to have effect on the making or passing of any such order, award or appointment.

              (7) Where an exchange or clearing house has taken or been directed to take action under its default rules, the Secretary of State may direct it to do or not to do such things (being things which it has power to do under its default rules) as are specified in the direction.
              The Secretary of State shall not give such a direction unless he is satisfied that it will not impede or frustrate the proper and efficient conduct of the default proceedings.
              (8) A direction under this section is enforceable, on the application of the Secretary of State, by injunction or, in Scotland, by an order under section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988; and where an exchange or clearing house has not complied with a direction, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for restoring the position to what it would have been if the direction had been complied with.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]
              Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
              New clause 36—Applications to determine whether default proceedings to be taken—
              `.—(1) Where there has been made or passed in relation to a member or designated non-member of a recognised investment exchange or a member of a recognised clearing house—

              (a) a bankruptcy order or an award of sequestration of his estate, or an order appointing an interim receiver of his property, or

              (b) an administration or winding up order, a resolution for voluntary winding up or an order appointing a provisional liquidator,
              and the exchange or clearing house has not taken action under its default rules in consequence of the order, award or resolution or the matters giving rise to it, a relevant office-holder appointed by, or in consequence of or in connection with, the order, award or resolution may apply to the Secretary of State.

              (2) The application shall specify the exchange or clearing house concerned and the grounds on which it is made.
              (3) On receipt of the application the Secretary of State shall notify the exchange or clearing house, and unless within three business days after the day on which the notice is received the exchange or clearing house—

              (a) takes action under its default rules, or

              (b) notifies the Secretary of State that it proposes to do so forthwith,
              then, subject as follows, the provisions of sections 148 to 155 above do not apply in relation to market contracts to which the member or designated non-member in question is a party or to anything done by the exchange or clearing house for the purposes of, or in connection with, the settlement of any such contract.

              For this purpose a "business day" means any day which is not a Saturday or Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday in any part of the United Kingdom under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971.
              (4) The provisions of sections 148 to 155 are not disapplied if before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (3) the Secretary of State gives the exchange or clearing house a direction under section (Powers of Secretary of State to give directions) (2)(a) (direction to take action under default rules).
              No such direction may be given after the end of that period.
              (5) If the exchange or clearing house notifies the Secretary of State that it proposes to take action under its default rules forthwith, it shall do so; and that duty is enforceable, on the application of the Secretary of State, by injunction or, in Scotland, by an order under section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]
              Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
              New clause 37—Certain money market institutions—
              `.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that this Part applies to contracts of any specified description in relation to which settlement arrangements are provided by a person for the time being included in a list maintained by the Bank of England for the purposes of this section, as it applies to contracts connected with a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house.
              (2) The Secretary of State shall not make any such regulations unless he is satisfied, having regard to the extent to which the contracts in question—

              (a) involve, or are likely to involve, investments falling within paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to the Financial Services Act 1986 (money market investments), or

              (b) are otherwise of a kind dealt in by persons supervised by the Bank of England,
              that it is appropriate that the arrangements should be subject to the supervision of the Bank of England.

              (3) The approval of the Treasury is required for—

              (a) the conditions imposed by the Bank of England for admission to the list maintained by it for the purposes of this section, and

              (b) the arrangements for a person's admission to and removal from the list;
              and any regulations made under this section shall cease to have effect if the approval of the Treasury is withdrawn, but without prejudice to their having effect again if approval is given for fresh conditions or arrangements.

              (4) The Bank of England shall publish the list as for the time being in force and provide a certified copy of it at the request of any person wishing to refer to it in legal proceedings.
              A certified copy shall be evidence (in Scotland, sufficient evidence) of the contents of the list; and a copy purporting to be certified by or on behalf of the Bank shall be deemed to have been duly certified unless the contrary is shown.
              (5) Regulations under this section may, in relation to a person included in the list—

              (a) apply, with such exceptions, additions and adaptations as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient, such of the provisions of the Financial Services Act 1986 as he considers appropriate, and

              (b) provide that the provisions of this Part apply with such exceptions, additions and adaptations as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.

              (6) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult the Treasury and the Bank of England.
              (7) In section 84(1) of the Banking Act 1987 (disclosure of information obtained under that Act), in the Table showing the authorities to which, and functions for the purposes of which, disclosure may be made, at the end add—

              "A person included in the list maintained by the Bank for the purposes of section (Certain money market institutions)of the Companies Act 1989.

              Functions under settlement arrangements to which regulations under that section relate.".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

              Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
              New clause 38—Settlement arrangements provided by the Bank of England—
              `.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that this Part applies to contracts of any specified description in relation to which settlement arrangements are provided by the Bank of England, as it applies to contracts connected with a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house.
              (2) Regulations under this section may provide that the provisions of this Part apply with such exceptions, additions and adaptations as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
              (3) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult the Treasury and the Bank of England.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]
              Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
              New clause 39—Application of margin not affected by certain other interests—
              '.—(1) The following provisions have effect with respect to the application by a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house of property (other than land) held by the exchange or clearing house as margin in relation to a market contract.
              (2) So far as necessary to enable the property to be applied in accordance with the rules of the exchange or clearing house, it may be so applied notwithstanding any prior equitable interest or right, or any right or remedy arising from a breach of fiduciary duty, unless the exchange or clearing house had notice of the interest, right or breach of duty at the time the property was provided as margin.
              (3) No right or remedy arising subsequently to the property being provided as margin may be enforced so as to prevent or interfere with the application of the property by the exchange or clearing house in accordance with its rules.
              (4) Where an exchange or clearing house has power by virtue of the above provisions to apply property notwithstanding an interest, right or remedy, a person to whom the exchange or clearing house disposes of the property in accordance with its rules takes free from that interest, right or remedy.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]
              Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
              New clause 40—Priority of floating market charge over subsequent charges—
              `.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that a market charge which is a floating charge has priority over a charge subsequently created or arising, including a fixed charge.
              (2) The regulations may make different provision for cases defined, as regards the market charge or the subsequent charge, by reference to the description of charge, its terms, the circumstances in which it is created or arises, the nature of the charge, the person in favour of whom it is granted or arises or any other relevant factor.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]
              Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
              New clause 41—Power to make further provision by regulations—
              `.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such further provision as appears to him necessary or expedient for the purposes of this Part.
              (2) Provision may, in particular, be made—

              (a) for integrating the provisions of this Part with the general law of insolvency, and

              (b) for adapting the provisions of this Part in their application to overseas investment exchanges and clearing houses.

              (3) Regulations under this section may add to, amend or repeal any of the provisions of this Part or provide that those provisions have effect subject to such additions, exceptions or adaptations as are specified in the regulations.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]
              Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
              New clause 42—Construction of references to parties to market contracts
              '.—(1) Where a person enters into market contracts in more than one capacity, the provisions of this Part apply (subject as follows) as if the contracts entered into in each different capacity were entered into by different persons.
              (2) References in this Part to a market contract to which a person is a party include (subject as follows, and unless the context otherwise requires) contracts to which he is party as agent.
              (3) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

              (a) modify or exclude the operation of subsections (1) and (2), and

              1223

              (b) make provision as to the circumstances in which a person is to be regarded for the purposes of those provisions as acting in different capacities.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

              Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
              MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on amendments relating to parts VI and VII of the Bill standing in the name of a member of the Government.

        Clause 139

          TEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS ON SHARE DEALINGS
          Amendments made: No. 152, page 158, line 2, leave out 'also applies' and insert
          'and section 736A of that Act also apply'.
          No. 153, in page 158, line 4, leave out 'it applies' and insert 'they apply'.
          No. 154, in page 158, line 6, leave out 'subsection (5) of that section' and insert
          'subsections (8) and (9) of section 736A'.
          No. 155, in page 158, line 23, at end insert—
          '(2) This section does not apply in relation to any merger reference made before the passing of this Act.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

        Clause 140

          OBTAINING CONTROL BY STAGES
          Amendment made: No. 156, in page 159, line 25, at end insert—
          '(2) This section does not apply in relation to any merger reference made before the passing of this Act.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

        Schedule 19

          AMENDMENTS ABOUT MERGERS AND RELATED MATTERS
          Amendments made: No. 157, in page 281, line 27, at end insert—
          '(2) This paragraph does not apply in relation to any newspaper merger reference made before the passing of this Act.'.
          No. 158, in page 282, line 27, at end insert—
          '9A. Paragraphs 4 to 9 (and the repeals in Schedule 22 corresponding to paragraphs 7 and 8(a)) do not apply in relation to any merger reference made before the passing of this Act.'.
          No. 159, in page 282, line 48, at end insert—
          '(2) This paragraph does not apply in relation to any report made before the passing of this Act.'.
          No. 160, in page 283, line 37, at end insert—
          '(5) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (4) (and the repeal in Schedule 22 corresponding to sub-paragraph (4)) do not apply in relation to any report made before the passing of this Act.'.
          No. 161, in page 283, line 44, after 'makes,' insert 'has
          made'.
          No. 162, in page 283, line 48, after 'makes,' insert 'has made'.
          No. 163, in page 284, line 3, at end insert—
          '(4) The amendments made by sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) have effect in relation to the making of any order under section 89 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 after the passing of this Act, whether the principal order (within the meaning of that section) was made before or after that time.'.
          No. 164, in page 284, line 21, at end insert—
          1224
          '(2) This paragraph does not apply in relation to any report made before the passing of this Act.'.
          No. 165, in page 284, line 46, at end insert—
          '(2) This paragraph has effect in relation to the laying of any draft order under paragraph 4 of Schedule 9 to the Fair Trading Act 1973 after the passing of this Act, whether the notice under that Schedule was published before or after that time.'.
          No. 166, in page 285, line 11, leave out
          'commencement of paragraph 21 of Schedule 19 to' and insert 'passing of'.
          No. 167, in page 285, line 17, leave out
          'commencement of paragraph 22 of Schedule 19 to' and insert 'passing of.—[Mr. Redwood.]
          New clause 35—Powers of Secretary of State to give directions—

        Clause 144

          INTRODUCTION
          Amendments made: No. 168, in page 161, line 33, leave out `to 160' and insert
          'to 155, (Powers of Secretary of State to give directions), (Application to determine whether default proceedings to be taken), 157 to 159, (Certain money market institutions) and (Settlement arrangements provided by the Bank of England)'.
          No. 169 in page 161, line 39, leave out '165' and insert
          '(Application of margin not affected by certain other interests), ( Priority of floating market charge over subsequent charges) and 166'.

        Clause 145
          MARKET CONTRACTS
          Amendment made: No. 170, in page 162, line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (ii) and (iii).—[Mr. Redwood.]
        Clause 146

          ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR RECOGNITION: DEFAULT RULES, &C
          Amendments made: No. 171, in page 163, line 3, leave out 'Part' and insert 'section'.
          No. 172, in page 163, line 7, leave out 'The Secretary of State' and insert
          'Where the Secretary of State gives such a notice, he.
          No. 173, in page 163, line 15, leave out
          'notice is given under subsection (3)'
          and insert 'the notice was given'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

        Schedule 20

          ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR RECOGNITION
          Amendments made: No. 174, in page 285, line 41, leave out paragraphs 1 to 4 and insert—
          '1.—(1) The exchange must have default rules which, in the event of a member of the exchange appearing to be unable to meet his obligations in respect of one or more market contracts, enable action to be taken in respect of unsettled market contracts to which he is party.
          (2) The rules may authorise the taking of the same or similar action in relations to a member who appears to be likely to become unable to meet his obligations in respect of one or more market contracts.
          (3) The rules must enable action to be taken in respect of all unsettled market contracts, other than those entered into by a recognised clearing house for the purposes of or in connection with the provision of clearing services for the exchange.
          (4) As regards contracts entered into by the exchange for the purposes of or in connection with the provision of its own

          1225
          clearing services, the rules must contain provision corresponding to that required by paragraphs 9 to 11 below in the case of a UK clearing house.
          (5) As regards other contracts the rules must contain provision complying with paragraphs 2 and 3 below.

          ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR RECOGNITION

            Content of rules
            2. (1) The rules must provide for all rights and liabilities between those party as principal to unsettled market contracts to which the defaulter is party as principal to be discharged and for there to be paid by one party to the other such sum of money (if any) as may be determined in accordance with the rules.
            (2) The rules must further provide—

            (a) for the sums so payable in respect of different contracts between the same parties to be aggregated or set off so as to produce a net sum, and

            (b) for the certification by or on behalf of the exchange of the net sum payable or, as the case may be, of the fact that no sum is payable.

            (3) The rules may make special provision with respect to, or exclude from the provisions required by sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), contracts of any description prescribed for the purposes of this sub-paragraph by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

            Notification to other parties affected
            3. The exchange must have adequate arrangements for securing that—

            (a) parties to unsettled market contracts with a defaulter acting as principal are notified as soon as reasonably practical of the default and of any decision taken under the rules in relation to contracts to which they are a party; and

            (b) parties to unsettled market contracts with a defaulter acting as agent and the defaulter's principals are notified as soon as reasonably practicable of the default and of the identity of the other party to the contract.

            Application of default rules to designated non-members
            4.—(1) The rules may make the same or similar provision in relation to designated non-members as in relation to members of the exchange.
            (2) If such provision is made, the exchange must have adequate procedures—

            (a) for designating the persons, or descriptions of person, in respect of whom action may be taken,

            (b) for keeping under review the question which persons or descriptions of persons should be or remain so designated, and

            (c) for withdrawing such designation.

            (3) The procedures shall be designed to secure that a person is not or does not remain designated if failure by him to meet his obligations in respect of one or more market contracts would be unlikely adversely to affect the operation of the market, and that a description of persons is not or does not remain designated if failure by a person of that description to meet his obligations in respect of one or more market contracts would be unlikely adversely to affect the operation of the market.
            (4) The exchange must have adequate arrangements—

            (a) for bringing a designation or withdrawal of designation to the attention of the person or description of persons concerned, and

            (b) where a description of persons is designated, or the designation of a description of persons is withdrawn, for ascertaining which persons fall within that description.'.

            No. 175, in page 287, line 23, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
            '(1) The clearing house must have default rules which, in the event of a member of the clearing house appearing to be unable to meet his obligations in respect of one or more market contracts. enable action to he taken to close out his position in relation to all unsettled market contracts to which he is a party.'.
            No. 176, in page 287, line 40, after `by' insert 'or on behalf of'.
            No. 177, in page 287, line 44, after `by' insert 'or on behalf of'.
            No. 178, in page 288, line 16, at end insert—
            '(3) The reference in paragraph 9 to the rights and liabilities of a defaulter under or in respect of an unsettled market contract does not include, where he acts as agent, rights or liabilities of his arising out of the relationship of principal and agent.'.
            No. 179, in page 288, line 32, leave out paragraph 14 and insert—
            '14.—(1) The rules of the clearing house must provide that, in the event of a default, margin provided by the defaulter for his own account is not to be applied to meet a shortfall on a client account.
            (2) This is without prejudice to the requirements of any relevant regulations under section 55 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (clients' money).'.
            No. 180, in page 289, line 3, leave out paragraph 15 and insert—
            `15.—(1) The rules and practices of the body, together with the law of the country in which the body's head office is situated, must be such as to provide adequate procedures for dealing with the default of persons party to market contracts connected with the body.
            (2) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) to default is to a person being unable to meet his obligations.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

        Clause 148

          MODIFICATIONS OF THE LAW OF INSOLVENCY
          Amendment made: No. 181, in page 163, line 31, at end insert—
          '(1A) So far as those provisions relate to insolvency proceedings in respect of a person other than a defaulter, they apply in relation to—

          (a) proceedings in respect of a member or designated non-member of a recognised investment exchange or a member of a recognised clearing house, and

          (b) proceedings in respect of a party to a market contract begun after a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house has taken action under its default rules in relation to a person party to the contract as principal,
          but not in relation to any other insolvency proceedings, notwithstanding that rights or liabilities arising from market contracts fall to be dealt with in the proceedings.

          (1B) The reference in subsection (1A)(b) to the beginning of insolvency proceedings is to—

          (a) the presentation of a bankruptcy petition or a petition for sequestration of a person's estate, or

          (b) the presentation of a petition for an administration order or a winding-up petition or the passing of a resolution for voluntary winding up, or

          (c) the appointment of an administrative receiver.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

        Clause 149

          PROCEEDINGS OF EXCHANGE OR CLEARING HOUSE TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER INSOLVENCY PROCEDURES
          Amendments made: No. 182, in page 164, line 5, leave out from '1986' to 'shall' in line 6 and insert 'or the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985'.
          No. 183, in page 164, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert—
          'This does not prevent a relevant office-holder from afterwards seeking to recover any amount under section 153(4) or 154(3) or prevent the court from afterwards making any such order or decree as is mentioned in section 155(1) or (2) (but subject to subsections (3) and (4) of that section).'.—(Mr. Redwood.]

        Clause 151

          SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO DEFAULT PROCEEDINGS
          Amendments made: No. 184, in page 165, line 36, leave out 'or have been pending' and insert
          'pending or could be taken, or have been or could have been taken.'.
          No. 185, in page 165, line 39, leave out
          `the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985'
          and insert
          'any rule of law in Scotland to the like effect as the said section 285, in the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 or in the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 as to the effect of sequestration,'.—[Mr.
          Redwood.]

        Clause 153

          NET SUM PAYABLE ON COMPLETION OF DEFAULT PROCEEDINGS
          Amendments made: No. 186, in page 166, line 21, leave out from 'upon' to `to' and insert—
          `proceedings under its default rules being duly completed in accordance with this Part,'.
          No. 187, in page 166, line 34, leave out '129' and insert '247'.
          No. 188, in page 166, line 47, leave out subsection (4)
          and insert—
          '(4) However, where (or to the extent that) a sum is taken into account by virtue of subsection (2)(b) or (3)(b) which arises from a contract entered into at a time when the creditor had notice—

          (a) that a bankruptcy petition or, in Scotland, a petition for sequestration was pending, or

          (b) that a meeting of creditors had been summoned under section 98 of the Insolvency Act 1986 or that a winding-up petition was pending,
          the value of any profit to him arising from the sum being so taken into account (or being so taken into account to that extent) is recoverable from him by the relevant office-holder unless the court directs otherwise.

          (4A) Subsection (4) does not apply in relation to a sum arising from a contract effected under the default rules of a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

        Clause 154

          DISCLAIMER OF PROPERTY, RESCISSION OF CONTRACTS, &C.
          Amendments made: No. 189, in page 167, line 23, leave out 'and 315' and insert 315 and 345'.
          No. 190, in page 167, line 24, at end insert—
          '(1A) In Scotland, a permanent trustee on the sequestrated estate of a defaulter or a liquidator is bound by any market contract to which that defaulter is a party and by any contract as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above notwithstanding section 42 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 or any rule of law to the like effect applying in liquidations.'.
          No. 191, in page 167, line 27, after 'petition)' insert
          ', and section 32(8) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (effect of dealing with debtor relating to estate vested in permanent trustee),'.
          No. 192, in page 167, line 38, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
          '(3) However, where—

          (a) a market contract is entered into by a person who has notice that a petition has been presented for the winding up or bankruptcy or sequestration of the estate of the other party to the contract, or

          1228

          (b) margin in relation to a market contract is accepted by a person who has notice that such a petition has been presented in relation to the person by whom or on whose behalf the margin is provided,
          the value of any profit to him arising from the contract or, as the case may be, the amount or value of the margin is recoverable from him by the relevant office-holder unless the court directs otherwise.

          (3A) Subsection (3)(a) does not apply where the person entering into the contract is a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house acting in accordance with its rules, or where the contract is effected under the default rules of such an exchange or clearing house; but subsection (3)(b) applies in relation to the provision of margin in relation to such a contract.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

        Clause 155

          ADJUSTMENT OF PRIOR TRANSACTIONS
          Amendments made: No. 193, in page 168, line 1, leave out 'market contract' and insert 'transaction to which this section applies'.
          No. 194, in page 168, leave out lines 7 to 10.
          No. 195, in page 168, line 11, leave out 'a market contract' and insert 'any such transaction'.
          No. 196, in page 168, leave out lines 18 to 20.
          No. 197, in page 168, line 21, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
          '(3) This section applies to—

          (a) a market contract to which a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house is a party or which is entered into under its default rules, and

          (b) a disposition of property in pursuance of such a market contract.

          (4) Where margin is provided in relation to a market contract and (by virtue of subsection (3)(a) or otherwise) no such order or decree as is mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) has been, or could be, made in relation to that contract, this section applies to—

          (a) the provision of the margin,

          (b) any contract effected by the exchange or clearing house in question for the purpose of realising the property provided as margin, and

          (c) any disposition of property in accordance with the rules of the exchange or clearing house as to the application of property provided as margin.'.

          No. 198, in page 168, line 31, leave out Clause 156.—[Mr. Redwood]

        Clause 157

          DELEGATIONS OF FUNCTIONS TO DESIGNATED AGENCY
          Amendments made: No. 199, in page 169, line 24, leave out 'Part' and insert 'section'.
          No. 200, in page 169, line 30, leave out 'Part' and insert 'section'.
          No. 201, in page 169, line 32, [Clause 157] at end insert—
          '(3) The Secretary of State may—

          (a) in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3), (4) or (5) of section 115 of the Financial Services Act 1986, or

          (b) if it appears to him that a designated agency is unable or unwilling to discharge all or any of the functions under this Part which have been transferred to it,
          make an order under that section resuming all functions under this Part which have been transferred to the agency.

          This does not affect his power to make an order under subsection (1) or (2) of that section with respect to such functions.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

        Clause 158

          SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
          Amendment made: No. 202, in page 170, line 8, at end
          insert—
          '(4) The references in sections 119 and 121 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (competition) to what is necessary for the protection of investors shall be construed as including references to what is necessary for the purposes of this Part.
          (5) Section 204 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (service of notices) applies in relation to a notice, direction or other document required or authorised by or under this Part to be given to or served on any person other than the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Redwood]

        Clause 159

          CERTAIN OVERSEAS EXCHANGES AND CLEARING HOUSES
          Amendments made: No. 203, in page 170, line 13, leave out from beginning to 'in' in line 15 and insert 'is approved by him'.
          No. 204, in page 170, line 20, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
          '(2) The Secretary of State shall not approve an overseas investment exchange or clearing house unless he is satisfied—

          (a) that the rules and practices of the body, together with the law of the country in which the body's head office is situated, provide adequate procedures for dealing with the default of persons party to contracts connected with the body, and

          (b) that it is otherwise appropriate to approve the body.

          (3) The reference in subsection (2)(a) to default is to a person being unable to meet his obligations.'.
          No. 205, in page 170, line 33, leave out 'regulations may' and insert
          'Secretary of State may make regulations which'.
          No. 206, in page 170, line 38. at end insert
          '; and different provision may be made with respect to different bodies or descriptions of body.'.
          No. 207, in page 170, line 38, at end insert—
          '(6) Where the regulations apply any provisions of the Financial Services Act 1986, they may provide that those provisions apply with such exceptions, additions and adaptations as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.'.
          No. 208, in page 170, line 39, leave out Clause 160.—[Mr. Redwood.]

        Clause 161

          MARKET CHARGES
          Amendments made: No. 209, in page 171, leave out line 22 and insert
          'In this Part "market charge" means a charge'.
          No. 210, in page 171, leave out line 35.
          No. 211, in page 171, line 37, leave out from 'purposes' to end of line 39 and insert
          `it is a "market charge" so far as it has effect for the specified purposes.'.
          No. 212, in page 172, line 4, leave out `sections 162 and 163' and insert 'this Part'.
          No. 213, in page 172, line 5, at end insert—
          '(4A) The regulations may provide that a charge shall or shall not be treated as a market charge if or to the extent that it secures obligations of a specified description, is a charge over property of a specified description or contains provisions of a specified description.'.
          No. 214, in page 172, line 6, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
          '(5) Before making regulations under this section relation to charges granted in favour of a person within subsection (1)(c), the Secretary of State shall consult the Treasury and the Bank of England.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

        Clause 162

          MODIFICATIONS OF THE LAW OF INSOLVENCY
          Amendment made: No. 215, in page 172, line 25, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
          '(5) Before making regulations under this section in relation to charges granted in favour of a person within section 161(1)(c), the Secretary of State shall consult the Treasury and the Bank of England.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

        Clause 163

          ADMINISTRATION ORDERS, &C.
          Amendments made: No. 216, in page 172, line 29, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
          `(1) The following provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 (which relate to administration orders and administrators) do not apply in relation to a market charge—

          (a) sections 10(1)(b) and 11(3)(c) (restriction on enforcement of security while petition for administration order pending or order in force), and

          (b) section 15(1) and (2) (power of administrator to deal with charged property);
          and section 11(2) of that Act (receiver to vacate office when so required by administrator) does not apply to a receiver appointed under a market charge.

          (2) However, where a market charge falls to be enforced after an administration order has been made or a petition for an administration order has been presented, and there exists another charge over some or all of the same property ranking in priority to or pari passu with the market charge, the court may order that there shall be taken after enforcement of the market charge such steps as the court may direct for the purpose of ensuring that the chargee under the other charge is not prejudiced by the enforcement of the market charge.
          (3) The following provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 (which relate to the powers of receivers) to not apply in relation to a market charge—

          (a) section 43 (power of administrative receiver to dispose of charged property), and

          (b) section 61 (power of receiver in Scotland to dispose of an interest in property).'.

          No. 217, in page 172, line 37, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
          '(4) Sections 127 and 284 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (avoidance of property dispositions effected after commencement of winding up or presentation of bankruptcy petition), and section 32(8) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (effect of dealing with debtor relating to estate vested in permanent trustee), do not apply to a disposition of property as a result of which the property becomes subject to a market charge or any transaction pursuant to which that disposition is made.
          (5) However, if a person (other than the chargee under the market charge) who is party to a disposition mentioned in subsection (4) has notice at the time of the disposition that a petition has been presented for the winding up or bankruptcy or sequestration of the estate of the party making the disposition, the value of any profit to him arising from the disposition is recoverable from him by the relevant office-holder unless the court directs otherwise.'.
          No. 218, in page 173, line 6, at end insert—
          '(7) In a case falling within both subsection (4) above (as a disposition of property as a result of which the property becomes subject to a market charge) and section 154(2) (as the provision of margin in relation to a market contract), section 154(3) applies with respect to the recovery of the amount or value of the margin and subsection (5) above does not apply.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

        Clause 164

          POWER TO MAKE PROVISION ABOUT CERTAIN OTHER CHARGES
          Amendment made: No. 219, in page 173, line 12, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
          '(2) The regulations may specify any description of charge granted in favour of—

          (a) a body approved under section 159 (certain overseas exchanges and clearing houses),

          (b) a person included in the list maintained by the Bank of England for the purposes of section (Certain money market institutions) (certain money market institutions),

          (c) the Bank of England,

          (d) an authorised person within the meaning of the Financial Services Act 1986, or

          (e) an international securities self-regulating organisation within the meaning of that Act,
          for the purpose of securing debts or liabilities arising in connection with or as a result of the settlement of contracts or the transfer of assets, rights or interests on a financial market.

          (2A) The regulations may specify any description of charge granted for that purpose in favour of any other person in connection with exchange facilities or clearing services provided by a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house or by any such body, person, authority or organisation as is mentioned in subsection (2).
          (2B) Where a charge is granted partly for the purpose specified in subsection (2) and partly for other purposes, the power conferred by this section is exercisable in relation to the charge so far as it has effect for the purpose.'.
          No. 220, in page 173, line 32, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
          '(4) Before making regulations under this section relating to a description of charges defined by reference to their being granted—

          (a) in favour of a person included in the list maintained by the Bank of England for the purposes of section (Certain money market institutions), or in connection with exchange facilities or clearing services provided by a person included in that list, or

          (b) in favour of the Bank of England, or in connection with settlement arrangements provided by the Bank, the Secretary of State shall consult the Treasury and the Bank of England.

          (5) Regulations under this section may provide that they apply or do not apply to a charge if or to the extent that it secures obligations of a specified description, is a charge over property of a specified description or contains provisions of a specified description.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

        Clause 165
          APPLICATION OF MARGIN NOT AFFECIED BY SUBSEQUENT INTERESTS
          Amendment made: No. 221, in page 173, line 41, leave out Clause 165.—[Mr. Redwood.]
        Clause 167

          PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MARKET PROPERTY BY UNSECURED CREDITORS
          Amendment made: No. 222, in page 174, line 8, leave out from 'property' to 'margin' and insert
          '(other than land) is held by a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house as'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

        Clause 168

          POWER TO APPLY PROVISIONS TO OTHER CASES
          Amendment made: No. 223, in page 174, line 31, leave out from beginning to third 'to' in line 37 and insert—
          1232

          '(a) section 159, (Certain money market institutions) or (Settlement arrangements provided by the Bank of England) (power to extend provisions relating to market contracts), or

          (b) section 164 (power to extend provisions relating to market charges),
          includes power to apply sections (Application of margin not affected by certain other interests), (Priority of floating market charge over subsequent charges), 166 and l67'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

        Clause 169

          POWERS OF COURT IN RELATION TO CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS BEGUN BEFORE COMMENCEMENT
          Amendments made: No. 224, in page 175, line 8, leave out 'Part' and insert 'section'.
          No. 225, in page 175, line 29, leave out 'Part' and insert `section'.
          No. 226, in page 175, line 35, leave out 'this Part specified below' and insert
          'Schedule ( Financial markets and insolvency: provisions applying to pre-commencement cases)'.
          No. 227, in page 175, line 37, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
          (5) The provisions of that Schedule ("the relevant provisions") reproduce the effect of certain provisions of this Part as they appeared in the Bill for this Act as introduced into the House of Lords and published on that date.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

        Clause 170

          INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
          Amendments made: No. 228, in page 177, line 3, leave out from beginning to 'by' in line 4 and insert
          'insofar as the making of the order or the doing of the act would be prohibited in the case of a court in the United Kingdom or a relevant office-holder'.
          No. 229, in page 177, line 4, at end insert—
          Subsection (2) does not affect the recognition or enforcement of a judgment required to be recognised or enforced under or by virtue of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

        Clause 171

          INDEMNITY FOR CERTAIN ACTS, &C.
          Amendment made: No. 230, in page 177, line 19, after 'servant' insert
          'or member of the governing body'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

        Clause 173

          MEANING OF "DEFAULT RULES" AND RELATED EXPRESSIONS
          Amendments made: No. 231, in page 177, line 44, leave out from beginning to 'unable' and insert
          'for the taking of action in the event of a person appearing to be'.
          No. 232, in page 178, line 8, at end insert—
          If an exchange or clearing house takes action under its default rules in respect of a person, all subsequent proceedings under its rules for the purposes of or in connection with the settlement of market contracts to which the defaulter is a party shall be treated as done under its default rules.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

        Clause 174

          MEANING OF "RELEVANT OFFICEHOLDER"
          Amendment made: No. 233, in page 178, line 22, leave
          out subsection (2) and insert—
          '(2) In subsection (1)(b) "company" means any company, society, association, partnership or other body which may be wound up under the Insolvency Act 1986.'.

        Clause 175

          MINOR DEFINITIONS
          Amendments made: No. 234, in page 178, line 31, at end insert—
          "'administrative receiver has the meaning given by section 251 of the Insolvency Act 1986;'.
          No. 235, in page 178, line 35, at end insert—
          "'interin trustee" and "permanent trustee" have the same
          meaning as in the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985;'.
          No. 236, in page 178, line 46, at end insert—
          '(1A) References in this Part to settlement in relation to a market contract are to the discharge of the rights and liabilities of the parties to the contract, whether by performance, compromise or otherwise.
          (1B) In this part the expressions "margin" and "cover for margin" have the same meaning.'.
          No. 237, in page 179, line 2, at end insert—
          '(2A) For the purposes of this Part a person shall be taken to have notice of a matter if he deliberately failed to make enquiries as to that matter in circumstances in which a reasonable and honest person would have done so.
          This does not apply for the purposes of a provision requiring "actual notice".'
          No. 238, in page 179, line 3, leave out subsection (3).
          No. 239, in page 179, line 8, at end insert
          and in relation to a building society references to insolvency law or to any provision of the Insolvency Act 1986 are to that law or provision as modified by the Building Societies Act 1986.'.—Mr. Redwood.]

        Clause 176

          INDEX OF DEFINED EXPRESSIONS
          Amendments made: No. 240, in page 179, line 17, at end insert—

          'administrative receiver

          section 175(1)'.

          No. 241, in page 179, line 19, at end insert—

          `cover for margin

          section 175(1B)'.

          No. 242, in page 179, line 23, at end insert—

          'interim trustee

          section 175(1) and (5)(b)'

          No. 243, in page 179, line 25, at end insert—

          'margin

          section 175(1B)'.

          No. 244, in page 179, line 27, at end insert—

          'notice

          section 175(2A)'.

          No. 245, in page 179, line 30, column 2, leave out '175(3)' and insert
          '(Construction of references to parties to market contract)'.
          No. 246, in page 179, line 30, at end insert—

          'permanent trustee

          section 175(1) and (5)(b)'

          No. 247, in page 179, line 34, at end insert—

          'settlement and related expressions (in relation to a market contract)

          section 175(1A)'—[Mr. Redwood.]

          Amendment made: No. 248, new schedule—

          'FINANCIAL MARKETS AND INSOLVENCY: PROVISIONS APPLYING TO PRE-COMMENCEMENT CASES

            Introductory
            1. The provisions of this Schedule have effect for the purpose of safeguarding the operation of certain financial markets—

            (a) in the event of the insolvency, winding-up or default of a person party to transactions in the market (paragraphs 2 to 8), and

            (b) as regards the effectiveness or enforcement of certain charges given to secure obligations in connection with such transactions (paragraph 9 to 12).

            Recognised investment exchanges and clearing houses
            2.—(1) This Schedule applies to the following descriptions of contract connected with a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house.
            The contracts are referred to in this Schedule as "market contracts".
            (2) In relation to a recognised investment exchange, this Schedule applies to—
            (a) contracts entered into by a member or designated non-member of the exchange which are—

            (i) made on or otherwise subject to the rules of the exchange,

            (ii) on terms expressed to be as traded on the exchange, or

            (iii) on the same terms as those on which an equivalent contract would be made on the exchange; and

            (b) contracts subject to the rules of the exchange entered into by the exchange for the purposes of or in connection with the provision of clearing services.
            A "designated non-member" means a person in respect of whom action may be taken under the default rules of the exchange but who is not a member of the exchange.
            (3) In relation to a recognised clearing house, this Schedule applies to contracts subject to the rules of the clearing house entered into by the clearing house for the purposes of or in connection with the provision of clearing services for a recognised investment exchange.
            This includes contracts effected under or in consequence of action taken by the clearing house under its default rules.
            3. The general law of insolvency has effect in relation to market contracts, and action taken under the rules of a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house with respect to such contracts, subject to the following provisions of this Schedule.
            4.—(1) None of the following shall be regarded as to any extent invalid at law on the ground of inconsistency with the law relating to the distribution of the assets of a person on bankruptcy, winding-up sequestration, or in the administration of an insolvent estate—

            (a) a market contract,

            (a) the rules of a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house as to the settlement of market contracts,

            (c) the default rules of a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house.

            (2) The powers of a relevant office-holder in his capacity as such, and the powers of the court under the Insolvency Act 1986 or the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, shall not be exercised in such a way as to prevent or interfere with—

            (a) the settlement of a market contract in accordance with the rules of a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house,

            (b) any action taken under the default rules of such an exchange or clearing house.

            (3) Nothing in the following provisions of this Schedule shall be construed as affecting the generality of sub-paragraph (2).
            (4) A debt or other liability arising out of a market contract which is the subject of default proceedings may not be proved in a winding-up or bankruptcy, or in Scotland claimed in a winding-up or sequestration, until the completion of the default proceedings.
            A debt or other liability which by virtue of this sub paragraph may not be proved or claimed shall not be taken into account for the purposes of any set-off until the completion of the default proceedings.
            5.—(1) A liquidator or trustee of a defaulter shall not—

            (a) declare or pay any dividend to the creditors, or

            (b) return any capital to contributories,
            unless he has retained what he reasonably considers to be an adequate reserve in respect of any claims arising as a result of the default proceedings of the exchange or clearing house concerned.

            (2) Nothing in sections 11(3), 130 or 285 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (which restrict the taking of certain legal proceedings and other steps), and nothing in the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, shall affect any action taken by an exchange or clearing house for the purpose of its default proceedings.
            6.—(1) The following provisions apply with respect to the net sum certified by a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house, upon the completion of proceedings under its default rules, to be payable by or to a defaulter.
            (2) If, in England and Wales, a backruptcy or winding-up order has been made, or a resolution for voluntary winding-up has been passed, the debt—

            (a) is provable in the bankruptcy or winding-up or, as the case may be, is payable to the relevant office-holder, and

            (b) shall be taken into account, where appropriate, under section 323 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (mutual dealings and set-off) or the corresponding provision applicable in the case of a winding-up,
            in the same way as a debt due before the commencement of the bankruptcy or winding-up.

            (3) If, in Scotland, an award of sequestration or a winding-up order has been made, or a resolution for voluntary winding-up has been passed, the debt—

            (a) may be claimed in the sequestration or winding-up or, as the case may be, is payable to the relevant officer-holder, and

            (b) shall be taken into account for the purposes of any rule of law relating to compensation or set-off applicable in sequestration or winding-up,
            in the same way as a debt due before the date of sequestration (within the meaning of section 73(1) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985) or the commencement of the winding-up.

            7.—(1) Sections 178, 186, 315 and 345 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (power to disclaim onerous property and court's power to order rescission of contracts, &c.) do not apply in relation to—

            (a) a market contract, or

            a contract effected by the exchange or clearing house for the purpose of realising property provided as margin in relation to market contracts.

            In the application of this sub-paragraph in Scotland, the reference to sections 178 and 315 shall be construed as a reference to any rule of law having the like effect as those sections.
            (2) Sections 127 and 284 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (avoidance of property dispositions effected after commencement of winding-up or presentation of backruptcy petition) do not apply to—

            (a) a market contract, or any disposition of property in pursuance of such a contract,

            (b) the provision of margin in relation to market contracts,

            (c) a contract effected by the exchange or clearing house for the purpose of realising property provided as margin in relation to a market contract, or any disposition of property in pursuance of such a contract, or

            (d) any disposition of property in accordance with the rules of the exchange or clearing house as to the application of property provided as margin.

            (3) However, if a person enters into a market contract knowing that a petition has been presented for the winding-up or bankruptcy of the other party to the contract, the value of
            1236
            any profit or benefit to him arising from the contract is recoverable from him by the relevant office-holder unless the court directs otherwise.
            Any sum recoverable by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) has the same priority, in the event of the insolvency of the person from whom it is due, as if it were secured by a fixed charge.
            8.—(1) No order shall be made in relation to a market contract under—

            (a) section 238 or 339 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (transactions at an under-value),

            (b) section 239 or 340 of that Act (preferences), or

            (c) section 423 of that Act (transactions defrauding creditors),
            unless the court is satisfied that the person in favour of whom the contract was made knew at the time he entered into it that it was at an under-value (within the meaning of the relevant provision) or, as the case may be, that a preference was being given.

            (2) As respects Scotland, no decree shall be granted in relation to a market contract—

            (a) under section 34 or 36 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 or section 242 or 243 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (gratuitous alienations and unfair preferences), or

            (b) at common law,
            unless the court is satisfied that the person with whom the contract was made knew at the time he entered into it that it was challengeable under any of the provisions mentioned in paragraph (a) or at common law.

            (3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) apply in relation to—

            (a) a disposition of property in pursuance of a market contract,

            (b) the provision of margin in relation to market contracts,

            (c) a contract effected by a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house for the purpose of realising property provided as margin, or

            (d) a disposition of property in accordance with the rules of the exchange or clearing house as to the application of property provided as a margin,
            as they apply in relation to the making of a market contract.

            Market charges
            9.—(1) The charges to which paragraphs 10 to 12 apply are charges, whether fixed or floating, granted—

            (a) in favour of a recognised investment exchange, for the purpose of securing debts or liabilities arising in connection with the settlement of market contracts,

            (b) in favour of a recognised clearing house, for the purpose of securing debts or liabilities arising in connection with their ensuring the performance of market contracts, or

            (c) in favour a person who agrees to make payments as a result of the transfer of specified securities made through the medium of a computer-based system established by the Bank of England and The Stock Exchange, for the purpose of securing debts or liabilities of the transferee arising in connection with the payments.

            Those charges are referred to in this Schedule as "market charges".
            (2) Where a charge is granted partly for purposes specified in sub-paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) and partly for other purposes, paragraphs 10 to 12 apply to it so far as it has effect for the specified purposes; and the expression "market charge" shall be construed accordingly.
            (3) In this paragraph and paragraphs 10 to 12—
            "charge" means any form of security, including a mortgage and, in Scotland, a heritable security; and
            "specified securities" means securities for the time being specified in the list in Schedule 1 to the Stock Transfer Act 1982, and includes any right to such securities.
            10. The general law of insolvency has effect in relation to market charges and action taken in enforcing them subject to the following provisions of this Schedule.
            11.—(1) Sections 10(1)(b) and 11(3)(c) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (no enforcement of security while petition for administration order pending or order in force) do not apply to a market charge.
            (2) Section 11(2) of that Act (receiver to vacate office when so required by administrator) does not apply to a receiver appointed under a market charge.
            (3) Section 15(1) and (2) of that Act (administrator's power to deal with charged property) do not apply to a market charge.
            (4) Sections 127 and 284 of that Act (avoidance of property dispositions effected after commencement of winding up or presentation of bankruptcy petition) do not apply to—

            (a) a disposition of property as a result of which the property becomes subject to a market charge, or any transaction pursuant to which that disposition is made, or

            (b) any disposition of property made in enforcing a market charge.

            (5) However, if a person (other than the chargee under the market charge) who is a party to a disposition mentioned in sub-paragraph (4)(a) knows at the time of the disposition that a petition has been presented for the winding-up or bankruptcy of the party making the disposition, the value of any profit or benefit to him arising from the disposition is recoverable from him by the relevant office-holder unless the court directs otherwise.
            (6) Any sum recoverable by virtue of sub-paragraph (5) has the same priority, in the event of the insolvency of the person from whom it is due, as if it were secured by a fixed charge.
            12.—(1) No legal proceedings, execution or other legal process may be commenced or continued, and no distress may be levied against property which is, or becomes, subject to a market charge except with the consent of the person in whose favour the charge was granted or the leave of the court.
            (2) The court may give leave subject to such terms as it thinks fit.
            (3) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to proceedings to enforce any security over, or any equitable interest in, the property.
            (4) Sections 10(1)(c), 11(3)(d), 130(3) and 285(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (which restrict the taking of certain legal proceedings and other steps) have effect accordingly.
            (5) In the application of this paragraph to Scotland, the reference to execution being commenced or continued includes a reference to diligence being carried out or continued, and the reference to distress being levied shall be omitted.

            Supplementary provisions
            13.—(1) In this Schedule "default rules" means—

            (a) in relation to a recognised investment exchange, rules which provide in the event of a member or designated non-member of the exchange appearing to be unable, or likely to become unable, to meet his obligations in respect of one or more market contracts, for the settlement forthwith of all unsettled market contracts to which he is a party as principal, other than those whose performance is ensured by a recognised clearing house;

            (b) in relation to a recognised clearing house, rules which provide in the event of a member of the clearing house appearing to be unable, or likely to become unable, to meet his obligations in respect of any market contract, for the closing out of his position in relation to all market contracts to which he is a party.

            (2) References in this Schedule to a "defaulter" are to a person in respect of whom action has been taken by a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house under its default rules, whether by declaring him to be a defaulter or otherwise; and references in this Schedule to "default" shall be construed accordingly.
            (3) In this Schedule "default proceedings" means proceedings taken by a recognised clearing house under its default rules.
            14.—(1) The following are relevant office-holders for the purposes of this Schedule—

            (a) the official receiver,

            1238

            (b) any person acting in relation to a company as its liquidator, provisional liquidator, administrator or administrative receiver,

            (c) any person acting in relation to an individual (or, in Scotland, a deceased debtor) as his trustee in bankruptcy or interim receiver of his property or as permanent or interim trustee in the sequestration of his estate,

            (d) any person acting as administrator (or, in Scotland, as judicial factor) of an insolvent estate of a deceased person.

            (2) Sub-paragraph (1)(c) applies in relation to a partnership, and any debtor within the meaning of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, as it applies in relation to an individual.
            (3) In this paragraph—
            "administrative receiver" has the meaning given by section 251 of the Insolvency Act 1986;
            "company" means a company within the meaning of section 735(1) of the Companies Act 1985 or a company which may be wound up under Part V of the Insolvency Act 1986 (unregistered companies); and
            "interim trustee" and "permanent trustee" have the same meaning as in the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act. 1985.
            15.—(1) In this Schedule—
            "clearing house" has the same meaning as in the Financial Services Act 1986;
            "investment" and "investment exchange" have the same meaning as in the Financial Services Act 1986;
            "recognised" means recognised under the Financial Services Act 1986;
            "The Stock Exchange" means The International Stock Exchange of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland Limited.
            (2) References in this Schedule to ensuring the performance of a transaction have the same meaning as in the Financial Services Act 1986.
            (3) References in this Schedule to a market contract to which a person is a party include, unless the contrary intention appears, contracts to which he is party agent.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

        New clause 13

          TAKEOVER PANEL
          '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall designate a Takover Panel, (in this Act referred to as "the Panel") for the regulation of takeover bids and other general bids to the holders of securities or the securities of a particular class or classes of any United Kingdom public limited company.
          (2) The Secretary of State shall choose the members of the Panel in consultation with the Governor of the Bank of England either as full time members or as a part time members.
          (3) The Secretary of State shall publish a Code of Practice setting out general principles relating to the functions of the Panel and the status and terms of office of such members and staff as is considered desirable in the prevailing circumstances.
          (4) No appeal shall lie from the final decision of the Panel save that such decision may be subject to judicial review.".'.—[Ms. Quin.]
          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Ms. Quin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          The new clause is along the lines of a new clause tabled in another place when the Bill began its passage though the House. It was also referred to in Standing Committee. The arguments are well known, but we believe that it is an important issue and therefore do not apologise for bringing it to the attention of the House now.
          The new clause would put the takeover panel on a statutory footing. We know that the panel is very attached to its present status as a non-statutory body. I know, too, that the director-general of the panel has written to

          1239
          Members of the Standing Committee making his views clear. Nevertheless, it is interesting that the director-general of the takeover panel acknowledges that our new clause preserves the essential characteristics of the panel's method of working and its freedom from tactical litigations, and we understand the panel's attachment to flexibility. However, the panel has been in existence for 21 years and there is no doubt that economic conditions have changed considerably during that time. That is certainly true of the increase in takeover activity of recent years.
          There was an interesting debate on this matter in another place, when it was clear that some of their Lordships who had previously supported the non-statutory panel had become less convinced as time went on. Lord Rippon of Hexham said in an interesting contribution that he did not feel that we had a system in which the interests of shareholders and the public interest were best protected. He was concerned, as were others, about the deterioration of standards in takeover bids, and he referred to the aggressive tactics of some merchant banks which seemingly encourage bids. He was worried, too, by the behaviour of some institutional shareholders who increasingly regard share certificates, in the words of the noble Lord, as
          "casino chips to be used to secure short-term capital gains rather than long-term investments"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 March 1989; Vol. 504, c. 1295.]
          Since we have been anxious about the problem of short-termism and the lack of long-term industrial strategy in this country, we have great sympathy with his words.
          It was interesting to note that another noble Lord' Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said that he had been swayed by events in the last few years into believing that something stronger and with more force was needed.
          In the debate in the other place it was said that a working party of the takeover panel was looking at its operation in regulating takeovers. I do not know whether the working party has reached any conclusions or, if it has, what they are, but it would be interesting to know if it has come to any firm conclusions. Perhaps the Minister could tell us about that.
          There is undoubtedly a European Community dimension to all this because of the negotiations presently taking place, of which I know the Minister is aware, about the formulation of the 13th company law directive. We think that some of the matters that concern us would be given statutory force by that directive, although it is obvious that, as negotiations are continuing, the form of the directive is not clear. However, article 6 seems to give the force that interests us.
          As I have said, we are not out to destroy the flexibility of the takeover panel but simply to give it the weight, importance and extra effectiveness that we think statute would give it. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) said in Committee that it is anomalous that the Securities and Investments Board draws its authority from the Secretary of State while the takeover panel does not. The new clause restates our view that the takeover panel should have statutory force.
          Mr. Cousins: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). With the Financial Services Act 1986, the Government created a mixed economy of regulation in which there are statutory bodies
          1240
          operating in a way that is not quite free. So far, at any rate, that has proved a successful format. The new clause seeks to put other matters of regulation of financial matters on a similar basis. The Government should be flattered that we recognise and have such a good opinion of the 1986 mixed economy regulation formula.
          The present system of regulation is rather inchoate. It is not so much a mixed economy as a car boot sale. In different parts of the system, regulation is achieved on different principles and by different methods. The new clause simply seeks to extend to the work of the takeover panel the same principles and formula of regulation as those applied more narrowly in the more specific financial markets by the Financial Services Act. I hope that the new clause is acceptable to the Government. The fact that we are prepared to extend that formula to other areas should commend itself to the Government.
          Mr. Hanley: The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) is absolutely right to say that the takeover panel wrote to members of the Standing Committee when this matter was raised earlier. Because of that approach, I decided to look at the takeover panel, to study the way in which it does its work, and to see those who work therein. I do not think that I was suborned by my visit. I came away with a much greater appreciation of the work of the takeover panel and of the people who work in it, especially those on secondment.
          The vast majority of the consultants on the takeover panel come from major financial and business institutions. They are extremely dedicated and act independently. In hardly any cases has the takeover panel been accused of anything by any of the parties to the activities that it has helped to regulate, because it is utterly fair. The other reason why it is so successful is that because it is non-statutory, the advice that it gives is not subject to being decided in the courts because it exists within the market by the consent and agreement of all those various parties, which respect it thoroughly.
          I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to resist the new clause for the important reason that if the panel were statutory, it would be susceptible to litigation. Then, the parties of a contested takeover, trying to use every tactic available to them, might resort to the courts and perhaps for no other reason than delay for tactical advantage. That would be most undesirable. A company with the resources and the tenacity of a Lonhro could extend the takeover bid for many months. The advice given honestly and independently by the members of the takeover panel and its staff would be put to question. While I am sure that they would be supported in any decision, many takeover bids would be put in jeopardy for the wrong reasons. I ask all my hon. Friends to resist the new clause.
          Mr. Nicholas Baker: I have appeared before the takeover panel, and I have found it quick, cheap, efficient and independent. Opposition Members have argued in favour of tidiness and said that they do like such bodies to be regulated by different systems. I am not interested in tidiness for the sake of it in the regulation of companies. I want a system of regulation which works, and this does. It is flexible, and members of the Committee were presented with examples of the different changes that the takeover panel has accommodated in changing its rules. I

          1241
          will not go over them now, but it is impressive how, in 21 years, the panel has adapted to new problems that have arisen, and new situations that have to be met.
          Furthermore, the panel has avoided litigation. I plead guilty to being a lawyer. The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) wants more work for lawyers. I came to Parliament to try to reduce the work for lawyers, but I have been unsuccessful. The takeover panel is a good example of how to avoid litigation by being non-statutory and not giving rise to litigation. This is an example of where the self-regulation system works, so let us allow it to do so and resist the new clause.
          Mr. Redwood: The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) provided two of the best reasons why the new clause should be resisted. She agreed that the director-general wants the takeover panel to stay as it is, and she accepted that it is doing good work. She recognised that freedom from tactical litigation is an important part of its method of operation. Its flexibility is what makes it so successful and widely accepted by all those participating in the market place for control and in need of rules and a guiding hand to ensure fair play between the parties. She asked me what had emerged from the panel working party looking at its operations. That work has led to proposals for rule changes which I hope will be welcomed on both sides of the House.
          It has been requested that a model section 212 notice of disclosure should be issued, and I am happy to see that happen. It has been suggested that a cash alternative in a bid should be required if a company has bought 10 per cent. of the shares of the target company in the previous 12 months, rather than 15 per cent. That may help hon. Members who have been worried about certain kinds of bid using paper rather than cash.
          There is another requirement that there should be no purchase above 30 per cent. of the shares until it is clear that the Secretary of State does not intend to refer the matter to the MMC. This shows the takeover panel at work responding to changing conditions, which it can do speedily and flexibly as a result of its structure. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) and for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) for urging the House to reject the new clause, and 1 must do the same.
          12.15 am
          We have a successful panel system. It achieves the important objective of protecting shareholders' interests while maintaining an open and efficient market for takeovers. Compliance with the code is high and the panel continues to exercise authority over those it regulates. It is difficult to understand why we should tinker with a system that operates so effectively. It is not enough to be motivated by a vague desire to establish all regulation in statute. There must be a real and perceived need for improvement before legislation can be justified, and there is no such need in respect of the panel.
          Nor do I think that there is a need for the Secretary of State to have a role in appointing the members of the panel. It is already the position that the chairman, two deputy chairmen and one further individual are independent lay members appointed by the Governor of the Bank of England. The remaining member organisations represent the full range of those who have a interest in the proper market conduct of takeovers. We are
          1242
          continuing to discuss the effect of the takeover directive in Brussels. It would be premature for Parliament to be considering at the same time as the new clause the implementation of the directive as none of us has any idea what exactly the directive will provide. Its existence as a proposal is no argument for legislating before the final text is agreed. We are still at the Council working party stage. There is a long way to go before a satisfactory directive is finally agreed.
          The new clause is potentially damaging in the effect that it might have on the status of the panel and the code. That is where I think that the hon. Member for Gateshead, East is in some difficulty. We regard the maintenance of the panel's current relationship with the courts as essential to the proper conduct of takeovers. As the code is not legally binding, the panel can be flexible in the setting and interpretation of its rules. It is also able to make rulings quickly during the course of takeovers. Broadly speaking, the panel is the final arbiter in its rulings. Takeovers cannot be delayed or frustrated through tactical litigation during their progress. The measure of discretion that is available to the panel affords that combination of flexibility and speed which enables it to be successful.
          Mr. Cousins: I am trying to follow the Minister's argument. Would he regard the implications of the DTI inspector's report on the County NatWest affair, especially the recommendations for future legislation contained in paragraphs 10.35 and 16.41, as being potentially threatening to the integrity of the takeover panel as he is presenting it this evening?
          Mr. Redwood: No, I do not find it so threatening. I think that the panel has proved its worth in many situations in recent years.
          I believe that the new clause could jeopardise the satisfactory operation of the panel and could lead to some legal difficulties. I urge the House to reject it.
          Ms. Quin: At least one positive result of tabling the new clause and discussing the issue in Committee was to encourage the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) to visit the takeover panel.
          In tabling the new clause we were aware of the danger of promoting too much litigation, and I felt that we had responded to it, especially when I had introduced the clause to the House. We do not believe that everything in the garden is rosy in the way that has been described by the Minister. The fact that the panel has been carrying out an examination and has recommended some changes shows that certain changes were felt to be necessary. I refer again to the debate which took place in another place, during which specific concerns were expressed about the panel's ability to deal with takeovers in the special climate that we have seen develop over the past few years. For those reasons, I shall press the new clause to a Division.
          Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
          The House divided: Ayes 22, Noes 115.

          Division No. 358]

          [12.19 am

          AYES

          Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

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

          Battle, John

          Foster, Derek

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

          Garrett, John (Norwich South)

          Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

          Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

          Clay, Bob

          Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

          Cousins, Jim

          Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

          Cryer, Bob

          Nellist, Dave

          Dixon, Don

          Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

          1243

          Quin, Ms Joyce

          Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

          Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

          Skinner, Dennis

          Tellers for the Ayes:

          Steel, Rt Hon David

          Mr. Frank Haynes and

          Wareing, Robert N.

          Mr. Alan Meale.

          NOES

          Alexander, Richard

          Heathcoat-Amory, David

          Amess, David

          Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

          Amos, Alan

          Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

          Arbuthnot, James

          Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

          Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

          Hunter, Andrew

          Atkinson, David

          Irvine, Michael

          Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

          Jack, Michael

          Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

          Janman, Tim

          Boswell, Tim

          Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

          Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

          Kirkhope, Timothy

          Bowis, John

          Knapman, Roger

          Brazier, Julian

          Knowles, Michael

          Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

          Lord, Michael

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

          Maclean, David

          Browne, John (Winchester)

          McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

          Burns, Simon

          Malins, Humfrey

          Burt, Alistair

          Mans, Keith

          Butterfill, John

          Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

          Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

          Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

          Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

          Meyer, Sir Anthony

          Carrington, Matthew

          Mills, Iain

          Carttiss, Michael

          Mitchell, Sir David

          Cash, William

          Morris, M (N'hampton S)

          Channon, Rt Hon Paul

          Nelson, Anthony

          Chapman, Sydney

          Neubert, Michael

          Chope, Christopher

          Norris, Steve

          Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

          Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

          Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

          Paice, James

          Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

          Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

          Conway, Derek

          Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

          Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

          Porter, David (Waveney)

          Cran, James

          Powell, William (Corby)

          Davis, David (Boothferry)

          Redwood, John

          Day, Stephen

          Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

          Dorrell, Stephen

          Sackville, Hon Tom

          Dover, Den

          Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

          Dunn, Bob

          Soames, Hon Nicholas

          Durant, Tony

          Steen, Anthony

          Fallon, Michael

          Stern, Michael

          Favell, Tony

          Taylor, John M (Solihull)

          Fenner, Dame Peggy

          Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

          Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

          Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

          Forth, Eric

          Thurnham, Peter

          Fox, Sir Marcus

          Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

          Freeman, Roger

          Twinn, Dr Ian

          French, Douglas

          Waddington, Rt Hon David

          Garel-Jones, Tristan

          Walden, George

          Gill, Christopher

          Waller, Gary

          Glyn, Dr Alan

          Ward, John

          Goodlad, Alastair

          Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

          Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

          Warren, Kenneth

          Greenway, John (Ryedale)

          Watts, John

          Gregory, Conal

          Wheeler, John

          Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

          Widdecombe, Ann

          Hague, William

          Wood, Timothy

          Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

          Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

          Tellers for the Noes:

          Hanley, Jeremy

          Mr. Greg Knight and

          Harris, David

          Mr. Irvine Patnick.

          Hayward, Robert

          Question accordingly negatived.

        New Clause 51

          AMENDMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT 1986
          In Chapter V of part 1 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (conduct of investment business) after section 48(2)(1) insert
          "(m) requiring a person to whom the rules apply to register in a specified manner all individuals employed by him, or by his appointed representative, carrying on or holding themselves out as carrying on investment business of a kind specified
          1244
          in the rules;
          (n) establishing conditions for entry of an individual in a register established in pursuance of subsection (m) above and in particular specified tests of competence or educational qualification."—[Sir William Clark.)
          Brought up, and read the First time.
          12.30 am
          Sir William Clark: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          I shall not detain the House for long. The new clause has two objectives. It seeks first that the Securities and Investments Board should have the power to maintain a register of all those in the financial advising world, and secondly, that the SIB should be able to lay down conditions as to how and when those names should be placed on the register. That could be by a competence test or by educational qualification. The SIB may be inhibited from taking the lead, so I suggest that we should alter the Companies Bill to remind the SIB that it can take such a lead and then it will probably do so.
          The background to the new clause, as my hon. Friend will recollect, is that during the early stages of the Financial Services Bill, the SIB and the Marketing of Investments Board organising committee petitioned the Government to include a competence test, but that was refused. Now that FIMBRA is embarking on competence tests and the SIB is also considering its position, the time has come to provide the powers which could be used to set a standard. The designated rules could be used a a vehicle for requiring all appropriate self-regulatory organisations and registered professional bodies to introduce registers and tests. If the Minister cannot give us a categorical assurance tonight, or if the wording of the new clause is somehow defective, I hope that he will give the new clause sympathetic consideration.
          Mr. Redwood: I have listened with interest to the arguments presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) in presenting new clause 51, but I believe that the Bill has enough safeguards for investors already in place. The House should remember the substantial degree of control over individuals employed in investment business by the existing powers in the Financial Services Act.
          Authorised firms have a clear and direct responsibility for ensuring that their employees are properly selected, trained and supervised. They are also responsible for ensuring that their employees comply with the full panoply of conduct of business rules or risk loss of authorisation or other sanctions. Large firms in which staff tend to specialise or which undertake a variety of activities have to ensure that the only members of their staff who advise the public on investments are those who are fully competent to do so.
          The Act provides two other powers. First is the power to obtain information from authorised businesses, self-regulatory organisations and other recognised bodies. That enables the SIB to obtain such information on individuals and other matters as it deems neccessary for investor protection. The recognised bodies are able to obtain information from their members under similar provisions in their own rule books.
          The second relevant power is contained in section 59 of the Financial Services Act 1986, under which the SIB can seek an order banning an individual from being employed

          1245
          in connection with investment business. A list can therefore be kept of all individuals who appear not to be fit and proper persons to engage in such business.
          Given the weight that the Act places on the authorisation of businesses and not individuals, and given the array of powers available to ensure that those businesses employ only individuals who are properly selected and trained, I cannot see the advantage to be gained from requiring specific tests of competence.
          Passing such a test would never guarantee that an individual was incompetent at that time or in the future any more than the absence of a qualification could be held to disqualify someone with a lifetime's experience who had been giving good service.
          I am afraid that I am not convinced that the limited benefits of the additional powers proposed by my hon. Friend would outweigh the burdens that they would place on business.
          In the light of that, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw new clause 51.
          Questions put and negatived.

        Clause 177

          STATEMENTS OF PRINCIPLE
          Mr. Redwood: I beg to move amendment No. 249, in page 180, line 17, after 'not' insert 'of itself.
          The amendment clarifies the rights of action of investors in the event that the breach of a principle promulgated by the SIB also involves a breach of the common law.
          It is clear that some matters that may be coverred by principles might already have legal consequences under the common law, such as actions for negligence or breach of trust. However, the principles stated in new section 47A(3) are not to give rise to any right of action on the part of an investor or other person affected, nor to invalidate any transaction. It has been pointed out that the clause as currently drafted might be held to extinguish such rights as already existed. That was not the intention, so the amendment makes it clear that any rights that an investor might have at common law in respect of matters covered by these principles are not extinguished.
          Amendment agreed to.
          Sir William Clark: I beg to move amendment No. 289, in, page 181, line 2, after 'any person' insert,
          'subject to the approval of the Secretary of State'.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will he convenient to consider amendment No. 290, in page 181, line 13 after 'authority', insert
          'and the Secretary of State'.
          Sir William Clark: It is essential that recognised professional bodies avoid any charge of second-class regulation. The misguided attempt to relieve RPBs of the responsibility of complying with the core rules laid down by the SIB give weight to that charge.
          I know that RPBs are bound by statute and royal charters, but they must use their best endeavours to comply with the standards sensibly laid down and adopted by self-regulating organisations, and the amendments aim to achieve that.
          We must take care, because it would be illogical if some financial advisers were subject to some rules while others were subject to other rules. I hope that my hon. Friend the
          1246
          Minister will consider the amendments sympathetically, because I believe that the Government should do something about this.
          Mr. Redwood: I recognise the genuine concerns that have persuaded my hon. Friend to move the amendments, but I hope to be able to convince him that the action that we propose will meet his concerns.
          New section 47A of the Financial Services Act 1986 will give the Secretary of State a power, which it is intended should be transferred to the SIB, to promulgate statements of principle on the conduct required of investment businesses. A breach of such a statement of principle could lead to disciplinary action. New section 47B gives the SIB and SROs a limited power to waive the application of the principles in a particular case if its application would be unduly onerous and if it could be waived without undue risk to investors.
          The purpose of the clause is to provide more flexibility in the operation of the Financial Services Act by allowing regulators scope to make provision, the legal effect of which is appropriate for the mischief that they are seeking to control. The clause does not set out the level of detail for which the statements of principle should provide. Under this power, it would be possible for the SIB to make statements of principle which deal in some detail with matters that are currently dealt with in rules under section 48.
          If the powers were to be used in that way, I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that there should be appropriate flexibility to provide for waivers in the closely defined circumstances set out in the clause. However, the board has said that it does not, for the foreseeable future, propose to use the power in this way. It proposes to use it to promulgate up to 12 general principles which are of such a fundamental nature that the use of the waiver would not be appropriate in any circumstances. In the light of that, the Government have decided not to commence new section 47B while the principles take that form.
          I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that this is a satisfactory way of dealing with the important problem which he has raised. I understand that the SIB is content with this approach, which is important. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would withdraw his amendment.
          Sir William Clark: Given that reply, for which I am grateful, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
          Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

        Clause 178

          RESTRICTION OF RIGHT TO BRING ACTION FOR CONTRAVENTION OF RULES, REGULATIONS, &C.
          Mr. Redwood: I beg to move amendment No. 251, in page 182, line 38, leave out from 'body),' to end of line 39 and insert
          'after "paragraphs 2 to 25" insert "(except paragraph 22AA)".'.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 254, in schedule 21, page 300, line 43, after '22' insert
          '(and after the paragraph inserted by section 178(3))'.
          Mr. Redwood: The amendments are purely technical. I commend them to the House.
          Amendment agreed to.

        Clause 179

          APPLICATION OF DESIGNATED RULES AND REGULATIONS TO MEMBERS OF SELF-REGULATING ORGANISATIONS
          Mr. Redwood: I beg to move amendment No. 215A, in page 183, line 14, at end insert—
          `(3A) It may be provided that, to such extent as may be specified, the designated rules or regulations may not be modified or waived (under section 63B below or section 50) in relation to a member of a recognised self-regulating organisation.
          Where such provision is made any modification or waiver previously granted shall cease to have effect, subject to any transitional provision or saving contained in the rules or regulations.'.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 255, in schedule 21, page 301, line 7, at end insert—
          '(3A) It may be provided that, to such extent as may be specified, the designated rules or regulations may not be modified or waived (under paragraph 22B below or section 50) in relation to a member society.
          Where such provision is made any modification or waiver previously granted shall cease to have effect, subject to any transitional provision or saving contained in the rules or regulations.'.
          Mr Redwood: The amendments are concerned with the extent to which rules which have been designated by the SIB under new section 63A may be waived or modified by an SRO. The Government think that there should be a mechanism by which the majority of these rules may be waived or modified for individual members of the SROs. These rules would be very different from the statements of principle made under new section 47A.
          Without the flexibility represented by the power to waive or modify, it would be difficult to make effective use of the power to draft rules which might be designated. It may be appropriate at this stage to stress the important role that the SROs play and will continue to play in the structure established by the Financial Services Act. It is only these organisations that have the experience necessary to make the detailed rules appropriate to their members and to monitor and enforce compliance with those rules.
          It is also clear, however, that the unconstrained use of waivers might have the potential to undermine the intention behind this new power, which is to provide a common core of rules which apply essentialy to all SRO members.
          I believe that the SROs can be relied upon to use their power to waive or modify designated rules in a responsible way, but I am also conscious that there are likely to be some designated rules to which any modification or waiver might be inappropriate in principle. The amendments recognise that distinction by providing the SIB with the power to specify that certain rules designated under new section 63A may not be waived or modified by an SRO in any circumstances or only in circumstances set out in the rules or regulations.
          I stress that I and, I understand, the SIB see this very much as a reserve power. I would expect that, provided SROs exercised their power to waive designated rules with
          1248
          moderation, there would be no need for the SIB to exercise the power that the amendment gives it. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the House.
          Mr. John Garrett: In Committee, we in general opposed the power to waive rules given to SROs, and the amendments seem to reverse the Government's position. They provide that to such an extent as may be specified, presumably by the SIB, the designated rules or regulations may not be modified or waived in relation to a member of a recognised self-regulating profession. Interestingly, we understood from the SIB that the power of waive provisions came as a surprise to it. It was not particularly keen on them. We would like the Minister to say whether what I have described is true and that this is a significant change of position by the Government, in which case it is welcome.
          Mr. Tim Smith: I received a note from the Securities Association about the amendment. It was worried that the amendment would introduce an unfortunate degree of inflexibility into the system. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that this is a reserve power which will be used only in cases of abuse by SROs? That reassurance will probably meet the association's concerns.
          12.45 am
          Mr. Cousins: What proposals do the Government have for monitoring these proposals? There is now the possibility of some choice of regulatory system. The creditability of the mixed economy regulation that the Minister is proposing depends on there not being regulatory arbitrage. The proposals may go some way to undermine the clarity of the system. That may be acceptable, but does the Minister propose to put in place a monitoring of the system by the SIB, some other agency or even the Department, to ensure that abuses do not grow up from the ability to choose the regulatory mechanism under which one operates?
          Mr. Redwood: I have explained the purposes behind the amendments. They reflect the debate in Committee and the response to the consultations that my officials have undertaken during the past few months. I hope that the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) welcomes it on the basis that I have described.
          I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) that I spelled it out carefully, and it is on the basis which I described that it goes forward for those special circumstances which I outlined.
          The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) asked about the monitoring changes and whether there could be choice between regulators in a way which could reduce the protection to investors and other users of these financial markets. I do not think that that is possible, because all these SROs and practitioner bodies have to meet the adequacy test. That is the underlying guarantee concerning the protection offered.
          Amendment agreed to.

        Clause 188

          STANDARD OF PROTECTION FOR INVESTORS
          Mr. Tim Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 308, in page 190, line 31, at end insert
          `such rules taken together with the general professional rules of the body which apply to all kinds of business undertaken

          1249
          by its members must provide their clients with no less effective protection than that provided for the same purposes by the rules of self-regulating organisations under this Act.'.
          The core rules are not to apply to the recognised professional bodies. We discussed this issue in Committee, where I proposed an amendment similar to, but not the same as, this one. The amendment tries to ensure that, even though the core rules are not to apply, investors who deal with members of recognised professional bodies will get no less effective protection than that afforded to those who invest through members of SROs.
          In response to the amendment that I proposed in Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister's predecessor said:
          "There is a difficulty with amendment (a). It risks locking the recognition tests for professional bodies to their investment business rules. That is unnecessary because in some respects—for example, solicitors and clients' money—adequate protection can be achieved by relying on the general rules of the body."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 29 June 1989; c. 643.]
          I have redrafted my amendment to take his point into account. The amendment now refers not just to the investment business rules of the recognised professional body, but to the general rules that apply to all the business that the member of an RPB undertakes. For a solicitor who is a member of the Law Society, there are client account rules which apply to all his business. Now that I have modified my amendment to take account of the objection of my hon. Friend's predecessor, I hope that it will be acceptable.
          Mr Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Smith) for recasting his amendment, but I am afraid that I still have problems with it. I hope to convince him that the effect that he hopes to achieve can already be achieved by the Bill.
          The Government have often made it clear that it is not intended that regulation of our recognised professional bodies should or could be regarded as a soft option. That is why, in the Bill, as in the original Act, the test that self-regulating organisations and professional bodies have to satisfy is, when it comes to the protection provided to investors, identical—which is what I said in response to the previous debate. When these new provisions come into force, SROs and RPBs will have to satisfy the SIB that their rules provide an adequate level of investor protection. They will not all achieve that level of investor protection in exactly the same way.
          It is one of the main strengths of a practitioner-based system that, within the overall requirement of providing adequate protection for investors—which is what the debate is about—it is for the regulator concerned to devise the best way of regulating its members. There is no compromise on the level of investor protection. In every case, the SIB will have to be satisfied that it is adequate. My hon. Friend's amendment could turn out to be not only unnecessary, but harmful.
          Mr. Tim Smith: Is there a parity between all RPBs and the SROs in terms of admission to the body concerned and, therefore, competence to give investment advice? That was a point raised in Committee.
          Mr. Redwood: As I have just explained, the bottom line is what kind of protection is offered to investors. The adequacy test is the same for both categories. There are different routes to achieve that.
          1250
          The amendment could be difficult. My hon. Friend will recall that one reason why we are amending the recognition test for the SROs and RPBs is that the original equivalence test was widely interpreted as requiring a close textual comparison of different sets of rules, rather than a comparison of their effects and we should be interested in the effects, I fear that, by reintroducing a formal comparison between the rules of an SRO and the rules of an RPB, the amendment would lead to a similar approach being adopted in the future. I urge the House to reject the amendment.
          Mr. Tim Smith: I am disappointed, and it is noticeable that the Government have changed their ground. I sought to cater for the objection put up to my original amendment, yet we now have a completely different objection, which was not even mentioned in Committee. As three months have passed since that debate, I thought that I would ask a few of the RPBs whether they would mind if the core rules were applied to them. The other day, I went to the Insurance Brokers Registration Council, about which I was fairly critical in Committee. The council members are clearly not the people who are responsible for this failure of the core rules to apply to the RPBs. The council, which is an RPB, told me that it would be happy for the core rules to apply to its members. Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell me who objects?
          Amendment negatived.

        Clause 191

          CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS ON COMMENCEMENT
          Mr. Redwood: I beg to move Government amendment No. 253, in page 193, line 16, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
          '(4) References in the Financial Services Act 1986 to a delegation order made under section 114 of that Act or to a transfer order made under paragraph 28 of Schedule 11 to that Act include an order made containing any such provision as is authorised by subsection (2) or (3).'.
          The amendment makes a technical change, ensuring that the consequences of the delegation to the SIB of the new powers introduced by the Bill may be dealt with in the same way as under the Financial Services Act 1986. I commend it to the House.
          Amendment agreed to.

        Schedule 21

          CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT 1986
          Mr. Redwood: I beg to move amendment No. 307, in page 298, line 6, leave out paragraph 28 and insert—
          '28.—(1) Paragraph 4 (requirements for recognition of self-regulating organisation for friendly societies) is amended as follows.
          (2) In sub-paragraph (4)—

          (a) in paragraph (a) for "22" substitute "22C", and

          (b) omit paragraph (b).

          (3) In sub-paragraph (5) for "22" substitute "22C".'.
          This is another purely technical amendment which amends an erroneous cross-reference in the schedule.
          Amendment agreed to.
          Amendments made: No. 254, in page 300, line 43, after '22' insert
          '(and after the paragraph inserted by section 178(3))'.
          No. 255, in page 301, line 7, at end insert—
          '(3A) It may be provided that, to such extent as may be specified, the designated rules or regulations may not be modified or waived (under paragraph 22B below or section 50) in relation to a member society.
          Where such provision is made any modification or waiver previouly granted shall cease to have effect, subject to any transitional provision or saving contained in the rules or regulations.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

        New Clause 43

          PROVISIONS EXTENDING TO NORTHERN IRELAND
          '.—(1) The provisions of this Act extend to Northern Ireland so far as they amend, or provide for the amendment of, an enactment which so extends.
          (2) So far as any provision of this Act amends the Companies Act 1985 or the Insolvency Act 1986, its application to companies registered or incorporated in Northern Ireland is subject to section 745(1) of the Companies Act 1985 or section 441(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986, as the case may be.
          (3) In Part III (investigations and powers to obtain information), sections 78 to 87 (powers exercisable to assist overseas regulatory authorities) extend to Northern Ireland.
          (4) Part VI (mergers and related matters) extends to Northern Ireland.
          (5) In Part VII (financial markets and insolvency) the following provisions extend to Northern Ireland—

          (a) sections 144 and 145 (introductory provisions and definition of "market contract"),

          (b) section 146 and Schedule 20 (additional requirements for recognition of investment exchange or clearing house),

          (c) sections 147, 150, 152, (Powers of Secretary of State to give directions), (Application to determine whether default proceedings to be taken),157 and 158 (provisions relating to recognised investment exchanges and clearing houses),

          (d) sections 159, (Certain money market institutions) and (Settlement arrangements provided by the Bank of England) (power to extend provisions to other financial markets),

          (e) section 171 (indemnity for certain acts), and

          (f) sections (Power to make further provision by regulations),172, (Construction of references to parties to market contracts) and 173 to 176 (supplementary provisions).

          (6) Part VIII (amendments of the Financial Services Act 1986) extends to Northern Ireland.
          Part IX (transfer of securities) extends to Northern Ireland.
          "Subject to any Order made after the passing of this Act by virtue of section 3(1)(a) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, the transfer of securities shall not be a transferred matter for the purposes of that Act but shall for the purposes of section 3(2) be treated as specified in Schedule 3 to that Act".
          (8) In Part X (miscellaneous and general provisions), this section, section (Making of corresponding provision for Northern Ireland), 201 and 202 (general provisions) extend to Northern Ireland.
          (9) Except as mentioned above, the provisions of this Act do not extend to Northern Ireland.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]
          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Mr. Redwood: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean:)With this, it will be convenient to take Government new clause 44—Making of corresponding provision for Northern Ireland—and Government amendment No. 259.
          Mr. Redwood: The new clauses are to be inserted in place of the present clause 200, which is removed by amendment No. 259. The new clauses merely set out the arrangements for Northern Ireland. On the face of it, it seems curious that some provisions extend to the Province, whereas others, even in the same part, do not. It may be appropriate for me to take a few moments to explain how that has occurred. Traditionally, and constitutionally, it has been practice for the Northern Ireland authority to cary out most of the executive functions of Government, including in particular most company law functions.
          Under the developed powers of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 provisions may be enacted by an Order in Council and this procedure is intended for provisions in the Bill affecting company law and insolvency law. However, some enactments amended in the Bill, notably the Financial Services Act 1986 and the Fair Trading Act 1973, were, in the main, introduced to apply on a United Kingdom basis. We therefore had to follow suit with amendments to those acts.
          Inevitably there have been some new provisions in the Bill which do not follow any precedent-part IX on transfer of securities is such an example. In those cases we have taken the advice of the Northern Ireland authorities in deciding which procedure to follow.
          I hope that that explains the pattern. The amendments being made simply reflects changes made in the Bill and I hope, set out the provisions a little more clearly than before.
          Question put and agreed.
          Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

        New Clause 44

          MAKING OF CORRESPONDING PROVISION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
          '.—(1) An Order in Council under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (legislation for Northern Ireland in the interim period) which contains a statement that it 'is only made for purposes corresponding to the purposes of provisions of this Act to which this section applies—

          (a) shall not be subject to paragraph 1(4) and (5) of that Schedule (affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament), but

          (b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

          (2) The provisions of this Act to which this section applies are—

          (a) Parts I to V, and

          (b) Part VII, except sections 146, 147 and 158 and Schedule 20.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

          Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
          Mr. Redwood: I beg to move amendment No. 256, in page 195, line 4, leave out clause 193.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 282.
          Mr. Redwood: Some doubt has been expressed as whether debts that were not due and payable at the commencement of a bankruptcy could be incorporated in a set off under section 323 of the Insolvency Act 1986. A set-off is a device by which a creditor can add up all his credits and debits with an insolvent person and claim the net figure.
          The doubt particularly concerns contingent creditors such as guarantors of the bankrupt's debt since the

          1253
          guarantor is often called upon after the commencement of the bankruptcy. The present clause seeks to deal with that perceived doubt by omitting the word "due". It has also been simplified in its construction. The clause may well have clarified the position of some contingent claims, but only by potentially widening the scope of those claims capable of being included in the set off. The extent of that widening could be considerable. It is desirable as far as possible to maintain the principle of pari passu or fair distribution in insolvency.
          To avoid creating fresh uncertainty we have decided that it would be preferable to delete the clause from the Bill. In taking that decision we have borne in mind that the current law has not been fully tested in the courts. In all the circumstances it is sensible and desirable to delete the clause and allow the existing law to develop. British law thrives on cases and individual decisions—
          Mr. Derek Foster: And lawyers.
          Mr. Redwood: Yes, and lawyers, and it should be allowed to do so here.
          Amendment No. 282 is consequential on the deletion of clause 193 and removes the Insolvency Act 1986 from the title of the Bill.
          Question put and agreed to.

        Clause 197

          BUILDING SOCIETIES: MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS
          Amendments made: No. 257, in page 196, line 22, after '(1)' insert
          'In section 104 of the Building Societies Act 1986 (power to assimilate law relating to building societies and law relating to companies), in subsection (2) (relevant provisions of that Act), omit the word "and" before paragraph (d) and after that paragraph add—
          "; and
          (e) section 110 (provisions exempting officers and auditors from liability)."
          (2)'.
          No. 258, in page 197, line 1, leave out clause 198.
          No. 259, in page 197, line 26, leave out clause 200.—[Mr. Redwood.]

        Clause 201

          COMMENCEMENT AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
          Mr. Redwood: I beg to move amendment No. 260, in page 198, line 27, after 'The' insert
          'following provisions of this Act come into force on Royal Assent—

          (a) in Part VI (mergers)—

          (i) sections 137 to 140, and

          (ii) paragraphs 2 to 11, 13 to 15, 17 to 19 and 21 to 24 of Schedule 19, and section 143 so far as relating to those paragraphs;

          (b) in Part VIII (amendments of the Financial Services Act 1986), section 187 (offers of short-dated debentures);

          (c) in Part X (miscellaneous and general provisions), the repeals made by Schedule 22 in sections 71, 74, 88 and 89 of, and Schedule 9 to, the Fair Trading Act 1973, and section 199 so far as relating to those repeals.

          (1A) The other'.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following. Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, before (a), insert—
          1254
          '(a) in Part IV (amendments of company law), section 131 (application to declare dissolution of company void);'.
          Government amendment No. 261.
          Mr. Redwood: My amendment proposes that certain provisions of the Bill should be brought into effect upon Royal Assent. The first set compromises certain of the provisions on mergers in part VI of the Bill, the most important of which concern the new powers to accept undertakings to divest instead of making a reference, the temporary restrictions on share dealings once a reference has been made and the improved powers for looking at creeping acquisitions. We consider that those provisions will be of sufficient immediate use to warrant early introduction and will not, on the other hand, impinge unfairly on business.
          The other provision covered is clause 187. That amends section 195 of the Financial Services Act 1986, which increases from one year to five the maximum maturity which certain debentures may have if they are to be offered without a prospectus.
          The change is one of a number of measures announced in the Chancellor's Budget to unify the short-term corporate bond and sterling commercial paper markets.
          Mr. John Garrett: Which Chancellor?
          Mr. Redwood: They are all Chancellors of the same Government. The other changes have already been implemented and this one should be made as soon as possible so as to complete the process. The other provisions of the Bill remain as at present and Government orders will be made. The Government intend to bring as many provisions as possible into force within the first six months or so of the new year. Amendment No. 261 is consequential.
          Amendment to the proposed amendment agreed to.
          Main amendment, as amended, agreed to.
          Amendment made: No. 261, in page 198, line 33, at end insert—
          '(3) The Secretary of State may also by order under this section amend any enactment which refers to the commencement of a provision brought into force by the order so as to substitute a reference to the actual date on which it comes into force.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

        Schedule 22

          REPEALS
          Mr. Redwood: I beg to move amendment No. 262, in page 303, line 10, at end insert—

          '1964 c. 40

          Harbours Act 1964.

          In section 42(6), the words "required to be attached to a company's balance sheet".'.

          Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 263 to 281.
          Mr. Redwood: This group of amendments make changes to schedule 22, which list the repeals made in the Bill to various amendments in consequence of its provisions. The amendments are either in consequence of changes discussed earlier or have been left over from earlier——
          It being One o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [26 October], to put the Question on the remaining amendments standing in the name of a member of the Government.
          Amendment agreed to.
          Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on amendments, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at One o'clock am.
          Amendments made: No. 263, in page 303, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 37.
          No. 264, page 303, line 38, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 40.
          No. 309, in page 303, line 40, column 3, at end insert 'Section 160(3).'.
          No. 265, in page 304, line 29, column 3, at end insert 'Section 440.'.
          No. 266, in page 304, line 36, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 38 and insert 'Section 447(1).'.
          No. 267, in page 304, line 50, column 3, at end insert—

          '(a) in subsection (2), paragraphs (a) and (d) and the word "or" preceding the latter.'.

          No. 268, page 305, line 24, column 23, at end insert—

          '(aa) in paragraph 1(1), the words "paragraph 60(2) of Schedule 4 or paragraph 19(3) of Schedule 9";'.

          No. 269, in page 305, line 29, column 3, leave out `3(2)' and insert '3(1)'.
          No. 270, in page 305, line 34, column 3, at end insert—

          '(ee) in paragraph 4(1), the words "(whether as personal representative or otherwise)";'.

          No. 271, in page 306, line 7, column 3, at end insert—

          'In Schedule 22—

          (a) the entry relating to section 36(4);

          (b) in the entry relating to sections 363 to 365, the words "(with Schedule 15)";

          (c) in the entry relating to sections 384 to 393, in column 2. the word "qualifications".'.

          No. 272, in page 306, line 13, column 3, leave out '393 and 703(1)' and insert 'and 393'.
          No. 273, in page 306, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 17.
          No. 274, in page 306, line 18, column 3, leave out `paragraph' and insert 'paragraphs 7(3), 23 and'.
          No. 275, in page 306, line 26, after 'sections' insert '45(5)'.
          No. 276, in page 306, line 27, column 3, at end insert—
          1256

          'In Part I of Schedule 13, the entries relating to sections 222(4), 225 and 733(3),'.

          No. 277, in page 307, line 41, column 3, at beginning insert—

          'In the Table in section 84(1), the entry relating to persons appointed under section 94, 106 or 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986.'.

          No. 278, in page 307, line 43, column 3, leave out '18(2)' and insert '18(1)'.
          No. 279, in page 307, line 44, column 3, leave out from beginning to 'and' and insert—

          '(b) in paragraph 18(7), the words "and (1A)";

          (c) paragraph 18(8)'.

          No. 280, in page 307, line 48, at end insert—

          '1988 c. 1.

          Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

          Section 565(6)(b).'.

          No. 281, in page 307, line 49, at end insert—

          '1988 c. 48.

          Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988,

          In Schedule 7, paragraph 31.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

        Title
        Amendment made: No. 282, in line 17, leave out 'the Insolvency Act 1986.'.
        Queen's and Prince of Wales's consent having been signified:—
        It being after One o'clock am, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 20.

        Division No. 359]

        [1.00 am

        AYES

        Alexander, Richard

        Dover, Den

        Amess, David

        Dunn, Bob

        Amos, Alan

        Durant, Tony

        Arbuthnot, James

        Fallon, Michael

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Favell, Tony

        Atkinson, David

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Forth, Eric

        Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Bowis, John

        Freeman, Roger

        Brazier, Julian

        French, Douglas

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

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

        Gill, Christopher

        Browne, John (Winchester)

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Burns, Simon

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Burt, Alistair

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Butterfill, John

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Gregory, Conal

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Hague, William

        Carrington, Matthew

        Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

        Carttiss, Michael

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Cash, William

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Chope, Christopher

        Harris, David

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Hayward, Robert

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Cran, James

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

        Day, Stephen

        Hunter, Andrew

        1257

        Irvine, Michael

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Jack, Michael

        Redwood, John

        Janman, Tim

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Knapman, Roger

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Stern, Michael

        Knowles, Michael

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Lord, Michael

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Maclean, David

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Malins, Humfrey

        Thurnham, Peter

        Mans, Keith

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Walden, George

        Mills, Iain

        Waller, Gary

        Mitchell, Sir David

        Ward, John

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Moss, Malcolm

        Warren, Kenneth

        Nelson, Anthony

        Watts, John

        Neubert, Michael

        Wheeler, John

        Norris, Steve

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Paice, James

        Wood, Timothy

        Patnick, Irvine

        Pattie. Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Mr. Sidney Chapman and

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

        NOES

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Meale, Alan

        Battle, John

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Clay, Bob

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Cousins, Jim

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Cryer, Bob

        Skinner, Dennis

        Dixon, Don

        Vaz, Keith

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

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Foster, Derek

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Mr. Frank Haynes and

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        Mr. Robert Wareing.

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

  Mr. Ronald Cannon
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville]
  1.11 am
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor rose——
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: That was a very nice welcome from my colleagues, and I thank them.
  I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the case of Mr. Ronald Cannon, a constituent of mine who is currently serving a prison sentence of four years at Swaleside prison, Kent. Mr. Cannon is a reformed heroin addict, and like most people who have had that unfortunate experience he found it difficult to break free from the circumstances of his addiction and those who surrounded him. As a result, in October 1988 he was sentenced to prison for conspiring to supply controlled drugs.
  On the face of it, that would not appear to be anything other than a straightforward case, with which I would not have bothered this House. However, three facts surround the circumstances in which Mr. Cannon is being held in prison. They should be brought to the attention of the House, and they are the subject of the debate.
  There are three reasons for my concern. First, through incompetent administration by those responsible for keeping Mr. Cannon's records, he has been deprived of the opportunity that he should have been given to seek a second review of his suitability for parole. Because of that, he has been deprived of the chance of obtaining his freedom and is now languishing in jail. I am not concerned with the merits of whether that parole should be granted, only with the circumstances by which he has been denied the opportunity to put his case.
  Secondly, it has been brought to my attention, from two separate sources—Mr. Cannon and his prison visitor that—my intervention in an attempt to expedite his case has in fact had the reverse effect. The House will no doubt agree with me that should that prove to be the case, it would be extremely serious; no Member of Parliament could properly represent his constituents if he thought that the result of his doing so would be to prejudice that constituent's circumstances.
  Thirdly, during my investigations into what has happened to Mr. Cannon, I discovered that his case is representative of a great many of those who are seeking parole and that the whole system of parole has broken down. I shall ask the Minister to do the root and branch reform of the system of parole and remission suggested in 1988 by my noble Friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow and his review committee on the parole system in England and Wales.
  I shall deal first with the matter of Mr. Cannon's freedom, because that is probably the most important of the three points that I shall deal with. I can do no better in an effort to explain the circumstances than to read the letter which I received from Mr. Jennings, the prison visitor to whom I referred. Mr. Jennings wrote to me in a letter of 4 October in respect of my constituent. The letter states:
  "I write as a member of the Board of Visitors at Swaleside Prison in Kent, a member of the Parole Review Committee and a Magistrate.

  1259
  Over many months, I have been trying to assist Mr. Cannon in connection with his second parole review.
  Unfortunately, when he was sentenced no-one noticed that he had already served 15/16 months on Remand in Custody. As a result, all his dates were wrongly calculated, and entered in his records—it took many months for this to be put right, and by this time he was already overdue for his first Parole Review. This was eventually completed, and not surprisingly, he was unsuccessful—The committee no doubt thinking that he would have another opportunity at his second review."
  My involvement in this arose when I wrote to the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Minister on 7 June and asked him to look into the circumstances whereby Mr. Cannon had been kept waiting for the result of the Parole Board sitting that had occurred in February. Mr. Cannon had been waiting for about four months and I therefore wrote to the Minister asking when he would be given the result of the Parole Board decision. He received it four days later, but I did not know that because I received no reply to my letter until the end of August, by which time I had written a second letter to the Minister.
  In the considerable correspondence that I have had with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and his predecessor, no one mentioned to me that Mr. Cannon's period on remand in custody had not been taken into account when dealing with the date of his parole review. It is dreadful that he has not been granted a second parole review. The reason for that is set out in the latest letter which I received from my hon. Friend the Minister:
  "Mr. Cannon does not qualify for another parole review as, under Rule 6(6) of the Local Review Committee Rules 1967, a prisoner is not eligible for a further statutory parole review unless there is a period of 16 months or more between the previous review and the earliest date of release. In Mr. Cannon's case this period amounts to less than 14 months; he must therefore I am afraid, serve to his earliest date of release which is currently 2 April 1990."
  That does not take into account the fact that the date of Mr. Cannon's first parole review was wrong, and was heard too late. Therefore, he should have had the opportunity of two parole reviews. That is why I say that he has been deprived of the opportunity to argue again for freedom earlier than he can now expect.
  The second question that I wish to raise is whether my intervention has helped or hindered Mr. Cannon's case. My attention was drawn to the danger that he might have been prejudiced by my intervention by a letter that he wrote to me at the end of August. The letter states:
  "Today I have seen one of the prison governors to get them to expedite my answer."
  By that he meant the answer to a petition that he had sent to the Home Office immediately upon receiving the refusal of his first parole review in June. The letter continues:
  "I have just been told that because I wrote to you voicing my disappointment with the parole decision my petition was withdrawn and not even looked at. But today it has gone back into the pending tray. Four months I have been waiting for an answer."
  As a result of that letter, I wrote on 7 September to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State:
  "I am concerned that the fact that Mr. Cannon wrote to me may have jeopardized his position, and I find it hard to see why someone who is a 'prison trusty', allowed out on home leave, should be found unsuitable for parole.
  I would much appreciate it if you would satisfy yourself that my intervention has not had an adverse effect on Mr. Cannon's position."
  I did not receive an answer to that letter until 17 October and in that letter, my hon. Friend says:
  1260
  "Finally, I should add that a reply to Mr. Cannon's petition was forwarded to the prison on 12 September and reassure you that your intervention in Mr. Cannon's cases did not adversely affect consideration of it.
  Unfortunately, I cannot entirely accept that answer as being accurate, because in the letter that I received from Mr. Jennings, and that I was quoting earlier, Mr. Jennings also has something to say about the circumstances in which Mr. Cannon was prejudiced by my intervention.
  He continues in his letter of 4 October as follows:
  "He has tried every avenue open to him without success and the last time I telephoned London"—
  by London he meant the Parole Board in London, as I confirmed on the telephone to him—
  "about his case I was told … 'Unfortunately, Cannon has involved a Member of Parliament and this will cause further delay."'
  I cannot accept that my intervention on 7 June should still be causing further delay by the time that Mr. Jennings was talking to the parole board in London. I cannot accept that my intervention, in any circumstances, considering that it was by making a specific request that review of the case be expedited, should have caused delay in reviewing his case.
  I wish my hon. Friend to investigate who made that comment to Mr. Jennings. Unfortunately, he was not able to say who had said it to him. Secondly, will he find the person who told Mr. Cannon that my intervention had caused his petition to be put aside. Thirdly, are these facts accurate? Fourthly, will he take whatever necessary action is due to be taken, either in regard to why that information was wrongly given to Mr. Cannon and Mr. Jennings, or why that delay took place? The latter would be a much more serious event than if the former had proved to have been made inaccurately, by an employee in the Home Office or in the Parole Board offices.
  My last point concerns parole generally. Having made some inquiries as a result of being alarmed by the way in which Mr. Cannon had been treated, I discovered that the parole system is largely breaking down. Mr. Jennings told me that he has at least 10 cases a week about which he is deeply concerned and in which parole is failing to come up accurately or in time. He told me that in some instances, he even has cases where the parole review decision is not announced until the prisoner concerned has already been released on remission, and sometimes months later.
  My hon. Friend is aware of what Lord Carlisle proposes in his review. In paragraph 299, Lord Carlisle recommends a root-and-branch reform of the parole and remission systems. I warmly endorse the proposals made in that report, and urge my hon. Friend to implement them as soon as possible. The parole system is ineffective. It is dealing with 26,000 cases a year, when it was set up and structured to deal with only 4,000 or 5,000. The projections are that, if trends continue, by the early 1990s, it will deal with 33,000. Such an escalation of the number of people being investigated for parole would make this system inoperable, and unless the Government take action, we shall shortly have a chaotic and appalling situation.
  I ask my hon. Friend to do that, and to see to it that Mr. Cannon, notwithstanding the general rule, gets a further opportunity to apply for parole, because as I understand it, and as Mr. Jennings has been told, that second review should be granted if his first review had been properly

  1261
  carried out in terms of his early imprisonment on remand awaiting trial. Will he also undertake the investigations that I have asked for?
  1.25 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) for raising the case of Mr. Cannon and providing me with an opportunity to address the House on the important subjects of parole and Mr. Cannon's particular circumstances. My hon. Friend has raised especially Mr. Jennings's letter this evening, and it is the first time that I have heard of it. According I shall not comment on its contents, which I have not seen. However, my hon. Friend has asked me to investigate its contents, and I shall do so. I shall take extremely seriously anything written to a colleague or to myself from a member of a board of prison visitors. I have no reason to believe that my hon. Friend's intervention, as I stated when I wrote to him, had any effect on the outcome of the parole consideration, nor on the dates.
  Perhaps it would be useful if I gave some background both to the parole system, as my hon. Friend made a number of remarks on the way that it is working now, and on Mr. Cannon's case. All prisoners serving determinate sentences of more than a year are eligible for parole. Their parole eligibility date marks the earliest date on which they can be released on licence if the parole board so recommends. It is important to remember that no one may be released early on licence without a positive rcommendation either from the local review committee acting on behalf of the Parole Board, or from the Parole Board itself. A prisoner becomes eligible for parole either when he has served one third of his sentence—taking into account any time spent on remand—or six months after the sentence has been passed, whichever is later. That is, I think, an essential part of the misunderstanding which clearly exists in this case.
  Mr. Cannon was remanded by Havering magistrates court on 5 August 1987; committed by it on 10 November 1987; and tried at the Central Criminial court and sentenced on 26 October 1988 to four years' imprisonment for conspiracy to supply class A controlled drugs. Mr. Cannon's parole eligibility date was calculated to be 26 April 1989. As hon. Members will readily calculate, this means that in Mr. Cannon's case, his PED was six months after the start of his sentence, rather than one third the way through.
  All cases are considered first by the local review committee or LRC as it is commonly called, at the prison where the inmate is held. The timing of the LRC meeting depends on the length of the sentence. Generally, for sentences of up to two years, the LRC will consider the case about eight weeks before PED. For longer sentence cases—and Mr. Cannon's case falls in this class—the review is generally held three and a half to four months before that date.
  There are two objectives to these timing arrangements. First, to maximise the time available for observation and reporting in the establishment before the parole review. Perhaps I could remind my hon. Friend that parole review is definitely not re-sentencing. The parole selection procedure is based not merely on the evidence and reports available to the judge at the time of sentencing. In
  1262
  addition, a large number of reports on the prisoner drawn from a number of sources are prepared—from prison officers in various parts of the prison who may come into contact with the prisoner in his daily life; prison governing staff; prison medical staff; chaplains; prison probation staff; and importantly, a home circumstance report prepared by a probation officer from the probation service which would offer supervision in the event of early release on licence. These reports take some time to prepare and it is only fair that they are based on a reasonable period of observation. It is for this reason that we allow six months as a very minimum time in which to prepare and consider the reports.
  The second objective is to allow sufficient time for the rest of the selection procedure to be followed and for the establishment to be notified of the parole decision in sufficient time for the inmate to be released on the parole eligibility date, or its anniversary, if parole is granted. In Mr. Cannon's case, the LRC at Wandsworth considered the reports on 9 February 1989, just over 11 weeks before his PED.
  Mr. Cannon's offence did not fall in those categories of cases which can be decided on the advice of the local review committee alone. It was therefore referred to the Parole Board for a further review. Mr. Cannon's case was considered by the board on 2 June 1989. As my hon. Friend will know, the Parole Board did not find Mr. Cannon suitable for early release on licence; and accordingly the Home Secretary had no power to grant parole. Notification of this decision was sent to Swaleside prison where Mr. Cannon was then located on 12 June; and he was informed accordingly.
  Naturally, Mr. Cannon was disappointed with the outcome of this parole review. He has drawn to my hon. Friend's attention the fact that he is a "prison trusty" allowed out on home leave and yet denied parole. Hon. Members will be aware that although an inmate's behaviour in prison is one of the factors considered by the Parole Board, other aspects are also reviewed. The Parole Board regularly publishes its criteria for parole selection in its annual report. It considers each case carefully under six headings. The first is the nature of the offence. The Parole Board has due regard to the public's concern about early release of inmates already convicted of offences of violence or those which jeopardise public safety. Although each case is considered individually, cases involving trafficking in drugs such as heroin are bound to cause concern.
  The second heading relates to an inmate's criminal and other history. The incidence and frequency of previous offending, having regard to the nature of offences, is used as a guide to the probability of reoffending. Obviously, many previous convictions indicate, in the absence of other factors, a high probability of reoffending. Other indicators of this are persistent offending since an early age, short intervals at liberty between convictions and a record of employment which is poor in terms of the quality of the jobs and the lengths of continuous employment. If an inmate has previously been under the supervision of the probation service, his response to that may be relevant to his likely response to parole supervision. I have no doubt that the Parole Board will have reviewed Mr. Cannon particularly carefully under this heading.
  The third category is prison behaviour and response to treatment. As I have said, the main bulk of the dossier will consist of reports by various prison officials who know the prisoner well. These reports build up a picture of what the

  1263
  prisoner has done and in what light he has shown himself since his conviction. In general, bad conduct in prison is a factor against parole and good conduct a favourable factor. But many recidivists are well experienced at playing the system, so prison behaviour—which may have little bearing on behaviour outside the prison walls—has to be regarded in light of other factors.
  The fourth heading is medical considerations. In this case, where Mr. Cannon's offence involved drugs, medical reports will be of crucial importance as regards the chances of the prisoner reoffending and the possible gravity of further offences.
  Fifthly, the inmate's home circumstances and employment prospects on release are considered. Home circumstances and employment prospects can be critical for success on parole. A good home, a job to go to and the absence of the circumstances and temptations which led to the earlier crime are factors favourable to parole.
  The sixth and final heading is co-operation with parole supervision. The supervision of a parolee by a probation officer during the parole period is an essential part of the parole scheme. It is always difficult to be sure about this. However, a previous failure on parole or a failure on probation may make co-operation doubtful.
  Each case is carefully considered against these criteria. For this reason there is no mileage in comparing Mr. Cannon's case with those of any co-defendants. The Parole Board will consider each individual's circumstances. Mr. Cannon has drawn my hon. Friend's attention to his good prisoner behaviour. I am sure that the Parole Board will have taken that into account. It will also have taken into account his criminal record—and I should have liked to have given the House an account of that——
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I accept what my hon. Friend is saying but as I said at the outset, I am not arguing that he should have been given parole at that review. The point that I was making—and the point that Mr. Jennings made strongly to me in the letter from which I quoted—was that one reason why the parole review board might have turned down his original application was on the understanding that he could have another. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would address that point.
  Mr. Lloyd: I have partly addressed that point and will return to it. As this is part of a continuing exchange, it is worth making it clear that the Parole Board makes its own decisions, which the Home Secretary and myself can in no way alter. If the circumstances of which my hon. Friend's constituent has complained are such that he is surprised at the result, that must be part of my reply.
  It is an important part of my reply to show that on the information that is available to me the result is not at all surprising. However, I accept what my hon. Friend says and I hope that he will accept that there is nothing about the background of the case that makes the Parole Board's decision in the least bit surprising.
  I am satisfied that Mr. Cannon's case was considered thoroughly and carefully by the Parole Board, and, alas, he must serve until his earliest date of release, which at present is 2 April 1990, as my hon. Friend said.
  But although Mr. Cannon is serving a four-year sentence, during which he might normally have expected a second review, he does not qualify for a further review.
  1264
  The local review committee rules provide that an inmate is not eligible for a further statutory parole review unless there is a period of 16 months or more between the previous local review committee review and the earliest date of release.
  In Mr. Cannon's case, owing to the time that he spent on remand from 10 November 1987 to 25 October 1988, he was required to serve the full six months minimum qualifying period before his parole eligibility date. That was the point that I made at the beginning of my remarks and where the root of the misunderstanding probably lies.
  The local review committee review may take place only up to four months earlier than that date. For Mr. Cannon, that meant that the very first date on which his case might have been eligible for local review committee consideration would have been 26 December 1988. Even at this relatively late hour, those hon. Members who are present will readily be able to appreciate that Boxing day 1988 was less than 16 months before the earliest date of release of 2 April 1990. I recognise that it falls short by a mere three weeks, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the line must be drawn somewhere. Mr. Cannon's local review committee review actually took place on 9 February, just under 14 months before his earliest date of release. But if it had happened at the earliest point that it could have done, he would still not have been eligible for a second one.
  I am aware that fine footwork is involved in the timing of parole reviews, and decisions about the eligibility of second and subsequent reviews are not an easy matter to understand, particularly at this time of night. I appreciate how difficult it must be for Mr. Cannon and his family and my hon. Friend to accept the Parole Board's decision and to know that because of the time that he spent on remand he is not eligible for a further review.
  I am also sorry that it should have take so long to complete the first review. Here I come to one of my hon. Friend's major points. The delays that have plagued the parole system are a sad reflection on the increasing number of cases and, until recently, the inability of the Home Office parole unit to keep pace. But I reject my hon. Friend's suggestion that the system is breaking down. It is plagued by heavy delays, but within those delays it works effectively. Parole delays cause unnecessary anxiety to inmates and their families and lead to problems for the staff in the prisons. They are unacceptable and we have taken some firm steps to eliminate them. We have reorganised the parole unit, streamlined procedures and authorised and recruited additional staff. The Home Secretary has appointed additional members to the Parole Board and the board is considering additional cases at each panel sitting. We took those measures several months ago, but already they are beginning to bear fruit.
  We are now seeing the first signs of real improvement and there are no longer any significant delays on cases that do not go the Parole Board but stay with the local review committees, but there are still some delays with the Parole Board. I am sure that the worst of the delays are now being eliminated and we are considering what further changes and reforms are needed to reduce those delays still further and then eliminate them altogether. I am sure that that will be achieved, if not this year, certainly during the first half of next year. That is our intention.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this difficult case. I shall look at the letter from Mr. Jennings, to which he referred, and follow it back to its source. But on the

  1265
  timing of the review and on the decision that there is no opportunity under the rules for a second review, the letters that I and my predecessor have sent to my hon. Friend are correct. But I realise that the situation is complex.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Two o'clock.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Race Relations
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many Civil Service appointments have been made since 1979 under section 5(2) of the Race Relations Act 1976; and how many posts within the Civil Service are designated under section 5(2) of the Act.

  Mr. Luce
  No appointments to the Civil Service have been made under section 5(2) of the Race Relations Act 1976; there are no posts within the Civil Service designated under section 5(2) of the Act.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters were received from and sent to hon. Members by his Department in(a) January of the current year and (b) the present Session up to July.

  Mr. Lawson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 28 July 1989 at columns 1114–15.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of letters from hon. Members to his Department received a reply(a) in under four weeks, (b) within four to six weeks, (c) within six to eight weeks and (d) over eight weeks, in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Lawson
  I regret that the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Table 1 Civil Service non-industrial elected union representatives estimates of numbers with paid time off for industrial relations duties and trade union activities (as at 31 March 1989)

  Departments

  5 per cent. and less

  6–10 per cent.

  11–20 per cent.

  21–30 per cent.

  31–40 per cent.

  41–50 per cent.

  51–60 per cent.

  61–70 per cent.

  71–80 per cent.

  81–90 per cent.

  91–99 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  Total

  Full time equivalent

  1. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  513

  35

  12

  4

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  5

  573

  19

  2. Customs and Excise

  632

  83

  50

  12

  13

  13

  8

  6

  4

  12

  6

  0

  839

  67

  3. Ministry of Defence

  938

  147

  55

  17

  14

  7

  4

  2

  1

  0

  0

  24

  1,209

  82

  4. Department of Employment group

  1,502

  313

  117

  38

  16

  10

  11

  4

  3

  2

  5

  18

  2,039

  107

  5. Department of Environment/ Transport Excluding PSA

  390

  66

  32

  2

  4

  7

  0

  0

  2

  3

  0

  19

  525

  41

  6. Foreign and Commonwealth Office including Overseas Development Administration

  84

  11

  10

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  115

  13

  7. Department of Health and Social Security

  1,254

  309

  132

  36

  19

  16

  26

  25

  18

  29

  7

  20

  1,891

  231

  8. Home Office including Prison Department

  1,043

  165

  82

  14

  13

  3

  11

  2

  2

  2

  8

  14

  1,359

  89

  9. Department of Trade and Industry

  364

  28

  16

  7

  3

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  434

  24

  10. Inland Revenue

  1,326

  244

  124

  44

  22

  15

  7

  5

  8

  6

  1

  8

  1,810

  120

  11. Lord Chancellor's Department

  73

  12

  21

  11

  7

  2

  2

  3

  3

  2

  2

  6

  144

  32

  12. Department for National Savings

  75

  22

  13

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  1

  1

  0

  14

  129

  22

  13. PSA—including Crown Suppliers

  331

  41

  13

  3

  2

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  6

  399

  18

  14. Scottish Office

  141

  15

  10

  3

  0

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  7

  180

  14

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is proposing any change to the Central Office of Information cash limit for 1989–90; and whether he is proposing any changes to the services provided on an allied basis by the Central Office of Information for 1989–90.

  Mr. Ryder
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class XIX vote I will be increased by £92,000 from £1,181,000 to £1,273,000. The additional expenditure is needed to cover an increase of £92,000 in the cost of existing services provided by the Central Office of Information on an allied service basis to the royal household. The increase in the cash limit will be charged to the reserve and therefore, will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  In addition, following the transfer of responsibility for the information officer management unit to the Cabinet Office, Office of the Minister for the Civil Service, the running costs limit for the Central Office of Information will be reduced by £186,000 from £22,036,000 to £21,850,000.

  Civil Service Trade Unions
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the latest estimates of the numbers of elected representatives of Civil Service trade unions in each of the main Government Departments and of the cost of providing paid time off.

  Mr. Ryder
  The details for 1988–89 are given in the tables which show that the total cost of facility time was £12·67 million. Compared with the position as at 31 March 1988, the total amount of paid time off for union business shows a reduction of 64 man years (6·1 per cent.), with a consequential saving of £0·41 million. This marks the seventh successive year in which facilities costs have been reduced.
  513

  Departments

  5 per cent, and less

  6–10 per cent.

  11–20 per cent.

  21–30 per cent.

  31–40 per cent.

  41–50 per cent.

  51–60 per cent.

  61–70 per cent.

  71–80 per cent.

  81–90 per cent.

  91–99 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  Total

  Full time equivalent

  15. Other Government Departments

  1,043

  100

  60

  20

  5

  21

  3

  2

  2

  3

  0

  17

  1,274

  101

  Total

  9,709

  1,591

  747

  212

  120

  104

  18

  52

  44

  59

  29

  169

  12,920

  980

  Table 2: Costs of non-industrial union elected representatives

  Department

  Total number expressed as whole time equivalent

  Cost in salaries, wages and direct benefit (£ million)

  Costs as percentage of wage bill

  Total number of non-industrial staff at 31 March 1989

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  19

  0·30

  0·196

  9,572

  Customs and Excise

  67

  0·99

  0·260

  26,416

  Ministry of Defence

  82

  1·17

  0·095

  88,709

  Department of Employment Group

  107

  1·23

  0·181

  54,462

  Department of Environment/ Transport (excluding PSA)

  41

  0·59

  0·198

  19,733

  Foreign & Commonwealth Office (including Overseas Development Administration)

  13

  0·12

  0·191

  9,443

  DHSS

  231

  2·70

  0·250

  92,082

  Home Office (including Prison Department)

  89

  1·28

  0·206

  37,691

  Department of Trade and Industry

  24

  0·35

  0·180

  12,365

  Inland Revenue

  120

  1·76

  0·196

  67,035

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  32

  0·22

  0·198

  10,895

  Department for National Savings

  22

  0·23

  0·302

  7,242

  PSA (including Crown Suppliers)

  18

  0·28

  0·124

  13,763

  Scottish Office

  14

  0·16

  0·146

  6,079

  Other Government Departments

  101

  1·29

  0·193

  42,809

  Total

  980

  12·67

  0·186

  498,296

  National Accounts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the figures for table 2–2, chapters 12–14 in the current years's edition of the United Kingdom National Accounts have not been updated for 1988; and if he will now publish the figures in the Official Report.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 23 October 1989]: Table 2–2: The analysis of gross domestic product by the manufacturing industries will, following the usual practice and reflecting the availability of data, be updated to cover 1988 in next year's edition.

  Chapter 12: Estimates of tangible and intangible non-financial assets for the national and sector balance sheets will be updated when resources permit, and depending on the contribution they can make to assessments of economic developments. The personal sector balance sheet estimates for 1988 will appear, as usual, in the February 1990 edition of the CSO's "Financial Statistics".

  Chapter 13: Estimates of fixed capital formation by certain industries in 1988 were not thought to be of an acceptable quality to permit publication. Such reliable estimates as can be made will appear in the quarterly national income and expenditure articles in the CSO's "Economic Trends.

  Chapter 14: The estimates of capital consumption and capital stock are derived from the full range of fixed capital
  514
  formation statistics. Some of the estimates for 1988 have not been produced because of quality problems with the fixed investment statistics.

  Output
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the level of(a) world industrial output and (b) United Kingdom industrial output each year since 1960; what has been the percentage demand growth in each case; and what levels are predicted to be reached by the year 2000.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: Levels of industrial production of the industrialised countries for each year since 1960 are published in the IMF publication "International Financial Statistics, 1989 Yearbook". A series of United Kingdom industrial production from 1948 to 1987 is published in "Economic Trends Annual Supplement, 1989", and the latest estimates for recent years are published in the latest Economic Trends. The OECD's latest forecasts of industrial production in its member countries are published in "OECD Economic Outlook", June 1989. The United Kingdom Government do not publish forecasts of industrial production. Forecasts of the growth of manufacturing output, the largest component of industrial production, are published in the FSBR and Autumn Statement.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Blue Arrow
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give an up-date of his Department's inquiry into the National Westminster bank and the Blue Arrow affair.

  Mr. Redwood
  The inspectors' inquiries into County NatWest are at an end. Their report was published on 20 July 1989 and copies were passed to the serious fraud office which is carrying out inquiries with the City of London police. Copies were also passed to regulatory authorities to enable them to take such action as they consider appropriate.

  Post Office Counters Ltd.
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has to privatise Post Office Counters Ltd.

  Mr. Forth
  The great majority of post offices is already run by subpostmasters operating in the private sector and this number is increasing with the conversion of Crown post offices to agency or sub-office status. We have no further plans for privatisation of Post Office Counters.

  Hotol Project
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to promote further European collaboration on the Hotol project.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This is now a matter for the companies directly concerned. The Government remain ready to facilitate such contracts with other countries as the companies request.

  Consumer Protection
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to introduce new legislation or regulations on consumer protection.

  Mr. Forth
  We intend to improve the protection given to consumers in a number of ways, including the introduction of regulations under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 on price indications and unit pricing about which we are currently engaging in public consultation, and changes to other legislation affecting consumers' interests.

  Plain English
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to promote plain English in the credit industry in expressing terms and conditions for loans.

  Mr. Forth
  The codes of practice of a number of consumer credit trade associations require the use of plain English in all communications with the consumer. In addition, regulations under the Consumer Credit Act which will come into force on 1 February 1990 require that certain consumer credit advertisements contain prescribed statements. These statements are in plain English.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of letters from hon. Members to his Department received a reply(a) in under four weeks, (b) within four to six weeks, (c) within six to eight weeks and (d) over eight weeks, in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Ridley
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Design Services (Balance of Trade)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on the balance of trade in design services.

  Mr. Redwood
  Statistics relating to the balance of trade in design services are not available.

  EC Discussions
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet his European Economic Community counterparts; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Redwood
  I intend to maintain close contact with all my EC counterparts. I have recently met my German opposite number and some of his ministerial colleagues. The agenda for such meetings depends on issues current at the time.

  Balance of Trade Statistics
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was(a) the trade surplus/deficit and (b) the ratio of imports to total trade in each of the EEC countries, Japan and the United States of America for the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is in the table:

  Trade Balance and Ratio of Imports to Total Trade 12 months to March 1989

  Country

  Crude balance ECU billion

  Import ratio per cent.

  Greece1

  -7·8

  77

  Portugal

  -5·4

  61

  Spain

  -13·9

  58

  United States of America

  -99·4

  57

  United Kingdom

  -44·4

  57

  France

  -12·8

  52

  Italy

  -10·4

  52

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  -2·1

  51

  Netherlands

  1·8

  50

  Denmark

  0·8

  49

  Ireland

  2·8

  45

  Germany

  66·0

  43

  Japan

  68·3

  42

  1 12 months to June 1988.

  Source: Eurostat.

  Arms Sales (South Africa)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, further to his reply of 18 October,Official Report, column 120, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan, Her Majesty's Government are investigating the alleged arms deals between Ferranti ISC subsidiaries and shell companies in South Africa.
  517
  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 23 October 1989]: Any evidence of alleged breaches of United Kingdom export controls is carefully investigated. It is not our practice to comment on individual cases.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Reciprocal Enforcement Agreements
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Attorney-General what further steps are being taken to achieve reciprocal enforcement agreements in matters of family law and child custody.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government consider that the best way forward is to encourage countries to ratify the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction and the European convention on recognition and enforcement of decisions concerning custody of children and on restoration of custody of children rather than to promote a proliferation of different bilateral agreements. The Government take every opportunity to make their views known to those states that have still to accede to these conventions or to put them into effect. In relation to child maintenance orders, the United Kingdom is participating in the early stages of discussions aimed at producing an EC agreement.

  Representation at Tribunals
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Attorney-General what action the Lord Chancellor proposes to take following the recommendations of the report "The Effectiveness of Representation at Tribunals," published in July.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is currently considering the report's contents in consultation with other Departments.

  Reckless Driving
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Attorney-General for what reason the Crown prosecution service initially refused to support a reckless driving charge against Peter Sumner and Mark Hill-Trevor subsequently given custodial sentences by the Court of Appeal following a private prosecution.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown prosecution service initially declined to prosecute Peter Sumner for the offence of causing death by reckless driving because it appeared that the evidence against Peter Sumner was insufficient to afford a realistic prospect of securing a conviction for that offence. In reaching that decision it applied the criteria set out in the code for Crown prosecutors. But the making of such assessments, particularly in this category of case, is not an exact science, as the conviction itself has shown. The Crown prosecution service assumed responsibility for a prosecution for the offence once the matter had been committed for trial by the magistrates court.

  In the case of Mark Hill-Trevor there was no refusal to prosecute for the offence for which the defendant was convicted. The proceedings were at all stages conducted by the Crown prosecution service.

  Dr. Kalim Siddiqui
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will meet the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss possible legal action regarding the remarks made in 518
  Manchester on Saturday 21 October by Dr. Kalim Siddiqui calling for the murder of a United Kingdom citizen; if it is intended to issue any public statement about incitement to murder; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I have no plans to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss Dr. Siddiqui's remarks, but may do so if the results of any police investigation are submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service. I will not make any public statement about incitement to murder; the constituents of the offence are clearly understood.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will prosecute Dr. Siddiqui for incitement to murder; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  A decision whether or not to prosecute Dr. Siddiqui for any criminal offences can only be made after an investigation into his activities has been conducted by the police. The Crown Prosecution Service has not been supplied with the results of any such investigation.

  "One Girl's War"
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General what current legal action the Government are taking on the book "One Girl's War"; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Interim injunctions obtained in November 1986 against the distributor and two booksellers, restraining them from distributing or selling the book, remain in force.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  South Africa
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report the details of aid being provided to Mozambican refugees in South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Out of a total commitment of £127,000, we have already spent so far this financial year £95,000 on Operation Hunger, a project which helps Mozambican refugees on the South African side of the border. This is in addition to more than £100,000 provided for emergency relief supplies since January 1988.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which South African organisations were consulted on Her Majesty's Government's policy for contributing to the Urban Foundation scheme for low-cost housing.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Urban Foundation consulted widely among black community leaders. The British embassy in Pretoria took independent soundings from black community leaders inside South Africa; all encouraged us to contribute to the scheme.

ENERGY

  Radioactive Waste Disposal
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the outcome of the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors
  519
  meeting on safety principles for radioactive waste disposal, held on 20 September; and if he will make available copies of the safety principles document.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors approved for publication a draft report on safety principles and technical criteria for the underground disposal of high-level radioactive wastes during its September meeting. The International Atomic Energy Agency plans to publish the report in its "Safety Series" of documents before the end of the year. A copy of the published report will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Oil Exploration (Wiltshire)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on oil exploration in Wiltshire.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  In the past three years two seismic survey programmes have been conducted in the county by petroleum licences, the results of which are being evaluated. No exploration wells have been drilled in the county since the well at Urchfont near Devizes was drilled in July 1986.

  Gas Leakages
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what figures he has for 1987 and 1988 for gas leakages from the low-pressure distribution system; and what measures he takes to check the validity of figures provided by British Gas.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  British Gas estimates that current leakage from the low-pressure distribution system is less than I per cent. of throughput. It is difficult to estimate such figures accurately and my Department is discussing with British Gas how the estimates may be improved.

WALES

  Coastal Waters
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people took advantage of the Government's offer of a free meal and expenses if they would swim in Welsh coastal waters to see if they would become ill; and what results have been obtained to date.

  Mr. Grist
  No such offer has been made. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the epidemiological study, announced by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, on 17 May, 264 people took part in the controlled cohort study at Langland Bay near Swansea on 2 September. Of these 134 were bathers and 130 non-bathers.

  Farmers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farmers were employed in each county in Wales in(a) June 1988 and (b) June 1989.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information for June 1989 is not yet available. That for June 1988 is shown in the table:
  520

  Farmers, by county June 1988

  Whole-lime

  Part-time

  Total

  Clwyd

  3,148

  1,309

  4,457

  Dyfed

  8,839

  3,301

  12,140

  Gwent

  1,617

  784

  2,401

  Gwynedd

  3,563

  1,517

  5,080

  Mid Glamorgan

  717

  374

  1,091

  Powys

  4,911

  1,490

  6,401

  South Glamorgan

  418

  165

  583

  West Glamorgan

  621

  393

  1,014

  Wales

  23,834

  9,333

  33,167

  Note:

  These figures are for main holdings only, and include partners arid directors where they too are engaged in farm work. Wives/husbands of farmers, partners and directors are excluded, even though the wives/husbands themselves may be partners or directors.

  Radioactive Material (Curran Embankment)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will outline the actions taken by his Department, by the emergency services and by the local authorities following the discovery of a drum of radioactive material outside Unit 8, Curran embankment, on 19 October.

  Mr. Grist
  The national arrangements involving radioactivity (NAIR) were activated by the police who co-ordinated the activities of the organisations concerned. The Welsh Office advised the police of suitable temporary storage locations and made arrangements for the National Radiological Protection Board to collect and dispose of the source.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what actions he has taken, following the discovery of a drum of radioactive material dating from 1979 outside Unit 8, Curran embankment, to identify whether there are any other such deposits and to protect the public from any possible effects.

  Mr. Grist
  An Inspector from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, acting on behalf of the Department, visited the site with the radiation protection adviser who had carried out monitoring and provided advice to the police as part of the NAIR arrangements. Further monitoring was undertaken which revealed no evidence of any remaining radioactive sources.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the seriousness and potential seriousness of the discovery of a drum of radioactive material outside Unit 8, Curran embankment, on 19 October; what level of radioactivity it contained; and how this relates to safety levels.

  Mr. Grist
  It appears that the source in its container may have been abandoned when the premises were vacated by a company which ceased trading in 1984. The container in question is of the type used for radiography sources. It is believed to hold a radioactive iridium-192 source, of activity 8 curies in 1980. Since this radionuclide has a half life of 74 days, only a negligible fraction of the original activity will have remained when the company ceased trading. No significant radiation exposure would have resulted from the discovery of the source after that period had elapsed, and I am advised by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution that on-site monitoring supports
  521
  this conclusion. Nevertheless, I view any such abandonment of a radioactive source as being a potentially serious radiation incident which could cause public concern, and a highly irresponsible act.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is satisfied with the operation of the emergency plan implemented following the discovery of a drum of radioactive material outside Unit 8, Curran embankment, on 19 October.

  Farm Workers, by County: June 1988

  Regular family workers

  Regular hired workers

  Total regular workers

  Seasonal casual workers

  Total workers

  Clwyd

  718

  985

  1,703

  1,143

  2,846

  Dyfed

  1,772

  1,527

  3,299

  3,318

  6,617

  Gwent

  414

  459

  873

  660

  1,533

  Gwynedd

  702

  700

  1,402

  1,006

  2,408

  Mid Glamorgan

  160

  153

  313

  351

  664

  Powys

  999

  936

  1,935

  1,472

  3,407

  South Glamorgan

  282

  361

  643

  543

  560

  West Glamorgan

  626

  Wales

  5,047

  5,121

  10,168

  8,493

  18,661

  Notes:

  1. Figures relate to main holdings only.

  2. Regular workers include those working full-time and part-time.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to seek a meeting with the producers and researchers of the Thames Television "This Week" programme on toxic waste dumps, to ascertain the full list of locations of forgotten and hidden toxic waste tips in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  No. The Department has already carried out a survey of contaminated land in Wales which lists abandoned toxic waste sites. Two reports of the survey which was carried out in 1982–83 and updated in 1987–88 have been made available to local authorities and other interested parties. I have placed a copy of the later report in the Library of the House.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the water supplies(a) which will meet the European Community directive on tap water quality, 80/778/EEC by 1992, (b) which will not, stating the criteria each water supply fails to meet, the number of people affected and the planned date for compliance and (c) to what extent the position will have improved by 1995.
  522
  Mr. Grist
  Yes

  Farm Workers
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farm workers were employed in each county in Wales in(a) June 1988 and (b) June 1989.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information for June 1989 is not yet available. That for June 1988 is shown in the table:

  Mr. Grist
  Copies of the undertakings accepted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under section 20(5)(b) of the Water Act 1989 and of the relaxations he has granted under regulation 4(1)(c) and 4(2) of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those beaches which will comply with the European Community bathing water quality directive, 76/160/EEC, by 1992, and those which will not.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the information placed in the Library by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on 20 October.

  Radioactive Incidents
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy to inform an hon. Member immediately when an incident involving radioactivity occurs in his constituency.

  Mr. Grist
  The police are responsible for implementing the national arrangements involving radioactivity (NAIR) and a decision whether or not to notify a Member of Parliament is for them.

  Milford Haven
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total expenditure on Welsh Office funded projects in Milford Haven; and if he will list the projects.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 23 October 1989]: The total estimated expenditure by the Welsh Office and public bodies funded by the Department on projects under way in Milford Haven in 1989–90 is £5,643,341.

  The projects are shown in the table:

  Project

  Total estimated expenditure by WO

  £

  Welsh Office

  Milford Haven Enterprise Zone

  4,668,440

  Housing improvement grants

  645,180

  Repair and improvement of local authority housing

  76,000

  Pembrokeshire Community Drug Scheme

  32,850

  Regional Selective Assistance

  25,000

  Sports Council for Wales

  Milford Haven Comprehensive School—Multipurpose Hall

  40,000

  Milford Haven Bowling Club

  7,500

  Wales Tourist Board

  Millmoor Farm

  40,000

  Welsh Development Agency

  Environmental Enhancement Schemes:—

  Hamilton Terrace

  57,163

  Memorial Gardens

  11,208

  Town and Waterfront

  40,000

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parking (Disabled People)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what are the current parking arrangements for staff of the House who are disabled and are orange badge scheme holders.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  There are no places specifically set aside for orange badge scheme holders, but there are 12 parking spaces in Star Chamber Court and two parking spaces in the Norman Shaw car park reserved for the use of vehicles driven by or used by photo-identity pass holders who are disabled. At present eight hon. Members, four Members' secretaries and eight staff of the House have been authorised by the Serjeant at Arms to use these spaces on a first-come first-served basis. In addition, authority for their use is given from time to time to disabled visitors and to photo-identity pass holders suffering from a temporary period of incapacity. These arrangements were confirmed by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee of the Services Committee in January 1988, as a result of a survey carried out into the use of the disabled spaces in Star Chamber Court.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Redundant Vicarages
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he intends discussing with the Commissioners the proposal that wherever possible redundant vicarages are sold on long leases.

  Mr. Alison
  I will discuss the matter with my fellow Commissioners. It is, however, for the incumbent and the diocese concerned to make an initial judgment as to the best method of disposal of a redundant parsonage house. The Commissioners, as a consenting party, then consider each proposal on its merits. Leasehold sales are not ruled out, but they may reduce the price or prejudice disposal and thus produce less for the support of the Church's ministry.

TRANSPORT

  Bus Doors
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will summarise the response to his draft regulations which include provisions relating to the risk of people being trapped in power-operated bus doors; what action he now proposes to take, including provision of finance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  In my reply to the hon. Member on 27 July I said that I was consulting on whether the proposed new measures for centre doors should be applied to buses already in service. I now propose that they should so apply and will lay the appropriate order shortly. No special provision for funding will be made.

  Radioactive Material
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by year for the last 10 years how many tonnes of radioactive material were imported via the ports of(a) Barrow, (b) Dover, (c) Felixstowe, (d) Harwich, (e) Liverpool, (f) Portsmouth, (g) Southampton and (h) Workington; how many tones were exported through these ports; where were (i) the sources and (ii) the destinations of material imported and exported; and what method of transport was used to convey the material to and from the ports.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department does not collect this information, and it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley on 4 May,Official Report, column 188, whether one of the columns, "UF 6 imported" should read, "exported"; if he will show the source and destination of material travelling through the Humber ports, and what is included in the column, "Natural exported", where this material originated and what was its destination.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The middle four column headings of the answer are "Natural UF6 exports" and "imports" and "Enriched UF6 exports" and "imports". The additional detailed information requested on sources and destinations can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Railways (Noise)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he had with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds prior to his determination of future statutory limits on noise from railway trains; and if he will tabulate their limits in the Official Report stating whether they apply to machinery or to cumulative levels of noise over a given period of time and whether they are based on existing or projected line speeds.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) of 10 April 1989 at column 409. What the Government intend to establish is a standard for the purposes of noise insulation of properties affected by new railway lines, equivalent to that which already exists for new roads. The Government's conclusion will be published. There is no intention to establish an absolute statutory limit on noise from trains. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has not been consulted.

  Road Signs
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the standard of signs on motorways and other trunk roads.

  Mr. Atkins
  As well as those of the hon. Member, four representations about shortcomings in maintenance standards for signs on motorways and all-purpose trunk roads have been received in the last year. In addition, members of the public bring specific cases to the Department's attention from time to time.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of letters from hon. Members to his Department received a reply(a) in under four weeks, (b) within four to six weeks, (c) within six to eight weeks and (d) over eight weeks, in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Atkins
  This question could be answered only at disproportionate cost, but the requirement to answer correspondence from hon. Members as promptly as possible is a priority of the Department.

  A47 Rutland
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on progress since July 1985 in preparing proposals for a bypass on the A47 trunk road around Glaston, Rutland, Leicestershire; and when draft lines of route will be published.

  Mr. Atkins
  Earlier investigations suggested that a bypass of Glaston could not be justified. We are now reassessing the case for a bypass in the light of the revised national road traffic forecasts announced in May. It is too early to say whether a scheme can be added to the trunk road programme, or when details of any routes would be made known.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on the accident record in and around Glaston, Rutland, on the 526
  A47 trunk road; and what proposals he has for traffic management to reduce accidents, following the meeting in Glaston involving his officials on 5 October.

  Mr. Atkins
  The accident record for the A47 trunk road in and around Glaston is close to the national average for this type of road. The Department is now investigating road safety measures including those discussed at the meeting in Glaston on 5 October. Any worthwhile improvements will be carried out.

  A2 (Road Works)
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish in the Official Report the number of weeks that the A2 between the Danson interchange and the Swanscombe cutting, has been under road works from 1 January 1984 to date.

  Mr. Atkins
  I shall write to my hon. Friend with the details as soon as possible.

  King's Cross Railway Lands
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury of 20 October,Official Report, column 257, his Department expects to provide the comments referred to, to the London borough of Camden, in relation to the planning application for the King's Cross railway lands.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department has been asked to submit its comments on the latest planning application by 14 November 1989.

  Scottish Lowland Airports Policy
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to consider the evidence to be given at the Civil Aviation Authority public hearing on 14 and 15 December when making his decision on Scottish lowland airports policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend's decision will be based on the responses received to the consultation document issued on 27 September, for which the closing date is Wednesday 29 November.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to seek the advice of the Civil Aviation Authority in determining whether there is sufficient evidence to justify licensing additional flights to the United States of America from Scotland, in his consultation exercise on Scottish lowland airports policy.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Air transport route licensing is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority. The authority's decisions are made in accordance with its statutory duties and are subject to any traffic distribution rules that may be in force.

  Air Deregulation
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the impact of air deregulation in Europe on Edinburgh and Glasgow airports; and if he will make a statement on air traffic movements expected at these airports following deregulation.
  527
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The United Kingdom's liberal agreements with several countries mean that the benefits of liberalisation have already been achieved in several major markets.

  In its consultation document on traffic distribution policy for the London area and strategic options for the long term (CAP 548), the Civil Aviation Authority noted this; it did not attempt to forecast demand against a range of liberalisation options but assumed that further liberalisation would give a mild stimulus to traffic. Growth in passenger demand will continue to be largely determined by the rate of economic growth. The Department's forecasts of United Kingdom air traffic demand in the period to 2005 are not disaggregated to airport level.

  Road Improvements, Banbury
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department intends to give financial clearance for improvements to the Ruscote Avenue-Orchard Way junction in Banbury.

  Mr. Atkins
  Financial approval was given on 17 October 1989.

  M40 Extension
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the construction of the M40 extension.

  Mr. Atkins
  Excellent progress is being made. Subject to reasonable weather conditions over the next two months I expect the Warwick section of M40 to open to traffic around the turn of the year. I hope that the whole of the M40 extension will be open to traffic by spring 1991.

  A20, Dover
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement on the route of the eastern section of the A20 extension into Dover; and when he expects the project to be completed.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is hoped to announce the decision on the route shortly. The aim remains to complete the project in time for opening of the Channel tunnel in 1993 subject to the satisfactory completion of the outstanding statutory procedure.

  Road Safety Code of Good Practice
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received a copy of the road safety code of good practice published on 5 October by the local authority associations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I congratulate the associations on having produced such an excellent publication. It is attractively presented, well written and contains much sound practical advice. I commend it to all local authorities. It represents a major contribution to the national effort to reduce road casualties by a third by the year 2000. Its recommendation that individual authorities should identify local targets for casualty reduction and develop road safety plans, to be reviewed and published on an annual basis, by which to achieve them is particularly welcome, as complementing our action in setting national and regional targets.
  528
  I shall be considering with local authorities at the regional annual consultative committees over the coming weeks the future arrangements for reconciling local and regional targets and for monitoring progress.

  The enthusiastic and committed implementation by local authorities of the code's recommendations is essential if we are to achieve the dramatic reduction in casualties which we know to be possible.

HEALTH

  Cochlear Implant Operations
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to make a statement regarding the funding of cochlear implant operations.

  Mr. Mellor
  As soon as possible.

  Health Authorities (Capital Allocations)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the annual capital allocations to(a) North East Thames region and (b) Waltham Forest area in each of the past 10 years; and if he will show these figures adjusted with the National Health Service's deflator.

  Mr. Freeman
  Initial capital allocations over the past 10 years to North East Thames regional health authority are as follows:

  Allocations (at cash)

  Allocations revalued at 1989–90 prices

  £ million

  £ million

  1980–81

  37·700

  63·104

  1981–82

  45·800

  69·852

  1982–83

  43·182

  61·505

  1983–84

  45·452

  61·873

  1984–85

  48·933

  63·476

  1985–86

  48·617

  59·778

  1986–87

  53·610

  63·867

  1987–88

  54·143

  61·290

  1988–89

  57·923

  61·109

  1989–90

  73·076

  73·076

  Figures have been inflated to the current price level by use of the gross domestic product deflator and exclude in-year additions to the regional health authority's initial capital allocation through land sales and virement from revenue. The allocation of funds to districts is a matter for regional health authorities and this information is not held centrally.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many letters were received from and sent to hon. Members by his Department in(a) January of the current year and (b) the present Session up to 1 July.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  Letters received

  Replies issued

  (a) January 1989

  1,165

  1,176

  (b) Current Session up to and including 30 June 1989

  14,337

  10,615

  RU 486
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the drug RU 486, produced by Roussel, is to be made freely available in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  RU 486, like other medicinal products, may not be marketed in the United Kingdom without a product licence. At the present time there is no such licence in respect of this product.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the drug RU486; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  In the past 12 months we have received 10 representations about the drug RU486. Four were in favour of its introduction, three against and three sought information.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the indication of anal reflex and dilatation accompanied by additional symptoms is standard practice for diagnosing child abuse.

  Mr. Mellor
  The diagnosis of child sexual abuse is a matter for medical practitioners to reach based on the history of the case as well as any symptoms and physical signs that might be present. Recent guidance to doctors from the standing medical advisory committee makes it clear that no physical sign (of which reflex anal dilatation is an example) can at present be regarded as being uniquely diagnostic of child sexual abuse.

  Kidney Transplants
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many kidney transplants there have been in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  According to information provided by the United Kingdom transplant service, the number of cadaveric kidney transplants performed within the National Health Service in the United Kingdom is as follows:

  Number

  1984

  1,443

  1985

  1,336

  1986

  1,493

  1987

  1,485

  1988

  1,575

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest available estimates of the cost for(a) hospital in-patient care, (b) hospital out-patients care and (c) general practitioner consultations, resulting from coronary heart disease.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is estimated that the total cost of hospital in-patient treatment related to coronary heart disease in England is £175·5 million per year (1987–88 prices). I regret that information is not collected centrally 530
  on either the cost of out-patient care or on general practitioner consultations resulting from coronary heart disease.

  Drug Trials
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are known to have died or suffered adverse reactions following their participation in drug trials.

  Mr. Freeman
  Adverse reactions, including deaths, are reported to the Medicines Control Agency. It is not possible to say how many of these are related to a particular drug being trialed.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will introduce legislation to impose controls and monitoring on the use of volunteers in pharmaceutical drug trials;

  (2) if he will take steps to require companies which recruit human volunteers for drug trials to register with his Department; if he will institute controls on the use and payment of volunteers; and if he will take steps to monitor the effects on health of participation in drug trials;

  (3) what information his Department has regarding the circumstances, financial position and health of those who voluntarily take part in pharmaceutical drug trials

  Mr. Mellor
  We have no plans to introduce monitoring or legislation in this area. Within the NHS all clinical research investigations involving human subjects, including healthy volunteer studies, must be approved by a local research ethics committee. Draft revised guidance on the role, scope and function of these committees is currently available for consultation and a copy is available in the Library. This guidance will be drawn to the attention of those outside the NHS sponsoring such studies.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action is being taken following the finding that the National Health Service is being overcharged for some hearing aids;

  (2) what is the estimated cost to the National Health Service of the overcharging by some hearing aid manufacturers;

  (3) when there was last an investigation of the charges made to the National Health Service by hearing aid manufacturers relative to those made to the private sector;

  (4) which hearing aid manufacturers have been charging the National Health Service more for their aids than they charge private suppliers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Responsibility for the procurement, storage and distribution of goods required for the NHS national hearing aid service passed from the Department to the Mersey regional health authority on 1 April 1985.

  An in-house study was undertaken by the Mersey RHA during January and February 1989, during which the prices charged to the NHS by all the major suppliers of commercial hearing aids were reviewed. The results of the review suggest that considerable savings could be made if suppliers were to charge the same prices to the NHS as those charged to private dispensers.
  531
  All the main suppliers have now offered to supply commercial equipment to the NHS at reduced prices and the Mersey RHA is actively pursuing these matters with the companies concerned.

  Drug Prices
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the National Health Service ever pays a higher price for pharmaceutical drugs than that charged by manufacturers to other customers; and what procedure there is for routinely comparing prices.

  Mr. Mellor
  The prices of branded medicines supplied to the National Health Service are controlled through the operation of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme under which an overall limit is set on the profit which a company can make from such sales. Manufacturers' list prices apply to the home market generally; they do not distinguish between supply for use by NHS or private patients. There are no arrangements for individual price comparisons.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to replace or modify the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme due to come to an end in October 1992, in light of his plans for the National Health Service, outlined in the White Paper and accompanying documents.

  Mr. Mellor
  When the changes in "Working for Patients" have been implemented they will place a greater emphasis for prescribers on the price of drugs, and it may be sensible to modify the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme to reflect the fact. Paragraph 2.1 of the scheme, a copy of which is in the Library, provides the flexibility required to facilitate this.

  National Health Service (Prices)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who negotiates prices charged to the National Health Service for supplies; and what monitoring there is to ensure reasonable charges and that the prices are not higher than those used in the private sector.

  Mr. Freeman
  Negotiation of prices charged for NHS supplies is a matter for individual health authorities acting under the strategic guidance of the NHS procurement directorate. The level of contracting depends on many strategic, technical and commercial factors that need to be considered by the directorate working closely with health authorities. The procurement directorate is charged by the NHS Management Executive to ensure that all health authorities operate an effective and efficient procurement service.

  Handicapped Children
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many handicapped children are in long-term hospitals, local authority and voluntary sector care.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information is, not available in the precise form requested. There are 14 children under 16 identified by regional health authorities in July 1989 as receiving longer-term care in large mental handicap hospitals. In addition there were, at 31 December 1986 (the latest year for which figures are available) 350 children resident in NHS community units for mentally handicapped children.
  532
  The number of children in care in accommodation for children with special educational needs at 31 March 1987 was 1,651. Many of these children will have physical and mental handicaps.

  Infertility
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest statistics on infertility.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements his Department makes for the provision of IVF treatment for patients residing within the Wakefield constituency.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 24 October 1989]: We believe that decisions about the priority and resources to be given to infertility services should be left to individual health authorities rather than the Department of Health. 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.

  Clinical Research Centre
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for the future use of the clinical research centre in Harrow following closure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has asked the Advisory Board for the Research Councils for further advice by next spring on their proposals to reallocate support currently given to units at the clinical research centre to ensure a more effective use of scientific resources. This report will also cover the implications for NHS provision, and officials from this Department will be kept fully informed as the proposals develop.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how frequently his Department will be monitoring the number of non-National Health Service sight tests; from what sources the statistics will be derived; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  A survey of sight test numbers will be commissioned later this year. On present plans, the survey will be conducted by an independent market research company and a representative sample of people will be asked if they have had an NHS or private sight test since 1 April 1989. The results will be compared with information for previous years already held by the Department.

  Ambulance Service (Paramedics)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table showing for each ambulance authority the number of trained paramedics among its crews.

  Mr. Freeman
  Figures in the form requested are not available centrally.

  "Working for Patients"
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what element of cost benefit analysis will be included in the indicative drug budgets proposed in "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Mellor
  The main purpose of indicative prescribing budgets is to encourage more cost-effective prescribing through more critical analysis of prescribed patterns. In consequence I expect cost benefit studies in this area to become more commonplace following the introduction of the scheme and that the results will be disseminated to general medical practitioners to help them to decide what is the most cost-effective form of treatment for each patient.

  Post-operative Infections
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest figure per year for the number of hospital admissions that are due to post-operative infections.

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that the information requested is not available. The latest available data on hospital infections are for 1985, when the total number of cases of post-operative infection was estimated at 15,540. However it is not possible to identify the proportion of those that resulted in readmissions, or the number of readmissions after surgery which were due solely to post operative infection.

  Children's Cancer
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the figures for each of the health authorities in England and Wales, of children's cancer treatment postponements this year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Leeds Western Health Authority (Chairman)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Leeds, West of 14 September about the business activities of the chairman of Leeds western health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health has now written to the hon. Member.

  Erythropoietin
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects erythropoietin to be licensed for general use by the medical profession.

  Mr. Mellor
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, it is not usual practice to disclose information about whether or not an application for a product licence has been received or the progress of any such application. However in this case I am able to say that a few technical queries remain and are being urgently pursued; if they are satisfactorily resolved a licence should then be issued shortly.

  General Practitioners (Staff Recruitment)
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will seek additional advice from general practitioners' representatives as to the practicality of 534
  practices recruiting qualified practice staff when subjected to a 10-week delay between submission of applications and receipt of NHS response, pursuant to draft No. 5 of NHS document Ref. 4237A/4311/m/4615/HT/ 1.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: The detailed arrangements for handling applications for staff have yet to be finalised and are currently the subject of consultation with the GPs' representatives, the general medical services committee. But I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no question of a 10-week delay in dealing with such applications.

  Prescription Costs
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the prescription costs per patient for the 10 highest spending and the 10 lowest spending family practitioner committees in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 24 October 1989]: The average net ingredient cost per person in 1987–88 for the 10 family practitioner committees in England with the highest spending per person and the 10 family practioner committees in England with the lowest spending per person is listed in the table.

  Family Practitioner Committee

  £

  North Tyneside

  45·94

  Salford

  45·67

  Bury

  42·88

  Sunderland

  42·71

  Barnsley

  42·49

  Trafford

  42·12

  Lancashire

  42·06

  Isle of Wight

  41·91

  Wirral

  41·63

  Liverpool

  41·48

  Cambridgeshire

  31·91

  Berkshire

  31·82

  Barnet

  31·78

  Bromley

  31·33

  Buckinghamshire

  31·14

  Gloucestershire

  30·94

  Bexley and Greenwich

  30·93

  Enfield and Haringey

  30·85

  Croydon

  30·70

  Oxfordshire

  30·01

  Notes:

  1. OPCS family practitioner committees population data has been used in this table.

  2. Data includes prescriptions dispensed by pharmacy and appliance contractors and dispensing doctors.

  3. The Net Ingredient Cost (NIC) is the basic cost of drugs before any discounts and does not include pharmacy costs or fees.

  Contaminated Food
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implications for United Kingdom policy of the guideline levels drawn up for radioactivity-contaminated food in transfrontier trade, drawn up by the Codex alimentarius Commission under the auspices of the World Health Organisation and Food and Agriculture Organisations.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the event of a future nuclear accident, the United Kingdom would be bound by the maximum levels of

  535
  radioactive contamination established by the European Community. These are set out in Regulation (Euratom) 3954/87, as amended by Regulation (Euratom) 2218/89, and Regulation (EEC) 219/89.

  The levels established by the Community are entirely consistent with the advisory, de minimis levels recently promulgated by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, below which no food control restrictions need apply.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Teachers (Working Parties)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers trained to teach the three to seven year age range are currently serving on working parties set up by the National Curriculum Council and the Schools Examination and Assessment Council.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is not readily available. Twenty-nine primary teachers and other primary specialists are currently serving on working parties set up by the National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council.

  Soviet and East European Studies
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the report of the working committee on Soviet and East European studies, delivered to him on 10 August, will be published; when he expects to give his view on it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Universities Funding Council, the successor body to the University Grants Committee which commissioned the report on Soviet and East European studies, will be issuing the report to universities soon. The report contains recommendations which also relate to other Government Departments and organisations which I shall consult.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will provide more funds to colleges and universities so that they can respond to a community charge registration officer in a way that allows them only

  Research council budgets 1980–81 to 1989–90

  £ million

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  AFRC

  37·477

  41·934

  43·624

  45·773

  46·680

  52·725

  57·149

  54·896

  61·115

  74·565

  ESRC

  20·219

  20·656

  20·651

  22·893

  21·979

  23·587

  23·820

  24·845

  27·657

  32·018

  MRC

  72·737

  101·524

  107·502

  113·717

  117·152

  122·310

  128·340

  139·768

  149·612

  176·343

  NERC

  46·730

  54·291

  58·035

  61·612

  65·303

  67·880

  70·325

  73·315

  91·859

  114·962

  SERC

  201·446

  216·755

  234·402

  254·278

  278·827

  298·388

  316·187

  357·462

  369·334

  404·906

  Ambleside Infant School
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the head teacher of Ambleside infant school about inadequate school buildings; and what reply he has made.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend received a letter on 23 October 1989, from Dorothy Marshall, the head teacher at Ambleside infants school, Aspley, about, among other topics, inadequate buildings at her school. A response will be sent as soon as possible.
  536
  to disclose information about students resident in a particular charging authority area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  No. The information needs of community charges registration officers are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Nutrition Departments
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many departments of nutrition there are within medical schools in the United Kingdom undertaking full teaching and research.

  Mr. Jackson
  Four, though the subject is taught and researched elsewhere in other university departments. The 27 medical schools follow the recommendations of the General Medical Council which provide for nutrition to be included in the undergraduate curriculum.

  Nutrition
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of its budget the Medical Research Council is devoting to research specifically on nutrition in the prevention of cancer and cardio-vascular disease.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand that in the financial year 1988–89, the Medical Research Council devoted about 0·9 per cent. of its overall budget (some £1,250,000) to research projects which were directly related to the study of nutrition as regards the aetiology and prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease.

  Many other projects supported by the council in the general area of nutrition research, on which the council's total expenditure is about £6 million annually, may in the longer term also prove to be relevant to the prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease.

  Research Councils
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the total budgets of the five research councils for the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jackson
  The details are as follows:

  Children (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the percentage of children from each of the major ethnic minorities in(a) primary and (b) secondary education in England and Wales.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested is not available centrally, but my right hon. Friend has announced in circular 16/89 that statistics will be collected
  537
  by local education authorities from September 1990 and that aggregate returns will be made to the Department in the summer of 1991.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ministers
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many nights each of the Ministers of the Northern Ireland Office spent in Northern Ireland during the months of May, June, July and August.

  Mr. Cope
  The information requested is as follows:

  May

  June

  July

  August

  Mr. King

  5

  9

  6

  —

  Mr. Brooke

  —

  —

  —

  7

  Mr. Stewart

  11

  5

  8

  —

  Mr. Cope

  —

  —

  2

  6

  Lord Lyell

  5

  11

  3

  —

  Mr. Bottomley

  —

  —

  2

  10

  Dr. Mawhinney

  10

  8

  8

  10

  Lord Skelmersdale

  —

  —

  4

  6

  Mr. Needham

  12

  8

  8

  7

  Mr. Viggers

  10

  9

  9

  —

  Accident Statistics
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in each of the past three years for which figures are available, how many persons were(a) killed and (b) injured as a result of (i) road accidents, (ii) accidents in the home and (iii) terrorist attacks.

  Mr. Cope
  The three most recent years for which information is available is as follows:

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Number of deaths by road accident

  236

  214

  178

  Number of injuries by road accident

  9,206

  9,722

  10,789

  Number of deaths by terrorist attacks

  61

  93

  93

  Number of injuries by terrorist attacks

  1,450

  1,130

  1,047

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Number of deaths by accidents in the home

  172

  163

  138

  Number of injuries by accidents in the home

  4,183

  4,389

  4,236

  Republic of Ireland (Discussions)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  It is anticipated that the next conference will discuss a full range of subjects including cross-border security co-operation, the confidence of the community in the security forces and cross-border social and economic co-operation.

  Kincora Boys' Home
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what compensation has been paid to those who were the victims of abuse during residence at the Kincora boys' home; and if he will make a statement.
  538
  Mr. Needham
  A number of claims for compensation have been received by health and social services boards from former residents of Kincora boys' home. To date settlements in respect of five of these claims, amounting to £31,000 plus costs, have been agreed between the parties, and payment in each case has been made. The question of compensation is entirely a matter for settlement between the parties concerned.

  UDR
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what decisions he has made in connection with the Ulster Defence Regiment arising from the meeting of the Anglo-Irish Ministerial Conference on Wednesday 5 October.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: Questions relating to the Ulster Defence Regiment are primarily for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but I refer the right hon. Gentleman to references to the Ulster Defence Regiment in the joint statement issued after the meeting of the Anglo-Irish Ministerial Conference on Wednesday 18 October, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated cost of the introduction of student loans.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  An estimate was included in annex E of Cm. 520. An estimate of administrative costs, not calculated there, was provided in my right hon. Friend's statement on 19 June at columns 21–22. Work is continuing to refine those estimates; the results will be published in due course.

  Allotments
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to bring the Northern Ireland Allotment Act 1932 into line with the legislation for other parts of the United Kingdom on allotments.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I am aware of a recent request from the National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners Ltd. for the Northern Ireland legislation to be brought into line with Great Britain. I understand this arose as a result of the concern expressed by one allotment holder about the possible loss of allotment sites in the Belfast city council area. The council has confirmed that it has no plans to dispose of any of its sites. There have been no other complaints about the legislation.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons aged 16 and 17 years have(a) applied for and (b) been refused incomes support for each month on grounds of extreme hardship since 12 September 1988.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is in the table.
  539

  Applications for Income Support of grounds of "Severe Hardship"

  Period Ending

  Applications received

  Directions refused

  30 September 1988

  341

  107

  28 October 1988

  494

  183

  25 November 1988

  625

  190

  30 December 1988

  940

  293

  27 January 1989

  1,092

  387

  24 February 1989

  1,278

  518

  31 March 1989

  1,566

  554

  28 April 1989

  1,561

  562

  26 May 1989

  1,379

  427

  30 June 1989

  1,799

  666

  28 July 1989

  1,742

  569

  25 August 1989

  1,821

  571

  29 September 1989

  1,849

  558

  Total

  16,487

  5,585

  Notes:

  (1) Based on 100 per cent. count of applications received.

  DSS administrative region

  Cumulative totals period ending

  London North

  London South

  Midlands

  North-East

  North- West

  Wales and South- West

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  8 September 1989

  Applications received

  1,088

  1,033

  1,546

  3,234

  2,061

  1,154

  5,315

  15,431

  Directions given

  673

  661

  1,026

  2,158

  1,229

  732

  3,623

  10,172

  6 October 1989

  Applications received

  1,196

  1,127

  1,696

  3,558

  2,261

  1,238

  5,740

  16,816

  Directions given

  742

  722

  1,137

  2,371

  1,430

  789

  3,937

  11,128

  Notes:

  (1) Based on 100 per cent. count of applications received.

  (2) Information relates to the number of applications received rather than to the number of individual young people involved. Some individuals may have received more than once direction

  Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the number of appeals heard by social security appeal tribunals and the number decided in the claimant's favour, the number decided in favour of the adjudication officer and the number adjourned in each quarter from the third quarter of 1988.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest national administrative statistics available on social security appeal tribunals relate to appeals heard in the first quarter of 1989. Information is provided in the table for the quarter ending September 1988, December 1988 and March 1989.

  Social security appeal tribunals Great Britain

  Quarter ending:

  30 September 1988

  31 December 1988

  31 March 1989

  Appeals heard and decided

  47,318

  30,978

  25,370

  Decided in favour of claimant

  14,492

  9,684

  8,411

  Decided in favour of Adjudication Officer

  32,826

  21,826

  16,959

  Adjournments

  10,470

  7,270

  6,368

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will show the number of appeals against disqualification from unemployment benefit for all reasons(a) heard and decided (b) decided in claimants'
  540
  (2) Information relates to the number of applications received rather than to the number of individual young people involved. Some individuals may have applied more than once

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by region, how many persons aged 16 and 17 years have made applications for income support on the ground of extreme hardship; how many had been granted at 8 September and 6 October; and how many at the same dates had been granted income support on the ground of being within exempted categories, shown by category.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The number of applications for income support from 16 and 17-year-olds on grounds of "severe hardship", and the number of directions given to enable benefit to be paid at 8 September and 6 October, are in the table.

  The number of 16 and 17-year-olds granted income support because they fall within one of the exempted categories ceased to be collected after October 1988 and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  favour, broken down for Great Britain, England, Wales and Scotland and by Department of Social Security region for the last four quarters.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest national administrative available on social security appeal heard in the quarter ending 31 March 1989.Information about the number of appeals against disqualification from unemployment benefit is not readily available in the form requested. The figures supplied in the table are based on the total number of unemployment benefit appeals for the quarters ending 30 June 1988, 30 September 1988, 31 December 1988 and 31 March 1989.

  Social Security Appeal Tribunals Unemployment Benefit

  Appeals heard and decided

  Appeals decided in favour of claimant

  Quarter ending

  30 Jun 88

  Great Britain

  5,754

  2,010

  England

  4,475

  1,519

  Wales

  367

  159

  Scotland

  912

  332

  Region

  North East

  898

  271

  London North

  828

  293

  London South

  639

  237

  Midlands

  643

  209

  North West

  981

  326

  Wales/South West

  853

  342

  Scotland

  912

  332

  Quarter ending

  30 September 1988

  Great Britain

  5,254

  1,805

  541

  Appeals heard and decided

  Appeals decided in favour of claimant

  England

  4,113

  1,400

  Wales

  358

  130

  Scotland

  783

  275

  Region

  North East

  912

  237

  London North

  557

  198

  London South

  763

  278

  Midlands

  670

  234

  North West

  801

  304

  Wales/South West

  768

  279

  Scotland

  783

  275

  Social security Appeal Tribunals Unemployment Benefit

  Appeals heard and decided

  Appeals decided in favour of claimant

  Quarter ending 31 December 1988

  Great Britain

  4,732

  1,754

  England

  3,613

  1,297

  Wales

  284

  141

  Scotland

  835

  316

  Region

  North East

  890

  248

  London North

  594

  234

  London South

  530

  159

  Midlands

  489

  183

  North West

  750

  320

  Wales/South West

  644

  294

  Scotland

  835

  316

  Quarter ending 31 March 1989

  Great Britain

  4,500

  1,795

  England

  3,461

  1,332

  Wales

  291

  128

  Scotland

  748

  335

  Region

  North East

  901

  257

  London North

  518

  215

  London South

  505

  196

  Midlands

  525

  197

  North West

  643

  304

  Wales/South West

  660

  291

  Scotland

  748

  335

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will specify the number of claims referred to adjudication officers by employment service staff because they neglected to avail themselves of or refused suitable employment; and how many were disqualified from receiving benefit on grounds of neglecting to avail themselves of or refusing suitable employment for the whole year 1988 and to June of the current year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is available in "Unemployment Benefit Statistics—Annual and Quarterly Analyses of Decisions of Adjudication Officers", copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will specify the number of people referred to adjudication officers by employment service staff because of doubts about their availability for work; how many were disqualified from receiving benefit on the grounds of non-availability for the whole year of 1988 and to June of 542
  the current year; how many were so referred because of restrictions they placed on their availability; and how many were disqualified from receiving benefit on grounds of non-availability for work for the whole year 1988 and to June of the current year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. Details of the number of decisions on claims to unemployment benefit given by adjudication officers relating to questions on availability are contained in "Unemployment Benefit Statistics—Annual and Quarterly Analyses of Decisions of Adjudication Officers", copies of which are held in the Library.

  Earnings Rule (Abolition)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners he anticipates will benefit by the abolition of the earnings rule; and what he estimates will be the annual average financial benefit to those pensioners.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is expected that approximately 400,000 pensioners will benefit from the abolition of the pension earnings rule from 1 October: those who deferred their entitlement and continued working, those whose entitlement was reduced by earnings over £75 per week and those who earned less than £75. In addition, all future pensioners will have the freedom to choose to continue working and claim their pension. It is not possible to estimate the average financial benefit as this will vary according to each individuals circumstances.

  Disablement Benefit
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the criteria by which the Government decided which occupations should be covered for disablement benefit purposes in relation to prescribed industrial disease ALO.

  Mr. Scott
  The Government have decided the occupations to be covered on the advice of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. Reflecting its concern about the implications for National Health Service audiological services, the council has considered it necessary to recommend that coverage be restricted to those considered to be most at risk of having suffered substantial hearing losses as a result of their work.

  Benefits (Barnsley)
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of recipients in Barnsley metropolitan district for each year from 1979 to date of(a) supplementary benefit/income support, (b) supplementary pensions and (c) claimants required to be available for work.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 20 October 1989]: The metropolitan district of Barnsley is served by the local offices at Barnsley (East), Barnsley (West) and Wath-on-Dearne, but the boundaries are not conterminous. The information is as follows:
  543

  Supplementary Benefit/Income Support live load

  Barnsley (East)

  Barnsley (West)

  Wath-on-Dearne

  1A

  B

  C

  A

  B

  C

  A

  B

  C

  1979–80

  5,525

  2,464

  1,445

  4,473

  2,666

  817

  4,284

  1,900

  1,151

  1980–81

  6,136

  2,464

  2,082

  4,851

  2,650

  1,235

  4,804

  1,872

  1,721

  1981–82

  7,556

  2,541

  3,263

  5,706

  2,772

  1,928

  5,782

  1,916

  2,492

  1982–83

  8,767

  2,682

  3,978

  6,558

  2,883

  2,437

  6,639

  2,007

  3,032

  1983–84

  9,140

  2,563

  4,194

  6,989

  2,708

  2,823

  7,245

  2,040

  3,290

  1984–85

  10,492

  2,731

  4,794

  7,817

  2,839

  3,174

  7,898

  2,039

  3,504

  1985–86

  10,926

  2,800

  4,997

  8,192

  2,830

  3,391

  8,147

  1,994

  3,760

  1986–87

  11,218

  2,718

  5,179

  8,354

  2,809

  3,467

  8,291

  1,987

  3,762

  1987–88

  10,900

  2,746

  4,662

  8,244

  2,819

  3,203

  8,041

  2,016

  3,398

  21988–89

  9,584

  2,626

  3,760

  7,441

  2,683

  2,734

  7,274

  1,826

  2,986

  31989–90

  9,725

  2,511

  3,845

  7,792

  2,658

  2,945

  7,609

  1,879

  3,075

  1 A = all claimants, B = pensioners, C = claimants required to be available for work.

  2 Data for years 1988–89 and 1989–90 are provisional and subject to amendment.

  3 Year 1989–90 is based on data collected to August 1989 only.

  Source of data: 100 per cent. count of cases in action, which include a number of cases where benefit has ceased but other action is continuing.

  Benefits
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the value of(a) child benefit, and (b) invalidity benefit for a married couple as a proportion of average net earnings for all males and all manually employed males for each year between November 1978 and the latest date available.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 24 October 1989]: The information on child benefit is given in the table from April 1979 when the benefit was fully phased in. I regret that information is not available from which to calculate the average value of total invalidity benefit (including additional pension and invalidity allowance) received by married men. The table therefore relates only to basic invalidity pension with an increase for an adult dependant. It takes no account of additional pension or invalidity allowance.

  Value of Child Benefit (One Child)

  Uprating Dates

  Child Benefit (One Child) as percentage of net average earnings (1)

  All Adult Males

  All Male Manuals

  April 1979

  5·5

  6·0

  November 1980

  4·9

  5·4

  November 1981

  5·0

  5·6

  November 1982

  5·2

  5·9

  November 1983

  5·4

  6·1

  November 1984

  5·2

  5·9

  November 1985

  4·9

  5·7

  July 1986

  4·7

  5·5

  April 1987

  4·4

  5·2

  April 1988 (2)

  4·0

  4·8

  April 1989(2)

  3·73

  4·43

  Value of Basic Invalidity Pension

  Uprating Dates

  Invalidity Pension (With Adult Dependant) no children as percentage of net average earnings (1)

  All Adult Males

  Are Male Manuals

  November 1978

  45·3

  48·9

  April 1979

  —

  —

  November 1979

  44·6

  48·4

  November 1980

  42·5

  47·6

  November 1981

  43·0

  48·8

  November 1982

  44·7

  50·9

  November 1983

  43·0

  49·1

  November 1984

  41·4

  47·4

  November 1985

  43·3

  49·9

  July 1986

  41·1

  47·8

  April 1987

  38·8

  45·7

  April 1988

  36·2

  43·3

  April 1989

  335·2

  342·2

  544
  1. Net average earnings are the estimated gross weekly earnings less tax and national insurance contributions at the non contracted-out rate.

  2. Child benefit rate unchanged.

  3. Provisional.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Visas
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to improve the present arrangements for processing applications for visitors' visas in the high commissions and embassies concerned.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The vast majority of visit visa applications received by our posts overseas are processed within 24 hours. We are nevertheless constantly seeking to improve the processing of visit visa applications, particularly where this can be achieved without an increase in overall resources.

  Punjab
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Indian Government on the refusal to issue visas to members of Amnesty International to investigate the human rights situation in the Punjab.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have in the past made it clear to the Indian authorities that we regard Amnesty International as a serious and responsible organisation. But the issuing of visas is a matter for the Indian Government.

  Somalia
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of renewed civil conflict in Mogadishu and other parts of Somalia during the summer on Her Majesty's Government's policies.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We regret the deterioration of the situation in Somalia since mid-July which has led us to make further adjustments to our aid programme.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking, directly and in conjunction with other countries, to encourage an end to the internal conflict in Somalia.
  545
  Mr. Waldegrave
  Together with our partners and allies, we continue to urge reconciliation in Somalia and to support efforts to bring about a peaceful solution.

  Bulgaria (Ethnic Turks)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to disassociate Her Majesty's Government from the conclusions in the Council of Europe document 6106 on the departure of some ethnic Turks from Bulgaria; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We agree with the authors of the document mentioned by my hon. Friend that the treatment of the ethnic Turkish minority in Bulgaria is cause for grave concern. We have long been critical of Bulgaria's poor human rights record, in particular the campaign of assimilation which has denied fundamental freedoms to the Turkish and other minorities in Bulgaria. We have repeatedly urged the Bulgarian Government to adopt more tolerant policies. I raised this with the Bulgarian ambassador in September.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to meet his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts to consider the historical basis of the departure of some ethnic Turks from Bulgaria; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have, on many occasions, urged the Bulgarian authorities to cease their campaign of assimilation of the ethnic Turkish minority, which is the root cause of the mass departure from Bulgaria earlier this year. Many of our partners and allies share our views. We will discuss the issue with them from time to time, as long as the problem persists.

  Human Rights (Commonwealth)
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on human rights violations in Commonwealth countries; and if he will list those Commonwealth countries in which elections have not been held in the past five years on the basis of universal adult suffrage with a secret ballot and opposition parties being allowed to participate.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We receive representations about human rights in many countries, including some Commonwealth members. Where Commonwealth countries' practice on human rights give cause for concern, we make representations as necessary. Such representations are sometimes more productive if undertaken without publicity, and it would not always be helpful to disclose full details.

  Details of the second part of the question are not readily available. I shall reply to my hon. Friend on this part in due course.

  Trident
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries whose Governments have indicated to Her Majesty's Government since May 1979 that they consider the United Kingdom's purchase of the Trident nuclear weapons 546
  system from the United States of America is compatible with United Kingdom obligations under article VI of the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The purchase by the United Kingdom of Trident missiles from the United States is fully compatible with our obligations under the nonproliferation treaty. We have received no representations from any other Government on the subject.

  Namibia
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's attitude to the composition of the United Nations resolution 435 package setting the conditions for the elections in Namibia as it affects the necessity for a two thirds majority decision on the type of constitution to be set up by the elected assembly.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We see the principles concerning the constituent assembly and the constitution, which were agreed in 1982, as an essential part of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence. We are working to ensure that these principles are respected.

  South Africa
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement defining Her Majesty's Government's position as to what will constitute a clear and irreversible change in South Africa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We believe the first step is for the South African Government to implement the concept developed by the Commonwealth eminent persons group, to open the way for serious negotiations to start about the future of South Africa.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the position of Her Majesty's Government on the five-year plan of the South African Government.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It is not for us to comment on the plan. We have made clear to the South African Government repeatedly that we seek early progress on the creation of a non-racial South Africa with a government acceptable to all South Africans.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to call upon the South African Government to lift the restrictions which currently prohibit South African citizens and organisations from advocating sanctions.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Yes.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now call upon the Government of South Africa to cease all executions of opponents of apartheid to meet the preconditions proposed by the Organisation of African Unity to create a climate for negotiations in South Africa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We will continue to make representations in cases that are clearly political and where there are extenuating circumstances or grounds to doubt the fairness of the judicial process.

  Thabo Mbeki
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he received a request to meet Thabo Mbeki, head of the international department of the African National Congress; and what reply he has sent.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A representative of the ANC asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in Kuala Lumpur on 22 October if he would meet Mr. Mbeki. He indicated that he was prepared to do so if Mr. Mbeki was willing to agree to the suspension of violence on the basis set out in the negotiating concept of the Commonwealth eminent persons group.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what improvements have been made for the conveyance of passengers and freight between RMS St. Helena and the quayside at Jamestown, St. Helena.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No quayside improvements have been made, but we are providing, through the aid programme, a harbour launch which will ease the transfer of passengers and baggage between the RMS St. Helena and the quayside at Jamestown, St. Helena.

  Diplomatic Missions (Parking Fines)
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish up-to-date figures recording the number of unpaid parking fines incurred by each diplomatic mission in the first six months of the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested by my hon. Friend is given in the table, which also includes those international organisations which have incurred unpaid fines. The figures may be reduced by late payment.

  The total of 4,292 for the first six months of 1989 indicates a 26 per cent. reduction over the same period of 1988. It compares with nearly 67,000 in the first six months of 1984 before publication of the 1985 White Paper (Cmnd. 9497). We welcome this further reduction in unpaid parking fines and appreciate the co-operation of diplomatic missions since the introduction of the parking policy. We shall continue to monitor carefully the level of unpaid fines and bring pressure to bear on diplomatic missions to reduce this still further.

  Unpaid Parking Fines

  Diplomatic mission

  January to June 1989

  January to June 1988

  Soviet Union

  335

  324

  Saudi Arabia

  251

  157

  Côte d'Ivoire

  195

  146

  Sudan

  190

  190

  Cameroon

  173

  154

  Egypt

  132

  368

  Greece

  126

  141

  Pakistan

  120

  120

  United Arab Emirates

  113

  165

  Spain

  109

  158

  Qatar

  102

  104

  Korea

  99

  78

  Poland

  99

  213

  548

  Diplomatic mission

  January to June 1989

  January to June 1988

  Bulgaria

  94

  47

  German (Federal Republic)

  82

  66

  Israel

  81

  116

  Malaysia

  81

  138

  Thailand

  72

  93

  Morocco

  71

  100

  Iraq

  67

  173

  France

  64

  69

  Portugal

  63

  62

  Brunei

  62

  130

  Turkey

  62

  123

  Ghana

  53

  52

  Kuwait

  52

  11

  Cyprus

  46

  32

  Brazil

  43

  42

  Germany (Democratic Republic)

  42

  56

  Bangladesh

  41

  40

  Gambia

  40

  28

  Tanzania

  40

  51

  India

  38

  40

  China

  36

  130

  Algeria

  35

  57

  Jordan

  35

  85

  Norway

  35

  36

  Venezuela

  32

  57

  Canada

  32

  33

  Yugoslavia

  31

  49

  Angola

  29

  13

  Belgium

  29

  25

  Japan

  29

  84

  Tunisia

  29

  113

  Uruguay

  29

  21

  Barbados

  28

  28

  Finland

  27

  38

  Nicaragua

  26

  10

  Oman

  25

  19

  Sierra Leone

  23

  101

  Sweden

  22

  38

  Hungary

  21

  22

  Mauritius

  21

  16

  Cuba

  20

  23

  Ethiopia

  20

  49

  PDRY

  20

  26

  Czechoslovakia

  19

  16

  Ireland

  19

  21

  Burma

  16

  21

  Romania

  16

  30

  Yemen AR

  16

  13

  Liberia

  15

  26

  Italy

  14

  53

  Zaire

  14

  82

  Zambia

  14

  24

  Fiji

  13

  20

  Jamaica

  13

  29

  Guyana

  11

  16

  Senegal

  11

  39

  Somalia

  11

  17

  Trinidad

  10

  7

  Ecuador

  9

  27

  Lebanon

  9

  23

  Philippines

  9

  9

  Mexico

  8

  12

  Mongolia

  8

  2

  Nigeria

  8

  67

  Paraguay

  8

  14

  Uganda

  8

  10

  Austria

  7

  6

  Chile

  7

  7

  Iran

  7

  24

  Kenya

  7

  36

  Honduras

  6

  7

  Zimbabwe

  6

  20

  Gabon

  5

  16

  Iceland

  5

  11

  Lesotho

  5

  9

  Malawi

  5

  17

  549

  Diplomatic mission

  January to June 1989

  January to June 1988

  Peru

  5

  59

  Seychelles

  5

  8

  United States of America

  5

  15

  Bahrain

  4

  2

  Guatemala

  4

  5

  Nepal

  4

  5

  Panama

  4

  7

  Denmark

  3

  1

  Indonesia

  3

  18

  Vietnam

  3

  2

  Bolivia

  2

  1

  Botswana

  2

  7

  Dominica

  2

  3

  Netherlands

  2

  6

  Singapore

  2

  0

  Switzerland

  2

  3

  Togo

  2

  4

  Australia

  1

  2

  Colombia

  1

  8

  Luxembourg

  1

  3

  Malta

  1

  0

  Mozambique

  1

  0

  Papua New Guinea

  1

  0

  Sri Lanka

  1

  6

  Swaziland

  1

  0

  Afghanistan

  0

  6

  Antigua and Barbuda

  0

  9

  Bahamas

  0

  2

  Belize

  0

  0

  Costa Rica

  0

  3

  Eastern Caribbean States

  0

  2

  El Salvador

  0

  1

  Grenada

  0

  0

  Holy See

  0

  0

  New Zealand

  0

  0

  South Africa

  0

  1

  Tonga

  0

  0

  International organisations

  Commonwealth Secretariat

  10

  15

  Cocoa

  3

  9

  IMO

  3

  2

  Inmarsat

  3

  0

  WEU

  0

  32

  UN

  0

  0

  EEC

  0

  0

  Coffee

  0

  0

  Sugar

  0

  0

  Totals

  4,292

  5,838

ENVIRONMENT

  Water Quality Assessors
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appointments he intends to make to technical assessors for water quality within his Department.

  Mr. Patten
  The matter is still under consideration.

  Sewage Bacteria (Drax Power Station)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on sewage bacteria contamination from the Drax power station and its impact on surrounding areas and give details of any action to be taken by his Department.

  Mr. Patten
  Low river levels have caused abnormal amounts of silt to enter the cooling system at Drax and to be emitted from it. Her Majesty's inspectorate of 550
  pollution, in conjunction with other agencies, is investigating the position urgently. They will take whatever action may be needed to protect the public, if a health hazard is found to exist.

  Oil Slick (Mersey)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many tons of chemicals were used to deal with the Shell oil slick in the Mersey in the summer;

  (2) how many tons of crude oil escaped from the Shell oil terminal into the Mersey in the summer;

  (3) how many tons of crude oil were recovered following the leakage into the Mersey in the summer.

  Mr. Trippier
  Aircraft from the Department of Transport's marine pollution control unit made two spraying sorties and sprayed a total of 6·4 tonnes of dispersant. In addition a vessel, commissioned and under the direction of the metropolitan borough of Wirral, sprayed a total of 12·6 tonnes of dispersant obtained from MPCU stockpiles.

  It is estimated that up to 150 tonnes of oil escaped into the river. Once a leak was identified a vacuum tanker was deployed to act on oil at the leak site and more than 50 tonnes was recovered in this way and returned to the refinery. Much of the oil that landed on beaches was mixed with sand and removed. It is not possible to estimate how much of the oil was dealt with in this manner. Most of the oil lying on mud flats and salt marshes has, after consideration of expert advice, been left to weather naturally to avoid causing further damage through disturbance of these sensitive sites.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends setting up a public inquiry to investigate the oil spillage into the River Mersey on 19 August.

  Mr. Trippier
  No. The hon. Member will be aware of the ongoing investigations of the Department of Energy's pipelines inspectorate and the prosecution proceedings being undertaken by the National Rivers Authority. Our assessment is that these, when taken with the work of the independent expert advisory committee, which is to look at the longer-term environmental effects under the chairmanship of Professor Bradshaw of the university of Liverpool, should adequately cover the public interest in this matter.

  Rents into Mortgages Scheme
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received in favour of introducing a rents into mortgages scheme in England similar to those announced for Scotland and Wales.

  Mr. Chope
  My hon. Friend and 12 members of the public have made such representations.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will conduct a survey into the potential popularity of a rents into mortgages scheme in England.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department commissions research from time to time into the factors which influence tenants' decisions on buying their homes, and will study the outcome of the experimental schemes in Scotland and Wales.
  551
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will visit the Coney Hill and Matson estates in Gloucester to discuss a rents into mortgages scheme with tenants.

  Mr. Chope
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in which foreign countries a rents into mortgages scheme(a) is operating or (b) has operated.

  Mr. Chope
  I am not aware of any such schemes.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the value of right-to-buy discounts for sales in(a) Corby and (b) east Northamptonshire for each year since 1980–81.

  Mr. Chope
  Information on the discounts given on right-to-buy sales is not reported separately. The reported figures of total discounts on all sales are as follows:

  Discounts on all council house sales

  Corby

  East Northamptonshire

  £ thousands

  £ thousands

  1980–81

  256

  634

  1981–82

  12,807

  2,155

  1982–83

  3,616

  799

  1983–84

  2,846

  791

  1984–85

  2,278

  686

  1985–86

  2,870

  873

  1986–87

  2,488

  1,470

  1987–88

  4,241

  2,372

  1988–89

  8183

  3,699

  1989–90

  22,039

  31,169

  1 April-December 1981 only reported.

  2 April-June 1989, latest information available.

  3 April-September 1989, latest information available.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why the advice contained within community charge practice note 23, paragraph 4.8, suggests that the names and addresses of all students should be disclosed to the community charges registration officer; what steps he is taking to safeguard the privacy of students not resident in the requesting CCRO's charging authority area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The guidance given in paragraph 4.8 of community charge practice note 23 reflects regulation 5 of the Personal Community Charge (Students) Regulations 1989 (S.I. 1989/443) which were laid before Parliament on 17 March 1989. Paragraph 4.8 of the practice note also outlines the steps to be taken by educational establishments to comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1984. It is the responsibility of these establishments to ensure that they do so.

  Long Leaseholds
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from, or on behalf of, house owners with long-term leaseholds regarding difficulties created by the freehold owners.

  Mr. Chope
  We have received a number of representations from hon. Members and a few from leaseholders themselves.

  Rent Arrears
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the level of council house rent arrears for each district in England and Wales at April 1986 and 1989.

  Mr. Chope
  Local authorities in England report their rent arrears on their housing subsidy claim forms. I am arranging for details of the rent arrears at April 1986 to be placed in the Library of the House. A table was placed in the Library on 1 March this year showing rent arrears reported at April 1988 and those arrears as a percentage of rent roll. Corresponding information on the position at April 1989 is not yet available. For corresponding information about Welsh local authorities I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  PCBs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ask Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to assess the potential dangers to the public of the polychlorinated biphenyls waste disposed of by the Purle Waste Company in quarries in south Wales; and if he will assess the danger to local housing from PCBs dumped at the Brofisken site.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is the responsibility of the district councils in Wales to ensure that waste disposal operations do not give rise to risk to public health. Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is able to provide guidance or advice if required.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to instruct Her Majesty's pollution inspectorate to make a site evaluation of the Ty Llwyd quarry in the Sirhowy valley; to assess the danger to local public health from the polychlorinated biphenyl wastes tipped at the quarry.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is the responsibility of the local district council, the waste disposal authority, to ensure that waste disposal operations do not pose a threat to public health. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is able to provide guidance and advice if required.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to instruct Her Majesty's pollution inspectorate to assess the potential dangers from the dumping of polychlorinated biphenyls waste at Alvanley on Merseyside.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is aware of the potential problems that may arise from the former landfill at Alvanley and is liaising closely with the relevant waste disposal and local authorities that have responsibility for the disposal of toxic wastes.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions sections 65 and 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 have been applied to clean up contaminated land; and how much money has been recovered from each polluting party in each case to pay for the clean-up.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Section 65 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 contains discretionary powers
  553
  exercised by local authorities. There is no requirement to notify the Government when these powers are used and therefore this information is not readily available. Section 197 of the Act does not contain appropriate powers for dealing with contamination.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions sections 9 and 16 of the Control of Pollution Act have been applied to clean up contaminated land; and how much money has been recovered from the polluting party or parties in each case to pay for the clean-up.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No such information is available centrally, and it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to evaluate the necessity to use section 115 of the Water Act 1989 to recover costs for the clean-up of contaminated land.

  Mr. Howard
  Section 115 of the Water Act enables the National Rivers Authority to carry out anti-pollution works, including to prevent polluting matter from entering watercourses where it considers this is likely to occur, and to recover the costs it has reasonably incurred from any person responsible. It would therefore be for the authority to consider, in any particular case, the extent to which the use of these powers might be appropriate in dealing with problems of water pollution associated with contaminated land.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions sections 92 to 100 of the Public Health Act 1936 have been applied to clean up contaminated land; and what financial resources have been recovered from the polluting party, or parties in each case to pay for the clean-up.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information about the use of sections 92 to 100 of the Public Health Act 1936 by local authorities is not held centrally. It could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Problems of contamination are dealt with by landowners and local authorities depending on the circumstances of each case; Government Departments are not normally consulted.

  Environmental Assessments
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the effect of community charge capping upon the ability of local planning authorities fully to evaluate environmental assessment statements submitted in planning applications under the new European Community directive.

  Mr. Chope
  If any local authorities were selected for capping, the limits on the budgets proposed would take account of the individual circumstances of the authorities concerned.

  Tap Water
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each water authority area the water supplies(a) which will meet the European Community directive on tap water quality, 80/778/EEC by 1992, (b) which will not, stating the criteria each water
  554
  supply fails to meet, the number of people affected and the planned date for compliance and (c) to what extent the position will have improved by 1995.

  Mr. Howard
  I will place copies of the undertakings accepted by my right hon. Friend under Section 20 of the Water Act 1989 and relaxations granted under the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 in the Library.

  Bathing Water
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those beaches which will comply with the European Community bathing water quality directive, 76/160/EEC, by 1992, and those which will not.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the information I placed in the Library on 20 October at columns 261–62 about improvement programmes.

  Water Standards
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish details of his agreements regarding the drinking water standards according to EC directives with the new water companies.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 26 October.

  Methane
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what monitoring of methane in the atmosphere has been conducted since 1985; and what plans he has to extend this.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Mace Head monitoring station, which monitors atmospheric methane, as a part of the global atmosphere gases experiment is funded by the Department. The Harwell laboratory has made a study of methane emissions from landfill waste disposal sites. Both these activities are expected to continue, together with an important new study of advanced measuring techniques by the national physical laboratory.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the future of the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State announced on 25 May 1988 that the Property Services Agency should operate on business lines. Since then, good progress has been made and as a result the Government have decided that it will be in the long-term interest of the PSA and its staff to privatise its commercial activities as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made, which include the introduction of commercial accounts and the restructuring of its organisation. The earliest practicable date is likely to be in the second half of 1992.

  The PSA's customers will be fully untied from 1 April 1990 and I will be giving the PSA some immediate freedom to compete for work in new markets so that it has an opportunity to establish itself in them in advance of privatisation.
  555
  The bulk of the PSA's activities relate to project management, design services, maintenance of property and estate management services and these will be the core of the new private organisation. Those of the PSA's current activities that are essentially governmental will be retained within the Department. These activities include management of the Government's common user estate, for which executive agency status will be considered.

  Water plcs
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the capital structures proposed for the water plcs.

  Mr. Howard
  The Government have announced their intention to restructure the finances of the 10 water plcs, by writing off all their debt to the Exchequer and providing a substantial injection of cash. The restructuring will enable them, among other things, to fund major new capital investment in England and Wales.

  In order to achieve this, I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales intend to take the following steps. We propose by orders under section 86(1) of the Water Act 1989 to extinguish all the liabilities to the Exhequer of the 10 water plcs. Debts amounting to £5 billion will be written off on 15 November, as follows:

  Water plc

  £ million

  Anglian Water plc

  859

  Northumbrian Water Group plc

  450

  North West Water Group plc

  1,055

  Severn Trent plc

  831

  Southern Water plc

  276

  South West Water plc

  129

  Thames Water plc

  121

  Wessex Water plc

  315

  Yorkshire Water plc

  559

  Total English plcs

  4,595

  Welsh Water plc

  433

  Total

  5,028

  Two of the companies, Anglian Water plc and Thames Water plc will be required to pay to the Government the sums of £61 million and £11·9 million respectively. In order to achieve this I propose to make directions under section 83(2) of the Water Act to Anglian Water plc and to Thames Water plc to issue debentures to the Treasury, also on 15 November, for these amounts. These debentures are expected to mature on 29 December.

  We also propose to enter into agreements on 20 November, under section 87(1) of the Water Act, to subscribe for shares in each of the other eight water plcs, paying a total of £1·57 billion as follows.

  Water Plc

  £ million

  Northumbrian Water Group Plc

  122·6

  North West Water Group Plc

  329·7

  Severn Trent Plc

  361·0

  Southern Water Plc

  46·3

  South West Water Plc

  265·9

  Wessex Water Plc

  81·3

  Yorkshire Water Plc

  89·4

  Total English Plcs

  1,296·2

  Welsh Water Plc

  276·0

  Total

  1,572·2

  556
  These sums are expected to be paid on 29 December. The shares so subscribed will be included in the offers for sale of shares in the water plcs in November.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class X, vote 9 will be increased by £1,296,200,000 from £1,000 to £1,296,201,000. The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure. A separate cash limit increase in respect of class XVII, vote 13 will be announced by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Wales.

  The capital restructuring described above—the write-off of debt, issues of debentures and subscriptions of shares—is designed to give effect to the proposals announced by the Government on 2 August. The figures in those announcements related to estimates at that time of the cash in balance sheets at 31 March 1990 resulting from the restructuring of the 10 water plcs. These estimates have now been modified to reflect updated information. The price ceilings are as announced on 2 August.

  Ministerial Cars (Catalytic Converters)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to introduce cars fitted with catalytic converters into the ministerial car fleet.

  Mr. Chope
  Three cars fitted with catalytic converters have already been obtained for use by Ministers and a further one is on order. It is our intention to purchase only vehicles equipped with catalytic converters to meet the Government car service fleet replacement programme.

  Road Salting
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any research has been undertaken into the effects of winter salting of roads on the quality of river water and on the breeding capability of brown trout and other fish; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 17 October 1989]: I am not aware of any research which has been undertaken into the effects of the winter salting of roads on the quality of river water. However, I am advised that past research shows that limited amounts of salt in freshwater has negligible effects on the breeding capability of brown trout and other fish.

  Sewers (Maintenance)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the likely range of total liability carried by the new water undertakings for repair or renewal of the sewers now in their ownership.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 17 October 1989]: My Department and the water service companies are in the process of finalising estimates of their future investment programmes including on sewerage and I will send details to the hon. Member as soon as I can.

  Reservoirs
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will place in the Library any material submitted, requested or commissioned by him concerning any matters relating to Horton Bank top reservoir in Bradford, since 1979;

  (2) what powers he has to ensure the safety of any reservoir; and what powers he has to direct or request a water authority or a water company to retain a reservoir, emptied on safety grounds, to be refilled and kept for recreational purposes;

  (3) what representations he has received concerning the future of Horton Bank top reservoir in Bradford; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if he will list the statutory provisions that govern the sale by water companies of land owned by them close to reservoirs;

  (5) if he will list the statutory provisions which relate to the imposition of right and obligation on public agencies to make inquiries into the safety of any reservoir owned by a water authority or water company.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 24 October 1989]: The Secretary of State appoints panels of independent civil engineers, under the Reservoirs Act 1975, to ensure the safety of all reservoirs with a capacity of more than 25,000 cu. m. County councils and metropolitan district councils are responsible for securing that owners comply with the requirements of the Act, which include having their reservoirs inspected and supervised by panel engineers and carrying out any safety measures they recommend. The Secretary of State requires reports from the local authorities every two years on any enforcement action they have had to take and he may, in the case of default, direct an authority to carry out any of its enforcement functions.

  Under section 8 of the Water Act 1989, water undertakers have a general duty to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to make water or associated land available for recreation. And in considering proposals in relation to their functions they are subject to various environmental duties, including a duty to take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the beauty or amenity of a rural or urban area.

  The Secretary of State is required by section 20 of the 1989 Act to enforce these general environmental and recreational duties. In taking enforcement action he could require a reservoir to be refilled once it had been made safe. But he would not take such action where the breach of duties was of a trivial nature, or where enforcement would be precluded by his general duties, for example, to secure that water and sewerage services are provided properly, to ensure that the interests of customers are protected, and to promote economy and efficiency on the part of the undertaker.

  Under section 152 of the Act, water service companies are prevented from disposing of land transferred to them from water authorities unless they have the consent of the Secretary of State, or if that disposal is in accordance with a general authorisation given by the Secretary of State. The Act, the conditions of appointment and the general authorisation together ensure that no land is disposed of which is still required for water supply purposes. Special arrangements apply to the disposal of land which is in a national park, in an area of outstanding natural beauty or a site of special scientific interest.

  As regards the Horton Bank top reservoir, the
  558
  Secretary of State has received two letters asking for copies of the report on an inspection of the reservoir carried out earlier this year. The report was made to the Yorkshire water authority, the owner of the reservoir, and a copy was sent to Bradford metropolitan district council. It is for Yorkshire Water, as successor to the water authority, to decide on the future of the reservoir in the light of the report and of its duties under both the 1975 and 1989 Acts. The Department has no material relating to the reservoir.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what environmental protection measures deriving from European Community directives and regulations, apply to currently established enterprise zones; how environmental assessment measures apply to enterprise zones; and if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of implementation of environmental impact assessment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. David Hunt
  European Community directive 85/337/EEC deals with environmental protection measures and directly affects enterprise zones. It has been fully implemented in Great Britain, in England and Wales through the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988. DOE circular 24/88 and Welsh Office circular 48/88 explain that provision should be included in planning schemes for enterprise zones designated since the directive, for the environmental assessment of projects within the scope of annexes I and II to the directive. I understand from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that similar arrangements are in force in Scotland. The indications from the first year of operation are that these implementation measures are fully effective, but my Department is commissioning research to monitor the position in Great Britain.

  I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, that, so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, the main regulations required by the European directive on environmental assessment have been made and others are in the process of being made. The regulations that have been made are fully implemented.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Submarines (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement about his Department's plans for the decommissioning of nuclear submarines.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 24 October at column 646.

  Clyde Lee Conrad
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has consulted his counterparts and the Justice Minister in the Federal Republic of Germany, to ascertain whether United States Army Sergeant Clyde Lee Conrad divulged to the Governments of Hungary and Czechoslovakia details of deployments of United Kingdom Lance missiles by the British Army of the Rhine.
  559
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our policy to comment on such matters.

  Greenpeace Book
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the Greenpeace book of the nuclear age, published in October.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence library has ordered a copy of this publication.

  Middle East (Arms Sales)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which countries in the middle east the United Kingdom has sold(a) short-range fighter aircraft, (b) aircraft with long-range bomber capacity and (c) chemicals capable of being used to produce chemical warfare agents, in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It has been the consistent policy of successive Administrations not to provide details of defence exports to specific countries.

  Trident
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the awarding of the contract for the third Trident class submarine (SSBN 07); and what is the percentage break clause provision;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the progress of the construction of HMS Vanguard and HMS Victorious;

  (3) if his Department has any estimate of the additional costs to the Trident programme incurred by the strike at VSEL in 1988, which will be borne by his Department;

  (4) in which years it is now expected that each of the four Trident class submarines will become operational;

  (5) what are the currently projected programme acceptance and contract acceptance dates for the fourth Trident class submarine (SSBN 08), and the projected percentage break clause provision for this contract.

  Mr. Neubert
  Construction of SSBNs 05 (Vanguard) and 06 (Victorious) continues to progress well. We remain on course to achieve the initial deployment of Trident in the mid-1990s.

  The additional cost to the Trident programme of last year's strike at VSEL is not expected to exceed £10 million. Revised terms are being sought for future contracts, under which such additional costs will be no longer fall to the Ministry of Defence.

  We intend to place the order for SSBN 07 by the end of this year. The tender for SSBN 08 will be invited in due course following the SSBN 07 order. I anticipate that the contracts for both SSBN 07 and 08 will include standard break clauses which provide for reimbursement to the contractor of properly incurred costs up to 100 per cent. of the contract value.

  For reasons of security, I am not able to comment on specific acceptance dates or to give the planned in-service dates for individual submarines.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if there has been any cost escalation in the Trident programme, subsequent to the submarine-launched development testing of the Trident D5 missile;
  560
  (2) if there have been any changes to the expected first delivery or in-service dates of the Trident programme, due to the submarine-launched development testing of the Trident D5 missile;

  (3) if there have been any major changes in specification, in terms of launch ability, accuracy, range and so on, to the envisaged capability of the Trident programme, subsequent to the submarine-launched development testing of the Trident D5 missile.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The submarine-launched development testing of the Trident D5 missile has not resulted in any changes to the timetable for the missile's planned introduction into service with the Royal Navy, nor has it resulted in any major changes to the missiles's specification. The United Kingdom pays a fixed development charge for Trident and is not liable for the development costs of rectifying the cause of the recent missile failures.

  Experimental ELF Transmitter
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department is still considering alternative sites to the Glengarry Forest site for the placement of an experimental ELF transmitter.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Maple Flag Exercises
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what types of Royal Air Force aircraft participated in Exercise Maple Flag 21; over what period the exercise was held; and how many work-up training sorties for this exercise were conducted over the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Information on Exercise Maple Flag was provided to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 10 May 1989 at column 472. Only the minimum essential amount of work-up training was conducted in the United Kingdom in preparation for these exercises.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on planned Royal Air Force participation in Maple Flag exercises in the coming year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is planned that nine Royal Air Force Jaguar aircraft will participate in Exercise Maple Flag at Canadian Forces base Cold Lake, Alberta in 1990.

  Nuclear Weapons (Verification Research)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if her Majesty's Government will take steps actively to co-operate in verification research relating to nuclear weapons at sea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom is not involved in negotiations relating to nuclear weapons at sea. However, we follow developments in this field of verification research closely, and consult our allies on such matters as and when appropriate.

  Public House, Knightsbridge (Assault)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action has been taken in respect of the assault on 6 September on a black soldier by two members of the Household Cavalry at a public house in Knightsbridge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The incident is being investigated by the special investigation branch of the Royal Military Police. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. Member once our investigation is complete.

  Departmental Stocks and Supplies
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current level of his Department's stocks and supplies stolen or vandalised; what progress has been made to introduce bar coding and other improved security measures; and if he will make a statement.

  England, Northern Ireland and Wales Crime Return 1988

  Property

  General crime type

  Offences

  Percentage detected

  Employee

  Forces

  Other

  At gate

  Value

  Recovered

  Crown:

  Life threatening1

  11

  46

  2

  1

  261,044·91

  MOD, PSA,

  Assaults non-police

  8

  88

  6

  1

  DOT, DHSS,

  Assaults on police

  3

  67

  2

  1

  C and E,

  Sexual offences

  3

  100

  2

  United States

  State offences

  1

  100

  1

  1

  0·50

  0·50

  forces. Visiting

  Public order offences

  68

  27

  9

  1

  4

  4

  forces

  Criminal damage2

  969

  37

  190

  90

  125

  6

  200,171,994·52

  1,009·24

  Burglary

  395

  31

  103

  7

  4

  1

  282,924·03

  10,861·63

  Fraud

  1,321

  83

  575

  335

  32,840,141·13

  103,560·94

  Other theft act

  1,999

  51

  845

  211

  7

  170

  1,223,678·11

  254,232·77

  Forgery

  125

  73

  54

  25

  4

  585·55

  Drugs offences

  3

  33

  1

  Customs offences

  320

  100

  157

  142

  4

  210

  5,152·62

  4,630·46

  Traffic offences

  597

  98

  332

  209

  6

  133

  39,397·50

  36,165·00

  Other offences

  547

  95

  231

  35

  283

  22

  32,562·23

  32,062·23

  Totals

  6,370

  65

  2,506

  1,060

  435

  551

  234,857,481·10

  442,522·77

  Non-Crown:

  Life threatening

  16

  44

  6

  1

  3,528·00

  2,419·00

  Service

  Assaults non-police

  221

  85

  89

  88

  8

  1

  personnel,

  Assaults on police

  15

  100

  12

  2

  1

  3

  MOD

  Other child offences

  2

  0

  employee,

  Child sexual offences

  23

  78

  11

  4

  Other civilian,

  Sexual offences

  58

  72

  30

  10

  Dockyard

  Public order offences

  66

  73

  27

  21

  8

  2

  10·00

  management.

  Criminal damage

  662

  18

  60

  53

  3

  3

  79,581·87

  228·60

  Commercial

  Burglary

  544

  23

  133

  10

  175,299·20

  14,625·26

  company,

  Fraud

  456

  71

  178

  101

  3

  59,431·15

  11,094·24

  Royal

  Other theft act

  3,857

  23

  506

  264

  11

  53

  785,845·93

  193,585·99

  Ordnance

  Forgery

  116

  64

  16

  53

  3

  1,303·10

  275·40

  factory, Royal

  Drugs offences

  33

  88

  24

  7

  41·00

  31·00

  Mint

  Customs offences

  39

  100

  20

  14

  20

  472·32

  472·32

  Traffic offences

  340

  87

  195

  94

  1

  64

  12,882·05

  7,025·00

  Other offences

  390

  45

  87

  56

  21

  17

  220·68

  188·56

  Totals

  6,838

  35

  1,394

  778

  53

  169

  1,118,615·30

  229,945·37

  Total Crown and non-Crown

  13,208

  49·6

  3,900

  1,838

  488

  720

  235,976,096·40

  672,468·14

  Total No Crime = 1,049.

  1 Includes arson endangering life at Waltham Abbey.

  2 Includes arson at COD Donnington.

  562
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information is not available in the form requested. In the case of crimes reported to the Ministry of Defence police, statistics are published in annex E to the annual report to the chief constable, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. However, similar information is not available in respect of those crimes reported to and investigated by Home Department police forces or the Services police.

  Bar coding is being gradually introduced into the Ministry of Defence as a means of obtaining data but is not a security measure in itself. The Department is mindful of the need for adequate security measures and these are regularly appraised and updated as necessary. It is not, however, our policy to publicise these measures.
  563

  Scottish Crime Return 1988

  Property

  General crime type

  Offences

  Percentage detected

  Employee

  Forces

  Other

  At gate

  Value

  Recovered

  Crown:

  Life threatening

  2

  100

  2

  9·60

  9·60

  MOD, PSA,

  Assaults non-police

  7

  100

  3

  4

  DOT, DHSS,

  Sexual offences

  1

  100

  1

  1

  380·00

  380·00

  C and E,

  State offences

  1

  100

  4

  13,041·81

  United States

  Public order offences

  15

  67

  3

  2

  5

  2

  forces, Visiting

  Malicious mischief

  185

  27

  20

  37

  23

  632,282·00

  558·49

  forces

  Theft by opening

  lock-fast places

  39

  10

  2

  3,889·98

  789·50

  Fraud

  560

  20

  26

  33

  2

  37,019·78

  5,461·87

  Other theft act

  797

  25

  57

  138

  7

  123

  135,862·03

  52,589·06

  Forgery

  435

  1

  6

  13,205·71

  Drugs offences

  1

  100

  1

  7·00

  Customs offences

  527

  18

  19

  80

  1

  90

  23,686·97

  959·61

  Traffic offences

  218

  100

  82

  140

  37

  144

  10,538·79

  3,890·00

  Other offences

  84

  83

  33

  32

  29

  9

  1,053·64

  501·00

  Bomb hoaxes

  17

  24

  1

  9

  1

  15·00

  Totals

  2,889

  27

  258

  477

  102

  372

  870,992·31

  65,139·13

  Non-Crown:

  Assaults non-police

  31

  94

  16

  16

  1

  1

  Service

  Sexual offences

  7

  57

  4

  personnel,

  Public order offences

  125

  57

  41

  31

  4

  3

  14,000·00

  14,000·00

  Other civilian.

  Malicious mischief

  70

  13

  2

  12

  7,985·38

  Dockyard

  Theft by opening

  management,

  lock-fast places

  84

  21

  9

  3

  5,258·76

  752·71

  Commercial

  Fraud

  62

  87

  18

  43

  2

  5,332·48

  1,026·56

  company,

  Other theft act

  540

  36

  41

  136

  1

  111

  68,153·01

  26,908·92

  Royal

  Forgery

  10

  100

  10

  602·00

  Ordnance

  Drugs offences

  3

  100

  0

  2

  2

  25·00

  25·00

  factory, Royal

  Customs offences

  2

  100

  2

  2

  16·50

  16·50

  Mint

  Traffic offences

  76

  96

  20

  64

  39

  1,535·70

  Other offences

  63

  68

  37

  11

  4

  8

  2,062·36

  842·70

  Totals

  1,073

  47

  194

  324

  10

  168

  104,971·19

  43,572·39

  Total Crown and non-Crown

  3,962

  32·4

  452

  801

  112

  540

  975,963·50

  108,711·52

  Total No Crime = 150.

  Advanced Avionics Architecture and Packaging Development
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the purpose and estimated cost of the advanced avionics architecture and packaging development.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The advanced avionics architecture and packaging programme will consider the potential for modular avionics architecture in order to enhance operational capability and to reduce costs of ownership. Some minor studies are being undertaken but it is too early to give an estimate for any follow on work.

  Anthorn Military Establishment
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the purpose of the military establishment at Anthorn.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is a NATO naval communications installation at Anthorn.

  Aircraft Tail Fins
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the tail fins of Royal Air Force aircraft are in bright colours; what proportion of front-line fast jet squadrons have these colours applied; which other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation air force has adopted this policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Many RAF squadrons paint the tail fins (and other parts) of their aircraft with the insignia of their squadron or their squadron numbers. This helps to create an esprit de corps, and facilitates identification in 564
  peacetime. Although the RAF does not have a formal policy to identify aircraft in this way, all markings used have official approval. No record is kept of the number of front-line fast jet aircraft or squadrons with such insignia.

  The policy of other NATO Governments and air forces on such markings is a matter for them, but I understand that it is normal practice for squadrons to identify aircraft with their own insignia.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farmers
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has of the number of working farmers in England who derive more than half of their income from occupations outside agriculture or forestry; and what estimates he has of the recent trend in these figures.

  Mr. Curry
  No estimates are available.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has of the proportion of the total number of working farmers in England who are aged(a) over 60 years, (b) over 50 years and (c) under 40 years; and what estimates he has of the proportions for (a), (b) and (c) for: (i) the south-west region, and (ii) Somerset.

  Mr. Curry
  The nearest available information is as follows. It is taken from the results of a sample inquiry conducted for the EC farm structure survey 1985. The percentages are based on the number of holdings farmed by persons, excluding those farmed by firms and institutions. Information is not available at county level.
  565

  Percentage distribution of farmers by age group: 1985

  Age group

  England

  South west region

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Under 35 years

  6·9

  6·6

  35 to 44 years

  20·5

  20·7

  45 to 54 years

  26·5

  26·6

  55 to 64 years

  27·4

  27·4

  65 years and over

  18·8

  18·7

  All ages

  100·0

  100·0

  Butter Fat
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research is being undertaken, or is proposed to be undertaken by his Department into alternative uses for excess butter fat.

  Mr. Curry
  My Department does not undertake any such research and has no plans to do so. However, European Community funds for market research into dairy products are available to industry from the milk co-responsibility levy receipts and, in 1988–89, some £849,000 was allocated for this purpose. Of this, about £186,000 was earmarked for research projects concerned with the use of cream in products other than butter and another £186,000 for market research into certain cheeses.

  Alar
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's current policy towards use of the apple spray Alar following the decision by Uniroyal to withdraw it from sale for food use, after the disclosure in tests of(a) lung tumours in mice and (b) liver tumours in rats.

  Mr. Gummer
  The current approvals for Alar have been under review since February this year. The independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides in April considered all available data on daminozide, the active ingredient of Alar, and its breakdown product UDMH. It concluded these did not show a health risk, but asked the manufacturers to provide as quickly as possible the results of further tests being carried out on UDMH. A summary of the interim results arrived in September and was reported to the ACP; the supporting data have just become available and are being studied urgently. The doses of UDMH given to both rats and mice were massive compared to any amounts likely to be encountered by humans. Animals dosed with significant amounts showed no more tumours than the control group but very large doses produced some effects and the ACP is now considering whether or not these indicate any change in its assessment of risk. Its recommendation to Ministers will be made public.

  These tests were reported in September to a group of international experts on pesticide residues working jointly to the Food and Agriculture Organisation and World Health Organisation. It recommended that an acceptable daily intake of 0·5mg/kg body weight/day could safely be set for daminozide.

  The decision of the manufacturers to withdraw Alar was taken on commercial grounds since they have stated publicly that they do not believe its use on food crop poses a significant risk to public health. However, they have also
  566
  stated that even if continued registration of their product is successful they believe that growers and the food industry would be reluctant to return to their product.

  Mr. David Clark: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recommendations were made at its last meeting by his advisory committee on pesticides with regard to the use of Alar.

  Mr. Gummer
  The advisory committee did not make any recommendations at its last meeting on the use of the product Alar.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will re-examine the procedures whereby the apple spray Alar was given clearance by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides in the light of the withdrawal of the product by its makers Uniroyal.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave today to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond). I see no reason to re-examine the procedure of the ACP.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what stocks of the apple spray Alar exist in this country; whether users will be permitted to exhaust these; and what plans he has to order their withdrawal.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have no quantitative information about stocks of Alar in this country.

  I have no plans to order withdrawal of Alar stocks from growers. Continued usage of their stocks will depend on the advice of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides during its review of daminozide.

  Salmonella
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his replies of 17 May,Official Report, columns 212–13, and of 19 June, Official Report, column 44, whether those provisions awaiting implementation on 19 June have now been implemented.

  Mr. Gummer
  Yes. New orders come into force today which extend compulsory testing for salmonella to include hatcheries and include registration requirements which will apply from 2 April 1990, for breeding and laying flocks and hatcheries. Codes of practice on the production of final feed for livestock and animal protein were introduced on 7 August. The adoption of these measures reflects the Government's determination to tackle the salmonella problem at each point along the chain from poultry feeding stuffs, through the breeding flocks and hatcheries to the laying houses and then on to the home.

  Farm Workers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many farmers were employed in each county in England in(a) June 1988 and (b) June 1989;

  (2) how many farm workers were employed in each county in England in (a) June 1988 and (b) June 1989.

  Mr. Gummer
  The figures for 1988 have recently become available and are shown in the tables. The processing of the June 1989 census is continuing and will be published as soon as possible.
  567

  Numbers of Farmers, Partners and Directors on Agricultural holdings. England, June 1988.

  Farmers, partners and directors

  Whole-time

  Part-time

  County by Standard Statistical Region

  Principal Farmers and Partners

  Other Partners and Directors

  Total

  Principal Farmers and Partners

  Other Partners and Directors

  Total

  Total Farmers Partners and Directors

  Cleveland

  303

  116

  419

  81

  56

  137

  556

  Cumbria

  4,485

  1,590

  6,075

  985

  644

  1,629

  7,704

  Durham

  1,502

  496

  1,998

  396

  268

  664

  2,662

  Northumberland

  1,659

  624

  2,283

  384

  319

  703

  2,986

  Tyne and Wear

  191

  59

  250

  43

  31

  74

  324

  North Region

  8,140

  2,885

  11,025

  1,889

  1,318

  3,207

  14,232

  Humberside

  2,398

  1,091

  3,489

  664

  489

  1,153

  4,662

  North Yorkshire

  6,009

  2,246

  8,255

  1,444

  1,049

  2,493

  10,748

  South Yorkshire

  916

  342

  1,258

  308

  198

  506

  1,764

  West Yorkshire

  1,681

  521

  2,202

  1,025

  412

  1,437

  3,639

  Yorks & Humberside

  11,004

  4,200

  15,204

  3,441

  2,148

  5,589

  20,793

  Derbyshire

  2,387

  734

  3,121

  808

  468

  1,276

  4,397

  Leicestershire

  1,758

  645

  2,403

  557

  39

  896

  3,299

  Lincolnshire

  3,954

  1,595

  5,549

  1,134

  925

  2,059

  7,608

  Northamptonshire

  1,178

  450

  1,628

  417

  297

  714

  2,342

  Nottinghamshire

  1,280

  538

  1,818

  367

  300

  667

  2,485

  East Midlands Region

  10,557

  3,962

  14,519

  3,283

  2,329

  5,612

  20,131

  Cambridgeshire

  2,439

  883

  3,322

  710

  512

  1,222

  4,544

  Norfolk

  3,131

  1,066

  4,197

  1,111

  685

  1,796

  5,993

  Suffolk

  2,174

  818

  2,992

  760

  540

  1,300

  4,292

  East Anglia Region

  7,744

  2,767

  10,511

  2,581

  1,737

  4,318

  14,829

  Bedfordshire

  819

  337

  1,156

  239

  164

  403

  1,559

  Berkshire

  443

  121

  564

  256

  119

  373

  937

  Buckinghamshire

  1,049

  327

  1,376

  524

  251

  775

  2,151

  East Sussex

  1,169

  305

  1,474

  700

  324

  1,026

  2,498

  Essex

  2,107

  855

  2,962

  757

  607

  1,364

  4,326

  Greater London

  252

  96

  348

  106

  53

  159

  507

  Hampshire

  1,629

  517

  2,146

  804

  411

  1,215

  3,361

  Hertfordshire

  721

  265

  986

  269

  161

  430

  1,416

  Isle of Wight

  307

  72

  379

  128

  76

  204

  583

  Kent

  2,311

  685

  2,996

  1,316

  747

  2,063

  5,059

  Oxfordshire

  1,239

  413

  1,652

  469

  302

  771

  2,423

  Surrey

  816

  194

  1,010

  555

  222

  777

  1,787

  West Sussex

  1,181

  326

  1,507

  563

  280

  843

  2,350

  South East Region

  14,043

  4,513

  18,556

  6,684

  3,717

  10,401

  28,957

  Avon

  1,279

  349

  1,628

  445

  206

  651

  2,279

  Cornwall (Incl Isle of Stilly)

  4,400

  1,107

  5,507

  1,703

  762

  2,465

  7,972

  Devon

  7,193

  1,811

  9,004

  2,097

  1,094

  3,191

  12,195

  Dorset

  1,784

  520

  2,304

  724

  440

  1,164

  3,468

  Gloucesterhire

  1,874

  507

  2,381

  846

  428

  1,274

  3,655

  Somerset

  3,612

  977

  4,589

  1,262

  681

  1,943

  6,532

  Wiltshire

  1,768

  579

  2,347

  635

  378

  1,103

  3,360

  South West Region

  21,910

  5,850

  27,760

  7,712

  3,989

  11,701

  39,461

  Hereford & Worcester

  4,059

  1,297

  5,356

  1,629

  856

  2,485

  7,841

  Shropshire

  3,290

  973

  4,263

  929

  599

  1,528

  5,791

  Staffordshire

  2,853

  853

  3,706

  963

  498

  1,461

  5,167

  Warwickshire

  1,433

  480

  1,913

  550

  295

  845

  2,758

  West Midlands

  285

  79

  364

  118

  73

  191

  555

  West Midlands Region

  11,920

  3,682

  15,602

  4,189

  2,321

  6,510

  22,112

  Cheshire

  2,804

  883

  3,687

  836

  435

  1,271

  4,958

  Greater Manchester

  893

  292

  1,185

  374

  184

  558

  1,743

  Lancashire

  3,732

  1,302

  5,034

  1,093

  652

  1,745

  6,779

  Merseyside

  344

  108

  452

  90

  70

  160

  612

  North West Region

  7,773

  2,585

  10,358

  2,393

  1,341

  3,734

  14,092

  England

  93,091

  30,444

  123,535

  32,172

  18,900

  51,072

  174,607

  568 569
  Source: June census.

  Note: Figures exclude minor holdings not included in June census.

  Numbers of workers and salaried managers engaged on agricultural holdings. England. June 1989

  County by Standard Statistical Region

  All workers (excluding salaried managers)

  Salaried managers

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Cleveland

  450

  112

  562

  27

  Cumbria

  4,192

  670

  4,862

  81

  Durham

  1,687

  483

  2,170

  30

  Northumberland

  2,540

  487

  3,027

  86

  Tyne and Wear

  312

  97

  409

  9

  North Region

  9,181

  1,849

  11,030

  233

  Humberside

  5,196

  1,779

  6,975

  237

  North Yorkshire

  8,159

  3,331

  11,690

  298

  South Yorkshire

  1,287

  474

  1,761

  34

  West Yorkshire

  2,353

  782

  3,135

  71

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  16,995

  6,366

  23,361

  640

  Derbyshire

  2,563

  739

  3,302

  48

  Leicestershire

  2,543

  816

  3,359

  97

  Lincolnshire

  9,183

  4,127

  13,310

  437

  Northamptonshire

  2,062

  476

  2,538

  114

  Nottinghamshire

  2,526

  1,068

  3,594

  121

  East Midlands Region

  18,877

  7,226

  26,103

  817

  Cambridgeshire

  5,085

  2,983

  8,068

  256

  Norfolk

  8,646

  4,901

  13,547

  396

  Suffolk

  5,351

  2,528

  7,879

  325

  East Anglia Region

  19,082

  10,412

  29,494

  977

  Bedfordshire

  1,550

  662

  2,212

  86

  Berkshire

  1,201

  433

  1,634

  109

  Buckinghamshire

  2,025

  760

  2,785

  153

  East Sussex

  2,150

  1,347

  3,497

  127

  Essex

  4,731

  2,694

  7,425

  281

  Greater London

  676

  521

  1,197

  51

  Hampshire

  4,565

  2,436

  7,001

  362

  Hertfordshire

  1,732

  567

  2,299

  116

  Isle of Wight

  550

  297

  847

  23

  Kent

  7,064

  8,202

  15,266

  385

  Oxfordshire

  2,863

  923

  3,786

  193

  Surrey

  2,306

  1,751

  4,057

  193

  West Sussex

  3,548

  2,800

  6,348

  288

  South East Region

  34,961

  23,393

  58,354

  2,367

  Avon

  1,923

  1,445

  3,368

  99

  Cornwall (including Isles of Scilly)

  4,306

  1,349

  5,655

  70

  Devon

  7,411

  1,763

  9,174

  157

  Dorset

  3,297

  853

  4,150

  149

  Gloucestershire

  3,092

  1,274

  4,366

  167

  Somerset

  5,087

  1,731

  6,818

  152

  Wiltshire

  3,770

  876

  4,646

  230

  South West Region

  28,886

  9,291

  38,177

  1,024

  Hereford and Worcester

  6,454

  3,763

  10,217

  251

  Shropshire

  4,594

  1,541

  6,135

  125

  Staffordshire

  3,788

  1,027

  4,815

  83

  Warwickshire

  2,292

  845

  3,137

  113

  West Midlands

  462

  304

  766

  15

  West Midlands Region

  17,590

  7,480

  25,070

  587

  Cheshire

  4,141

  974

  5,115

  164

  Greater Manchester

  1,111

  488

  1,599

  23

  Lancashire

  4,855

  1,860

  6,715

  155

  Merseyside

  649

  283

  932

  15

  North West Region

  10,756

  3,605

  14,361

  357

  England

  156,328

  69,622

  225,950

  7,002

  570 571
  Source: June census.

  Note: Figures exclude minor holdings not included in June census.

  Deer (Tuberculosis)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the measures he(a) has taken or (b) plans to take to control the spread of tuberculosis from farmed deer, indicating whether the Government or the farmers bear the cost of each measure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Legislation making tuberculosis in deer a notifiable disease and giving power to require the testing of deer (which will be used in known infected herds) came into force on 1 June 1989. Marking and movement record requirements came into force on 1 September 1989. The cost of administering these schemes falls to the Government, but the cost of testing, marking and keeping of movement records falls to individual farmers. A compulsory slaughter with compensation scheme was introduced also on 1 September 1989 with the Ministry paying compensation at 50 per cent. of the value of the slaughtered animal subject to a ceiling of £600 per animal.

  Several meetings of the deer health scheme advisory group have been held and agreement has been reached to introduce a deer health scheme within the next few weeks. Details of charges under the scheme are still being discussed.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the research projects he is carrying out or funding to look into the level of tuberculosis in wild and farmed deer and methods of controlling the spread of the disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Research on the development of diagnostic tests for detecting tuberculosis in deer is currently being carried out at my Department's central veterinary laboratory. This forms part of a wider programme, designed to safeguard human health by reducing the incidence of tuberculosis in cattle and wildlife through improved diagnostic tests and the development of a vaccine for badgers.

  My Department has recently invited proposals to begin in 1990–91 under the open contracting fund on the following topics:

  the ecology of deer as it relates to domestic animal husbandry and the possible spread of tuberculosis and pathogenic mycobacteria;

  Number of cases confirmed in 4 week periods ending:

  County

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  16 July

  16 August

  16 September

  16 October

  Avon

  10

  9

  13

  11

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  2

  1

  Berkshire

  —

  3

  1

  4

  Buckinghamshire

  3

  —

  1

  6

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Cheshire

  4

  1

  13

  16

  Clwyd

  1

  —

  2

  11

  Cornwall

  38

  31

  42

  32

  Cumbria

  9

  11

  11

  1

  Derbyshire

  4

  2

  10

  7

  Devon

  10

  61

  63

  70

  Dorset

  40

  39

  41

  59

  Durham

  4

  1

  1

  1

  Dyfed

  4

  9

  21

  20

  Essex

  1

  —

  3

  1

  Glamorgan Mid

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Glamorgan South

  2

  —

  3

  2

  572
  further work on improving the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests for deer.

  Food Safety Directorate
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his plans to set up a food safety directorate, including the date for its introduction and the powers it will have.

  Mr. Gummer
  I shall make a further announcement shortly.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 22 June,Official Report, column 249, if he will publish the results of his first quarterly survey into the incidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy at EEC approved arid non-EEC approved slaughterhouses.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 3 July 1989]: In the period April to June 1989, 17 suspected cases of BSE were reported at EC approved slaughterhouses, of which 16 were confirmed, and nine at non-EC approved slaughterhouses of which five were confirmed.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many confirmed cases of BSE have been reported to him to date in cattle first identified as infected by BSE by veterinary inspection at(a) fatstock markets and (b) slaughterhouses.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: Since BSE became notifiable on 21 June 1988 up to 30 June 1989, a total of 58 suspect cases of BSE were identified at markets, of which 39 were confirmed, and 85 cases were identified at slaughterhouses, of which 62 were confirmed.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the number of confirmed cases of BSE for each county of England and Wales for the four-week periods ended (a) 16 July, (b) 16 August, (c) 16 September and (d) 16 October.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 19 October 1989]: The information is as follows:
  573

  County

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  16 July

  16 August

  16 September

  16 October

  Glamorgan West

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Gloucestershire

  20

  17

  18

  17

  Gwent

  3

  3

  3

  6

  Gwynedd

  2

  1

  2

  3

  Hampshire

  21

  12

  22

  23

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  8

  3

  7

  10

  Hertfordshire

  1

  1

  7

  2

  Humberside

  1

  3

  1

  —

  Isle of Wight

  3

  4

  2

  1

  Kent

  4

  3

  7

  13

  Lancashire

  6

  7

  7

  3

  Leicestershire

  5

  5

  14

  14

  Lincolnshire

  2

  3

  4

  5

  London

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Norfolk

  9

  8

  6

  7

  Northamptonshire

  6

  4

  1

  5

  Northumberland

  1

  2

  3

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  5

  2

  Oxfordshire

  6

  4

  6

  3

  Powys

  1

  3

  9

  8

  Shropshire

  14

  —

  20

  27

  Somerset

  25

  35

  53

  38

  Staffordshire

  7

  3

  13

  7

  Suffolk

  3

  2

  3

  8

  Surrey

  1

  3

  2

  7

  Sussex East

  5

  4

  8

  9

  Sussex West

  5

  13

  16

  10

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  2

  —

  Warwickshire

  1

  —

  8

  4

  Wiltshire

  36

  28

  43

  26

  Yorkshire North

  14

  19

  16

  16

  Yorkshire South

  2

  1

  1

  —

  Yorkshire West

  2

  1

  —

  3

  376

  360

  540

  522

SCOTLAND

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings he has held with(a) the Scottish Business Group and (b) the Scottish TUC in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has attended four meetings of the Scottish Business Group since October 1988. He is due to meet the general council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 10 November.

  Hospital Redundancies
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each hospital board the total number of redundancies following the award of private contracts to the nearest available date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of staff of health boards who have become redundant as a result of contracts awarded to private contractors in the period to 1 October 1989 is shown in the table. There have been no redundancies for this reason in other health boards. The vast majority of those made redundant were offered posts by the successful private contractors and a substantial proportion of those took up the offer of employment.

  Health Board

  Number of staff made redundant

  Argyll and Clyde

  98

  Ayrshire and Arran

  35

  Fife

  20

  574

  Health Board

  Number of staff made redundant

  Grampian

  243

  Greater Glasgow

  1,840

  Lothian

  666

  Tayside

  236

  Housing
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing(a) for all Scotland and (b) for each district council a breakdown per 1,000 of the population of public spending on housing from 1977–78 to 1988–89 at constant prices.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested at(a) is set out in the table.

  Public spending on housing per 1,000 of the Scottish population (at 1988–89 constant prices)

  £000

  1977–78

  275

  1978–79

  266

  1979–80

  279

  1980–81

  261

  1981–82

  257

  1982–83

  227

  1983–84

  241

  1984–85

  213

  1985–86

  188

  1986–87

  185

  1987–88

  205

  1988–89

  202

  The data required to provide the information requested at (b) are not available centrally.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from the Scottish Business Group about the effect of high interest rates on the Scottish economy.

  Mr. Lang
  Subjects discussed at meetings of the Scottish Business Group are normally confidential and it would not be appropriate for me to divulge them.

  Historic Buildings
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps the Government propose to take to preserve the textile mills of Scotland, which are listed buildings regarded as being architecturally important, from dereliction and neglect.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Listed status affords a building statutory protection. The maintenance of a listed building, as of any other building, is the responsibility of its owner. Listed building consent procedures ensure that any changes to a listed building will, as far as possible, preserve its character.

  I give historic building grants for buildings which are of outstanding architectural or historic interest. Since 1985, repairs to former textile mills at Forfar, Dundee and New Lanark have been grant assisted.

  Council Housing (Rent Arrears)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the level of council house rent arrears for each Scottish district and islands authority at(a) April 1986 and (b) April 1989.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the accumulated rent arrears owed to Scottish local authorities is collected annually on the basis of arrears outstanding at 30 September. The amounts outstanding at 30 September 1985 and 30 September 1988 are as follows:

  Rent arrears of District and Islands Councils at 30 September

  1985

  1988

  £

  £

  SCOTLAND

  17,698,066

  30,067,921

  Berwickshire1

  43,397

  54,638

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  28,780

  40,664

  Roxburgh

  162,267

  100,708

  Tweeddale

  19,568

  15,813

  Clackmannan

  169,583

  800,903

  Falkirk

  604,830

  667,830

  Stirling

  362,592

  635,700

  Annandale and Eskdale

  89,947

  121,708

  Nithsdale

  138,123

  322,710

  Stewartry

  16,908

  31,137

  Wigtown

  67,272

  173,229

  Dunfermline

  466,974

  669,523

  Kirkcaldy

  381,896

  698,990

  North East Fife

  63,600

  117,675

  Aberdeen

  568,992

  1,144,379

  Banff and Buchan

  194,557

  277,064

  Gordon

  38,498

  76,225

  Kincardine and Deeside

  25,599

  48,878

  Moray

  41,825

  105,555

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  11,981

  17,900

  Caithness

  26,307

  109,666

  Inverness

  137,154

  2

  Lochaber

  97,700

  53,259

  Nairn

  5,170

  2

  Ross and Cromarty

  214,453

  268,364

  576

  1985

  1988

  £

  £

  Skye and Lochalsh

  24,687

  27,400

  Sutherland

  14,254

  29,279

  East Lothian

  213,935

  416,583

  Edinburgh

  993,270

  1,709,041

  Midlothian

  244,054

  279,632

  West Lothian

  150,568

  239,049

  Argyll and Bute

  65,299

  167,810

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  30,484

  126,374

  Clydebank

  516,541

  1,567,976

  Clydesdale

  73,984

  191,031

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  394,358

  446,934

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  269,013

  391,219

  Cunninghame

  170,000

  304,415

  Dumbarton1

  486,136

  445,232

  East Kilbride

  35,536

  40,059

  Eastwood

  25,392

  38,237

  Glasgow

  5,814,000

  10,241,488

  Hamilton

  537,661

  487,120

  Inverclyde

  254,159

  318,000

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  113,144

  214,026

  Kyle and Carrick

  189,839

  333,026

  Monklands

  594,509

  958,767

  Motherwell

  743,287

  1,063,807

  Renfrew

  463,214

  1,226,984

  Strathkelvin

  468,721

  459,718

  Angus

  94,055

  117,843

  Dundee

  488,398

  1,019,368

  Perth and Kinross

  132,890

  188,615

  Orkney Islands

  34,091

  57,583

  Shetland Islands

  94,614

  111,934

  Western Isles

  2

  296,853

  1 Figures include rate arrears.

  2 Not available.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is able to assess the current annual revenue cost of providing nursery education.

  Mr. Lang
  In 1987–88, the latest year for which figures are available, 39,290 children attended local authority nursery schools at a revenue cost of £30·7 million.

  Lead Water Pipes
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he is able to estimate the number of public sector properties in Scotland which require replacement of domestic lead piping; and if he is able to estimate the position affecting private sector properties;

  (2) if he is able to estimate the total cost of eliminating lead piping from all of Scotland's domestic and private water supplies;

  (3) what is his estimate of the total numbers of persons currently served by lead water piping in domestic property.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information on which to base such estimates is not held centrally.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is able to estimate the total cost of eliminating lead piping from all of Scotland's water supplies to property.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of properties that still have lead pipes connecting them to public water supply mains is not know accurately. However, the cost of replacing such pipes has been broadly estimated at £300 million. There are no lead water mains in public water supply systems.

  Information on private supplies is not held centrally.

  Farming
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the measures being taken by his Department to encourage diversification into organic farming.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have already set the framework for organic production by establishing under the auspices of Food From Britain the United Kingdom register of organic food standards which sets standards for the production and processing of organic produce and serves as a quality assurance mark for consumers.

  The set-aside scheme offers farmers an opportunity to switch to organic methods: land may be put to fallow either for the full five year set-aside period or in rotation with cropping, thus allowing land to be taken out of intensive production and cleared of chemical residues. We are also considering whether the European Community arable extensification scheme, which is due to be implemented shortly, might include provision to assist a switch to organic production methods.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will identify the sums of money paid by his Department to organic farmers in Scotland in the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The assistance from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland to the farming industry is generally available to both organic and other farmers on the same basis and it is not possible to identify separately the sums paid to organic farmers. Assistance aimed specifically at promoting the development of organic farming includes the funding of research and development work carried out by the Scottish agricultural colleges. The recently-launched joint pilot project to be carried out by the Edinburgh university centre for human ecology and the Edinburgh school of agriculture to demonstrate the viability of organic farming has also attracted public funding from the Scottish Development Agency as well as support from the European Community and Safeway plc. Part of the Scottish Development Agency contribution will assist the Scottish Organic Producers' Association with market development work and will help to meet the cost of providing training and marketing advice to organic producers.

  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farmers were employed in each county in Scotland in June 1989.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish counties ceased to be used for agricultural statistics purposes after 1975 following local government reform. When regional results for June 1989 become available my noble Friend the Minister of State will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farm workers were employed in each county in Scotland in June 1989.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish counties ceased to be used for agricultural statistics purposes after 1975 following local government reform. When regional results for June 1989 become available my noble Friend the Minister of State will write to the hon. Member.

  Schools Inspectors
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of Her Majesty's inspectors' reports were prepared for(a) education authority schools and (b) independent schools in each of the years 1979–80 to 1988–89, inclusive.

  Mr. Lang
  Publication of Her Majesty's inspectors' reports on schools was instituted from the beginning of the 1983–84 session. The number of reports produced for education authority schools and independent schools in each of the years since then are:

  Education authority

  Independent

  1983–84

  143

  3

  1984–85

  152

  5

  1985–86

  158

  2

  1986–87

  158

  4

  1987–88

  146

  3

  1988–89

  121

  3

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the total expenditure on research undertaken by Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools in each of the years 1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89 inclusive, (b) the number of staff involved in research undertaken by the inspectorate in each of those years, and (c) the number of reports prepared by the inspectorate in each of those years.

  Mr. Lang
  Her Majesty's inspectors of schools do not undertake educational research projects.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many targeted inspections were undertaken by Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools in 1988–89.

  Mr. Lang
  All inspections conducted by Her Majesty's inspectorate are targeted to meet agreed objectives, which are notified to the establishments concerned at the outset of inspection.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to review the role of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools.

  Mr. Lang
  No.

  Technology Academies
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many(a) pupils (b) teachers and (c) non-teaching staff are being considered for the first technology academy;

  (2) if he will give the total estimated expenditure for technology academies in each of the years 1989–90 and 1990–91 for capital and current expenditure;

  (3) if he will give the total estimated expenditure likely to be contributed from the private sector for setting up the first technology academy including (a) the amount of capital expenditure for the construction or refurbishment costs and (b) the organising revenue costs;

  (4) when he will announce the location of the first technology academy in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  No decisions have been made by the Glasgow Technology Academy Company regarding the
  579
  location or size of the first academy. It is therefore too early to give an indication of pupil and staff numbers or estimated expenditure. Trusthouse Forte have already announced its decision to contribute £1·5 million towards the cost of establishing a technology academy.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he has consulted(a) Glasgow district council, (b) Eastwood district council, (c) Strathclyde regional council and (d) Greater Glasgow health board about a site for a technology academy in Glasgow;

  (2) if he will list the education authorities which have expressed an interest in hosting the first technology academy;

  (3) if he will list the sites in Glasgow which have been consulted by his Department for the first technology academy.

  Mr. Lang
  The identification of a site for a technology academy and any relevant consultation are matters for the Glasgow Technology Academy Company. Earlier this year my right hon. and learned Friend held discussions with Strathclyde regional council about the possibility of its participating in the establishment of an academy in Glasgow. Unfortunately the regional council was unable to pursue this proposal.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many technology academies he will establish in Scotland in the period 1989–90 to 1991–92.

  Mr. Lang
  A firm and generous offer of sponsorship has been made for the first technology academy. Progress with others will depend on the availability of further sponsorship.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if any meetings have taken place with the teaching unions and professional associations about technology academies;

  (2) if he will list the organisations which have been consulted about technology academies.

  Mr. Lang
  A policy paper about the establishment of technology academies in Scotland was issued on 12 October 1988. A copy of this paper and a list of recipients has been placed in the Library.

  Schools (Advertising)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to(a) use public expenditure for publicity and advertising for self-governing schools and (b) set up a similar body to the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust to promote opting out.

  Mr. Lang
  In line with normal practice I intend to make available to school boards and others information and advice on the operation of new legislation giving Scottish parents the right to seek self-governing status for a school. Setting up a body on similar lines to the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust would not be a matter for Government.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for school boards(a) the total expenditure on publicity and advertising and (b) the total estimated expenditure in each of the years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Lang
  The figures for expenditure on information about School Boards are as follows:580

  Total expenditure to date—£790,000

  Expenditure in financial year 1988–89—£48,000

  No expenditure on information about school boards was incurred in financial year 1987–88.

  Employment Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give in each of the months September 1988 to September 1989(a) the total number of applications from single parents on employment training for financial assistance with child care, (b) the numbers approved and (c) the total expenditure.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not collected by the Training Agency and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the total number of occupied places on employment training for the most recent date for which information is available, (b) the total number of planned places in employment training in 1989–90, (c) the total planned expenditure on employment training in 1989–90 and (d) the total expenditure on employment training for the most recent dates for which information is available.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) The number of Employment Training filled places in Scotland as at 20 October 1989 was 25,446.

  (b) The number of Employment Training planned places in Scotland for the year to March 1990 is 36,002.

  (c) The total planned expenditure on Employment Training in Great Britain in 1989–90 is £1,271 million. No separate detailed figure is provided for Scotland. However, the Scottish share is estimated at approximately £153 million.

  (d) The total expenditure on Employment Training in Great Britain for the period 1 April 1989 to 31 August 1989 was £388 million. No detailed figure is available for Scotland. However, the Scottish share is estimated to be approximately £47 million.

  Independent Schools
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the steps and procedures involved in monitoring and reviewing(a) the development of the curriculum, (b) teacher training and (c) quality and standards of educational attainment within independent schools.

  Mr. Lang
  Independent schools are, like other schools, subject to inspection on a continuing basis by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools to ensure that efficient and suitable instruction is being provided. Such inspections will take account of the state of the curriculum, the quality of teaching and the level of educational attainment.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish Her Majesty's inspectors' reports for independent schools.

  Mr. Lang
  Reports on independent schools are published in the same way as for education authority schools.

  Economic Output
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the index of output for production industries divisions 1–4 and (b) the output per person employed for each of the years 1979 to 1989, inclusive, using the employed labour force as a denominator.
  581
  Mr. Lang
  Estimates of the employed labour force are not available for the production industries in Scotland. The table shows an index of output in the production industries (SIC divisions 1 to 4) for Scotland together with estimates of employees in employment. Output per employee is calculated and expressed in index form for comparative purposes.

  Year

  Production output index (1985=100)

  Employees in Employment (thousands)

  Output per employee (1985=100)

  1979

  101·4

  674

  74

  1980

  95·2

  631

  75

  1981

  93·2

  580

  79

  1982

  93·7

  545

  85

  1983

  93·4

  511

  90

  1984

  97·2

  499

  96

  1985

  100·0

  495

  100

  1986

  97·6

  474

  102

  1987

  99·6

  463

  106

  1988

  107·2

  470

  113

  Source: Index of Industrial Production for Scotland Department of Employment

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the total index of output of manufacturing industrial divisions 2–4 and (b) the output per person employed for each of the years 1979 to 1989, inclusive, using the employed labour force as a denominator.

  Mr. Lang
  Estimates of the employed labour force are not available for the manufacturing industries in Scotland. The table shows an index of output in the manufacturing industries (SIC divisions 2 to 4) for Scotland together with estimates of employees in employment. Output per employee is also calculated and expressed in index form for comparative purposes.

  Year

  Manufacturing output index (1985=100)

  Employees in employment (Thousands)

  Output per Employee (1985 = 100)

  1979

  103·5

  602

  74

  1980

  96·6

  556

  75

  1981

  94·0

  507

  80

  1982

  94·7

  474

  86

  1983

  93·7

  443

  91

  1984

  97·8

  434

  97

  1985

  100·0

  431

  100

  1986

  97·7

  416

  101

  1987

  100·7

  407

  107

  1988

  108·7

  412

  114

  Source: Index of Industrial Production for Scotland Department of Employment

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the total index of output of the whole economy and (b) the output per person employed for each of the years 1979 to 1989 inclusive, using the employed labour force as a denominator.

  Mr. Lang
  The table gives the information requested for the years 1979 to 1987, the latest year for which there are estimates of Scotland's gross domestic product.

  Year

  Gross Domestic Product1

  Output per person employed2

  1979

  94·5

  88

  1980

  92·7

  88

  1981

  91·4

  90

  582

  Year

  Gross Domestic Product1

  Output per person employed2

  1982

  92·8

  93

  1983

  94·1

  95

  1984

  97·2

  98

  1985

  100·0

  100

  1986

  100·5

  102

  1987

  102·9

  104

  Source: Scottish Office Department of Employment.

  Notes:

  1 Output based estimate of Scottish gross domestic product 1985=100.

  2 Based on estimates of employed labour force in Scotland and expressed as an index (1985=100). The employed labour force comprises employees in employment, the self-employed and Her Majesty's Forces.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total expenditure on the assisted places scheme in 1988–89 and the estimated expenditure in 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Lang
  As regards the period 1989–91, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer he was given on 17 January. To achieve the planned increase in the number of children benefiting from the scheme I estimate that spending in 1991–92 could rise to £8·8 million.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of assisted places in independent schools for the following levels of family income: under £8,000 per annum, £8,000 to £12,000 per annum, £12,000 to £15,000 per annum and over £15,000 per annum for each of the years 1982–83 to 1988–89, inclusive.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is as follows:

  School Year

  Under £8,000

  £8,000-£12,000

  £12,000-£15,000

  Over £15,000

  1982–83

  1,211

  239

  —

  —

  1983–84

  1,484

  416

  —

  —

  1984–85

  1,616

  649

  —

  —

  1985–86

  1,666

  780

  171

  3

  1986–87

  1,532

  768

  285

  41

  1987–88

  1,409

  750

  399

  122

  1988–891

  1,273

  697

  433

  214

  1 Provisional figures.

  Lothian Health Board
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Lothian and Borders police on the progress of his investigations into Lothian health board.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Lothian and Borders police are investigating allegations of criminal conduct by employees of Lothian health board. The procurator fiscal at Edinburgh is being kept advised as to progress and will receive a full report from the police at the conclusion of the inquiries.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail any unforeseen losses incurred by Lothian health board during the current financial year.
  583
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is not yet known whether Lothian health board has incurred any unforeseen losses in the current financial year.

  Hospitals (Self-governing Status)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will accord pilot study status to those hospitals that first become self-governing trusts.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The early schemes will provide valuable, practical experience on how best to set up and manage self-governing NHS trusts and this will guide later developments.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he expects any acute hospitals to express an interest in becoming self-governing.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend looks forward to receiving expressions of interest from a wide range of types of hospital and services within the NHS, including acute hospitals.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the policy outlined in Scottish Working Paper No. 3 that self-governing status is likely to be particularly appropriate to major acute hospitals providing a reasonably comprehensive service, remains the case.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Yes, but all hospitals and a number of other services are potentially eligible.

  Victoria Infirmary
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the proposed closure of laboratories at the Victoria infirmary, Glasgow.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The provision of laboratory services in its area is a matter for Greater Glasgow health board and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his reply of 18 October to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan,Official Report, column 172, what account is taken in shaping health policies and measures for Scotland of infant mortality and its causes.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Account is taken of information, advice and recommendations in relation to infant mortality from a variety of sources. Perinatal and infant deaths in Scotland are the subject of continuous epidemiological audit. In addition, cognisance is taken of reports from advisory bodies and from professional colleges and associations. Research studies into specific causes of infant death are also undertaken. In the decade 1978 to 1987 the infant mortality rate in Scotland declined from 12·9 to 8·5 infant deaths per 1,000 live births.

  Charities
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his proposals for improved regulation of charities in Scotland.
  584
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend issued a statement, "Charities in Scotland: A Framework for Supervision" on Monday 23 October. Copies have been placed in the Library.

EMPLOYMENT

  Member's Question
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) 28 July,Official Report column 1050, if he will set out (a) the reasons for not replying to the priority written question referred to and (b) the longest interval between the asking of a priority written question and its answer by his Department.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The question from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) of 17 April was answered on 28 July,Official Report, column 1049. Information on the longest interval between the asking of a priority written question and its answer by my Department is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  YTS
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by region, how many unfilled places there were on YTS at the most recently available date and at the same date one and two years previously.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows the number of unfilled places by region as at August 1987, August 1988 and August 1989.

  Number of unfilled YTS places by region as at August of 1987, 1988 and 1989

  Region

  1987

  1988

  1989

  South East

  22,000

  18,400

  19,900

  London

  18,000

  11,400

  10,200

  South West

  13,600

  12,000

  9,300

  West Midlands

  21,100

  20,000

  17,600

  East Midlands and Eastern

  17,700

  13,800

  11,600

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  8,500

  9,200

  9,800

  North West

  20,200

  15,400

  12,700

  Northern

  8,400

  7,100

  6,000

  Wales

  6,500

  4,500

  3,700

  Scotland

  12,900

  12,800

  10,700

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 100.

  2. 1987 figures exclude continuation places for YTSI trainees.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures his Department is introducing to encourage members of ethnic minorities to take part in employment training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department has already introduced a wide range of measures to encourage members of ethnic minorities to take part in Employment Training and has plans for further measures which include:

  action to ensure that racial discrimination does not take place;

  action to ensure that training is attractive to and meets the needs of members of ethnic minorities and;

  action to ensure, through local marketing and publicity, that ethnic minority communities are aware of the programme.

  585
  The success of existing measures is clearly reflected in a 10 per cent. participation rate for trainees from ethnic minorities and my Department will continue to build upon this excellent beginning.

  Nearly half the people in England who are taking advantage of ET are resident in inner cities. The proportion of inner city residents entering ET from ethnic minorities is 14 per cent. above the national average. These people will benefit from the special measures which were announced by my right hon. Friend on 9 March, from the appointment of inner city development officers and from a number of initiatives which have been locally planned to meet local needs.

  Table 1

  Employment Training: Number of Trainees Receiving ET Allowances September 1988—September 1989

  Sept.

  Oct.

  Nov.

  Dec.

  Jan.

  Feb.

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  Sept.

  Inner London North

  1,280

  2,258

  3,043

  3,479

  4,577

  5,123

  5,577

  5,675

  5,794

  6,054

  6,362

  6,434

  6,986

  Inner London South

  956

  1,268

  1,698

  1,922

  2,335

  2,653

  3,019

  3,355

  3,345

  3,302

  3,485

  3,429

  3,556

  London East

  832

  1,098

  1,421

  1,574

  1,821

  1,988

  2,010

  2,158

  2,198

  2,338

  2,519

  2,523

  2,502

  London North

  897

  1,271

  1,813

  2,142

  2,516

  2,880

  3,278

  3,321

  3,555

  3,704

  3,772

  3,922

  4,180

  London South

  389

  431

  614

  653

  1,017

  1,300

  1,439

  1,630

  1,609

  1,759

  1,698

  1,598

  1,798

  London West

  248

  431

  631

  740

  939

  1,097

  1,181

  1,214

  1,176

  1,186

  1,152

  1,086

  1,186

  Birmingham and Solihull

  1,363

  2,070

  2,871

  3,647

  4,519

  5,666

  6,639

  7,402

  7,346

  7,677

  7,894

  8,151

  8,119

  Central Manchester

  1,346

  1,809

  2,372

  2,510

  2,797

  3,360

  3,815

  4,051

  4,069

  4,136

  4,327

  4,060

  4,136

  Greater Manchester North

  714

  1,103

  1,469

  1,725

  1,967

  2,290

  2,535

  2,658

  2,618

  2,810

  2,983

  2,963

  2,899

  Greater Manchester East

  848

  1,224

  1,589

  1,742

  1,895

  2,158

  2,368

  2,519

  2,595

  2,560

  2,642

  2,433

  2,546

  Table 2

  Employment Training: Number of Trainees Receiving CP Wages September 1988—September 1989

  Sept.

  Oct.

  Nov.

  Dec.

  Jan.

  Feb.

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  Sept.

  Inner London North

  1,826

  1,514

  1,306

  1,063

  590

  278

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Inner London South

  1,736

  1,331

  939

  742

  454

  189

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  London East

  851

  639

  511

  351

  176

  44

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  London North

  1,554

  1,368

  1,032

  829

  562

  248

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  London South

  451

  311

  195

  175

  100

  38

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  London West

  273

  239

  191

  135

  76

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Birmingham and Solihull

  4,649

  3,655

  2,764

  1,975

  1,318

  596

  92

  28

  13

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Central Manchester

  3,295

  2,592

  1,965

  1,531

  976

  445

  122

  121

  120

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Greater Manchester North

  2,364

  1,916

  1,448

  1,050

  621

  107

  13

  6

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Greater Manchester East

  1,552

  1,211

  931

  795

  608

  370

  36

  35

  31

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Table 3

  Employment Training: Total number of trainees in training September 1988—September 1989

  Sept.

  Oct.

  Nov.

  Dec.

  Jan.

  Feb.

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  Sept.

  Inner London North

  3,106

  3,772

  4,349

  4,542

  5,167

  5,401

  5,577

  5,675

  5,794

  6,054

  6,362

  6,434

  6,986

  Inner London South

  2,692

  2,599

  2,637

  2,664

  2,789

  2,842

  3,019

  3,355

  3,345

  3,302

  3,485

  3,429

  3,556

  London East

  1,683

  1,737

  1,932

  1,925

  1,997

  2,032

  2,010

  2,158

  2,198

  2,338

  2,519

  2,523

  2,502

  London North

  2,451

  2,639

  2,845

  2,971

  3,072

  3,128

  3,278

  3,321

  3,555

  3,704

  3,772

  3,922

  4,180

  London South

  840

  742

  809

  828

  1,117

  1,338

  1,439

  1,630

  1,609

  1,759

  1,698

  1,598

  1,798

  London West

  521

  670

  822

  875

  1,015

  1,109

  1,181

  1,214

  1,176

  1,186

  1,152

  1,086

  1,186

  586
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each of the Training Agency's areas within Greater London, Birmingham and Greater Manchester, what are the monthly statistics for each month since September 1988 for employment training showing(a) the number of trainees receiving employment training allowances, (b) the number of people receiving community programme wages, (c) the overall cumulative number of trainees in training for each month, and (d) the number of starts in each month with employment training training managers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is given in the tables.
  587

  Sept.

  Oct.

  Nov.

  Dec.

  Jan.

  Feb.

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  Sept.

  Birmingham and Solihull

  6,012

  5,725

  5,635

  5,622

  5,837

  6,262

  6,731

  7,430

  7,359

  7,677

  7,894

  8,151

  8,119

  Central Manchester

  4,641

  4,401

  4,337

  4,041

  3,773

  3,805

  3,937

  4,172

  4,189

  4,136

  4,327

  4,060

  4,136

  Greater Manchester North

  3,078

  3,019

  2,917

  2,775

  2,588

  2,397

  2,548

  2,664

  2,622

  2,810

  2,983

  2,963

  2,899

  Greater Manchester East

  2,400

  2,435

  2,520

  2,537

  2,503

  2,528

  2,404

  2,554

  2,626

  2,560

  2,642

  2,433

  2,546

  Table 4

  Starts with employment training training managers September 1988—September 1989

  Sept.

  Oct.

  Nov.

  Dec.

  Jan.

  Feb.

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  Sept.

  Inner London North

  820

  1,159

  948

  712

  1,314

  1,090

  1,115

  927

  770

  1,005

  1,073

  955

  1,638

  Inner London South

  404

  491

  540

  454

  639

  572

  756

  675

  456

  543

  542

  469

  823

  London East

  268

  382

  432

  329

  488

  453

  487

  381

  339

  452

  452

  290

  467

  London North

  730

  565

  602

  533

  655

  664

  848

  566

  583

  549

  544

  592

  999

  London South

  116

  202

  216

  179

  404

  390

  295

  360

  216

  399

  261

  216

  530

  London West

  165

  258

  372

  198

  302

  263

  283

  177

  187

  198

  206

  138

  307

  Birmingham and Solihull

  465

  1,190

  1,237

  1,051

  1,377

  1,739

  1,576

  1,437

  1,016

  1,254

  1,079

  1,033

  1,461

  Central Manchester

  545

  738

  899

  608

  828

  1,051

  866

  923

  770

  965

  871

  643

  937

  Greater Manchester North

  323

  541

  646

  523

  602

  759

  717

  616

  521

  871

  589

  569

  609

  Greater Manchester East

  363

  596

  660

  426

  477

  643

  800

  664

  548

  588

  516

  458

  588

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each of the Training Agency's areas within Greater London, Birmingham and Greater Manchester, what are the latest available statistics for employment training giving a breakdown of entrants

  Employment Training Characteristics of Entrants (September 1988 to June 1989) Greater London, Birmingham, and Manchester (all figures are percentages, figures may not total 100 because of rounding)

  Areas

  Men

  Women

  Unemployment Duration (Months)

  Ethnic Origin1

  PWD2

  0–6

  6–12

  13–23

  24+

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Yes

  No

  Manchester East

  69

  31

  21

  31

  12

  36

  93

  1

  4

  2

  1

  10

  90

  Manchester Central

  73

  27

  19

  31

  15

  36

  84

  6

  5

  2

  3

  9

  91

  Manchester North

  71

  29

  23

  31

  13

  33

  92

  1

  5

  1

  1

  9

  91

  Birmingham

  70

  30

  16

  26

  11

  47

  63

  17

  15

  2

  3

  8

  92

  North London

  57

  43

  17

  32

  14

  36

  48

  26

  13

  7

  6

  10

  90

  London West

  56

  44

  22

  29

  14

  34

  59

  12

  18

  7

  4

  10

  91

  London East

  60

  41

  10

  35

  15

  40

  60

  17

  18

  3

  2

  12

  88

  South London

  54

  46

  18

  29

  13

  40

  67

  16

  8

  4

  4

  12

  88

  Inner London North

  54

  46

  18

  30

  15

  38

  49

  27

  9

  8

  6

  8

  92

  Inner London South

  61

  39

  12

  31

  14

  43

  43

  37

  4

  11

  5

  11

  90

  1 Ethnic origin.

  1.—White.

  2.—Black/African/Caribbean

  3.—Indian/Pakistan/Bangladeshi/Sri Lankan

  4.—None of these.

  5.—Prefer not to say.

  2 PWD—People with disabilities. Those trainees answering whether they had a long-term health problem or disability which affected the type of work they could do.

  ..=less than 0·5 per cent.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when information from the comprehensive employment training leavers survey will be available; and when a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Nicholls
  First questionnaires for the 100 per cent. follow-up survey of employment training leavers were sent out on 16 October. Information will be available later in the year.
  588
  which shows how many were male and female, the length of time they had been out of work, their ethnic backgrounds and whether or not they had any disabilities.

  Mr.Nicholls
  The information is given in the table.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria are used when setting the price to the public of Health and Safety Executive publications including the annual report; and what has been the average profit yielded by these publications in each of the last five years.
  589
  Mr. Nicholls
  In line with Her Majesty's Treasury rules, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) operates a pricing policy which seeks to recover in full the costs of production. Information is not available for the last five years but the HSE has produced a memorandum trading account in each of the last three financial years as follows:

  Year

  Profit

  £

  1986–87

  306,000

  1987–88

  167,000

  1988–89

  150,000

  The available information from the censuses of employment taken in September 1984 and September 1987 is given in the table below Numbers and percentage of employees in employment1 in the 15 industry classes with the largest number of employees in the Swindon constituency

  Classes of the Standard Industrial Classification 1980

  September 1984

  September 1987

  Number (000s)

  Per cent.2

  Number (000s)

  Per cent.2

  32 Mechanical engineering

  3—

  3—

  2·1

  3·7

  34 Electrical and electronic engineering

  4·4

  8·0

  4·7

  8·1

  35/36 Manufacture of motor vehicles and other transport equipment

  3—

  3—

  —

  —

  50 Construction

  2·0

  3·7

  2·6

  4·5

  61 Wholesale distribution

  4·7

  8·5

  3·9

  6·7

  64 Retail distribution

  7·2

  13·1

  7·2

  12·6

  66 Hotels and catering

  2·0

  3·6

  2·0

  3·6

  71/72 Railways and other inland transport

  1·7

  3·0

  2·2

  3·9

  79 Postal services and telecommunications

  2·6

  4·7

  2·5

  4·4

  81 Banking and finance

  1·3

  2·4

  —

  —

  82 Insurance except for social security

  2·2

  4·1

  2·5

  4·4

  83 Business services

  2·7

  5·0

  3·8

  6·7

  91 Public administration and defence

  1·8

  3·2

  1·9

  3·2

  92 Sanitary services

  —

  —

  20

  3·4

  93 Education

  2·8

  5·0

  3·0

  5·2

  95 Medical, other health and veterinary services

  2·8

  5·1

  3·1

  5·4

  96 Other services to the general public

  —

  —

  2·0

  3·6

  1 Excludes the self-employed and members of Her Majesty's forces.

  2 Percentage of all industries and services total.

  3 Indicates in top 15 but figures cannot be given without disclosing confidential information relating to individual firms.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list in the Official Report the estimate for the number of people in work in Great Britain for March in each year since 1970.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Estimates of the self-employed are based on the census of population and the labour force surveys. Prior to 1971 this information was obtained from the Department of Health and Social Security's sample of national insurance cards. The current surveys of work force in employment, including the self-employed, are therefore not comparable with data before 1971.

  The available information is as follows:

  Workforce in employment Great Britain Seasonally adjusted (Thousands)

  March

  1971

  23,944

  1972

  23,935

  1973

  24,505

  1974

  24,507

  1975

  24,509

  1976

  24,286

  1977

  24,285

  Statistics (Swindon)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the largest 15 categories of employment in the Swindon constituency in the last five years for which figures are available; how many were employed in each category; and what percentage of the total work force these represent.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is given in the table.

  March

  1978

  24,368

  1979

  24,699

  1980

  24,824

  1981

  23,966

  1982

  23,435

  1983

  22,999

  1984

  23,568

  1985

  23,923

  1986

  23,959

  1987

  24,219

  1988

  25,159

  1989

  25,687

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for the standard regions of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom(a) the total estimated numbers of the civilian work force in employment in March 1983, in each of the years to 1989 inclusive and (b) the changes by number and percentage between March 1983 and March 1989 and March 1988 and March 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is as follows:
  591

  Civilian workforce in employment (Unadjusted for seasonal variation)

  Thousands

  Regions

  March

  March

  March

  March

  March

  March

  March

  Change between March 1983 and March 1989

  Change between March 1988 and March 1989

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  South East

  7,764

  8,002

  8,139

  8,169

  8,275

  8,616

  8,816

  1,052

  13·5

  200

  2·3

  East Anglia

  761

  798

  825

  823

  845

  888

  916

  155

  20·4

  28

  3·2

  South West

  1,685

  1,748

  1,792

  1,817

  1,864

  1,953

  2,012

  327

  19·4

  59

  3·0

  West Midlands

  2,104

  2,160

  2,174

  2,171

  2,199

  2,292

  2,331

  227

  10·8

  39

  1·7

  East Midlands

  1,560

  1,610

  1,641

  1,654

  1,669

  1,735

  1,782

  222

  14·2

  47

  2·7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,940

  1,978

  1,999

  1,991

  2,001

  2,076

  2,085

  145

  7·5

  9

  0·4

  North West

  2,524

  2,552

  2,574

  2,578

  2,618

  2,707

  2,757

  233

  9·2

  50

  1·8

  North

  1,151

  1,161

  1,179

  1,177

  1,181

  1,226

  1,253

  102

  8·9

  27

  2·2

  Wales

  1,004

  1,023

  1,037

  1,040

  1,056

  1,100

  1,136

  132

  13·1

  36

  3·3

  Scotland

  2,054

  2,083

  2,107

  2,093

  2,077

  2,143

  2,190

  136

  6·6

  47

  2·2

  Northern Ireland

  564

  565

  572

  571

  571

  579

  584

  20

  3·5

  5

  0·9

  United Kingdom

  23,434

  24,005

  24,365

  24,405

  24,674

  25,633

  26,175

  2,741

  11·7

  542

  2·1

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give from the censuses of employment(a) the total number of employees in employment in each standard region of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the United

  Employees in Employment (Unadjusted for Seasonal Variation) (Thousands).

  Change between Sept. 84 and Sept. 87

  Regions:

  September 1984

  September 1987

  Number

  Percentage

  South East

  7,219

  7,400

  182

  2·5

  East Anglia

  717

  739

  22

  3·0

  South West

  1,553

  1,628

  76

  4·9

  West Midlands

  1,981

  1,989

  8

  0·4

  East Midlands

  1,457

  1,508

  51

  3·5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,774

  1,783

  9

  0·5

  North West

  2,296

  2,345

  49

  21

  North

  1,060

  1,074

  14

  1·3

  Wales

  886

  924

  38

  4·3

  Scotland

  1,904

  1,881

  -23

  -1·2

  Northern Ireland

  500

  507

  7

  1·4

  United Kingdom

  21,346

  21,778

  432

  2·0

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give, based on the census of employment and the labour force survey for the standard regions of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom(a) the total estimated number

  Employees in employment (unadjusted for seasonal variation). Thousands.

  Change between March 1983 and March 1984

  Change between March 1988 and March 1989

  Regions

  March 1983

  March 1984

  March 1985

  March 1986

  March 1987

  March 1988

  March 1989

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  South East

  7,038

  7,143

  7,211

  7,232

  7,237

  7,513

  7,659

  105

  1·5

  146

  1·9

  East Anglia

  668

  688

  708

  709

  715

  745

  764

  20

  3·0

  19

  2·6

  South West

  1,470

  1,507

  1,531

  1,547

  1,573

  1,634

  1,676

  37

  2·5

  42

  2·6

  West Midlands

  1,928

  1,956

  1,968

  1,963

  1,961

  2,016

  2,030

  28

  2·5

  14

  ·7

  East Midlands

  1,405

  1,430

  1,465

  1,471

  1,467

  1,511

  1,545

  25

  1·8

  34

  2·3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,772

  1,765

  1,762

  1,753

  1,744

  1,804

  1,792

  -7

  -·4

  -12

  -·7

  North West

  2,301

  2,280

  2,286

  2,288

  2,307

  2,374

  2,399

  -21

  -·9

  25

  1·1

  North

  1,061

  1,056

  1,065

  1,058

  1,053

  1,086

  1,090

  -5

  -·5

  4

  ·4

  Wales

  879

  873

  880

  877

  889

  933

  955

  -6

  -7

  22

  2·4

  Scotland

  1,879

  1,880

  1,890

  1,868

  1,850

  1,893

  1,911

  1

  ·1

  18

  1·0

  Northern Ireland

  494

  496

  503

  503

  503

  510

  514

  2

  ·4

  4

  ·8

  United Kingdom

  20,896

  21,076

  21,267

  21,269

  21,298

  22,019

  22,337

  180

  ·9

  318

  1·4

  592
  Kingdom in September 1984 and 1987 and (b) the change in numbers and percentage between September 1984 and 1987 in each of the areas.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is as follows:

  of employees in employment in March 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989 and (b) the change by number and percentage between March 1983 and March 1984 and March 1988 and March 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is as follows:
  593
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide an estimate of the economically active population in March 1979, 1983 and 1989 for each of the standard regions of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom and the changes by number and percentage between 1979 and 1983 and 1983 and 1989.

  Economically active by region

  1979

  1983

  11988

  Change 1979–83

  Change 1983–88

  '000s

  '000s

  '000s

  '000s

  Per cent.

  '000s

  Per cent.

  Northern

  1,429

  1,417

  1,484

  -13

  -0·9

  67

  4·8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,283

  2,299

  2,359

  17

  0·7

  60

  2·6

  North West

  3,053

  2,974

  3,108

  -79

  -2·6

  134

  4·5

  East Midlands

  1,784

  1,839

  1,976

  55

  3·1

  137

  7·4

  West Midlands

  2,484

  2,438

  2,580

  -46

  -1·8

  142

  5·8

  East Anglia

  878

  918

  1,027

  40

  4·6

  109

  11·8

  South East

  8,087

  8,272

  8,926

  185

  2·3

  653

  7·9

  Greater London

  3,330

  3,335

  3,423

  5

  0·1

  87

  2·6

  South West

  1,965

  2,027

  2,260

  63

  3·2

  232

  11·5

  Wales

  1,222

  1,198

  1,272

  -24

  -2·0

  74

  6·2

  Scotland

  2,459

  2,415

  2,449

  -44

  -1·8

  34

  1·4

  Northern Ireland

  613

  650

  672

  37

  6·1

  21

  3·3

  United Kingdom

  26,256

  26,447

  28,112

  192

  0·7

  1,665

  6·3

  1 Preliminary results (1988 only).

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was(a) the total estimated number of people in work-related Government training schemes included in the civilian work force in employment, in each of the standard regions of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom in March in

  Participants on work-related Government training schemes (Thousands).

  Change between March 1983 and March 1989

  Change between March 1988 and March 1989

  Regions

  March 1983

  March 1984

  March 1985

  March 1986

  March 1987

  March 1988

  March 1989

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  South East

  0

  34

  36

  33

  38

  54

  64

  64

  n.a.

  10

  18·5

  East Anglia

  0

  4

  5

  6

  8

  11

  12

  12

  n.a.

  1

  91

  South West

  0

  13

  15

  15

  19

  27

  32

  32

  n.a.

  5

  18·5

  West Midlands

  0

  19

  20

  21

  34

  41

  50

  50

  n.a.

  9

  22·0

  East Midlands

  0

  16

  18

  17

  18

  26

  31

  31

  n.a.

  5

  19·2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  0

  18

  20

  20

  27

  39

  53

  53

  n.a.

  14

  35·9

  North West

  0

  22

  23

  23

  35

  48

  62

  62

  n.a.

  14

  29·2

  North

  0

  13

  13

  14

  21

  29

  47

  47

  n.a.

  18

  62·1

  Wales

  0

  10

  11

  11

  17

  21

  31

  31

  n.a.

  10

  47·6

  Scotland

  0

  19

  21

  22

  30

  40

  57

  57

  n.a.

  17

  42·5

  Northern Ireland

  9

  8

  8

  8

  9

  9

  10

  1

  11·1

  1

  11·1

  United Kingdom

  9

  176

  190

  191

  255

  343

  448

  440

  n.a.

  105

  30·6

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was(a) the total number unemployed in March 1979, 1983 and 1989 for each of the standard regions of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom and (b) the changes by number and percentages between March 1979 and 1983 and March 1983 and 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is available from the Library. The following table shows, seasonally adjusted, the number of unemployed claimants along with the change and percentage change for the dates and regions requested.

  Unemployed claimants—seasonally adjusted

  March

  1979

  1983

  1989

  England

  Total

  852·2

  2,198·7

  732·0

  Change

  —

  +1,345·9

  -1,466·7

  594
  Mr. Nicholls
  Estimates for spring each year from the labour force survey are given in the table below. Estimates for 1989 are not yet available, so preliminary 1988 figures have been given instead.

  each of the years 1983 to 1989 inclusive and (b) the change by number and percentage between March 1983 and March 1989 and March 1988 and March 1989 in each of the areas in (a) above.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is as follows:

  March

  1979

  1983

  1989

  Percentage change

  —

  +1,57·8

  -66·7

  Scotland

  Total

  142·1

  295·1

  250·5

  Change

  —

  +153

  -44·6

  Percentage change

  —

  + 107·8

  -15·1

  Wales

  Total

  70·6

  153·1

  104·9

  Change

  —

  +82·5

  -48·2

  Percentage change

  —

  +116·9

  -31·5

  Northern Ireland

  Total

  53·2

  104·2

  109·2

  Change

  —

  +51·0

  -5·0

  Percentage change

  —

  +95·9

  -4·8

  United Kingdom

  Total

  1,118·7

  2,751·1

  1,916·6

  595

  March

  1979

  1983

  1989

  Change

  —

  +1,632·4

  -834·5

  Percentage change

  —

  145·9

  -30·3

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was(a) the total of estimated number

  Self-Employed ( Thousands)

  Regions

  Change between March 1983 and March 1984

  Change between March 1988 and March 1989

  March 1983

  March 1984

  March 1985

  March 1986

  March 1987

  March 1988

  March 1989

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  South East

  726

  826

  892

  904

  1,000

  1,049

  1,093

  100

  13·8

  44

  4·2

  East Anglia

  93

  105

  113

  107

  122

  133

  140

  12

  12·9

  7

  5·3

  South West

  215

  228

  247

  255

  273

  292

  305

  13

  6·0

  13

  4·5

  West Midlands

  176

  185

  186

  187

  204

  235

  251

  9

  5·1

  16

  6·8

  East Midlands

  155

  164

  159

  165

  184

  198

  207

  9

  5·8

  9

  4·5

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  168

  195

  217

  218

  231

  233

  240

  27

  16·1

  7

  3·0

  North West

  223

  250

  265

  267

  276

  286

  296

  27

  12·1

  10

  3·5

  North

  90

  92

  101

  105

  107

  112

  116

  2

  2·2

  4

  3·6

  Wales

  125

  140

  146

  152

  150

  147

  150

  15

  12·0

  3

  2·0

  Scotland

  175

  184

  196

  204

  197

  210

  222

  9

  5·1

  12

  5·7

  Northern Ireland

  61

  61

  61

  60

  60

  60

  60

  0

  0

  0

  0

  United Kingdom

  2,209

  2,428

  2,582

  2,623

  2,802

  2,954

  3,079

  219

  9·9

  125

  4·2

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of(a) full-time male employees in employment, (b) part-time male employees in employment, (c) full-time female employees in employment, (d) part-time female employees in employment in each of the standard regions of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom in March 1983 and March 1989 and (e) the

  Employees in employment male/female and part/full time (unadjusted)

  Thousands

  Regions

  March 1983

  March 1989

  Changes between March 1983 and March 1989

  Total male

  Full-time female

  Part-time female

  Total male

  Full-time female

  Part-time female

  Total male number

  Per cent.

  Full-time female number

  Per cent.

  Part-time female number

  Per cent.

  South East

  3,989

  1,826

  1,223

  4,075

  2,205

  1,378

  86

  2·2

  379

  20·8

  155

  12·7

  East Anglia

  399

  146

  123

  413

  193

  158

  14

  3·5

  47

  32·2

  35

  28·5

  South West

  841

  338

  291

  883

  429

  364

  42

  5·0

  91

  26·9

  73

  25·1

  West Midlands

  1,124

  471

  334

  1,119

  519

  392

  -0·5

  -0·4

  48

  10·2

  58

  17·4

  East Midlands

  814

  341

  250

  833

  395

  317

  19

  2·3

  54

  15·8

  67

  26·8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,023

  400

  350

  959

  431

  402

  -64

  -6·3

  31

  7·8

  52

  14·9

  North West

  1,281

  586

  434

  1,277

  637

  486

  -4

  -0·3

  51

  8·7

  52

  12·0

  North

  610

  251

  199

  586

  273

  231

  -24

  -3·9

  22

  8·8

  32

  16·1

  Wales

  512

  213

  154

  516

  245

  194

  4

  0·8

  32

  15·0

  40

  26·0

  Scotland

  1,055

  495

  329

  1,015

  534

  361

  -40

  -3·8

  39

  7·9

  32

  9·7

  Northern Ireland

  270

  —

  —

  269

  —

  —

  -1

  -0·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  United Kingdom

  1,837

  —

  —

  1,800

  —

  —

  -37

  -2·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tourism
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the English tourist board and the English regional tourism authorities, will be empowered to market their areas within the whole of the European Community from 1992 onwards.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Under the Development of Tourism Act 1969, the English tourist board can engage in marketing activities outside the United Kingdom on behalf of the British Tourist Authority, but not otherwise. In practice,
  596
  of self-employed in each of the standard regions of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom in March in each of the years 1983 to 1989, inclusive and (b) the change by number and percentage between March 1983 and March 1984 and March 1988 and March 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is as follows:

  changes by number and percentage between March 1983 and March 1989 in each of the of the areas in (a) to (d) above.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information on full-time and part-time employment is not available for males in the regions or for all employees in Northern Ireland and therefore in the United Kingdom for these dates.

  The available information is as follows:

  the English tourist board does not engage in any marketing activity outside England. There are no plans to introduce any change to this position.

  The English regional tourist boards are independent, non-statutory organisations, and are therefore free to carry out marketing activities both inside and outside the United Kingdom.

  Noise at Work
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many improvement notices for each of the last 10 years have been issued against employers
  597
  relating to the control of noise at work for each of the geographical areas of, respectively, the factory inspectorate, mines and quarries inspectorate, agricultural inspectorate, and railway inspectorate.

  Improvement notices issued by Her Majesty's factory inspectorate and agricultural inspectorate* against employers1 where subject of offence/requirement of notice-noise, 1981–1988/89p

  Year of issue

  HSE area

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Q1/19862

  1986–873

  1987–883

  1988–89p3

  South West

  1

  —

  2

  6

  6

  2

  2

  4

  1

  South

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  South East

  —

  1

  2

  13

  14

  3

  7

  4

  2

  Greater London

  7

  2

  3

  18

  7

  3

  8

  10

  10

  East Anglia

  —

  1

  —

  4

  16

  —

  7

  7

  7

  Northern Home Counties

  —

  —

  1

  4

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Midlands

  3

  4

  4

  14

  11

  3

  4

  6

  4

  West Midlands

  2

  —

  2

  19

  8

  2

  2

  4

  —

  Wales

  3

  2

  3

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Marches

  —

  —

  *1

  3

  2

  1

  —

  7

  1

  1

  North Midlands

  3

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  4

  2

  6

  9

  17

  1

  6

  3

  *10

  3

  *6

  West and North Yorkshire

  —

  4

  2

  1

  6

  —

  —

  4

  3

  Greater Manchester

  2

  3

  4

  9

  4

  —

  2

  2

  1

  Merseyside

  —

  1

  5

  3

  1

  —

  4

  1

  1

  North West

  1

  —

  2

  3

  3

  1

  1

  1

  2

  North East

  2

  4

  4

  9

  23

  4

  4

  *1

  5

  2

  Scotland East

  9

  29

  16

  14

  6

  1

  8

  *1

  7

  3

  Scotland West

  6

  1

  3

  1

  7

  —

  2

  —

  5

  Total

  44

  57

  *1

  65

  131

  133

  21

  66

  *2

  61

  *10

  46

  *6

  p = Provisional.

  * Figures for numbers of notices issued by agricultural inspectorate are indicated by an asterisk.

  1 Notices issued against all persons excluding employees.

  2 1st quarter (January-March).

  3 Year commencing 1 April

  Mines and quarries inspectorate and railway inspectorate issued no improvement notices.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prohibition notices have been issued against employers relating to the control of noise at work for each of the geographical areas of factory inspectorate, mines and quarries inspectorate, agricultural inspectorate and railway inspectorate.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The figures cover the period 1981–1989. Information in the form requested is not available for 1979 and 1980.

  The following prohibition notices were issued by the factory inspectorate:

  1981 None

  1982 None

  1983 3 in Scotland West

  1984 1 in South West

  1 in South East

  1 in Scotland East

  1 in Scotland West

  1985 None

  Q1. 1986 1 in Scotland West

  1986–87 1 in Greater London

  2 in Scotland East

  1987–88 1 in Scotland East

  1988–89 1 in North Midlands

  1 in South Yorkshire and Humberside

  Notes:

  1. No prohibition notices were issued for noise related offences by HSE's agricultural inspectorate, and mines and quarries inspectorate or by the railway inspectorate during the period 1981–1989.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions have beeen taken against employers for each of the last 10 years relating to control of noise at work for each of the geographical areas of factory inspectorate, mines and quarries inspectorate, agricultural inspectorate, and railway inspectorate.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The figures cover the period 1981–1989.
  598
  Mr. Nicholls
  The figures cover the period 1981–89.Information in the form requested is not available for 1979 and 1980.

  Information in the form requested is not available for 1979 and 1980

  The following informations were laid by the factory inspectorate in respect of noise-related offences:

  1981 1 information laid in Scotland West

  1982 None

  1983 1 information laid in W & N Yorkshire

  1984 1 information laid in W & N Yorkshire

  1 information laid in Scotland West

  1985 None

  1986 None

  1986–87 None

  1987–88 1 information laid in East Anglia

  1 information laid in North East

  1988–89 1 information laid in S Yorkshire and Humberside

  1 information laid in W & N Yorkshire

  Notes:

  1. No proceedings were instituted for noise related offences by HSE's agricultural inspectorate, and mines and quarries inspectorate during the period 1981–89, or by the railway inspectorate.

  2. The legislation under which this action was taken has recently been strengthened by the addition of new Noise at Work Regulations (SI 1989 No. 1790) coming into force next January, reflecting the Government's commitment to controlling noise at work.

  Special Employment
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was(a) the total estimated number of people in special employment and training measures in each of the standard regions of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland of the United Kingdom in March 1983 and March 1989 and (b) the change by number and percentage between March 1988 and March 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of people starting special employment and training programmes in Great Britain in 1982–83 and 1988–89 is shown in the table. Figures for
  599
  March only are not available, nor are regional analyses for 1982–83. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is responsible for similar measures there.

  Thousands

  Regions

  Change between 1987–88 and 1988–89

  1982–83

  1988–89

  Number

  Per cent.

  South East

  —

  91

  -12

  -11

  London

  —

  93

  +3

  +3

  South West

  —

  66

  -14

  -18

  West Midlands

  —

  112

  -1

  -2

  East Midlands

  —

  101

  +2

  +2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  —

  121

  +19

  +19

  North West

  —

  167

  -12

  +8

  Northern

  —

  87

  -14

  -20

  England1

  442

  978

  -122

  -12

  Scotland

  71

  136

  -10

  -7

  Wales

  40

  85

  -4

  -4

  Great Britain Totals1

  565

  1,262

  -140

  -10

  1 Columns may not sum to the England and Great Britain totals because of rounding and because several schemes have been included in the England and Great Britain totals which could not be shown by region.

  Wages Councils
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the evidence on which he based his assertions in the wages councils 1988 consultative document that the decline in youth unemployment is a direct result of young persons' removal from wages councils remit in 1986.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There were indications from employers that their freedom to offer jobs at rates they could afford had resulted in the engagement of young people who would not otherwise have been recruited. It follows that this has contributed to the decrease in youth unemployment.

PRIME MINISTER

  Inner Cities Policies
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the Government's inner cities policies.

  The Prime Minister
  Excellent progress continues to be made in the regeneration of our inner cities under the Government's Action for Cities programmes, spending on which is planned to increase to about £3·5 billion this year. Unemployment in the 57 inner city target areas has fallen by 23 per cent. over the last year.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Pakistan.

  The Prime Minister
  Our close and friendly relations with the democratic Government in Pakistan have been reinforced by Pakistan's recent resumption of Commonwealth membership. After Prime Minister Bhutto's welcome visit to Britain in July, I was pleased to 600
  renew my acquantance with her at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Kuala Lumpur last week.

  Housing Policy
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding housing policy.

  The Prime Minister
  Many representations are received on housing policy. The Government's policies have encouraged the spread of owner-occupation which has increased by 3,600,000 homes since 1979, an increase in the total housing stock of nearly 2 million since 1979 and the highest number of private housing starts since 1972.

  Legal Profession
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding reform of the legal profession.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations both on the Government's consultation papers. Many support the Government's aim of securing for the public the best possible access to legal services of sound quality.

  Countryside
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the preservation of the countryside.

  The Prime Minister
  Widespread appreciation has been expressed at this Government's determination to protect the countryside, and to recognise the interests of people who live and work there.

  United States of America
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the United Kingdom's relations with the United States of America.

  The Prime Minister
  I regularly receive representations on a range of subjects from members of the public and from hon. Members of this House.

  Education Policy
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representatives regarding educational policy.

  The Prime Minister
  I receive many representations about education. The Government's educational policies, in particular the introduction of the national curriculum, will continue to raise standards at all levels.

  National Heritage
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the preservation of the national heritage.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friends and I receive representations frequently. Our heritage makes a particularly important contribution both to the quality of
  601
  life within our communities and to the tourism industry. The Government are concerned to ensure that the nation's wealth of important historic buildings, monuments and sites are preserved wherever possible.

  British Rail
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding British Rail.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes. Many welcome the current investment programme which at £4 billion over the next five years is the largest programme since the transition from steam to diesel 30 years ago.

  Cawston, Rugby
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to pay an official visit to Cawston near Rugby.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Exeter
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Exeter.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Water Act
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received on the implementation of the Water Act.

  The Prime Minister
  We have received a wide range of representations on the subject of water privatisation generally. In our view this represents the best way of achieving even higher standards of water quality more quickly and more cost effectively.

  Waste Disposal
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding waste disposal.

  The Prime Minister
  I receive representations from a variety of sources on a wide range of waste disposal issues.

  USA President
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next proposes to meet the President of the United States of America.

  The Prime Minister
  I expect to meet President Bush again next month.

  South Hams
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will visit South Hams.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Transport Policy
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding transport policy.

  The Prime Minister
  I regularly receive representations on a wide range of issues concerning transport policy.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received on food safety.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations on a range of matters relating to food safety. These have been drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Government's proposals on food safety have been set out in its White Paper published in July this year.

  London Transport
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding London Transport.

  The Prime Minister
  I receive various representations concerning different aspects of London Regional Transport's operations.

  EC Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the proposed intergovernmental conference in the European Community.

  The Prime Minister
  No such representations have been received.

  Engagements
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 October.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 October.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 October.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 October.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 October.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 October.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 October.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 October.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's position on the Organisation of Africa Unity declaration on South Africa, adopted in Harare on 21 August.
  603
  The Prime Minister
  We do not believe that it is for outsiders to prescribe constitutional solutions to South Africa's problems. South Africans themselves must decide their own future. However, we welcome signs that the ANC is now thinking seriously about a negotiating process.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if she will make a statement on the Commonwealth Heads of Government document, "Southern Africa: The Way Ahead.";

  (2) if she will make a statement on the document, "Southern Africa: The Way Ahead: Britain's View."

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made earlier this afternoon.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy to call upon the Governments of the United States of America, the Nordic countries and others to maintain existing sanctions and other measures against South Africa, as agreed at the Kuala Lumpur meeting of the Heads of Government of the Commonwealth.

  The Prime Minister
  Britain agreed with all other Commonwealth countries at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting the passage in the Kuala Lumpur statement on Southern Africa"that all existing sanctions and measures should be maintained and called upon the wider international community to do likewise."

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will publish in the Official Report a statement on the progress that Her Majesty's Government believe has been made towards dismantling the pillars of apartheid.

  The Prime Minister
  Progress towards the dismantling of apartheid has included the abolition of the pass laws and influx control, the ending of job reservation on a racial basis, the granting of freehold property rights to all South Africans, the legalisation of black trades unions and the lifting of many restrictions on black small businesses. There have also been substantial moves towards the desegregation of public amenities. The release of eight long-term security prisoners and the granting of permission for peaceful demonstrations are welcome steps in the right direction. We will continue to seek the total abolition of apartheid, including the repeal of the remaining discriminatory legislation which forms the legal basis of apartheid, and its peaceful replacement by a system of government acceptable to all South Africans.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will publish in the Official Report, in relation to the document, "Southern Africa: The Way Ahead: Britain's View", when it was released, when it was decided to release the document and on which previous occasions Her Majesty's Government has issued a formal document of explanation further to a Commonwealth statement.

  The Prime Minister
  "Southern Africa: The Way Ahead: Britain's View" is not a formal document. It is a statement setting out our views on those passages of the Kuala Lumpur statement with which we disagreed and on how we see the way forward. At previous meetings of the Commonwealth Heads of Government I have expressed publicly Britain's views on matters which have arisen in discussion.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of letters from hon. Members to her received a reply(a) in under four weeks, (b) within four to six weeks, (c) within six to eight weeks and (d) over eight weeks, in each of the last three years.

  The Prime Minister
  This information is not held centrally and could therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime Screening
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any representations from the public concerning the Metropolitan police crime screening ratios policy.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Representations about crime screening have been received in the course of consultation meetings which my right hon. Friend had earlier this year with London Conservative Members of Parliament and the London local authority associations.

  Crime Prevention (West Cornwall)
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to help prevent crime in west Cornwall; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have a crime reduction strategy that applies to all parts of England and Wales. Central to this strategy is the involvement of the local community in crime prevention activity. Crime Concern was launched to support such activity and our national publicity campaign will continue to provide further advice to the public on ways in which they can reduce crime. In west Cornwall, I am pleased to report that there are now 100 neighbourhood watch schemes where 18 months ago there were none. Young people, too, are co-operating with the police. Youth crime prevention panels have been set up in Hayle with the assistance of schools liaison officers. The police and community of west Cornwall are enthusiastically working together to prevent crime.

  Dogs
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he intends to take to control the dog population in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Following the passage of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 I believe that effective steps have been taken to control the problem of dangerous dogs. The Act greatly improves the effectiveness of the courts' power to order the destruction of dangerous dogs and increases maximum penalties for offences.

  Right to Silence
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to implement the proposals contained in the recent Home Office report on the right to silence; and if he will make a statement.
  605
  Mr. John Patten
  We are waiting for comments, which are requested by 25 January, before reaching a final view.

  West Midlands Serious Crimes Squad
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  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 on the decision to disband the serious crimes squad; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Reid).

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the light of the recent decision to disband the West Midlands serious crimes squad, he will review convictions for serious crimes based wholly or mainly on confessions obtained from people in the custody of the West Midlands police.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  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.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the light of the recent decision to disband the West Midlands serious crimes squad, he will review all convictions for serious crimes based wholly or mainly on confessions obtained in the custody of the West Midlands police.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  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 on the decision to disband the serious crimes squad; and if he will make a statement.

  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 on the decision to disband the serious crimes squad; and if he will make a statement.

  Ms. Short
  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 on the decision to disband the serious crimes squad; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Reid).

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the case of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings, in the light of recent evidence that officers of the West Midlands serious crimes squad have been forging confessions.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the case of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings, in the light of recent evidence that officers of the West Midlands serious crimes squad have been forging confessions.

  Mr. Hurd
  I referred this case to the Court of Appeal on 20 January 1987 and after a thorough investigation by the Devon and Cornwall police, the court heard the case in November and December 1987. In its judgment, announced in January 1988, the court concluded that it had no doubt that the convictions were safe and satisfactory.
  606
  I am always ready to consider new evidence or other information which has not been before the courts and which appears to cast doubt on the safety of the conviction. We are in close touch with the Police Complaints Authority about the investigations into the allegations made about the West Midlands serious crime squad. If relevant information came to light in the course of the investigation, I should as I stated in the House on 19 October consider whether there were grounds to justify my further intervention in this or any other case.

  Street Drinking
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will report on Government initiatives to curb drinking in the street.

  Mr. John Patten
  The experimental byelaw, which prohibits the consumption of alcohol in designated public places, is now in force in seven areas. The operation of the byelaw is being closely monitored by participating local authorities, the police and the Home Office. The results so far are encouraging. The byelaw has maintained its initial popularity and continues to be generally complied with. There have been 10 prosecutions, with 11 pending.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables were appointed during the first half of 1988.

  Mr. Hurd
  On 31 December 1988 there were 15,778 special constables in England and Wales (10,578 men and 5,210 women). On 30 June 1989 there were 15,625 (10,465 men and 5,160 women). Statistics relating to appointments are not held centrally.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables now serve in police forces in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) earlier today.

  Immigrants
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his latest estimate of the number of immigrants allowed to enter Britain; and what are the figures for each of the previous five years.

  Mr. Renton
  In the 12 months ending 30 June 1989, a total of 50,200 persons were accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom. The corresponding figures for previous years were 53,500 in 1983, 51,000 in 1984, 55,400 in 1985, 47,800 in 1986, 46,000 in 1987 and 49,300 in 1988.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes now exist in West Mercia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand from the West Mercia constabulary that at the end of September 1989 there were
  607
  2,928 schemes in West Mercia, covering approximately 73,000 households. This is an increase of 859 schemes compared with the position reported 12 months previously.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes now exist in Staffordshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand from the Staffordshire police that at the end of September 1989 there were 760 neighbourhood watch schemes in Staffordshire, covering approximately 84,000 households. This represents an increase of 228 schemes compared with the position reported 12 months previously.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes now exist; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes now exist in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  At the end of September 1989 there were estimated to be in the region of 75,300 residential neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales. The total number of schemes is almost 16,000 more than recorded 12 months ago and covers well over 3·5 million households. In addition the original neighbourhood watch idea has diversified to include initiatives such as pub watch, business watch, taxi watch and farm watch schemes. I welcome this evidence of the public's continuing support for crime prevention in general and neighbourhood watch in particular.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes now exist in Kent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand from the Kent constabulary that at the end of September 1989 there were 1,604 neighbourhood watch schemes in Kent, covering approximately 201,000 households. This is an increase of some 280 schemes compared with the position reported 12 months previously.

  "Practical Ways to Crack Crime"
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many copies of "Practical Ways to Crack Crime" have now been distributed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Nearly 2·5 million copies of the first and second editions of "Practical Ways to Crack Crime" have been distributed in England and Wales. The third edition was published yesterday.

  Forensic Science Service
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the effectiveness of the forensic science service.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Following the publication of its strategy statement in May 1989, the forensic science 608
  service has prepared a comprehensive programme of action aimed at improving both its effectiveness and efficiency. Copies of both the strategy statement and the more detailed action programme are in the Library.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest figures for the level of prosecutions, under sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, for homeless young people in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The number of persons aged under 21 proceeded against in the Metropolitan police district under sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 for 1987 was 171. Information is not collected centrally on the number of homeless people who have been prosecuted under the aforesaid Act. However of the 171 prosecutions only four were for sleeping out. This compares with 66 for being on enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose, 49 for indecent exposure and 38 for begging. Data for 1988 are not yet available.

  Drug Traffickers
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made towards concluding further international agreements to confiscate the assests of convicted drug traffickers.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made towards concluding further international agreements to confiscate the assets of convicted drug traffickers.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have concluded reciprocal agreements or arrangements with 11 countries: the United States, Australia, Canada, the Bahamas, Bermuda, Spain, Switzerland, Nigeria, Anguilla, Gibraltar and Malaysia. An agreement with Sweden is also near completion and negotiations are under way with several other countries.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will report the latest available totals for drug traffickers' assets confiscated or frozen pending trial.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information available centrally relates only to confiscation orders made under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. For 1988, £8·1 million was ordered to be confiscated by the courts. The national drugs intelligence unit estimates that confiscation and restraint orders exceeding £13 million and £20 million respectively have been made since the Act came into force in January 1987.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drugs trafficking offences were recorded and successfully prosecuted during the past 12 months.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information available centrally indicates that 9,214 offences of trafficking in controlled drugs were dealt with in the United Kingdom in 1988. A total of 4,208 persons were found guilty of 5,600 of these offences and a further 811 persons were cautioned or dealt with by compounding (payment of a penalty in lieu of prosecution) for a single offence.

  Policing
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for increased policing throughout the United Kingdom over the next 12 months.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend will be able to approve 1,100 additional police posts for police forces in England and Wales in 1990–91.

  Cocaine and Crack
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to combat the threat from cocaine and crack.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made towards targeting publicity campaigns warning of the dangers of crack in certain key cities.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply my right hon. Friend gave earlier to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord).

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on the conduct of the Sussex police force when investigating the murder charge against Mr. Colin Wallace.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have received representations from the hon. Member and from Mr. Colin Wallace. I hope to be able to let them have a substantive reply to their representations shortly.

  Police (Norfolk)
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made towards securing greater efficiency and value for money by the police service in Norfolk; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for securing value for money in the Norfolk constabulary rests primarily on the chief constable and the police authority. Among the initiatives taken in pursuit of better value for money are a programme of civilianisation including the setting up of administrative support units which has released 112 officers to operational duties since 1981; sharing underused police premises with other services; putting police canteens out to competitive tendering; and a review of vehicle fleet management.

  Slopping Out (Prisons)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to end the practice of slopping out within prisons.

  Mr. Hurd
  As I indicated in a reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) on 20 February 1989 at column 506, we accept that ending slopping out would make a substantial difference to the lives of prisoners and staff, and that achieving this should 610
  be given a high priority. Work is under way to reach this goal, with all prisons built or designed since 1979 having either integral sanitation within the living accommodation or free access to sanitation. At existing establishments, the introduction of sanitary facilities is proceeding as quickly as possible within financial and physical constraints. I also announced a provisional programme to add more than 6,500 cells to those already scheduled for conversion. In addition, each establishment which does not have integral sanitation, or where it has not already been scheduled to be included, is being examined to determine the best way of providing such access, taking account of its individual circumstances. We thus plan to reduce the number of places without access to sanitation as quickly as possible, though it is not yet possible to say exactly when the practice will finally cease.

  Shotgun Certificates
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from chief constables in England and Wales on the steps they are taking to satisfy themselves that applicants for shotgun certificates can possess these weapons without danger to the public safety or the peace.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend has issued guidance to chief officers of police on this matter in the publication entitled "Firearms Law: Guidance to the Police", a copy of which is in the Library. Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary give considerable attention to this aspect in their inspections of forces.

  Fines
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fines were imposed by courts in June 1989, March 1989, December 1988 and September 1988.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information for 1988 and 1989 is not yet available.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive and make public the findings of the five assessment projects on the feasibility of day fines and the causes of the decline in the use of fines as punishment.

  Mr. John Patten
  Autumn 1990: the project includes following up the enforcement of the fines assessed on a unit basis.

  War Crimes Report
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement in respect of comments received by his Department on the war crimes report.

  Mr. John Patten
  Since the war crimes inquiry's report was published, we have received a considerable number of letters representing a range of differing arguments of principle and practicality raised by the issue of war crimes prosecutions. We hope that it will be possible for the House to debate the issues raised by the report shortly.

  Orange Badges
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will discuss with chief constables measures which would make it easier for police and traffic wardens to identify misuse of orange badges by able-bodied people.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to his question on 20 July 1989 at column 301.

  Turkish Kurds
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in deciding applications for political asylum by Turkish Kurds.

  Mr. Renton
  By 11 October the asylum applications from 592 Turkish nationals had been considered in detail. The results of this consideration are that 71 met the criteria of the 1951 UN convention and have been recognised as refugees; 243 have been given leave to remain in the United Kingdom on an exceptional basis; 24 departed voluntarily before a final decision was reached; 172 have been notified of a provisional decision that they do not qualify for asylum and further information/representations are awaited; 36 did not qualify for asylum or leave to enter under the immigration rules, were refused entry and returned to Turkey.

  In addition, a further 207 have made voluntary departures after withdrawing their claims for asylum.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of Kurds currently seeking asylum in the United Kingdom and of those the number in custody in(a) Her Majesty's prisons and (b) detention centres.

  Mr. Renton
  Immigration statistics do not record ethnic origins, but most of the 4,200 Turkish nationals currently seeking asylum in the United Kingdom are believed to be of Kurdish origin. Six Turkish asylum seekers, whose applications have been refused and who await removal, are currently detained, all in prisons.

  Police Statistics
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the increase in police numbers since October 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Between October 1979 and July 1989 police officer strength increased by 12,925 to 125,808.

  Police Service (Cambridgeshire)
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made towards securing greater efficiency and value for money by the police service in Cambridgeshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for securing value for money in the Cambridgeshire constabulary rests primarily on the chief constable and police authority.

  In pursuit of better value for money Cambridgeshire constabulary has undertaken, amongst other things, the following initiatives: the introduction of a comprehensive
  612
  performance review system; reduction in the number of tiers of management and clarification of management responsibilities; streamlining paperwork to reduce time spent by officers on administrative tasks; the introduction of graded response to calls; and civilianisation of police officer posts.

  The chief constable has identified a number of other areas for further work to improve value for money, including transport and communications.

  Safer Cities Initiative
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made with his Department's safer cities initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Progress is good. Eleven local safer cities projects are now operating and five more should be in place by next January. Resulting action to reduce crime, and fear of crime, encompasses well-tried physical security and other more innovative measures. Examples are better fittings in homes of the elderly and in business premises; improved lighting in car parks and streets; personal safety classes; and new activity for young people at risk of offending.

  Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons (Report)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received following the publication on 24 July of the report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As yet we have received no representations on this report.

  Crime (Bury)
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to help prevent crime in Bury; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Our strategy for crime prevention applies to all parts of England and Wales. We have substantially increased police manpower and resources, set up Crime Concern to stimulate, support and develop local crime prevention activity, and have launched this month the third phase of our national crime prevention advertising campaign which will provide further advice for the public on how they can help to reduce crime. The Government encourage the growth and development of neighbourhood watch schemes and crime prevention panels and I am pleased to note that there are now 401 watch schemes in Bury, North compared to 259 this time last year. I know also that the Bury and district crime prevention panel has run successful campaigns against shoplifting and recently organised a major crime prevention exhibition.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the implementation of the new regulations relating to concessionary television licences; and what representations he has received from local authorities on this matter.
  613
  Mr. Renton
  By the end of August 1989 about 27,000 schemes had been reviewed under the May 1988 regulations, and some 804,500 people were covered by concessionary licences. Applications in respect of a further 10,000 schemes are being considered by the national TV licence records office and it is hoped that they will be dealt with by the end of the year. Since the change in the regulations, we have received 62 letters, 52 through hon. Members, from local authorities about aspects of the concessionary television licence scheme. I have also received two delegations from local authorities.

  Chief Constable of Essex
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chief constable of Essex; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend last met the chief constable of Essex on 21 September when he opened the new police station at Colchester. They touched on a number of matters during the brief conversation which the occasion allowed.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of remand prisoners held in custody during 1988 later received a custodial sentence.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information for 1988 is incomplete because for a proportion of the prisoners the outcome of court proceedings is not yet recorded. Final figures for 1987 and provisional figures for 1988 are given in tables 2.10 and 2.6 respectively of "Prison Statistics England and Wales 1988", published today, which is available in the Library.

  Broadcasting Standards Council
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress the Broadcasting Standards Council is making towards its code of conduct.

  Mr. Renton
  I understand that the Broadcasting Standards Council has completed work on its code of practice on the portrayal of sex and violence in broadcast programmes and video works, and that it will be published along with the council's annual report on 1 November.

  Police Officers (Administrative Support)
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to implement the recommendations of the Audit Commission report on administrative support for police officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Audit Commission recommendations in its report on administrative support for police officers contain valuable guidelines for improved value for money in the use of police resources. Responsibility for responding to the recommendations lies primarily with chief officers of police and local police authorities with the advice and encouragement of Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary. A survey carried out by the inspectorate last June showed that over 90 per cent. of forces had completed or were carrying out reviews of their administrative support services.

  Nationality Applications
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in dealing with nationality applications at the Liverpool nationality office.

  Mr. Renton
  Excellent progress continues to be made. The number of applications currently outstanding is less than 40,000. As I indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on 26 July at column 709, we expect to have taken decisions on all these applications by January 1990.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made towards securing greater efficiency and value for money by the police service in the London metropolitan area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A wide range of initiatives is being pursued to improve value for money in the Metropolitan police. They include a programme of civilianisation, which has released more than 360 officers for operational duties since April 1986; an annual programme of efficiency scrutinies with seven scrutinies completed to date; the introduction of external inspections by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary; improvements in resource planning and central processes, including the development of output measures and performance indicators and targets, progressive delegation of budgets to areas and divisions and improvements in financial management information; wide-ranging reviews by external consultants, including reviews of provisioning services and of building project management; appointment of specialist procurement and accounting advisers; and numerous other internal reviews. Further details on value for money activity may be found in the Commissioner's report for 1988 (Cm. 670).

  National Investigation Bureau
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police about proposals to create a national investigative bureau; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have not received any formal representations, but we welcome the views the Commissioner expressed in his speech to the Police Foundation on 6 July as being an important contribution to the debate on the organisation of policing to combat the challenge of serious crime. At this stage I believe that it would be premature to create an operational national unit to investigate serious crime, which would involve a substantial reorganisation of our present police force structures. Co-ordination of criminal intelligence is, however, essential. I am, therefore, asking the police service to consider how we might build on the excellent work of the regional crime squads, the national drugs intelligence unit and the national football intelligence unit to improve the collection and dissemination of criminal intelligence about all kinds of serious crime, perhaps by the creation of a national criminal intelligence unit.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with representatives of the broadcasting authorities.

  Mr. Renton
  I have regular meetings with the broadcasting authorities at which a wide range of broadcasting issues are discussed.

  Gaelic Broadcasting
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on the future role envisaged for Gaelic broadcasting.

  Mr. Renton
  My right hon. Friend hopes before long to he in a position to make an announcement on Gaelic broadcasting.

  Hong Kong Citizens
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizens of Hong Kong have been granted abode in the United Kingdom over the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Renton
  The number of British dependent territory citizens from Hong Kong granted settlement in the United Kingdom in the years 1984 to 1988 is published in table 22 of the Home Office Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics; United Kingdom 1988" (Cm. 726), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Police Officials (Removals)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department has made on proposals that would lead to the removal of inefficient police officials; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This issue is still under consideration by a committee of the Police Advisory Board. I expect it to be discussed at the committee's next meeting on 15 November.

  Violence and Sex (Television)
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from ethnic minorities about violence and sex on television.

  Mr. Renton
  We receive a number of letters about the portrayal of sex and violence on television, but have not received any specifically from ethnic minority groups.

  EC Border Control
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about border control between the United Kingdom and other European community countries.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox).

  Burials
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice has been given to registrars in England in easing the formalities for the burial in England of persons who have died in Scotland.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  Registrars are advised to obtain documentary evidence of the place and cause of death of persons who die in Scotland where it is intended that the burial or cremation take place in England or Wales.

  The registrars general for England and Wales and for Scotland have recently agreed revised written instructions which will shortly be circulated to registrars in England and Wales, advising that the appropriate documentary evidence would include either a certified extract of an entry in a Scottish death register, or a letter from the procurator fiscal stating the place and cause of death.

  I understand that similar instructions are about to be issued to registrars in Scotland so that they can give advice on the documentary evidence required in England and Wales in such cases.

  Passports
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered, as recommended in the fifth report of the Home Affairs Select Committee (1987–88 session), the withdrawal of the British visitor's passport and the issue of the back page of the new United Kingdom passport as a voluntary identification document to facilitate travel within the European Community and to replace the growing number of cards now being issued by football clubs, public houses and other private establishments for the purposes of identification; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  As explained in the Government's reply to the Committee's fifth report (Cm. 635), no decision about withdrawal or replacement of the British visitor's passport can be made until the main passport issuing system has been fully computerised and tested under a full workload.

  Prisons
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many staff and of what grades are to be recruited or transferred to posts at(a) Her Majesty's Garth prison and (b) Her Majesty's Wymott prison (i) over the next six months and (ii) over the following six months;

  (2) how many staff and of what grades are to be redeployed from (a) Her Majesty's remand centre, Risley and (b) Her Majesty's young offenders institution, Buckley Hall (i) over the next six months and (ii) over the following six months.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In his statement on 25 July 1989 about action to be taken in the light of the Risley disturbances, at columns 607–8, my right hon. Friend indicated that he had decided to work towards the end of Risley's remand function for males by the summer of next year, after which it would take only sentenced prisoners. The staffing requirement for the establishment after these changes have been made has not yet been precisely set, but it is expected that more than 200 staff—mainly from the prison service
  617
  unified grades—will need to be redeployed. An exercise has been mounted to establish the wishes of the staff, which will be met so far as possible.

  My right hon. Friend has recently decided that the young offender institution at Buckley Hall should close and it will cease to function on 12 November, with formal closure some time thereafter. Arrangements are being made for the staff—as shown in the table—to be redeployed.

  Movements of staff into other establishments in the north-west, including those mentioned by my hon. Friend, depend on a number of factors, and I cannot say at this stage how many such movements there will be. Priority in filling such vacancies will, however, be given to staff transferred from Risley and Buckley Hall, and it is therefore unlikely that any newly recruited staff will be posted to Garth or Wymott.

  HMYOI Buckley Hall: Staff in post 1 October 1989

  Numbers

  Governor 3

  1

  Governor 5

  1

  Principal Officers

  3

  Senior Officers

  4

  Officers

  34

  Night Patrols

  5

  Storeman

  1

  Farm Manager 3

  1

  Chaplains (part-time)

  3

  Medical Officer (part-time)

  1

  Executive Officer

  1

  Administrative Officers

  5

  Administrative Assistant

  1

  Typists

  3

  Industrial grades

  14

  Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what time and on what day Gerry Conlon was informed formally of the Director of Public Prosecution's decision not to contest his appeal against the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombing convictions.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the Crown Prosecution Service informed Mr. Conlon's solicitor of the Director of Public Prosecution's decision at about 11 am on Tuesday 17 October (one hour before the press notice). The solicitor was advised of Mr. Conlon's arrival at Brixton prison the same afternoon and she was able to speak to Mr. Conlon later in the day. There was no formal announcement of these events by the prison authorities.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what time and on what day Patrick Armstrong was informed formally of the Director of Public Prosecution's decision not to contest his appeal against the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombing convictions.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the Crown Prosecution Service informed Mr. Armstrong's solicitor of the Director of Public Prosecution's decision at about 11 am on Tuesday 17 October (one hour before the press notice). The solicitor was advised of Mr. Armstrong's arrival at Brixton prison the same afternoon and he was able to speak to Mr. Armstrong later in the day. There was no formal announcement of these events by the prison authorities.
  618
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what time and on what day Paul Hill was informed formally of the Director of Public Prosecution's decision not to contest his appeal against the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombing convictions.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the Crown Prosecution Service informed Mr. Hill's solicitor of the Director of Public Prosecution's decision at about 11 am on Tuesday 17 October (one hour before the press notice). The solicitor was advised of Mr. Hill's arrival at Brixton prison the same afternoon and he was able to speak to Mr. Hill later in the day. There was no formal announcement of these events by the prison authorities.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will name those who have been involved in the administration of justice who have sought to have the case of those convicted of the Birmingham bombing put before the courts again.

  Mr. John Patten
  Since the case of those convicted of the Birmingham public house bombings was last considered by the Court of Appeal following a reference by my right hon. Friend, representations proposing that the case be referred again to the Court of Appeal have been received from members of both Houses of Parliament, representatives of the clergy, representatives of various campaign groups, and members of the public. Some of these have legal qualifications.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions Gerry Conlon was strip-searched between 1 pm Tuesday 17 October and his release on Thursday 19 October;

  (2) on how many occasions Patrick Armstrong was strip-searched between 1 pm Tuesday 17 October and his release;

  (3) on how many occasions Paul Hill was strip-searched between 1 pm Tuesday 17 October and his release.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Comprehensive records of this kind are not routinely maintained, but it would be normal practice for them to have been strip-searched on arrival at Brixton prison, before and after receiving visits, and before their appearance at the Court of Appeal on Thursday 19 October; a total of about half a dozen occasions. It is standard practice to strip-search Category A prisoners on such occasions.

  Terence William Rivett
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date Terence William Rivett escaped from HM prison, Ford, where he was serving a sentence of three years' imprisonment imposed at Guildford Crown court.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Terence William Rivett absconded from Ford open prison on 25 August 1989.

  Criminal Cases Appeal
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on deciding whether to reconsider a previous decision not to refer criminal cases to appeal; and if he takes into account the later views of the judge who had dismissed a particular appeal at the time.
  619
  Mr. John Patten
  In deciding whether to refer to the Court of Appeal, under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the case of a person convicted on indictment, my right hon. Friend would normally consider it right to intervene whether there is new evidence or other consideration of substance which has not previously been before the courts, and which appears to cast doubt upon the safety of the conviction. If any member of the judiciary expressed views on the safety of a conviction my right hon. Friend would consider these very carefully.

  Fostering
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children of West African origin were left by their parents for fostering in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; and if he will set out in each case the main categories by percentage of the immigration status of the children so left.

  Mr. Renton
  The information requested is not available. There is no provision in the immigration rules for the admission of children to be fostered in the United Kingdom. Under the rules children may settle here if their parents are also settled here. Children may also be admitted temporarily either as visitors or with parents who come here for a limited period, for example as students or work permit holders. A child admitted for a limited period would become an overstayer if he did not depart when his leave to remain expired.

  Dr. Siddiqui
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the immigration status of the Dr. Siddiqui who recently addressed a meeting on the subject of Salman Rushdie.

  Mr. Renton
  He is a British citizen.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what is the average time taken between awards being made from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and the issue of cheques for such awards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  The board does not keep the information requested, but I understand that once an applicant has written to accept an offered award it will normally be paid in a few weeks.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken to make awards on claims to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) on 17 October at column 16.

  Trespassing
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends undertaking an evaluation of the working of section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 was introduced into the Public Order Bill as it was going 620
  through Parliament in response to the depredations suffered by landowners by members of the so-called peace convoy during the summer of 1986. The section provides the police with a power to direct trespassers to leave land in certain circumstances. Only if the trespassers knowingly fail to obey such a direction do they commit a criminal offence.

  Section 39 put in place entirely new powers for the police and introduced an accompanying criminal sanction. It has been in force for about two and a half years. It has been the subject of representations by a number of people and organisations. In view of the time the section has been operative and because of the interest it has aroused. I propose to institute an evaluation of how the section is working in order to obtain a clearer picture of the consistency and effectiveness of its application. Views on the section may be directed in writing to F8 Division, Home Office, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London SWIEI 9AT, to arrive by 31 December 1989.

  Race Relations Act 1976
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidance the Department issues with regard to the meaning of "appropriate arrangements" in section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976;

  (2) what monitoring arrangements his Department operates to ensure that section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 is carried out by all local authorities.

  Mr. John Patten
  The joint circular 54/77, sent with the Race Relations Act 1976 to local authorities, advised them to examine their policies and practices for carrying out their different functions to ensure that they met the requirements of section 71, and to keep their employment policies and practices under regular review to ensure equality of opportunity for members of minority groups. No special monitoring arrangements are made by the Home Office.

  Genetic Fingerprinting
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish figures of immigration cases where DNA has proved a positive relationship where entry has previously been refused for(a) those still under 18 years of age and (b) those who have passed their 18th birthday subsequent to entry refusal.

  Mr. Renton
  The information requested is not available. DNA evidence can be produced at any stage of the entry clearance or appeals process. Statistics relating to entry clearance applications granted or appeals allowed do not identify the number of cases which were resolved on the basis of DNA evidence or the number of such cases previously refused on relationship grounds.

  Immigration (Body Searches)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines are given on the circumstances in which immigration officials should undertake body searches; and how many such searches were made in the last year.

  Mr. Renton
  Paragraph 4(3) of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 provides that an immigration
  621
  officer may search the baggage and person of passengers seeking entry to ascertain whether they are carrying relevant documents, but no woman or girl may be searched except by a woman. Immigration officers normally seek the co-operation of HM Customs in any search of a passenger's baggage or person which may be considered necessary. In practice immigration officers do not carry out body searches and no guidelines on this have therefore been issued.

  Police Records
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines there are for chief constables on how long they should keep records on individuals who have committed no crime which were collected prior to a security-sensitive event which has subsequently passed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None. This is an operational matter for chief constables.

  Prisoners (Health Care)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to ensure that prisoners enjoy the same rights in relation to health care as the general population except that of being able to choose their doctor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Every prison has a medical officer who is statutorily responsible for the health care, mental and physical, of the prisoners held therein. All medical officers are bound by the prison or young offender institution rules and by prison standing orders which inter alia require 24-hour availability of doctors for regular surgeries and emergencies and allow medical officers unfettered clinical freedom to call upon such National Health Service and other specialist out-patient and in-patient services as they consider appropriate. Such services are used extensively.

  Unconvicted prisoners may be treated by a doctor or dentist of their choice in consultation with the medical officer if certain conditions are satisfied.

  Immigration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the numbers of extra staff required by the immigration and nationality department to clear the backlog of immigration and nationality cases by 31 December.

  Mr. Renton
  The information requested is not readily available. Efforts to reduce the backlog by improved efficiency and streamlining caseworking procedures continue. The backlog of nationality registration applications is planned to be cleared during January 1990, and of naturalisation applications by 31 March 1991.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current backlog of immigration applications in terms of(a) the total number of cases, (b) the number in each category and (c) the average length of time it takes to deal with a case in each category.

  Mr. Renton
  At the end of September 1989, there were 27,600 cases outstanding in the immigration caseworking groups and 10,000 active cases in the refugee and special cases unit. Information by category on the number of cases 622
  currently outstanding is not readily available, but marriage and student cases are thought to account for the greater part of the backlog. The estimated average length of time to deal with applications in the main variation of leave categories in the third quarter of 1989 is given in the table:

  Estimated average length of time between the receipt of an application and the decision, for variation of leave cases1 2 decided in the third quarter of 1989, for the main categories of applications 1989 Third Quarter

  Category of application

  Months

  Student

  3½

  Work permit holder

  1½

  Settlement grant

  2½

  Limited leave prior to settlement as a spouse

  4

  Visitor

  2

  1 Includes cases decided in the Public Enquiry Offices as well as in the caseworking groups

  2 Excludes EC nationals

  Immigration and Nationality Department
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number and location of the sites suggested by the consultants employed by his Department for the possible relocation of the immigration and nationality department; and what was the cost of the consultants' work.

  Mr. Renton
  The consultants considered the broad potential benefits that might be secured from relocating in a number of areas. These were the north-east, north-west, west midlands, south Wales, Glasgow and central Birmingham. They made no specific recommendations regarding possible sites. The cost of the consultants' work was £70,100. Their report is still under consideration.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of staff vacancies at(a) the immigration and nationality department, Croydon and (b) the immigration and nationality department, Liverpool.

  Mr. Renton
  At 19 October there were 50 vacancies in the immigration and nationality department in Croydon, and two in the Liverpool nationality office.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of applications for registration which were completed by the immigration and nationality department in(a) 1987, (b) 1988, and (c) the current year to date.

  Mr. Renton
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Applications for registration completed

  1987

  51,291

  1988

  53,947

  11989

  79,605

  1 Provisional figure to end September.

  Naturalisation
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of applications for naturalisation dealt with and completed by his Department in(a) 1986, (b) 1987, (c) 1988, and (d) the current year to date.

  Mr. Renton
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Applications for naturalisation completed

  1986

  15,213

  1987

  20,180

  1988

  15,772

  11989

  16,194

  1 Provisional figure to end September.

  Illegal Abortions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by year and location, for the last five years, the number of successful prosecutions in respect of illegal abortion operations and the ages of the patients.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information available to me relates to the number of persons found guilty of procuring illegal abortions under the Offences against the Person Act 1861, sections 58 and 59 as amended by the Abortion Act 1967, in England and Wales by police force area for 1983 to 1987.

  Police force area

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Lancashire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  624

  Police force area

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Metropolitan police district

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  England and Wales

  3

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Data for 1988 is not yet available. Information is not collected centrally on the age of the patients.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the fire service.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government wish to see the fire service in Great Britain maintain the present high level of service while giving the best value for money to the public. It is the Government's view that this can be achieved within existing administrative structures.

  Sir Peter Blaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Her Majesty's Government have arty plans to privatise the fire service.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) on 10 January.

  Lorrain Osman
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to answer recent correspondence from the hon. Member for Stockton, South about Mr. Lorrain Osman.

  Mr. John Patten
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 25 October.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by The Bishop of Salisbury): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Hospices: Financial Support
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider giving financial support to hospices in England and Wales and Northern Ireland similar to the proposals recently announced by the Scottish Office for hospices in Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, arrangements for financial support for independent hospices have been under careful consideration for some time, and it is hoped to bring forward plans in due course. Arrangements for hospices in Wales and Northern Ireland are also being considered and it is hoped to deal with these at the same time as those for England.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which gives a distant ray of hope on a rather distant horizon. Is she aware that there is an increasing demand for hospice type care not only for people within the hospices themselves but extending into domiciliary care for the terminally ill in their own homes? This often leads to very real financial problems both for the terminally ill themselves and for their families. Can my noble friend indicate whether the Government have any plans to help alleviate the financial problems of the terminally ill in hospices or at home and to ensure that they have a genuine choice of the kind of care they most want in their last illness?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes, this is indeed an important development of hospice care. I understand that some hospices provide home and day care and bereavement services. Some act as centres for the training of volunteers and professionals. Most can certainly draw on volunteer helpers. Within the National Health Service provision there are more than 140 home care teams working alongside front line staff. Some of the concerns in this area may be met by the announcement made yesterday by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security which confirmed that we intend to abolish the six months' qualifying period for attendance allowance for terminally ill people.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware how much we welcome this Scottish initiative, which is a fair tribute to the remarkable service provided by the hospice movement? Does she accept that some hospices receive no NHS or government funding at all? Does she further accept that this is an urgent
1550
issue? Will she raise it with her right honourable friend in order that a decision can be taken soon?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I accept that funding through local health authorities varies throughout the country. In some cases it is very little and in other cases it is considerably more than 50 per cent. Nevertheless, the Government accept in principle the desirability of achieving a more balanced, stable and equitable pattern of financial support for independent hospices. However, the detailed application of the principle is complicated and that is why we are still working on it. I shall of course look at the matter.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend assure me that any plans she makes for this admirable movement will provide funds in addition to, and not in place of, the money already available from private donors?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble and learned friend may be sure that we shall try to achieve the best possible results.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I welcome the abolition of the six months' rule for attendance allowance. Can my noble friend say whether this will be retrospective? It would have been helpful to my family if it had been done a year ago.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I think the answer to my noble friend must be no.

General Sikorski
3.5 p.m.
Lord Whaddon Lord Whaddon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are yet in a position to indicate an appropriate occasion for the return to Poland of the ashes of General Sikorski.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): No, my Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister told General Jaruzelski in June that we had reconsidered this question but felt that the time was not yet right. We shall naturally keep the question under review as we see how Poland develops following recent momentous events.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Bearing in mind the high hopes resting on the success of the reforms taking place in Poland and the Government's expression of interest in the success of the reforms, have the Government any further measures in mind which might be of practical assistance in forwarding the process of liberalisation?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord's supplementary question exactly arises from the Question on the Order Paper. He will be aware that in a reply to a Question earlier in the week I went into some considerable detail as to the

1551
steps we are taking to assist the recovery of the Polish economy. I shall not repeat all that now, but we very much hope, for example, that Poland will soon reach an agreement with the IMF which will unlock a great deal of additional help for that country.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that if the remains of this great patriot and friend of Britain were laid to rest in his own country it would do more than anything else symbolically to help the great changes that are taking place in Poland and would be a way of laying to rest too the still repeated calumny that the British Government had someting culpable to do with the circumstances of his death?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as my noble friend rightly implies, that last suggestion is quite without foundation. As to whether the general's remains should be returned to Poland, we think it important that we should canvass a wide range of Polish opinion before agreeing to do that. We did that comparatively recently when the consensus appeared to be that this was not the right time to do so, but we shall certainly keep the matter under review.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer. While I am sure he will agree that Poland needs more than symbols of support in its present circumstances, does he not agree that to Poland above almost all countries symbols are of the utmost importance? The return of General Sikorski's remains to his own country would be a symbolic gesture of the greatest importance which would carry implications of the fullest possible support that the Government could give to the reforms, political and economic, taking place at this momentous time in Poland and in Eastern Europe.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I dare say the noble Lord is right to say this move would be welcomed by many people in Poland, but there are other sectors of Polish opinion which take a different view.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, has General Sikorski's family requested the return of his ashes to Poland?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not aware that any members of General Sikorski's family are still alive who could be consulted, but we have consulted a wide range of Polish opinion and the outcome was as I described it.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, few would wish to join issue with the Government that the time may not yet be ripe to return General Sikorski's remains, but would the Minister agree that the present time is at least less unripe than it was when the Prime Minister met General Jaruzelski last June?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly agree that there have been many changes within Poland since the summer of this year when my right honourable
1552
friend reached her view on the matter following the request from General Jaruzelski. However, it is too early to say whether those changes have yet resulted in a change of view among the Polish people generally.

Homeless Young People: Benefit Entitlement
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the meeting to consider the benefit entitlement of 16 to 18 year-olds unable to live at home, promised by Lord Skelmersdale on July 17th during the Third Reading of the Social Security Bill (Official Report, Vol. 510, cols. 595–6) has yet taken place; and if so, who attended and what was the outcome.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, my noble friend Lady Faithfull met with my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Minister of State for Social Security on 4th October to follow up the agreement of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale to a meeting with voluntary organisations representing homeless young people. Arrangements are being made for such a meeting which will take place shortly. There are already arrangements for regular meetings between officials of the department and other government departments and representatives of the voluntary sector.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. I am sure that many Members of your Lordships' House are looking forward to this meeting which has been promised since July. However, does he recall that in the same debate it was also promised that the situation regarding homeless young people would be monitored by the department continuously?
Further, has the Minister had time to look at the report published yesterday by Centre Point, which is one of the main organisations serving the homeless young in London, which found that there has been an increase of over 50 per cent. over the past two years in young homeless people in London alone? This was ascribed mainly to changes in social security provision for such people. Can he promise some action in the matter?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is our practice to monitor the impact of benefit reforms on all groups of claimants, including young people of 16 and 17 years of age. Our monitoring of the situation for young people has been greatly assisted by discussions with voluntary organisations representing them. My officials in the department will continue to meet regularly with those organisations.
As regards the report from Centre Point, we feel that the social security system still enables people to secure and retain accommodation. There are many

1553
factors which contribute to homelessness. We think that it is wrong to look only at benefit arrangements.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister also aware of the excellent report by the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux entitled Income Support and 16 and 17 year-olds, which is a damning indictment of government policy? For example, is he aware that in the Norwich area there are reports of young people having to sleep rough at bus stations? Is he also aware that in the casualty wards of local hospitals this practice of sleeping rough has become so common that they have been forced to place locks on their doors in order to prevent access at night by homeless young people?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am aware of the report mentioned by the noble Lord. I believe that it contains five recommendations to which the Government have answers. I understand that my right honourable friend the Minister of State will be replying in due course to NACAB's recommendations.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the Minister explain the nature of this monitoring? Is it concerned with welfare, with the availability of accommodation, with both those aspects or with any other matter?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said earlier in an answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, it is our practice to monitor the impact of all benefit reforms. We shall continue to look at all aspects of this reform, paying particular regard to those young people of 16 and 17 years of age.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, speaking as the mover of the amendment which prompted the Minister to make the promise that there would be talks, I should say that I withdrew it on the assumption that the offer would be honoured. Therefore I am glad to hear that these talks have been initiated. However, can we know how many departments are involved in the inter-departmental discussions and with which voluntary organisations? Further, can the noble Lord say how soon these people are expected to report and when we can expect some action?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the meetings in which officials participate from time to time include those from the Department of Social Security, the Home Office and the Department of Employment, including the latter department's training agency. I have a long list of the organisations that attended a meeting with officials on the last occasion, which was on 2nd October. However, I think it would be inadvisable for me to read it out this afternoon. Nevertheless, I can certainly write to noble Lords sending them a copy of the list.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, will the noble Lord kindly see that a copy is printed in Hansard?
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, the meeting with officials was arranged by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. I am given to understand that the 19 organisations met the officials and brought forward all the problems which have been enumerated in your Lordships' House today. The organisations were satisfied and happy and felt that the officials had taken notice of what had been said. Despite the fact—
Noble Lords: Question!
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, can the Minister say whether these organisations have let him know how grateful they are and that they will be glad to meet him again?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that we were most grateful for the meeting with those organisations. Moreover, we shall certainly be very pleased to meet them again.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, does the Minister agree that these young people are facing serious problems while we are waiting for the reports? If you have no home, you have no address and so you cannot claim social security. Further, if you do not have a home you cannot apply for a job. While we are waiting for these reports young people are being left high and dry on the pavement.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said earlier, I think it is wrong to look solely at benefit arrangements with regard to the problem of homelessness. Her Majesty's Government certainly recognise the problem. I believe that a report will be issued shortly by the Department of the Environment. As regards those young people between 16 and .17 years of age, it is of course open to them to take up the offer of a guaranteed YTS place.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, they cannot do that if they do not live anywhere.
Earl Russell: My Lords, although I warmly welcome the Minister's initial reply, can he say whether he will further consider two of the specific recommendations made by the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux? The first was that those who have registered for YTS may continue to receive a bridging allowance until they receive a place. The second recommendation was for a review to take place of the 16 weeks' maximum child benefit extension period for those unable to live at home.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are aware of those two recommendations from NACAB. As I said earlier, my right honourable friend Mr. Scott will be responding to them.

Argentina: Diplomatic Relations
3.17 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will restore full diplomatic relations with Argentina.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, last week's official talks in Madrid enabled both governments to take significant steps towards more normal relations. We will discuss the question of diplomatic relations at the next official talks in February.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which indicates some progress. Is he aware that the step-by-step approach which has been adopted by Her Majesty's Government and the progress made in Madrid have been very widely welcomed by people in the UK and in the international community? Further, could he possibly convey our congratulations to the negotiators on the extremely prudent and sensible way they have conducted these matters so far? Long may they continue.
On a more specific point, can my noble friend say whether the progress made in Madrid is sufficient to allow the dismemberment of the mechanism of the protecting powers which we presently use for these diplomatic relations? Further, will he consider the early abolition of the two-way requirement for visas, bearing in mind that Argentina is the only country in Latin America with which there is currently such a requirement?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his congratulatory remarks about the negotiations which recently took place. The arrangements for the protecting powers to which my noble friend referred will remain in place for the time being. However, the senior British representative now in Argentina will be a consul general, and indeed he will fly his consular flag at the premises concerned. Moreover, the senior Argentinian representative in the United Kingdom will likewise be of consul general rank.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, what are the implications of the Madrid talks on our defence policy for the Falklands? Secondly, what discussions on those matters have been held with representatives of the Falklands community?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Falkland Islands community has been kept fully informed on this matter. As the noble Lord may be aware, there was a general election recently in the Falkland Islands and the new councillors appear to be in agreement with what has happened with regard to the improvement in our relations with Argentina. I do not believe that there are any particular implications yet for our defence policy with regard to the Falkland Islands. Naturally, it will be kept under review.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I very much welcome the discussions which took place last week between Britain and Argentina, not just because they established better relations between our two countries but because they are valuable confidence-building measures in a difficult area. However, will my noble friend bear in mind the concerns of the Falkland Islands people about the outcome of those negotiations and encourage them to believe what I am sure is true: that it is in their best interests, as
1556
well as the interests of Britain and Argentina, that we should improve relations, and, I hope, move to full diplomatic relations next year as suggested?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe that thinking Falkland Islanders take the view which my noble friend suggested. They of course have bitter memories of what happened in the past, but they can hardly be blamed for that.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at least in this quarter of the House and, I believe, wider than that, there is wide agreement with the supplementary question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein? Is it not a thoroughly good development that this time we have been able to get past the starting post of the negotiations without everything blowing up in our face, as happened last time? Many of us would ask him to convey to our negotiators our congratulations on their skills.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I shall certainly see that that happens.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, can we hope that Her Majesty's Government will remember the bravery and deaths of many of our people in relation to the Falkland Islands? I am amazed at the anxiety there is immediately to re-establish relations with Argentina before we have fully gone through the reasons for the conflict with Argentina in the first place.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the conflict is now seven years ago, as the noble Baroness will recall. We should like to see our relations with Argentina begin to return to normal. The first step has been taken successfully at our recent meeting in Madrid. I invite the noble Baroness to study the joint statement that was made at the end of those talks, which runs to two or three pages. No one can forget the bravery of our armed forces in the conflict which took place in 1982 when 253, I believe it was, of our brave people died.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that what my noble friend Lady Phillips said is acknowledged by all, but at the same time those of us who 30 or 40 years ago thought the same about our now allies and former enemies—the Italians, the Germans and a few others—could not carry on like that? Ultimately, we must behave in a more sensible manner because of the people who were not even alive at that time.
Is the noble Lord aware that the Inter-Parliamentary Union, at its great international conference in this country, recommended that the ideas submitted by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, should become official policy? Will the Minister therefore advise the people who are arranging the discussions in February to take full cognisance of that fact?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sure that they will do that. One of the most welcome features of the

1557
joint statement to which I referred earlier was the recognition by both governments that all hostilities between them had ceased. That development was most welcome to the United Kingdom.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting at Kuala Lumpur.

Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill
3.25 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 7 [Powers and duties of board of management]:
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 25, at end insert (", the consent not being given without his having consulted the education authority as regards the proposed disposal").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment gives effect to an undertaking given in Committee. It places a duty on the Secretary of State in Clause 7(2)(b) to consult and obtain the views of an education authority before giving his consent to any disposal of land by the board of management of a self-governing school. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for having listened so carefully, as he always does, to the arguments put forward in Committee. I thank him for his accommodation in the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Initiation of procedure for acquisition of self governing status]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 24, after ("board") insert ("(a "first resolution") to hold such a ballot and confirm that decision by a resolution (a "second resolution") passed at a meeting of the board held not less than twenty-eight days, nor more than forty-two days, after that at which the first resolution was passed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House I shall speak also to a large number of amendments —Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30 and 31, and 41 to 47 inclusive.
This lengthy group of amendments is concerned with providing for a school board having to pass two separate resolutions to call a ballot of parents on self-governing status. The first amendment to Clause 13 makes the substantive change. I regret to have to say that there are no fewer than 20 consequential changes necessary through the remainder of the Bill.
There must be a minimum period of four weeks between the first and the second resolutions of a school board, and the board may take up to a full six weeks. Immediately on passing the first resolution the board must, under the terms of Clause 13 (6) and (7), inform the education authority and any relevant denominational interest. That guarantees adequate opportunity for those groups, and any others who hear of the decision, to make their views known to the school board before any second resolution.
Since the meaning of a first resolution by a board is entirely clear, I see no particular advantage in use of the term "consultation" in respect of the board hearing the views of the authority and others. It may of course be that a board is ready and willing to circulate a lengthy explanation of its decision as a basis for comment before a second resolution, but it should not be obliged to do so.
I believe that these amendments give effect to the view I accepted in Committee that there should be two resolutions by the board with a reasonable interval between them for reflection in the light of comments by the authority and others. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I again thank the Minister for having taken note of what was said in Committee and of the general feeling in Scotland. We should be happier had there been an obligation on the board to publish more documents and to let the community know more about what it intends to do in respect of the new school. I believe that we have gone as far as we can. The Minister has gone a long way towards satisfying some of our concerns. Again, we welcome the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for taking on board the first part of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in Committee on an amendment to which I was unable to speak. I note what my noble friend says about consultation. As a result of the amendments, through which it is difficult to travel when trying to examine their implications, is there anywhere where the local authority and the church, if it is relevant, are informed of what has happened; or is it just left to chance?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, if I heard my noble friend correctly, she asked whether they were informed. The education authority and the denominational interests will be informed. Returning to consultation, I take seriously what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, said. We must be careful not to burden the school board at this stage in the process with over-formal requirements for consultation.
I have looked at the matter quite carefully; I believe that we have got the balance right. I am sure that when my noble friend has studied all the consequential amendments, she will be able to say that I have fulfilled the commitment for which she asked.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 6, line 29, at end insert ("or a primary school which has less than fifty registered pupils.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment came before the House at Committee stage, focusing on the position of small primary schools in Scotland. It brings into play an exclusion from self-governing status of a primary school which has less than 50 registered pupils. The purpose of the amendment is to make very small primary schools not eligible for self-governing status. I emphasise the word "very". Section 52(6) of the Education Reform Act 1988 which applies to England and Wales states:
"A primary school which has less than three hundred pupils is not eligible"
for grant-maintained status, although the Secretary of State for Education may by order lower the number of pupils given in subsection (6) and provide for all primary schools to be eligible.
Given this provision in the Education Reform Act, it is clear that the Secretary of State for Education is uncertain whether small primary schools would be viable as grant-maintained schools. In the response of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to the Scottish Education Department's document on self-governing schools, attention was drawn to the benefits to be obtained from the support services which an education authority provides to all schools, as well as the benefits of economies of scale which would not be available to an opted-out school.
The amendment focuses on why the Government consider small primary schools to be potentially viable as self-governing schools in Scotland but put a higher limit in England and Wales. During the last stage of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, accepted that,
"in some ways, a smaller school has greater difficulties and will face more difficulties as an independent organisation operating within a fixed annual grant … On the other hand, the scale of the management task in a small school will be much less than in a more complex, larger … school". [Official Report, 12/10/89; col. 594.]
I appreciate that at that point the noble Lord was trying to do what we have tried to do throughout the Bill, to strike a balance in the education provision for schools. He was trying to strike a line where opting-out becomes unacceptable in the educational sense.
It is accepted that the scale of the management task will be less for a small school, but its share of the authorities' budget for central support and advisory services might be too small to enable the school to be viable as an independent unit. It may be that in the course of the financial year the small school with 50 pupils might run into a severe financial crisis within its budget, with the end result depending on the demands made upon it in the course of the school year.
The question is therefore posed, whether or not it would be better for the Government to review the provisions for eligibility in the light of the experience of self-governing status for larger primary schools. If the Government are prepared to accept the principle
1560
that very small primary schools should not, initially at least, be eligible for self-governing status, they could insert in the Bill a provision for regulations which might confer eligibility at some later stage, once they are able to gauge how the system is working.
The Minister wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, drawing attention to what had happened in England and attempting to draw a parallel with Scotland. However, with respect, I do not think that the letter faces up to the problem which is now focused on by the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. It is very simple and comes down to one principle: that there is a certain stage at which a very small school will not be a feasible unit for governing itself. It is just too small and the economies of scale will effectively be working against it. Thus I suggest that this is a very sensible amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will not accept the amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that circumstances in Scotland are quite different from those in England. However, I can see no reason why, given certain circumstances, it should not be possible for a small school in an area with a low population to have this right. If the school will not be viable, the Secretary of State will not agree to it. That is the whole point of the provision in the Bill. I should have thought he could perfectly well look at the matter for himself.
It is the greatest pity to rule small schools out. Many small schools in the private sector are extremely viable and not particularly difficult to manage. I should not have thought that this was a suitable measure for Scotland. It may be all right for England, but not for Scotland.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I think that I said at the earlier stage of the Bill that we do not always slavishly follow the English and Welsh legislation or Acts in dealing with Scottish measures. This may be a case where we differ.
We have been over this ground before, and in replying to a similar amendment which we discussed in Committee I think I gave a full explanation of the Government's position on this matter of small schools. In considering any application for self-governing status, the Secretary of State is bound to have the question of viability to the forefront of his mind. He will want in all cases to be satisfied that the school is going to be able to make efficient and economical provision for its pupils. But that is not simply a question of size. In remote areas particularly a small school may make good economic and educational sense, even though its unit costs are almost inevitably going to be higher than those in a large urban school.
However, the difference between this amendment and the one which we considered in Committee is that this one focuses particularly on the very smallest schools. But the arguments are in principle the same.

1561
There are examples of very small schools to be found in both the public and the private sectors. Some of your Lordships may recall the publicity that was given a year or so ago to the parents who wanted to found their own secondary school on the Scoraig peninsula near Ullapool. That school, with some help from the Highland Regional Council, is now established and provisionally registered as an independent school. It has been fully inspected by Her Majesty's inspectors and it expects shortly to satisfy all the requirements for full registration. It only has a roll of 12 pupils.
Some of us in previous incarnations have had to cope with the small size, particularly in the small independent schools. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that I for one am very well aware of the difficulties involved.
However, that does not get away from the fact that I am not convinced that there is a need to set any numerical lower limit to the size of school which might apply for self-governing status. I say quite genuinely to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that there would in practice be an absolute lowest limit, in that there would need to be at least five parents to form the parental group on the board of management. But in general I believe that it makes most sense to allow the Secretary of State to make the decision on each case on its individual merits, bearing in mind particularly the geographical and other considerations with which we have to cope in Scotland.
We have also added provisions in Clause 34, to allow self-governing schools access to local authority services. We believe that such schools will not be isolated from the wider educational scene. I hope that having heard that explanation of the points of principle which we discussed last time, the noble Lord might consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full explanation. I am not altogether informed as to the experiment in Ullapool, but I noted that the Minister said that that school was being established with help from the Highlands and Islands Development Board. That is an entirely different matter.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with respect, I mentioned the Highland Regional Council.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister. However, that help may not be available to small schools elsewhere. Of course, it will be a matter of waiting to see, once the Bill is enacted, how the situation will develop. The test of viability will be difficult and no doubt those advising the Minister will go into all the various fluctuations in school needs and the population of the schools.
There is not much more that we on this side of the House can do other than to register at this stage of the Bill the fact that we have pointed out the difficulties which may arise in future. Only time will tell whether this side of the House or the government side is correct. I thank the Minister for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting: Kuala Lumpur
3.40 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, with the leave of the House, it may be convenient if I repeat a Statement on the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a Statement on the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government held in Malaysia from 18th to 24th October which I attended with my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. A copy of the final communiqué of the meeting has been placed in the Library of the House.
"Apart from the customary debates on global prospects and on current international political and economic matters, the Heads of Government themselves dealt with five main issues: The global environment, Southern Africa, the future of the Commonwealth, drugs and the choice of a new Commonwealth Secretary-General to succeed Mr. Ramphal in July next year. I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the enormous contribution which Sonny Ramphal has made to the Commonwealth during his 14 years as Secretary-General.
"I shall deal with the main subjects in order. First, I shall deal with the environment. The meeting agreed a statement, the Langkawi Declaration, setting out a Commonwealth programme of action to deal with the main environmental problems facing the world. Particular points to which I would draw attention are: The commitment to take more account of environmental considerations i n reaching economic decisions; the support expressed for existing international environmental organisations, especially the United Nations environment programme; the endorsement of the United Kingdom's initiative calling for the negotiation of an international framework convention on global climate change; and the encouragement given to the developing countries to improve the management of their rain-forests. That is very important to arrest the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
"Our particular concern in the debate on these issues was that any additional resources should not go to creating new bureaucracies but directly to measures to protect and improve the environment. This concern is fully met in the Commonwealth's statement.
"The Langkawi Declaration is a major achievement for the Common wealth and particularly for our Malaysian chairman, Dr. Mahathir, on whose initiative it was drafted.
"Secondly, I shall discuss Southern Africa. Heads of Government issued a statement entitled Southern Africa: The Way Ahead which marks a

1563
significant step forward on a number of points from earlier Commonwealth statements. It recognises that important changes are under way in South Africa; that sanctions ought not to be punitive; and that, if sufficient political progress is made in South Africa, the process of relaxing some of the international restrictions against South Africa should begin. This is the first time that the entire Commonwealth has adopted this approach. I am grateful to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary for the skilful manner in which he negotiated these improvements.
"The Commonwealth statement also contains four main points with which the United Kingdom does not agree. Our disagreement is explicitly stated on the face of the document itself but without explaining either the view we take or the reasons for it. It was to fill this gap that my right honourable friend and I decided to issue a separate statement setting out Britain's views on these points. A copy of the statement has been placed in the Library of the House.
"We believe that the approach set out in our document is the more positive and constructive one and takes more account of the significant changes which are actually happening in South Africa, including the decision taken by the South African Government during the Commonwealth meeting that a major ANC rally may be held for the first time in 30 years and may be addressed by Mr. Sisulu. In the light of this and other recent steps, our aim must surely be to reward progress and encourage South Africa further down the path of reform rather than to respond with more punitive sanctions.
"We make clear in our statement that, instead of making a financial contribution to the proposed agency to report on South Africa's international financial links or to the continuing work of the Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers on South Africa, we shall make available an equivalent amount of money for additional help to black South Africans. I remind the House of the substantial sums which the United Kingdom is already making available for such help, as well as to the front line states.
"Our statement also announces our willingness to provide financial help to an independent Namibia as well as, if asked, military training for Namibia's armed forces after independence. We of course give similar help to Zimbabwe, Mozambique and many other Commonwealth countries in Africa.
"Thirdly, Heads of Government had a discussion on the Commonwealth in the 1990s and beyond. They decided to set up a group of Heads of Government, of which Britain will be part, to identify the enlarged roles which the Commonwealth might need to play. We welcome that.
"Fourthly, we discussed the problem of drugs, recognising the very serious threat which they posed in all our countries and the consequent need for training, particularly for smaller states,
1564
in customs procedures, in law enforcement, in methods of detection, in education and in treatment of addicts.
"I expressed the hope that by the time of our next meeting in 1991 a large number of Commonwealth countries would have concluded bilateral agreements on freezing and confiscating the assets of drug smugglers. Britain has taken a lead both in the Commonwealth and more widely in concluding such agreements. We have now signed 10 of them, the last one of which was in Malaysia.
"Fifthly, the meeting elected Chief Emeka Anyaoku as the new Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. He has lived in Britain for many years and is a great friend to our country. The whole House will wish him well.
"I draw attention to four further points in the final communiqué: First, a most welcome reference to the importance of Hong Kong's continued success and a commitment to assist in any way possible in promoting the continued prosperity of Hong Kong. This was a major British objective at the meeting and will, I believe, offer welcome reassurance to Hong Kong's people. Secondly, I draw attention to the reaffirmation of the need for speedy action to deal with the problem of Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong, including as a matter of priority the return to Vietnam of all those who do not qualify as genuine refugees. Thirdly, there is a recognition of the need to increase aviation security worldwide—this is particularly important in the wake of the Lockerbie disaster—coupled with a strong denunciation of terrorism in all its forms and a call for the immediate safe release of all hostages. Fourthly, there is a call on all Commonwealth governments to accede to or ratify international covenants on human rights, which a surprising number have regrettably not yet done.
"Mr. Speaker, despite the difference of views on South Africa, this was a valuable and successful meeting and its success owes much to the very skilful chairmanship of Prime Minister Mahathir. We have disagreed before on South Africa within the Commonwealth, indeed many times, but this has not damaged our relations with individual Commonwealth countries or the institution itself. The Government will persevere with their present policy on South Africa because it offers the best prospect of peaceful negotiations and of achieving a new South Africa which will inherit a strong economy".
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. On behalf of my noble friends, I support the well deserved tribute paid to Sir Sonny Ramphal and wish the new Secretary-General every success.
The Commonwealth Conference in Kuala Lumpur reflected a range of views on a number of subjects.

1565
There was remarkable unanimity, particularly on the main issues, with one unhappy exception. There are some who say that the Commonwealth is a useless talking shop and that it should be abolished. It is at times like these that such remarks are made. But surely there is a strong argument for preserving and developing an organisation whose members are bound by a history of close association and who, for all their differences, have many interests in common. It is better for us to meet and talk than to be isolated.
It is also right to look at the working of the organisation from time to time and to find out whether reforms are needed to bring it up to date. Therefore, we warmly welcome the proposal to set up a Commonwealth group, including Britain, to look at ways of protecting human rights and strengthening democratic institutions throughout the Commonwealth and to address the question of whether the organisation should be expanded to include countries like the Cameroons and possibly other countries as well.
I noted that the Prime Minister said:
"No one doubts the Commonwealth has a role; the question is how to focus that role more effectively".
I am glad that Mrs. Thatcher takes that view because her own performance in Kuala Lumpur gave me no great confidence that she was there to preserve the Commonwealth.
We know that the right honourable lady holds unyielding views on a range of topics, but there are times when it is in the national interest for politicians —and for that matter for their personal advisers—to consider the consequences of what they say. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister demonstrated a curious inability to do so, with the result that she is now as isolated in the Commonwealth as she is in the European Community. First to agree the official communique and then, an hour later, produce a critical and contrary statement is not the way to gain friends and influence people.
The question arises as to why the Prime Minister and Mr. John Major did not express their reservations at the meeting when the communique was agreed unanimously. They had the opportunity to do so then. The House will, I know, be grateful to the noble Lord if he will say why that obvious and natural course was not taken and why it took more than an hour for the right honourable lady the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to come back with a critical statement which could damage our relations with all the other members of the Commonwealth.
We know the Prime Minister's views on sanctions, and we have disagreed with them because we do not believe that they are realistic. Nor indeed are they consistent with her attitude to sanctions elsewhere. The Prime Minister is entitled to her own view. However, in my opinion she was mistaken to say, as she did yesterday:
"If it's one against 48 I am very sorry for the 48"
Neither Lloyd George nor Churchill would have gone as far as that.
The general reaction to the Prime Minister's remarks is very different from the impression which
1566
this bland Statement seeks to create. For example—there are many more examples—Mr. McEwen the diplomatic editor of The Times—which as we all know is sympathetic to the Government; and I do not complain about that—said yesterday:
"It was a rough and tumble conference marked by underhand British tactics, cutting remarks, bitter infighting and wounded egos".
Despite this, the general view of the 48 seems to be that this conference has strengthened the Commonwealth while weakening Britain's position within it, temporarily at least. Against that background, will the Minister be good enough to say what role Britain expects to play in the study group investigating the role of the Commonwealth?
Other matters of interest, including the global environment, drugs, and the plight of the Vietnamese boat people were discussed. In the light of those discussions the Minister may like to answer some brief questions. I apologise for not dealing with other matters, but I want to be brief With regard to the global environment, can the Minister say why the Prime Minister rejected Mr. Rajiv Gandhi's initiative to create a planet protection fund? Secondly, what precisely do Her Majesty's Government intend to do with respect to the Vietnamese boat people, and what possibility is there of the Government seeking international co-operation to find a rather less drastic solution than forced repatriation of all those people?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place. I should like to associate myself with much of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, on the matter.
It strikes me that in the course of the conference a number of positive measures of agreement were reached. That only goes to show the importance of the Commonwealth as more than a tea party or talking shop. The Commonwealth has an extremely important role to play in the world. I have been surprised to read a barrage of articles in the Conservative press recently suggesting that we should leave the Commonwealth and that the Commonwealth is a talking shop which is valueless. The orchestration of those articles makes one wonder whether they are not inspired from somewhere in Downing Street. The very fact that those achievements were acknowledged by the Prime Minister should perhaps be taken into account by some of her supporters. However, the net result of the conference seems to have been against the reputation and the interests of this country.
There are in particular three aspects of that conference to which I should like to refer. The first concerns Hong Kong. The position in Hong Kong is of the utmost importance to its inhabitants and to this country. The main bargaining counter we have to deal with the Chinese Government at the moment is the prosperity of Hong Kong. The prosperity of Hong Kong depends on the people of Hong Kong staying there. The people of Hong Kong will only stay there if there is some guarantee that, should the worst happen, their right of abode will be guaranteed.

1567
It has always been my view that this country should take the lead in doing that, not by saying that it would take the lot but by calling on the Commonwealth, the European Community and other countries to share the burden. Owing to the ill-will which the Prime Minister managed to generate at the conference the declaration on Hong Kong must surely be far less than we had hoped for. I regard that as one of the central failures of the conference from our point of view.
Secondly, I should like to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said about the Vietnamese people in Hong Kong. Although I fully recognise the problem that faces us and the disappointment at the unwillingness of other countries to co-operate in dealing with it, I cannot believe that this country would commit itself to forced repatriation. I cannot believe that that is a policy which the people of this country would support.
Finally, I come to the matter of South Africa. It is truly an astonishing achievement on the part of the Prime Minister to generate so much where there was so much general agreement. Her view on sanctions is one that is held by a number of people. It is held by a number of liberal South Africans. It is a view which can be held. It is held, on the whole, by the United States of America. Yet by the way in which she holds it and the language in which she expresses it the Prime Minister has given the impression that this country is a supporter of apartheid. The United States, holding an almost identical position, has managed to achieve a reputation as a great opponent of apartheid. One is a diplomatic achievement, the other a diplomatic failure. That must be faced.
That being so, I feel that the question of the communique and the Prime Minister's response one hour later has put this country's reputation in a very poor light. It is very sad when the mild and moderate Prime Minister of New Zealand says that it would not be good for the Commonwealth to turn into an organisation which,
"orchestrates hymns of hate against the United Kingdom".
That is what he said. He is not a prejudiced observer; he merely observed the scene. That is what the Prime Minister achieved. I believe that at that conference she not only humiliated her new Foreign Secretary, having dismissed the previous one, but also humiliated this country.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in thanking both noble Lords for their remarks on the Statement, perhaps I may start by picking up the final words of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I think that what he has just said flies in the face of all the evidence as a result of this Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. The participants at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting all thought it a great success. The Secretary-General is quoted as saying to the press:
"It has been a tremendously successful conference".
and the chairman told the press that it was an "eventful and fruitful conference".
1568
I also disagree absolutely fundamentally with both noble Lords when they criticise my right honourable friend. Indeed, I differ fundamentally with both noble Lords when they appear to disregard what is in the Statement which reflects eight areas. There are four main areas, which are set out at the beginning of the Statement, in which great progress was made. The fifth area was the good news of the choice of the Deputy Secretary-General to succeed Sir Sonny Ramphal. The Statement then goes on to refer to four other areas, of which one was Hong Kong, where there were most supportive statements made by our colleagues in the Commonwealth.
I beg both noble Lords, who are habitually fair-minded, to recognise what the facts of the meeting show. Both noble Lords have every right to ask me why my right honourable friend and my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary issued a statement. The statement that they issued builds on the Commonwealth statement and sets out how we see the way forward. It is not a rival statement, but my right honourable friends felt that it was essential to have the opportunity both to state their views and their reasons for their views.
Where they differed from their colleagues in the conference meeting, it was not possible to put in the communiqúe exactly what their views were and what the reasons for their views were. Perhaps I may say one thing in that respect. I know that my right honourable friends felt very deeply that it is important that the new South African Government should have a clear signal of the fact that, if they go down the road of reform, there is a positive prospect of sanctions being lifted in a way which is certainly mentioned in the Commonwealth communiqué, but which my right honourable friends felt it was important to mention more positively. In addition, there were four areas in the Commonwealth statement where we disagreed. If any noble Lord wishes to ask me about those, I shall say a word about them.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me two direct questions. The first was why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister did not agree to a special environment fund. That question is answered very swiftly: we do not see a need for a new protection fund. We prefer to use the existing bilateral and multilateral channels for environmental assistance, adapting or improving those channels as necessary. For example, earlier this year, we offered India a £40 million environment grant principally for forestry projects. I also had in mind the enormously good work done by UNEP. We again feel that that is the sort of organisation which needs to be used without having a new one.
The noble Lord asked me a second question which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, also asked. That was about the Vietnamese boat people. Voluntary repatriation is not sufficient to cope with the huge numbers of non-refugees who are now involved among the many people who are to be found as boat people in Hong Kong. We shall work for arrangements which will ensure their return to Vietnam in safety and dignity. Nothing that I have just said cuts across what was very supportively said

1569
by the Heads of Governments in Malaysia a few days ago. I think that that is all that I should say to both noble Lords in answer to their remarks.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, on behalf of the SDP, perhaps I may join in thanking the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement. There is much in it with which all sides of the House will agree and which they will endorse. But perhaps I may ask what the Leader of the House is doing coming here and pretending that the South Africa story was not a disaster. I imagine that most Members of the House will have seen the Prime Minister on television a couple of days ago, saying with a strange exultation in her voice:
"If it's one against 48 I am very sorry for the 48".
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was charitable in censoring the word "very". He just said,
"'I am sorry for the 48'".
What I heard the Prime Minister say was:
"I am very sorry for the 48".
Is it not the case that over the past two years the Prime Minister has succeeded in alienating all three of the principal groupings of our natural friends in the world'? I refer to NATO and the short-range nuclear force replacement; to the European Community about the social charter and European monetary union; and now to the Commonwealth.
Will the Leader of the House convey the opinion of many of us on this side of the House to the new Foreign Secretary that we wish him well in his job, and hope that he will soon become as skilful as Sir Geoffrey Howe in sweeping up the crockery, and that perhaps in time he will become so skilful as to be able to keep the Prime Minister at home altogether?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, casts doubt, to put it very mildly indeed, on the motives of both my right honourable friends in issuing their statement. Without in any way trailing through the statement, perhaps I may say just one thing in reply. It is said within that statement that Britain believes that the Commonwealth can help a new South Africa to emerge in much more positive ways than those set out in the Kuala Lumpur statement. All the rest of what is said, except for the four areas where we disagree and where there are obviously terms of disagreement, is put very positively to try to plan ahead for the future for the removal of apartheid which we utterly condemn.
Perhaps I may just answer the noble Lord who suggested, as I think did the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that friends of this country are at variance because they are at variance with the Prime Minister. It is a fact that no one at all among the Heads of Government—in fact no one at all—complained to my right honourable friend about the British statement. Two Governments—Canada and Australia—chose to raise it in the meeting itself. No African Government raised it at the meeting either. My right honourable friend had separate meetings with the Heads of virtually all the African delegations and not one of them made any mention of the British statement at
1570
all. However, they all wanted to be sure that we would continue our aid and our military training and our same excellent relations. That is the real world.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may put a slightly less critical note to my noble friend than has so far been put. I think that from 1974 onwards I have probably attended, at a much lower level than Heads of Government, more Commonwealth gatherings than most people—law ministers, speakers and members of the legal profession. I have always been very much disturbed by the vituperative attitude taken by some Commonwealth countries against this country and I am not surprised that the Prime Minister was nettled by it. I preferred to remain in total and, I hope, dignified silence when it was done, but I resented it deeply.
I should like to ask my noble friend whether it is not obvious to anyone who reflects upon the matter that there is nothing more difficult in the world than the process of moving from an authoritarian and unjust regime to a free democracy? Is there not something very inconsistent about those who welcome glasnost and perestroika in the Eastern part of Europe when it involves a change from a Communist to, I hope, a democractic regime; yet who, by contrast, when they see in power in South Africa at last a regime that is trying to get itself out of the corner into which it has painted itself in the past 40 years, view it with increased severity? I regard that as a hypocritical attitude. I am sorry that so many people have taken that part.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his remarks. The reason for my particular gratitude lies in his final words. He mentioned that my right honourable friend may have felt nettled. That is the one point with which I am at variance with my noble and learned friend. My right honourable friends' attitude at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference so far as South Africa was concerned came precisely from the fact that, as my noble and learned friend said, one is talking about the enormously difficult transition of a country from an authoritarian regime to what we hope will be a democracy of the future.
One of the four points on which my right honourable friends disagreed with the Commonwealth communiqué was on the question of sanctions. They said that they did not agree that sanctions had the political effects claimed for them in the communiqué. My right honourable friends said that while sanctions certainly weaken the South African economy, the political effect of sanctions is to increase resistance to change rather than to encourage change. I must say that when I read those words I said to myself, "I suppose that is absolutely true". Then I remembered that over the past two years we have moved from a situation in which after the 1987 elections in South Africa the Progressive Federal Party lost its position as the main opposition party to a situation today in which the people of South Africa have given Mr. F. W. de Klerk a mandate to negotiate for the future.

1571
One of the reasons why that has happened has been because over the past two or three years, with the leadership of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, we have not been trying to tighten sanctions. That is difficult. But my noble and learned friend is right, and I was grateful to him, when he said that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is trying to put forward a valuable point of view and it is not easy to do.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, with regard to the question of refugees which was raised by the previous speakers, is the Minister aware that it seems incredible to many people in this country that a country of over 50 million very rich people and a Commonwealth of well over 100 million people cannot find room for 40,000 refugees? Will he give a guarantee that if the worst comes to the worst and they cannot genuinely be voluntarily repatriated they will be found somewhere to go in the world and will not be forcibly repatriated?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, one difficulty, of which I am sure the noble Lord is well aware, is that there are some 55,000 refugees in Hong Kong at the moment, of which the very large preponderance consists of those who are not thought to be genuine refugees. Of course one has sympathy for them in the tribulations they have faced in crossing the seas; but the difficulty is that this is an ongoing process which will never end. I am sorry but I cannot go further today than to say that most countries repatriate illegal immigrants; so far we have only repatriated on a voluntary basis, but voluntary repatriation is not sufficient to cope with the huge number of non-refugees who are now involved. That is why we are working to make arrangements which will ensure their return to Vietnam in safety and dignity.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, some of the contributions which have been made tend to divert us from the real problems that were created in this Commonwealth conference. There are times when I have been nettled in the same way as the noble and learned Lord. I totally share the views that he put forward about democracy. However, we are speaking about the Prime Ministers of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other democratic countries.
What the noble Lord has not adequately explained to the House is why the minority report, which was issued until an hour after the main communiqué, was not brought up at the original meeting. He has not explained why that was not done. The Prime Minister and Mr. John Major are experienced politicians. By not doing so, they created a problem. It was they who damaged Britain's reputation within the Commonwealth and deprived us of the strong leadership that we should give.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the position and reputation of this country within the Commonwealth have not been damaged. I hope that I have made that absolutely clear. With respect to the noble Lord, the answer to his question is contained in the original
1572
Statement that I made. For the record, perhaps I may simply repeat that the Commonwealth Statement contains four main points with which the United Kingdom does not agree. Our disagreement is explicitly stated on the face of the communiqué because the document itself did not explain either the view we take or the reasons for it.
The Commonwealth communiqué simply states on each of those occasions that Great Britain disagreed. My right honourable friends felt that they had not only the right but the duty to make clear their view and give their reasons.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, why then did the Prime Ministers of Canada and Australia register so strong a protest? They were there and the noble Lord was not.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have also answered that question. The Prime Ministers of those two countries raised the matter in the subsequent meeting. No other head of government raised it at all either informally personally or at the meeting afterwards. I have been at great pains to make the point thay my right honourable friend the Prime Minister reported that all her bilateral relations in the meetings that she had in Malaysia were of the very warmest.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that during the period of government of the party opposite they repeatedly and consistently opposed sanctions even at a time when there was a government in South Africa that was showing no signs of amending?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is probably the case, and I am grateful to my noble friend for saying it. I wonder whether this matter is perhaps a hare that we have now chased just about as far as we can.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House is being naive, and dangerously so, when he tells my noble friend Lord Cledwyn that there were no objections raised to the British statement in the meeting. Does he not know that there were no further statements made after those made by Canada and Australia because the chairman closed down the discussion? Subsequently there were open and public statements made condemning the action of the British Government.
The noble Lord talks about the political effects of sanctions. Has he forgotten or was he not at Blackpool? Did he not hear the Prime Minister claiming that she virtually single-handed had changed the face of eastern Europe from dictatorship to democracy? Did she not use sanctions there? It has already been said that the British representative in Malaysia, the Prime Minister, has done a grave disservice to the international reputation of this country, in particular in the Commonwealth.
I should like the noble Lord to answer my question but first I quote from Clause 9 of the Commonwealth communiqué:
"In considering what further steps they might take to advance the prospects for negotiations, Heads of Government expressed

1573
the view that this was not the time to consider any relaxation of existing sanctions and pressures. That would have to await evidence of clear and irreversible change. In the meantime, they agreed that all existing sanctions and measures should be maintained, and they called upon the wider international community to do likewise".
The Prime Minister signed that communiqué. There was no reservation from Britain on that clause. Yet an hour later a British statement was issued which described the sanctions policy as fruitless. That statement was made without the knowledge of the Foreign Secretary, and when the Foreign Secretary in fact was having drinks with the new Secretary General of the Commonwealth. He knew nothing about that statement until after it had been issued.
Is that the way for either the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary to conduct Britain's foreign policy? Is it right for the noble Lord the Leader of the House to come to this Chamber and say that the reputation of Britain in the Commonwealth has not been besmirched? I submit that the Prime Minister dislikes the Commonwealth, has shown that she dislikes the Commonwealth and has been treating the Commonwealth with contempt.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the noble Lord had put his finger on a paragraph with which my right honourable friends disagreed we might have been carrying this exchange further forward. However, he refers to paragraph 9, which is not one of the four points of disagreement. The points of disagreement were paragraph 8, where the statement is that sanctions have begun to influence South African policies, and I have dealt with that; paragraph 10, which states that existing sanctions should be tightened; and paragraph 11, which states that an international agency to review South Africa's international financial links should be set up. We opposed that saying that our money for such an organisation—and indeed lastly, in paragraph 27, for the running of the Committee of Foreign Ministers on South Africa—should go directly in practical ways to help black South Africans to whom at the moment Britain is giving some £10 million a year.
If the noble Lord will forgive my saying so, when he asks why we have disagreed with paragraph 9, the answer is that we did not.
Perhaps I may also beg to differ when the noble Lord says that my right honourable friend is wholly wrong. We must agree to differ on this. But let me put this finally to the noble Lord. Sanctions will not change South Africa's politics. Our way holds out the best prospect of achieving political progress in South Africa and ensuring that a new South Africa, which we all wish to see, inherits a strong economy.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, in view of the fact that so much media coverage on the Commonwealth Conference has concerned South Africa, can my noble friend assure me that attention wil be paid to the very important aspect of rain-forests? It is an aspect of the Commonwealth Conference that has received very little attention, and it is of great importance to humanity as a whole.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for picking up that point. It has an enormous bearing on the amount of CO2 which we discharge into the atmosphere, which in its turn has an effect on global warming. That is a matter about which everyone is thinking in environmental terms at the moment. My noble friend is spot on.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal accused my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter of flying in the face of the evidence. If my noble friend's view is flying in the face of the evidence, perhaps the noble Lord can explain why so many people have expressed that view in the past few days. I would have taken the evidence that the noble Lord quoted against that view, and the Secretary-General's Statement in particular, as face-saving courtesies. However, is not taking face-saving courtesies for approval of substance one of the characteristic errors of a regime which has been in power too long?
Lord Beistead: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said earlier in these exchanges. I think it strange that the noble Earl, who is normally extremely shrewd and probing in these matters, seems to have overlooked the fact that the participants at the conference all seemed to think that the conference was a great success.
Lord Monson: My Lords, despite the criticisms of the Prime Minister emanating from the Opposition Benches, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that one cannot blame her for losing patience with Commonwealth double standards? So many of the Commonwealth's member states are either dictatorships, one-party states with poor human rights records, as was revealed in Amnesty International's report earlier this week, economic rivals of South Africa or, in one case, a state which officially discriminates against its large ethnic minorities in the fields of job opportunity and access to university education.
Perhaps I may remind the House that I was one of the first to press for the admission of a modest number of South Vietnamese refugees in the spring of 1977—at that time my suggestion went down like a lead balloon in all quarters of the House. With regard to the Vietnamese boat people .in Hong Kong, does the noble Lord agree that the great majority do not come from South Vietnam but from North Vietnam? Does he agree that they are economic refugees and with very few exceptions are not political refugees? The suggestion that they will face political persecution if they are repatriated will not therefore hold water.
Lord Beistead: My Lords, that is an important point. I know that it is assessed that only about a quarter of the refugees in Hong Kong at the moment—I am speaking in rough figures—are refugees in the absolute sense of the word. The others are refugees of other kinds, for instance economic refugees. But that is not quite the point that the noble Lord put to me. He suggested that a majority are economic refugees. Therefore I disagree. But nonetheless he has brought up an important point.

Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 6,1ine 40, at end insert—
("; or
(c) a School Board has not been established for at least 2 years or until such time as it has gained competence and experience of operating as a School Board, other than with the consent of the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apologies for raising this subject again. It is an important point. It also arises in particular, as the Minister will be aware, because of what has happened recently in Jordanhill School in Glasgow. A board of management has had to run a school essentially in its spare time, with concern for the school inevitably taking second place to job and family. It is therefore essential that members of any new school board should have some experience of their new role before seeking to acquire self-governing status.
A group has written to me. It stated that in one local school it knows of two candidates who are standing for election with the express purpose of firing a particular teacher. They are completely ignorant of the fact that they will not have such power until the school becomes totally independent. We are not sure whether they will be able to accept such power then.
The experience of Jordanhill School should give the Government pause for thought. The Minister will be aware of the area, which is very close to the area that I represented in another place for a long time. It is an area of extremely high expertise in comparison with almost any other part of Scotland. I believe that there are more graduates than in most other areas. There are accountants, educationists, physicists, scientists and so on. They found running the school too onerous a job. The convener—to folks south of the Border, the equivalent of the chairperson —and the vice-convener have both resigned.
I have had many dealings with Ms. Waldron, who was the convener in another capacity. I found her an extremely able woman. She stated:
"The ultimate issue is whether a school managed like a local voluntary community organisation or a disparate group of local volunteers with widely differing abilities, backgrounds and perceptions, can realistically take the place of a local education authority. My experience"
for two years as convener of the school—
"has led me to conclude that they cannot. The recurring problems of the past 18 months have not simply been teething problems. They are symptomatic of a flawed and inappropriate medium for the management of a school".
In other words, we want parents to have a great deal more participation in the school. We believe that that is best achieved within the ambit of a local authority's general education committee, which provides so many of the services required in a school.
When the point is reached where a local school wishes to opt out we beg the Minister to consider seriously the proposal that, together with the concessions already made—and we are grateful to
1576
him for that—there should also be a minimum period of two years before the school board can say, "We think that we can go on our own now". It is merely a precaution. Two years is not very long, and if after that time a school board believes that it can opt out it will be aware of some of the difficulties. I believe that it is the minimum length of time for which we should ask. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the Lothian Parents Action Group, a letter from which the noble Lord quoted, was also kind enough to write to me setting out its points of view. It requires serious consideration because its views are sincerely held.
It is true that a school can go wrong, as clearly was the case with the arrangements at Jordanhill. However, I do not believe that what happened at Jordanhill will necessarily happen at another school should it decide to go self-governing. One can envisage a school which takes advantage of the new right to go self-governing quickly being perfectly able to cope with the arrangements.
It is true that people have been and are standing for school boards without knowing about all their legal responsibilities. However, it will not take too long for a good school board to learn of its legal responsibilities and of the possibilities for the school. It is unnecessary to legislate to prevent a perfectly capable school from taking advantage of the new right for two years. The Secretary of State will be able to consider the viability of the school and decide whether the board is likely to be able to cope with its management after becoming self-governing fairly quickly once the legislation is passed. I believe that this is an unnecessary restriction. I respect the comments of the Lothian Parents Action Group. It is right to raise the issue, and I am glad that the noble Lord has done so, but I hope that the Government will not accede to the amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I believe that it is sensible to provide for a minimum period of 24 months before a school board can take such a big decision as to opt out of the local authority and the framework within which the school has previously existed. The noble Baroness said that school boards may well be capable of doing so but there is a danger that they will not be capable. They will not know either way. We are not saying that they will not be capable but that they should have an opportunity to find out for themselves.
I suggest that the proposed measure is sensible. The amendment contains a provision for the Secretary of State to make a special case. Therefore, it would not be the end of the matter if it were thought that self-governing status would be to the advantage of the school. Two years is a sensible and possibly necessary safeguard.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I heartily endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. The comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, demonstrate the problem being faced by the amendment; namely, that administration within the school process is a learning process. The amendment merely seeks to give people

1577
a reasonable chance to learn how to run a school board before they are let loose on the education system within a self-governing school.
In case there is any misunderstanding outside your Lordships' House, I wish to say that in raising the question of Jordanhill school no one is suggesting any irregularity or dishonesty on the part of any members of the board. It may be that two members resigned from the board because of a certain degree of incompetence within the board. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that not all boards will necessarily follow the unfortunate path taken by Jordanhill.
It is difficult to obtain information about what happens behind the scenes of a school board. However, in testing what is happening in Scotland and taking its sociological basis Jordanhill School, allied as it was to the principal teacher training college in Scotland, should have been the flagship of the fleet of self-governing schools. It has run severely aground. Continuing the sea-going analogy, it would be prudent, to say the least, for the Government to take on board the suggestion that prudence rather than haste should prevail. Let us proceed slowly on the matter.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, we return to the arguments that the Bill should indicate a two-year delay before any Scottish school is permitted to move towards self-governing status. If anything, the amendment brought forward here is even more restrictive than the simpler version tabled in Committee. That provided for a two-year period with a power for the Secretary of State to allow exceptions. Here we have a period of at least two years but this is then extended to some longer period when it is to be judged that the school board has gained adequate experience and competence. We must assume that the Secretary of State is to be the judge of this in every case.
Let us look at the effect. With this amendment, before any school can hold a ballot of parents it must go to the Secretary of State and satisfy him that it is sufficiently competent and experienced to be allowed to make use of the Bill. Until then the parents will have no more choice and no greater rights than they have at present before the Bill becomes an Act.
Once a ballot is held and proposals are brought forward the competence of the school board and its experience of running the school will be factors to be taken into account by the Secretary of State in deciding on proposals. Indeed, I would expect the parents themselves to take account of those issues when deciding how to vote in the ballot. If parents are not satisfied that the school would be competently run by a board they are hardly likely to allow proposals to go forward.
I have made it clear that I do not expect a flood of early applicants for self-governing status. My honourable friend Mr. Forsyth, when Minister for Education, also said that most schools,
"would be well advised to wait for a couple of years and get used to having a school board".
Without question, that is the position. Nevertheless, it should be for the school board and the parents
1578
to decide in the first place whether they consider themselves ready to assume self-governing status. We should not limit their right to call a ballot.
The position is quite different from that under Clause 30 where I accepted in Committee that it would be sensible to write an expected five-year delay on the face of the Bill. The point is that, as a matter of policy, a self-governing school is not expected to change its characteristics. It cannot do so as part of the move out of local authority control. Schools are expected to go on serving the same sorts of pupils. Clause 30 provides a power to deal with changing circumstances in the future. A delay on the face of the Bill is entirely sensible. To impose a delay on the fundamental right for parents under the new legislation is quite another matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to the case of Jordanhill School, which has recently appeared in the press. I should like to quote from a letter written by my honourable friend the Minister of State in another place to the general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland in regard to Jordanhill. The letter states:
"Jordanhill School is not a school which has left Local Authority management and in that respect is entirely different from schools which might seek self-governing status under the terms of the current Bill.
As I understand it, neither Ms. Waldron or Mr. Cowie questioned the role of the School Managers in the running of Jordanhill School during the time when they were Convener and Vice-Convener of the Board. I understand that they were not re-elected to these posts earlier this year and it may be that they now hold different views from their colleagues about the conduct of the school's affairs. They are entitled to their individual views and have exercised their right to resign from the Board".
I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, says. Looking at Jordanh ill should one make haste slowly? That is a view which some may take. The statement from the governors at Jordanhill School on 25th October stated:
"The Board remains totally committed to the aims and objectives of the School which are set out in the School Prospectus".
That gives me heart because we are dealing with 1,000 pupils being provided with primary and secondary education and the board states that its purpose is to ensure as far as possible the provision of a high standard of education relevant to the needs of today's pupils. The board has every confidence in the excellent work being done by the rector, the primary head teacher and all members of the staff.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, will understand that I have looked closely at this. I have taken on board much of what he has said and also the views of the Lothian Parents' Action Group which has written to other noble Lords and myself with its views. On this occasion I cannot accept the line of argument of the noble Lord and would have to reject the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for taking so much trouble to reply. I am also grateful for the fact that he has built in a number of safeguards and has conceded the question of the two ballots. It seems to me the the expression of the Minister of State in his letter to the EIS raises a number of very serious

1579
implications. For example, it suggests that the non-election was the reason for this matter. I have not made any inquiries and I make no apology for that because I did not wish to become involved in the details of what happened at Jordanhill. We know that it is the talk of the streets in that part of the world and that things are not going as well as the Minister suggests. As far as I am led to believe, the reason for their non-re-election was not a fit of pique which Mr. Lang's letter almost suggests it could have been.
Be that as it may, Jordanhill was merely the instance which made us realise how big a potential step was the decision for a school to opt out.
Considering all the help which the Minister has given, I am sorry that we feel that we must make this a beacon. We believe that this is something about which we should not forgive ourselves if there were any difficulties—and we hope that there will not be—in the future because a school has too quickly jumped the gun. Therefore, I believe that we should test the opinion of the House on what is basically a fairly modest amendment.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I was very much struck by what the Minister said when he pointed out that the amendment as drafted does not wholly reflect the purpose behind it. The amendment provides for "at least two years" whereas earlier it was just two years. When one comes on to the next part, "or until such time", I assume that that means for a lesser period. Am I right in now thinking that it means a longer period? If so, I think it is difficult to go forward on this and I ask for elucidation on that point.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the Minister has given his interpretation which is possibly correct. If the Minister had been willing at least to take away this amendment and redraft it as we had intended to draft it, because we do not have the expertise which parliamentary draftsmen have, that would perhaps have made a difference. However, even with its flaws, which are not desperately serious, I still wish to pursue the matter.
4.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 107.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Airedale, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Annan, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ardwick, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Attlee, E.

Aylestone, L.

Carter, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Birk, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Blease, L.

David, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

1580

Ennals, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Ezra, L.

Falkland, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fitt, L.

Rea, L.

Foot, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Shackleton, L.

Grimond, L.

Stallard, L.

Hughes, L.

Stedman, B.

Hunt, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jay, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kennet, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Underhill, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

White, B.

Nicol, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Phillips, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Lothian, M.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Lyell, L.

Ampthill, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Arran, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Auckland, L.

Margadale, L.

Beloff, L.

Marley, L.

Belstead, L,

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Bessborough, E.

Birdwood, L.

Merrivale, L.

Blatch, B.

Mersey, V.

Blyth, L.

Milverton, L.

Borthwick, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Morris, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Caccia, L.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Moyne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Nelson, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Craigavon, V.

Norfolk, D.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Pender, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Perth, E.

Ferrers, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pym, L.

Gainford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Reay, L.

Gisborough, L.

Renton, L.

Goold, L.

Renwick, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Gridley, L.

Rugby, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Shannon, E.

Halsbury, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Havers, L.

Strathspey, L.

Henley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hesketh, L.

Teviot, L.

Hives, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hood, V.

Thurlow, L.

Hooper, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trumpington, B.

Killearn, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kitchener, E.

Westbury, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wise, L.

Lawrence, L.

Yarborough, E.

Long, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 8:
Page 7, line 12, after first ("a") insert ("first").
Page 7, line 12, leave out from ("resolution") to ("or") in line 13 and insert (", and again on a second resolution, being passed by the school board").
Page 7, line 14, leave out ("the school board") and insert ("them").
Page 7, line 17, after ("and") insert (", except where the notice is of a first resolution,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I move these four amendments en bloc. These were spoken to with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 14 [Ballot of parents on question of acquisition of self governing status]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 7, line 32, leave out ("twelve months") and insert ("two years").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as promised, I have given further consideration to the concerns expressed during Committee that schools should not be subject to the disruption of repeated ballots. I have concluded that two years would be an appropriate period to put on the face of the Bill. This amendment extends the time between ballots required by Clause 14(2) from 12 months to two years.
In Committee I gave examples of circumstances where a second ballot one year after the first may be entirely appropriate, and that is still the case. The Bill therefore continues to provide that the Secretary of State has the power to allow a new ballot to be held within the minimum period. A period of four years between ballots suggested in Committee is too long; two years is much more reasonable and I hope this alternative proposal will meet with the approval of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 10 to 12:
Page 7, line 38, after ("(b)") insert ("any").
Page 7, line 45, after ("(6)") insert ("either of a first resolution or of a request").
Page 7, line 47, after second ("the") insert ("second").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these three amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 8, line 16, leave out ("any") and insert ("such").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 14. The second amendment makes the effective change in this case. It restricts the liability of an education authority under Clause 14(6)(b) to reimburse legal expenses incurred by a school board in relation to a ballot. Only such expenses as the Secretary of State considers were reasonably incurred need be reimbursed by the authority.
As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, in Committee it is right that there should be such a restriction. With this amendment a school board will still be able to take legal action against interference with its handling of a ballot or defend itself against legal action by others. Board members could not however maintain legal action unreasonably. They would be expected to take into account any general guidance from the Secretary of State and if necessary seek advice on the specific circumstances facing them. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking note of what was said in Committee on a clause which could have important financial repercussions on local authorities. We on this side of the House are glad to see the word "any" disappearing and the word "reasonable" coming in. In the circumstances there is no opposition to this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 8, line 23, at end insert (", as appear to the Secretary of State to have been reasonably incurred by that board").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Arrangements in Respect of Ballot of Parents Regarding Acquisition of Self-Governing Status]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 62, line 23, at end insert ("including information about the arrangements which the school proposes to adopt with respect to the admission of pupils and any special emphasis which will characterise the provision of education at the school.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment intends to ensure that certain in formation is available prior to the ballot and not after it so that parents are able to form a proper and reasoned judgment on whether self-governing school status should be sought for the school. Parents must be made aware of the major issues in the proposed nature of the school if it is to become self-governing before they vote in a ballot to decide whether such status should be sought. Of particular relevance are the arrangements which the school proposes to adopt on the admission of pupils and any special emphasis which will characterise the provision of education at the school. I believe that is a requirement of the board which must put forward these matters in proposals to the Secretary of State.
The amendment is an attempt to widen the area of information. If such vital information is included once the ballot has taken place it is possible that parents who have voted for self-governing status might find themselves opposed to the idea when they have seen the full proposals of which they were not initially aware. The answer on the ballot paper has to be yes or no, and that is why it is important that as much reasonable information as can be put to the parents should be available before the ballot.
The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, expressed the view in Committee that the amendment then being debated would raise as many problems as it attempted to solve. The present amendment is intended to meet the Minister's fears.

1583
We recognise that complexities may arise from time to time; but this amendment does not require a full prospectus to be available before a ballot. The point remains however that parents should have some idea of what self-governing status will mean for their children before they vote—whether those children are at the school or coming through Primary 6 or 7. It is not unreasonable to ask that fuller information should be given to parents. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment for the very simple reason that it enables parents who have to make a decision about the future of a school do so from a position of knowledge. Surely that is reasonable and essential if such decisions are to have proper grounding and a good effect.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I am delighted to hear of anything which would give the voters more information on what they are voting about. Candidly, I think the vote is going to be one of the most confused, even in our parliamentary history. How are they to know how the school governors will behave in the future?
This amendment deals with one matter of great importance, that is:
"any special emphasis which will characterise the provision of education at the school".
There are many parts of Orkney and Shetland and other parts of Scotland where the school is the only one possible; there is no question of choice. If the school opts to be private all the pupils in the area must go to a private school. So if this Bill were to take effect in Orkney it would be very important to know what would characterise the provision of education. For instance, in many parts of Orkney it is extremely important to teach something about navigation. I suspect that those who are voting would like to know whether when the school is privatised, it will teach navigation and other useful subjects which are widely taught in the Orkney schools at present.
Therefore, while I think that even with this amendment there will be great difficulties concerning the election and the ballot, I hope that the government will make it as mandatory as possible that the voters should be given the widest information.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I think the noble Lord may have slightly misunderstood what the amendment is about and what the Bill says. We are not privatising schools in any way. They are self-governing schools paid for by the community charge payers, so they are not being privatised. There may be a case for suggesting that any changes which may take place in the near future should be indicated to the parents in the statute, but any essential characteristics of the school cannot be changed at this stage. That comes later, as would any changes in admission practices.
I know that the local authorities' concern is that the parents in the school should understand before
1584
they vote what it is that will happen to the school if they vote in favour. I have talked to a number of people about the matter since the last stage. The general feeling seems to be that any school which cannot persuade its parents that what will happen as a result of becoming self-governing will be in their interests will certainly not get a majority of people voting for it to become self-governing. If the parents are suspicious and in doubt they will either not vote or a majority will not vote in favour. It is perfectly reasonable to leave it to the school itself to persuade the parents that it is in their interests to go self-governing, and provide the information. It would be wrong to say that two particular things—admission and any special emphasis—should be put in the statute and that they should be required to talk particularly about that. It is not necessary to stipulate that admission policies should be required by law to be stated to the parents because in fact they cannot change. The same applies to any essential characteristics. So this is an unnecessary amendment.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, while it may be true that the amendment is not necessary, it is one which I think would help the parents. It may be very important for them to know whether the board have in mind any change in admission policy or, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, said, some special direction in which they plan to go. I see no harm in accepting that those two matters, which seem to be about the most important for any future of the school, be put down as guidance at the present time. I hope that the Minister will give the amendment, in some form or other, favourable consideration.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords this amendment is an attempt to oblige a school board which is calling a ballot on self-governing status to anticipate elements of the proposals—which are very important at the end of the day—which it would be obliged to publish after the ballot if the ballot result is positive.
We debated a very similar amendment in Committee and I need not repeat what I said then, except to emphasise that the intention embodied in the Bill, to which we still adhere, is that the ballot should take place on the simple question of whether the school is to become self-governing. It is not a ballot on questions of school policy: The later stage of publication of formal proposals gives a board adequate scope to develop and reveal its ideas on those matters and for parents and others to respond to them at that stage, when the proposals are with the Secretary of State. It would be open to the Secretary of State to modify the proposals, in response to representations received and in consultation with the school board. Clearly, if there is something in the proposals which is giving widespread cause for concern the Secretary of State will have to take account of that and take up the matter with the school board. It will make no sense for him to accept proposals which do not command clear parental support, since it is on that support that the future of the school will depend.
Mention was made of admission policies. As I think was pointed out by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, in the first place, the scope for a

1585
school board to alter the school's admission arrangements or its character when it becomes self-governing is limited in a number of very significant respects. The basic characteristics of the school, as defined under Clause 16 of the Bill, simply cannot be varied at that point. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. If a school is non-selective, non-selective it must stay. Nor will a school be entitled to introduce any kind of discrimination on religious grounds, no public school in Scotland is entitled to turn away a pupil because of his or his parents' religious affiliation; and that provision, the so-called "conscience clause" will, by virtue of Schedule 10, paragraph 8(4) of this Bill apply equally to self-governing schools. And, more generally, the Government have repeatedly made it clear that parents will have the same right to request that their children be admitted to self-governing schools as they do to make placing requests to an education authority. Schedule 2 to the Bill guarantees that.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, put the point that parents may change their mind after the ballot when they see the proposals. I suggest that that is not a real fear. If parents in large numbers find reason to change their minds they can make representations to the Secretary of State. Indeed that happened in England. Large scale defection by parents would be a serious matter in the final decision of the Secretary of State. I think this is some reassurance for the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, who quite rightly pointed out the difficulties that may occur in this area as far as may concern Orkney and Shetland.
The noble Lord also asked me whether the school would continue to provide the teaching of navigation in Orkney as it is important that most children in Orkney should understand about that. My answer to that is that, no school board promoting self-governing status will be in the business of alienating parents; they will frame proposals to attract and reassure parents. Otherwise, the whole point of seeking self-governing status would be lost.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full reply. We put forward the amendment because of our concern that once this step is taken the chain of events which leads ultimately to self-governing status will be set in motion and parents will lose control. It will then depend on the good will of the Secretary of State to take note of objections. We have found that the use of the term "self-governing" has tended to beg questions as the debate has proceeded. However, the noble Lord has given a full reply. If notes for guidance as to what is to be published are to be given to the school boards, I would hope that, in keeping with his approach to the Bill, the Minister will bear in mind the terms of the amendment. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Fresh ballot]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 16:
1586
Page 8, line 42, leave out ("(other than a ballot held by virtue of this subsection)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in considering this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the House to take at the same time Amendment No. 17. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that where there is a fresh ballot because of a low turnout at the first ballot, the result of the fresh ballot shall not be decisive if the turnout continues to remain low. If at the fresh ballot the turnout is less than 50 per cent. of eligible voters, a simple majority of votes cast in favour of seeking self-governing status will represent considerably less than a majority of eligible voters. If the result is accepted as decisive, it has to be assumed that those parents who abstained are not opposed to the change of status.
The Minister will be aware that the Scottish Consumer Council has made some comments on this matter. It says:
"Parents should have a right to abstain. A genuine inability to decide if opting out is desirable or not should not necessarily be termed apathy. Nor should abstentions be counted as support for opting out or opposition to it. Abstentions should be counted as abstentions".
Surely therefore where a majority of parents has abstained and less than a majority of eligible voters has voted in favour of self-governing status, this is not a sound basis for a school board to proceed with proposals for the acquisition of self-governing status. For a school to succeed as an independent unit it must surely have the active support of at least a majority of the eligible parents.
We have often debated what abstention means. I wish to cite the case of the referendum in Scotland over devolution. It was quite clearly stated by all those who were opposed to devolution that an abstention was a vote against. I hope the Minister will not try to suggest that parents who were particularly keen not to have self-governing status would vote. Those who were really keen would not vote. There may be a large number of abstentions. In the devolution referendum, roughly one-third abstained. They were considered by many people, particularly by noble Lords on the Benches opposite, to be against devolution. It was one of the points that brought the devolution argument down. This is a fairly important amendment and I hope that the Minister will give it due consideration. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the provision in the Bill, whereby there is to be a second ballot if the turnout at the first ballot is less than 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote, was inserted by the Government in another place in response to just the kind of concern that has been expressed by the noble Lord. It is common ground between us that the second ballot should be final: and nobody wants an indefinite series of ballots. Indeed, as a result of the amendment to Clause 14 which your Lordships agreed earlier, after a negative ballot result the matter cannot be re-opened for two years, and not just for the 12 months as proposed in this amendment.
The defect in the amendment however is that it gives a vote of apathy. It is in effect an incitement

1587
to abstention; and the problem about that is that it makes the result hard to interpret. If this amendment were made, any Secretary of State would be perplexed to know what to make of a result on a second ballot which yielded a high yes vote on a low turnout. He would have no means of knowing how many of the abstentions represented genuine indecision or mere apathy and how many represented real opposition.
I can assure the House, if assurance is needed, that the Secretary of State would have to take full account of the ballot result, not only in the sense of looking at the percentage voting each way, but of the turnout too. A low turnout on a second ballot could well be an indicator that there was not sufficient general positive support for the idea of self-governing status to give grounds for confidence that the school really had a future as a self-governing school. It is in just such circumstances that a Secretary of State might well decide not to give the school self-governing status. I cannot say too often that the Secretary of State will have to weigh up all relevant factors in coming to his decision. The Government, after all, want self-governing schools to be popular and successful. It will be in nobody's interest to take on schools which do not command strong and enthusiastic parental support. The ballot result will not itself be the sole or necessarily the main determing factor in the Secretary of State's decision, although it is an important consideration. But a low turnout on a second ballot may well be a factor influencing the Secretary of State towards rejection. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will understand why I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, before the noble Lord decides what to do, perhaps I may say that the Minister's replies seem to place on the Secretary of State the most extraordinary onus. We are told again and again that he will have to weigh this consideration with that consideration and that he will have to take this into account and that into account. We shall need a special Secretary of State to run this Act alone. It is highly undesirable that Parliament should pass a Bill which entails such an extraordinary breadth of examination by a Secretary of State.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am interested to hear what the noble Lord says. We have been here before —last year —and we can now look at the book rather than look at the crystal. We can see that in England and Wales the Secretary of State for Education and Science has, on turnouts as high as 88 per cent. rejected schools with yes votes. This is a complicated area. We are dealing with children's lives and with their education. No responsible government can possibly do other than take into account all factors for this permissive legislation—and that is what it is.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we all have in mind the wonders of various Secretaries of State; but I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, who has been in Parliament for a long
1588
time, is not so naive as to think that the Secretary of State sits up at night working out whether this or that should happen.
The Minister has to some extent answered the question. It was important to discuss yet again the question of minorities being able to decide. I hope that by our raising it at each stage the Secretary of State will be more aware than he would have been otherwise that a keen eye is watching all these decisions and all the results of ballots. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Proposals for acquisition of self-governing status]:
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 9, line 3, leave out ("simple").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, let me assure the House that there is nothing sinister in my moving this amendment. However, it seems to me that the adjective "simple" is unnecessary and should therefore be omitted, unless there is some hidden reason for it of which I am totally unaware. The Oxford English Dictionary supports me in my contention. Under the word "majority" it says, "of votes" and then the definition reads:
"more than half of the number of electors or actual votes".
Therefore, that is enough; there is no reason for the word "simple". I recall Gertrude Stein whose words on a rose were:
"A rose is a rose is a rose".
However, I would paraphrase the wording and say: a majority is a majority is a majority. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, this is another way of trying to express general anxiety over the question of the role of the number of parents voting. Although I am sure that the Minister will probably have something to say about the actual wording of the amendment, I am totally in favour of the spirit which lies behind it. We all know what that spirit is. However, whether it is possible to place this in a Bill is perhaps another matter. But, if the noble Earl wished to press the matter further, I should certainly support him.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, may I ask whether we are discussing Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 at the same time?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I think that the noble Earl was speaking t, Amendments Nos. 18, 20 and 21. I think that was the grouping which was advised.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, to assist matters perhaps we could dispose of Amendment No. 18 and then move on to Amendments Nos. 20 and 21.
I always listen to the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, as regards matters of drafting. He is absolutely right in what he said. We, being simple souls, decided that we would put the word "simple"

1589
into the Bill to ensure that there was no difficulty as to what was meant. However, the noble Earl is right and, if it is the wish of the House, I should be quite agreeable to accept that amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I must say that that makes me wonder why these two amendments were originally grouped together. This has rather put us off. However, I certainly see the point and I am pleased with what the Minister said. Moreover, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, will feel the same.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, yes.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 9, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State in reaching his final decision will take into account the percentage of parents voting out of those eligible to vote and except in very exceptional circumstances he will not grant self-governing status unless the percentage is substantially greater than the majority of parents eligible to vote").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I find myself in some trouble here with the grouping. Amendment No. 19, is totally different from Amendments Nos. 20 and 21. We find the same problem as regards Amendments Nos. 27 and 38. I shall certainly want to move Amendment No. 19, Amendment No. 27 or Amendment No. 38. They are all similar but with slight differences in drafting as they refer to different parts of the Bill. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I should like to move Amendment No. 19, providing that we discuss the other two amendments which I have mentioned at the same time.
In Committee many of us supported the idea that there should be a two-thirds majority of those voting or of those eligible to vote before there should be a change in the status of a school. The Minister explained why he was unable to accept that proposition. I have attempted, by way of Amendment No. 19, to find a compromise which might achieve what we wanted earlier and which might also make it possible for the Government to accept what is proposed.
Our proposition does not lay down any statutory obligation that these majorities should prevail before anything happens. It is up to the Secretary of State to decide the weight given to the majority. However, in so doing we ask that unless there are very special circumstances he will take into account the majority of those eligible to vote, and only if that was considerable would he decide one way or the other.
I should like to stress two matters: first, we ask that the majority of those eligible to vote should be a determining factor; and, secondly, we ask that in the last analysis we leave it to the Secretary of State to decide, but that we should try to give him some guidance in the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, speaking for myself I should briefly like to say that I support the spirit of the amendment: but, unfortunately, it would be very difficult, with respect to the noble Earl, Lord
1590
Perth, to put what is proposed into operation because the phrase, "substantially greater" could perhaps mean all things to all men. As I understand the Government's position, in their simplicity they will never move from the word "simple". I take it that the amendment will not be acceptable to the Government, albeit that it is moved in the spirit of ensuring that an element of democracy will be maintained within the school system.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, the noble Earl said that he was giving guidance to the Secretary of State in the matter. However, is it not rather more than guidance if one puts into the statute that,
"he will not grant self-governing status unless…"?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for proposing this amendment. As has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, I should find it most difficult to accept the amendment as it stands. I understand what the noble Earl is aiming for and I am indeed attracted by the wording of the first part of his amendment which reads:
"The Secretary of State in reaching his final decision will take into account the percentage of parents voting out of those eligible to vote".
I think that we have already said that the Secretary of State will be doing so. If it helps the noble Earl I am prepared to look at that wording to see whether we should put this on the face of the Bill. Of course, it pulls that particular consideration out from all the other considerations which the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, said would be many arid various. However, I am quite prepared to look at that part of the amendment; but, as to the wording thereafter, such as,
"except in very exceptional circumstances",
and, "substantially greater" and so on, I am afraid that I cannot agree to giving that further consideration. I must therefore turn down the noble Earl's offer, despite his good intentions.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I think that half a loaf is better than none. Nevertheless, before I withdraw the amendment in the light of the Minister's remarks, I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, that I accept in certain circumstances that the Secretary of State could decide otherwise. However, l am only explaining my point and it is not important.
I thank the Minister for what he said. In my view it is most important that we should know that the part concerning those who are eligible to vote is something with which the Government go along. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 20:
Page 9, line 7, at beginning insert—
("Where the result of a ballot held in accordance with section 14 of this Act shows a two-thirds majority of votes cast in the ballot in favour of seeking self-governing status,".).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise to the House and, in particular, to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for getting the groupings mixed up. The Minister will be aware that they were easy to mix up. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21, which are grouped together, deal with ballots. We have dealt with the ballots fairly exhaustively. I understand from the Minister's reply that he is unlikely to change his views on whether the majority should be two-thirds and so forth, and so I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 9, line 21, leave out ("5") and insert ("4").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment which replaces an incorrect reference. My noble friend Lord Balfour was correct when, during the discussion on parental majority, he warned us of the pitfalls involved in adding new paragraphs to Schedule 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Ballot expenses]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:
Page 10, line 38, after ("received") insert ("from a school board").
Page 10, line 39, leave out ("from a school board") and insert ("either of a first resolution or of a request,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 19 [Rejection or approval of proposals]:
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 11, line 24, at end insert ("and in rejecting or approving proposals in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this subsection, he shall publish reasons for his decision").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to publish his reasons for accepting or rejecting proposals for a school to become self-governing. Representations from the Scottish Parent Teacher Council and the Scottish Consumer Council are in favour of the amendment. I seem to recall that those are the two bodies upon which the Minister called for assistance at an earlier stage of the Bill as justification for his opposition to an amendment moved from these Benches.
The Scottish Parent Teacher Council put the matter in this way:
"If the parents of a school have voted in favour of applying for self-governing status and that application is rejected, it would be in the interests of all parties concerned and particularly those parents, to know why the application had been rejected. If the Secretary of State approves, or approves with modifications
1592
proposals for self-governing status, it would be in the public interest for the criteria he used in reaching his decision, to be known".
The Scottish Consumer Council put it another way:
"Parents and others with a stake in the school concerned have an interest in understanding the reasoning behind the Secretary of State's decision to grant or reject an application for self-governing status—as indeed have other schools which might be considering whether to seek self-government. Although the Secretary of State will want to consider each case on its merits, knowing the reasoning behind his decisions is likely to be of considerable help to schools resubmitting proposals or to other schools drawing up proposals for the first time".
That is a fairly simple proposition. It is another part of what I call the information process. It will assist the public to understand what is going on in the education system. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support the amendment on the simple ground that public knowledge is generally a good thing. Anyone who is considering taking a decision to opt out, or any decisions related to it, should know what has happened before in other circumstances. I suggest that the amendment is a good idea.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, as usual, the point is not as simple as it might appear. I see the thrust of the amendment and take note of the bodies which came forward with the proposal.
Where the Secretary of State is empowered under statutory provisions to take decisions which affect the rights of others, it is not usual specifically to require him to provide reasons, but it is established law that he must take his decision reasonably. In other words, he must not act in an arbitrary manner and must base any decisions he takes on relevant, and not irrelevant, considerations. In order to demonstrate that he has acted in accordance with the law, the Secretary of State will need to show that he has taken account of any representations he has received and any other relevant information known to him when he gives his decision. His decision will be communicated to the school board concerned, which is the body having a direct interest in the decision in question.
The amendment is unnecessary; nor would it be desirable to write in such a provision. If it were to be added to the Bill, it would not be clear whether it would be imposing some duty different from that already imposed under the general principles of administrative law. I am sure that the noble Lord would not wish to suggest that the courts would not, if required, be vigilant in their review of the reasonableness of any decision taken by the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, knows more about the law of Scotland than I do. I have no doubt that he will recall cases on that point. There are one or two important cases to which he could refer. I hope that on reflection he will understand that while the spirit of the amendment is understood, the fact remains that I have to reject it.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. One of the reasons for

1593
moving the amendment is that when dealing with self-governing schools we are dealing with a special point of public involvement. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, the more people who know what is going on, the better it is for the community as a whole. It is not clear from the Minister's answer whether the school board will be given a bland yes or no from the Secretary of State, and rejects, accepts or modifies without giving reasons. However, like so many things in the Bill, we shall have to wait to see what comes out at the end of the day. Having heard the Minister's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Clause 21 [Effect of pending procedure for acquisition of self-governing status on proposals for alteration etc. of schools]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 12, line 8, after ("Act") insert ("either of a first resolution or of a request").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Effect of pending procedure for acquisition of self-governing status on appointment etc. of staff]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 29 to 31:
Page 14, line 6, after ("received") insert ("from a school board").
Page 14, line 7, leave out ("from a school board") and insert (", either of a first resolution or of a request,").
Page 14, line 23, at end insert—
("(aa) in a case where the notice received was of a first resolution, forty-six days have passed since the date of that resolution without the education authority having received written notice, under subsection (6) of section 13 of this Act, of a second resolution;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to the amendments with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Change in characteristics of self-governing schools]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 20, line 4, after ("board") insert ("held, subject to subsection (1A) below, not less than five years after the incorporation date").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 33. These amendments impose a delay of five years after it is set up on a self-governing school using the procedure in Clause 30 to alter the school's fundamental characteristics, with the provision that the Secretary of State may waive the normal requirement. That is in line with the policy we have already expressed in a recent draft circular which was issued by the Scottish Education
1594
Department on self-governing schools. It also discharges another of the undertakings that I gave in Committee.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, again, I am grateful to the Minister for having agreed to this point in Committee, and for having found a way to express it in the amendments which we support.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 20, line 8, at end insert—
("(1A) With the prior written consent of the Secretary of State a motion for such a resolution as is mentioned in subsection (1) above may be determined at a meeting of the board of management held at a date earlier than subsection (1) above would require.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 20, line 28, after ("State") insert ("and to the education authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 34, and I shall speak also to Amendment No. 40. These two amendments require copies of certain formal proposals by a self-governing school to go to the education authority and in the second case also to any denominational body connected with the school.
It is appropriate that an education authority receives from the board of management a copy of proposals, whether they are in respect of a change of characteristics or the discontinuance of a self-governing school. They will have a real and immediate interest in both cases and the Secretary of State will look for comments from the authority before reaching any decision. Proposals for discontinuance should also be sent to any denominational body connected with the school, as has been the practice in earlier clauses. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 20, line 39, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 36 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 37. These amendments deal with the final decision by the Secretary of State on proposals from a self-governing school to change its characteristics. They place on the Secretary of State an explicit requirement to have regard to the likely impact of the change on the general provision of school education made for the area. This is achieved by reference to the basic duty placed on an education authority by Section 1 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to secure adequate and efficient provision of school education for their area. The Secretary of State will be required to have regard to any representations made by the education authority about the effect of proposed changes on the discharge of their duty.
The amendments discharge an undertaking I gave in Committee to my noble friend Lady Carnegy. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I wish to thank my noble friend for that amendment. Some of us felt that it was somewhat overdue when we discussed it last time. I am sure the House will appreciate that this is an enormous improvement to the Bill. It will be a great relief to the local authorities who particularly wished to see the provision inserted.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I understand that Amendment No. 37 is under discussion. I wish to take advantage of that in order to return to a point I raised in Committee. I apologise to your Lordships for this manoeuvre, but my excuse is that in Committee the Minister kindly said that he would contact me about my remarks.
I have received a letter from Mrs. Lovell of his department, but I received it only yesterday so I was unable to put down any amendments. I preface my remarks by stressing that I meant my earlier suggestions seriously. We cannot leave everything to the discretion of the Secretary of State. We must ensure that in the Bill there are adequate and firm commitments in the name of Parliament. We have learnt to our bitter cost that in spite of discussing the community charge for days on end it has turned out that there is considerable confusion over it, to say the least.
The point I raised in Committee affects Orkney and Shetland, where ordinary school education and further education are deeply entwined. They are conducted by the same staff in the same building; they are administered by the same administrators. The people who clean the classrooms and open the doors are the same. I wished to know how this situation would fare under the new Bill.
I understand that the Minister approved the letter I received, so we must take it that he knows all about it. It talks about colleges of education, which I am not concerned about. It then states:
"further education could be run as an integrated whole, by a single governing body".
I should be very grateful for a further explanation of that. Would the single governing body be the governing body of the school? Would it be an ad hoc body? How would it be appointed?
The letter continues with what I found to be a very alarming statement:
"Naturally it would be for the Board of Management of such a self-governing school to decide whether to continue to provide further education, and for the education authority to decide whether to fund it".
That means that if Kirkwall Grammar School became a private school, the whole of education would be at the mercy of the decision of the board of management. I do not think that that can be right.
Kirkwall and Stromness conduct all further education between them. It cannot be right that their board of management decides whether or not the children of Orkney as a whole should have further education. It is clearly the will of Parliament that they should have further education. It is not for
1596
the board of management to decide to cut it out. However, it could do so under the Bill. From what the Minister says, it is the Bill that counts. The board could do that, and we must ensure that under the Bill it is prevented from doing so, however sensible we may assume it to be.
The letter further talks about,
"a determination which may be made when assigning the property".
I hope that the Minister will be able to explain that. What is "a determination"? Perhaps we should consult the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. I suspect that "determination" is a learned word from the repertory of the Scottish Bar. The letter then says that it will be decided by the new body—whatever it is —what facilities will be available. Again, I think that we must make it clear that there is a duty to provide facilities.
At the very end the letter states:
"The alternative to continued use of these facilities by the authority might be the building of a new further education college".
I cannot believe that the Government contemplate building a new college of further education in Orkney for 25,000 people when at present that is perfectly satisfactorily carried on at little cost under the present system.
To my mind we need firmly written into the Bill a provision which states that further education shall continue in Orkney; which explains how it is to be controlled; which explains what the breakdown is to be between the local authority and the board of governors; or, if that is not the case, then who is to have sole control. It is generally agreed that the local authority should have some say in the matter. According to the letter sent to me, it might have none at all. It could also be that the Government are involved in enormous expense in creating an entirely new form of further education in Orkney and Shetland.
I realise that the whole of this speech is out of order but I should be most grateful if at a future date when I am in order the Minister would explain rather more fully and clearly how further education in Orkney is to be catered for.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I believe that the noble Lord, whether he is out of order or not, is entitled to some explanation from me. I apologise for the fact that the letter reached him only yesterday. We have not had much time between the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. I apologise for that.
I wish to make clear that I approved the letter and that it covered every possible avenue which the noble Lord might pursue with me at a later date. Perhaps I should indicate to the noble Lord that the letter makes clear that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has such a strong interest that he would wish to see a firm agreement before allowing such a school to become self-governing in the first place. He himself makes that clear. I doubt very much whether my right honourable friend would want a new building for further education in

1597
Kirkwall when the building used for the school at present is perfectly satisfactory. That is covered in my letter. If Kirkwall School wished to become self-governing, it would have to present a prospectus to the Secretary of State.
The letter says:
"It would also be possible for the articles of management of a board of management to include an obligation to have regard to further education interests, and for a further education representative to be co-opted to the board".
That covers that point. The board of management will have the responsibility for school education, and will be funded by recurrent grant under the Bill. The board could by agreement provide further education and have that funded by an education authority. In other words, I think it is highly unlikely that if my right honourable friend were presented with a case for self-government of Kirkwall School—that school covers such a big area of secondary education —he could possibly do anything other than accept the point which the education authority would rightly make, which is that it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to provide that further education continuity is maintained. I believe when the noble Lord considers the letter, he will see that it points to the fact that on the face of this Bill the worries he expressed are covered.
Schedule 8 paragraph 2 provides the Secretary of State with a means of resolving disputes between an education authority and a self-governing school as regards the division of property and facilities which are presently used partly by the school and partly by the authority for purposes such as further education.
I shall look carefully at the points that the noble Lord has made to see whether the letter has not covered explicitly enough the concerns the noble Lord raised at a previous stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 20, line 40, after ("subsection") insert ("and after having regard to any representations from the education authority as to the probable effect of the proposed change on the fulfilment by them of their duty under section 1 of the 1980 Act (duty to secure that there be made for their area adequate and efficient provision of school education)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Schedule 7 [Arrangements in Respect of Ballot of Parents Regarding Change in Characteristics of Self-Governing School]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 66, line 38, at end insert —
("(aa) without prejudice to subparagraph (a) below, given such information about the consequences for the school of the proposed change in characteristics as may resonably be expected to enable him to form a proper judgment as to whether the change should be sought for the school;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this gives effect to an undertaking I gave in Committee on information to be supplied with a ballot. The amendment ensures that voters in a ballot for a
1598
change in characteristics will have adequate information to make a reasonable judgment. It mirrors the wording in paragraph 4(a) of Schedule 3 on ballots for acquisition of self-governing status. It is reasonable and logical to have similar wording in Schedule 7, and this amendment puts this in place. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Discontinuance by board of management]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 21, line 28, after ("State") insert (",to the education authority and, where the school is a denominational school, to the church or other denominational body in whose interest the school is managed)".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 34. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I did not attend the Committee stage of this Bill and I have been content to sit quietly and be interested a nd educated as we proceeded on Report. However, I wish to refer to the words "denominational school" in the amendment. The amendment proposes that the education authority will be advised of the measure and that where:
"the school is a denominational school",
notice will also be given:
"to the church, or other denominational body in whose interest the school is managed."
I did not think the schools were managed in the interests of a denominational body. I wonder whether the phraseology is correct in this case. I know that we shall discuss later the relationship between denominational bodies and education in general in Scotland; but I wonder whether the phraseology is appropriate in this case.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am interested to note that the noble Lord picks up terminology. My understanding is that a denominational body will have a real and immediate interest in both cases. The Secretary of State would look for comments from the authority before reaching any decision. In appropriate cases, he would also look for comments from a denominational body.
We have indeed used the same terminology as was used in the 1980 Act. I shall look carefully to see whether there is anything sinister about the wording; but as your Lordships passed the 1980 Act, I cannot imagine that that is the case.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I wish to console the noble Lord who has raised this matter. Having been chairman of governors of a Catholic school, I can say that it is certainly true that that school dealt with the interests of the Church, often before anything else, as some of us know to our cost. However, perhaps things are different in Scotland.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Transfer of land, moveable property and obligations to board of management]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 26, line 6, after ("Act") insert (", either of a first resolution or of a request").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Reduction of disposals of property by education authority]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 29, line 5, after ("Act") insert (",either of a first resolution or of a request").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 [Prevention of disposals of property by education authority]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 43 to 45:
Page 29, line 24, after ("Act") insert (", either of a first resolution or of a request").
Page 29, line 32, at end insert—
("(aa) in a case where the notice received was of a first resolution, forty-six days have passed since the date of that resolution without the education authority having received written notice, under subsection (6) of section 13 of this Act, of a second resolution; or").
Page 29, line 45, at end insert ("mentioned in subsection (1) above").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 45 [Reduction or setting aside of disposals made in contravention of section 43]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 30, line 31, after ("Act") insert (", either of a first resolution or of a request").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Removal of property from school by education authority]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 31, line 17, after ("Act") insert (", either of a first resolution or of a request").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 41 to 47 with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 48:
After Clause 53 insert the following new Clause —
("Making of attendance orders
In the event of any dispute arising between the education authority and the board of management as regards the reasonableness of an attendance order requiring a child to attend a self-governing school, the matter may be referred to the Secretary of State, whose decision in that regard shall be final.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I also speak to
1600
Amendment No. 59. The purpose of this new clause is to allow an education authority to make an attendance order requiring a child to attend a self-governing school, without having first to obtain the consent of the school's board of management, and to enable a board of management to refer the matter to the Secretary of State if it felt a particular attendance order was unreasonable.
We have discussed this matter before because, as it stands, the Bill would only allow the education authority the right to make an attendance order in relation to its own schools. A self-governing school could be designated only if the managers of that school agree to take the child. There are very valid reasons for being concerned that a board of management of a self-governing school may wish to exclude permanently those pupils who do not co-operate with the school authorities. Where for example there is a child in a class who has behavioural problems, it is not uncommon for the parents of other children in the class to put pressure on the school to exclude that child. In addition, more staff time is required to deal properly with a child who has behavioural problems, and the school may prefer to allocate those additional resources elsewhere.
The problems which will arise if a self-governing school in a rural area seeks permanently to exclude difficult pupils are obvious. Alternative educational arrangements are likely to be difficult to organise and are also likely to be costly. Problems of a different nature could also arise in urban areas. For example, where there is an education authority school close to a self-governing school, the former could find itself the recipient of unwanted recalcitrants from the opted out school. I apologise for using that term in connection with young children. The education authority school could find itself the recipient of children from opted out schools who did not fit the pattern of those schools.
It must be recognised that in such circumstances reasonableness should prevail. However, it would not be right for an education authority school to find itself in the position of having to take on a disproportionate number of difficult pupils. It is therefore appropriate that legislation provides for such a situation to preserve the balance of interests.
While it is hoped that education authorities and the managers of self-governing schools will manage such matters in a sensitive and reasonable way, the inclusion of the new clause will ensure that neither education authorities nor boards of management will act in a high-handed manner. I am sure the Minister understands the drift of our argument. We discussed the matter on 12th October, although perhaps not as fully as we would have wished. I know the Minister will have considered that debate and will have given the matter serious consideration. If the words of our amendment are not suitable, perhaps he can suggest a new form of words. I beg to move.
6 P.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend has to

1601
say. It is a genuine concern of the local authorities that a self-governing school might abuse its position. It is tempting to remove difficult pupils from the school roll because it costs more to contain a difficult pupil within a school. That is particularly so in a small school or where there is a group of pupils who present a problem for the school. As the noble Lord said, it could be a particular problem in a remote rural area.
I am not clear—perhaps I should know—what recourse is available to a local authority if the position is abused. I hope that my noble friend will explain the situation. If it would be difficult for the local authority, the possibility that the matter might be referred to the Secretary of State is an appealing one. Therefore, I shall listen with interest to my noble friend's reply.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, this is a difficult area and it is one that we discussed in Committee. Perhaps I may try to paint the picture again, and I apologise for going back to the matter. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for bringing forward such an amendment. We shall look at it in detail. The fact that it has been tabled at rather a late stage and covers a tricky area means that when I have finished I shall tell noble Lords what I should like to happen to the amendment.
It would be unprecedented in our legislation for a school to be obliged to admit a pupil against the judgment of its own managers. The situation of self-governing schools will in that respect be no different from that of the former grant-aided schools. There is, however, a difference from the situation in the days of the grant-aided schools in that we now have the "parents charter". That is the legislation defining the right of a parent to have his child admitted to an education authority school of his choice. Similar provisions will apply to self-governing schools. That is relevant to the point we are discussing because, as I explained to your Lordships in Committee, the normal procedure where an attendance order is to be made is to give the parent an opportunity to nominate the school which his child shall attend.
An education authority, or in future a self-governing school, can refuse such a request if either the child has already been excluded from that school or his admission would be likely to be seriously detrimental to order and discipline in the school. Furthermore, there is provision under the 1980 Act, and will be under this Bill, for appeal against any refusal of admission, first, to an independent committee and ultimately to the sheriff.
That means in practice that if the parent nominates a self-governing school in connection with an attendance order the onus is on the school to show good reason why it should not admit the child, and if it refuses admission the matter is subject to appeal, ultimately to the sheriff. In that respect the self-governing school is essentially in the same situation as the public school.
I am grateful to noble Lords opposite for drawing this matter to our attention. I should certainly hope
1602
that the kind of case to which the amendment refers would be rare and that where such a case arose it would be dealt with by reasoned discussion between the education authority and the board of management of the school. If a self-governing school were arbitrarily and unreasonably refusing to take a pupil then, as I have shown, there is an avenue of appeal already establised for the parents. However, just as an education authority has the right to bar a child from one of its schools because of his record of disruptive behaviour, so it is right that a self-governing school should have the same power.
The fact that a school has become self-governing, and a pupil has been excluded from it, will not in essence change the position as regards the education authority's obligations. If the pupil has been excluded from one of the authority's schools, the authority would be in the same position of having to find some suitable alternative school for the troublesome pupil.
It is the Government's intention to provide for self-governing schools regulations on the exclusion of pupils from such a school. These will mirror those currently applicable in respect of education authority schools (power to provide regulations will be under Clause 7(7)). A board of management w ill, therefore, have to observe the same criteria for the exclusion of a pupil from its school as in the case of an education authority. Moreover, parents will have the same rights of appeal against a board of management's exclusion as they would were they dealing with the education authority. Provisions in paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 to the Bill already deal with that situation in a way comparable to that provided for under the 1980 Act.
I hope that it can be seen that any board of management will in practice have to act in accordance with the law on the exclusion of pupils. That will be in line with the same strict criteria for exclusion which apply to education authorities themselves. It is, moreover, appropriate that a similar structure of parental rights of appeal be maintained in this context, as will be the case with placing requests. That is currently achLeved under the provisions of Schedule 2 to the Bill. Ultimately, the courts should be the arbiters of the legality, and thus reasonableness, of a board of management's decision to exclude a pupil.
I am attracted by the suggestion which the noble Lord has presented as to how the education authority will be placed once the Bill becomes an Act. In this very difficult area, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would allow me to take the matter away. At this stage I am not persuaded that the existing provisions in the Bill and other statutes are insufficient to meet the points raised. I also want to be assured that a self-governing school does not become a "dustbin" for an education authority, just as the education authority does not want to have difficult negotiations with the self-governing school. It is a question of getting the balance right. If we find that the solution proposed by the noble Lord merits further consideration I shall be in touch with him before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes his seat perhaps I may intrude a thought which he might consider. I have not taken part in the various stages of the Bill—for a good and proper reason from my own point of view—although I made a minor contribution at Second Reading. The Minister may recall—and if he does not I shall remind him—that I view the Bill with distaste. I regard it as a Bill of the utmost partisan prejudice on the part of a very' Right-wing Conservative Administration. I regard it as one which will go a long way towards ruining the essential comprehensive nature of the Scottish educational system, the inherent nature of which I have long supported.
Be that as it may, if the Minister is to take this matter away, perhaps he would consider this thought. It is likely, although not inevitable, that the prejudice and bias of a board of management will be in marked contrast to the prejudice and bias of an education authority. Where one goes from that point might be a very interesting thought for him to consider as he comes back to your Lordshsips' House.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and my noble friend for giving some backing to the amendment. Considered together with the seriousness with which the Minister viewed the matter that suggests that we have touched upon something rather important.
Leaving aside the basic objections which my noble friend Lord Kirkhill expressed about the Bill, which we have expressed throughout the discussions, we are left with a Bill which we have tried to improve. With the help of the Minister I believe that we have made a number of improvements.
However, there are still problems. There is the possibility of a school being used as a "sump" by the local authorities or schools which have opted out. I am concerned that a troublesome pupil might be pushed around between schools. Within a matter of, say, two years so much damage could be done to a troublesome pupil because there was a way out for the opted-out school that he would never recover.
I am also concerned about who may make an appeal. I do not think that it is fair that only an independent school should be enabled to reject a pupil. It is asking a great deal for the parents to then take up the matter. Surely the education authority, which is responsible for all the other schools, has some right to say, "No, we think that you are unfairly refusing that child and sending him to our school or forcing us to look after him. We believe that your school would be better".
I am grateful to the Minister for looking at the matter and wish to ask him whether the education authority will also have some rights to appeal at the very least to defend its own system. The school might be ringed by a group of independent schools which continually send to it those children whom it considers troublesome or perhaps just not academically good enough, thus raising its own status. It is important that the education authority, as well as the parents and the independent schools,
1604
should have a right to appeal. I hope that the Minister will look at these matters when he tries to find another form of words to satisfy the amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I should just say to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill—I am glad to see him in his place—that I remember his major speech at Second Reading. His views are well known. It is also well known that there are at present very good academies of knowledge, which are not unconnected with the independence of education, in the city of Aberdeen. However, we shall leave that matter on one side.
I am happy to give the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, an assurance that guidance to self-governing schools will make it clear that they have a wide responsibility to accept pupils and draw particular attention to the need for a self-governing school to pay careful attention to the regulations governing the exclusion of pupils which will be extended to cover self-governing schools. However, I accept that the area of concern to the noble Lord is that of the education authority which may be put in a difficult position. That is why I have agreed, without commitment at this stage, to look at the matter and see whether his amendment helps us to deal with a difficult situation in a difficult area.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 [Transfer of staff to companies formed by virtue of section 65]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 44, line 44, leave out ("made") and insert ("agreed").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 50
These are drafting amendments to ensure consistency of usage in references to schemes for companies to manage colleges of further education. Under Clause 65, it is clear that any such scheme must be agreed by the college council, the education authority and the Secretary of State, and the term "agreed" rather than "made" is used in references already in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 45, line 21, leave out ("made") and insert ("agreed").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 69 [Testing in primary schools]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 51
Page 47, line 21, leave out ("as to the testing") and insert ("for diagnostic assessment, as an integral part of teaching across the whole curriculum,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 52 to 55. The amendments all form part of an approach to the question of testing children in primary schools which we debated before at some length. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that reserve powers would be used to set out regulations about diagnostic assessment rather than nationally standardised tests.
As is probably well known to the House, the Government's proposals for the revision of curriculum and assessment arrangements for Scottish primary schools include the introduction of a nationally standardised test in English and mathematics at primary stages 4 and 7. That issue was debated at length in Committee and I do not propose to go over that ground again.
It is considered that the proposals for national testing should be if not abandoned certainly watered down more than somewhat, and that encouragement should be given to the development of good assessment practice in primary education. The essential requirement is for what is called diagnostic assessment as an integral part of teaching across the whole curriculum, the object of diagnostic assessment being to find out the cause of pupils' difficulties and about their progress as a basis for constructive action by the parents and the school relating to the needs and progress of the child.
There has been at least one survey showing that 67 per cent. of primary school parents were not against the issue of testing as such and preferred it to the harsher regime of the examination. But it was found that, on balance, parents preferred the diagnostic and continuous assessment of the child rather than the stage-posts of primary 4 and primary 7. It is for that reason that we have tabled the amendments.
It may be—the Minister may wish to consider this point—that the nationally standardised tests in English and mathematics could still be applied at primary 4 and primary 7, but only as a parallel form of assessment with the more individual diagnostic assessment of each child. Given the pressure of the primary 4 and primary 7 stages in only two subjects, there is a danger that, if a diagnostic and individual assessment and a continual assessment are not part of the educational system, the needs of the individual child may be lost in the general testing of the two stages. I beg to move.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to add my support for the amendment from these Benches. The term "testing" has a somewhat prescriptive and authoritarian connotation and is definitely ominous in sound to the less able children, for whom I always feel inclined to say a word, and may well start them on their downward spiral of self-devaluation.
After all, the object of education is to look at the whole child and to discover his or her strengths as well as his or her weaknesses. It seems to me that that object is much better expressed by a term such as "diagnostic assessment" than just by the bare word "testing". The object of testing should
1606
ultimately be to provide an individual profile, not to place a child in a league table, which is what this sounds rather too like. I support the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I find that the discussion of diagnostic assessment becomes almost a theology when it enters the school system. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said that it is considered testing should be abandoned. He did not say by whom. There is a fear among the teaching profession of the idea of testing at those two stages. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, has put that fear into words.
However, to balance that, one must recognise that all over Scotland ordinary parents feel that they have a right to know what a child—the average child at a certain age—should be able to do and know, and whether their child can do those things, is perhaps a bit of a late developer or is advanced in his or her development or is about average. People want to know those things and, in my view, they have every right to do so. That is all that the tests are set to do. There is no question of a league table. We do not want to have all that discussion all over again.
However, it is quite wrong to say that there is something wrong with that proposal just because the teaching profession is afraid that it might be noticed that one class is all behind and another class is all ahead. There is no harm in teachers' performance being diagnosed as a result of testing, as well as that of individuals. It seems to me that assessment of the progress of individual pupils in all good teaching will continue. There is nothing to stop that. Of course one cannot teach well without doing that. One must look at individuals to see whether one is succeeding.
However, one cannot deny parents this particular type of testing. Apparently 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of parents said that they would like it; but then, when asked whether they would want individual diagnostic assessment as well, they said that yes, they did. They are quite right. There is nothing wrong with that at all.
I hope that this amendment will be resisted by the Government because I think that people deserve and want what is being offered in the Bill.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, once again I must rise in support of the teaching profession. Teachers are constantly under attack by the Government who have stimulated a general attack now throughout the community. A good comparison can be made with the police. We are always looking for a whipping boy for the evils of our society. The right reverend Prelate seemed a little more thoughtful and chose the pharisaic attitude.
There is no doubt about it. My words may sound rather harsh but when I taught in primary school what one might call diagnostic assessment was always done. It was an automatic action taken every term. The teachers sat round a table and discussed each child. There is nothing very revolutionary about that process.
As regards constant testing, the noble Baroness suggested that teachers did not want it because it might make them look as though they were bad

1607
teachers. I have said over and over again that if one is teaching (as I have taught) children who are dull and backward—as they were then rather brutally called—the results will be totally different from those of the next class which consists of highly intelligent children. However, I defy anyone—any education authority or inspector—to say that one teacher is better than another. I do not believe that such tests can be applied. All sorts of factors come into the equation, including the surroundings and quality of the people involved.
I think that that is very important. In the measure for England and Wales there was too much about assessment of teachers. They were to be paid a little more if they were found to be better than some other teacher.
Teaching is a very proud profession and if that is the only reason that can be advanced for not accepting this amendment, I must say that it is not a good one.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she accept from me that teachers are certainly not whipping boys for anything in Scotland? Teachers are enormously respected. There is a very wide respect for the teaching profession in Scotland among ordinary people. I was simply questioning the removing of this testing, nothing else.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in this debate. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness as an aside that I heartily agree with my noble friend on this matter, and perhaps I can give evidence of that.
We want tests to sit naturally with the curriculum as the teacher will plan and deliver it. We do not want tests to be seen as alien or intrusive.
For that reason we think that the best persons to write the tests are the teachers themselves. Accordingly we have invited them to participate and I have to say that the response has been very enthusiastic, almost overwhelming. Every education authority in Scotland has responded positively as well as many from among the colleges of education, university departments and research institutes. The result is that we have about 170 volunteers, and a training conference was held for those volunteers in Dunblane this very day.
This is a most encouraging start to the testing programme and, if this Bill is passed, suggests that the teaching profession at least regards the testing programme as a challenge to which it wants to rise rather than to consider it as an imposition. However I take most seriously what has been said on this issue, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, with his knowlege of the subject. Diagnostic assessment is an important and valuable part of the assessment process. We have never denied that. Indeed, we wish to encourage it and make it more effective. I understand that it has been carried through in Fife with great success in far more detail than in our proposals. Hence, one of the important outcomes of the major development programme
1608
which has been instituted in Scotland for the 5 to 14 stages of education is the production of national I advice to schools on assessment policy and practice to bring about those improvements.
But diagnostic assessment is highly specific. It attempts to diagnose the causes of particular learning difficulties which have been encountered by an individual child. In my view it is not a blanket process. It should not be applied to all children indiscriminately.
Our proposals for national testing are broader and provide a necessary prelude to more specific forms of assessment. They will indicate to teachers and parents as well—that is very important—how every child at primary 4 and primary 7 is progressing in language and mathematics in relation to nationally agreed and commonly understood criteria. They will provide a yardstick for teachers to check their own assessment of pupils' progress; and for parents to gauge how well their children are doing in terms which are comprehensible and common to all schools in Scotland. The assumption that these national tests will be a threat or threatening for teachers and pupils is totally misplaced. We have made it clear that they will be integral to the normal assessment programmes of primary schools. The difference is that they will provide additional security for teachers and also for parents.
I honestly believe that, in the context of the Scottish education system, where indeed much of what we are proposing is already practised in the schools—and particularly in Fife and other regions—we should be wrong to accept these amendments. I ask the noble Lord to consider what I have said and perhaps withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will recognise that in any good school in Scotland the kind of proposal that he is laying before this House today is certainly not practised at the present time. In fact the only people who will be seriously disadvantages will be the parents who will become excessively competitive about nothing.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, this is obviously a matter which occasions some degree of serious consideration on the part of us all. In his reply the Minister appeared to be saying that diagnostic testing will, as I suggested it might, have its place alongside the national testing in primary 4 and primary 7. I took that from his reply, and certainly that the development to diagnostic testing will not be stopped, so to speak, by the existence of the national test at primary 4 and primary 7. It gives hope to those who inspired these amendments if it is not to be excluded from the system.
When the regulations are being made, it is perhaps not too much to assume that due attention will be given to the question of diagnostic assessment and guiding the education authorities. It will be interesting to see how things develop in the future. As I have said more than once in these debates, time will tell. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 52 to 55 not moved.]
Clause 74 [Appointment of teachers]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 51, line 4, leave out (", other than on an acting basis,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small but rather important point. It may be for the convenience of the House if we consider together Amendments Nos. 56 and 57.
Together the amendments provide for the possibility of an education authority not having to advertise nationally a principal teacher post where the intention is to fill the post by a principal teacher already employed by the authority. If the amendment is accepted it will allow an education authority to redeploy principal teachers where there is a surplus as a result of falling rolls.
The Minister will appreciate that it is not only a matter of falling rolls, which is a very important factor in all schools in Britain and particularly in Scottish schools; it is also a matter of movement of population. Sometimes it would be a great help if a principal teacher could be moved to the same position in another school without the rather expensive need to advertise widely and perhaps prolong a vacancy in a school longer than necessary. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, this pair of amendments worries me. I know that in Strathclyde region, which is seeking to reduce the number of schools and staff, it would be helpful if it could always promote from its own staff. It has done so in the past, as have other regions. However, one has the rights of teachers to consider. If one is a principal teacher in the Western Isles, Orkney, the Highland or the Border, where the scope for promotion is fairly small, one may well wish to apply for a principal teacher's job in Strathclyde. It is a genuine desire of teachers to move from a smaller into a larger region to gain experience.
The amendment precludes that. I do not know whether the amendment emerges from Strathclyde. I speak entirely for myself on this subject. It may well be in the interests of Strathclyde to advertise internally but it is not in the interests of teachers in smaller regions. The principal teacher's post should most certainly be nationally advertised so that everyone has a chance to apply and the best person can obtain the job. Any disadvantage to a region that is trying to reduce staff is worth it for that purpose.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the amendment by the noble Lord would allow an exception to the rule that principal teacher posts should be advertised nationally. I can appreciate the problem of authorities who have staff surplus to their requirement. My noble friend indicates how this may be occurring. However, the 7,400 principal teachers in secondary schools are a vital tier of middle management at the core of every effective secondary school. They are important posts carrying salaries in a range from £17,000 to nearly £20,000 per year. It is therefore important that when a principal teacher post falls vacant it must be filled
1610
by the best person for the job. Only open competition can safely ensure that objective. The amendment would allow authorities to redeploy teachers for administrative convenience which would not necessarily be to the benefit of a school which would wish to have its vacancy filled by the best candidate available.
We covered this ground fairly fully last time. I have to say that I have not changed my mind.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister will realise that I have to say that I am disappointed. I know that there can be unfairness in such a matter as this. I take the point that the noble Baroness made about rural areas, such as the Western Isles, and people wishing to move. So far as I know, the amendment is not motivated by Strathclyde although it may be the area with the greatest need as it has the most schools.
We are asking that a principal teacher should be able to move to another school if there is a vacancy. The amendment may not be properly worded. I was assuming that the vacancies would be caused by a drop in school rolls. If a vacancy were created, having anticipated a drop in the roll, one could use a teacher who was already in position. I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to go further. I am sure that he has considered it thoroughly. Time will prove that it would have been an eminently sensible method of handling a difficult problem. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Schedule 10 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 75, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 and insert—("and
(b) for the words from ": Provided that—"to"(ii) subject" there shall be substituted the words—
"(2A) A teacher appointed to any post on the staff of any such school by the education authority shall satisfy the Secretary of State as to qualification and shall require either—

(a) to be approved as regards his religious belief and character by representatives of the church or denominational body in whose interest the school is managed; or

(b) if they decline to give such approval, to have this appointment consented to by the representatives.

(2B) Where as respects a proposed appointment the representatives—

(a) decline to give the approval mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2A) above they shall state in writing their reasons for so declining; and

(b) where they also withhold the consent mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection they shall include in the statement their reasons for so doing.

(2C) Subject".").
The noble Duke said: My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that the amendment is intended to give denominational bodies the power of consent to the appointment of teachers whom they are unable to approve in terms of religious character and belief. It

1611
requires them to state in writing their reasons for withholding their consent. The amendment is intended to clarify the position of teachers who will fall into that category.
I accept entirely that the arrangements for the management of denominational schools should not be a matter for political controversy. With that in mind I was happy to accept the invitation of the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment when it was discussed in this Chamber last week at Committee stage, in order to allow him time to undertake consultation with a number of interested bodies. I am happy now to reintroduce the amendment. I should be most grateful to hear the views of the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, in the light of the consultations that he has undertaken.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment at the previous stage. I shall listen with interest to my noble friend. However, we have not heard the reason why my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk wishes for two categories of agreements. When he replies perhaps he will tell us the precise reasons why two categories of agreement are required, one wholehearted and the other less than wholehearted. What will be the grounds for the less than wholehearted agreement? If they are not grounds of religious belief and character—I believe that he indicated that it would not be on those grounds—what will the grounds be? Will the consent be on professional grounds? If it is, I do not think that the intention of the Bill is to give a religious body the possibility of turning a teacher down on professional grounds. Therefore what will the grounds be for the less than wholehearted approval?
Has my noble friend considered that a religious body may well not be the Roman Catholic Church, with its well-known attitudes and track record on the appointment of teachers—I called some of that track record into question at the earlier stages—but a very fundamentalist Christian body? It may be the Muslim community. It may be a range of religious bodies. I should have thought that widening the question of consent is opening a new Pandora's Box.
I have three questions. What is the reason for this second category of consent to the appointment of a teacher? What will be the grounds on which that consent is given or refused? Has my noble friend taken into account the fact that a variety of religious bodies may run a school in the future; and what will be the effect?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I should also like the Minister to look very closely at the amendment. The example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, in our last debate was fairly typical of what happens in a number of schools. The educational standing of a number of denominational schools in Scotland is low. The teacher in question wanted her children to have a better education. I believe that a situation in which a religious body can question the fitness of a man whom it has previously accepted for promotion—for example, a physics teacher—does not make sense and would not be for the good of the Catholic community in terms of
1612
education. That is why I view the amendment with less than enthusiasm.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I support the amendment. I do so because it makes absolutely clear that the starting point for recruiting a teacher is that he should be professionally qualified. Secondly, there is no confusion about the conditions for approval for the consents. Subsection (2A)(a) of the amendment provides that the teacher must,
"be approved as regards his religious beliefs and character by representatives of the church or denominational body in whose interest the school is managed".
In other words, if it is a Roman Catholic school, Roman Catholics will wish to satisfy themselves that the teacher is of that persuasion or happy to teach and able to sit comfortably with the philosophy of the Roman Catholic school. The same applies to the Church of Scotland, or whatever. I do not believe that there will be a plethora of religious denominations consenting to teachers in any school other than the denomination which is managing a particular school.
I believe that to be perfectly acceptable. The starting point is that the teacher must be professionally qualified. Secondly, where there is a particular religious denomination the teacher should be of that denomination or be happy to work in such a school. I strongly support the amendment tabled by my noble friend.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I recommend that the noble Duke withdraws the amendment. We are talking about Scottish education and I can tell him that it is a most sensitive area. In our education system there is provision for denominational schools, and that is observed. Sometimes it is at great cost to the local ratepayers because there may be a duplication in communities of denominational and non-denominational schools. That situation is provided for and taken care of.
However, I warn the Roman Catholic community not to abuse its power because considerable resentment could be caused. I suggest that as regards the case which was discussed in Committee there was a serious abuse of power. The professional qualifications of the teacher for promotion were rejected because, although she was a Roman Catholic, she had sent her children to a non-denominational school in the interests of their obtaining a better education. I regard that as a serious abuse of the privileged position of a minority group in Scotland.
I believe that if one pushes the issue too far one will create resentment and objection and perhaps a great deal less tolerance of the position that now exists. I certainly recommend that the noble Duke should not proceed with the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, noble Lords will recall that during the discussion of my noble friend's amendment at Committee stage I asked him to withdraw his amendment and reintroduce it at Report stage in order to allow me the opportunity to seek comments on this proposal. I pointed out at

1613
the time that the Government had no wish to make the management of denominational schools a matter of political controversy and that we should need to be clear that the proposed amendment commanded wide support.
As your Lordships will recall, I explained that there had been wide formal consultation on the provisions already included in this part of the schedule and that there was clear and strong support from all quarters for these changes. While the further amendment now proposed appeared to provide a logical tidying up in existing arrangements, I needed to have a clear view of interests outside the House before proceeding in this sensitive area. In proceeding cautiously in this matter the Government are not seeking to question the sincere wish of the Catholic hierarchy to clarify and tidy up the existing provisions which date from 1918. Our concern is to ensure that any innovation is soundly based and will not occasion still greater difficulty.
Following our debate last week my department sent copies of the noble Duke's proposed amendment to CoSLA, education authorities, teachers' associations and the Association of Directors of Education, I have now had the opportunity to consider the responses we have received. Having considered those views carefully I have come to the conclusion that the introduction of an arrangement whereby a denominational body would have the right to refuse consent to the appointment of a teacher on grounds which are not defined in the statute would be unsatisfactory.
My first reason for that conclusion is that there is no clear consensus of support for the principle underlying my noble friend's amendment. In the views we received, there was a clear recognition that the Catholic hierarchy was attempting in good faith to clarify the existing procedures. In their responses, education authorities referred warmly to the good relations that they enjoy with the Catholic authorities. Some authorities directly supported the concept of consent. But I fear that there were other authorities and bodies which expressed strong reservations. Those included CoSLA, and most important, the Association of Directors of Education and the Educational Institute of Scotland.
The second reason for concluding against the amendment stems from these views. In these responses there were various reflections of what seems to me to be the key argument. The terms of my noble friend's amendment repeat the existing power of denominational bodies to approve appointments. This power is exercised on the grounds of a judgment about a candidate's religious belief and character. The amendment adds to that a further power to consent to appointments where a candidate is not approved. The objectors point out that this would lead to the position that a denominational body could, in law, prevent the appointment of a member of staff to a denominational school on grounds of a judgment of his or her professional competence or suitability. These areas are properly the province of the employing authority; and I have no doubt that the Catholic hierarchy would be among the first to agree
1614
that it would be inappropriate for denominal bodies to make judgments about candidates on these grounds.
The Government recognise that this amendment seeks to address an issue of particular significance to the Catholic community. We will continue to look carefully at the question in consultation with the hierarchy, and if further legislation is the answer we will be prepared to consider that on a future occasion. But I cannot recommend to your Lordships an approach which tidies up one possible difficulty but opens the prospect of others which would be much more serious. Meantime, the provisions which have in practice worked well since 1918 can continue, improved by the widely agreed amendments already in the Bill.
I hope my noble friend will understand that in the short time available we have done our best to get to the root of an important matter. I believe in genuine consultation on the subject, and that cannot be partisan or done in a hurry. I hope that my noble friend will understand the reason I must take that line of argument and reject this amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister and to other noble Lords who have spoken. I said that I would conduct some consultation. I have not had the facilities of the Minister to do that. Therefore my observations are based more on a discussion with people. However, I am sure that the noble Duke is aware that in the west of Scotland it is easy to get a cross-section of opinion on this matter, particularly as I have been in the political world for a long time and therefore have a broad spread of acquaintances and close friends in all communities.
Even in the Catholic community, I did not find a great deal of enthusiasm for this amendment. It may be that that was because I did not explain it very well or that it was not understood. However, I am grateful to the Minister in that he has cut through the problem by saying that he has not turned his back on this. The idea is a continuous process. It is over 70 years since the much needed 1918 Act which was very important. I believe that the community which the noble Duke suggests would benefit from this has already gained a great deal from this Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I hope that this matter will not be pushed too far because I believe that there will be a reaction even within that community itself. We do not wish to see a disturbance caused. For 99 per cent. of the time relationships are good. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who comes from Govan, and myself, from the east end of Glasgow, can say how delicate these matters can be at times. Therefore, these measures can only be carried out with the absolute consensus of the people.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I speak as a very ecumenical Catholic layman. I am very conscious that the Reformation started because we provided Anne Boleyn, the niece of the Duke of Norfolk who led Henry VIII astray, and this unfortunate division began. We have suffered on Tower Hill for doing that frequently, and in 1829 my ancestor, the twelfth

1615
Duke, managed to get Catholic emancipation through your Lordships' House and he was the first Catholic Peer to sit here. I am very glad to be sitting here now in these liberal, ecumenical times.
Perhaps I may say immediately that the Mrs. Ruddy case was quite wrong. I am sure that the Catholic laity regretted that taking place as did the Catholic hierarchy in Scotland.
I now turn to my noble friend Lady Carnegy. The intent of this amendment is to clear up the little problem which exists. In the previous amendment in this Bill, which is an amending Bill, it talks about the Catholic hierarchy or denominational bodies having the right to approve of a teacher and to agree to his religious character and belief. If in a denominational school there is no Catholic, Episcopal or Presbyterian teacher available, then the religious character and belief cannot be approved of so perhaps a teacher of another denomination is produced. In that case, the Catholic hierarchy wishes to be able to consent to that teacher, as opposed to approving of the religious belief. There are non-Catholic teachers in Catholic schools which is very sensible and welcome. This was an attempt to try to clear up that problem.
I hope that I have answered the questions of the noble Baroness. She mentioned the case of a Mohammedan school—and I gather there is none in Scotland—or a Presbyterian school. I am getting out of my depth as to what happens north of the Border although I go there frequently and I am not talking about the Battle of Flodden or anything like that. As regards Church schools of other denominations, I was only recommending that they should be able to consent to teachers not of that denomination. I hope I have answered my noble friend.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend said that in the case of Roman Catholic schools, they did not wish to approve the appointment but to consent to it. I should like to know what are the grounds for consenting or not consenting. My noble friend may wish to answer that in the context of the Catholic Church. Also, has he taken account of the fact that there would probably be different grounds for different religious groups? He may find that last point difficult to answer. What would be the grounds on which the Roman Catholic Church would consent or not consent to a non-Catholic teacher?
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I do not wish to labour the point but the question is simple. At present the word "approve" is in the Bill—that is, to approve of the religious character and religion itself. If a teacher from a different branch of Christianity was to come to a Catholic school, then the hierarchy want to be able to consent. They cannot approve of the religion because that religion is
1616
different so they want to be able to consent. Presumably they would not consent if a teacher has some unpleasantness in his moral character. They want to have a safeguard on whether or not to consent.
This is becoming an awkward matter which I do not wish to pursue. I am very ecumenical. I should love to be taught by people of other religions. At Ampleforth, where I went to school, I was taught by other religions, and not entirely by Catholics. The word "consent" was merely put in as a second category where the teacher was not a Catholic. They would consent to Presbyterians, Episcopal or Church of England, atheist or agnostic teachers, Mohammedan teachers or Chinese teachers if they are to be taught Chinese. We have spent long enough on this matter. However, having heard what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 77, line 45, at end insert—
("The School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988
10. In paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 (appointment committees), after subparagraph (a) there shall be inserted the following subparagraph—
"(aa) in respect of the performance of his duties as a member of an appoinment committee, a person—

(i) shall not, under or by virtue of that Act, be entitled to receive any allowance or expenses;

(ii) shall be entitled to receive under this subparagraph from the education authority such allowances and expenses as may be determined by the Secretary of State;".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment, necessary as a consequence of new provisions contained in the Local Government and Housing Bill which affect the payment of certain allowances to members of local authorities, their committees and sub-committees. The amendment ensures that allowances in respect of financial loss and travel and subsistence will be paid to members of appointment committees considering the appointments of senior promoted staff in schools by the education authority in accordance with such rates as may be determined by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

River Tees Barrage and Crossing Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee without amendment, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at two minutes before seven o'clock.

  NATO DEFENCE EQUIPMENT: COLLABORATION
  NATO DEFENCE EQUIPMENT: COLLABORATION
  ROAD SCHEMES: COST BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS
  ROAD SCHEMES: COST BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS
  REAR SET BELTS
  REAR SET BELTS
  COMMUNITY CHARGE LEVY ON AU PAIRS
  COMMUNITY CHARGE LEVY ON AU PAIRS
  PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986: SECTION 39 EVALUATION
  PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986: SECTION 39 EVALUATION
  CIVIL SERVICE TRADE UNIONS: FACILITY TIME COSTS
  CIVIL SERVICE TRADE UNIONS: FACILITY TIME COSTS